When to down a gel?

Trev The Rev

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

You back up yours. I have my opinion you are welcome to yours. At least my opinion is mine rather than something I believe because I have been brainwashed.

I didn't make any claims. Oh it's an opinion now? Funny, because at the time you stated it as fact then stumbled and attempted to backpedal when you couldn't back it up. I've requoted it again for you just to help you be sure what you said.

Trev The Rev wrote:

People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.

So please. Provide the thread with actual evidence, that makes your quote,and assertion of fact in the above quote. True..

I stand by my statement.

If it makes you feel better I will re phrase it.

In my opinion people who eat real food rather than rely on gels or energy drinks tend to bonk less than people who have been brainwashed into believing they need to consume carbohydrate in the form of gels or energy drinks and have trained their body to become dependent on said energy drinks & gels.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

I stand by my statement.

Statement now. It was an opinion 2? posts ago??

If it makes you feel better I will re phrase it.

Try not to make it worse

In my opinion people who eat real food rather than rely on gels or energy drinks tend to bonk less than people who have been brainwashed into believing they need to consume carbohydrate in the form of gels or energy drinks and have trained their body to become dependent on said energy drinks & gels.

Oh you did :roll:

How exactly do you become of the opinion bolded? Bear in mind, your opinion was previously stated as known fact,so there must be some substance of evidence behind it. I would like you to provide this still.

Trev The Rev

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

I stand by my statement.

Statement now. It was an opinion 2? posts ago??

If it makes you feel better I will re phrase it.

Try not to make it worse

In my opinion people who eat real food rather than rely on gels or energy drinks tend to bonk less than people who have been brainwashed into believing they need to consume carbohydrate in the form of gels or energy drinks and have trained their body to become dependent on said energy drinks & gels.

Oh you did :roll:

How exactly do you become of the opinion bolded?

How did you become by your opinion? Do you have your own opinions? Or do you just parrot dogma taught by your teachers?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev.

This is your statement.

People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.

You have not managed to back this up in any form.


This is your "opinion" which amazingly is very similar to the factual statement above.

In my opinion people who eat real food rather than rely on gels or energy drinks tend to bonk less than people who have been brainwashed into believing they need to consume carbohydrate in the form of gels or energy drinks and have trained their body to become dependent on said energy drinks & gels.

Now. With that in mind

Please(referring to your original statement) back it up.

With your latter "opinion" I would like to know how you came by that,given the similarities to your previous statement and lack of scientific evidence.

Trev The Rev wrote:

How did you become by your opinion? Do you have your own opinions? Or do you just parrot dogma taught by your teachers?

I didn't post any opinion - I have my own opinions - My teachers are brilliant, they offer actual fact rather than make statements as fact then backtrack calling it an "opinion".

So please stop trying to dig elsewhere and answer the question.

Trev The Rev

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

Trev.

This is your statement.

People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.

You have not managed to back this up in any form.


This is your "opinion" which amazingly is very similar to the factual statement above.

In my opinion people who eat real food rather than rely on gels or energy drinks tend to bonk less than people who have been brainwashed into believing they need to consume carbohydrate in the form of gels or energy drinks and have trained their body to become dependent on said energy drinks & gels.

Now. With that in mind

Please(referring to your original statement) back it up.

With your latter "opinion" I would like to know how you came by that,given the similarities to your previous statement and lack of scientific evidence.

Trev The Rev wrote:

How did you become by your opinion? Do you have your own opinions? Or do you just parrot dogma taught by your teachers?

I didn't post any opinion - I have my own opinions - My teachers are brilliant, they offer actual fact rather than make statements as fact then backtrack calling it an "opinion".

So please stop trying to dig elsewhere and answer the question.

Read Noakes, also read what Obree has to say and what Carl Heneghan has to say.

Also read http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e001702.

Go talk to your teachers. Ask them about this.

