Sports 'Products' Do Not Work

carl_p

Panorama tonight at 8pm (clashes with Wiggo documentary)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293

t.m.h.n.e.t

Tell those chaps cycling around France to come home then

ps: The article (if you bothered to read it) focuses on Lucozade and other products manufactured by GSK

amaferanga

I thought the point was that they don't necessarily do what the manufacturer's are claiming, but they still work in terms of providing nutrition/hydration. So for example in a race (the only time you should really need 'sports nutrition'), a few gels would give you the carbs you need in the same way a sandwich would, only eating a sandwich usually isn't possible (in amateur racing anyway). FWIW I picked up a Sky musette from the national road race champs a few weeks back and there was still some food in it - a ham and phili sandwich and a jam and phili sandwich. Good old regular food works best when it's possible to eat it....

What it probably does show is that you may as well save yourself some cash and just buy the ingredients you need to make your own energy/electrolyte/recovery drinks instead of buying the overpriced stuff that has various other stuff added, the performance enhancing effect of which is based on flaky research.

t.m.h.n.e.t

amaferanga wrote:

What it probably does show is that you may as well save yourself some cash and just buy the ingredients you need to make your own energy/electrolyte/recovery drinks instead of buying the overpriced stuff that has various other stuff added, the performance enhancing effect of which is based on flaky research.

I'm naively hoping the same. Their take on recovery products(if there is one) interests me more though.

Ron Stuart

What ever you do, do not trust the food and drinks industry

dw300

Ron Stuart wrote:

What ever you do, do not trust the food and drinks industry

Yes. You are responsible for what you ingest. Leaving your nutritional requirements to a businessman or men is inadvisable. Look at what professional athletes eat and drink, learn why they do that, and then apply the knowledge to your own situation.

brettjmcc

Carl_P wrote:

Panorama tonight at 8pm (clashes with Wiggo documentary)

What channel is that on?

dw300

brettjmcc wrote:

Carl_P wrote:

Panorama tonight at 8pm (clashes with Wiggo documentary)

What channel is that on?

ITV4

ricklilley

Quite an interesting watch. Found the comments about zero calorie energy drinks funny.

Cornish-J

i thought it was utterly bias. They were very clever in how they dismissed the claims made by the products.

dw300

Lol .. if you're a couch potato with no actual sporting ambition you don't need sports supplements .. shocker.

If you take a marketing departments advice as gospel over a trained professional's, it's the product manufacturers fault .. o_O .. hmmmm

Yes Graham, bread and jam .. nothing to do with your frontal cross sectional area

If you eat a balanced diet you don't need any supps .. hands up if your diet is perfect .. yeh, not many. If the supp companies marketed with "Post ride recovery drinks .. easier than making your dinner after you f*cked yourself doing an awesome workout" would there be this much furore?? If it's a toss up between the drink and falling asleep on the couch having not eaten or drunk anything, the sports drink is infinitely superior.

That program was a lot like this forum, arguing marketing and semantics, and presuming most users are idiots. It's just butthurt journalists and scientists sore because clever people are taking gullible peoples' money. All advertising is the same whether its sport supps or toilet cleaners. I feel bad for the people who died, but that shows you need to do your research if your pushing the limits of your health.

It also sucked that they only looked at the research that the companies provided or had on their websites, rather than look for other research.

Herbsman

Nah.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Was out riding my bike so haven't watched it yet. Seems interesting from the feedback already, I'll add to it tomorrow

TheEnglishman

Cornish-J wrote:

i thought it was utterly bias. They were very clever in how they dismissed the claims made by the products.

Did we watch the same program? Didn't the head of whatever at FIFA say they wouldn't endorse any products unless there was per reviewed evidence? And didn't the same guy say none had yet appeared?

Show us the evidence of products benefiting us and we'll endorse it.

Then there's Greame Obrey saying he just ate a balanced diet.

Kind of good evidence to me....


Oh - and what's wrong with making dinner *before* you head out on a big run? Slow cookers are wonderful things....

mattshrops

Was quite interesting, but they did focus on things like kids playing football and drinking sports drinks. Obviously theres alot of bs and marketing with these products but its hardly the same level of exercise as doing a 4 hour hilly ride?

dw300

TheEnglishman wrote:

Oh - and what's wrong with making dinner *before* you head out on a big run? Slow cookers are wonderful things....

Nothing, apart from the fact that the once in a while sports participants they're saying are being taken advantage of won't be that prepared if they're the type that are looking a quick fix.

That's the issue, marketing to those type of people using questionable claims.

We on this forum probably use very few of these supps because we know better, the casual sportsperson doesn't and ends up forking out. I take a protein supp because it helps keep my calorie intake low and is in actual fact gram-for-gram about the cheapest protein you can get .. half as cheap as chicken, 1/3 the calories of milk, convenient, etc.

P_Tucker

mattshrops wrote:

Was quite interesting, but they did focus on things like kids playing football and drinking sports drinks. Obviously theres alot of bs and marketing with these products but its hardly the same level of exercise as doing a 4 hour hilly ride?

No-one is claiming that Lucozade for e.g. doesn't contain carbs, and that these carbs wouldn't help on a 4 hour ride. But Lucozade is no better than orange squash, some sugar and a dash of salt which costs about tuppence.

The best scam ever has to be "lite" sports drinks. Heres one part normal sports drink, two parts water - and we'll charge the same. I don't like marketing people, but god damn I respect the person who thought of that.

Ron Stuart

Like it or not we are a nation largely made up of cannon fodder to the biggest industry in the world. No? well check out the obesity rise. You have only got to walk down any street in Britain to see the problem.

