I think the article is correct in that marketing for sports drinks result in people using them when not necessary (it is a business, afterall) - but the article is also not talking about the needs of the body during a multi-hour endurance endeavor. For that, I'd suggest the person writing the article visit the medical tent of any half or full iron event and see for themselves how important hydration is.
interesting comment, but a lot of this comes from Tim Noakes' research. Lots of data from Comrades Marathon and IM Kona among other large scale studies that he refers to would conclude dehydration is not an issue. Much more likely to die of over hydration. Biggest issue in medical tents is often misdiagnosed. Massive drop in blood pressure when athletes stop moving causes light headedness, queasiness etc. Most medical tents pump athletes full of fluids. Should be dropping athletes to the ground, raising feet above head level and waiting two minutes. Allow rehydration over a couple hour process if necessary.
Direct correlation between dehydration levels and speed. The faster you are, the more dehydrated you are in the race, whether it be marathons or IMs. Drink only when thirsty is the conclusion.
Yeah, I can see why. I think it's kind of an oversimplification to say that sports drinks "cause" childhood obesity though. Perhaps it contributes, but there are definitely many other factors and choices available that also play a role.
It's always struck me kind of funny how sports drinks are so mass marketed. In practice, shouldn't the market be fairly niche if Gatorade was meant for usage by "real" athletes? After all, you don't see advertising to the same degree for stuff like gels, salt pills, protein powder, etc.
In THEORY, it should be niche. However, when (Pepsi?) bought Gatorade, a brilliant marketer probably realized that telling the Weekend Warrior that "this is how the pros do it" would probably sell a LOT more product, especially to children (for reasons that should be obvious). Add to that that these drinks are also marketed (and generally seen by the public) as "healthy and you've got a nice, "healthy" alternative to soda, right? When the soda-in-schools backlash occurred, the soft drink companies had no problem pulling them out of schools, because they had sports drinks and fruit juice (both of which have just as much, if not more sugar than soda) to replace them. In the 80's and 90's soda was everywhere in schools, and we were all drinking it instead of water; consequently, obesity sky-rocketed. In the 2000's and now into the second decade of the 21st century kids are drinking "healthy" sports drinks and juices instead of soda, and getting even fatter.
Sorry for veering a little off course, but the fact is that the "real athletes" sell product. Gatorade, Power-Aid and other sports drinks are more popular than ever BECAUSE they are "used by the 'real' athletes."
The claim that sports drinks contributes to childhood obesity seems unfounded. Yes, kids may not get the full calorie burning benefit of exercise if they drink Gatorade instead of water, but obesity comes from being sedintary and eating unhealthy foods. At least replacing Coke with Gatorade, even if the calories and sugar are the same comes from actively choosing to a healthy (even if misinformed) decision. I would rather see a much larger number of kids trying to emulate their sports heroes, being active and drinking Gatorade than playing video games and eating fast food.
I would rather see a much larger number of kids trying to emulate their sports heroes, being active and drinking Gatorade than playing video games and eating fast food.
The problem with your argument is that it assumes that drinking Gatorade and being active always go together. Many, many kids who drink Gatorade are (even if they have sports idols) quite sedentary, and becoming increasingly so. I agree that the calories consumed from all that sugar are probably less impactful in a child that is extremely active. But, fruit juices and gatorade are no healthier than sodas. They are empty calories. Aside from endurance athletes, whose training and racing expend significant amounts of calories and requires some degree of refueling (albeit, probably a lot less than we think), no one should be drinking sports drink during exercise (much less when sitting around doing nothing), because it isn't really necessary.
Gatorade is on its face marketed to athletes, but the truth is that it's mostly consumed by people doing nothing more strenuous than pushing a self-propelled lawnmower, and more often less than that. To that extent, there's no sense in drinking anything with calories. It's a huge new market for the HFCS people.
