Muscle Milk - Are the claims true?

It was meant as a pun. But I have never trusted labels. www.affordablesupplements.com/muscle_milk.asp sounds like it has something that will make it illegal.

I agree that unprocessed wholesome food is the best, but the reality is that there are times when it isn't available. I thought about trying the muscle milk for after long workouts, but I didn't like the fact that it contained artificial sweeteners. I ended up finding a place online that does custom protein powder blends. So now I use a mix of whey and egg white protein and no fake sugar. I can keep the powder in a shaker in my gym bag and mix it with shelf-stable chocolate milk when I need it. In reality I could probably just go with the chocolate milk according to some articles. o you have the web addy. The drink I loved best when I lifted was a glucose egg and milk powder. I could guzzle a slimfast but that get's pricey..

There is some serious unwarranted paranoia here about creatine. There are two basic facts about creatine supplementation: 1. It enhances short duration exercise performance 2. It has never been shown to have a negative health effect. "Never been shown to have a negative effect" is not the same thing as not having one. The exact same thing was once said of both cigarettes and asbestos, and many things since then. I am not saying creatine is as bad as those, just that "absence of proof is not proof of absence." It can be notoriously difficult to "prove" chronic effects, especially if they are subtle. There really are no shortcuts. Best things you can do to enhance performance? It isn't very sexy: eat well, drink fluids, and don't skimp on your sleep (something I unfortunately do regularly). There are certainly grey areas. Anything I take has to be for my health, not for training benefits. The question I would ask myself is, "would I take this if I weren't competing?" If the answer is no, then I won't touch the stuff. Why risk it? What exactly is the payoff supposed to be? I can't understand it...isn't this supposed to be for fun and health?

"Never been shown to have a negative effect" is not the same thing as not having one. The exact same thing was once said of both cigarettes and asbestos, and many things since then. I am not saying creatine is as bad as those, just that "absence of proof is not proof of absence." It can be notoriously difficult to "prove" chronic effects, especially if they are subtle. There really are no shortcuts. Best things you can do to enhance performance? It isn't very sexy: eat well, drink fluids, and don't skimp on your sleep (something I unfortunately do regularly). There are certainly grey areas. Anything I take has to be for my health, not for training benefits. The question I would ask myself is, "would I take this if I weren't competing?" If the answer is no, then I won't touch the stuff. Why risk it? What exactly is the payoff supposed to be? I can't understand it...isn't this supposed to be for fun and health? My sentiments exactly! Stud: Many people cannot afford massages, stretchers, gym memberships, chiros, etc. Also many people have jobs and kids and can't train as much as those without. There will never be a truly level playing field. Plus, technical suits have been around forever. They're part of the sport.

Chris, This distills a lot into a simple rule of thumb. Great

I've taken creatine for years and have worked for or with at least two-hundred other athletes who have taken it for long durations as well. Not a single side effect reported. The group was split about 90/10 for creatine monohydrate to creatine ethyl ester, so there was quite the variation between formulas and brands also, but all still well to do.

It does seem to me that if you have problems, as I said earlier, Creatine is going to screw you up. If you don't have problems maybe it won't. There are two other things I wonder about. Like taking a lot of vitamins, anything your body doesn't use is out wiht the urine or elswhere. How do you know what is the corrrect dosage of Creatine? I do know that a GI I used t go to siad he never ran behind someone who took Creatine.

My sentiments exactly! Stud: Many people cannot afford massages, stretchers, gym memberships, chiros, etc. Also many people have jobs and kids and can't train as much as those without. There will never be a truly level playing field. Plus, technical suits have been around forever. They're part of the sport. I think it's moot, the top swimmers mostly have them. Nobody is losing races because they can't afford one. It's unlikely I'll ever need or want one. I'll just take my top time and think it could be a bit lower. ;)

I've taken creatine for years and have worked for or with at least two-hundred other athletes who have taken it for long durations as well. Not a single side effect reported. The group was split about 90/10 for creatine monohydrate to creatine ethyl ester, so there was quite the variation between formulas and brands also, but all still well to do. Hmmm .... Well, the Pres of USMS is on record as saying he views creatine as cheating. I'm coming to the conclusion that there are probably quite a number of masters using creatine. I guess I will be permanently stuck being one of the smaller competitors in the sprint lanes.

If it's proven to be safe and non habitforming then it should be legitimised as a supplement. The issue with steroids is because kids think it's ok and do it..the detrimental risks are too high... Well, creatine isn't banned, if you count that as legit. In 2000, my wife said there was only herself and maybe two other athletes on the entire team that were not using creatine. I'm surprised that anyone in board positions of USAS or USMS would consider it cheating. As far as the negative effects, there are thousands of studies that have shown creatine to be safe and effective in individuals with healthy kidneys. There is additional research that shows in people who are predisposed with kidney ailments, that it can increase the severity of those problems.