Fat consumption results in a higher release of satiety hormones, so you probably will be satisfied with less whole milk than with skim milk. Is this effect large enough to overcome the additional calories from whole milk? No, probably not, but it's another straw on the camel's back, and we're only talking about one tiny part of the diet here. The elevated blood glucose will most likely also result in additional fat storage. Insulin resistance is a bad thing for anybody, but especially bad if you're lifting/exercising because your muscles will be less responsive at absorbing blood glucose. Inflammation is implicated in a whole host of health issues, one of which is insulin resistance. As I mentioned in my edit above, full fat milk is going to contain much more CLA, which given the fact that most people are probably heavily slanted towards the Omega-6 side of the n3:n6 ratio as it is, is going to prove beneficial in reducing inflammation. However I don't necessarily think that means you should pick the lowest calorie option in this case. Certainly calories are going to matter in weight loss, I'm not disputing that. Here's my best shot given the little bit I know:Ī) Weight loss. According to the article I posted above, it appears that casein plays a role in assisting the absorption of IGF-1 (which of course you'd get from milk). For instance, omega-3 being absorbed up to 9 times more efficiently when consuming fish vs. As with most supplements, the results are usually better when you consume it in its natural context, due to cofactors which work together to help absorption. Perhaps you're talking about IGF-1 supplements as opposed to milk. (Note the credit given to Mat for a lot of the info at the bottom of this article) I tend to put a lot of stock into what Mat LaLonde says, he's a really smart guy (harvard biochemist) who is also really active in the fitness scene so he comes at it from the perspective of somebody who understands the practicality of this stuff. It could've been a number of reasons for why the diet-soda guys gained weight, they probably had 4 doublecheeseburgers and large fries and ordered a diet coke 'because they're trying to cut out calories' or some other retarded reasoning, but that didn't matter much once the study hit the news.Ĭan I get some definitive evidence on that? Because doing a google search on that yields conflicting results. That's the only correlation they were probing for. They just asked people in questionaires about their habits and the ones drinking diet soda just happened to gain weight while the others didn't. Remember the 'diet coke makes you fat!'-media-rampage which went on a couple of months ago? Well, turns out that the study the media was basing their reports on was observational and in no way controlled. I find it very, very positive and comendable that fitness-folk are starting to rely more on hard evidence and studies, but I think we really need to take a closer look at what we accept as truth or viable information. The worst thing about studies like these is, that somewhere out there, a bodybuilding editor will write about it, 50 others will jump on it and this will give birth to the broscience warmachine which, once moving, is hardly to be stopped again. But the noobgains factor and the small sample size make the insights gained by this study irrelevant. Zahrada has a point, the results probably didn't happen by chance. See the Related Subreddits section for other popular fitness-related subreddits.General Posting Guidelines (click for more info): No Questions Related to Injury, Pain, or Any Medical Topic Progress Posts Must Be Detailed and Useful Posts Must Be Specific to Physical Fitness and Promote Useful Discussion No Threads That Are Answered by the Wiki, Searching Threads, or Google Welcome to r/Fitness! Click Here for a one-stop shop of our most important resources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |