Milk it!

[butter]

Howdy..I'm a big fan of drinking the good stuff, is the other types of Milks available almost as beneficial as Whole Milk?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I like whole milk because one of the problems in gaining weight is calories, and obviously whole milk wins on this criterion. Why would a person concerned with gaining weight be concerned with the fat content of milk?

[progressiveman1]

I like whole milk because one of the problems in gaining weight is calories, and obviously whole milk wins on this criterion. Why would a person concerned with gaining weight be concerned with the fat content of milk?

I'm concerned with the saturated fat in whole milk, which is why I think skim milk is a better choice. Saturated fat is known to clog arteries so cutting it in particular parts of your diet would probably be beneficial long-term. Per serving, there is 5g of saturated fat/150 calories in whole milk and 0g of saturated fat/90 calories in skim milk. Given that there's only that small amount more of calories in whole milk, don't you think it would be wiser to make up that difference in calories in a more efficient manner? There are plenty of foods which contain 5g of saturated fat that have several hundred calories in them as opposed to just the 60 calories difference in the milk alternatives. So if you're going to eat 5g of saturated fat, you might as well get a bang for your buck.

[butter]

..true that, I hear that Milk protein is a winner but the Milk sugars is not, it might just be the studies that suggest better carb alternatives, not sure if that is the same case with the fats, i.e get fats from better sources..but i'm totally with you and don't really see any problems, milk is healthy!

cheers!

[Mark Rippetoe]

What is your concern with saturated fat? And please be specific when you detail the detrimental effects.

[progressiveman1]

What is your concern with saturated fat? And please be specific when you detail the detrimental effects.

You just made me realize that I made a stupid mistake- accepting claims without seeking proper evidence for it. I accepted the claim that saturated fats cause heart disease because it seemed like all the big health organizations tout this as a fact.

1.American Heart Ass.: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4582
2.World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2003/pr20/en/
3. FDA: I think they're the ones who create the guidelines on the food labels, which state a strict limitation on saturated fats.

Those are just the top few from doing a quick search, so I'm sure there's plenty more organizations who make the same claims.

But after digging a little deeper, it's starting to make more sense to me that eating a diet high in saturated fats(and low in processed foods) is the heathiest way to go. However, I can't say that I can make a strong claim on the issue because there are so many studies that "prove" saturated fats are unhealthy and plenty "prove" that they are healthy. It's hard to sort through all the contradictive information.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The deal with saturated fat is that, above all, it is not poison. No study in existence has ever shown that saturated fat causes CVD, and its presence in a food that is useful should not prevent you from using in your diet. No one is suggesting that you get half of your calories from the "butter" they use on movie popcorn, but whole milk for a growing young lifter is much more more valuable than the fat it contains is dangerous. Milk is quite literally better than steroids for a novice lifter to grow on, and no supplement produces the same effect.

[3pack]

Any suggestions for a milk replacement for us lactose intolerant folks. I have tried Lactaid with limited success. It's weird it seems to work at first and then they stop working withing a week or two and gets works. I then up my intake of pills and lower my milk consumption to see where a good balance is at and it doesn't help.

So I have maybe a couple of gulps a day now and even with that I get pretty gassy. I wish I could have more, I love the stuff.

[Mark Rippetoe]

There is no substitute for milk. Sorry.

[Corey]

Mr. Rippetoe,

Really like the new cover of the 2nd ed.

With regards to milk. I'm 36 YO. Should I be drinking milk to assist growth? I do whey protein morning and night. That and L-Glut are my only two supps.

I have been a pretty big milk drinker, but have given it up from time to time. I thought the sugar in the milk was making me fat.

Thanks for putting out the new book. I'm checking my mail everyday for it.

[Baker]

Any suggestions for a milk replacement for us lactose intolerant folks. I have tried Lactaid with limited success. It's weird it seems to work at first and then they stop working withing a week or two and gets works. I then up my intake of pills and lower my milk consumption to see where a good balance is at and it doesn't help.

So I have maybe a couple of gulps a day now and even with that I get pretty gassy. I wish I could have more, I love the stuff.

are you sure that you are lactose intolerant? the reason i ask is i had the same problem as you, over time i couldn't handle milk, so i tried lactose-free versions & it seemed to work for a few weeks but then the bad stomachs would return & i also would take some lactase enzymes but that didn't help either.

so then i tried goat milk & have been having 1-2 quarts/day for the past 6 months or so....no digestive issues at all. nutritional facts are pretty well the same (1 cup = 7gF/11gC/8gP for goat milk). from what i understand there are 2 possible reasons why goat milk is easier on the system; 1) the fat is easier to digest and 2) a certain casein protein in cow's milk is only in a trace amount in goat's milk. you can search these things online yourself for clearer info.

a coworker of mine from a small town in india said they always feed their babies cow's milk & if they have signs of a digestive issues, then they switch to goat's milk & there's never issues with that. just a little story, no science, but i thought it was interesting.

it's more expensive but it might be worth a try...

