The Truth About Sports Products

Crapaud

Another heads up. BBC 1 Thursday at 8pm.

Panorama investigates the sports products that promise to boost your performance.

BBC wrote:

As many of us try to get fitter in this Olympic summer, Panorama investigates the sports products that promise to boost your performance. Are those pricey trainers worth the money? Can sports drinks really help you work out for longer? Are protein shakes any more effective at honing the physique than ordinary food?

With exclusive access to the findings from a unique study by the British Medical Journal and Oxford University, reporter Shelley Jofre tests the science behind the bold advertising claims made by some of sport's biggest brands

My bold.

I can't remember when Panorama was last on for an hour, so might be a bit more comprehensive than usual.

Bunneh

I'm always going to be cynical. If it's an unbiased article then great but back of mind is always saying 'wonder how much Lucozade are paying the BBC?'.

Cheers for the heads up

t.m.h.n.e.t

Bunneh wrote:

I'm always going to be cynical. If it's an unbiased article then great but back of mind is always saying 'wonder how much Lucozade are paying the BBC?'.

Cheers for the heads up

They aren't shy about putting the hurt on Lucozade. Although the test done at the time was entirely loaded for milk to win (as the best product of the two for recovery purposes lol)

TheEnglishman

It's just a bigger problem with diet in general. People read 'organic' or 'fat free' or whatever and assume the product is healthy. Things like an Innocent Smoothie has more calories than a can of coke. I work with a guy that's moaning 'cos he's eating salad every day and he's not loosing any weight. But it turns out some Pret Salads have more calories than a Big Mac. Do people really think just because the bottle says 'Lucozade Sport' it'll improve your performance? Really? Blimey - they do! :shock: Who'd have thought!

If people ware serious about being healthy they have to take responsibility themselves as the food companies selling you stuff certainly won't - it's in their interest to make money and nothing else. Imagine Greggs advertising 'Only buy one doughnut or you'll get fat' or the shop assistant saying 'I'm sorry sir I won't sell you that sausage roll because you appear to be clinically obese'

Anyway, that's my 2p....

verylonglegs

There was a short article in the Telegraph today commenting on middle-aged men wanking thousands of pounds on bikes they couldn't possibly live up to physically, dubbing it the Wiggins effect or something like. I had a little smirk to think journalism is about 3-4 years behind reality.

team47b

TheEnglishman wrote:

It's just a bigger problem with diet in general. People read 'organic' or 'fat free' or whatever and assume the product is healthy. Things like an Innocent Smoothie has more calories than a can of coke. I work with a guy that's moaning 'cos he's eating salad every day and he's not loosing any weight. But it turns out some Pret Salads have more calories than a Big Mac. Do people really think just because the bottle says 'Lucozade Sport' it'll improve your performance? Really? Blimey - they do! :shock: Who'd have thought!

If people ware serious about being healthy they have to take responsibility themselves as the food companies selling you stuff certainly won't - it's in their interest to make money and nothing else. Imagine Greggs advertising 'Only buy one doughnut or you'll get fat' or the shop assistant saying 'I'm sorry sir I won't sell you that sausage roll because you appear to be clinically obese'

Anyway, that's my 2p....

Good 2p's worth

You are right to call the food 'they' eat 'a product'. It's processed and added to. If you make your own smoothie or salad then it can be healthy.

Why do people leave the responsibility for their health/diet in someone else's hands, 'cos they're lazy or ignorant or both.

By ignorant I of course mean lacking knowledge, by lazy I mean unwilling to put in any effort, by saying lazy and ignorant I mean stooopid.

BillyMansell

BBC wrote:

As many of us try to get fitter in this Olympic summer, Panorama investigates the sports products that promise to boost your performance. Are those pricey trainers worth the money? Can sports drinks really help you work out for longer? Are protein shakes any more effective at honing the physique than ordinary food?

Next week, Panorama investigates whether bears do really shit in the woods or whether it's an elaborate ruse by the bears to avoid paying water rates on waste water.

In two weeks they investigate if the pope is really catholic or whether the church is a front for paedophiles to get close to young boys - oh hold on, that may be a repeat.

