(Isotonic) Electrolyte Sports Drinks

meanredspider

Stalin wrote:

If you read the book you will find that the last 30% of the book contains all the references to the research. All the scientific evidence is there. It isn't a case of blind faith, Noakes is a real scientist.

My job for the last 9 years has been as a quality director for the R&D departments of some very large and well-known firms and had interaction with hundreds of scientists. It's part of my job to understand and challenge a lot of this stuff. Just because one guy has written a book (which I'm sure he'd hope would sell - in a similar way to the way in which the big drinks companies hope their products will sell) doesn't make him some sort of messiah. GSK I'm sure employ thousands of scientists - some of them might even be "real scientists"

Stalin

meanredspider wrote:

Stalin wrote:

If you read the book you will find that the last 30% of the book contains all the references to the research. All the scientific evidence is there. It isn't a case of blind faith, Noakes is a real scientist.

My job for the last 9 years has been as a quality director for the R&D departments of some very large and well-known firms and had interaction with hundreds of scientists. It's part of my job to understand and challenge a lot of this stuff. Just because one guy has written a book (which I'm sure he'd hope would sell - in a similar way to the way in which the big drinks companies hope their products will sell) doesn't make him some sort of messiah. GSK I'm sure employ thousands of scientists - some of them might even be "real scientists"

That is the point, GSK employ them, they employ Asker Jeukendrup and other scientists. They also fund many scientist's research.

meanredspider

Stalin wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Stalin wrote:

If you read the book you will find that the last 30% of the book contains all the references to the research. All the scientific evidence is there. It isn't a case of blind faith, Noakes is a real scientist.

My job for the last 9 years has been as a quality director for the R&D departments of some very large and well-known firms and had interaction with hundreds of scientists. It's part of my job to understand and challenge a lot of this stuff. Just because one guy has written a book (which I'm sure he'd hope would sell - in a similar way to the way in which the big drinks companies hope their products will sell) doesn't make him some sort of messiah. GSK I'm sure employ thousands of scientists - some of them might even be "real scientists"

That is the point, GSK employ them, they employ Asker Jeukendrup and other scientists. They also fund many scientist's research.

Of course they do - they're a pharma company. We tend to complain less when they fund research into chemotherapy, diabetes, Alzheimer's etc

Noakes funds himself through his book. It seems naive to me to think that there's a massive difference between the two.

Stalin

meanredspider wrote:

Stalin wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Stalin wrote:

If you read the book you will find that the last 30% of the book contains all the references to the research. All the scientific evidence is there. It isn't a case of blind faith, Noakes is a real scientist.

My job for the last 9 years has been as a quality director for the R&D departments of some very large and well-known firms and had interaction with hundreds of scientists. It's part of my job to understand and challenge a lot of this stuff. Just because one guy has written a book (which I'm sure he'd hope would sell - in a similar way to the way in which the big drinks companies hope their products will sell) doesn't make him some sort of messiah. GSK I'm sure employ thousands of scientists - some of them might even be "real scientists"

That is the point, GSK employ them, they employ Asker Jeukendrup and other scientists. They also fund many scientist's research.

Of course they do - they're a pharma company. We tend to complain less when they fund research into chemotherapy, diabetes, Alzheimer's etc

Noakes funds himself through his book. It seems naive to me to think that there's a massive difference between the two.

Sorry, my mistake, Gatorade employ Jeukendrup and Gatorade are owned by PepsiCo. I think GSK own Lukozade.

meanredspider

Yes GSK is Lucozade - I seem to remember GSK being referred to in the BMJ article. It may have even been them that did some high quality research.

As I say, I don't particularly like those isotonic energy drinks. I'd just like a slightly more objective view on this whole discussion.

One thing to understand is that claims companies make about their products have a pretty low standard of research required: a board of testers (in this case maybe a few gym bunnies) and a questionnaire with some carefully worded questions. That's how you end up with "8 out of 10 cats..."

Obviously, proper, peer reviewed, scientific research and anything related to products with full medical claims have a much high standard of clinical research required. Sports drinks don't need this. It's an easy target to say what rubbish the claims they make are - it's basically just marketing.

Look for the objective evidence and try things for yourself.

Stalin

meanredspider wrote:

Yes GSK is Lucozade - I seem to remember GSK being referred to in the BMJ article. It may have even been them that did some high quality research.

As I say, I don't particularly like those isotonic energy drinks. I'd just like a slightly more objective view on this whole discussion.

One thing to understand is that claims companies make about their products have a pretty low standard of research required: a board of testers (in this case maybe a few gym bunnies) and a questionnaire with some carefully worded questions. That's how you end up with "8 out of 10 cats..."

Obviously, proper, peer reviewed, scientific research and anything related to products with full medical claims have a much high standard of clinical research required. Sports drinks don't need this. It's an easy target to say what rubbish the claims they make are - it's basically just marketing.

Look for the objective evidence and try things for yourself.

Agreed.

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

Of course they do - they're a pharma company. We tend to complain less when they fund research into chemotherapy, diabetes, Alzheimer's etc

Noakes funds himself through his book. It seems naive to me to think that there's a massive difference between the two.

Your implication that an internationally renowned doctor and scientist like Tim Noakes is deliberately taking up a controversial position on this subject just to sell books is completely laughable. You don't think it is possible that the fact he is actually telling the truth is what is actually selling his books?

I think you'll find that more and more sports nutritionists and medical people are beginning to agree with what he is saying and are also starting to promote his ideas and quote him directly.

ddraver

The world would be a much better place if people understood what scientists are and what science is...

I make decisions by looking at the evidence and seeing if how the EXPLAIN what is happening makes sense. "This survery says this/this one says the other" is not an explanation. What I want is something like "Electrolyte drinks aid the absorbtion of water in the gut by encouraging osmosis over this, stimulating that, blocking the other or switching on something else"

That was what I was hoping to acquire from this thread. 2 pages of nonsense on some scientist being good, other equally qualified scientists being biased and (for some unknown reason) an irrelevant rant about Gatorade and Team Sky is not really answering the question. It is possible that that is because the answer to the question is unknown.

I'm a real scientist too, I don't even trust myself. JK Rowling wrote a book but that's no proof that Wizards exist is it

Stalin

ddraver wrote:

I'm a real scientist too, I don't even trust myself.

I'n that case I don't think anyone on this forum should trust you.

Stalin

hypster wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Of course they do - they're a pharma company. We tend to complain less when they fund research into chemotherapy, diabetes, Alzheimer's etc

Noakes funds himself through his book. It seems naive to me to think that there's a massive difference between the two.

Your implication that an internationally renowned doctor and scientist like Tim Noakes is deliberately taking up a controversial position on this subject just to sell books is completely laughable. You don't think it is possible that the fact he is actually telling the truth is what is actually selling his books?

I think you'll find that more and more sports nutritionists and medical people are beginning to agree with what he is saying and are also starting to promote his ideas and quote him directly.

Well said.

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Of course they do - they're a pharma company. We tend to complain less when they fund research into chemotherapy, diabetes, Alzheimer's etc

Noakes funds himself through his book. It seems naive to me to think that there's a massive difference between the two.

Your implication that an internationally renowned doctor and scientist like Tim Noakes is deliberately taking up a controversial position on this subject just to sell books is completely laughable. You don't think it is possible that the fact he is actually telling the truth is what is actually selling his books?

I think you'll find that more and more sports nutritionists and medical people are beginning to agree with what he is saying and are also starting to promote his ideas and quote him directly.

But why do you think he is any more plausible than GSK? With all due respect to Dr Noakes, he's one man who has taken up a position. Given the massive number of scientists and doctors in the world, I find it a little hard that there isn't a lot more evidence, support and generally just more people engaged in his argument given that it's been a couple of years since it was published. I know you're a Noakes evangelist but given we've not yet quoted a single example of hyponatremia in endurance cycling, I find it hard to understand its relevance. We haven't even understood anything more about hydration as a result of bringing him into the debate.

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

hypster wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Of course they do - they're a pharma company. We tend to complain less when they fund research into chemotherapy, diabetes, Alzheimer's etc

Noakes funds himself through his book. It seems naive to me to think that there's a massive difference between the two.

Your implication that an internationally renowned doctor and scientist like Tim Noakes is deliberately taking up a controversial position on this subject just to sell books is completely laughable. You don't think it is possible that the fact he is actually telling the truth is what is actually selling his books?

I think you'll find that more and more sports nutritionists and medical people are beginning to agree with what he is saying and are also starting to promote his ideas and quote him directly.

But why do you think he is any more plausible than GSK? With all due respect to Dr Noakes, he's one man who has taken up a position. Given the massive number of scientists and doctors in the world, I find it a little hard that there isn't a lot more evidence, support and generally just more people engaged in his argument given that it's been a couple of years since it was published. I know you're a Noakes evangelist but given we've not yet quoted a single example of hyponatremia in endurance cycling, I find it hard to understand its relevance. We haven't even understood anything more about hydration as a result of bringing him into the debate.

In the first case, how can you even begin to compare the motives of one individual expert writing a book with a multi-national conglomerate like GlaxoSmithKline? I am a shareholder in GSK and they are currently being hauled over the coals for numerous charges of bribery and corruption of officials in several countries for promotion of their drugs.

In the second case, Tim Noakes' conclusions are largely based on meta-data pulling together a myriad of research and studies from around the world so it's not just his work but the work of many other experts worldwide. I'm not even arguing about hyponatremia here so why even mention it? Waterlogged is about a lot more than just over-hydration.

The reason why we haven't understood anything more about hydration is because you keep harping on about hyponatremia instead of actually reading some of the references I have provided concerning electrolytes not being required which is what I thought we were discussing.

You call me a Tim Noakes evangelist and basically I call you narrow-minded and someone who thinks he knows it all. You think because you don't like isotonic drinks and got cramp once just drinking water that that is conclusive evidence that electrolyte drinks work for you. Hardly a double-blind, controlled environment study though is it but you ask us to just accept your point of view. My experience though is completely opposite to yours and in fact the only times I have experienced cramp is when I have over-hydrated on rides with drinks that have had plenty of electrolytes in them so where is the truth? My experiences chimes with Tim Noakes' advice which is why (for the moment) I am prepared to listen to his ideas until I find that they no longer work.

Lastly, can you honestly say that there is no-one else out there that has no idea what the actual cause of cramping is? After going through a spell of it a few years ago I did a lot of reading around on the subject and tried all the recommended treatments, electrolytes, stretching, more hydration etc. etc. The truth of the matter is no-one really knows the cause of muscular cramps and it might not be the same in everyone. In your case it might just be electrolyte deficiency but based on everything I've read I'm willing to guess that that is just a coincidence. It may well be a combination of other things you are doing which is alleviating the problem for you. Who knows? Unless you subject yourself to rigorous testing under controlled, repeatable conditions you may never know.

meanredspider

Far from being narrow-minded, I'm being open-minded. As I've written several times in this thread, look for objective evidence and try things out. Contrast that with the constant references to Noakes and the evil drinks companies and ask yourself which is the narrow mind.

I've also said that Zero tabs work for me and that might be placebo. I say I just don't like energy drinks - simply because I don't like them - I draw no conclusions from that. I've suffered from cramp since I was a rugby/hockey playing teenager (30 years ago) and tried water for many many many years not just once or twice. I was delighted a few years ago to discover that the Zero tabs work for me. At no point have I said they work for everyone. I know how complex human blood is and just how much it varies - hence I know just how much human physiology varies from actual day-to-day experience. I'm not the one saying that electrolytes are unnecessary. I then didn't go on to post on another thread a link to a site that suggests you need electrolytes.

If I have to summarise my position on this again it's to look at all of this WITH an open mind not just with one man's view.

I love it, BTW, that a Team Sky have a stack of Coke for their riders. Why would that be?

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

I love it, BTW, that a Team Sky have a stack of Coke for their riders. Why would that be?

Sorry, I don't understand that one. What has Coke got to do with electrolytes or this discussion? Another straw man argument from you no doubt.

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

I love it, BTW, that a Team Sky have a stack of Coke for their riders. Why would that be?

Sorry, I don't understand that one. What has Coke got to do with electrolytes or this discussion? Another straw man argument from you no doubt.

It's very simple: there's a school of thought on these threads that water is all you need. Again, in the objective evidence of REAL sport (and it would be hard to argue that Team Sky don't know what they're doing), the athletes aren't using plain water.

GGBiker

When IV fluids are given in hospital for rehydration or maintenance purposes (ie if patient is unable to drink) a 0.9% solution of sodium chloride is used (isotonic or normal saline). If pure water was used there are several problems caused. From a hydration point of view the problem is that pure water quickly diffuses through the semi permeable membranes that separate body compartments to reach equilibrium. The fluid is given into the iv compartment (ie the circulatory system of arteries and veins) which is where you want it to stay if a patient is in shock as a result of dehydration, blood loss or anaphylaxis. Isotonic solutions will stay in the iv compartment for longer before diffusing to other compartments (extra cellular and intracellular). If pure water is given iv it rapidly diffuses across body compartments with only a small proportion staying in the iv compartment where it is desired. Glucose solution can be isotonic but the sugar is quickly moved into the intracellular space as a result of the action of insulin thus leaving the water only and the same issues occur as above.

If large volumes of water are given iv the blood sodium level will drop predisposing to brain swelling, seizures and death. That's extreme but medics have learned from experience that it is a real risk and never hydrate with iv water or hypotonic fluids (at least not without careful monitoring of blood sodium levels).

As applied to cycling hydration, you need to get fluid primarily into the iv space (via the stomach where it is absorbed by capillaries into the bloodstream). Using isotonic helps it to stay in the iv space where it is required, pure water will move quickly to diffuse into the other compartments and the volume remaining in the iv space will be lower.

There have of course been deaths in endurance athletes as a result of water ingestion (by the mechanism above whereby low sodium levels lead to cerebral swelling and death), this is unlikely to be a risk in short duration exercise but becomes higher in prolonged endurance events as the volume ingested is larger and has a greater dilutional effect.

Hope this helps!

Stalin

It is all about duration and intensity. Sky riders doing 5 hours will need to drink and eat. They will eat food, take carb drinks and liquids and yes with electrolytes (salt), and they also take plain water as well.

But for any event or training session up to one hour you don't need anything. The best thing to do is start training properly hydrated and properly fuelled.

Obviously if you have eaten recently or are taking on some food your stomach will not be empty, and will already contain electrolytes from the food.

The fashion for starting long rides fasted on an empty stomach not having eaten since the evening before is a rather stupid fashion.

meanredspider

Thanks GGBiker - very helpful, measured and informed post.

Stalin wrote:

It is all about duration and intensity. Sky riders doing 5 hours will need to drink and eat. They will eat food, take carb drinks and liquids and yes with electrolytes (salt), and they also take plain water as well.

But for any event or training session up to one hour you don't need anything. The best thing to do is start training properly hydrated and properly fuelled.

Obviously if you have eaten recently or are taking on some food your stomach will not be empty, and will already contain electrolytes from the food.

The fashion for starting long rides fasted on an empty stomach not having eaten since the evening before is a rather stupid fashion.

I agree.

hypster

GGBiker wrote:

As applied to cycling hydration, you need to get fluid primarily into the iv space (via the stomach where it is absorbed by capillaries into the bloodstream). Using isotonic helps it to stay in the iv space where it is required, pure water will move quickly to diffuse into the other compartments and the volume remaining in the iv space will be lower.

There have of course been deaths in endurance athletes as a result of water ingestion (by the mechanism above whereby low sodium levels lead to cerebral swelling and death), this is unlikely to be a risk in short duration exercise but becomes higher in prolonged endurance events as the volume ingested is larger and has a greater dilutional effect.

meanredspider wrote:

Thanks GGBiker - very helpful, measured and informed post.

That's very curious meanredspider, what's the difference between what Tim Noakes is outlining and what GGBiker has said?

Also, any reason why you didn't just point out to GGBiker that "deaths in endurance athletes as a result of water ingestion" is a non-issue for cyclists?

ddraver

GGBiker provided some information that msr and I can use to help answer the original question. he did nt say that it was the answer or that it is the only consideration. Using GGbikers info, plus others we can sift truth from fiction and relevance from irrelevance. That's how Science works. Clever innit?

You re using Tim Noakes like and Evangelical Creationist uses a bible. That is not how science works...

hypster

ddraver wrote:

GGBiker provided some information that msr and I can use to help answer the original question. he did nt say that it was the answer or that it is the only consideration. Using GGbikers info, plus others we can sift truth from fiction and relevance from irrelevance. That's how Science works. Clever innit?

You re using Tim Noakes like and Evangelical Creationist uses a bible. That is not how science works...