[Mark Rippetoe]

Older adults using milk for weight gain may find that they get a little chubby on this program. This is because as growth hormone and testosterone levels diminish with age, the ability to easily build muscle on a heavy training program diminishes as well. This means that less of the nutritional input can be converted to muscle in response to stress, and consequently more fat will be deposited.

This is rotten, shitty fact. I personally am offended every time I contemplate this. But the fact remains that older lifters cannot grow as efficiently in response to training as younger lifters can because of their inability to recover, and the efficient conversion of nutrition to muscle is a major factor in recovery.

[Tiburon]

No study in existence has ever shown that saturated fat causes CVD, and its presence in a food that is useful should not prevent you from using in your diet.

With all due respect Coach, there are dozens of studies that implicate the role of saturated fat in cardiovascular disease.

Here are just a couple epi studies:
-In the Nurses Health Study, for every 5% increase of calories from saturated fat, risk of coronary heart disease increased 17% (Hu et al., Dietary fat intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in women. New England Journal of Medicine 337 (21), pp. 1491-1499).

-In a study of 3500 Danes, every 3% increase in energy from saturated fat increased risk of CHD 36% in women (Jakobsen et al., Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease: Possible effect modification by gender and age. 2004 American Journal of Epidemiology, 160 (2), pp. 141-149).

As for the mechanisms:
-Harmful effects of saturated fat work through its effect on total cholesterol; it has been shown for a long time, in experimental studies, that saturated fat is twice as potent at raising total cholesterol as PUFA (polyunsaturated fat) is at lowering it (Keys et al, Serum cholesterol response to changes in the diet. (1965) Metabolism, 14, p. 776. and Hegsted et al, Quantitative effects of dietary fat on serum cholesterol in man. (1965) American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 17 (5), pp. 281-295.).

-Intake of saturated fat also raises LDL, the "bad" cholesterol. For every 1% increase in energy from saturated fat, LDL increases approximately .03 to 0.5 mmol/L (Clarke et al., Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: Quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies (1997) British Medical Journal, 314 (7074), pp. 112-117.)

-Because of reams of evidence supporting the above, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine recommend keeping saturated fat intake as low as possible. (emphasis mine) (IOM, (2002) Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients). Washington, DC: National Academies Press
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html)

-As for a specific target, the National Cholesterol Education Program recommends keeping saturated fat to less than 7% of total calories, in order to LDL and reduce CVD events (Cleeman, J.I. Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III) (2001) Journal of the American Medical Association, 285 (19), pp. 2486-2497. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/index.htm

-While it is true that saturated fat is not the only player here, or the only target for intervention (other lipids/lipoproteins, markers of oxidative stress, inflammations, insulin resistance, thrombosis, etc), it is probably *best* to get your sat fat intake as low as possible, within the context of an otherwise nutritionally adequate diet.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Likewise, with all due respect, I am not particularly interested in correlational implications. I said that saturated fat has never been shown to cause CVD, and I stand by that statement. SF intake level and its correlation with total cholesterol, and TC's correlation with CVD in self-reported studies on sedentary populations aren't terribly compelling and are not relevant to the folks reading this board. Do you actually think I am not aware of the body of literature on this topic? I am as capable as you are of reading them and drawing conclusions, and it irritates me that correlation and cause-and-effect are so often conflated, becoming the source of most of the conventional wisdom regarding matters of health and exercise.

[EIC]

Likewise, with all due respect, I am not particularly interested in correlational implications. I said that saturated fat has never been shown to cause CVD, and I stand by that statement. SF intake level and its correlation with total cholesterol, and TC's correlation with CVD in self-reported studies on sedentary populations aren't terribly compelling and are not relevant to the folks reading this board. Do you actually think I am not aware of the body of literature on this topic? I am as capable as you are of reading them and drawing conclusions, and it irritates me that correlation and cause-and-effect are so often conflated, becoming the source of most of the conventional wisdom regarding matters of health and exercise.

I agree 100%. The idea that saturated fats are harmful is rapidly being extinguished both in society and in the scientific community. For every study cited above, there are at least 3 doctors I can think of that have had decades of success with patients by limiting carbohydrates and allowing patients to eat freely of saturated fat. Remember that when you start implicating saturated fat as "deadly," you start implicating a host of natural foods that man had ready access to in the wild: eggs and meat. Grains, the source of food that is touted as healthy by the authors of the studies cited above, only came into the picture far later.

As a purely logical matter, you should be highly suspect of any physician who tells you that man's most natural sources of nutrition are deadly. What's next? A study showing that rabbits shouldn't eat grass or that squirrels shouldn't eat acorns?

When saturated fat is consumed in carbohydrate-controlled diet, the results are nothing short of miraculous. When you eat saturated fat without any regard for carbohydrate consumption, you will wreak havoc. That is all that the cited studies show us. What they won't show you is that high sugar, low sat. fat diets cause as much, if not more damage, than high sat. fat and high sugar.

Check out www.westonaprice.org for more on this stuff. I could go on all day.

