|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 4, 2010 19:14:48 GMT -5
Ahutch...Just think how well the Americans at FISU and Bolt would have competed had they fueled more efficiently. Or, alternately, just think if I had eaten more McDonald's -- maybe I would have beaten the Americans, and qualified for the Olympics like they did. Yes... as are almost all marketing campaigns. Are you also angry at the car companies who suggest that owning one of their vehicles will magically transport you to a land of beautiful scenery where you'll revel in outdoor air, whereas in fact their cars will pollute the air and contribute to geopolitical instability? And what about those nefarious shampoo companies who suggest that buying their product will make pimply teen girls beautiful and popular? |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 4, 2010 19:32:53 GMT -5
Aside from other fast foods, or prepared supermarket items, which are really just frozen fast food, name one other kind of food that is a bad for you as McDonald's. This is one of two places where I find your argument a little weak, Steve. The above sentence can be paraphrased as "Leaving aside the food that 95% of Canadians consume on a regular basis, give me just one example of food that's as bad as McDonald's." Compared to a GOOD diet, McDonald's is crap. But compared to what the vast majority of people eat -- and that includes most serious runners in Canada and the U.S. -- it's not really all that different. So, do I agree that McDonald's is sub-optimal for athletic performance? Yes. Do I agree that fast food, as a whole, is sub-optimal? Yes. But do I think that telling kids to stop eating McD's will have an appreciable effect on their performance? Highly unlikely, because the food they're going to replace it with is almost as bad. It you want kids to have a good diet, you have to teach them what they SHOULD eat -- because most of them are clueless. The second place is the logical connection between "McD's is suboptimal" and "therefore it's morally unjustifiable for them to advertise using Olympic athletes." These are two very interesting debates, and I tend to agree with you in broad strokes on both of them, but I don't think one follows from the other. (If sub-optimality prevented advertising, the airwaves would be pretty silent.) |
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Mar 4, 2010 19:53:44 GMT -5
I got myself down to a 2:25 mary from a very fat standing start in 21 months and fueled myself with diet pop(very little water) and fast food(KFC, Mickey Dees, Harvey's, Wendy's, Ponderosa, etc). Not defending it, just thought some might find of interest. It is certainly a refutation of the hysterics about Mickey Dees et al. If I survived(arguably thrived) on a diet like that, eating the stuff in moderation can't be any kind of big deal. Carry on all. SI, just think how much faster you could have run on a proper diet, food for thought |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 4, 2010 20:11:03 GMT -5
Maybe, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Mar 4, 2010 20:30:01 GMT -5
P.S. What exactly does "outright harmful" mean? If this is what we're arguing about, then only a deadly poison is "outright harmful". As I said, Herb Eliot smoked cigarettes during the off season (just look up Ron Clarke's reminiscences of Eliot in Cerrutty in the 60s). If you're prepared to argue that smoking cigarettes is also therefore not "outright harmful" for endurance athletes, then you'll at least have the virtue of consistency. Edit: If we were compiling a list of the top five worst nurtritional habits an endurance athlete could engage in, on average, then surely eating fast food would be near the top of the list (probably surpassed only by not eating enough at all). This is what makes what McDonald's is trying to do in those truly heinous ads spaff posted so reprehensible. That shit is right out of the Simpsons. It's very close to self-parody. i for one would prefer a pint of Guinness and a smoke to anything offered at Mikey D's. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Mar 4, 2010 20:48:45 GMT -5
Oldster, if you weren't so damned smart, and I only read this thread, I would think you were a complete moron - seriously, I would. You are so far over the top on this...
By "logical" extension of some of the points you are attempting to whip us with, here are a few other "Oldster truisms".
1) A coach of elite athletes should be spending all their time doing nothing but reading up on the latest training and racing information, period. Time spent "chain-yanking" on a message board is an obvious indicator of the wrong priorities for a coach of elite athletes.
2) Any athlete/coach who wants to be the best they can be would move to Victoria, or somewhere else where there is almost no snow or ice or extreme summer heat and humidity to deal with. Anyone who doesn't so move can't be serious enough.
3) Some people get addicted to alcholol, so no-one should have a beer or so now and then.
4) Some people get addicted to sex, so is also off the "to do" list.
5) Some people get addicted to gambling, so a Saturday night game of poker is out.
6) Some people die of water intoxication or hyponatremia, so no more water.
7) Many people spend too much time watching TV or on the computer, so those are gone.
Etc., etc., etc. - ad infinitum...
Oh, and yes it is the job of McDonald's and other food outlets to educate our children and ourselves about healthy eating habits.
So, of course not only all the fast food outlets, but anyone selling T.V.'s or computers or water, etc., should not be allowed to advertise, because, of course, in excess all those things are bad us.
The danger of under-eating in would-be elite distance runners seems far more serious to me than the dangers of over-eating. In fact, I would suggest that exact attitudes that lead to anorexia, bulimia, other eating disorders, and extreme OCD behaviours are being trumpeted by some on this board as the "right" attitude.
You take a young female distance runner, put her on a strict vegan diet, with no mineral or vitamin supplements. I'll take her and put her on a solid well-rounded eating regime that includes a few hamburgers a week, and I will guarantee you who would be healthier and a better athlete over time...
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 21:05:14 GMT -5
This thread would be more constructive (and less acrimonious) if people identified things that should be avoided that might be present in certain foods (including some products available from fast food places). And conversely things athletes ought to look for in their diets.
