Nutrition page - milk content

[andrewotbc]

http://startingstrength.wikia.com/wi...nts_and_Cardio

I think there is an error on this page about the amount of fat and number of calories in whole milk and wondered if anyone could clear this up.

In the Skinnies section, it says that the nutritional content of 2 cups (500ml) of whole milk is "16g pro, 22g CHO, 5g fat = 195 kcal". However, a carton of whole milk from Tesco (UK) says 2 cups contains 16g protein, 2.35g carbs, 18g fat and 320 calories. The milk from Sainsbury's is the same and I assume this content is a national if not international standard. This discrepancy means that if you were doing GOMAD, you would be taking in 1136 calories and 118g fat more than you might have calculated.

Also, in this whole milk, the % of calories coming from fat is just over 50%. So if you were doing GOMAD (2900 calories) with a total daily consumption of 4500 calories and you wanted a macronutrient ratio of even 40% you would have to eat only 36g from the 1600 calories not supplied by the milk. A ratio of 32% fat would be impossible with a 4500 total and doing GOMAD. So it seems to me to be absurd to do GOMAD if the advised macronutrient ratios on the Wiki page are correct. It also seems to me that semi-skimmed milk has a ratio of nutrients much better aligned with the daily targets in the Wiki.

[Dastardly]

I am in the UK too.

I have noticed normal blue top "whole milk" varies in fat content from 3.1% all the way up to 4.2% depending on which dairy it is from.

Organic milk tends to make up the higher end of that scale.

And Jersey, non-homogenised milk contains about 5.8% fat.

I have found that better tasting/better quality milk tends to have higher fat.

Same goes for yoghurt, low fat is kinda sour/sharp, but higher fat types like greek yoghurt are delicious.

[andrewotbc]

Cool, thanks for the information about the content varying. Even 3.1% fat is surely more than most people would want though if you're consuming 4.5 litres of the stuff, I would have thought. Anyway, the Wiki says that whole milk is 1% fat which must be wrong whatever the dairy.

[misspelledgeoff]

I'm pretty sure wiki is like open source or some shit like that. If it's really torquing you up then you should get a wiki userID and make the corrections.

[PVC]

Cool, thanks for the information about the content varying. Even 3.1% fat is surely more than most people would want though if you're consuming 4.5 litres of the stuff, I would have thought. Anyway, the Wiki says that whole milk is 1% fat which must be wrong whatever the dairy.

An American gallon is 3.8 L, so if you're drinking 4.5 L you're going above and beyond.

Whole milk here in North America is 3.25%, so look for that stuff.

You want the fat. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients, carbs are not. Plus you need the calories.

[misspelledgeoff]

Why would anyone wanting to gain rapid and copious quantities of muscular body weight give two shits about how much fat they were consuming?

Cool, thanks for the information about the content varying. Even 3.1% fat is surely more than most people would want though if you're consuming 4.5 litres of the stuff, I would have thought. Anyway, the Wiki says that whole milk is 1% fat which must be wrong whatever the dairy.

[Dastardly]

Why would anyone wanting to gain rapid and copious quantities of muscular body weight give two shits about how much fat they were consuming?

So they can make sure they are getting as much as possible of course.

[andrewotbc]

Why would anyone wanting to gain rapid and copious quantities of muscular body weight give two shits about how much fat they were consuming?

This is basically my point about the Wiki being incorrect - why does it tell people to keep fats in the 20-30% range when they are trying to get stronger and can consume a lot more calories by upping the fats?

However, I am pretty sure that a lot of people doing SS will be doing it without wanting to get overly fat and the macronutrient ratio is important for limiting bodyfat gain.

I'll change the Wiki at some point to stress a bit more that the macronutrient content is of secondary importance to strength gain depending on your exact aims, as long as it is not wild. I'll also correct the figure for whole milk fat and calories.

[Dastardly]

This is basically my point about the Wiki being incorrect - why does it tell people to keep fats in the 20-30% range when they are trying to get stronger and can consume a lot more calories by upping the fats?

However, I am pretty sure that a lot of people doing SS will be doing it without wanting to get overly fat and the macronutrient ratio is important for limiting bodyfat gain.

I'll change the Wiki at some point to stress a bit more that the macronutrient content is of secondary importance to strength gain depending on your exact aims, as long as it is not wild. I'll also correct the figure for whole milk fat and calories.

You have demonstrated exactly why you should not depend on wikipedia as scientific fact.

Also, macronutrition is kind of irrelevant to anyone eating properly for strength training.

Concerning yourself with such thoughts clearly demonstrates you have the completely wrong attitude for diet, and will no doubt be under-eating.

Fat is not something which should be counted, unless you are concerned you are not getting enough.

[andrewotbc]

You have demonstrated exactly why you should not depend on wikipedia as scientific fact.

Also, macronutrition is kind of irrelevant to anyone eating properly for strength training.

Concerning yourself with such thoughts clearly demonstrates you have the completely wrong attitude for diet, and will no doubt be under-eating.

Fat is not something which should be counted, unless you are concerned you are not getting enough.

I really don't know if this is true. Almost all other sources of information on muscle gain, albeit most are not focussed quite so much on raw strength gain, say that eating more than 500 calories a day more than you expend is pointless because the additional calories are much more likely to be converted to fat. But SS has a completely different view, seemingly that there shouldn't be an upper limit to calories. This is a very important question and I'm not prepared to take at face value what SS say about this, because I really do feel that I will put on a lot of fat if I have more than 1000 calories a day more than I use and if I eat way more fat than most recommend, and that the additional strength gains from the calories over the 1000 extra won't be significant. FYI I am currently on 3600 calories a day compared to 2750 expenditure. I am prepared to be swayed on this, this is just the current middle ground I hold between 2 very different views.