You've already admitted you're a scientist who doesn't trust his own judgement. Can I suggest that you stop accusing people of being evangelical and try and objectively evaluate what is being presented to you without dismissing it out of hand. Isn't that what scientists are supposed to do? You started this thread presumably out of ignorance so maybe you just might learn something into the bargain.

I am actually agreeing with what GGBiker wrote. All I am asking for is clarification from the all those who have been naysaying Tim Noakes' hypothosis as to how they think this differs from what GGBiker has written. Can you answer me that?

ddraver

Calm down dear it's only the internet.

I am evaluating the evidence presented - thus far nothing much is being presented*, that's the problem.

Anyhoo Given that I'm now being asked to write a book review I think its clear this has turned into the willy waving competition I had hoped to avoid and frankly I'm not interested in that.

*honourable exceptions to MSR, GG & Dr Lodge

meanredspider

hypster wrote:

That's very curious meanredspider, what's the difference between what Tim Noakes is outlining and what GGBiker has said?

Also, any reason why you didn't just point out to GGBiker that "deaths in endurance athletes as a result of water ingestion" is a non-issue for cyclists?

It's all down to the way it's presented. For starters. GGB set it out in a coherent and factual way, explaining the mechanisms, and laying out the consequences in a sensible manner. It was balanced and also (certainly appeared) to be written out of first-hand knowledge. Contrast that with the way that the Noakes stuff is presented: it starts with a series of assertions and claims and then follows up with the science that it believes supports its argument. You guys present it by just pointing at it ("Google Waterlogged by Dr Tim Noakes" being typical) and by blaming the drinks industry for confusing everyone. It comes across as having an agenda (which I think it has) and as evangelical.

You assert that isotonics/hypotonics have no purpose. You also present the information as being relevant to cycling. Just there are two key differences in what the Noakes brigade believe and what GGB presented (or certainly how it comes across).

Try presenting your argument in the same way that GGB did: set out the principles and the consequences to explain why we don't need electrolytes in our drinks (maybe explaining why professional athletes use them) and how and why the risk of hyponatremia is a risk for cyclists (maybe citing some real-life examples of cyclists dying from it). Don't include any links (unless you need them for proof of facts: X cyclists died in 2013 from hyponatremia). Don't refer to "because Noakes says so". Don't blame the drinks industry. Just a bald clear argument that you clearly understand.

And there's the problem with Noakes. I expect he knows the physiology of hydration (though, from what I've read, some bits seem a bit vague) but it's lost in the assertions he makes which I'm not sure follow.

hypster

meanredspider wrote:

hypster wrote:

That's very curious meanredspider, what's the difference between what Tim Noakes is outlining and what GGBiker has said?

Also, any reason why you didn't just point out to GGBiker that "deaths in endurance athletes as a result of water ingestion" is a non-issue for cyclists?

It's all down to the way it's presented. For starters. GGB set it out in a coherent and factual way, explaining the mechanisms, and laying out the consequences in a sensible manner. It was balanced and also (certainly appeared) to be written out of first-hand knowledge. Contrast that with the way that the Noakes stuff is presented: it starts with a series of assertions and claims and then follows up with the science that it believes supports its argument. You guys present it by just pointing at it ("Google Waterlogged by Dr Tim Noakes" being typical) and by blaming the drinks industry for confusing everyone. It comes across as having an agenda (which I think it has) and as evangelical.

You assert that isotonics/hypotonics have no purpose. You also present the information as being relevant to cycling. Just there are two key differences in what the Noakes brigade believe and what GGB presented (or certainly how it comes across).

Try presenting your argument in the same way that GGB did: set out the principles and the consequences to explain why we don't need electrolytes in our drinks (maybe explaining why professional athletes use them) and how and why the risk of hyponatremia is a risk for cyclists (maybe citing some real-life examples of cyclists dying from it). Don't include any links (unless you need them for proof of facts: X cyclists died in 2013 from hyponatremia). Don't refer to "because Noakes says so". Don't blame the drinks industry. Just a bald clear argument that you clearly understand.

And there's the problem with Noakes. I expect he knows the physiology of hydration (though, from what I've read, some bits seem a bit vague) but it's lost in the assertions he makes which I'm not sure follow.