I'd rattle off a list but I'm busy with other things at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 21:12:55 GMT -5
Aside from other fast foods, or prepared supermarket items, which are really just frozen fast food, name one other kind of food that is a bad for you as McDonald's. This is one of two places where I find your argument a little weak, Steve. The above sentence can be paraphrased as "Leaving aside the food that 95% of Canadians consume on a regular basis, give me just one example of food that's as bad as McDonald's." Compared to a GOOD diet, McDonald's is crap. But compared to what the vast majority of people eat -- and that includes most serious runners in Canada and the U.S. -- it's not really all that different. So, do I agree that McDonald's is sub-optimal for athletic performance? Yes. Do I agree that fast food, as a whole, is sub-optimal? Yes. But do I think that telling kids to stop eating McD's will have an appreciable effect on their performance? Highly unlikely, because the food they're going to replace it with is almost as bad. It you want kids to have a good diet, you have to teach them what they SHOULD eat -- because most of them are clueless. The second place is the logical connection between "McD's is suboptimal" and "therefore it's morally unjustifiable for them to advertise using Olympic athletes." These are two very interesting debates, and I tend to agree with you in broad strokes on both of them, but I don't think one follows from the other. (If sub-optimality prevented advertising, the airwaves would be pretty silent.) Hutch, in spite of my challenge to pq, the nutrition part of this discussion has never really been only about McDonald's. And, I flatly disagree that the North American diet, and that of North American athletes in particular, is already so bad that it would do no good to advise against eating at McDonald's. It is, after all, the number one purveyor of junk food, and its growth, along with that of fast food sales in general, tracks the obesity pretty closely. The big staples in the North American diet are still things like bread (the worst of which is far better than it was in the 70s and 80s), chicken, peanut butter, eggs, milk, and basic fruits like apples and bananas, all of which are significantly better than any fast or prepared food, and most people are, by now, pretty well aware of that, even if they have a hard time resisting the convenient crap that is all around them. And I realize, of course, that there's more to improving nutrition levels than simply saying no to McDonald's, as good a start as that would be. Poor nutrition is also related strongly to poverty, for instance. But this discussion was around the question of whether it is logically consistent to say that the pursuit of maximum personal performance in sport (and endurance sport in particular) is compatible with even the moderate the consumption of McDonald's food (or, we could have said, any comparable food). If the answer to this is yes, then guys like Trent Stellinwerf, who are devoted to applying all their scientific acumen to finding ways to optimize nutrition for top performance are probably wasting their time. And we weren't talking about simply winning, or being very good; we were talking about achieving maximum personal performance. And about the ethics of McDonald's use of symbols of health and vitality, you really don't think this is way closer to the totally loathsome end of the ethics in advertising continuum than, say, advertising cars as "green" and shampoo as "beautifying"? No one, least of all me, is suggesting that the vast majority of all advertising is not somewhat disingenuous, at best; but surely you must think some examples are far less ethical than others. Based on the logic that all advertising is ethically tainted, would you be willing, for instance, to see a return to Dr.s advertising cigarettes, or the direct targeting of children in cigarette ads? Would you be comfortable with ads that showed serious athletes getting pissed on alcohol? (Which, as with the McDonald's ads, and in spite of the fact that many of them do on occasion get pissed, it would be unethical to represent them as typically doing.) Having modern society's greatest symbols of healthy vitality shilling McDonald's food in the midst of an historically unprecedented public health crisis-- that of childhood obesity-- will one day look as bad as a guy in a white lab coat shilling Lucky Strikes, I predict. (It already makes me cringe). Again, because there are larger issues involved should not entail giving McDonald's a free pass. Again, this is a very curious argument to be having on a message board frequented by people devoted to serious endurance sport. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 4, 2010 21:18:15 GMT -5
(1) ...McDonald's... is, after all, the number one purveyor of junk food, ... (2) ...guys like Trent Stellinwerf, .... (1) Says the guy who doesn't actually know what kind of food they sell. (2) ... already weighed in and suggested there's nothing wrong with eating fast food around once a week. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 21:31:29 GMT -5
Oldster, if you weren't so damned smart, and I only read this thread, I would think you were a complete moron - seriously, I would. You are so far over the top on this... By "logical" extension of some of the points you are attempting to whip us with, here are a few other "Oldster truisms". 1) A coach of elite athletes should be spending all their time doing nothing but reading up on the latest training and racing information, period. Time spent "chain-yanking" on a message board is an obvious indicator of the wrong priorities for a coach of elite athletes. 2) Any athlete/coach who wants to be the best they can be would move to Victoria, or somewhere else where there is almost no snow or ice or extreme summer heat and humidity to deal with. Anyone who doesn't so move can't be serious enough. 3) Some people get addicted to alcholol, so no-one should have a beer or so now and then. 4) Some people get addicted to sex, so is also off the "to do" list. 5) Some people get addicted to gambling, so a Saturday night game of poker is out. 6) Some people die of water intoxication or hyponatremia, so no more water. 7) Many people spend too much time watching TV or on the computer, so those are gone. Etc., etc., etc. - ad infinitum... Oh, and yes it is the job of McDonald's and other food outlets to educate our children and ourselves about healthy eating habits. So, of course not only all the fast food outlets, but anyone selling T.V.'s or computers or water, etc., should not be allowed to advertise, because, of course, in excess all those things are bad us. The danger of under-eating in would-be elite distance runners seems far more serious to me than the dangers of over-eating. In fact, I would suggest that exact attitudes that lead to anorexia, bulimia, other eating disorders, and extreme OCD behaviours are being trumpeted by some on this board as the "right" attitude. You take a young female distance runner, put her on a strict vegan diet, with no mineral or vitamin supplements. I'll take her and put her on a solid well-rounded eating regime that includes a few hamburgers a week, and I will guarantee you who would be healthier and a better athlete over time... Ron, are you off the meds again? Be careful! And, as a former McDonald's manager, I thought you might have recused yourself from this thread on account of conflict of interest! And I knew you'd find a way to work Victoria into this! (If you think athletes are not going all out if they don't move there, or somewhere like it, then say so, but don't deny my right to say that not taking nutrition seriously is an unacceptable compromise for elite athletes.) Edit: If you were really paying attention you'd have seen that I already allowed the not eating enough at all is probably the one nutritionally worse thing for athletes than eating fast food. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 21:53:30 GMT -5
(1) ...McDonald's... is, after all, the number one purveyor of junk food, ... (2) ...guys like Trent Stellinwerf, .... (1) Says the guy who doesn't actually know what kind of food they sell. (2) ... already weighed in and suggested there's nothing wrong with eating fast food around once a week. Pq, please. This is weak even by the low standard you have set for yourself in this discussion. You're resorting to calling me on my precise knowledge of the McDonald's menu!? How many times does it have to be repeated that the nutrition part of this discussion need not be considered exclusive to McDonald's (unlike the ethical part about using elite athletes to shill crap food). And that is not all that Trent said, and you know it. (He also said that, on the other hand, he has noted big, albeit isolated, differences in training effect caused by subtle changes in nutrient intake.) He can speak for himself, but I can tell you that there is no way he would advise a serious athlete to continue eating McDonald's food as often as once a week. If you want an object lesson in how to address an argument in a logical and substantive way, just read ahutch's post. Hint: you start with an actual attempt at characterizing the argument you're objecting to, then you say where you think it goes wrong. You don't just clip phrases out of context, scream for facts (when you yourself aren't providing any), or go on about "opinions" (when its already understood that the whole discussion is based on the exchange of opinions, with reference only to the most general facts). |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 4, 2010 22:49:15 GMT -5
P.S. I think the overreaction I'm seeing to an argument that should really not be broadly controversial in a forum like this is inherently political. My sense is that people like pq, ronb and smithwicks, for example, are simply put off by left-wing sounding critiques of big companies like McDonald's, even when the critique is centered on an area of interest we all share and are in general agreement on-- high performance sport (i.e. its about nutrition and sport, and not about, for instance, the ethics of meat consumption, or McDonald's labour practices). If this had started as a discussion about sport nutrition in general, I don't think we'd see such adamant defenses of the "moderate" consumption of junk food by athletes who are supposed to be exploiting every reasonable advantage to maximize their lifetime potential, including the fruits of nutritional science (which improves constantly). I would still have tried to wind people up, of course, but I don't think I would have got quite the rise I got out of, for instance, old Ronb, if McDonald's hadn't been part of the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 5, 2010 1:20:22 GMT -5
First, the nutrition debate. I understand that McD's, in this argument, is standing in for a broader class of food. If you're singling them out because they're the industry leader, that's fine; it's singling them out as significantly worse than their peers that I don't necessarily agree with. Consider three hamburgers: a Big Mac, a nice burger from a classy pub or restaurant with a good kitchen, and the one I make for myself on a regular basis at home. There are some key ways that my burger is better than the Big Mac: the bun is wholewheat, the lettuce is romaine instead of iceberg, the tomato is fresher, the meat is better (actually, these days, it's kangaroo), the cheese is real rather than machine-extruded. And there are also some similarities -- my ketchup still has plenty of salt and sugar, the meat (when I can't get 'roo) still has hormones and antibiotics, and so on. The pub burger is somewhere in the middle -- fewer preservatives in the bun, but white instead of wholewheat, and so on... But in terms of health and performance differences, in my opinion the biggest difference by far is the context. With my burger, I'll have a spinach salad, steamed broccoli, maybe some roasted sweet potato, and a bowl of fruit afterwards. We all know, in contrast, what I'll get with a burger at McD's. In other words, I think it would be healthier overall for me to have my usual home meal with a Big Mac instead of my own burger, rather than having a gourmet burger, fries and shake at a fancy pub. I realize that others may disagree with my nutritional assessment (what do you say, Trent?). And I do realize that there are real differences between my burger and a Big Mac, both in terms of good stuff missing and bad stuff present (and the most important fact that mine will taste way better). But I think it's overly simplistic to blame McD's for what is actually a pervasive societal approach to eating. As for the advertising debate, oldster asked "Would you be comfortable with ads that showed serious athletes getting pissed on alcohol?" I think that's a pretty appropriate comparison (except that, to be analogous to the McD's ads, it would an athlete saying "After a hard track workout, I love to kick back with a cold one of these before dinner," not getting pissed.) That's certainly the reason so many people were upset that the women's hockey team was photographed with beer and cigars on the ice after their gold medal game. Won't someone please think of the children! Seriously, though, I'm all in favour of the restrictions on cigarette advertising. Same with the restrictions on booze advertising. And I'd support restrictions of advertising aimed at children for fast food, candy, breakfast cereals, soft drinks. I think all this stuff is bad -- I just don't think McD's is that different from any of these other examples. (And I don't think the use of Olympic athletes is so very much worse than any of the other ways that all these companies try to promote their products as "part of a healthy lifestyle.") Are we boycotting all the athletes who shill for video games, another insidious threat to youth health if not used in moderation? And are we cutting off carding to anyone who plays them?  |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 5, 2010 8:39:19 GMT -5
Pq, please. This is weak even by the low standard you have set for yourself in this discussion. From the guy who just asked a senior member of our running community if "he's off his meds?" Again. That's rich. Low standards indeed... --- In case anyone else didn't follow my logic, let me break it down more clearly. We were discussing the relative merits and evils of McDonalds food (if the implication was that "McDonalds" was a stand-in for the broader "evil fast food industry" it was never mentioned). oldster made numerous generalizations to the effect that ALL McDonalds food was worse for a serious athlete than virtually ALL other foods, without presenting much in the way of factual basis to support that claim. When oldster started to back up his claim, it was immediately obvious he didn't have a clue what kind of food they even sell. By extension, he could not be aware, presumably, that it's possible for a knowledgeable person to enjoy McDs food that is no less healthy than most typical food consumed by normal people in North America. Do they sell some crappy, unhealthy food? Surely. EVERYONE knows this. But they've never forcefed any of it to me. My last couple of meals at McDs were hotcakes and sausage, and the breakfast BLT. Anyone can check the nutrition facts and discover there's nothing particularly harmful in either of those meals. ----- Political? I haven't got a political bone in my body, and if you asked my views on a dozen issues my leanings would vary from far right to far left. I weighed in because when I smell bullshit, I call it. ----- Someone should try to get Cindy Klassen to weigh in on this debate. Our greatest ever Olympian is munching on an egg McMuffin in one of those commercials. |
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Mar 5, 2010 8:54:04 GMT -5
as far as the sausage at McD's well it resembles a hockey puck so probably has a few harmful ingredients in it, not sure if you had the syrup with the hot cakes but would imagine it has high fructose corn syrup (label as glucose-fructose in Canada btw) as an ingredient
I find it difficult to believe McD's is part of Klassen's weekly diet but just speculating, my opinion is if a large corporation like McD's is willing to sponsor our athlete's then take the money because sponsorship funds are scarce (realize not morally correct because of what oldster has been alluding to but not "being a whore" either)
pq just comments not trying to create an argument
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Mar 5, 2010 9:04:14 GMT -5
just checked out the McD's website for nutritional facts on their meals, some of you might want to take a look to see what ingredients on in their meals, somewhat scary to say the least
ya sodium is abundant (realize we all assumed that), the dreaded high fructose corn syrup (glucose-fructose) as well
at least they let the public know what they are consuming
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 5, 2010 9:18:17 GMT -5
... the sausage ... probably has a few harmful ingredients in it, ...not sure if you had the syrup with the hot cakes but would imagine it has high fructose corn syrup Worst bits in the sausage: 0.1 g of trans fat, and 410 g of sodium I try my best to avoid trans fats (everyone should), so this is the "guilty" part of the guilty pleasure. I don't eat the syrup, but you're likely right it's most likely high fructose corn syrup, which I think people should avoid as much as they can. Which is frankly hard to do, given how widespread it's become. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 5, 2010 10:54:33 GMT -5
was a stand-in for the broader "evil fast food industry" Pq, please. This is weak even by the low standard you have set for yourself in this discussion. From the guy who just asked a senior member of our running community if "he's off his meds?" Again. That's rich. Low standards indeed... --- In case anyone else didn't follow my logic, let me break it down more clearly. We were discussing the relative merits and evils of McDonalds food (if the implication was that "McDonalds" ; it was never mentioned). oldster made numerous generalizations to the effect that ALL McDonalds food was worse for a serious athlete than virtually ALL other foods, without presenting much in the way of factual basis to support that claim. When oldster started to back up his claim, it was immediately obvious he didn't have a clue what kind of food they even sell. By extension, he could not be aware, presumably, that it's possible for a knowledgeable person to enjoy McDs food that is no less healthy than most typical food consumed by normal people in North America. Do they sell some crappy, unhealthy food? Surely. EVERYONE knows this. But they've never forcefed any of it to me. My last couple of meals at McDs were hotcakes and sausage, and the breakfast BLT. Anyone can check the nutrition facts and discover there's nothing particularly harmful in either of those meals. ----- Political? I haven't got a political bone in my body, and if you asked my views on a dozen issues my leanings would vary from far right to far left. I weighed in because when I smell bullshit, I call it. ----- Someone should try to get Cindy Klassen to weigh in on this debate. Our greatest ever Olympian is munching on an egg McMuffin in one of those commercials. Pq, you've never had an "argument" on this, logical or not. You're output consisted of calling bullshit on my claim that McDonald's food-- all of it-- is nutritionally worse for you than almost any non-fast/prepared food alternative. Yet, you still could not name one alternative food choice that was nutritionally worse. Your other "point" consisted of a lame attempt to discredit my knowledge of the McD's menu (when it varies so much from year to year, season to season, and from region to region that I'm sure only afficionados really know it cold). (I'm sure I saw a baked potato somewhere in the U.S. at some point). And, you admitted you weren't even interested in the main-- and more interesting-- argument, which concerned McDonald's use of elite athletes in it's ads. This latest clarification adds nothing to any of this. And about my crack to Ronnyb, I've known him for a very long time, and we have an understanding. And, his reply was completely over the top, which you would probably admit if he weren't supporting your position. (In fact, I'm sure he was trying to wind ME up!) And back to the question of the McDonald's menu, if you were actually arguing, and not just trying to score cheap points, you would recall that I acknowledged that McD's does try to sell some marginally nutritious alternatives, like salads and wraps; but, that they offer completely unwholesome toppings on these alternatives, so that people can get the fat, salt and sugar they crave while still feeling good about their choices; and, that Mcd's knows that people will also often order soft drinks and fries with their "healthy" choices once in the door-- again, feeling like the healthy alternative makes a few fries and a Coke O.K. Drug dealers don't force anything down anyone's throat either; they just try to make their product as widely available as possible, and let our empty and troubled lives do the rest. And, I'm sorry, but your healthy alternative McDonald's breakfast is still complete crap. You might as well eat the syrup, because the white-flour pancakes you're eating already have the gylcemic reading of a donut*, and the sodium to nutrition ratio of your "McDlt" makes it worse than almost anything you could find sitting around at house. I repeat: There are few, if any, food alternatives worse for you than even the best fast-food offerings. This crap has no place on the training table of an endurance athlete who claims to want to be the best he/she can be. Every time you eat this stuff, you are NOT eating something that is going to help-- even if only in the tiniest way-- make you a stronger athlete. I can't believe you're finding this notion such a hard sell. The vast majority of the serious distance runners I've ever met, and particularly the younger ones, who increasingly know better than we did, eat fast food so infrequently that you might as well say they don't eat it at all. As a general rule, serious runners-- and, increasingly, athletes in ALL sports who are looking for an edge-- are no longer eating crap food, even in so-called moderation. Some of you guys (including you, ron, and powerboy) need to get out of the 70s and 80s on this one. To quote Canada's own Barenaked Ladies: "I think never is enough, you never have to do that stuff." *http://www.diabetes.ca/for-professionals/resources/nutrition/glycemic-index/ |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 5, 2010 11:12:29 GMT -5
