Which Whey Protein?

I have only tried Bodbybuilding warehouses diet whey and PHD Pharma Diet Whey. The PHD mixes much better, the BBW one was quite bitty in comparison.
 
Somnambulist said:
snip
Click to expand...

An interesting take on diet & nutrition.

Here's something to think about.
A few months back I watched BBC Horizon: Fats vs Sugar.
2 male twins.
Similar body shape.
Both doctors.
One twin ate nothing but fats/protein (and few complex carbs). No sugar though.
One twin ate nothing but sugary foods (inc confectionery) and complex carbs and protein (virtually fat free).

After a few weeks they did some tests.
Both lost weight.
The guy who was on the no sugar diet was now borderline diabetic. Yep. You read that right. He seemed genuinely concerned about this.
The guy who was on the no fat diet had close to normal blood values.
The guy who was on the no fat diet lost a greater percentage of weight as muscle.

Watching that program got me thinking that perhaps it is better to avoid fats, rather than sugar/carbs (despite what many people say/believe, ie. that sugar is the root of all evil).

Have a watch yourself.
It was good stuff.

You can download it from torrent sites.
Heres a clip: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01qmglp
 
That program was meh.

Diets weren't calorie controlled, protein intake wasn't controlled or discussed, lack of control in all experiments (e.g. fitness wasn't tested before the diet - one may have already been fitter, although it's obvious a keto-style diet is going to be terrible for glycogen heavy activity), both twins weren't in particularly good shape to start with, tiny sample size, no discussion on hormones; fat is essential for healthy hormone function and this wasn't looked at, ghrelin and leptin were discussed but were never measured. They also didn't mention the fact that by excluding a whole macronutrient it was almost inevitable that the twins would be in a calorie deficit and lose weight, diets were very unrealistic and unsustainable.

If you want a good source of non-sensationalist information on nutrition, subscribe to Alan Aragon's Research Review, or read any of the articles he's written. Same applies for Lyle McDonald and some new upstarts like Eric Helms (going to a seminar of his next week in London). 90% of the rest of the stuff online, or pretty much anything published in the media is usually quackery, and if it's of any merit one of the above will usually discuss it (or tear it to bits).

Alan is so well respected that he's currently being given the chance to conduct proper scientific studies on human test subjects by a couple of institutions, subject to peer review etc. Gary Taubes he ain't.
 
Somnambulist said:
That program was meh.

Diets weren't calorie controlled, protein intake wasn't controlled or discussed, lack of control in all experiments (e.g. fitness wasn't tested before the diet - one may have already been fitter, although it's obvious a keto-style diet is going to be terrible for glycogen heavy activity), both twins weren't in particularly good shape to start with, tiny sample size, no discussion on hormones; fat is essential for healthy hormone function and this wasn't looked at, ghrelin and leptin were discussed but were never measured. They also didn't mention the fact that by excluding a whole macronutrient it was almost inevitable that the twins would be in a calorie deficit and lose weight, diets were very unrealistic and unsustainable.

If you want a good source of non-sensationalist information on nutrition, subscribe to Alan Aragon's Research Review, or read any of the articles he's written. Same applies for Lyle McDonald and some new upstarts like Eric Helms (going to a seminar of his next week in London). 90% of the rest of the stuff online, or pretty much anything published in the media is usually quackery, and if it's of any merit one of the above will usually discuss it (or tear it to bits).

Alan is so well respected that he's currently being given the chance to conduct proper scientific studies on human test subjects by a couple of institutions, subject to peer review etc. Gary Taubes he ain't.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It was garbled, confused, uncontrolled, too many variables, and badly structured - it went out to prove something and ended up proving nothing and just putting a couple of guys through unnecessary stress.

These studies have already been done, and what it shows is that a balanced diet, with a good amount of good fats, decent sources of protein and fibre, and healthy sources of carbohydrates are the best way to go - you tweak it according to your performance requirements.
 
Right, so lets get some debate going, rather than everybody agreeing with eachother. For too much back slapping (and high fiving) going on here. :p

Somnambulist said:
That program was meh.
Diets weren't calorie controlled,
Click to expand...

I believe that they were free to eat as much as they wanted, so long as one brother didnt have sugar, while the other brother didnt have fat. There was never any limit placed.

The same program did address the issue of overeating.
They stated that if you eat only fat + protein, you are less likely to overeat.
If you eat only on carbs/sugar + protein, you are less likely to overeat.
This would explain why diets where we control fat or sugar, generally do lead to some form of weight loss.

The problem with over-eating (and gaining weight) happens when you mix the sugar with fat, at close to a 50-50 proportion. Ice cream is the perfect example.

Rodents were used to test/prove the above hypothesis.
They even interviewed a lady who had been studying fat vs sugar.
The program was intimating that the problem is not fat. Its not sugar.
The problem is over-eating.
And that is what we have to stop.
And to reduce over-eating, we need to avoid foods which have this 50-50 split of sugar and fat. The program used donuts and icecream as good examples of this.

Now whether all of the above is ACTUALLY true/proven. Thats open to discussion.

Somnambulist said:
both twins weren't in particularly good shape to start with,
Click to expand...

The idea was to use normal people, with normal jobs. Not top class athletes. The 2 subjects represented joe public. The vast majority of people are not in good shape. Too many people on this forum forget this important fact.

Somnambulist said:
They also didn't mention the fact that by excluding a whole macronutrient it was almost inevitable that the twins would be in a calorie deficit and lose weight, diets were very unrealistic and unsustainable.
Click to expand...

