The Ultimate Protein Shake

[michaelralph]

nice

 

[lefty]

Seems like an appropriate place to post this: Chocolate Milk vs. Surge Recovery Post Workout Smackdown! lefty

 

[why]

Cherry-picked criteria and overly weighting certain factors over others. Sounds like an Alan Aragon article!

 

[lefty]

Originally Posted by why

Cherry-picked criteria and overly weighting certain factors over others. Sounds like an Alan Aragon article!

He enjoys a healthy discussion as does McDonald. Perhaps a posting at br is in order to set them straight.

lefty

 

[dkzzzz]

Buy Muscle Milk if it is available in your area. Perfect for dieting or as supplement. Taste good too. Sold in small Tertapack cartons.

 

[alan aragon]

Lefty's correct that I like good discussion. And, getting "set straight" sounds good to me.

Regarding Why's accusation of my "Cherry-picked criteria and overly weighting certain factors over others", do me a favor and substantiate this claim, and I'll be glad to hash it out with you right here.

 

[Grayland]

Hear that? That's the sound of Why with his tail between his legs.

 

[lefty]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

Lefty's correct that I like good discussion. And, getting "set straight" sounds good to me.

Regarding Why's accusation of my "Cherry-picked criteria and overly weighting certain factors over others", do me a favor and substantiate this claim, and I'll be glad to hash it out with you right here.

Not sure I'm buying that this is AA, but certainly looking forward to what promises to be a fun discussion.

lefty

 

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by lefty

Not sure I'm buying that this is AA, but certainly looking forward to what promises to be a fun discussion.

lefty
It's definitely me, and it's definitely gonna be fun. In case Why keeps ducking, I might as well clear up some stuff for you, Lefty, if you have any question regarding the article Lyle posted. Weekends are a little dicey for me in terms of online activity but I'll be back tonight for sure.

 

[why]

Yeah, because I don't want to lose an Internet argument. I think my entire purpose in life could be compromised! I don't have some kind of celebrity nutritional guru status to worry about losing. I'm posting in a subforum of a website about clothes to entertain myself.

With that said:

The article cites a bunch of studies that have **** all to do with whether chocolate milk is 'better' than Surge or whatever it's called. It ignores any kind of possible unforeseen variables. It just weights the efficiency of both based on factors like if sucrose is better than dextrose, leucine content and a bunch of other variables that studies drew independent conclusions to in their testing. Putting them all together is just a good guess and not really anything resembling science. While the science is pretty sound in the cited studies, the studies are not testing whether chocolate milk is 'better' than Surge. They're testing lean women, trained men, overweight police officers, hepatic glycogen synthesis, muscle glycogen synthesis, lipogenesis, and all the studies have different reporting mechanisms, different people, different workouts, different criteria -- you get the message.

I don't know if chocolate milk is 'better' than Surge. I've never seen a study comparing them, let alone a study testing if Surge is 'better' than chocolate milk for marathon runners, powerlifters, lean women, overweight police officers, prisoners at Gitmo or -- again, you get the message. I think the point of the matter is I don't know and I don't pretend to know.

If someone asked me which one was 'better' I'd recommend they have chocolate milk. Well, unless it was a Friday because Harris Teeter has subs for $3.99, and unless he/she was hot in which case I'd recommend a quick lunch date at Dean and Deluca, unless it was early evening in which case I know a place that has awesome charcuterie, and unless -- for the final time, you get the message.

I'm going to go back to discussing MMM, NFL commentators' high-gorged suits, my preference for thin soles and hatred for Engineered Garments. I'm flattered and amused that you consider my opinions in this fun little pedantic corner of the Internet to be worthy of a defense. If you're gonna stay around for a while I'd suggest joining the discussions on how iammatt should wear his bespoke seersucker sport coat and whether or not white jeans stack well.

 

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by why

Yeah, because I don't want to lose an Internet argument. I think my entire purpose in life could be compromised! I don't have some kind of celebrity nutritional guru status to worry about losing. I'm posting in a subforum of a website about clothes to entertain myself.

With that said:

The article cites a bunch of studies that have **** all to do with whether chocolate milk is 'better' than Surge or whatever it's called. It ignores any kind of possible unforeseen variables. It just weights the efficiency of both based on factors like if sucrose is better than dextrose, leucine content and a bunch of other variables that studies drew independent conclusions to in their testing. Putting them all together is just a good guess and not really anything resembling science. While the science is pretty sound in the cited studies, the studies are not testing whether chocolate milk is 'better' than Surge. They're testing lean women, trained men, overweight police officers, hepatic glycogen synthesis, muscle glycogen synthesis, lipogenesis, and all the studies have different reporting mechanisms, different people, different workouts, different criteria -- you get the message.