Assessment of evidence behind sports products
A team at the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University assessed the evidence behind 431 performance enhancing claims in adverts for 104 different sports products including sports drinks, protein shakes and trainers.
If the evidence wasn’t clear from the adverts, they contacted the companies for more information. Some, like Puma, did not provide any evidence, while others like GlaxoSmithKline— makers of Lucozade Sport—provided hundreds of studies.
Yet only three (2.7%) of the studies the team was able to assess were judged to be of high quality and at low risk of bias. They say this absence of high quality evidence is “worrying” and call for better research in this area to help inform decisions.
What the research found
As part of the BMJ’s analysis of the evidence underpinning sports performance products, it asked manufacturers to supply details of the studies. Only one manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline provided a comprehensive bibliography of the trials used to underpin its product claims for Lucozade—a carbohydrate containing sports drink.45 Other manufacturers of leading sports drinks did not and in the absence of systematic reviews we surmise that the methodological issues raised apply to all other sports drinks.
Carl Heneghan, Rafael Perera, David Nunan, Kamal Mahtani, and Peter Gill set out to appraise the evidence and found a series of problems with the studies (see online for full article).9
Small sample sizes limit the applicability of results—Only one of the 106 studies —in 257 marathon runners—exceeded the acceptable target for a small study of 100 participants per group. The next largest had 52 participants and the median sample size was nine. Thus the results cannot be generalised beyond people with the study group characteristics
Poor quality surrogate outcomes undermine the validity—Many studies used time to exhaustion or other outcomes that are not directly relevant to performance in real life events
Poorly designed research offers little to instil confidence in product claims—Most studies (76%) were low in quality because of a lack of allocation concealment and blinding, and often the findings contrasted with each other. The studies often had substantial problems because of use of different protocols, temperatures, work intensities, and outcomes
Data dredging leads to spurious statistical results—Studies often failed to define outcome measures before the study, leaving open the possibility of numerous analyses and increasing the risk of finding a positive result by chance.
Biological outcomes do not necessarily correlate with improved performance—Reductions in use of muscle glycogen, for example, did not correlate with improved athletic performance. Physiological outcomes such as maximal oxygen consumption have also been shown to be poor predictors of performance, even among elite athletes
Inappropriate use of relative measures inflates the outcome and can easily mislead—One study inflated the relative effect of carbohydrate drinks from 3% to 33% by excluding from the analysis the 75 minutes of exercise both groups undertook before an exhaustion test
Studies that lack blinding are likely to be false—Studies that used plain water as the control found positive effects whereas those that used taste matched placebos didn’t
Manipulation of nutrition in the run-in phase significantly affects subsequent outcomes—Many studies seemingly starve participants the night before and on the morning of the research study
Changes in environmental factors lead to wide variation in outcomes—Although dilute carbohydrate drinks may have some benefit in heat, studies found no effect in cold environments. No plausible reason given for benefits
There was no substantial evidence to suggest that liquid is any better than solid carbohydrate intake and there were no studies in children. Given the high sugar content and the propensity to dental erosions children should be discouraged from using sports drinks. Through our analysis of the current sports performance research, we have come to one conclusion: people should develop their own strategies for carbohydrate intake largely by trial and error.

Another problem with the research is transparency. Even though a large proportion of the studies have been conducted by scientists with financial ties to Gatorade (PepsiCo), GSK, and Coca-Cola, the authors’ individual conflicts of interest are either not published or not declared. Conflicts of interest also exist within the key journals in sports medicine—GSSI funded scientists pepper their editorial boards and editorships.
Around half of the studies supplied by GSK appeared in four journals—the Journal of Applied Physiology (20), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (24),International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism (11) and the Journal of Sports Science (9). Several of these journals belong to organisations that have long relationships with Gatorade (box).

Most of the scientists identified as being on the GSSI board have prominent roles in journals. Even its global senior director, Asker Jeukendrup, professor of exercise metabolism at Birmingham University, is an editor of the European Journal of Sport Science—the official journal of the European College of Sport Science. His biography states that “he has been a member of the advisory editorial board of theJournal of Sports Sciences, and served on the editorial board of the International Journal of Sports Medicine and Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. To date, Asker has served as a reviewer for 35 different scientific journals.”53Jeukendrup is one of the main authors of a series of research papers given to theBMJ by GSK to demonstrate the effectiveness of its sports drinks.9

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

Read Noakes, also read what Obree has to say. Also read the http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e001702.

