Apparently even post workout there is no need to ingest protein/carb drinks unless you are going to do multiple workouts in a day. So for a pro triathlete it makes sense. For us, probably not so much.
I wish they would have brought up digestion issues. I'd like to see if the conventional wisdom that protein is difficult to digest in hyper states of exertion holds true.
I wish they would have brought up digestion issues. I'd like to see if the conventional wisdom that protein is difficult to digest in hyper states of exertion holds true.
Well my n=1 is that it sucks digesting under hard exertion. 2 years ago I went to LP with a bunch of guys training for IM and my longest race was an Oly. I was dying trying to keep up and the Accelerade didn't sit well at all in stomach. Once I dumped it I felt much better. Never again.
Funny, I expected the article to be discussing the value of protein drinks for POST workout, but this article avoids that topic entirely and deals with protein drinks used while working out. I never think to do this. The article did mention this small subgroup of riders who gained benefit. Study had 15 riders ride for 3 hours/varying intensities and told them to push all out at the end:
"Those who pedaled during the final few, exhausting minutes of the experiment at a pace just below their ventilatory threshold (the point at which the muscles simply cannot get enough oxygen) and who swallowed the low-calorie protein drink rode a precious few moments longer than riders at the same intensity who drank only carbohydrates. The riders, however, who strained through the final ride to exhaustion above their ventilatory threshold got no clear benefit from protein."
like the double rainbow guy, I ask, WHAT DOES IT MEAN?? (aside from concluding not to drink protein at the start of a race, but i never did that anyway)
After reading "Racing Weight" I was all set to get some Accelerade Hydro for use even during short OS workouts. Fitzgerald made a seemingly good case for it. All very confusing. Do you guys us much protein in your Infinite for a long Ironman days?
I used to use Accelerade a few years ago. It took quite a long time for my system to get used to it.
When I switched to Infinit, I just about halved the protein volume, and have been very happy with it. Can go for hours and hours with nothing but Infinit!
Funny, I use the Infinit with protein strictly so it makes me feel full during the bike, I never really considered it to be enhancing my performance aside from that.
I knew a guy that was coached to use accelgels while marathon training since his coach believed that it was integral to long distance running but he could only point to questionable articles as to why protein while running would help (it did not work, he was trying to qualify for Boston and slowed too much by mile 21).
I'm with Jennifer on this one, when I added 2g per servering of protein to my infinit it prevented me from getting hungry during the race. I have no idea if it helps with anything else.
This article seems to focus on 1 hour and 3 hour tests and in those cases I can't see the hunger being an issue, for an ironman it is a different story.
There is a pretty compelling line of thought in Racing Weight about reduced damage to muscles when ingesting a protein-carb mix during workouts, basically saying that runners recovered faster. I'll double check when I get home what the details were. Still like me some protein!
I too have experimented with protein in my infinit, and have found that 2g per serving kept me "full". 4g was too much and lead to burping. Note this is for IM intensity; am fairly certain that even 2g/serv was tight for my HIM efforts...and not for any thing shorter than 2 hours. Also note I was less hungry post ride with protein infinit, FWIW.
Pages 138 - 142 in Racing Weight, Matt Fitzgerald has a number of references supporting how a small amount of protein during exercise helps performance, and he strongly recommends it. The NY Times article is 180 opposite. Maybe Fitzgerald is on Acclerade's payroll. I find the two completely different conclusions amazing (and confusing!). I may just stay with cheap gatorade powder for the OS bike workouts and runs, And infinite for the long stuff. I seem to be one of the few people who don't mind the taste of gatorade.
I read it and thought it had some good practical ideas for a lot of people, but it also seemed to have a lot of food timing stuff that struck me as nonsense. Over the course of a month, calories in minus calories out is physics. There might be some small variations due to metabolism inefficiencies but nothing too dramatic. Over the course of a day is a different story...I am perfectly willing to believe there are measurable effects of nutrient timing on hunger, hormone levels, and fat deposits. But for the same number of calories over the long term and the same number of calories expended, well... let's just call me a rooted in my other (physics/chemistry/math) world.
I was a little surprised the Times article didn't address the more commonly held belief (which seems more credible to me, although I have no evidence) that protein aids with recovery. (That said, if you told me that it's not really all that much protein that you need, so as long as you eat a decent enough diet, you get enough, I'd be willing to believe that too...)