BillyMansell

team47b wrote:

TheEnglishman wrote:

It's just a bigger problem with diet in general. People read 'organic' or 'fat free' or whatever and assume the product is healthy. Things like an Innocent Smoothie has more calories than a can of coke. I work with a guy that's moaning 'cos he's eating salad every day and he's not loosing any weight. But it turns out some Pret Salads have more calories than a Big Mac. Do people really think just because the bottle says 'Lucozade Sport' it'll improve your performance? Really? Blimey - they do! :shock: Who'd have thought!

If people ware serious about being healthy they have to take responsibility themselves as the food companies selling you stuff certainly won't - it's in their interest to make money and nothing else. Imagine Greggs advertising 'Only buy one doughnut or you'll get fat' or the shop assistant saying 'I'm sorry sir I won't sell you that sausage roll because you appear to be clinically obese'

Anyway, that's my 2p....

Good 2p's worth

You are right to call the food 'they' eat 'a product'. It's processed and added to. If you make your own smoothie or salad then it can be healthy.

Why do people leave the responsibility for their health/diet in someone else's hands, 'cos they're lazy or ignorant or both.

By ignorant I of course mean lacking knowledge, by lazy I mean unwilling to put in any effort, by saying lazy and ignorant I mean stooopid.

By that definition you are referring to TheEnglishman as lazy, ignorant and stupid.

I wouldn't normally do this but for the purposes of this exercise I went back through some of TheEngishman's previous posts and noted that they're a beer bellied 46 year old who has recently been for a bike fit. So what's the difference between a far from fit cyclist spending money on a bike fit, a middle aged woman spending money on expensive running shoes or the man on the street deriving benefit from something labelled as giving them more energy? The answer is nothing. They may all be lacking the knowledge to realise they could be wasting money and they may all be unwilling to put the effort in without spending the extra money but they all believe they receive some benefit even if only psychological.

Whilst I don't disagree with many of the sentiments expressed I find it odd that people on a cycling forum should pontificate about certain aspects of the lives of others, what they choose to believe and how they choose to spend their money. How much do we collectively spend each year buying into the belief that spending more money on the next 'best' thing will make us 'better' cyclists?

Frank the tank

TheEnglishman wrote:

It's just a bigger problem with diet in general. People read 'organic' or 'fat free' or whatever and assume the product is healthy. Things like an Innocent Smoothie has more calories than a can of coke. I work with a guy that's moaning 'cos he's eating salad every day and he's not loosing any weight. But it turns out some Pret Salads have more calories than a Big Mac. Do people really think just because the bottle says 'Lucozade Sport' it'll improve your performance? Really? Blimey - they do! :shock: Who'd have thought!

If people ware serious about being healthy they have to take responsibility themselves as the food companies selling you stuff certainly won't - it's in their interest to make money and nothing else. Imagine Greggs advertising 'Only buy one doughnut or you'll get fat' or the shop assistant saying 'I'm sorry sir I won't sell you that sausage roll because you appear to be clinically obese'

Anyway, that's my 2p....

I also watched "the men who made us fat".

team47b

billymansell said "By that definition you are referring to TheEnglishman as lazy, ignorant and stupid."

I didn't say that, I said people who don't responsibility and leave the responsibility for their health/diet in someone else's hands, are lazy or ignorant or both, as far as I can tell I was agreeing with TheEnglishman!

I have no idea whether TheEnglishman is lazy and or ignorant, let's ask him...

are you lazy and or ignorant?

please leave a reply after the beep.


beeeeeeeeeeeeep.

dw300

Did anyone see the program on a couple of years back where this woman said, there's nothing you can do about your weight because supermarkets and food companies are making you fat, by making less healthy foods cheaper? Yes luv, there's simply no way you can avoid buying that stuff and putting it in your mouth, and it most definitely wouldn't be cheaper if you simply didn't buy it in the first place!

She also said that apparently most of the British public, like her, were under the impression that Olympic sponsors such as McDonalds and Cadburys must make healthy products since they're sponsoring the Olympics ..

*double facepalm*

TheEnglishman

I did a bike fit because following a serious motorcycle accident I have one leg that is somewhat shorter than the other and arm/wrist and back issues that were resolved by some surgery. The leg surgeon said I needed to build up my leg muscles to help 'stabilise' my knee and possibly avoid a knee replacement in future years. Physiotherapists also advocated exercise and plenty of stretching resolve posture and muscle ache problems.

