Muscle Milk a killer?

BLACKHAWK3634 · 09-01-2006, 12:59 AM

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1231523

I just finished reading this article and am rather shocked since this is one of the hottest supplements out. Can anyone verify this?

LCDforMe · 09-01-2006, 01:24 AM

Search. You will find countless threads of approval.

52PUG · 09-01-2006, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BLACKHAWK3634

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1231523

I just finished reading this article and am rather shocked since this is one of the hottest supplements out. Can anyone verify this?

I have had blood work, physicals etc. while using MuscleMilk. Other than being slightly overweight, my health is very good. This has helped me slowly lose weight while maintaining muscle. Isn't T-Nation bitch writers for Biotest?????

www.bodybuilding.com/store/glyco.html

deadlyshaolin · 09-01-2006, 06:59 AM

This needs to be discussed extensively, seeing as how 80% of Sherdog takes MM. Myself included.

Experts?

fat_wilhelm · 09-01-2006, 07:55 AM

I actually started a thread on this yesterday.

Your thoughts on glycocyamine

Yes, it's hard to put much stock in an article attacking a supplement when it's published by one of the supplement's main competitors. Even though Dave Barr does not "work" for Biotest, no one is foolish enough to think that he and Biotest are completely independent of eachother.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone buys MM for the creatine precursor. Personally, validity issues aside, I think it would be in Cytosport's best interest to take the glycocyamine out of the formula and issue a statement saying something like "We do not agree with the article written by Dave Barr, but we are also very aware of the power of public sentiment, which is why we are removing glycocyamine from Muscle Milk."

I drink it for the protein. I take my creatine separately. What about everyone else? Let's take a little survey?

Who feels the inclusion of glycocyamine is important to the MM formula?

Bester · 09-01-2006, 08:09 AM

As a propective buyer, I couldnt agree more. Reading about that has messing up my purchasing plans. I think Im still going to buy some but it seems like a monumentally stupid move on their part. Even if there are negligible amounts of glycocyamine in the stuff, there is no point in it being there in the first place. 90% of their customers probably take creatine as it is one of the cheapest and most effective products out there and yet they feel they have to include a potentially hazardous substance that may or may not help you generate more creatine on your own? On a possibly related note, people on the t-nation boards were arguing that regular muscle milk was banned by the NCAA and that was why they make a special collegiate muscle milk. Ive gotten the impression on this board that the collegiate is more a weight gainer, not a substitute for regular MM but I have no idea.

BangWhosNxt · 09-01-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

I drink it for the protein. I take my creatine separately. What about everyone else? Let's take a little survey?

Who feels the inclusion of glycocyamine is important to the MM formula?

I drink it for the protein and MCT's. I take my creatine separately as well, so I think in those cases the GCC wouldn't do a whole heck of a lot anyway.

XTrainer · 09-01-2006, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bester

On a possibly related note, people on the t-nation boards were arguing that regular muscle milk was banned by the NCAA and that was why they make a special collegiate muscle milk. Ive gotten the impression on this board that the collegiate is more a weight gainer, not a substitute for regular MM but I have no idea.

I don't think it was banned. I read that a college or coaching staff can't endorse the use of a product with a certain ratio of protein to carbs. Is this stupid? Yes, especially because athletes can use this stuff anyway, it just can't be endorsed by their coaches.

That's what I read, anyway.

Bman · 09-01-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fat_wilhelm

I actually started a thread on this yesterday.

Your thoughts on glycocyamine

Yes, it's hard to put much stock in an article attacking a supplement when it's published by one of the supplement's main competitors. Even though Dave Barr does not "work" for Biotest, no one is foolish enough to think that he and Biotest are completely independent of eachother.

On the other hand, I don't think anyone buys MM for the creatine precursor. Personally, validity issues aside, I think it would be in Cytosport's best interest to take the glycocyamine out of the formula and issue a statement saying something like "We do not agree with the article written by Dave Barr, but we are also very aware of the power of public sentiment, which is why we are removing glycocyamine from Muscle Milk."

I drink it for the protein. I take my creatine separately. What about everyone else? Let's take a little survey?

Who feels the inclusion of glycocyamine is important to the MM formula?

i dont care about the creatine precursors myself im just in it for the delicious miscellar casein and mcts mmm mm mgood

**Madmick** · 09-01-2006, 11:55 AM

Look, I don't want to say too much, because I don't know, but what I do know is that homocysteine isn't something to be fucked with. Just check out Terumo's post on Cardiology 101. I even asked my brother's roommate about this, the #1 biology student at Chico State, and he said, yeah, they don't even really pay attention to cholesterol all that much anymore- it's all about homocysteine.

Also, check out the link Art put up in Wilhelm's thread. He makes some good points.

This just might be a wake-up call for Cytosport.