Go talk to your teachers.

Bread and jam is the basis of your argument? Someone else can post the epic facepalm pics.

I can see zero of worth in the link that refers in any way to your statement made, and the subsequent similar "opinion".

Nor is there anything of worth in the test you quoted above.


I have a feeling where you will go next.

Trev The Rev

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

Read Noakes, also read what Obree has to say. Also read the http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e001702.

Go talk to your teachers.

Bread and jam is the basis of your argument? Someone else can post the epic facepalm pics.

I can see zero of worth in the link that refers in any way to your statement made, and the subsequent similar "opinion".

Nor is there anything of worth in the test you quoted above.


I have a feeling where you will go next.

I think you should take that up with

Dr Carl Heneghan
MA DPhil Oxford, BM BCH Oxford, MRCGP

I'm sure he will be interested in your opinion.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

stuff

Are you going to stop stabbing around in the dark with links and documents that are irrelevant to the statement you made?

People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.

The floor is yours. Please take your time to provide actual evidence pertaining to your asssertion.


You really are making this a bit more embarrassing for yourself.

Trev The Rev

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

stuff

Are you going to stop stabbing around in the dark with links and documents that are irrelevant to the statement you made?

People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.

The floor is yours. Please take your time to provide actual evidence pertaining to your asssertion.


You really are making this a bit more embarrassing for yourself.

I stand by my statement.

People who depend on gels & sports drinks bonk more often than those who eat real food.
If you do not agree with me, that is your opinion. If you want to prove I am wrong get on with it - prove it. But please come up with some real evidence.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

stuff

Are you going to stop stabbing around in the dark with links and documents that are irrelevant to the statement you made?

People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.

The floor is yours. Please take your time to provide actual evidence pertaining to your asssertion.


You really are making this a bit more embarrassing for yourself.

I stand by my statement.

People who depend on gels & sports drinks bonk more often than those who eat real food.
If you do not agree with me, that is your opinion. If you want to prove I am wrong get on with it - prove it. But please come up with some real evidence.

Generally the person who makes a statement is the one required to back it up. Since I have not disagreed or called bs, I have no reason to provide evidence. I have simply asked for yours relating to your statement made.

Please do that. You could always just admit that you have none

Trev The Rev

You have disagreed though so prove I'm wrong.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

You have disagreed though so prove I'm wrong.

No. I asked you to back up the claim you made,which you have not done. At no point have I said "thats not true" or actually disagreed.

So once again - please provide evidence that relates to the statement you made earlier. I would like to read it.

StillGoing

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

Trev The Rev

philthy3 wrote:

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

What scientific research is there to back up the claims made by LA Muscle?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

What scientific research is there to back up the claims made by LA Muscle?

He never said there was any. Only that the research linked(there was a subsequent Panorama program which I'm amazed you haven't linked to yet ) didn't include that area of sports products in particular,nor the appropriate demographic.

Trev The Rev

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

What scientific research is there to back up the claims made by LA Muscle?

He never said there was any. Only that the research linked(there was a subsequent Panorama program which I'm amazed you haven't linked to yet ) didn't include that area of sports products in particular,nor the appropriate demographic.

The Panorama program was based partly on the BMJ report. For further reading I suggest you read Noakes. He is doing research now on the subject of diet and athletic performance.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

What scientific research is there to back up the claims made by LA Muscle?

He never said there was any. Only that the research linked(there was a subsequent Panorama program which I'm amazed you haven't linked to yet ) didn't include that area of sports products in particular,nor the appropriate demographic.

The Panorama program was based partly on the BMJ report. For further reading I suggest you read Noakes. He is doing research now on the subject of diet and athletic performance.

Yes it was. And it was grossly misleading on many levels.

Trev The Rev

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

What scientific research is there to back up the claims made by LA Muscle?

He never said there was any. Only that the research linked(there was a subsequent Panorama program which I'm amazed you haven't linked to yet ) didn't include that area of sports products in particular,nor the appropriate demographic.

The Panorama program was based partly on the BMJ report. For further reading I suggest you read Noakes. He is doing research now on the subject of diet and athletic performance.

Yes it was. And it was grossly misleading on many levels.

The Panorama program or the BMJ report?

t.m.h.n.e.t

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

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

Trev The Rev wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

If you care to do a search re your posted link, you'll find that the conducted test was aimed at items such as Gatoraid, Lucozade etc and not the dedicated sports products produced in the market by the likes of LA Muscle, SIS etc. And I get the point TMHMET is raising so why you don't is beyond me?

What scientific research is there to back up the claims made by LA Muscle?

He never said there was any. Only that the research linked(there was a subsequent Panorama program which I'm amazed you haven't linked to yet ) didn't include that area of sports products in particular,nor the appropriate demographic.

The Panorama program was based partly on the BMJ report. For further reading I suggest you read Noakes. He is doing research now on the subject of diet and athletic performance.

Yes it was. And it was grossly misleading on many levels.

The Panorama program or the BMJ report?

The BMJ is correct(re: lack of GSK's credible evidence for example). Panorama misrepresented the information.

amaferanga

This thread is fast becoming a joke thanks to the new forum idiot.

Gels and carbohydrate drinks are great for racing or on any ride where you really don't want to ease off at all to eat normal food. If the race or ride is less than ~2 hours then they're a waste of money IMO.

The argument that gels take up less room than real food is a bit ropey IMO. For example, there are as many calories in a slice of soreen (which can be squashed a bit to take up even less space) than in a gel.

That Panorama programme was also a joke. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of nutrition would realise just how misleading it was.

slowsider

Rulebritania wrote:

Hi,
I've got a couple hi 5 gels but I have no idea when I should take one. I am a beginner so I'm pushing hard and managing 20-25 miles without gel but I'm going to push further on Saturday.

Save it for when you feel tired. It may make a difference either actually or as a placebo. Once you take it, the texture of warm snot is enough to make you turn to real food for the next ride

Trev The Rev

amaferanga wrote:

This thread is fast becoming a joke thanks to the new forum idiot.

Gels and carbohydrate drinks are great for racing or on any ride where you really don't want to ease off at all to eat normal food. If the race or ride is less than ~2 hours then they're a waste of money IMO.

The argument that gels take up less room than real food is a bit ropey IMO. For example, there are as many calories in a slice of soreen (which can be squashed a bit to take up even less space) than in a gel.

That Panorama programme was also a joke. Anyone with a bit of knowledge of nutrition would realise just how misleading it was.

Please don't call me names.

I agree that gels are a waste of money if the race is shorter than 2 hours. If gels don't take up less room than real food where is their advantage?

Southgate

Trev The Rev wrote:

If gels don't take up less room than real food where is their advantage?

The energy is released quicker than with solid food and puts less stress on your digestive system. That's why gels are good for whenever you put the hammer down, e.g. when racing, but also if you are pushing on training rides and sportives too. They are not magic bullets but they have their place in the ammo box, if you can afford them.

Trev The Rev

Southgate wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

If gels don't take up less room than real food where is their advantage?

The energy is released quicker than with solid food.

That would depend on the food. Speed of release is not that important, it is the timing you need to get right, the idea being not to run out of energy in the first place, not ride to the point of energy depletion and desperation.

doyler78

Trev The Rev wrote:

Southgate wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

If gels don't take up less room than real food where is their advantage?

The energy is released quicker than with solid food.

That would depend on the food. Speed of release is not that important, it is the timing you need to get right, the idea being not to run out of energy in the first place, not ride to the point of energy depletion and desperation.

It is undeniably easier to just get the gel packet and squirt it into your mouth. Real food generally involves chewing. Under intense efforts that can be difficult. It's great to live in an ideal world but life is far from ideal so best to have a backup plan.