As cycling is a very good very low impact way to build up leg muscles I'm now cycling 15 miles a day to and from work and am slowly building up my fitness level to do a 100 mile charity ride in October for the MS Society, one of the main charities for a horrible disease that my wife suffers badly from.

I tried a number of road bikes and all made my knee/back/wrists ache to varying degrees. So I went for a BG Fit at Specialized Ruislip where the wonderful Alex turned something rather uncomfortable into a very comfortable road bike that I've done over 50miles with in one go so far at a reasonable pace (14.6 mph) without suffering anything more than some numb fingers, something I've always suffered from. Modifications from a 'stock' bike included a layback seatpost, a short raised stem and spacers and shims in the shoes.

As the primary carer for a disabled person diet is very important and I cook all our food from 'raw' ingredients - we very rarely eat ready made/processed meals and never eat take aways/pizza etc. Both of us have average BMI index values for our ages and the MS Nurse considers my wife to have a healthy, balanced diet.

So, compared to the Middle aged woman buying those expensive running shoes or the bloke in the street buying a bottle of Lucozade Sport - did I *want* these things or did I *need* these things? Well, I could have just done 'Charles Atlas' type resistance exercises and got the bus to work. The exercises would have been very boring and the bus is expensive. If I'd taken this route I'd spend around £1500 a year in travel costs. By cycling I've 'saved' this or rather spent it on a bicycle and other stuff. I now have a comfortable, very nice bike that I can use to do 'interesting' things like get out of the house while the carer's in and meet people who have no idea about caring for a disabled person for a few hours a week. Perhaps this is the same 'comfort value' as the woman's running shoes or the bloke's drink. Did I waste my money? Well perhaps, but there's no way I could cycle in comfort and I'm actually using the things I've purchased to achieve a goal I've set myself. I think I'm certainly putting the effort in and while the effects may well be psychological, they will hopefully be very tangible.

Oh - and it was an eye opening series of programs was it not, Frank?

Mr Dog

Count me in for wasting cash on products and bling. It makes me feel good, keeps me motivated and drives my kids crazy as I dance around in bib shorts costing more than their bikes
Do I feel swindled... no, just fulfilled until my next unneeded purchase appears on the horizon. Those carbon pedals are gonna save me so little time on those climbs but they looks the absolute dogs!

team47b

point well made.

Rewards are good

garryc

Excellent! A heated debate and the program hasn't even aired yet.

BillyMansell

TheEnglishman, there is no need for you to justify your circumstances or lifestyle choices to anyone here but it helps to highlight the risks of making value judgements against the lifestyles of others based on our own experiences and having little or no knowledge of the other person or their situation. If someone chooses to have a bike fit, to buy expensive running shoes or an energy drink because they derive a benefit from it then who are we to judge them without knowing the facts or circumstance?

As to Jacque Paretti's programme and the issue of responsibility, I suspect many people saw the programme but not all of them bothered to watch it as many of the views expressed so far do not relate to Jacque's conclusion. It was unequivocal in Jacques conclusion was that whilst for generations people have sought to blame the individual for their lack of personal responsibility, the ambitions of politics and corporates can supersede a person's ability to make informed choices. We may think we are immune to such drivers but the influence of politics in our daily lives, and its marriage to the interests of big business, means that we are all influenced in some way to act not in our best interests no matter how clever we think we are.

gabriel959

Crapaud wrote:

Another heads up. BBC 1 Thursday at 8pm.

Panorama investigates the sports products that promise to boost your performance.

BBC wrote:

As many of us try to get fitter in this Olympic summer, Panorama investigates the sports products that promise to boost your performance. Are those pricey trainers worth the money? Can sports drinks really help you work out for longer? Are protein shakes any more effective at honing the physique than ordinary food?

With exclusive access to the findings from a unique study by the British Medical Journal and Oxford University, reporter Shelley Jofre tests the science behind the bold advertising claims made by some of sport's biggest brands

My bold.

I can't remember when Panorama was last on for an hour, so might be a bit more comprehensive than usual.