I disagree on this one. When I was younger, for a good 10 years, I ate a virtually fat free diet. Probably about 10-20g of fat/day. Nothing wrong with this. It was perfectly sustainable as I was eating as much food as I wanted. As long as it was virtually fat free.

Furthermore, in Hollywood, movie/tv stars use a low carb diet.
I was watching a program a few months ago, where it was stated that it is difficult to get food in Hollywood (from restaurants, etc), which are packed with carbs, as the demand isnt there. Too many people are on low carb diets. These are sustainable and people have maintained low body weight by using this.

Both diets are perfectly sustainable.

Now, restricting calories and purposely starving yourself. IMO that is not sustainable. Eventually somethings gotta give.

Right, so I've written a lot, go ahead and pick it apart. ;)
 
sunama said:
Right, so lets get some debate going, rather than everybody agreeing with eachother. For too much back slapping (and high fiving) going on here. :p

I believe that they were free to eat as much as they wanted, so long as one brother didnt have sugar, while the other brother didnt have fat. There was never any limit placed.

The same program did address the issue of overeating.
They stated that if you eat only fat + protein, you are less likely to overeat.
If you eat only on carbs/sugar + protein, you are less likely to overeat.
This would explain why diets where we control fat or sugar, generally do lead to some form of weight loss.

The problem with over-eating (and gaining weight) happens when you mix the sugar with fat, at close to a 50-50 proportion. Ice cream is the perfect example.

Rodents were used to test/prove the above hypothesis.
Click to expand...

The problem with using rats is their physiology is VERY different to humans. They are used for studies because a) lifespan b) control is easy. Example = rats and mice use blood borne substrate over muscular so they become fat adapted far better than humans (I wonder why lazy keto-dieters like referring to them?!).

They even interviewed a lady who had been studying fat vs sugar.
The program was intimating that the problem is not fat. Its not sugar.
The problem is over-eating.
And that is what we have to stop.
And to reduce over-eating, we need to avoid foods which have this 50-50 split of sugar and fat. The program used donuts and icecream as good examples of this.

Now whether all of the above is ACTUALLY true/proven. Thats open to discussion.
Click to expand...

People overeat because there is an abundance of energy-dense food and too many live sedentary lives to make use of most of their intake. Junk food varies in composition so I don't think it's down to some magical fat/sugar ratio - there are ice creams with good macros, people drink a lot of soft drinks which are pure simple sugars or douse things in mayo which isn't much else but fat. Liquid cals in particular are a great way to rack up an impressive number of kcals without even thinking about it. Alcohol falls into this catergory too.

The idea was to use normal people, with normal jobs. Not top class athletes. The 2 subjects represented joe public. The vast majority of people are not in good shape. Too many people on this forum forget this important fact.
Click to expand...

Most of us in SA aren't top class athletes either; I can't think of anyone putting 20-30 hours a week of training in! There's plenty of room in between.

I disagree on this one. When I was younger, for a good 10 years, I ate a virtually fat free diet. Probably about 10-20g of fat/day. Nothing wrong with this. It was perfectly sustainable as I was eating as much food as I wanted. As long as it was virtually fat free.
Click to expand...

It was probably more fat than 10-20g. Going super low fat will affect hormone regulation leading to things like an inability to get it up as your test levels will bomb. You would have noticed that. Although being young you can get away with more as you're growing, a surplus is still a surplus - my parents didn't feed me particularly badly but I had a 'leave nothing, eat everything!' mentality, ate very fast and even with 'good' food I got pretty fat.

Furthermore, in Hollywood, movie/tv stars use a low carb diet.
I was watching a program a few months ago, where it was stated that it is difficult to get food in Hollywood (from restaurants, etc), which are packed with carbs, as the demand isnt there. Too many people are on low carb diets. These are sustainable and people have maintained low body weight by using this.

Both diets are perfectly sustainable.
Click to expand...

Removing an entire macronutrient = extreme, and Hollywood = lol. Also having low bodyweight is not a good thing - people obsess about their weight but not their body composition. A catwalk model and bikini model will both have similar levels of bodyfat, but the latter will weigh significantly more. Hollywood women may well be on low carb but most look weak and thin - bikini/fitness models they ain't -and look at how many have massive weight flunctuations. Cycles of extreme diets followed by binging, methinks.

The men are mostly on PEDs if they're getting buff for a role so you can't really glean anything from what they say they're eating. A true low fat diet isn't sustainable for reasons mentioned earlier. A low carb diet is sustainable because carbs are not essential for staying alive like protein and fat are, but as said it's both uncessary and from a taste point of view, rather dull as fats are what give a lot of things flavour. Also what amount of carbs qualifies for 'low' is rather variable. Carbs are also rather handy if you care about exercise peroformance or increasing your lean mass (Keto style bulking is almost an oxymoron).

Now, restricting calories and purposely starving yourself. IMO that is not sustainable. Eventually somethings gotta give.

Right, so I've written a lot, go ahead and pick it apart. ;)
Click to expand...

Removing whole macronutrient = extreme = less likely to be sustainable = why most people fail with dieting. Also severely under-eating is another reason - the majority of people do not follow the kind of lean-mass sparing, sensible diet and moderate calorie deficit-setting cutting plans your typical competing BB/fitness/figure model will, as their knowledge of nutrition is at best misinformed and at worst utterly retarded. Even the more extreme diets they follow (RFL for example) have lean mass retention as a priority and are cycled so as to be sustainable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom