For Goodness shakes

worth the extra cost

21 to 38 of 38 messages
17/09/2011 at 22:39

normally after a run of 16 miles or more I struggle to eat food in the first 30 minutes - whereas a recovery drink of some kind really helps - whether it's lucozade sport or milkshake.The more carbs you can get in in that 30 minute window - the better your muscles recover. QED.

17/09/2011 at 22:46

Tim

You are right to identify protein as the main component.  Protein repairs muscles, and most of the other components in these shakes are just extras.  Where these shakes are beneficial, is in that they allow very rapid protein uptake and absorption after training.  This is crucial to muscle recovery after training.  You cannot get that with conventional foods containing protein. 

Of course it helps if the run finishes in your kitchen, but there is nothing to stop you from having a shaker bottle containing rego powder, at the finish line of a race. 

17/09/2011 at 22:54

From what I've read the protein is what is needed in the first 30mins, the carbs can be up to 2 hours. You can't absorb more than 1g of protein an hour to use to repair muscle but you can use it for energy.

I don't really know I need to read more but I suspect there is a lot of "marketing" behind sports nutrition that people blindly believe.

17/09/2011 at 23:07

There is indeed a lot of marketing behind sports nutrition, but this is one of the products that stands up to scrutiny best.  Protein has to be absorbed within 20 minutes of finishing exercise, to obtain meaningful results.  Protein shakes are water based to allow the most rapid absorption possible. 

My colleagues and I don't buy this product because we are impressed by the marketing spiel.  We buy it because  as endurance athletes, it is a product where the benefits are immediately and overwhelmingly obvious.  

I am more than happy to criticise sports nutrition products that don't add up.  For example, the Lucozade high energy jelly beans are just ordinary jelly beans in a different packaging believe it or not!

17/09/2011 at 23:19

Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)


Both Rego and For Goodness Shakes are absolutely better than Frigi and Yazzo.  They work on the principle that they are a form of protein that can be absorbed by the body as quickly as possible, to repair damage to muscle fibres. 

Make of that what you will. 

You can not simply state something is absolutely better without being able to present information to support it. Both Frijj and Milk itself has more protein than ForGoodnessShakes as shown below, these are not made up numbers but those claimed by the makers of the products.

Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)
The manufacturer specifically advise against mixing them with milk because it is not taken up by the body quickly enough.

Your information is flawed as ForGoodnessShakes are actually 93% in volume skimmed milk according to the makers website which you state can not be taken up by the body quick enough, either your information is wrong or the product is still not vastly better than milk.
The fact that ForGoodnessShakes products are largely milk based itself supports the fact that the majority of the product is not special and that milk is a product which offers the nutrition and protein required. The other ingredients I suggest can be obtained from a healthy diet

What independent evidence can you present that these products are better?

Frijj
3.9g protein per 100ml
11.4g sugar per 100ml

http://www.frijjtheincredible.co.uk/products/details/chocolate

ForGoodnessShakes
Protein 3.3g per 100ml
Sugar 9.1g per 100ml

http://www.forgoodnessshakes.com/what-is-it.aspx

Semi Skimmed Milk
Protein 3.4g per 100ml
Sugar 5.1g per 100ml

Skimmed Milk Nutritional Info

The biggest virtues of this kind of product is convienience nothing more imho, they are expensive and marketed towards runners with little nutritional benifit if any over normal shakes as shown by the manufacturers data.

Edited: 17/09/2011 at 23:44
17/09/2011 at 23:28

research has also been done by William Lunn, PhD, an exercise scientist at the University of Connecticut which concluded :- "The combination of carbohydrates and protein in low-fat chocolate milk appears to be "just right" for refueling weary muscles.

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20100604/chocolate-milk-refuels-muscles-after-workout

i am yet to see any independent research which suggests that the products marketed towards runners for recovery have any additional value over products not marketed towards the sports markets... they offer convienience and nothing more.

The title of this thread asks if ForGoodnessShakes is worth the extra cost and given the data presented by the makers, research done on chocolate milk I think you have to conclude that it is not.
If anyone has research information or data which concludes otherwise which I would love to see as I am very interested in this subject.