Time to regulate the food and drink mafia, they are literally disabling and killing people.

Health for the nation or profit for the shareholders, what would you rather see prioritised :?:

Pseudo sport drinks or the food contains extra fruit!! it's just the same bullsh*t marketing that huge numbers of the population continue to fall victim to. :evil:

bahzob

I think part of the problem is that unless you actually do training its difficult to appreciate just how much exercise you have to do in order to justify using a sports product (or burn of the energy of a snack that takes 10s to eat).

Not entirely tongue in cheek rather than print lots of numbers about the nutritional content (which many ignore/don't understand) it may be more useful to print an exercise equivalent.
e.g.
1 bottle orange lucozade - walk 2 miles
1 big mac - run 4 miles

term1te

Whilst I agree with most of what was said on Panorama they did rather lean on the stereotype of evil big industry and hard working underfunded scientist crusading for the truth. I am a scientist, you'll have to guess which side of the fence I'm on. They kept saying that industry couldn't put forward any published evidence to support their products (which they probably can't), and yet also said that they couldn't accept particular evidence because it was funded by industry and was therefore tainted. So who's going to pay for the studies then?

jgsi

Just watched.. feel slightly more comfortable with myself with just having a single 500ml bidon on my races of 50 miles + and just having half filled on shorter Tuesday evening races.

Herbsman

Why the inverted commas around the word 'Products'? Are they something else?

t.m.h.n.e.t

A lot of sense but an equal amount of crap also spewed in the program. Business as usual for the BBC

TheEnglishman

So, in criticizing the program, Raphael Deinhart, from sports nutrition company High5, said 'In the end it comes down to what the individual thinks helps them '

So no evidence based counter claims from you then? :roll:

jgsi

TheEnglishman wrote:

So, in criticizing the program, Raphael Deinhart, from sports nutrition company High5, said 'In the end it comes down to what the individual thinks helps them '

So no evidence based counter claims from you then? :roll:

High5 are in the habit of making some very bold claims.
I have their little booklet guide to 'RACING FASTER' in my possession..

tested 2009 High5's drinks 5 min 45 sec faster!

their words..

Up to you to believe or not.

(they tested using Cycling Weekly readers )

Ron Stuart

Never bullsh*t a bullsh*ter eh :?:

bahzob

Term1te wrote:

Whilst I agree with most of what was said on Panorama they did rather lean on the stereotype of evil big industry and hard working underfunded scientist crusading for the truth. I am a scientist, you'll have to guess which side of the fence I'm on. They kept saying that industry couldn't put forward any published evidence to support their products (which they probably can't), and yet also said that they couldn't accept particular evidence because it was funded by industry and was therefore tainted. So who's going to pay for the studies then?

I think this is a wider and more serious issue than sports drinks, it holds true for the drugs industry as a whole. GSK recently had to pay a $3billion (yes billion) fine due, in part, to in part to this issue.

There is a clear conflict of interests if the people paying for and doing studies into a drug also stand to benefit from the results of these tests.

I don't think there is any simple answer to the problem but one step forward would be a statutory requirement for companies wishing to make any claims about the efficacy of products to have to openly publish the results of all trials including full raw data and make it a crime to withhold the results of negative/inconclusive studies.

shockedsoshocked

I think Jeukendrup would have something to say about some of this shows claims.

t.m.h.n.e.t

They managed to do a great job of totally fuxxing up any point they attempted to make by being totally incorrect about it.

Water does exactly the same thing as Lucozade Sport, the latter actually lists water as it's no1 ingredient so technically Lucozade does hydrate as well as water - but through ignorance people buy it.

Electroytes didn't really seem to get much discussion: But if there is any merit to them then the average 30mins twice a week gym-mum isn't going to require them EVER.

Carbs: Again the gym-mum isn't going to require them in a bottle for a 30min treadmill walk. But given this is a cycling forum, we should all be aware that carb intake a couple hours into a ride is often an essential aspect. If that happens to be via gels,drink or cake then so be it.

BCAA's: Often in bold letters and mixed in big fancy tubs with whey protein yet no real evidence to back up the claims. (The claims made are based on the BCAA's not the protein! The documentary doesn't distinguish this fact)

---Although there was little direct mention of protein or protein supplementing---
Protein: Ideally protein should really come from your general diet, but sometimes this just isn't feasible,sometimes protein shakes are handy. The program managed to label whey protein powders in the same group as the actual point being made(that was BCAA's being grossly expensive) and as " an expensive way to get a bit of milk"

Not actually true!

Girya

Blame Daley Thompson, running to a soundtrack of Iron Maiden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj87n_dE ... re=related

A drink designed for the ill, became the must have drink for the masses.

brettjmcc

I managed to catch-up with it last night.

Overall point to me is that they seemed to manage to miss a few words out of the title of the programme... Maybe it should have been "The Truth about Sports products, if you don't do intense exercise"

I knew, from my perspective, that the programme was going to be flawed when they were talking in the first instance about the 'energy' drinks and they started to say the drinks weren't good unless you were doing intense exercise, but then didn't mention it further, like that they did or did not work.

It then came across as a group of academics (and reporters) who were looking to prove something. They had some valid points, where it related to the general use by people - I noted this as I cycled by a group of kids drinking bottles of Lucozade Sport yesterday, but their research appeared to be based on the fact of looking at others research - to me they should have been doing clinical tests themselves to disprove anything. I fully accept there is a lot of marketting around the products, but it is up to people to make informed choices.