Running nutrition: a healthy thread!

[journeyman]

I thought I would post this article and maybe try to widen the scope of an interesting discussion happening in the BMI thread:

www.active.com/running/Articles/Eating_practices_of_the_best_endurance_athletes_in_the_world.htm

Going beyond fairly obvious principles of "MickeyD's does not provide optimal performance nutrition" what can we take away from this particular article which suggests:
1) a carb intake of around 75%; (higher than a reg NA diet)
2) not a lot of meat; and (lower than a reg NA diet)
3) a mostly veggie-based diet. (higher than a reg NA diet)

My impression is that a narrow menu is not normally a good thing, and that variety is a positive quality for a diet. The Kenyan runners observed here eat pretty much the same thing. I think most people probably do that fairly naturally: we like familiarity.

I'm not a big fan of this Owen Anderson guy (he has written some things that seem to discount the idea of volume as a significant factor in distance training, and I don't see how that can be), and I am also wary of articles that basically say: look what the Kenyans are doing, you should do that. Then again, why not at least consider it?

Anyone have any thoughts?

[oldster]

Thanks for this, journeyman. I think a discussion on running and nutrition that started with the question of "McDonald's or no McDonald's" was always going to produce far more heat than light, considering what an accepted practice the "moderate" consumption of this kind of food has become in North America in the past 40-odd years, and considering how McDonald's has become to nutrition activists what Nike has been to international labour activists for the past 20 years (although not without very good reason in both instances; but still, focusing on one company tends to narrow the issue down in unhelpful ways.)

As for the article, I would agree that no one should assume that everything the Kenyans are doing must be right simply because they're fast in huge numbers; but, you'd be crazy to ignore what they're doing diet-wise. Considering how lean they are, and how hard they're able to train, it's highly unlikely they're very far off an optimal diet for distance running. I doubt their genetics are so far superior to ours that they're able to get diet fundamentally wrong and still dominate the way they do.

And I would quarrel with you over the "variety" thing. I don't see any reason to believe that getting the necessary nutrients from a wide range of foods is superior to getting them from a few staples. The idea of dietary "variety" is, after all, a very historically recent, and culturally specific, construct. In most regions of the world today, and in North America until just a few decades ago, people eat and have eaten a very narrow range of staple foods throughout their lives. The whole "variety" thing seems to be more a function of rich-world buying power, and thus ability to support the production and trade of a whole range of different foods, in the post-WWII period than of dietary science per se. I'm open to being convinced that getting basic nutrients from 20 rather than 5 different sources is somehow superior for health and performance; but, it doesn't seem to me that it would make any difference, and the diets of the Kenyans (as well as the Ethiopians and Japanese, I would bet) would seem to support this position. And, until there is evidence to support the "variety" thesis, I think, for reasons of cost alone, that it might be better to encourage athletes to mimic the Kenyan diet and eat from a simple, fairly narrow, and nutritionally complete range of foods-- boring, I know; but then, how exciting is running for 90mins a day?

[pq]

Just got around to looking at this article. I agree this guy can be a little bit "out there" but this seems to be mostly a straightforward reporting of someone else's scientific study.

Interesting tidbits I pulled from this, in addition to what j-man summarized: they consume a lot of regular sugar (simple carbs), and they consume a fair bit of saturated fat (28g/day, or 252 calories out of typical 3000).

Average BMI of the 10 Kenyans subject of the study was 19, or just inside the supposed "normal" range of 18.5 to 25. (I would need to lose 24 pounds to get to 19)

[benjamin]

Speaking of Kenyans, I think I saw an interview somewhere (probably on Flotrack) with a runner who came over to the States to run in the NCAA and was shocked with American milk intake, saying something along the lines of "They drink milk like water!"

I've heard milk (or perhaps just dairy in general) increases mucus production, and can be detrimental to endurance athletes in that sense. It also has some beneficial properties - I'm not really well educated when it comes to nutrition, but I'd imagine something to do with fat, protein, and calcium, or something? It causes problems for people who are lactose intolerant, obviously. I'm not really lactose intolerant, to my knowledge, but it does give me some trouble during running if I consume much of it.

How do you guys feel about dairy in the diet of an athlete? Pros? Cons? Benefits? Detriments?

[ahutch]

Mar 23, 2010 20:56:58 GMT -5 benjamin said:

I've heard milk (or perhaps just dairy in general) increases mucus production, and can be detrimental to endurance athletes in that sense.

On the other hand, if you read the article posted above, here's what it says about the diets of elite Kenyan runners:

"In terms of providing calories, the 'big-four provisioners' in the Kenyans' diets were:

1. ugali, with 23 percent of total calories
2. sugar, with 20 percent of all calories
3. rice, at 14 percent
4. milk, hitting 13 percent"

So it looks like avoiding milk isn't the secret to Kenyan success...

[Steller]

agreed with AHutch...milk is individual (many, many positive and recent studies coming out on milk on acute muscle re-building, as well as helping with long term body composition). On the other hand, I am lactose intolerant, and cannot drink milk (drink lactose free and soy milk instead).

I have never met an African distance runner (either Kenyan or Ethiopian) that does not drink milk. And the study above, with 13% of total calories, coming from milk confirms this. So a quick calculation shows that if 13% of total calories (~3000 kcals/day) comes from milk, that is ~ 750ml of 1% milk consumption per day.

