Question about food versus shakes
- 03-16-2006, 03:58 PM
Question about food versus shakes
I have been looking around forever, read through all of the stickies, and have yet to find a satisfying answer. Why exactly is whole food better than a shake? If it has the same nutritional value, shouldn't they be the same in the long run? I have seen everyone say that whole food is better, but never have seen anyone back it up with reasons why.
- 03-16-2006, 04:12 PM
shakes are just fine. i hear that same comment all the time, but if the nutrient profiles are identical then you are indeed getting the same deal with the shakes. Im not sure about the specifics of the digetion issue, but I don't think there would be any significant difference between solid meal and a shake-meal digestion.
Originally Posted by sam32465
03-16-2006, 04:25 PM
Shakes are fine, but the digestion issue is pretty critical. You want a good solid flow of nutrients all day long which you'll get with whole foods eaten consistently over the day. A shake is already in a state you'd call chyme, it basically goes right through the stomach into the small intestine and you start absorbing the aminos right away. That's why shakes are good for around workout times. Whole foods are broken down into chyme in the stomach and then fed into the intestines so it's kind of a more constant feed than a shake, which will essentially spike nutrients into the blood.Originally Posted by canadian champ
Do a search for posts by Bobo with a key word chyme, or digestion, or similar key words and you'll get targetted threads/posts.
03-16-2006, 04:37 PM
03-16-2006, 04:39 PM
03-16-2006, 05:05 PM
Still do the search for the posts using those key words. Lots of great on point info there. Good shake recipes too.Originally Posted by canadian champ
03-16-2006, 06:10 PM
-food is for ultimate nutrition
-shakes are for supplementation (specifically extra protein and maybe carbs for BB'ers)
03-16-2006, 06:42 PM
03-16-2006, 07:04 PM
03-16-2006, 07:24 PM
Not exactly. That's what Whey shakes do. Casien for example is still supplying aminos 7+ hours after ingestion...Originally Posted by CDB
03-16-2006, 07:46 PM
food better as it has a higher thermic value and kicks your metabolism up, good for dieting obviously. Shakes post workout better for the reasons given by GDB
03-18-2006, 09:08 PM
True, but most shakes are whey or a blend which means a miniscule percentage of casein and a whole lot of whey. To get decent casein he'd need 100% casein, milk isolate or egg, something like that. And, in the end, it's still no replacement for real food.Originally Posted by Xel
04-16-2006, 02:52 AM
04-16-2006, 02:56 AM
Screw it soon I am going to do a log on a 6 week or so bulk where I absolutely eat nothing but whey shakes and whey protein bars. I mean I want to see how bad it really is. A bulk with no real food.
04-16-2006, 09:37 AM
Originally Posted by Spitdeath
Keep us dated with a log of your efforts, I'd be really interested in how it goes. But I'd be willing to be you have a bad case the runs for about 6 weeks
I think your metabolism would actually slow down with only drinking shakes because your body would not have to digest anything.
04-16-2006, 10:32 AM
I would definately include bulk fiber. your lower GI will thank you, goodluck!Originally Posted by Spitdeath
04-16-2006, 11:07 AM
When leaning out, I use zero to one shake per day (post workout). When bulking, I consume 3 shakes per day (to keep the tank full). I've noticed a big difference in how I lean out from when I used to consume 3 shakes per day when leaning out. There is a lot of info on here relating to this topic. Specifically search for posts by Bobo as he has some valuable insight on this.
CDB put it in a nutshell. When you consume a liquid, it will enter small intestine in 15 - 30 minutes. This is a short term fuel supply. If you were to try and bulk using nothing but liquid supplements, there is no way that you could sustain the nutrients needed to put on muscle mass. Your body would spike insulin and then crash (and would encourage fat storage) and would get a large hit of aminos and crash....then comes catabolism. You wouldn't have a sustained glycogen level nor would it (IMO) process aminos/fats in a manor needed to build muscle. You also would start shi tting bullets.
The reason that a post workout shake is so important is to replentish your body of amino and glycogen deficiencies caused by intense training. The whole idea is to get something in your system which digests/absorbs quickly in order to stave off catabolism. If you read around the board, you will find that it is also recommended to eat a whole food meal about 30-60 minutes after consuming this shake.
With respect to adding fiber to slow absorption, you need to make sure that you add the correct fiber or you will get the opposite effect of what you are looking for. Really, it primarily slows/increases digestion.
soluble fiber = decreasing digestion (absorption with respect to glucose)
insoluble fiber = increasing digestion (absorption with respect to glucose)
04-16-2006, 11:57 AM
A few month ago when I was bulking I tried consuming both 80% whole food/20% shakes, and 80% shakes/20% whole food, for ~2 weeks each. Both with the same calories and macro spread. I honestly didn't notice anything different, gains (bodyweight/strength) were the same, recovery seemed the same... Though I didn't do it long enough for anything conclusive. I would NOT eat just whey shakes though, I was having a blend of Whey/Casien/Egg/Nutragammax with Rice Oligodextrin for carbs, and mainly raw egg yolks and lecithin for fat.
04-16-2006, 01:59 PM
Thats key right there, the thermic value. The body is built to digest whole food, not liquid all the time, back in the day b4 they had whey some pretty huge bodies were built on just whole food alone. Just food for though.Originally Posted by Markio
04-16-2006, 02:30 PM
Agreed. The thermic effect of some types of food-sourced protien is touted as being approx. 30%, while fats, carbs and liquids supps are far, far lower. In essence, it take calories to digest food-sourced protiens; so the net calories are less than the gross calories consumed.Originally Posted by Hbs6
There are FAR BETTER/MORE ACCURATE decsriptions of this elsewhere. Don't rely on my babble.
04-19-2006, 11:51 PM
Something which I dont see mentioned is the lack of micronutrition in a typical whey+dextrose/malto shake. Both are refined ingredients devoid of vitamins/minerals that whole food has.
Hypothetically someone cutting on a 2500 kcal diet with 2x500kcal whey+dex shakes would be getting the micronutrients of a 1500kcal diet. Food for thought...
04-20-2006, 12:21 AM
Okay, since I'm bulking, this is my "shake":
2 cups oatmeal ground up in 2 cups of water.
There isn't any protein powder in it, just oatmeal in water. I have this with a meal always, never just straight carbs for a meal.
(It takes too long to cook and eat 2 cups of oatmeal a few times a day.)
Would you guys count this as a "shake" or am I alright in doing this?
04-20-2006, 12:08 PM
I like to throw in some Chlorella or spirulina to pump up the micro and phyto complex of the shake.Originally Posted by Nitrox
04-20-2006, 12:18 PM
I add a whole host of supplements to my protien shake (the flavor helps mask the taste of the supps).
Similar Forum Threads
- By windwords7 in forum SupplementsReplies: 45Last Post: 09-25-2015, 01:31 PM
- By itzgambino in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 3Last Post: 06-11-2009, 11:49 AM
- By 300Fan in forum AnabolicsReplies: 4Last Post: 04-30-2007, 05:41 AM
- By getjacked63 in forum Nutrition / HealthReplies: 4Last Post: 11-03-2006, 11:29 AM
- By hamper19 in forum Weight LossReplies: 8Last Post: 02-12-2003, 07:22 PM