You have absolutely no idea who GGBiker is other than he posts something on an internet form that suits your purpose. Yet you choose to dismiss exactly the same information written by an internationally renowned scientist who has been regularly reviewed by his peers over many years. His hypothesis and ideas are based on a huge amount of research and are increasingly being taken up by other experts because it making more sense than current dogma which has been derived from vested interest anyway. (Sorry, big, bad drinks industry again :shock: )

The fact that I don't regurgitate it verbatim for your ease of consumption is neither here nor there and doesn't detract from its veracity one bit. I provided the links so that you can read it first-hand. I'm sure that if I had just presented the ideas myself you would be picking it apart and shouting for proof and where did I get all this nonsense from? In my opinion it makes much more sense to go straight to the source rather than get it second or third hand from some anonymous internet poster that you don't know from Adam.

I thought I would give you an opportunity to explain the obvious inconsistency in your posts but once again you just come up with some fatuous argument and weasel out of it. I tell you what meanredspider, I just think you like an argument for the sake of it. As such I'm not going to pour any more petrol on your ridiculous bonfire. You will be hearing from me on this subject again though.

meanredspider

Well, my point has gone straight over your head. Don't be surprised if you again make little headway when you next post another Noakes link.

ETA - I re-read the link you posted for the 3rd time but this time read the comments too. This comment near the top summed it up for me:

I am really pleased that Noakes is challenging running dogma and discussing the actual scientific results. But I hope he is more thoughtful and nuanced in his analysis than most of the discussions I've seen of Waterlogged, which seem to replace one dogma with another.

That's spot-on.

Re-reading the article reminded me of a lot of the questions it raises in my head. Take cramp: it says that there's no proof that sodium helps cramp. What it implies, but doesn't say, is that there's equally no proof that sodium doesn't help cramp. Maybe it helps some of the people some of the time. What it's very clear about is that we don't understand cramp. The trouble is that, as per the comment I've quoted above, people will (and have done) swap the dogma that sodium helps cramp with the dogma that sodium DOESN'T help cramp. Neither is proven - just dogma.

johnboy183

Sorry not had time to read through this. Stumbled upon this site yesterday. Is it of interest?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/sports- ... egulation/

(Apologies if time wasting)

hypster

johnboy183 wrote:

Sorry not had time to read through this. Stumbled upon this site yesterday. Is it of interest?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/sports- ... egulation/

(Apologies if time wasting)

Thanks for that. This is quite interesting:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11 ... ctrolytes/

Stalin

hypster wrote:

johnboy183 wrote:

Sorry not had time to read through this. Stumbled upon this site yesterday. Is it of interest?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/sports- ... egulation/

(Apologies if time wasting)

Thanks for that. This is quite interesting:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11 ... ctrolytes/

I liked this bit,

""The problem that we (as a sports community) find ourselves in today, with this huge confusion, is the result of allowing ourselves to be treated as stupid. Yes, that’s right – the companies that sell sports drinks think that you are too stupid to drink when you should, and that your body is too stupid to realise when it needs salt! Our species learned how to make fire, put a man on the moon, and created a communication system that allows you in Colorado (or wherever you are in the world) to read the words I am typing in Cape Town! But when it comes to drinking – we’re just not capable! Surely that doesn’t make sense!

The reality is that your body is designed perfectly to regulate its internal environment unless you have some disease or potentially critical problem (being lost in the desert without food or water for a week is one that springs to mind!). Yet for some reason, every animal in the animal kingdom EXCEPT for humans is able to drink when they need to, eat the right foods and get the right nutrients when they need to!

So forget the salt tablets, forget trying to work out what you need to eat and drink when you exercise, and just listen! Your body knows better!""

The sports drink companies don't think people are stupid, they know people are stupid because people buy their products.

meanredspider

And then there's this bit

“I swallow an electrolyte pill and my cramping stops.” This is a comment we hear often, and although we cannot explain this physiologically, the more important message is that you have found something that works for you. We cannot stress how important this is! All the science in the world can point to something, but if what you are doing works for you, then you are better to stick with that technique. We invest so much time and energy (i.e. blood, sweat and tears!) into our training, and if you know that taking some supplement—providing it is legal, of course—will prevent a cramp during your marathon, then by all means you must take it.

hypster

This is useful too.

http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/201 ... le-cramps/