Notes: * Abstract doesn't mention fast food, just chocolate milk * Study was small in scope (9 participants) and single blinded. * Those aren't really "suppl

Notes: * Abstract doesn't mention fast food, just chocolate milk * Study was small in scope (9 participants) and single blinded. * Those aren't really "supplements" For that reason, I'd downvote this if I had the reps. Anyway, much of the fitness world has been shifting back towards the "quantity" side of things in the whole "Quantity vs. Quality" argument. The gist has been that the occasional fast food meal is not going to ruin your hopes and dreams, but it goes a long way to make sure it fits into your caloric and macronutrient plan. There are extreme ends on both sides of the argument: Your local organic hippie vegetarian may think they're healthier, and by some parameters maybe they will be, but you can still extremely get fat eating nothing but "quality" foods, and you can still have zero muscle mass if you don't eat enough quality sources of protein (which leads to the unattractive skinny fat body type). On the other end, you have people who can lose weight with nothing more than Subway or McDonalds, due to caloric restriction. You can get very extreme with the IIFYM (If it Fits your Macros) and eat zero fruits/veggies and still build a beautiful body (that's likely dying on the inside). The best policy is likely somewhere in the middle, but for the time being, I'll stay a touch closer to the the quantitative science, which pushes you towards a proper calorie count, adequate protein, and plenty of fruits/vegetables (about 5 80g servings per day, doesn't really matter which ones). Anyway, back to the study... I get tired of studies on "recovery". What are we really training for here??? For the most of us, we just want to stay athletic/sexy looking. So long as you meet your quantitative daily goals mentioned above, I'm not too worried about reloading my glycogen stores immediately. If you eat consistently well, your body will take care of the job.