[3pack]

are you sure that you are lactose intolerant? the reason i ask is i had the same problem as you, over time i couldn't handle milk, so i tried lactose-free versions & it seemed to work for a few weeks but then the bad stomachs would return & i also would take some lactase enzymes but that didn't help either.

so then i tried goat milk & have been having 1-2 quarts/day for the past 6 months or so....no digestive issues at all. nutritional facts are pretty well the same (1 cup = 7gF/11gC/8gP for goat milk). from what i understand there are 2 possible reasons why goat milk is easier on the system; 1) the fat is easier to digest and 2) a certain casein protein in cow's milk is only in a trace amount in goat's milk. you can search these things online yourself for clearer info.

a coworker of mine from a small town in india said they always feed their babies cow's milk & if they have signs of a digestive issues, then they switch to goat's milk & there's never issues with that. just a little story, no science, but i thought it was interesting.

it's more expensive but it might be worth a try...

I wouldn't say without a doubt, but maybe I just assumed since I feel like crap afterwards. But here is something I'm currently trying it's much better than the lactaid I tried. http://digestiveadvantage.com/prod_adult_li.html It's not perfect.

Concerning Goat's milk. I have not tested much, but the little I did test I was fine with it and I would have explored it further, but a quart of goat's milk here is actually more expensive than a gallon of regular milk.

I've read a little about and I forget exactly why, but I think it is something about the fat like you alluded to. Something about the particles or whatever being much smaller and more easily digested.

I really should get some again and see how that goes.

[cycomiko]

Please don't go on all day with Westonprice

[Kenny]

Mark,

Hello. In reference to your statement that older adults do not recover as well as younger lifters do you recommend any adjustments to the program in Starting Strength?

Thanks,

Ken

[Mark Rippetoe]

I have written about that at length. This is the link to the article that appeared in the CrossFit Journal:

http://www.crossfit.com/journal/2007/06/june_2007_crossfit_journal.html

[Richie_Awesome]

I have written about that at length. This is the link to the article that appeared in the CrossFit Journal:

http://www.crossfit.com/journal/2007/06/june_2007_crossfit_journal.html

Milk is amazing!

[Iron4Life]

Mr. Rippetoe,

For an Intermediate lifter who is bulking do you still suggest drinking a gallon of whole milk a day? Or is this more of a beginners protocol?

[bango skank]

Raw milk, anyone?

[fat bastard]

I can drink milk but if I drink a half gallon a day I will be farting all night. I guess I am lactose intolerant if I drink too much :(

Lactose intolerant people can't digest milk properly so does that mean my muscles aren't getting the protein from the milk? I don't care about farting I can deal with that as long as my body can use the protein in milk. Thanks.

[Mark Rippetoe]

That much milk is really a novice strategy, and might make an intermediate guy chubby. Raw milk is not available but in a few states, and is hideously expensive. If you're lactose intolerant, take some lactaid.

[Amu]

If you're lactose intolerant, take some lactaid.

A gallon of Lactaid (~$10 a day) is getting heavy on the bills, what do you suggest I do? I'm thinking of calling the company and asking for a commercial purchase, as long as it's not too big.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Use the capsules. Much cheaper.

[lylemcd]

The lactaid pills don't seem to work for everyone, they never did for me.

I've been using a product called Digestive Advantage: Lactose Intolerance Therapy that has allowed me to drink regular milk for the first time in years. it's a once a day pill containing bacteria that helps with lactose digestion along with a little bit of lactase. at places like walmart and rite aid it's about $10/month which is cheap as hell compared to buying Lactaid milk.

It's worth looking into for folks who have problems with milk IMO

Lyle

[Amu]

The lactaid pills don't seem to work for everyone, they never did for me.

I've been using a product called Digestive Advantage: Lactose Intolerance Therapy that has allowed me to drink regular milk for the first time in years. it's a once a day pill containing bacteria that helps with lactose digestion along with a little bit of lactase. at places like walmart and rite aid it's about $10/month which is cheap as hell compared to buying Lactaid milk.

It's worth looking into for folks who have problems with milk IMO

Lyle

Thank you for the advice. I recently tried the product and it seems to be working. I'll have to see how the next few days go. I'm getting it at 10 bucks for 24 pills (24 days). That saves me well over a hundred dollars a month :eek:

[lylemcd]

Same here, the pills are way cheaper than buying Lactaid in the first place.

Something I have noticed is that very large amounts of normal milk can still cause me problems, I've started taking a second pill in the afternoon (so 2 per day) which seems to have solved it. The product even mentions this on the back of the box.

It's still way cheaper than shelling out for Lactaid or what have you.

Lyle

[Amu]

Same here, the pills are way cheaper than buying Lactaid in the first place.

Something I have noticed is that very large amounts of normal milk can still cause me problems, I've started taking a second pill in the afternoon (so 2 per day) which seems to have solved it. The product even mentions this on the back of the box.

It's still way cheaper than shelling out for Lactaid or what have you.

Lyle

The product is giving me stomach problems...

It did mention a few things on the back about side effects

[fat bastard]

Mr. Rippetoe, some people say too much dairy can cause kidney stones so what do you think of that? They say kidney stones can form if there is too much calcium in the kidneys. Is there any truth to this? What if we drink a gallon of milk a day but we also drink a gallon of water a day. Would all that water help to flush the kidneys out and avoid this problem?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I am not a urologist. But I have never had a young man on my program develop kidney stones. Never.

[cycomiko]

Calcium intake and disease prevention.
Heaney RP.

Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68131, USA. rheaney@creighton.edu

While the fundamental metabolic function of calcium is to serve as a second messenger, coupling intracellular responses to extracellular signals, nutritional deficiency of calcium is manifested at a higher level of organization: 1) depletion of the calcium nutrient reserve; 2) inadequate complexation of digestive byproducts; and 3) collateral effects of hormones produced primarily to compensate for low calcium intake. The first mechanism contributes to the osteoporosis problem, the second to kidney stones and colon cancer, and the third to hypertension, preeclampsia, obesity, and insulin resistance, among others. Adequate calcium intakes (1000-1500 mg/d) in adults have been shown in controlled trials to lower the risk of osteoporotic fractures, kidney stones, obesity, and hypertension. The best source of calcium is dairy foods, largely because the disorders concerned depend upon multiple nutrients, not just calcium, and dairy provides a broad array of essential nutrients in addition to calcium, and at low cost.

[spur]

Hi Rip, How much milk should a boy 12 years and 7 months old drink? He weighs 68 kilos, 5 feet 6 inches tall, and is on your novice program for the last few months. Last session Squat was 48 kilos 3x5, Bench Press 36 kilos 3x5, Overhead press 20 kilos 3x5, Dead Lift 50 kilos 1x5. Thanks

[butter]

Hi Mark. It's turned out to be a productive thread, I'm feeling really great drinking tha good stuff.. pasteurised whole rather than raw:p Only thing is I am unsure if i'm puutting it away as per your interval instructions, would that mean that not only should I be including it with meals but sipping it like water throughout the day or gulping...i'm off now for something pure and fresh;)Cheers!

[Mark Rippetoe]

I'd have a 150 lb. kid drinking the whole gallon, if he wants to get huge and powerful.

[JeffreyStuart]

Likewise, with all due respect, I am not particularly interested in correlational implications. I said that saturated fat has never been shown to cause CVD, and I stand by that statement. SF intake level and its correlation with total cholesterol, and TC's correlation with CVD in self-reported studies on sedentary populations aren't terribly compelling and are not relevant to the folks reading this board. Do you actually think I am not aware of the body of literature on this topic? I am as capable as you are of reading them and drawing conclusions, and it irritates me that correlation and cause-and-effect are so often conflated, becoming the source of most of the conventional wisdom regarding matters of health and exercise.

I'm grateful to you for taking time to respond to folks' questions on this board, but you should confine yourself to your areas of expertise. The fact that you do not find the correlation of saturated fats and heart disease "compelling" is irrelevant to the fact that it is overwhelmingly established by the studies cited above and by numerous others. If you have conducted some kind of groundbreaking study that disproves the link between saturated fats and heart disease, you should by all means send it to a medical journal and have it peer reviewed by people with MDs--you know, the people who know what they are talking about when it comes to producing and testing knowledge about diet and health.

As far as your statement that no one has "proved" that saturated fat "causes" heart disease, well, its not a hard statement to stand by. The only way to prove causality would be to take two subject pools, subject one to a diet high in saturated fat, restrict the intake of saturated fat in the other, and then observe them over an entire adult lifetime. Given that that kind of experiment is impossible to conduct for a whole host of reasons, I would suggest that you "interest" yourself in correlation, especially if you are going to go around dispensing dietary advice.

[Mark Rippetoe]

And I would suggest that you are on very thin-ass ice here. I would also suggest that since you are obviously familiar with the literature, that you cite the paper that you consider shows this strong correlation between dietary saturated fat and heart disease.

I further suggest that you read chapter 11 in Nobel laureate Kary Mullis's book Dancing Naked in the Mind Fields that deals specifically with this topic.

In your first paragraph you assert that this relationship has been "overwhelmingly established," and in your second paragraph you state that the assertion would be impossible to prove with a study. So how, in your mind, has this relationship been established, save in the style of V.I. Lenin, paraphrased: "Bad data repeated often enough becomes the conventional wisdom."?

There are numerous examples around the world of specific cultural diets that are high in saturated fats (a food humans have evolved with) and very low in refined carbs (which became common food sources only quite recently) where heart disease is essentially unknown, specifically among the Eskimos, the Tokelau, the Masai, and other non-farming peoples.

I further suggest that you read beyond the literature that espouses the conventional wisdom and broaden your knowledge base, lest you incur the awful wrath of Drs. Kilgore and Bradford, neither of whom, fortunately, are MDs, but rather are familiar with research and have conducted it themselves. I find your reverence for the judgement of MDs rather quaint, and lest you interpret my reference to Dr. Mullis as a similar ad hominem pleading, I have actually reviewed the relevant arguments and have not relied on the expertise of others for my conclusions.

[Polynomial]

MDs--you know, the people who know what they are talking about when it comes to producing and testing knowledge about diet and health.


You mean the people who advised us not to eat eggs because of the cholesterol content, which by a recent Harvard study shows no influence on cholesterol levels in the body?



The only way to prove causality would be to take two subject pools, subject one to a diet high in saturated fat, restrict the intake of saturated fat in the other, and then observe them over an entire adult lifetime.

Bullshit. All you need is to provide a mechanism by which saturated fat messes up HDL/LDL levels or whatever you know affects cardiovascular health. To my knowledge no such mechanism has been described. The field's called 'biochemistry.'

[progressiveman1]

How do you know that lifters who have milk in their diet perform better in the gym than lifters who don't drink milk? Have you done or seen a double blinded study?

[cycomiko]

If you have conducted some kind of groundbreaking study that disproves the link between saturated fats and heart disease, you should by all means send it to a medical journal and have it peer reviewed by people with MDs--you know, the people who know what they are talking about when it comes to producing and testing knowledge about diet and health.

How can you disprove something that you state yourself has not been proved (sic)?

You also expect us to take you seriously when you say MD's know what htey are talking about with diet. Nutritional experimentation (for the most part) from MD's rate amongst the most worthless in the field. MD's have minimal nutritional education, and appear to avoid any training in nutritional epidemiology.

MD's also routinely like blanket recommendations, especially in my local, for nutrients associated with disease risk. Population basd guidelines to lower saturated fat are not specific to individuals. On average the populations have raised cholesterol levels, and if, again, on average people lower saturated fat intake, tthen the average cholesdterol levels will drop back down.

For an individual with no risk factors, there is no concern about having a higher saturated fat, or total fat intake, as long as it is calorically suitable for them to consume more.

Hell, I even had that hammered into me during undergrad training


Given that that kind of experiment is impossible to conduct for a whole host of reasons, I would suggest that you "interest" yourself in correlation, especially if you are going to go around dispensing dietary advice.

Given quality evidence based nutritional guidelines, the evidence behind saturated fat and heart disease is limited. Experimental data is limited to the influences of specific saturated fats on risk factors of heart disease.
In regards to dairy, the effects on cholesterol are product specific, and also ultimately fall on the entire diet than specific worrying about dairy in isolation.

The worry about consuming dairy also has come under some questioning recently, at least with the blind devotion to any influence on plasma cholesterol. Epi work shows a consistent protective effect of dairy on risk of the Metabolic Sydrome. Other recent case-control work shows a protective effect of dairy on MI, something that is related to C15:0 concentration in adipose, a marker of saturated fat intake.

[Mark Rippetoe]

progressiveman1: Are you seriously suggesting that a double-blind study is the only way to obtain information about the effects of a protocol? Does thirty years of careful anecdotal analysis not count? Have you done a double blind study to investigate the effects of substituting leg extensions/curls for squats? Do you think you really need to? Why do you already know you don't? And how would we do such studies? What would be your placebo substitute for milk and squats?

[Quetzal374]

Some of the paleodiet researchers do argue against consumption of milk because of the potential for autoimmune reactions in some individuals, but as several posters here have said there is no worry about milk and cholesterol or fat intake.

A quick search of the literature will find that milk has not been shown to increase serum cholesterol in humans, and actually decreases it in some trials. Here are two quick reads as an introduction to the issue.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/71/3/674

http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/55/6/379

The first study is actually on the benefits of fermented milk products, but it reviews the existing literature regarding the lack of danger from milk on serum cholesterol. The second study, though based on a questionnaire, is representative of what you find when you actually survey people about their habits; namely, that milk consumption doesn't cause problems in humans.

Additionally, a comprehensive summary of the literature will most definitely reveal that the thinking about saturated fat, triglycerides, and serum cholesterol and cardiovascular risk is changing considerably. From a biochemical perspective, carbohydrate intake is much more damaging than intake of saturated fat. Humans resemble dogs more than rabbits in our ability to process saturated fat and cholesterol without harm. Check out Gary Taubes's book Good Calories, Bad Calories for an excellent summary of the literature.

[progressiveman1]

Are you seriously suggesting that a double-blind study is the only way to obtain information about the effects of a protocol? Does thirty years of careful anecdotal analysis not count?

I was just wondering if a double-blind study was what you were basing your conclusion on; I didn't mean to imply that it was an absolute necessity. Thirty years of careful anecdotal analysis would be another way- although I don't think it's quite as sound as a good study unless it's examined like a study, meaning 1)you are sure the subject has the main variables controlled and 2)you know specifics about his performance over this period with milk and this well without milk.

And if you weren't this specific when analyzing your subjects, then you could still possibly make a pretty good judgement. But I don't think it's wise for another person to accept your judgement on the issue unless you can give specifics about your analysis. In a study, there is usually a summarized conclusion of the researchers analysis and then there are the facts from the study, and sometimes those two don't completely match up(or another problem is that a study isn't conducted very well). My point is that a researchers summarized conclusion isn't sufficient enough for others to base their judgements on, they need facts. At least I do.


Have you done a double blind study to investigate the effects of substituting leg extensions/curls for squats? Do you think you really need to? Why do you already know you don't?

There is quite a bit of evidence that I know of that would be sufficient to solely use logic to come to the conclusion that squats are better than LE/C without an actual physical study. For example, the LE/C combo uses less muscles, less range of motion, less weight, less stablity, etc. What hard evidence like this is there that milk generates more growth than no milk? Do you think there are enough facts without a study that you can be certain that milk produces superior growth by basing your conclusion solely on what is presently known about milk and not looking at a study on its effects?


And how would we do such studies? What would be your placebo substitute for milk and squats?
The diet without milk could increase their quantity with the other foods to ensure the same calories and the same percentage of f/c/p. The only thing missing would be the milk.

[Mark Rippetoe]

The diet without milk could increase their quantity with the other foods to ensure the same calories and the same percentage of f/c/p. The only thing missing would be the milk.

No, the thing that would be missing would be the "blind" part. And I've never asked anybody to accept my authority on anything I've said. I'm just telling you what I've observed, and what I continue to observe.

[progressiveman1]

And I've never asked anybody to accept my authority on anything I've said. I'm just telling you what I've observed, and what I continue to observe.

I'm just asking you to be more specific with your observations on the issue, so I can make an informed judgement on your methods.

[Mark Rippetoe]

My point is that you don't seem to understand the nature of a double-blind study. You seem to think that it just means "really good" study, when it indicates a specific investigative protocol that cannot be applied to all situations.

[progressiveman1]

My point is that you don't seem to understand the nature of a double-blind study. You seem to think that it just means "really good" study, when it indicates a specific investigative protocol that cannot be applied to all situations.

A double-blind study means the evaluator and the subject don't know which aspect of the experiment they are taking part of. An example for a milk study could be coconut milk vs cows milk (or/and vs. a concoction of juice, non-dairy protein powder, and an oil to match the f/c/p distribution and calories), and the evaluator and subjects wouldn't know which they are taking. I understand it now. The randomized study I listed above could still be a valid study too.

Now, will you be kind enough to explain how you know the lack of consumption of milk is the reason for the lack of progress in those trainees you've observed? In other words, are you sure the trainee was following every other aspect of your program as prescribed? If so, what difference in progress have you noted from milk drinkers?

[Mark Rippetoe]

You actually said this: "An example for a milk study could be coconut milk vs cows milk (or/and vs. a concoction of juice, non-dairy protein powder, and an oil to match the f/c/p distribution and calories), and the evaluator and subjects wouldn't know which they are taking."

Only if you could find a study population that had never tasted milk of either kind, because in the absence of this condition, the study would not be blind. Now, you might get someone to do a randomized study, but I can't even find a study that was done using correct squatting technique, so let me know when you find a university with 1.) a competent faculty that is 2.) willing to challenge the conventional wisdom. The studies you want to see do not exist, and I'm sorry about that, but not everything we know comes from a study that results in a peer-reviewed paper.

And I shall now be kind, and explain why I know the lack of consumption of milk is the reason for the lack of progress in those trainees I've observed. It is because over thirty years of direct observation has demonstrated to me that when trainees drink one gallon of milk added to their regular diet and train in a progressive linear fashion, they gain significant muscular bodyweight, and those that do not drink their milk, even in the presence of progressive linear training, fail to do this. They also fail to continue progressive linear training for the same length of time, because this is facilitated by the steady weight gain. I understand that you're asking me if I have controlled for other factors such as failure to do the program correctly, and the answer is yes, of course I have, because I am not a complete idiot. Those that will not do the program are not being considered when I make these remarks, because that would be too fucking obvious a hole in my analysis. The difference in the milk drinkers is that THEY GET BIGGER THAN THE ONES WHO WON'T DRINK THE FUCKING MILK. Please tell me that you understand this now.

[fluxboy]

"The difference in the milk drinkers is that THEY GET BIGGER THAN THE ONES WHO WON'T DRINK THE FUCKING MILK."

Oh dear, that was funny.

Purely anecdotal, but the best gains I ever made was by drinking a gallon of whole milk a day, along with some twenty rep squats (shades of McCallum) years back. The only downside was some acne, but my friends were amazed by my progress.

Most thought I had gone on roids. Fun times.

Thanks for the thread, guys ... think I'll go chug a litre.

[progressiveman1]

Only if you could find a study population that had never tasted milk of either kind, because in the absence of this condition, the study would not be blind.

That condition wouldn't be necessary. Use an artificial flavoring in each of the drinks, like a strawberry flavor or something. The drinks will have the same taste and probably similar textures. See, a double-blind study can be done with milk.


I understand that you're asking me if I have controlled for other factors such as failure to do the program correctly, and the answer is yes, of course I have, because I am not a complete idiot. Those that will not do the program are not being considered when I make these remarks, because that would be too fucking obvious a hole in my analysis. The difference in the milk drinkers is that THEY GET BIGGER THAN THE ONES WHO WON'T DRINK THE FUCKING MILK. Please tell me that you understand this now.

The only reason why I don't believe that the trainees you are considering in your judgement have followed every aspect of your program correctly besides drinking milk is because drinking milk is probably the easiest part of your program. And even more importantly you are telling me they are eating a surplus of calories(usually at least 4,000 calories for younger trainees;it's 6,000 for me) and for some odd reason they won't obey your simple suggestion to add milk in their diet? I understand your assertions, but I'm having a hard time believing they followed every aspect of the program correctly besides the milk.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Well, okay there.

[fluxboy]

The only reason why I don't believe that the trainees you are considering in your judgement have followed every aspect of your program correctly besides drinking milk is because drinking milk is probably the easiest part of your program.

Actually, gotta disagree a little here.

As someone who followed the ol' squat/milk program years back ... the toughest part of the training, for me, was the sheer quantity of food I had to consume every day.

Particularly the milk. God, how I hated looking at the big gallon of milk every day, knowing I'd somehow have to consume it.

Those who have experience in the iron game training younguns can probably attest to this ... the most difficult part is getting the scrawny ass kids to consistently eat enough to make gains possible. And the more reluctant they are, the more likely they need to!

It's probably even more difficult now, given the age we live in. Afteral, what use is thirty years in the iron game if you haven't gotten a double blind study with raspberry flavored coconut milk to back your experiences?

:rolleyes:

That all said, I'm making fine gains simply eating a meat and cheese sandwich every hour or so. However, my circumstances are unique. If I were living an active lifestyle, I'd likely just chug a litre of milk between meals. Kind of a nuisance, not altogether pleasant, but it works. However, I'm not sure if Mark's approach is really going to be embraced by the new generation. Size and strength seem to be taking a back seat to the Calvin Klein / metrosexual industry.

It seems to be more fashionable to be a waif.

To each his own.

:shrug:

[Hiravaxis]

Anyway, milk is awesome. The only problem is that I keep running out.
Don't have a lot of fridge space and it used to be that 3L of milk would last a week or more!

[progressiveman1]

Just curious if you have ever examined the effects of someone drinking more than one gallon of milk a day; say two gallons. Did those people get better results than the one gallon trainees? Essentially at two gallons of milk the person's diet would consist solely of milk, which would be pretty awesome. I might try it just to see what happens.

[Mark Rippetoe]

But you would be shitting primarily cheese. Are you ready for this?

[Polynomial]

But you would be shitting primarily cheese. Are you ready for this?

You can probably sell it in France, you know.

[Mark Rippetoe]

They eat goose liver pate', so you're probably right.

[Stu Hughes]

Just curious if you have ever examined the effects of someone drinking more than one gallon of milk a day; say two gallons. Did those people get better results than the one gallon trainees? Essentially at two gallons of milk the person's diet would consist solely of milk, which would be pretty awesome. I might try it just to see what happens.

I think it'd be fairly obvious you can't get all your dietary requirements just from milk. I assume that unless you're over about 230lb your caloric intake isn't going to be so high that half of it can't be met by other food sources. A US gallon of whole milk has about 2460 calories - about half of a 5000 calorie diet? How many guys need to eat this much in a day?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Guys trying to get big.

[Stu Hughes]

Guys trying to get big.

Even the 6'0, 160lb kids? Am I underestimating how many calories I actually eat in a day? Because I swear I'm not eating much more after the 4-6 pints of milk a day, and I've still gained weight.

[butter]

How have your personal clients been chugging their gallon Mark, what is the interval secret please?

[Mark Rippetoe]

Nobody chugs a gallon of milk that wants to keep it down. Start with a pint twice a day, and work up to the gallon, a quart at a time, as soon as you can. Go slowly and build up to it, like a 300 lb. squat.

[George_T]

On a somewhat related note...

A trainer once told me we can only absorb 30-40g of protein at a time. Do you have any idea what the refractory period (?) would be before we can absorb more? (I realize protein isn't the only benefit of milk, but this is something I've been wondering about as I'm upping the number/frequency of my meals.)

-George_T

[Mark Rippetoe]

That figure obviously varies with the bodyweight of the trainee, the individual capacity of the trainee, and is almost certainly trainable as well. I have no idea of any specifics regarding these details.

[Peter_k]

On a somewhat related note...

A trainer once told me we can only absorb 30-40g of protein at a time.

I'm no expert, but I'm certain this isn't true. Lyle Mcdonald made a very good point concerning that.

Humans didn't evolve to eat small pieces of meat throughout the day. For most of our existence, we went hungry until we killed a mammoth. Once that happened, it was buffet time.

Anyway, as far as I know the body can absorb huge amounts of protein at a time without much problem.