...McDonald's food-- all of it-- is nutritionally worse for you than almost any non-fast/prepared food alternative. I acknowledged that McD's does try to sell some marginally nutritious alternatives, like salads and wraps; "All of it" or "most of it" is total crap? This has been my beef with your position all along. Not the general idea that McDs food (and any fast food) is, on average, less wholesome than we ought to eat on a daily basis. I accept that idea without reservation. But the insistence that "all of it" needs to be avoided at all costs and at all times by any serious athlete, that's where I have an issue. ----- I didn't say anywhere that my admitted guilty pleasure McPig's brekkie was optimal nutrition, BTW. I know there are better choices, and most days I make better choices. But that doesn't mean it's bad for me (or for a serious athlete) to indulge on occasion. I will maintain to my grave (and who knows that may arrive early, although my BP and cholesterol are both very low) that it's good to feed the soul from time to time. Like maybe a big slab of greasy pizza! haha ----- Also, I'm still completely disinterested in the topic of elite athletes in the McDs ads. You may find that discussion more interesting, but I do not, which is why I've declined to contribute on that topic. |
|
|
|
Post by runalittle on Mar 5, 2010 20:52:34 GMT -5
[yawn] I think we've come to the part of the debate where Oldster (who, based on man hours alone, is easily the most riled about this whole thing) does something that nobody else has done so far: stop pontificating and start posting some good, solid evidence to support his case. As a nutritionist (god, I love that that's an unregulated term), I can say that the entire field is rife with myths, misconceptions, and--most of all--uncertainty. A lot of people have very linear thought patterns and I think we're witnessing some of that here. Here's an example: Oldster, I haven't taken the time to do more than skim most of your posts but it looks like you have a problem with the "moderates" because, hey, if you're eating ANY McDonald's you're substituting sub-optimal food for some not-yet-identified ideal food. One could use this same line of argument for something like alcohol, right? We know that in any real large or even medium quantities it's bad for you, but the "harm curve" for EtOH is more of a J shape. A moderate amount is actually beneficial in a lot of ways. Even if McDonald's was JUST empty calories--I mean that to the extreme, like, zero other nutrients--you can imagine that you'd still be able to consume it daily as long as you made sure you were picking up your carbohydrates, fats, fibre, minerals, protein, and vitamins elsewhere. The more McDonald's you ate, the harder that would be, but isn't that the beauty of our ill-defined "moderate amount"? We can just define it as whatever amount allows this scheme to work. I think reductionism in nutrition has its pitfalls (glycemic index is a nice counter-argument), but it's a useful model to help illustrate the point that empty calories can be overcome. Next, we have to be sure we're looking at athletic performance as our endpoint. True, the red meat in your burger may increase your risk of colon cancer and the trans fats in your sausage may increase your risk of heart disease. That's crumby and it gives you another reason to avoid McDonald's as a regular food, but it does NOTHING to say that it's going to diminish your athletic performance during your peak competitive years. One of the key points of Oldster's arguments rests on the fact that there are some better foods out there that any serious athlete should be consuming instead of McDonald's. If you're going to use this as a pillar of your line of reasoning, the onus is on you to identify what those other foods may be. And remember, whole grain this and omega-3 that may be good for long-term health while doing nothing for London 2012. Step up. Here are two bonus points, only moderately related to the main line of argument, that I wanted to add: 1. I noticed a lot of mention about salt whenever someone tries to paint McDonald's in a negative light, but even the salt debate isn't an open and shut case. The NY Times did a good job of highlighting this recently (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/23tier.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1267837533-grxeGcSkPkTSZCVS8dhJVg). 2. There were a few shots at high-fructose corn syrup. Fair enough, but I think there are enough misconceptions about this topic that I wanted to make this lecture available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. You can find it in podcast form (if that's more your cup of tea) with a quick Google search. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 5, 2010 22:47:20 GMT -5
runalittle, I think that's a worthwhile distinction between what will turn out to be healthy in the long term, and what will affect your performance in the short or medium term. The two aren't always congruent, even within the very limited sphere of what we actually "know." Anyway, I was reading some blogs at flotrack, and thought this one, from the guy who finished second at the Ohme marathon in Japan last week, was pretty funny: www.flotrack.org/blogs/blogger/pjrizzo/10779-the-ohme-marathon-experience. "I have to confess that 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, my breakfast is 8-10 pieces of toast. My lunch is usually some form of meat and peanut butter sandwich, and my dinner is either a frozen pizza, pasta, or chicken tenders. There is almost never a deviation from this pattern. The Japanese eat none of these. The first night, we ate dinner at the hotel and Mr. Honda asked if I wanted pasta or sushi. As part of a promise I made to myself to experience Japan 100%, I went for the sushi. I think that I have eaten fish a grand total of about 5 times in my 26 years on earth before getting on that plane to Japan, so I had no idea how I'd handle fish, let alone uncooked fish with rice (I just ate rice for the first time in Miami 2 weeks earlier)." Now, this guy's diet isn't terrible. In fact, it's significantly better than a large number of national-level runners I know. But it's hard to argue that a burger here and there would be a major step down from his nightly frozen pizza. |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Mar 6, 2010 12:48:31 GMT -5
P.S. Did I mention how easy it is to wind you guys up, and how much fun it is to watch you flail around? Talk about a guilty pleasure! (Seriously, I do feel guilty about it sometimes). I'm glad someone else admitted to this. I do this as well. I particularly used to enjoy winding up herodotus. And I quite often do feel guilty about it but then I do it again. I realize I get this from my father. I reckon SI particularly enjoys doing this as well. Anyways, back to the debate! |
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Mar 6, 2010 13:05:13 GMT -5
