Whey and Dairy Intolerance

senordingdong

I recently learned that I have an intolerance to egg whites, peas and dairy.
This has me debating my food supplementation going forward as I would typically have three servings of whey every day, one in the morning and two after training.
AFAIK the plant based protein powders we see on the market are largely made from pea protein so they're a no go too.

But the whey I was using was an isolate, biotech ISO zero, so I contacted the manufacturer to see if they could tell me how much milk remains after they remove the lactose etc but the rep just directed me to their line of beef protein powder.

I remember beef protein powder being very thick and having a coarse texture but I hope it has come some ways since then.

Has anybody else experienced this?

Patsy167

Might be worth reading through some of the reviews on Hydrolysed Beef Protein here - https://www.myprotein.com/sports-nutrition/hydrolysed-beef-protein/10902405.html#

Some decent tips on how to make it palatable.

FlubberJones

Similar here, started getting dreadful cramps after my Whey protein and changed to one of the vegan ones, no issues now... but also removed all milk from my diet.

I use this one
https://www.bulk.com/ie/soya-protein-isolate-90.html
They do a flavouring bottle separately https://www.bulk.com/ie/liquiflav.html
Beef was grand but then I went off it. It's certainly not as good as whey was. The soya is fine. There's a vegan blend also which mixes nicer but I imagine it would have pea

markmoto

Omg another thread for protein powders.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Omg another thread for protein powders.

Yep.

Sometimes forums have threads about similar things with a different question about them.

And also because Boards is in the pay of Big Protein.

senordingdong

FlubberJones wrote: »

Similar here, started getting dreadful cramps after my Whey protein and changed to one of the vegan ones, no issues now... but also removed all milk from my diet.

I don't get cramps or anything like that, some of my joints and digits are showing signs of arthritis so I'm exploring dietary causes before I go nuclear with meds.

Patsy wrote:

some decent tips on how to make it pallatable

That's what I was afraid of, a big heavy sludgy curmudgeon of a shake. Especially after using isolate for so long.

I'll try the biotech beef and hopefully it's not as bad.

Qgirl

I haven't see any mammals who drink baby milk (dairy) all life except human who then complain about intolerance

senordingdong

Qgirl wrote: »

I haven't see any mammals who drink baby milk (dairy) all life except human who then complain about intolerance

That seems the height of it.

Anyway I got beef protein the other day and while the consistency is strange, it is not thick and heavy as I remember so it's a great success!

Qgirl

senordingdong wrote: »

That seems the height of it.

Anyway I got beef protein the other day and while the consistency is strange, it is not thick and heavy as I remember so it's a great success!

haha beef protein? wondering if that protein cheaper than fresh beef in your supermarket? and why would that be?

senordingdong

Qgirl wrote: »

haha beef protein? wondering if that protein cheaper than fresh beef in your supermarket? and why would that be?

No, it's more expensive.
Fresh mince is about eight euro per kilo.
Beef protein powder is about fifty euro for 2.5kilo tub.

markmoto

senordingdong wrote: »

No, it's more expensive.
Fresh mince is about eight euro per kilo.
Beef protein powder is about fifty euro for 2.5kilo tub.

I wouldn't eat lean protein of any kind especially processed ones.
Protein should be consume with fat in a natural form at least for now.

In other hand excess amount of protein converts to glucose and regular consumption of high dosages might damage kidney and liver.

senordingdong

markmoto wrote: »

I wouldn't eat lean protein of any kind especially processed ones.
Protein should be consume with fat in a natural form at least for now.

In other hand excess amount of protein converts to glucose and regular consumption of high dosages might damage kidney and liver.

Not even chicken or poultry?

I don't have the time or money to eat ribeye for every meal.

Alf Veedersane

senordingdong wrote: »

Not even chicken or poultry?

I don't have the time or money to eat ribeye for every meal.

Lean meat is fine.

senordingdong

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Lean meat is fine.

I would have thought so too but the other gentleman seems to think otherwise.

markmoto

senordingdong wrote: »

I would have thought so too but the other gentleman seems to think otherwise.

Lean meat is fine to an extend but commercially grown chicken nowadays absolutely tasteless no flavor as used to be years ago.

You might want to watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NycfbN3DDk

Alf Veedersane

senordingdong wrote: »

I would have thought so too but the other gentleman seems to think otherwise.

If the biggest problem you have in your diet is the fat content of your meat, you're in a good place.

Bigger picture is more important than the cut of beef.

senordingdong

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If the biggest problem you have in your diet is the fat content of your meat, you're in a good place.

