balanced diet like my self.

You've heard wrong, for two reasons. One, the amount of protein in milk is 3.5g roughly per 100ml.... so unless you're drinking a litre of chocolate milk you're not getting as much protein as from a decent sized scoop of whey. Secondly the protein is 70% casein and only 30% whey so it digests too slowly for right after a workout.

The sugar in the milk is great though, but you can have whey in water with some sort of sugar (jelly beans, jam sandwiches with white bread, dextrose, whatever) and get better results.

You've heard wrong, for two reasons. One, the amount of protein in milk is 3.5g roughly per 100ml.... so unless you're drinking a litre of chocolate milk you're not getting as much protein as from a decent sized scoop of whey. Secondly the protein is 70% casein and only 30% whey so it digests too slowly for right after a workout.

The sugar in the milk is great though, but you can have whey in water with some sort of sugar (jelly beans, jam sandwiches with white bread, dextrose, whatever) and get better results.

I'll let the experts handle this one.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/an-objective-comparison-of-chocolate-milk-and-surge-recovery.html

I'll run your info past Alan & Lyle and post their reponse.

I think that the “P+C & P+F = okay but avoid C+F” principle is idiotic when applied across the board without any contingencies or attention to individual situations. For example, if someone is low-carbing for whatever reason you choose (pathological carbophobia included), they might be done with their carb intake by early afternoon, and their meal construction for the rest of the day is gonna be primarily P+F by sheer default. In the latter scenario, I can see the principle being legit. However, when issued blanketly, it’s usually based upon the wacky idea that you don’t want fat floating around systemically when your insulin levels are high, because this will magically shift your net adipose balance in the positive. That’s false for a number of reasons. First of all, the insulin response generated by CHO + fat generally depends upon the degree of the fat’s saturation. Unsaturated fats tend to either lower insulin response of the coingested carbs, or not affect insulin response at all. Coingested sat fat, on the other hand, tends to raise insulin response, and can do so in a synergistic fashion. But then the question becomes, so what? Others have mentioned the more direct role ASP has in TG synthesis, and indeed, insulin is more of a multi-tasking anabolic/anticatabolic agent in comparison to ASP, which seems to exist solely to pump up the adipocytes. And of course the kicker is that ASP can do its TG-synthesizing magic in the sheer absence of insulin.

And then there’s energy balance… In a negative energy balance, insulinogenesis is wonderful thing, as long as the training stimulus & nutrition is there to work in concert with it to preserve LBM. In the condition of a positive energy balance, trainees in general are gonna have a lot more carbs to throw around, so this makes the whole separation thing even more dicey. Which meals should be carb-free or fat-free in order to pull of this magic separation tactic, and why? The logical answers to this question simply don’t exist. If you were to actually adhere to the mechanics of separation, you’d actually be hard-pressed to maintain a stable insulin profile – which is ironic, since the control of insulin is what “separatists” are aiming for. Regardless of all the previous points, the fundamental shortsight is that digestion/absorption of meals overlap each other when meal frequency is as high as it should be. Therefore, attempting strict separation of the macros = kidding yourself. Not to mention, most foods in nature are a combo of all the macros to begin with.

This article doesn't quite highlight the fact that the sugar in chocolate milk is often high-fructose-corn-syrup, which preferentially is processed in the liver to lipids (fats) rather than to glucose.

So with chocolate milk not only is there more fat per serving, calorie-matched, protein-matched, or otherwise, but the carbs preferentially process into blood-lipids (not good) and the weaker insulin response created by the HFCS sugar will shuttle those blood lipids towards body-fat accumulation.

“Sucrose, HFCS, invert sugar, honey an many fruits and juices deliver the same sugars in the same ratios to the same tissues within the same time frame to the same metabolic pathways. Thus…it makes essentially no metabolic difference which one is used.”

I’m just not sure what is unclear about this. What is clear is that studies using massive doses of fructose by itself are completely irrelevant to discussion of sucrose although that’s what most of the anti-fructose hysteria is being based on.

For example, large amounts of fructose cause stomach upset when consumed by itself. This does not occur when it is consumed with glucose. Glucose + fructose is simply different than fructose by itself.

As well, the actual fructose content of chocolate milk isn’t that high in the first place. It’s only a moderate proportion of the total carbohydrate intake. That’s along with all of Alan’s comments that you seem intent on ignoring.

Lyle

Much has been made of the metabolic differences between
fructose and glucose in the human body: fructose is rapidly taken
up by the liver and bypasses a key regulatory step in glycolysis.
There are, however, several points of intersection where the
metabolism of fructose and glucose interchange. This metabolic
flexibility works to man’s evolutionary advantage by allowing a
variety of food and energy sources to be processed efficiently. It
is only when any single nutrient is consumed to excess and
overwhelms the body’s metabolic capacity that untoward con-
sequences occur.

Fructose malabsorption appears only to be a problem when too
little accompanying glucose is present. This was quickly recog-
nized in early sports drinks formulated solely with fructose to
enhance performance by exploiting fructose’s low glycemic in-
dex. Riby et al (28) subsequently showed that the addition of even
small amounts of free or polymeric glucose can ameliorate fruc-
tose malabsorption and accompanying gastric distress.