traveling these days with limited times to respond... I will try and address a few things from my speed read of the thread: AHutch-- there is nothing wrong iwth having a periodic homemade hamburger now and again. We make them a couple of times per month, but also have them with salad and homemade pasta salad (plus we put veggies into our burgers as well). Overall, one of hte best ways to have a better appreciation of your diet is to really know what you are putting into your engine. Check out common foods here: caloriecount.about.com/For example, a double Whopper from BK is nearly 1000 calories, satisfing about 75% of total daily fat intake in a single burger. (plus, mainly the bad fats). There are genetic freaks who can get away with eating poorly (e.g. the Usain Bolts of the World). But, I have seen many, many athletes make some sudtle changes to their diets (e.g. eating more at home, increased fruits and veggies, lowered dietary fat intakes, more healthy snacking, better eating throughout the day), where all of sudden they notice that 5 months have went by, they haven't gotten sick or injured, they have dropped 5% body fat without really trying and have a series of outstanding performances. Of course, there is much more to this than just the diet-- but it is part of the 'lifestyle' of a top athlete. At least with top endurance athletes, I am certain (given the lack of fast food in Ethopia or Kenya) that there would be direct positive correlation between not eating fast food and performance (although, I don't know if this data exists). Very few top/world-class endurance athletes that I know are eating fast food once per week, let alone once per month. Is not eating fast food the secret to their success?-- absolutely not. But, it is part of the committed lifestyle needed to be among the best in the world. On the other hand, if you enjoy fast food (or the odd ice-cream, beers etc), and have limited these items before and during your entire compeitive seasons, then there is a time and place (maybe more for sanity?) to enjoy life a little more (eg. have a drink or two, eat out a bit).... |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Mar 6, 2010 13:17:47 GMT -5
So what about Coke? Again, another major sponsor of the Olympics and using athletes to sell their 'unhealthy' product. I don't think anyone would argue that Coke is healthy for you and that you would be better off drinking water or a fruit juice?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 6, 2010 13:59:30 GMT -5
[yawn] I think we've come to the part of the debate where Oldster (who, based on man hours alone, is easily the most riled about this whole thing) does something that nobody else has done so far: stop pontificating and start posting some good, solid evidence to support his case. As a nutritionist (god, I love that that's an unregulated term), I can say that the entire field is rife with myths, misconceptions, and--most of all--uncertainty. A lot of people have very linear thought patterns and I think we're witnessing some of that here. Here's an example: Oldster, I haven't taken the time to do more than skim most of your posts but it looks like you have a problem with the "moderates" because, hey, if you're eating ANY McDonald's you're substituting sub-optimal food for some not-yet-identified ideal food. One could use this same line of argument for something like alcohol, right? We know that in any real large or even medium quantities it's bad for you, but the "harm curve" for EtOH is more of a J shape. A moderate amount is actually beneficial in a lot of ways. Even if McDonald's was JUST empty calories--I mean that to the extreme, like, zero other nutrients--you can imagine that you'd still be able to consume it daily as long as you made sure you were picking up your carbohydrates, fats, fibre, minerals, protein, and vitamins elsewhere. The more McDonald's you ate, the harder that would be, but isn't that the beauty of our ill-defined "moderate amount"? We can just define it as whatever amount allows this scheme to work. I think reductionism in nutrition has its pitfalls (glycemic index is a nice counter-argument), but it's a useful model to help illustrate the point that empty calories can be overcome. Next, we have to be sure we're looking at athletic performance as our endpoint. True, the red meat in your burger may increase your risk of colon cancer and the trans fats in your sausage may increase your risk of heart disease. That's crumby and it gives you another reason to avoid McDonald's as a regular food, but it does NOTHING to say that it's going to diminish your athletic performance during your peak competitive years. One of the key points of Oldster's arguments rests on the fact that there are some better foods out there that any serious athlete should be consuming instead of McDonald's. If you're going to use this as a pillar of your line of reasoning, the onus is on you to identify what those other foods may be. And remember, whole grain this and omega-3 that may be good for long-term health while doing nothing for London 2012. Step up. Here are two bonus points, only moderately related to the main line of argument, that I wanted to add: 1. I noticed a lot of mention about salt whenever someone tries to paint McDonald's in a negative light, but even the salt debate isn't an open and shut case. The NY Times did a good job of highlighting this recently (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/science/23tier.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1267837533-grxeGcSkPkTSZCVS8dhJVg). 2. There were a few shots at high-fructose corn syrup. Fair enough, but I think there are enough misconceptions about this topic that I wanted to make this lecture available: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM. You can find it in podcast form (if that's more your cup of tea) with a quick Google search. Thanks for this. A couple of responses: 1. Sorry to bore you. I'll ask Moulton refund a portion of your membership to cover your lost time! 2. Are you really a nutritionist (professional), or do you just play one on a message board? 3. If you'd done more than skim it, you'd see that my argument does not rest on the identification or an "ideal" food (for either performance or health), only the ability to tell the difference between obviously really bad food-- fast and or prepared food-- and less bad food. Science being what it is, there is no answer to the question of what is the "ideal" food for performance, and there never will be. That doesn't mean, however that we can't tell the difference, broadly speaking, between food that is obvious shit and food that is relatively better. The burden of my argument rested on the probable "opportunity costs" of subbing food known to be bad for food generally known to be better (more nutritious). 4. Related to this, I assume that we were talking about substituting bad food for better food, not eating a bit of bad food on top of a generally good diet. My argument was based on the notion that and athlete will want to optimize his her intake within the boundaries of his/her daily intake; again, using not some notion of an ideal food, but the the best available knowledge of sports nutrition , none of which actually recommends the consumption of anything like fast or prepared food. 5. I was not conflating healthy eating and eating for performance; I am aware that there may be a difference; but, I doubt that nutritional science is ever going to conclude that any consumption of fast or prepared food is, on average, better than the consumption of alternatives. Whether one is trying to be as healthy or as fast as possible is not a question of what one can "get away with"; it's a question of what is optimal (not perfect, but optimal within a broad range), again, based on the state of knowledge in the field. 6. Your alcohol analogy is a poor one: No one but alcoholics typically substitutes alcohol for a meal or fluid replacement, least of all serious athletes. 7. We are all aware the nothing in science, nutritional or otherwise, is NOT subject to challenge and possible revision, so get off your high horse. We still have to act, and we do so based on what we think we know at any given time; we don't just throw up our hands and say "unless there's certainty, anything goes". 8. And for hutch, I don't know why you insist on seeing this as an argument about whether it's optimal to sub McDonald's for what people, including many athletes, typically eat (i.e. frozen pizzas), rather than for very readily available healthier alternatives to both . McDonald's may not be a big step down from what most people and some athletes typically eat (although I notice that no one, most notably pq, demanded any "facts" from you on the claim that McDonald's isn't much worse than what most people are already eating); but, so what? I admit that the general message should be that athletes need to think not just about avoiding fast food, but about optimal nutrition; but, this discussion has been about McDonald's versus available food alternatives known to be better than McDonald's, and whether there's any argument for serious athletes NOT opting for these ALL THE TIME. For god's sake, no one NEEDs, emotionally or otherwise, to eat shit food! Hundreds of millions of people the world over, including most serious endurance athletes, never or rarely do. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 6, 2010 14:12:25 GMT -5
I reckon SI particularly enjoys doing this as well. Who, me? Nah. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 6, 2010 14:30:52 GMT -5
traveling these days with limited times to respond... I will try and address a few things from my speed read of the thread: AHutch-- there is nothing wrong iwth having a periodic homemade hamburger now and again. We make them a couple of times per month, but also have them with salad and homemade pasta salad (plus we put veggies into our burgers as well). Overall, one of hte best ways to have a better appreciation of your diet is to really know what you are putting into your engine. Check out common foods here: caloriecount.about.com/For example, a double Whopper from BK is nearly 1000 calories, satisfing about 75% of total daily fat intake in a single burger. (plus, mainly the bad fats). There are genetic freaks who can get away with eating poorly (e.g. the Usain Bolts of the World). But, I have seen many, many athletes make some sudtle changes to their diets (e.g. eating more at home, increased fruits and veggies, lowered dietary fat intakes, more healthy snacking, better eating throughout the day), where all of sudden they notice that 5 months have went by, they haven't gotten sick or injured, they have dropped 5% body fat without really trying and have a series of outstanding performances. Of course, there is much more to this than just the diet-- but it is part of the 'lifestyle' of a top athlete. At least with top endurance athletes, I am certain (given the lack of fast food in Ethopia or Kenya) that there would be direct positive correlation between not eating fast food and performance (although, I don't know if this data exists). Very few top/world-class endurance athletes that I know are eating fast food once per week, let alone once per month. Is not eating fast food the secret to their success?-- absolutely not. But, it is part of the committed lifestyle needed to be among the best in the world. On the other hand, if you enjoy fast food (or the odd ice-cream, beers etc), and have limited these items before and during your entire compeitive seasons, then there is a time and place (maybe more for sanity?) to enjoy life a little more (eg. have a drink or two, eat out a bit).... Thanks to Stellar-- a nutritionist who doesn't have to rely on the lack of regulation of the title to claim some bona fides-- for this dispatch from the real world of serious athletics. I honestly think that a small but significant part of the reason that Canadian distance runners aren't as good as the could be is due to their belief the marginal details-- like proper nutrition-- which make up the crucial support system of any long term training plan are considered somehow optional. When I look at a field of, say, university aged Canadian distance runners, I see probably 30-50% who are less lean than they could be. Much of this is probably that they're not training enough, but surely some of it is because of diet and nutrition. If there is one message we want to be putting out to young Canadian runners, who have grown up surrounded by inducements to eat shit, it is NOT that junk food is "O.K. in moderation", leaving it up to them to decide what that entails (in Canada, "moderation" is probably twice a week). The message should be: If you want to be your best, don't knowingly eat shit, period. Will Canadian kids still break down and eat shit once or twice a year? Undoubtedly. But they will be far better off than they would be if they thought eating crap once a week, or once a month, was somehow not a problem. (In which case, the occasional break-down might entail eating shit for an entire week here and there.) |
|
|
|
Post by runalittle on Mar 6, 2010 21:55:29 GMT -5
Okay, I'll bite one more time. Oldster likes to try riling people up and I just really like trying to knock opinionated people into a more humble, moderate stance.  1. Sorry to bore you. I'll ask Moulton refund a portion of your membership to cover your lost time!Yeah, I was finding the discussion to be a bit stale with opinion and lacking much spice of fact. It's a good point though, I'll see if Moulton would consider discounting some of the $23.95 I send him each month. 2. Are you really a nutritionist (professional), or do you just play one on a message board?Sure, I'm a nutritionist when I want to be--thus the tongue-in-cheek remark about the term being unregulated. Unlike "dietitian", "doctor", etc., anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. You've got to be careful. I wouldn't last three months if I tried my hand as a professional nutritionist though--I'm not interested in selling suckers leucine and glucosamine supplements. 3. If you'd done more than skim it, you'd see that my argument does not rest on the identification or an "ideal" food (for either performance or health), only the ability to tell the difference between obviously really bad food-- fast and or prepared food-- and less bad food. Science being what it is, there is no answer to the question of what is the "ideal" food for performance, and there never will be. That doesn't mean, however that we can't tell the difference, broadly speaking, between food that is obvious shit and food that is relatively better. The burden of my argument rested on the probable "opportunity costs" of subbing food known to be bad for food generally known to be better (more nutritious).Sure, "ideal" food may have been an oversimplification. But you keep talking about these concepts of "obviously" bad food and then something that is "relatively" better. Although such a hierarchy of foods may exist, you can't just claim that McDonald's is the worst of the worst without backing it up. What makes it so much worse for performance than something you made at home using your own hands? As the extremist in all this, all you have to do to win people over to your side is identify exactly what makes moderate McDonald's consumption detrimental to performance, then show that whatever that is isn't found in home-prepared alternatives that are both affordable and attainable. My mind can be changed, but you're going to have to provide more than just this "OF COURSE it's worse than other foods!" bidness. 4. Related to this, I assume that we were talking about substituting bad food for better food, not eating a bit of bad food on top of a generally good diet. My argument was based on the notion that and athlete will want to optimize his her intake within the boundaries of his/her daily intake; again, using not some notion of an ideal food, but the the best available knowledge of sports nutrition , none of which actually recommends the consumption of anything like fast or prepared food.Okay, you obviously softened up somewhere between your first posts and now. Like, you essentially started ALL of this by saying: "There is no place for McDonald's food in the diet of any serious athlete, which is why so few actually touch it. The same goes for Coke. Every time you eat McDonald's food you're foregoing something with far more nutrient value and far less salt, sugar, refined carbs, and bad fats-- which includes almost anything BUT McDonald's food. Winning in sport is a matter of fractions. How can an athlete who is going all-out in every other aspect of his/her life rationalize eating McDonald's food even once a month?" Now, that doesn't sound like you're assuming that "we were talking about substituting bad food for better food, not eating a bit of bad food on top of a generally good diet." You took the extreme stand that athletes should not eat McDonald's EVER. Plus, now it sounds like you answered your own question: how can an athlete rationalize eating McD's even once a month? By doing so ON TOP of a healthy diet. If you'd come out of the gates this soft, a lot of strife could probably have been avoided. 