[Duffman'05]

This question is directed at people looking to increase muscle mass, increase strength or who are training hard for peak aerobic fitness in sports like running, or even a combination of any of the above.

Considering that milk is so important to muscle recovery due to the proteins it contains, which type do you stick to? Low fat instinctively seems like the right choice to me considering my goal of aerobic fitness combined with minimal body fat but I read an article recently in which nutritionists recommended that babies/children consume full fat milk 100% of the time because their bodies require so much energy for the growth they are undergoing that they will utilise all of the fat.

Could this be the same for people training hard regularly with activities such as weights and running?

Which do you go for?

[paulmclaughlin]

Make it a poll.

As for myself, I drink low-fat. Lower in fat while a higher amount of protein, who could say no?

As for the training hard, I'd say a babies body utilizes fat more efficiently than an adults so they are encouraged to have full-fat milk. I dunno really, a nutritionist could make more sense of this.

[Tigger]

low fat
but because it mixes with my on whey better

[jugger0]

Low fat because i cant get lactose free full fat, if i was bulking id just drink 2 litres instead of one.

[SIX PACK]

Depending on whats available usually full fat

[Burkatron]

Originally Posted by jugger0

Low fat because i cant get lactose free full fat, if i was bulking id just drink 2 litres instead of one.

I was looking into Lactose free milk today & came across How to make your own lactose-free milk & BioCare Liquid Lactase Enzyme

So Im really bad at math but going by tesco.ie 1L of Avonmore Lactose free Milk is €1.99

2L of Premier whole Milk is €1.99

The lactase 15ml at €13.91 is recommended at 8 drops per litre (according to the site) so you get 36 litres per bottle.
per litre added to the milk it works out at €1.39.

Someone please tell me if I've got this wrong?

[Mellor]

Personally, I'm cutting, and in ketosis during the week, so I avoid it.

Originally Posted by Duffman'05

This question is directed at people looking to increase muscle mass, increase strength or who are training hard for peak aerobic fitness in sports like running, or even a combination of any of the above.

So we all understand the premise that increasing muscle mass needs excess calories. And training hard for aerobic fitness needs lots of cals.

Considering that milk is so important to muscle recovery due to the proteins it contains, which type do you stick to? Low fat instinctively seems like the right choice to me considering my goal of aerobic fitness combined with minimal body fat but I read an article recently in which nutritionists recommended that babies/children consume full fat milk 100% of the time because their bodies require so much energy for the growth they are undergoing that they will utilise all of the fat.

Your assumption is not uncommon, but its wrong.
Dietary fat doesn't lead to body fat. Low fat milk, consumed in the same calorific quantities, is not going to lead to leaner gains or lower body fat.

Low fat has a better ratio of protein to calories. But thats not important. When bulking, getting your daily protein in isn't the problem, its getting the calories. By swapping out the fat in whole milk, you are removing cals, which have to be replaced elsewhere. There is no reason to do this and you are just making it hard on yourself

Could this be the same for people training hard regularly with activities such as weights and running?

Pretty much the exact same.
Intense weights means lots of recovery (growth), intensive cardio is high energy expenditure. Both need increased calorie intake.

Originally Posted by paulmclaughlin

As for myself, I drink low-fat. Lower in fat while a higher amount of protein, who could say no?

As for the training hard, I'd say a babies body utilizes fat more efficiently than an adults so they are encouraged to have full-fat milk. I dunno really, a nutritionist could make more sense of this.

Why is low fat a good thing, in terms of training?
Common misconception.


Low fat is useful for people trying to lose weight, but that's not part of the topic in the OP.
As its obviously reduced cals. But avoiding would be even better. I've often wondered what would taste better, normal low fat or full fat watered down to the same calorie levels.

[lambox]

should this not be a discussion on the the horrors of milk in general.why does it not go sour anymnore?what are they putting in it?Where is the cream gone?

[rubadub]

Originally Posted by lambox

Where is the cream gone?

Its homogenized, so its all mixed evenly.

In skim milk they often put in extra proteins so it doesn't taste watery.

[ray jay]

Low fat, though only because drinking it became a habit when I was cutting some fat. It has a higher protein:calorie ratio anyway so I don't mind. If I was trying to get some serious calories in I'd switch to full fat though, it's a no-cost way of adding calories.

[jugger0]

Originally Posted by Burkatron

I was looking into Lactose free milk today & came across How to make your own lactose-free milk & BioCare Liquid Lactase Enzyme

So Im really bad at math but going by tesco.ie 1L of Avonmore Lactose free Milk is €1.99

2L of Premier whole Milk is €1.99

The lactase 15ml at €13.91 is recommended at 8 drops per litre (according to the site) so you get 36 litres per bottle.
per litre added to the milk it works out at €1.39.

Someone please tell me if I've got this wrong?

Interdasting.... might have to get some of them enzymes.

[Doug Cartel]

Low fat milk is a scam to sell you the leftovers after they've made cream. Weak up sheeple!

[Duffman'05]

Originally Posted by Mellor

Your assumption is not uncommon, but its wrong.
Dietary fat doesn't lead to body fat. Low fat milk, consumed in the same calorific quantities, is not going to lead to leaner gains or lower body fat.

I was aware of this (my fault for not clarifying that). The part I only half understand is how those calories are used and the relationship between calories and energy gained from carbohydrates/fats. As far as I understand energy from fat needs to be burned off quickly and energy from complex carbs is better than that from simple carbs because it is slow releasing. My low fat vs full fat dilemma comes from not knowing if the calories I get from the extra fat would be used up quickly enough to be beneficial to recovery or if it would be too much of an overload to be digested....I could go on and on, but I don't know enough about it to even ask this question properly yet!

[Brian?]

Originally Posted by Duffman'05

I was aware of this (my fault for not clarifying that). The part I only half understand is how those calories are used and the relationship between calories and energy gained from carbohydrates/fats. As far as I understand energy from fat needs to be burned off quickly and energy from complex carbs is better than that from simple carbs because it is slow releasing. My low fat vs full fat dilemma comes from not knowing if the calories I get from the extra fat would be used up quickly enough to be beneficial to recovery or if it would be too much of an overload to be digested....I could go on and on, but I don;t know enough about it to even ask this question properly yet!

I reckon you're overthinking it.

[Paigne]

Low fat, not because of careful consideration or anything, I just do.

I get enough calories for bulking up as it is so I don't feel the need for switching to full fat.