What real food that you could actually stomach on its own can you take that releases energy as quick as a gel?

Just interested if your "real food" advocation is a long standing belief or if is a result of reading The Obree Way

Southgate

Trev The Rev wrote:

That would depend on the food.

No. Liquids are digested quicker and with less stress than solids which need to be broken down. Gels are designed to provide calories and nutrients for optimal performance, and are generally free of fats and protein. They may well be overpriced and unnecessary for the average 'weekend warrior', but the science behind them is sound and settled.

siamon

The pros seem to eat proper food out of the bags, like quiche, sausage rolls, pasties etc. Loads of the bars and just the odd gel? Whereas the gels seem to make more of an appearance on longer triathlons, but you wouldn't want a Scotch egg wedged in your number belt.

t.m.h.n.e.t

Southgate wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

That would depend on the food.

No. Liquids are digested quicker and with less stress than solids which need to be broken down. Gels are designed to provide calories and nutrients for optimal performance, and are generally free of fats and protein. They may well be overpriced and unnecessary for the average 'weekend warrior', but the science behind them is sound and settled.

I don't think there's anything(other than snorting pure dextrose) that would have a GI as high as an energy gel. If it didn't there would be little point.

But I think Trev is once again slightly confused. The speed at which food breaks down and releases it's sugars is known as Glycemic Index. This is not directly related to the Gastrointestinal tracts ability to uptake those sugars,that has more relation to the types of sugars ingested. IE: If your carb source can't be broken down as quick as it can be taken to the bloodstream via the intestine - you might as well pull over and phone the wife to come get you.

siamon wrote:

The pros seem to eat proper food out of the bags, like quiche, sausage rolls, pasties etc. Loads of the bars and just the odd gel? Whereas the gels seem to make more of an appearance on longer triathlons, but you wouldn't want a Scotch egg wedged in your number belt.

The Feedzone Cookbook by Biju Thomas and Allen Lim is worth a read. It's fair to say they do balance out intake across sources though.

Trev The Rev

I was not advocating trying to eat a steak whilst riding. Yes liquids are digested quicker. Personally I prefer honey to a gel. You can buy honey in little easy to use containers or make up your own little packets. You can mix honey with water. There are many foods which require minimal chewing anyway.

I only read Obree's book 2 days ago. I have been banging on about how gels and sports drinks are a big con for many years. With minimal thought and a little effort you can do far better making things yourself.

daxplusplus

Rulebritania wrote:

What sort of distances should I be thinking to take one?
At what point in the ride?
What boost will I expect?
Are they really worth it?

Hi I'm a relative beginner too but probably just a little further ahead of you (I've been cycling a 50 mile round trip commute every few days for the last year and I did my first sportive earlier this year and it was a hilly 80 miles .. dragon medium route). I reckon my experience of gels may help you if only to give you a heads up of what to expect rather than explain why or what may or may not be better alternatives.

I've only tried gels on the sportive. Towards the end of the last hill. Maybe 50-60 miles in. Up till that point normal food and some pretty basic energy drink was all I needed. A couple of gels on the last hill gave me an immediate boost that lasted maybe 5 minutes - it temporily removed the feeling of totally leaden legs. Could I have done the hill without the gels? Of course. Was it useful\worth it? Yep - it increased my speed and it felt good to know that I had something to respond my lack of fitness\ability\whatever at that point in the ride. Are they really worth it? Depends on how much you value the effect but for me (a bit of tight git at the best of times) definitely and would take them on future rides where I know I'll be pushing myself pretty hard.

One another point, I wished I'd had a gel on one particular commute - it was only 25 miles but it was into a roaring head wind pretty much all the way home. I was more knackered on that ride at about the 20 mile point than any other ride I've ever done - it wasn't becuase of bad diet before hand or lack of fluids or anything other than the amount of energy I had expended upto that point in the ride compared to my level of fitness. So it's not just distance\time that's important but I guess the amount of effort you've had to expend.