[Paul Stagg]

On a somewhat related note...

A trainer once told me we can only absorb 30-40g of protein at a time. Do you have any idea what the refractory period (?) would be before we can absorb more? (I realize protein isn't the only benefit of milk, but this is something I've been wondering about as I'm upping the number/frequency of my meals.)

-George_T

Anyone who says such a thing has no idea what they are talking about, and can safely be ignored.

Or better yet, next time, ask him:

What do you mean by 'absorbed'?
What is the effect on 'absorbtion' of other foods in the gut?
What is 'a time'?
Where does it go if it isn't 'absorbed'?
How does one measure this?

While you are waiting for his answer, eat a pound of beef. That way, you can be doing something productive.

[butter]

Nobody chugs a gallon of milk that wants to keep it down. Start with a pint twice a day, and work up to the gallon, a quart at a time, as soon as you can. Go slowly and build up to it, like a 300 lb. squat.

Thanks Mark, furthermore, would it be best if I include those pints pre and post workout?
I hear Milk Casein 30 - 45 mins pre-workout is very effective but whole milk post workout may not be as effective as protein with minimum fats??

Cheers!

[Mark Rippetoe]

Good God! Too much specificity. Go to www.bodyrecomposition.com and search for this shit there in forums or books. Lyle knows way more about this than anybody else has the patience to learn.

[cycomiko]

Thanks Mark, furthermore, would it be best if I include those pints pre and post workout?
I hear Milk Casein 30 - 45 mins pre-workout is very effective but whole milk post workout may not be as effective as protein with minimum fats??

Cheers!

Phillips work ( that is currently unpublished) shows a mixture of casein (micellar) and whey 50:50 provides a greater benefit post workout than either 100% whey, or 100% casein. but he underpowered the study somewhat, so its not quite significant.

Robert Wolfes crowd published this one awhile back

Milk ingestion stimulates net muscle protein synthesis following resistance exercise.

Elliot TA, Cree MG, Sanford AP, Wolfe RR, Tipton KD.

Metabolism Unit, Shriners Hospitals for Children and Department of Surgery, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.

PURPOSE: Previous studies have examined the response of muscle protein to resistance exercise and nutrient ingestion. Net muscle protein synthesis results from the combination of resistance exercise and amino acid intake. No study has examined the response of muscle protein to ingestion of protein in the context of a food. This study was designed to determine the response of net muscle protein balance following resistance exercise to ingestion of nutrients as components of milk. METHOD: Three groups of volunteers ingested one of three milk drinks each: 237 g of fat-free milk (FM), 237 g of whole milk (WM), and 393 g of fat-free milk isocaloric with the WM (IM). Milk was ingested 1 h following a leg resistance exercise routine. Net muscle protein balance was determined by measuring amino acid balance across the leg. RESULTS: Arterial concentrations of representative amino acids increased in response to milk ingestion. Threonine balance and phenylalanine balance were both > 0 following milk ingestion. Net amino acid uptake for threonine was 2.8-fold greater (P < 0.05) for WM than for FM. Mean uptake of phenylalanine was 80 and 85% greater for WM and IM, respectively, than for FM, but not statistically different. Threonine uptake relative to ingested was significantly (P < 0.05) higher for WM (21 +/- 6%) than FM (11 +/- 5%), but not IM (12 +/- 3%). Mean phenylalanine uptake/ingested also was greatest for WM, but not significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Ingestion of milk following resistance exercise results in phenylalanine and threonine uptake, representative of net muscle protein synthesis. These results suggest that whole milk may have increased utilization of available amino acids for protein synthesis.

[KSC]

I cannot believe that there has been seven pages filled up under a thread about milk.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Eight now, and me too.

[AaronShaffer]

I agree. Drink the milk and shut up. I did and I gained 15lb in 5 weeks on SS, nearly all muscle too. There isn't much to say other than "yes, that worked very well, thank you coach"

[KSC]

I'll try to help out with a synopsis:

Soy Milk - bad
Rice Milk - how does rice make milk?
Whole Milk - good for growth, bad if you are a fatty
Low fat Milk - still good for growth, probably better than whole if you are a fatty
Skim Milk - tasteless watery substance resembling real milk

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[stakehoagy]

hello,
Arn't there side affects to excess calcium? i read in Power Eating that the upper limit for intake is 2,500 mg.

[Baker]

you could also ask, how does soy make milk? i tried rice 'milk' before, it's not very good....it's a high carb/zero protein drink. maybe it should be called rice juice & soy 'milk' called soy juice? maybe it's not as catchy or something.

i am a fatty & i still drink a quart of whole (goat) milk every day. i just choose to keep drinking whole milk instead of shit like fast food, donuts, etc.

bill kazmaier drank a gallon of whole milk a day, he was a ripped 330-350 in his prime. he actually would chug it sometimes. jesse marunde would have 1.5 gallons per day (raw milk), he had low body fat. i'm sure there are countless others who have done the gallon of whole milk per day & didn't get fat from it.