I don't know if chocolate milk is 'better' than Surge. I've never seen a study comparing them, let alone a study testing if Surge is 'better' than chocolate milk for marathon runners, powerlifters, lean women, overweight police officers, prisoners at Gitmo or -- again, you get the message. I think the point of the matter is I don't know and I don't pretend to know.

If someone asked me which one was 'better' I'd recommend they have chocolate milk. Well, unless it was a Friday because Harris Teeter has subs for $3.99, and unless he/she was hot in which case I'd recommend a quick lunch date at Dean and Deluca, unless it was early evening in which case I know a place that has awesome charcuterie, and unless -- for the final time, you get the message.
I don't care what you use this forum for, or why you tried to duck me initially. That's irrelevant. All you just did was say that the CM vs SR topic is still open for debate because their hasn't been a study comparing them head-to-head. Well, duh, Sherlock. That's the nature of a great many topics in sports/fitness - there are plenty of products and methods that have not been compared head-to-head, and never will be. However, there's enough adjacent evidence that can be examined and speculated over. The purpose of the article was to examine the research on the ingredients of each, and draw some hypotheses and (inevitably) tentative conclusions. You still haven't backed up your claim that I cherry-picked the criteria, or your claim that I over-emphasized (or underemphasized) certain factors over others. Give it another shot.

 

[lefty]

Originally Posted by why

Yeah, because I don't want to lose an Internet argument. I think my entire purpose in life could be compromised! I don't have some kind of celebrity nutritional guru status to worry about losing. I'm posting in a subforum of a website about clothes to entertain myself.


Jesus, man, you sound positively wounded.

You called the guy out, not over some stupid i-argument but over a matter concerning his business and then had the temerity to give him a little shot calling all his work questionable. I'll bet you were a little gobsmacked when the fellow showed up. (Curious to know how that happened.)

Have the stones to either argue with the guy or apologise for the cheap shot. Taking your ball and going home is a little weak.

lefty

 

[why]

Originally Posted by alan aragon

I don't care what you use this forum for, or why you tried to duck me initially. That's irrelevant. All you just did was say that the CM vs SR topic is still open for debate because their hasn't been a study comparing them head-to-head. Well, duh, Sherlock. That's the nature of a great many topics in sports/fitness - there are plenty of products and methods that have not been compared head-to-head, and never will be. However, there's enough adjacent evidence that can be examined and speculated over. The purpose of the article was to examine the research on the ingredients of each, and draw some hypotheses and (inevitably) tentative conclusions. You still haven't backed up your claim that I cherry-picked the criteria, or your claim that I over-emphasized (or underemphasized) certain factors over others. Give it another shot.
You aren't doing yourself any favors here. You cherry-picked the criteria because you're trying to say one thing is 'better' than another without ever qualifying what the **** 'better' means. You write a whole article with a scientific facade citing studies that are almost meaningless and then your tangential conclusion is that chocolate milk is better because it's cheaper. Since apparently I wasn't clear enough the first time, I'll restate: it would serve Alan Aragon much better to ignore me, a supposed idiot/Internet troll/whatever, than to recognize my comments and consequently qualify them in doing so. Congratulations, you came to my house to pick a fight and I just closed the door on you.

 

[alan aragon]

Originally Posted by why

You aren't doing yourself any favors here.

You cherry-picked the criteria because you're trying to say one thing is 'better' than another without ever qualifying what the **** 'better' means. You write a whole article with a scientific facade citing studies that are almost meaningless and then your tangential conclusion is that chocolate milk is better because it's cheaper.

Since apparently I wasn't clear enough the first time, I'll restate: it would serve Alan Aragon much better to ignore me, a supposed idiot/Internet troll/whatever, than to recognize my comments and consequently qualify them in doing so. Congratulations, you came to my house to pick a fight and I just closed the door on you.
Your self-fullfilling prophecy of being an idiot/internet troll is unfolding rather nicely. That chip on your shoulder is only surpassed by your lack of reading comprehension. Not to mention, you have no grasp of logical argumentation. So, you're saying that I cherry picked my criteria by neglecting to qualify what "better" means. That's pretty funny, since I went on to cover not only protein synthesis/amino acid response, but also glycogen resynthesis. At the very start of the article, I explicitly said that I was going to compare the components of Surge with chocolate milk for postexercise recovery. That's exactly what I did, and your judgement of the studies as meaningless makes it obvious to me that you just like to hear yourself ramble. And by the way, if it was your goal to come off as an insecure, ignorant ass, you've succeeded decisively.

 

[Grayland]

...