Bigger picture is more important than the cut of beef.

No, I'm happy out!
Just experimenting with removing dairy.
I didn't have alot of beef in my diet before, too much faffing involved in quality of cut and the quality of the cooking.

senordingdong

markmoto wrote: »

Lean meat is fine to an extend but commercially grown chicken nowadays absolutely tasteless no flavor as used to be years ago.

You might want to watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NycfbN3DDk

In fairness that looks like it leans more towards McDonald's and KFC type 'chicken'

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If the biggest problem you have in your diet is the fat content of your meat, you're in a good place.

Bigger picture is more important than the cut of beef.

The difference between fatty cut and lean meat.

Protein, trigger two hormones: insulin and glucagon
While insulin stops fat burning, glucagon increases fat burning
When consuming protein with fat provides low insulin response.

if you are in bulk mode lean meat perfectly fine
If you trying to lose weight fatty cut of meat would work better.

Bulk mode:

Protein + Carbs (sugar/fructose)
Fat + Carbs

Weight lose:

Protein
Protein + Fat

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

The difference between fatty cut and lean meat.

Protein, trigger two hormones: insulin and glucagon
While insulin stops fat burning, glucagon increases fat burning
When consuming protein with fat provides low insulin response.

if you are in bulk mode lean meat perfectly fine
If you trying to lose weight fatty cut of meat would work better.

Bulk mode:

Protein + Carbs (sugar/fructose)
Fat + Carbs

Weight lose:

Protein
Protein + Fat

Stop. Ráiméis.

Like I said, if the fat content of the meat you eat is the biggest concern then you're doing ok.

For most people it isn't. Focussing on that is majoring in the minors and isn't helpful.

Dtp1979

Markmoto, meet Qgirl. Match made in heaven

markmoto

senordingdong wrote: »

I recently learned that I have an intolerance to egg whites, peas and dairy.
This has me debating my food supplementation going forward as I would typically have three servings of whey every day, one in the morning and two after training.
AFAIK the plant based protein powders we see on the market are largely made from pea protein so they're a no go too.

But the whey I was using was an isolate, biotech ISO zero, so I contacted the manufacturer to see if they could tell me how much milk remains after they remove the lactose etc but the rep just directed me to their line of beef protein powder.

I remember beef protein powder being very thick and having a coarse texture but I hope it has come some ways since then.

Has anybody else experienced this?

If you are into experiments I would suggest test strips, this way you can see your body response for protein, glucose etc

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

The difference between fatty cut and lean meat.

Protein, trigger two hormones: insulin and glucagon
While insulin stops fat burning, glucagon increases fat burning
When consuming protein with fat provides low insulin response.

if you are in bulk mode lean meat perfectly fine
If you trying to lose weight fatty cut of meat would work better.

Bulk mode:

Protein + Carbs (sugar/fructose)
Fat + Carbs

Weight lose:

Protein
Protein + Fat

As an aside, and since Kevin Hall is highly respected in this area, from 4 months ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479499/

People participating could eat ad libitum. The low fat (10%) high carb (75%) participants ate less than the low carb (10%) high fat (75%) participants.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

As an aside, and since Kevin Hall is highly respected in this area, from 4 months ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479499/

People participating could eat ad libitum. The low fat (10%) high carb (75%) participants ate less than the low carb (10%) high fat (75%) participants.

Thanks, Interesting, unfortunately study conclusion "inconsistent" and some wording troublesome such as "minimally processed" I have to read full protocol, 25 pages long later on if anyone interested link below
https://osf.io/fjykq/

There was a few studies done as well with more conclusive outcomes I will share links next week.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Thanks, Interesting, unfortunately study conclusion "inconsistent" and some wording troublesome such as "minimally processed" I have to read full protocol, 25 pages long later on if anyone interested link below
https://osf.io/fjykq/

There was a few studies done as well with more conclusive outcomes I will share links next week.

The study conclusion isn't inconsistent. Either you don't understand or you're wilfully misunderstanding what they have said.

"Therefore, the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model were inconsistent with our observations."

The carbohydrate-insulin model suggests that high carb means excess insulin secretion thus promoting excess energy intake and fat accumulation. And so the mod suggests low carb reduces and libitum energy intake.

The use of 'inconsistent' is because the study did not show the model to hold true. I'm not sure why you're presenting it's use as a reflection on the study which is fairly clear.