5. I was not conflating healthy eating and eating for performance; I am aware that there may be a difference; but, I doubt that nutritional science is ever going to conclude that any consumption of fast or prepared food is, on average, better than the consumption of alternatives. Whether one is trying to be as healthy or as fast as possible is not a question of what one can "get away with"; it's a question of what is optimal (not perfect, but optimal within a broad range), again, based on the state of knowledge in the field.I hate to say it, but I think you were melding the two ideas. I mean, you were bashing things like trans fats and salt which we know have an impact on your life expectancy, but have not been implicated (that I know of--please, prove me wrong) in decreased performance. 6. Your alcohol analogy is a poor one: No one but alcoholics typically substitutes alcohol for a meal or fluid replacement, least of all serious athletes.Hrm. I reread my post after seeing your response and I think we struck a combination of you misinterpreting it and me not developing it as well as I could have. It's not an analogy at all, it's an example of how consumption of things which are generally bad for you may be a little more complex than you think. Extremists might say that there's no place for alcohol--not a drop--in the life of a healthy person. After all, we know that large amounts of alcohol lead to cirrhosis, cognitive changes, stomach problems, etc. Therefore, it isn't a stretch to think that the stuff is a poison and should be avoided at all costs. However, it turns out that a small amount of alcohol consumed daily actually seems to confer some survival benefit. You can't think of it as a linear relationship between quantity consumed and harm, you have to think of it as a J, dipping into the territory of good before starting to cause damage. We saw the exact same thing when nutrition extremists were screaming that pretty much all fat should be eliminated from the diet. All of it! Then, we looked at the unsatisfactory results of these gung-ho, low fat diets while also discovering that some fats--especially some subtypes--are very necessary to good health. All to say that other extremists like you have been wrong in the past and that your mind should be open that you too are wrong in this case. 7. We are all aware the nothing in science, nutritional or otherwise, is NOT subject to challenge and possible revision, so get off your high horse. We still have to act, and we do so based on what we think we know at any given time; we don't just throw up our hands and say "unless there's certainty, anything goes".Exactly. So in this case, we look at the paucity of good science regarding moderate fast food in the diet of elite athletes, consider the vast amount of observational evidence supporting moderate "sub-optimal" (I can't believe I'm using that term now) food and then act accordingly. I'm not on a high horse. I'm humbly saying that we don't know that moderate amounts of McDonald's is bad for performance. Further, I see enough counter-examples (without any indication that these great men and women would actually perform better without their "junk food") that I have to remain sheepishly uncommitted. Speaking of these counter-examples, one other athlete we hadn't considered as an eater of lots of "junk food" is Phelps. I'm sure you've seen the infamous "Phelps Diet" which (after a quick Google) is said to consist of: Breakfast: Three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise. Two cups of coffee. One five-egg omelet. One bowl of grits. Three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar. Three chocolate-chip pancakes. Lunch: One pound of enriched pasta. Two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread. Energy drinks packing 1,000 calories. Dinner: One pound of pasta. An entire pizza. More energy drinks. Without eating (ugh) sub-optimal food, how the heck would he get all the calories he needs in a day? That'd be a lot of undressed mandarin-almond salads and slices of flax bread. Look, I totally see where you're coming from, Oldster. We've been told for a long time that McDonald's is crappy food and movies like Super Size Me have only helped to solidify that point in the public conscience. I just don't think that given what we know about sports nutrition you can plant your feet quite so firmly and denounce fast food as being a sign of weakness and a contributor to diminished performance in all athletes who indulge in it. You're strongly adopting a position with a shaky foundation and so you shouldn't be surprised that so many people are skeptic. You can still defend the fort, but you're going to have to bring more to the table than linear speculation. That's my main beef with what you're saying--and don't worry it's 90% lean and I drained the fat.  |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 6, 2010 23:10:51 GMT -5
I find this to be a bit of a rambling mish-mash (you sound as though you're arguing that athletes should just handle nutrition any way they feel, such is the radical uncertainty of nutritional science where performance is concerned). However, I would respond to the suggestion that I have softened my position on McD's by allowing that it is not as bad if not used to completely replace a meal of better food. There are obviously strict limits to how much an athlete can eat crap on top of decent food without becoming overweight. So, very shortly, the issue becomes one of the opportunity costs of substituting nutritionless calories for relatively nutritious ones. If you find yourself hungry, you always have two broad choices: to eat crap versus something you know with some degree of certainty to be better than crap. And if you're athlete and you're eating when you're NOT hungry, you'll soon have other problems. And I completely reject the notion that there is such fundamental uncertainty in the science of nutrition that we can't make any basic distinction between whole categories of shitty food and whole categories of relatively better food.
In the end, this is an argument about what athletes should actually DO in the real world, and light of the available information on nutrition. I have no idea what you're suggesting athletes should actually do where their nutrition is concerned; in fact, I have no idea where your interest in this topic actually comes from in the first place. (You write like some disembodied "presence" that just enjoys little casual musing now and then.)
BTW, explain to us why we should listen to you and not Trent Stellingwerf, who is an actual researcher, and not some kind of dilettante. For some reason, Trent seems convinced that there are things we can learn about nutrition and performance, and that perhaps there may be a strong link between generally healthier eating and improved performance.
|
|
oldbones
Full Member
And so it goes ...
Posts: 244
|
Post by oldbones on Mar 6, 2010 23:32:29 GMT -5
I like the font |
|