The other issue is the Noakes/hydration issue in real endurance sport. Tom is quoting the studies correctly. If I remember correctly, they are based on marathons, but I won't swear to that...but the bottom line is that there is a strong correlation between being most dehydrated and winning. Now here's where there is a question I've never really understood. I think the logic Noakes uses is "dehydration = lighter; lighter = faster; faster = win" and "if no need, then don't bother"....plus add in the hyponatremia argument (you can drink so much water as to dilute your sodium content and put yourself in a world of hurt. What I am less sure of is this: what if the guys that win who are relatively dehydrated are the guys who can best tolerate dehydration...and that ultimately is the fastest strategy. BUT what if most people aren't genetically predisposed to be the winner and can't tolerate that much dehydration and will over-dehydrate themselves if they aren't a bit more systematic about hydration? Basically, I'm asking if there is just an association, or if the implied causality is real...and I'm asking whether if the championship-caliber guy/gal is the same as a more average one.
I don't have any evidence here, and people probably know I'm not one to overdo hydration. (I'm *that guy* who has never pee-d in a half ironman and once per race in the two IMs I've done). I think it's great that Noakes has challenged the common wisdom because I think it needs reexamination, but I'm not sure either "side" is entirely right yet.
Hi peeps. I usually stay out of these types of discussions but reading William's post made me want to put an idea out there. (And BTW, I am NOT a medical guy, just a data analyst). William states Nokes agument that there is a correlation between deyhratration and speed/winning, and William (if I understand it correctly) is asking whether these dehydrated fast people are the one that can tolerate dehydration the best? — which is a pretty good point IMO. However, I believe there is a more important point, and that is that correlation does not prove causation — what we don't know is whether these same deydrated guys would have been even faster if they were correctly hydrated and topped up with an appropriate levels of electrolytes (however these terms are defined). Further, (and this isn't based on anything but my 'gut-feeling', so could be totally off the mark) I struggle to make sense of the Noakes hypothesis — the human body's ability to do work should be compromised if dehydrated through lower blood volume and lower sweat rate, at a minimum? There may be other processes that I don't know about. My takeaway from all this is that I will continue to get wet socks on the bike in HIM and IMs because it just doesn't make sense to me to compromise my ability to do work through becoming dehydrated — I am assuming here that if I drink more water than I need, I will just pee the excess, and that I will always have an adequate level of electrolytes. Just my $0.02 worth.
On the Noakes argument, I understand why he's making it (feels responsible to fight against hyponatremia). But I don't understand why it has to be all or nothing.
If Noakes simply said "the advice to avoid any dehydration whatsoever is wrong", and that there is ample evidence that plenty of athletes do NOT see a performance drop at dehydration levels much greater than 2% of body weight, we could all agree and move along towards research that will help actually improve the knowledge base for athletes.
However, by taking a totally contrarian point of view, that dehydration is no big deal, and nothing to worry about, he makes his own argument hard to believe, and causes all of these arguments.
I think it's a shame that it requires sensationalism to sell books these days...
At Tom ... Yeah, my blood pressure will drop through the floor at the end of an IM. My wife knows that I have to walk for 15 to 20 mins after. Put me on the ground though and two things will happen 1) I will come close to passing out and 2) my legs will start to cramp terribly. It's a lot easier to keep walking. I really envy the folks who can collect their medal and then go directly to the food tent to start chewing.
@William, Noakes talks about a dozen studies showing a direct correlation to weight lost to speed. The more weight you drop, the faster you are. The only studies he mentioned participant numbers were a French marathon with 650 and two South Africa IM events that had a couple hundred study participants. Studies included marathons, IMs, 12 & 24 hour running events and a desert run.
I take it that because of the large sample sizes, his dehydration model applies across the board, not to just the elite few who handle dehydration best.
As to sodium and electrolytes, I think he creates an even bigger controversy. Basically he states that the human body has adapted over the years and does a remarkable job regulating salt levels. No extra pills required. He also states that most people consume way to much sodium on a daily basis, again making it completely unnecessary to add electrolytes to your diet for a race.
He makes the point that many of his studies use real world settings, not labs, so his results are more reflective of true racing conditions.
It's interesting, to me anyway, because Alan Lim, another famous real world sport scientist advises all his cyclists to drink less calories, put more sodium in the drinks than regular sports drinks and also to eat real foods, not gels and other such stuff.