I'm not suggesting the findings make for an absolute but rather they highlight the problem with your presentation of absolutes around carbohydrate intake.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

The study conclusion isn't inconsistent. Either you don't understand or you're wilfully misunderstanding what they have said.

"Therefore, the predictions of the carbohydrate-insulin model were inconsistent with our observations."

The carbohydrate-insulin model suggests that high carb means excess insulin secretion thus promoting excess energy intake and fat accumulation. And so the mod suggests low carb reduces and libitum energy intake.

The use of 'inconsistent' is because the study did not show the model to hold true. I'm not sure why you're presenting it's use as a reflection on the study which is fairly clear.

I'm not suggesting the findings make for an absolute but rather they highlight the problem with your presentation of absolutes around carbohydrate intake.

Did you read full protocol or just brief highlights?
I didn't yet. And isn't clear enough There is many observational studies like that some hold to be true some eventually passed away.

I am not confirming or denying but wording not clear enough. I have a look later on. Thanks

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Did you read full protocol or just brief highlights?
I didn't yet. And isn't clear enough There is many observational studies like that some hold to be true some eventually passed away.

I am not confirming or denying but wording not clear enough. I have a look later on. Thanks

Your record with research studies hasn't been stellar to date.

The wording is clear. Benefits to both. But those on LFHC did better than those on LCHF.

The point being there isn't an absolute here. Low carb isn't the only way to lose weight.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Your record with research studies hasn't been stellar to date.

The wording is clear. Benefits to both. But those on LFHC did better than those on LCHF.

The point being there isn't an absolute here. Low carb isn't the only way to lose weight.

As humans we continue to research and evolve.
Low carb not the only way agree, whatever suit you. But what I found out low refine carb/fructose, grain, oil diet gives you so much benefits that can't be ignored.

bladespin

Dtp1979 wrote: »

Markmoto, meet Qgirl. Match made in heaven

Was just on the other thread and the same thought hit me lol.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

As humans we continue to research and evolve.
Low carb not the only way agree, whatever suit you.

Then don't talk in absolutes. There's nothing with carbs in and of themselves.

No one talks about these things in extremes. And, as I have said, food quality and food quantity are not independent. Both matter.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

As an aside, and since Kevin Hall is highly respected in this area, from 4 months ago

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479499/

People participating could eat ad libitum. The low fat (10%) high carb (75%) participants ate less than the low carb (10%) high fat (75%) participants.

Ok I have read. To clarify what is you point posting link to this study?

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Then don't talk in absolutes. There's nothing with carbs in and of themselves.

No one talks about these things in extremes. And, as I have said, food quality and food quantity are not independent. Both matter.

there is essential amino acids, essential fatty acids but there is no essential sugar-carbohydrates.

In fact sugar links to so many modern diseases, I think due to its waste products vs fat as clean energy with great efficiency.

Professional athletes more often switching over to fat energy to increase performance.
And many studies showing using ketones as prime fuel give people prolonged and better quality life.
You have to compare two source of energy yourself. As an experiment try no carbs for 6 month.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Ok I have read. To clarify what is you point posting link to this study?

A well-conducted study that didn't support the carbohydrate-insulin model you have been championing.

And you then said "Low carb not the only way agree, whatever suit you"

Your quote is essentially my point. Low carb is not the only way. Sustainability for the individual is important.

markmoto wrote: »

there is essential amino acids, essential fatty acids but there is no essential sugar-carbohydrates.

In fact sugar links to so many modern diseases, I think due to its waste products vs fat as clean energy with great efficiency

Humans tend not to define everything by what is essential. Some people find sustainability in having a little of what may not be optimal but helps them make better choices overall.

markmoto wrote: »

Professional athletes more often switching over to fat energy to increase performance.
And many studies showing using ketones as prime fuel give people prolonged and better quality life.
You have to compare two source of energy yourself. As an experiment try no carbs for 6 month.

Sources?

Because a lot of athletes won't do better without carbs.

That's not an experiment I will be carrying out. My carbs come primarily from vegetables and ginger nut biscuits and I won't be giving up either anytime soon.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

A well-conducted study that didn't support the carbohydrate-insulin model you have been championing.

And you then said "Low carb not the only way agree, whatever suit you"

Your quote is essentially my point. Low carb is not the only way. Sustainability for the individual is important.

Sure depends on body type and ability to control food intake.
However for majority overweight people low carbs is better option to start with in my opinion.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Sources?

Because a lot of athletes won't do better without carbs.

Yes and no, human body capable creating enough glucose for variety of biochemical reactions.