My personal experience is that a protein shake after a decent workout is a good idea. If I don't do it I usually have a lot of pain in my legs the morning after. Even if I eat a good meal after exercise.

garryc

There was a puff piece for this program on Radio 4 this morning (a trailer masquerading as a news article) Basically it seems like they're calling out some of the more extreme claims made by the makers of these products. An example given was the trainers that helped 'open your chest' so you could breath easier. Sounds like it may be an interesting programe.

daviesee

My experience is that it is guff.
Last year I took all the stuff for our Mallorca trip.
This year I used plain H2o and normal foods.

The difference - This year I didn't have an upset stomach and I went faster. Jokes were made about the contents of my bidon.

My conclusion - Unless you are a top level endurance athlete, it is all marketing. Give me a cafe stop any day. Ask Graeme Obree.

t.m.h.n.e.t

daviesee wrote:

My experience is that it is guff.
Last year I took all the stuff for our Mallorca trip.
This year I used plain H2o and normal foods.

The difference - This year I didn't have an upset stomach and I went faster. Jokes were made about the contents of my bidon.

My conclusion - Unless you are a top level endurance athlete, it is all marketing. Give me a cafe stop any day. Ask Graeme Obree.

Ride nutrition is one of those things that has many answers,unless you're eating 5 marsbars in a 2hr ride there really isn't a right or wrong(I'm not implying that you're suggesting as such)

If you can eat proper food do that - if you find gels and bars easier do that. The important part is sufficient fuelling.

For example: Lots of people recommend home-made energy drinks - they don't suit me so I always carry a large bottle of High5 2:1 even if I don't drink it and 1 bottle with Asda's finest double strength, sugar free concentrate. I make huge batches of flapjacks and freeze them - sometimes carry bananas and sometimes I'll stop for cake/coffee and sometimes I do swallow a gel or two that I keep spare in my saddlebag.

But IMO the moneymaker of sports nutrition is in the recovery products. Those really aren't what they're marketed to be. A For Goodness Shakes sachet retails around £1.50 before milk cost, making your own with a bag of instant whey and maltodextrin/dextrose works out around 45p before milk cost.

I bought a 5kg tub of instant whey last October - it's still got plenty of it's approx 200 servings left in it. Value for money!

jonomc4

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Bunneh wrote:

I'm always going to be cynical. If it's an unbiased article then great but back of mind is always saying 'wonder how much Lucozade are paying the BBC?'.

Cheers for the heads up

They aren't shy about putting the hurt on Lucozade. Although the test done at the time was entirely loaded for milk to win (as the best product of the two for recovery purposes lol)

There are other things that count to though.
Being Diabetic - Lucozade has saved my live on numerous occasions - best way to get the blood sugar up fast.
Additionally - I am slightly lactose intolerant - if I take a large amounts my body has problems coping with it - for this reason I use protein drinks over milk - though I do think milk is severely underrated by people on sports nutrition.

daviesee

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

But IMO the moneymaker of sports nutrition is in the recovery products.

My personal recovery is a pint of milk and a banana followed by a pint of water if hydration is required. Works for me and is cheap.

jonomc4

Mr Dog wrote:

Count me in for wasting cash on products and bling. It makes me feel good, keeps me motivated and drives my kids crazy as I dance around in bib shorts costing more than their bikes
Do I feel swindled... no, just fulfilled until my next unneeded purchase appears on the horizon. Those carbon pedals are gonna save me so little time on those climbs but they looks the absolute dogs!

+1

t.m.h.n.e.t

jonomc4 wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

Bunneh wrote:

I'm always going to be cynical. If it's an unbiased article then great but back of mind is always saying 'wonder how much Lucozade are paying the BBC?'.

Cheers for the heads up

They aren't shy about putting the hurt on Lucozade. Although the test done at the time was entirely loaded for milk to win (as the best product of the two for recovery purposes lol)

There are other things that count to though.
Being Diabetic - Lucozade has saved my live on numerous occasions - best way to get the blood sugar up fast.
Additionally - I am slightly lactose intolerant - if I take a large amounts my body has problems coping with it - for this reason I use protein drinks over milk - though I do think milk is severely underrated by people on sports nutrition.

This test at the time was conducted with a rugby team split into two groups post training. Given their training they were going to expect some level of DOMS and were given Lucozade Lite and the other Milk.

After a week of testing it was no surprise that the group drinking the milk saw more benefit. Lucozade lite being totally void of carbs and protein,the main two components of muscle building,repair and recovery.