I didn't know anyone really thought that protein improved your performance ON THE DAY, so I was not surprised to see that straw man (?) being criticized in the article.
William, your opinion is common among the 'hard' science set. However, there are lots of studies that show, over macro time periods, that we are not just physiologic 'black boxes', and that the composition matters as well as the calories. The mechanism may be less well understood, but there seems to be something there.
'maybe Fitzgerald is on Accelerade's payroll' is an unfortunate reaction to discordant information. The Times piece and Racing weight are journalists' pieces trying to summarize the literature in support of a point of view. Don't confuse journalism with a comprehensive review of the literature. There's conflicting evidence in almost every field of study, because these effects are hard to study.
I tried to write a cogent, not-too-long reply three or four times, and each time I got tied up in too much detail. So here's my short version. :-)
Hard scientists are among the good guys, not the fuddy-duddies; we're the guys who open the black box to see what's inside and what makes it tick, not the ones who construct them.
Philosophically, we think everything has an explanation, even if we don't know it yet. That makes us skeptical of assertions that do not seem at first to have a reasonable basis. (You see this one reflected in that Times article!) Hopefully, we are willing to agree we were wrong when evidence comes forth.
"All else being equal" (i.e., proper controls) are darn near impossible with human nutrition, physiology, and exercise, so you're right that it's a hard field
William, I hope I didn't offend. I have a degree in Physics and a masters in Mechanical Engineering. I consider myself into the hard sciences. My dad is a PhD in Chemistry, and he and I argue about this all the time, oddly enough with him on your side, and me presenting the possibility of an alternative.
Firstly, yes, there are no conditions where you can eat more than you expend and lose weight. Doesn't happen.
Secondly, we need to recognize our own limitations in measuring the calories out side of the equation. We have absolutely no way to measure with any precision BMR on a day-to-day basis to see changes. There are compelling biochemical reasons to expect that feeding your body different types of diets have a signalling effect on the elements of the nervous system that regulate the constituent elements of BMR. There are also lots of research that shows how people's energy level responds to caloric intake (ie. the more you eat, to a certain point, the more nervous energy you have which 'burns it off'). So, it is not wholly incompatible with the "body as a thermodynamic black box" approach to say that diets of different compositions (same energy) can elicit different weight loss phenomena.
Thirdly, if you accept the possibility of point #2, then the discussion of diet becomes immensely interesting. If you reject the possibility of #2, then everybody should just follow the twinkie diet in your link. I'm not saying that wouldn't work, but I do wonder if there aren't better solutions.
Lastly, for every single twinkie story you can send me in CNN (and keep in mind, that only made the news because it was weird), I can send you a link like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15616799
I'm not saying that I have the right answer here (obviously, based on the 6 pounds I put on after Placid and haven't yet lost!). I'm just suggesting that the blanket statement you made that "a lot of food timing stuff that struck me as nonsense. Over the course of a month, calories in minus calories out is physics. There might be some small variations due to metabolism inefficiencies but nothing too dramatic" implicitly discounts a lot of stuff that certainly has some support in the literature. Whether or not that literature is correct remains an open question for the reasons you and I agree on. But it's not an absurd thought that dietary composition / nutrient timing / some other factor actually do have a non-negligible impact.
BTW, I'm really enjoying this back and forth. Hope I don't come off harsh (not too good with my tone of voice when typing :-)
Interesting discussion guys, and certainly no offense taken on my part. The "Accelerade payroll" comment was perhaps unjustified. I too have an MS degree and currently do fisheries research for NYS, so know how science is done and should be interpreted. I am just blown away by how two journalists, both presumably summarizing the current state of knowledge and citing specific studies, can have such different conclusions! I've decided I need to try and dig into some of the references and primary literature for myself. I'm not up on the technical nutritional and exercise physiology jargon so it might be tough, but if I find anything interesting I'll post it.
Hey Mike - no problem. Your answers and replies are always very thoughtful. Your dad and I might be on the same side because we're both chemists. (I teach organic chemistry at Iowa State.)
I was trying to say earlier (and in my deleted longer post) many of the same things you point out in your second paragraph. I have wondered about how much of that sort of thing ends up being tied into the "set point" that a lot of knowledgable folks will talk about through some feedback loop, but now we're totally out of my league. Time is a critical factor in this too, since we care about our weight over long periods as well as short ones.