Can't wait for Science of Sport Blog to weigh in on the topic!
Ok - can't help myself. I read Noakes book which is called the "lore of running"
He is smart well researched and an actually running doc
While I agree with him I find from a practical perspective his theories fall short for the Everyman in one instance.
If you bonk from lack of calories you know it - you get cranky and slow down
When you bonk from dehydration you really now it - you stop and hurt
What it comes down to is don't push. Dehydrate from racing is ok but don't got too far and keep the calories coming, particularly in IM
The idea you can finish a HIM with no pee stops is exactly right and i have done it several times, you also don't need that many calories and enough water to digest and not have GI issues
On IM you need more water for digestion and there will be more stops. My problem in IM is when I go slower I still consume calories and water and therefore go pee more, probably need more calories to keep going but the water is less necessary as I am sweating less if I slow down.
Frankly the sports drinks are great because I can mix hydration and calories in an easy to digest manner, that can be done with water and gels too. My kids drink it as they are swimmers and are in the pool 9+ hours a week, it works and they are very fit
Athletes of any kind can use easy to digest calories of any kind
Being a couch potato is wrong at any age and causes obesity, trust me I was there for 20 years!
Comments
http://members.endurancenation.us/Training/TrainingForums/tabid/101/aft/9289/Default.aspx
interesting comment, but a lot of this comes from Tim Noakes' research. Lots of data from Comrades Marathon and IM Kona among other large scale studies that he refers to would conclude dehydration is not an issue. Much more likely to die of over hydration. Biggest issue in medical tents is often misdiagnosed. Massive drop in blood pressure when athletes stop moving causes light headedness, queasiness etc. Most medical tents pump athletes full of fluids. Should be dropping athletes to the ground, raising feet above head level and waiting two minutes. Allow rehydration over a couple hour process if necessary.
Direct correlation between dehydration levels and speed. The faster you are, the more dehydrated you are in the race, whether it be marathons or IMs. Drink only when thirsty is the conclusion.
It's always struck me kind of funny how sports drinks are so mass marketed. In practice, shouldn't the market be fairly niche if Gatorade was meant for usage by "real" athletes? After all, you don't see advertising to the same degree for stuff like gels, salt pills, protein powder, etc.
Sorry for veering a little off course, but the fact is that the "real athletes" sell product. Gatorade, Power-Aid and other sports drinks are more popular than ever BECAUSE they are "used by the 'real' athletes."
The problem with your argument is that it assumes that drinking Gatorade and being active always go together. Many, many kids who drink Gatorade are (even if they have sports idols) quite sedentary, and becoming increasingly so. I agree that the calories consumed from all that sugar are probably less impactful in a child that is extremely active. But, fruit juices and gatorade are no healthier than sodas. They are empty calories. Aside from endurance athletes, whose training and racing expend significant amounts of calories and requires some degree of refueling (albeit, probably a lot less than we think), no one should be drinking sports drink during exercise (much less when sitting around doing nothing), because it isn't really necessary.
Don't forget that Adam Sandler also disagrees with sports drinks...
Gatorade is on its face marketed to athletes, but the truth is that it's mostly consumed by people doing nothing more strenuous than pushing a self-propelled lawnmower, and more often less than that. To that extent, there's no sense in drinking anything with calories. It's a huge new market for the HFCS people.
The other issue is the Noakes/hydration issue in real endurance sport. Tom is quoting the studies correctly. If I remember correctly, they are based on marathons, but I won't swear to that...but the bottom line is that there is a strong correlation between being most dehydrated and winning. Now here's where there is a question I've never really understood. I think the logic Noakes uses is "dehydration = lighter; lighter = faster; faster = win" and "if no need, then don't bother"....plus add in the hyponatremia argument (you can drink so much water as to dilute your sodium content and put yourself in a world of hurt. What I am less sure of is this: what if the guys that win who are relatively dehydrated are the guys who can best tolerate dehydration...and that ultimately is the fastest strategy. BUT what if most people aren't genetically predisposed to be the winner and can't tolerate that much dehydration and will over-dehydrate themselves if they aren't a bit more systematic about hydration? Basically, I'm asking if there is just an association, or if the implied causality is real...and I'm asking whether if the championship-caliber guy/gal is the same as a more average one.