There are like yourself,always different circumstances to work around. But you've got a viable solution that works without holding you back. Kudos to you.

t.m.h.n.e.t

daviesee wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

But IMO the moneymaker of sports nutrition is in the recovery products.

My personal recovery is a pint of milk and a banana followed by a pint of water if hydration is required. Works for me and is cheap.

It works for you which is all that matters. I throw some whey ,milk and bananas into a smoothie sometimes. Also not bad if you soak oats overnight and throw a few spoons of them in before the final blend up.

dw300

jonomc4 wrote:

There are other things that count to though.
Being Diabetic - Lucozade has saved my live on numerous occasions - best way to get the blood sugar up fast.
Additionally - I am slightly lactose intolerant - if I take a large amounts my body has problems coping with it - for this reason I use protein drinks over milk - though I do think milk is severely underrated by people on sports nutrition.

Precisely! There are always other things to consider.

For example, your protein drink probably has 20-30g of protein, lets say 25g, and you dilute it with 250ml of water. To get the same protein from milk, you'll need to drink 700ml of semi-skimmed, which has about 350kcals .. 250 more than the shake.

So if you're not taking it post ride, and are trying to cut, the shake is better, and you'll be a pound lighter every 2 weeks in comparison.

However assuming you're having trouble hitting your macros and getting vitamins and minerals then the milk might be better .. it's all going to come down to your own nutritional needs and goals.

An Old Peugeot

How about this from the NHS choices web site

Certain situations can trigger an episode of atrial fibrillation, including:

drinking excessive amounts of alcohol, particularly binge drinking
being overweight
drinking lots of caffeine, such as tea, coffee or energy drinks

Be careful I've now got AF, diagnosed 3 weeks before I should have taken part in Etape Caledonia, have yet to see the cardiac specialist and told to stop cycling. Now feel absolute crap.

dw300

Can you get an ECG done in your GPs?

I went in with what I thought was an irregular heartbeat. My Doc was oldskool, in his 70s, and told me not to worry about it that your body runs like a car that isn't warmed up when it's tired!

I wasn't convinced at the time, but I guess i'm still here!

McQueen

I once saw a thing online re bodybuilding supplements specificially protein powders and it highlighted how is it was to make protein powders and sell them for ridiculous prices. It showed how lax the fda was in the states, the guy produced the supplements himself, made all the labels himself and he was selling the product at 200-300percent profit per tub.

As a result i am very wary re supplements/my background is rugby and powerlifting re sports pre getting back into cycling i tend to stick with a reputable protein powder which i take 1-2 times a day and a creatine/amino acids blend pre and post cycling workout.

kieranb

McQueen wrote:

I once saw a thing online re bodybuilding supplements specificially protein powders and it highlighted how is it was to make protein powders and sell them for ridiculous prices. It showed how lax the fda was in the states, the guy produced the supplements himself, made all the labels himself and he was selling the product at 200-300percent profit per tub.

As a result i am very wary re supplements/my background is rugby and powerlifting re sports pre getting back into cycling i tend to stick with a reputable protein powder which i take 1-2 times a day and a creatine/amino acids blend pre and post cycling workout.

wikipedia: The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe.

dw300

kieranb wrote:

McQueen wrote:

I once saw a thing online re bodybuilding supplements specificially protein powders and it highlighted how is it was to make protein powders and sell them for ridiculous prices. It showed how lax the fda was in the states, the guy produced the supplements himself, made all the labels himself and he was selling the product at 200-300percent profit per tub.

As a result i am very wary re supplements/my background is rugby and powerlifting re sports pre getting back into cycling i tend to stick with a reputable protein powder which i take 1-2 times a day and a creatine/amino acids blend pre and post cycling workout.

wikipedia: The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods, rather than as drugs. Therefore, dietary supplements are not subject to safety and efficacy testing and there are no approval requirements. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe.

Would I be right in saying that in the UK companies at least have to stipulate all the ingredients, whereas in the US they can put, 'Secret Proprietary Blend' on the tub? I always stick to UK stuff just in case.

Didn't Bodybuilding.com just get sued for several million dollars because one of the protein supps they sell had steroids in them, which could totally bugger up your liver and hormone balance .. or could get you sacked from a job or banned from professional sports.