I totally agree that the twinkie guy made the news because of the gimmick; his whole point was to use a gimmick to bring to the attention of people that the simplest answer is calories in and calories out. For people who want to lose a large amount of weight, (as opposed to people who are near a set point they want to move just a little off of or athletes trying to finely manage things) all this other stuff about timing and combination is small potatoes (pun intended). If you are trying to lose 2 lbs a week, that's something like 1000 calories/day deficit, and no amount of fidgeting or slightly elevated/depressed metabolism is going to get you there. You need to count calories.
Conversely, I won't nitpick over the fact that the population in the article you cited has a specific hormonal issue to begin with, nor that low-glycogen people also shed lots of water weight...[and I have a close family member who is insulin resistant and heavy, so I know this group] - I know you're just trying to make a point. Same as I was doing. :-) And those folks have an issue even though they appear to eat a relatively normal quantity...but it doesn't have to be much when integrated over time. My family member in this situation has the double-whammy that this condition and another one make exercise hard...so it's really tough for them!
But that said, I stand by my original statement that a lot of the food timing stuff in Fitzgerald's book struck me as nonsense, which may be an oversimplified word for over-extrapolated and overstated. Doesn't mean I'll be right in the long run; nor does it mean that all of the food timing/combination stuff he said struck me as silly.
One thing is clear - nutrition and weight management is a VERY difficult problem that hasn't really been solved yet. You and I are both old enough (I think you're in late 30s, right?) to have seen a couple of cycles of The Answer already (e.g., the high fat, high protein diet was big in the 70s as well). There usually is an element of truth in the various diet fads, but those facts get overinterpreted and over extrapolated, and people want to hear that this is what REALLY works because weight management is such a struggle for most of us.
I grew up as one of the heavy kids. Not obese, but definitely chunky. Within the last 10 years I've weighed nearly 190 lbs, and now I'm near 150 for my set point, and raced last year in the low 140s...so I've been on both sides of the trim/fat thing. :-) And, ultimately, for myself, I've concluded that there are the big things and the small things...and the big things are a lot more important. The big things are eating generally healthful stuff, keeping the quantity down, keeping the frequency reasonable, and keeping the activity up. At this point, of course, I'm not arguing like a scientist, but there's only one of me, and that makes me an anecdote. :-)
Just found this topic while looking around the forum. I actually like some of what Matt Fitzgerald writes about nutrition and the mind body connection in running and training.
@Jim ; To answer some of your thoughts about his connection to Accerlerade; I believe there is a financial connection.
If you look on RacingWeight.com there is a direct link to Pacific Health Labs which is the maker of Accelerade, Forza and other products he writes about in Racing Weight and some of his articles. I think there has been a connection for some time. Now that does not mean that he is wrong..., but it is always nice to know the background.
![[Deleted User]](https://us.v-cdn.net/6029573/uploads/defaultavatar/nNPD77K9K824F.jpg)
Comments
Well my n=1 is that it sucks digesting under hard exertion. 2 years ago I went to LP with a bunch of guys training for IM and my longest race was an Oly. I was dying trying to keep up and the Accelerade didn't sit well at all in stomach. Once I dumped it I felt much better. Never again.
Funny, I expected the article to be discussing the value of protein drinks for POST workout, but this article avoids that topic entirely and deals with protein drinks used while working out. I never think to do this. The article did mention this small subgroup of riders who gained benefit. Study had 15 riders ride for 3 hours/varying intensities and told them to push all out at the end:
"Those who pedaled during the final few, exhausting minutes of the experiment at a pace just below their ventilatory threshold (the point at which the muscles simply cannot get enough oxygen) and who swallowed the low-calorie protein drink rode a precious few moments longer than riders at the same intensity who drank only carbohydrates. The riders, however, who strained through the final ride to exhaustion above their ventilatory threshold got no clear benefit from protein."
like the double rainbow guy, I ask, WHAT DOES IT MEAN?? (aside from concluding not to drink protein at the start of a race, but i never did that anyway)
After reading "Racing Weight" I was all set to get some Accelerade Hydro for use even during short OS workouts. Fitzgerald made a seemingly good case for it. All very confusing. Do you guys us much protein in your Infinite for a long Ironman days?