Edited: 17/09/2011 at 23:54
18/09/2011 at 09:13

O.K Squeakz

Again, I have to say that the important factor is not the amount of protein but the speed at which the body can assimilate it.  I was referring to Rego and not FGS with regard to the water vs milk argument.  I can also assure you that I find nothing "convenient" about having to mix up a Rego shake with water when I get home.  It would be far easier to have a bottle of Friji in the fridge, or a protein bar. 

If this topic interests you as much as you say, then I could put your questions to the technical reps for these companies, and give them a chance to respond.   

18/09/2011 at 09:19

In milk, about 80% of the protein is casein, which is slowly absorbed, and 20% is whey, which is fast.

Under normal circumstances, this is pretty ideal, but immediately after a very challenging exercise like a hard run or a challenging weights session, a drink whose protein comes from a higher proportion of whey might be better.

18/09/2011 at 09:20
Squeakz note the study you linked to above, compared milk to a drink with NO protein at all. The milk was better.
18/09/2011 at 09:35
Agreed with regards to the report mike, however my reason for posting it is that it suggests that milk is suffiant for the purpose of refuling. I am unable to find any direct independent research which compares convenient refueling products to milk or any other product, why do you think this is?
Are you aware of any?
18/09/2011 at 09:59

The protein which SIS Rego contains is soya protein isolate the biggest advantage of which is essential amino acids which help make this a complete protein however I am not aware of any research which concludes that taking on protein faster by the body is a positive thing.
There is however research which suggest a combination of fast and slow protein is what is desired and yet again normal milk compares very well with the term "superior being usedwhen milk was compared to a soy based protein drink

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/milk-the-new-sports-drink-a-review-research-review.html

Edited: 18/09/2011 at 10:03
18/09/2011 at 11:02
Ah, I didn't know that. I've used Rego in the past, but I may avoid it in future, as I am not a fan of soya. (That's another story). Perhaps I'll just use whey powder plus a source of carbs.
18/09/2011 at 12:02
just had a for goodness shake (got it 1/2 price) after a 23 mile run and it was pretty good actually ....legs are still totally knackered though...
18/09/2011 at 13:32
There is suggestion that the protein from whey is somehow different to other protein and that whey protein is good for refuelling but not for building muscle.
19/09/2011 at 22:18

Squeakz

I understand it to be fairly well established that rapidly absorbed proteins inhibit protein breakdown and promote protein synthesis.  Rightly or wrongly, elite trainers in all athletic disciplines prescribe protein supplements on this assumption, and sports protein supplements are designed to promote this type of absorption.  The manufacturers of REGO are at pains to point out that it should always be taken within 20 minutes of finishing exercise and must only be made up with water. 

If the idea of rapidly absorbed protein being optimal is erroneous, then it is an error that is universal across all sports.

19/09/2011 at 23:11

It depends on what sport you are doing as to what the protien is being used for. If you're doing marathon running (Aerobic)  then you're replacing energy if you're doing 100m (Anaerobic) then you're building muscle.

Too much protien consumption is not good for you at all. According to Doc Martin and wikipedia....

20/09/2011 at 09:13
TimR wrote (see)
There is suggestion that the protein from whey is somehow different to other protein and that whey protein is good for refuelling but not for building muscle.

I would suggest that suggestion is wrong Ask any bodybuilder who's goal is to build muscle which protein they use (as a supplement) and 9 times out of 10 it will be whey. A casein protein such as cottage cheese is generally taken at night due to it's slow assimilation.
Too much protien consumption is not good for you at all. According to Doc Martin and wikipedia....

bizarre, the guy that sits behind me just quoted Doc Martin's opinion on protein


20/09/2011 at 09:18
Ben Davies 15 wrote (see)

If the idea of rapidly absorbed protein being optimal is erroneous, then it is an error that is universal across all sports.

I think it's more to do with getting as much in when it is possible to actually absorb a lot. After training your body is more effiecient at utilising protein to repair muscles. You can absorb more then you might normally, hence more regeneration = bigger stronger muscles. So it is helpful to have a rapidly absorbed type of protein in order to be able to consume what the window of opportunity post training allows


We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
21 to 38 of 38 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums