Breakfast Replacement Shake - Page 2

I have no interest in micronutrients as I don't think they'll help me lift more so I have no idea what your talking about, but its probably right. Acquire macros, disregard nutrition.

That's great, but the post you called broscience didn't specify macros, so by doing so just further highlighted your atrocious reading skills. Even if it did, whole food macros > supplements, possibly/probably due in part to the naturally-occurring micros that accompany them. Whether or not you have an interest in them is irrelevant.

But yea bro, you're probably right; disregard micros because they won't help your performance. Oh, wait.

Vitamin D may improve athletic performance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19346976
Calcium increases testosterone in training subjects
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19099204
Those are just off the top of my head. If i could be bothered to find more it wouldn't be hard.

Yeah, heaps of broscience there.


I don't recall anyone saying whey has no protein.

My shake:

12 oz skim milk
2 scoops Dymatize Elite Whey Protein Powder Cafe Mocha
4 tbsps natural peanut butter(crunchy)
40g of instant oatmeal
2 tsps ground cinnamon

Throw it all in a blender.

Absolutely delicious. Comes to 81.3 g(Protein), 63.3 g(Carb), 39.3 g(Fats), 884.4 Cal. If you want low carb, ditch the oatmeal. If you want low fat, ditch the peanut butter. I take it after workouts with a multi.

"I have little direct data to support this"
bro science.


Yeah giving nutrients to older nutrient deprived individuals will probably make them feel better. 35mg per kg, 3150mg of calcium do not want. Does not state how much test increase, 5ng more from increased calories of taking more calcium? I like how angry you get on this part of the forum, you can insult my intelligence all you want, I still go to the best school in the world for econ. You said nutrients in drinks are not the same as nutrients from food, implies the protein from my whey is not the same as protein from a steak or something.

I'd rank chicago, harvard, princeton and upenn way ahead of LSE

Fuark, rank 4 now. I am retard.

It's not. Just as protein from chicken isn't the same as protein from beef. I'm not sure why we're talking about protein, though.

Nobody cares which school you go to.

Yeah probably has a slightly different amino acid profile, does it matter? Will it still help you recover after lifting? People put too much thought into minute aspects of fitness.

Right, hence the word "theory" in the title of his post. He's extrapolating from other data; he's not just making things up because it sounds good. He also makes this prediction:

Just because something hasn't been proven in every instance imaginable doesn't make it broscience.

Uh, it's not. Hell, the nutrients from eggs aren't the same as the nutrients from beef aren't the same as the nutrients from broccoli. The comment that you called broscience wasn't even addressing the idea that naturally-ocurring forms of nutrients are better than those derived from supplements (which they very likely are, and in some cases, such as vitamin e, demonstrably are), it was simply saying that they're not the same (which they irrefutably aren't).

Oh you go to a top-ranked school for econ? As fascinating as that fact is, it's relevance to this discussion is precisely zero.

And I'm not angry, I'm just busting your balls, so don't take it personally.

Sure, but sufficient != optimal.

And I agree with your last point about overanalyzing, but you're the one who started this line of discussion by calling something broscience when it wasn't.