When I switched to Infinit, I just about halved the protein volume, and have been very happy with it. Can go for hours and hours with nothing but Infinit!
I knew a guy that was coached to use accelgels while marathon training since his coach believed that it was integral to long distance running but he could only point to questionable articles as to why protein while running would help (it did not work, he was trying to qualify for Boston and slowed too much by mile 21).
This article seems to focus on 1 hour and 3 hour tests and in those cases I can't see the hunger being an issue, for an ironman it is a different story.
I read it and thought it had some good practical ideas for a lot of people, but it also seemed to have a lot of food timing stuff that struck me as nonsense. Over the course of a month, calories in minus calories out is physics. There might be some small variations due to metabolism inefficiencies but nothing too dramatic. Over the course of a day is a different story...I am perfectly willing to believe there are measurable effects of nutrient timing on hunger, hormone levels, and fat deposits. But for the same number of calories over the long term and the same number of calories expended, well... let's just call me a rooted in my other (physics/chemistry/math) world.
I was a little surprised the Times article didn't address the more commonly held belief (which seems more credible to me, although I have no evidence) that protein aids with recovery. (That said, if you told me that it's not really all that much protein that you need, so as long as you eat a decent enough diet, you get enough, I'd be willing to believe that too...)
I didn't know anyone really thought that protein improved your performance ON THE DAY, so I was not surprised to see that straw man (?) being criticized in the article.
'maybe Fitzgerald is on Accelerade's payroll' is an unfortunate reaction to discordant information. The Times piece and Racing weight are journalists' pieces trying to summarize the literature in support of a point of view. Don't confuse journalism with a comprehensive review of the literature. There's conflicting evidence in almost every field of study, because these effects are hard to study.
@ Mike
Cheers,
Wm
And, as a fine PS, how about this. :-)
Firstly, yes, there are no conditions where you can eat more than you expend and lose weight. Doesn't happen.
Secondly, we need to recognize our own limitations in measuring the calories out side of the equation. We have absolutely no way to measure with any precision BMR on a day-to-day basis to see changes. There are compelling biochemical reasons to expect that feeding your body different types of diets have a signalling effect on the elements of the nervous system that regulate the constituent elements of BMR. There are also lots of research that shows how people's energy level responds to caloric intake (ie. the more you eat, to a certain point, the more nervous energy you have which 'burns it off'). So, it is not wholly incompatible with the "body as a thermodynamic black box" approach to say that diets of different compositions (same energy) can elicit different weight loss phenomena.
Thirdly, if you accept the possibility of point #2, then the discussion of diet becomes immensely interesting. If you reject the possibility of #2, then everybody should just follow the twinkie diet in your link. I'm not saying that wouldn't work, but I do wonder if there aren't better solutions.
Lastly, for every single twinkie story you can send me in CNN (and keep in mind, that only made the news because it was weird), I can send you a link like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15616799
I'm not saying that I have the right answer here (obviously, based on the 6 pounds I put on after Placid and haven't yet lost!). I'm just suggesting that the blanket statement you made that "a lot of food timing stuff that struck me as nonsense. Over the course of a month, calories in minus calories out is physics. There might be some small variations due to metabolism inefficiencies but nothing too dramatic" implicitly discounts a lot of stuff that certainly has some support in the literature. Whether or not that literature is correct remains an open question for the reasons you and I agree on. But it's not an absurd thought that dietary composition / nutrient timing / some other factor actually do have a non-negligible impact.
BTW, I'm really enjoying this back and forth. Hope I don't come off harsh (not too good with my tone of voice when typing :-)
Hey Mike - no problem. Your answers and replies are always very thoughtful. Your dad and I might be on the same side because we're both chemists. (I teach organic chemistry at Iowa State.)
Just found this topic while looking around the forum. I actually like some of what Matt Fitzgerald writes about nutrition and the mind body connection in running and training.
@Jim ; To answer some of your thoughts about his connection to Accerlerade; I believe there is a financial connection.
If you look on RacingWeight.com there is a direct link to Pacific Health Labs which is the maker of Accelerade, Forza and other products he writes about in Racing Weight and some of his articles. I think there has been a connection for some time. Now that does not mean that he is wrong..., but it is always nice to know the background.
http://www.racingweight.com/index.php