There's nothing wrong with fats (that aren't saturated) Nibs.
I think a lot of people do struggle to consume enough protein especially with 'todays' dietry habits, so cant be a bad thing to make sure your keeping a constant supply 'on the go'.
A lot does have to be said for a regulalr small intake of powder shakes I think, all those essential amino acids and such like... technically diet stuff.. blag blag.
Quote from: Probes on March 02, 2012, 02:13:59 pm A lot does have to be said for a regulalr small intake of powder shakes I think, all those essential amino acids and such like... technically diet stuff.. blag blag.Yes, a lot has to be said. It's called marketing bullshit.
For general recovery, skimmed chocolate milk has been shown (Two studies, which i've linked before on here somewhere) to be better than any of the recovery shakes. Why? Because it has the right mix of protein/carbs, and because we'll probably never make a protein formula more advanced than milk, which evolution has designed to make mammals grow.
Quote from: psychomansam on March 02, 2012, 07:06:42 pmFor general recovery, skimmed chocolate milk has been shown (Two studies, which i've linked before on here somewhere) to be better than any of the recovery shakes. Why? Because it has the right mix of protein/carbs, and because we'll probably never make a protein formula more advanced than milk, which evolution has designed to make mammals grow.What would you suggest for a lactose intolerant mammal? My current usual post-climb munch is a hunza nut mule bar (even though I suspect there is no such thing as a hunzanut), a banana and one of those love bars from prat a minger. With a proper meal an hour or two later when I get home.
For general recovery, skimmed chocolate milk has been shown (Two studies, which i've linked before on here somewhere) to be better than any of the recovery shakes. the typical average amounts of major nutrients in the unreconstituted nonfat dry milk are (by weight) 36% protein, 52% carbohydrates (predominantly lactose), calcium 1.3%, potassium 1.8%. The white of a large egg, or about 1-1/4 ounces, has 16 calories, 3 g of protein, 2 mg of calcium, 4 mg of phosphorus, 55 mg of sodium, 45 mg of potassium, the weensiest little bit of riboflavin, and no fat, cholesterol, or carbohydrates.Just to be clear, I'm not denying that shakes have an element of convenience (I use gels and powders for running sometimes). I just object to people being lied to with false SCIENCE in the marketing. I'm not a hippy, or even a wonderfully healthy eater, but the natural stuff is just better for you.
two studies, which i've linked before on here somewhere
Conclusions: Acute ingestion of both WH and CS after exercise resulted in similar increases in muscle protein net balance, resulting in net muscle protein synthesis despite different patterns of blood amino acid responses.
We conclude that the feeding-induced simulation of MPS in young men is greater after whey hydrolysate or soy protein consumption than casein both at rest and after resistance exercise; moreover, despite both being fast proteins, whey hydrolysate stimulated MPS to a greater degree than soy after resistance exercise. These differences may be related to how quickly the proteins are digested (i.e., fast vs. slow) or possibly to small differences in leucine content of each protein.
Quote from: psychomansam on March 02, 2012, 07:06:42 pmFor general recovery, skimmed chocolate milk has been shown (Two studies, which i've linked before on here somewhere) to be better than any of the recovery shakes. the typical average amounts of major nutrients in the unreconstituted nonfat dry milk are (by weight) 36% protein, 52% carbohydrates (predominantly lactose), calcium 1.3%, potassium 1.8%. The white of a large egg, or about 1-1/4 ounces, has 16 calories, 3 g of protein, 2 mg of calcium, 4 mg of phosphorus, 55 mg of sodium, 45 mg of potassium, the weensiest little bit of riboflavin, and no fat, cholesterol, or carbohydrates.Just to be clear, I'm not denying that shakes have an element of convenience (I use gels and powders for running sometimes). I just object to people being lied to with false SCIENCE in the marketing. I'm not a hippy, or even a wonderfully healthy eater, but the natural stuff is just better for you.Generally i think i agree with you, except that 'natural stuff is better for you'; this is a bit like the illusion that organic is somehow tastier. It is sometimes, but that is because it is more likely to be local and seasonal, and not grown in a giant shed in the netherlands; not because its organic. Similarly, i'm sure you could live 'heathily' off synthesised food products and supplements, but if you had a modicum of discrimination, you would acknowledge that it all tasted like shit. Which is probably what you were saying anyway, but i just fancied a small rant. If nothing else real food is just nicer to shove into your face than some whey / carb blend which someone has desperately tried to shove chemicals into to make it taste like something else which you would actually find appetising. That said, sometimes i am just too lazy to boil eggs or whatever before i go out climbing, so a bit of whey and a banana is just less hassle. If you avoid *all* fat however, you will end up with an intreresting range of neurological problems, vitamin deficiencies (as several are fat soluble) and probably getting ill pretty often. None of which will aid the presumed oucome here, which is being better at climbing up rocks.
On that note, sometimes I eat something and think wow, that was exactly what I needed. Always worth listening to your body.