To use ketones as primary energy (fat adapted) takes anywhere between 1-6 month and more you stay on ketones the more improvements you get.
Certain gray areas at the moment but looks we going into right direction, I will share some so you can see what I mean and why athletes start using to their own advantage.


- More oxygen available to cells (muscle, heart, etc)
Fat has the lowest RQ, Carbohydrates have the highest RQ (Ratio of CO2 production to oxygen consumption)


- Enhance resistance to fatigue
- Improve brain functionality, memory & focus
- More steady energy supply no high spikes up/down

- From personal experience. When I was on 0 carbs for 8 month, I have noticed, amount of energy insane, I could do far more push-ups, more weight. I spent twice as much time in the gym and the only thing forced me to leave either to go to work or elsewhere.

Some sources

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5407977/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EaOldxX7ws

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

However for majority overweight people low carbs is better option to start with in my opinion.

Your opinion and science are not necessarily the same.

Your sources of choice is a demonstration why you shouldn't cite papers you haven't read or don't understand.

markmoto wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410243

Some key points included:

• In a recent study, following a 12-week KD, corpuscular hemoglobin and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration decreased within endurance athletes (n = 9) /COLOR][URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410243/#B63-sports-07-00040"][COLOR=black]63[/COLOR][/URL][COLOR=black. Iron inefficiency and other pathological conditions may contribute to the above results, thus impairing endurance exercise capacity.
• Red blood cell status may need to be occasionally measured for athlete wellbeing. Vitamin E and iron supplementation or a high-altitude training plan that could promote erythropoietin production may help to resolve this problem (supplementation...OMG)
• As we discussed above, a KD may induce muscle loss and excess oxidative stress.
• Branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) are widely reported for their protective effects on muscle atrophy and muscle damage, and the combined use of BCAA or BCAA-like supplements and KD may be preferred to sustain muscle mass (BCAA supplements....what is the world coming to?)
• KD was reported to cause hepatic insulin resistance in several studies, which could be attributed to increased hepatic diacylglycerol content that may lead to impaired insulin signalling
• A KD has potential and limitations, and further studies are warranted to investigate the combination of KD and other supplementations, or how to apply KD as a periodic nutritional approach, in order to discover a strategy for KD application.

markmoto wrote: »

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5407977/

This one is about the benefit of exogenous supplementation of ketones so I'm not entirely sure why you included it as a support of ketogenic diet

• The practical relevance for athletes seeking performance gains of metabolic responses generated from prolonged fasting is negligible, whereas benefits of ketogenic dieting for performance with a high intensity component are equivocal (Burke, 2015). This has led to the exploration of exogenous ketone ingestion as a means to achieve acute nutritional ketosis
  
  

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Your opinion and science are not necessarily the same.

Your sources of choice is a demonstration why you shouldn't cite papers you haven't read or don't understand.




Some key points included:

• In a recent study, following a 12-week KD, corpuscular hemoglobin and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration decreased within endurance athletes (n = 9) /COLOR][URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410243/#B63-sports-07-00040"][COLOR=black]63[/COLOR][/URL][COLOR=black. Iron inefficiency and other pathological conditions may contribute to the above results, thus impairing endurance exercise capacity.
• Red blood cell status may need to be occasionally measured for athlete wellbeing. Vitamin E and iron supplementation or a high-altitude training plan that could promote erythropoietin production may help to resolve this problem (supplementation...OMG)
• As we discussed above, a KD may induce muscle loss and excess oxidative stress.
• Branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) are widely reported for their protective effects on muscle atrophy and muscle damage, and the combined use of BCAA or BCAA-like supplements and KD may be preferred to sustain muscle mass (BCAA supplements....what is the world coming to?)
• KD was reported to cause hepatic insulin resistance in several studies, which could be attributed to increased hepatic diacylglycerol content that may lead to impaired insulin signalling
• A KD has potential and limitations, and further studies are warranted to investigate the combination of KD and other supplementations, or how to apply KD as a periodic nutritional approach, in order to discover a strategy for KD application.

This one is about the benefit of exogenous supplementation of ketones so I'm not entirely sure why you included it as a support of ketogenic diet

• The practical relevance for athletes seeking performance gains of metabolic responses generated from prolonged fasting is negligible, whereas benefits of ketogenic dieting for performance with a high intensity component are equivocal (Burke, 2015). This has led to the exploration of exogenous ketone ingestion as a means to achieve acute nutritional ketosis
  
  

Apparently you have no opinion except ripping few words of the paper I kindly shared , you misrepresent in the post. As I said there is some gray areas at the moment but overall the keto/ketones products already used in athletes endurance.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Apparently you have no opinion except ripping few words of the paper I kindly shared , you misrepresent in the post. As I said there is some gray areas at the moment but overall the keto/ketones products already used in athletes endurance.