I don't have any evidence here, and people probably know I'm not one to overdo hydration. (I'm *that guy* who has never pee-d in a half ironman and once per race in the two IMs I've done). I think it's great that Noakes has challenged the common wisdom because I think it needs reexamination, but I'm not sure either "side" is entirely right yet.
I usually stay out of these types of discussions but reading William's post made me want to put an idea out there. (And BTW, I am NOT a medical guy, just a data analyst).
William states Nokes agument that there is a correlation between deyhratration and speed/winning, and William (if I understand it correctly) is asking whether these dehydrated fast people are the one that can tolerate dehydration the best? — which is a pretty good point IMO.
However, I believe there is a more important point, and that is that correlation does not prove causation — what we don't know is whether these same deydrated guys would have been even faster if they were correctly hydrated and topped up with an appropriate levels of electrolytes (however these terms are defined).
Further, (and this isn't based on anything but my 'gut-feeling', so could be totally off the mark) I struggle to make sense of the Noakes hypothesis — the human body's ability to do work should be compromised if dehydrated through lower blood volume and lower sweat rate, at a minimum? There may be other processes that I don't know about.
My takeaway from all this is that I will continue to get wet socks on the bike in HIM and IMs because it just doesn't make sense to me to compromise my ability to do work through becoming dehydrated — I am assuming here that if I drink more water than I need, I will just pee the excess, and that I will always have an adequate level of electrolytes.
Just my $0.02 worth.
If Noakes simply said "the advice to avoid any dehydration whatsoever is wrong", and that there is ample evidence that plenty of athletes do NOT see a performance drop at dehydration levels much greater than 2% of body weight, we could all agree and move along towards research that will help actually improve the knowledge base for athletes.
However, by taking a totally contrarian point of view, that dehydration is no big deal, and nothing to worry about, he makes his own argument hard to believe, and causes all of these arguments.
I think it's a shame that it requires sensationalism to sell books these days...
I take it that because of the large sample sizes, his dehydration model applies across the board, not to just the elite few who handle dehydration best.
As to sodium and electrolytes, I think he creates an even bigger controversy. Basically he states that the human body has adapted over the years and does a remarkable job regulating salt levels. No extra pills required. He also states that most people consume way to much sodium on a daily basis, again making it completely unnecessary to add electrolytes to your diet for a race.
He makes the point that many of his studies use real world settings, not labs, so his results are more reflective of true racing conditions.
It's interesting, to me anyway, because Alan Lim, another famous real world sport scientist advises all his cyclists to drink less calories, put more sodium in the drinks than regular sports drinks and also to eat real foods, not gels and other such stuff.
Can't wait for Science of Sport Blog to weigh in on the topic!
Ok - can't help myself. I read Noakes book which is called the "lore of running"
He is smart well researched and an actually running doc
While I agree with him I find from a practical perspective his theories fall short for the Everyman in one instance.
If you bonk from lack of calories you know it - you get cranky and slow down
When you bonk from dehydration you really now it - you stop and hurt
What it comes down to is don't push. Dehydrate from racing is ok but don't got too far and keep the calories coming, particularly in IM
The idea you can finish a HIM with no pee stops is exactly right and i have done it several times, you also don't need that many calories and enough water to digest and not have GI issues
On IM you need more water for digestion and there will be more stops. My problem in IM is when I go slower I still consume calories and water and therefore go pee more, probably need more calories to keep going but the water is less necessary as I am sweating less if I slow down.
Frankly the sports drinks are great because I can mix hydration and calories in an easy to digest manner, that can be done with water and gels too. My kids drink it as they are swimmers and are in the pool 9+ hours a week, it works and they are very fit
Athletes of any kind can use easy to digest calories of any kind
Being a couch potato is wrong at any age and causes obesity, trust me I was there for 20 years!