Nutrition page - milk content

[andrewotbc]

http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wiki/Nutrition,_Supplements_and_Cardio

I think there is an error on this page about the amount of fat and number of calories in whole milk and wondered if anyone could clear this up.

In the Skinnies section, it says that the nutritional content of 2 cups (500ml) of whole milk is "16g pro, 22g CHO, 5g fat = 195 kcal". However, a carton of whole milk from Tesco (UK) says 2 cups contains 16g protein, 2.35g carbs, 18g fat and 320 calories. The milk from Sainsbury's is the same and I assume this content is a national if not international standard. This discrepancy means that if you were doing GOMAD, you would be taking in 1136 calories and 118g fat more than you might have calculated.

Also, in this whole milk, the % of calories coming from fat is just over 50%. So if you were doing GOMAD (2900 calories) with a total daily consumption of 4500 calories and you wanted a macronutrient ratio of even 40% you would have to eat only 36g from the 1600 calories not supplied by the milk. A ratio of 32% fat would be impossible with a 4500 total and doing GOMAD. So it seems to me to be absurd to do GOMAD if the advised macronutrient ratios on the Wiki page are correct. It also seems to me that semi-skimmed milk has a ratio of nutrients much better aligned with the daily targets in the Wiki.

[Dastardly]

I am in the UK too.

I have noticed normal blue top "whole milk" varies in fat content from 3.1% all the way up to 4.2% depending on which dairy it is from.

Organic milk tends to make up the higher end of that scale.

And Jersey, non-homogenised milk contains about 5.8% fat.

I have found that better tasting/better quality milk tends to have higher fat.

Same goes for yoghurt, low fat is kinda sour/sharp, but higher fat types like greek yoghurt are delicious.

[andrewotbc]

Cool, thanks for the information about the content varying. Even 3.1% fat is surely more than most people would want though if you're consuming 4.5 litres of the stuff, I would have thought. Anyway, the Wiki says that whole milk is 1% fat which must be wrong whatever the dairy.

[misspelledgeoff]

I'm pretty sure wiki is like open source or some shit like that. If it's really torquing you up then you should get a wiki userID and make the corrections.

[PVC]

Cool, thanks for the information about the content varying. Even 3.1% fat is surely more than most people would want though if you're consuming 4.5 litres of the stuff, I would have thought. Anyway, the Wiki says that whole milk is 1% fat which must be wrong whatever the dairy.

An American gallon is 3.8 L, so if you're drinking 4.5 L you're going above and beyond.

Whole milk here in North America is 3.25%, so look for that stuff.

You want the fat. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients, carbs are not. Plus you need the calories.

[misspelledgeoff]

Why would anyone wanting to gain rapid and copious quantities of muscular body weight give two shits about how much fat they were consuming?


Cool, thanks for the information about the content varying. Even 3.1% fat is surely more than most people would want though if you're consuming 4.5 litres of the stuff, I would have thought. Anyway, the Wiki says that whole milk is 1% fat which must be wrong whatever the dairy.

[Dastardly]

Why would anyone wanting to gain rapid and copious quantities of muscular body weight give two shits about how much fat they were consuming?

So they can make sure they are getting as much as possible of course.

;)

[andrewotbc]

Why would anyone wanting to gain rapid and copious quantities of muscular body weight give two shits about how much fat they were consuming?

This is basically my point about the Wiki being incorrect - why does it tell people to keep fats in the 20-30% range when they are trying to get stronger and can consume a lot more calories by upping the fats?

However, I am pretty sure that a lot of people doing SS will be doing it without wanting to get overly fat and the macronutrient ratio is important for limiting bodyfat gain.

I'll change the Wiki at some point to stress a bit more that the macronutrient content is of secondary importance to strength gain depending on your exact aims, as long as it is not wild. I'll also correct the figure for whole milk fat and calories.

[Dastardly]

This is basically my point about the Wiki being incorrect - why does it tell people to keep fats in the 20-30% range when they are trying to get stronger and can consume a lot more calories by upping the fats?

However, I am pretty sure that a lot of people doing SS will be doing it without wanting to get overly fat and the macronutrient ratio is important for limiting bodyfat gain.

I'll change the Wiki at some point to stress a bit more that the macronutrient content is of secondary importance to strength gain depending on your exact aims, as long as it is not wild. I'll also correct the figure for whole milk fat and calories.

You have demonstrated exactly why you should not depend on wikipedia as scientific fact.

Also, macronutrition is kind of irrelevant to anyone eating properly for strength training.

Concerning yourself with such thoughts clearly demonstrates you have the completely wrong attitude for diet, and will no doubt be under-eating.

Fat is not something which should be counted, unless you are concerned you are not getting enough.

[andrewotbc]

You have demonstrated exactly why you should not depend on wikipedia as scientific fact.

Also, macronutrition is kind of irrelevant to anyone eating properly for strength training.

Concerning yourself with such thoughts clearly demonstrates you have the completely wrong attitude for diet, and will no doubt be under-eating.

Fat is not something which should be counted, unless you are concerned you are not getting enough.

I really don't know if this is true. Almost all other sources of information on muscle gain, albeit most are not focussed quite so much on raw strength gain, say that eating more than 500 calories a day more than you expend is pointless because the additional calories are much more likely to be converted to fat. But SS has a completely different view, seemingly that there shouldn't be an upper limit to calories. This is a very important question and I'm not prepared to take at face value what SS say about this, because I really do feel that I will put on a lot of fat if I have more than 1000 calories a day more than I use and if I eat way more fat than most recommend, and that the additional strength gains from the calories over the 1000 extra won't be significant. FYI I am currently on 3600 calories a day compared to 2750 expenditure. I am prepared to be swayed on this, this is just the current middle ground I hold between 2 very different views.

[PVC]

He's not talking about Wikipedia, he's talking about the Starting Strength Wiki:

http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wi...nts_and_Cardio

[Skuhr]

I really don't know if this is true. Almost all other sources of information on muscle gain, albeit most are not focussed quite so much on raw strength gain, say that eating more than 500 calories a day more than you expend is pointless because the additional calories are much more likely to be converted to fat. But SS has a completely different view, seemingly that there shouldn't be an upper limit to calories. This is a very important question and I'm not prepared to take at face value what SS say about this, because I really do feel that I will put on a lot of fat if I have more than 1000 calories a day more than I use and if I eat way more fat than most recommend, and that the additional strength gains from the calories over the 1000 extra won't be significant. FYI I am currently on 3600 calories a day compared to 2750 expenditure. I am prepared to be swayed on this, this is just the current middle ground I hold between 2 very different views.

I have a suggestion for you: Try it both ways. try your way and see how your lifts go up - my guess is that you will stall very quickly. Then try eating around 5000 per day and lifting according to the program. Evaluate the results after the test, not before.

Another suggestion: read the book (starting strength). The wiki is not written by the author of the book, and is not complete. the book is.

After you have done all of this, report back. Please, not before. This has been covered about 10000 times if you used the search function.

[carbon-12]

I really don't know if this is true. Almost all other sources of information on muscle gain, albeit most are not focussed quite so much on raw strength gain, say that eating more than 500 calories a day more than you expend is pointless because the additional calories are much more likely to be converted to fat. But SS has a completely different view, seemingly that there shouldn't be an upper limit to calories. This is a very important question and I'm not prepared to take at face value what SS say about this, because I really do feel that I will put on a lot of fat if I have more than 1000 calories a day more than I use and if I eat way more fat than most recommend, and that the additional strength gains from the calories over the 1000 extra won't be significant. FYI I am currently on 3600 calories a day compared to 2750 expenditure. I am prepared to be swayed on this, this is just the current middle ground I hold between 2 very different views.

No, really, this is not a very important question. It does not matter what whoever says because there is certainly gospel on the subject and anyone who tells you a specific number that is "optimal" is likely full of shit.

You know where the magic 500 calorie surplus number comes from? A few people got together and reckoned that a pound of bodyfat has 3500 calories in it. So if you eat 500 fewer calories per day than you burn, then you should lose about a pound a week. Great, whatever. Some other people somehow reckoned that this meant if you ate 500 calories extra per day, you'd gain a pound a week. They also somehow figured this would be healthy weight, forgetting that this whole pile of crap was started based on the number of calories in a pound of fat.

But that crap all doesn't matter. Here's what does. Eat more than you currently are if you want to gain weight, eat less if you dont. If you want to be systematic about things, then make yourself a diet plan. Make this diet plan out of foods you like eating a lot of, and can continue to eat lots of for a good long while. If you're fat already, maybe don't eat so many carbs. Fat is your friend, protein is good in heaping quantities. Start eating. Adjust your plan based on results periodically. Not too frequently. If your damn milk has more fat than you thought, then it doesn't matter. Dont worry about counting calories and all that crap, just get yourself a method that works for you and adjust based on that.

If you want to lose weight, eat less of the same stuff. If you want to gain weight, eat more of the same stuff. Don't get caught up in worrying how many calories whatever food has, just eat foods that are conducive to your goals. If you drank a half gallon of milk a day, thinking it had 48 grams of fat in that half gallon, then found out it had 64 grams in that half gallon, would you drink less milk? NO YOU WOULDN'T. You wouldn't because you'd been getting good gains with your diet and clearly the 64 grams of fat weren't doing you any harm so reducing that would only shortchange you. That's how having a diet based on trial and error works.

Don't listen to what some "guru" says you need to eat based on some equation they pulled out of a professor's ass, make your own diet based on your own experimenting for what works for YOU. Do this and you'll have something worth way more than an article off the internet, and that's called experience.

[GripAU]

I'm drinking homogenized pasturized milk- whatever the fuck that means- has like 9.6g pro, 12g crbs and 10g fat. Shit is working good. One gallon is 2500 kcal and I hve one a day. This one seems to be the 'fatty one' but who gives a shit, it works. So, I guess it doesn't matter what type I drink, except soy, yeah?
Thanks

[confuzzl3don3]

From experience, the only bad thing about eating a lot of fat, is the bountiful acne that follows.