So...if you post studies to support a point and they don't support it, I should just ignore that and say thank you for linking some irrelevant papers?

The ketones are exogenous. That's irrelevant to a ketogenic diet, which the paper alludes to.


If you don't like someone questioning how a paper supports your point of view, don't post it. I didn't have a hissy fit when you questioned the language in the study I posted.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So...if you post studies to support a point and they don't support it, I should just ignore that and say thank you for linking some irrelevant papers?

The ketones are exogenous. That's irrelevant to a ketogenic diet, which the paper alludes to.


If you don't like someone questioning how a paper supports your point of view, don't post it. I didn't have a hissy fit when you questioned the language in the study I posted.

Your conclusion incorrect, you did not read enough of that materials.
I provide you links so you can get some more information, and if you be able to rip something off and misrepresent as longer its sound against, no problems.

To me it makes no difference, I thought it might help you to see better picture, but if you don't want to see who cares right ? : )

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Your conclusion incorrect, you did not read enough of that materials.
I provide you links so you can get some more information, and if you be able to rip something off and misrepresent as longer its sound against, no problems.

To me it makes no difference, I thought it might help you to see better picture, but if you don't want to see who cares right ? : )

You're the one misrepresenting what the paper says. I just picked out relevant elements of them that suggest otherwise but feel free to correct me with a scientific defence of the paper and those points I highlighted, that's fine. I just highlighted it wasn't all it seemed.

But you've ready agreed with me anyway: low carb is not the only way. That was the only point I had made.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're the one misrepresenting what the paper says. I just picked out relevant elements of them that suggest otherwise but feel free to correct me with a scientific defence of the paper and those points I highlighted, that's fine. I just highlighted it wasn't all it seemed.

But you've ready agreed with me anyway: low carb is not the only way. That was the only point I had made.

You just show me inability to read or admit regardless.
In other hand how do you know what is better or worst?
Do you like black or red, do you like vanilla or chocolate powder ?

Everything works on comparison, try a few things and then make up your mind. So if you never experienced ketogenic diet then you can't really say what works or whats better simply you have no clue.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

You just show me inability to read or admit regardless.
In other hand how do you know what is better or worst?
Do you like black or red, do you like vanilla or chocolate powder ?

Everything works on comparison, try a few things and then make up your mind. So if you never experienced ketogenic diet then you can't really say what works or whats better simply you have no clue.

You're the one who's been pointing out that a ethnic is the best diet because of carbohydrates and insulin. I gave evidence of a study that disagreed with that.

Then you linked to papers that apparently meant that a diet without carbs would be better for athletes and I pointed out some fairly obvious flaws in the studies, one being completely irrelevant.

I have zero issue with you thinking it's the best lifestyle choice for you or that it may be for others. But it also won't be the best lifestyle choice for other people. There aren't absolutes.

I'm long enough on the planet to have tried plenty of different approaches. You think I should give up vegetables to be lower carb? How would I replace the benefits such as the variety of micronutrients I get from veg? I have no weight issues. I have no health issues. I don't see the net benefit in giving up veg - a healthy option I enjoy - to go low carb because low carb.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm long enough on the planet to have tried plenty of different approaches. You think I should give up vegetables to be lower carb? How would I replace the benefits such as the variety of micronutrients I get from veg? I have no weight issues. I have no health issues. I don't see the net benefit in giving up veg - a healthy option I enjoy - to go low carb because low carb.

You didn't even bother to check what is ketogenic diet.
Vegetables is part of ketogenic diet. But since you are on low carbs probably already using ketones as energy source.

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

You didn't even bother to check what is ketogenic diet.
Vegetables is part of ketogenic diet. But since you are on low carbs probably already using ketones as energy source.

I said to be lower carb. Not on KD. Please read what I said before commenting on it.

But thanks for telling me about my diet. I'd never have known otherwise.

Just had 4 ginger nuts with a coffee though. About 30g of carbs. Oops.

markmoto

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Just had 4 ginger nuts with a coffee though. About 30g of carbs. Oops.

Get few more because I said no

Alf Veedersane

markmoto wrote: »

Get few more because I said no

No, 4 was plenty this morning. 30g of delicious, caffeine-soaked carbs.