I think the big issue is timing. I could see how drinking 500ml of heavy chocolate milk BEFORE a workout could cause both stomach and GI upset, as well as, perhaps, mucus problems. But, taken after training or well before, should be a totally different situation. It is all individual.

[lucky13]

Mar 23, 2010 20:56:58 GMT -5 benjamin said:

Speaking of Kenyans, I think I saw an interview somewhere (probably on Flotrack) with a runner who came over to the States to run in the NCAA and was shocked with American milk intake, saying something along the lines of "They drink milk like water!"

Maybe he/she meant the milk tasted like water? ;D Have you ever had milk in Kenya? They still drink it raw. YUM. Compared to it, pasteurized skim milk looks and tastes like water.

[benjamin]

It could be that he meant it tasted like water. Clever.

Anyway, good to know that's milk's okay. Is 1% better than 2%, or vice versa? I grew up on a farm and we used to drink it raw. I completely agree that it is way better.

[journeyman]

Thanks guys. Two more thoughts:

1) Variety. I have thought about this a lot, because I think the natural tendency is to eat a fairly narrow range of foods. I think that variety gets promoted in some nutrition literature as a response to the decreasing vitamin and nutrient content of processed food. Assuming that decrease is real, it would make sense to have a wider variety to ensure all requirements are met. The other thing is that dietary requirements, whatever they are, are not simply a list. It has been suggested that we don't understand fully the implications of combinations of food, which is why a lack of variety+processed meals that "fortify" foods might not be as good as a natural diet of less diverse proportions.
I posted this before, but it may have gotten buried:
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=2&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

2) milk. I am lactose intolerant as well. I heard last night (from a friend taking a course in the chemistry of food) that 70% of people end up lactose intolerant by the time they are seniors. So I don't feel like as much of a freak anymore. Nice to hear Stellar is also lactose intolerant. I am not alone!

[Steller]

a few quick comments:

RE: Diversity of foods-- more improtant if you restrict eating and do not consume a lot of calories, and therefore have less chance of achieving daily vitamin/mineral requirements. For many endurance athletes on here, that have large energy expenditures, and thus large energy intakes, it is harder to actually not achieve required vitamin/mineral intakes. In the end, choosing foods that are not only eneryg, but also nutritionally "dense" (e.g. contain vitmains, minerals, fibers, polyphenols, flavanoids, antioxidants etc. etc) are the best way to go.

RE: lactose intolerance. Journeyman your lactose intolerance rate of 70% by senior age seems very high to me (perhaps not)-- where did you friend get this information? Also, it has recently been shown that many, many people just claim to be lactose intolerance due to GI problems, but it may actually be due to other issues (e.g. gluten allergies, fructose allergies etc.). Also, some populations are much more susceptable (e.g. Asian).

[tripper]

Mar 24, 2010 7:24:52 GMT -5 journeyman said:

I posted this before, but it may have gotten buried:
www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=2&emc=eta1&pagewanted=all

That is a good article by Michael Pollan, as are his books.

If you don't have time to read all of it, at least scroll to the very bottom for his 9 rules of thumb.

[tripper]

Mar 24, 2010 7:08:56 GMT -5 benjamin said:

Anyway, good to know that's milk's okay. Is 1% better than 2%, or vice versa? I grew up on a farm and we used to drink it raw. I completely agree that it is way better.

I grew up with raw milk too. I don't drink it at all anymore, but if I did I would choose organic so there would at least be no hormones or antibiotics, and come from grass-fed animals. That stuff would be very important to me (for myself, the cows, and the environment).

You mentioned on the other thread that you have made substantial changes to your diet recently. Curious about what have you changed and any differences have you noticed?

[journeyman]

Mar 24, 2010 8:47:11 GMT -5 Steller said:

Journeyman your lactose intolerance rate of 70% by senior age seems very high to me (perhaps not)-- where did you friend get this information? Also, it has recently been shown that many, many people just claim to be lactose intolerance due to GI problems, but it may actually be due to other issues (e.g. gluten allergies, fructose allergies etc.). Also, some populations are much more susceptable (e.g. Asian).

As I said, I got it from a friend who said that's what she learned in a class on food chemistry. So maybe it's not right.

[Smithwicks]

I know I've read this in a journal article, but don't have the time to find the link while at work. Just wondering if these numbers are off base and hoping either Hutch or Stellar can confirm/deny them.

Was having an argument with brother in-law about protein intake, as he consumes a protein shake for breakfast, then a pre and post shake before every weightlifting session. I thought this was insane so I did some digging and found many articles at that time which mentioned numbers along the following.

For a weightlifter the prescribed amount was in the order of 1.8 g/kg body weight/day.
For an endurance athlete the prescribed amount was approximately 1.6 g/kg body weight/day.

Just want to know if these numbers are correct. At least it's what I remember reading and trying to find them again is proving too time consuming right now.

[benjamin]

I grew up with raw milk too. I don't drink it at all anymore, but if I did I would choose organic so there would at least be no hormones or antibiotics, and come from grass-fed animals. That stuff would be very important to me (for myself, the cows, and the environment).

You mentioned on the other thread that you have made substantial changes to your diet recently. Curious about what have you changed and any differences have you noticed?

I don't drink milk anymore either. I do have a jug of it that I use on cereal once every week or two, but I'm just as happy eating it dry or with yogurt instead. I've even considered just using water.

What I have changed:

I started eating a large breakfast. I used to eat a couple of granola bars at most, and then maybe a snack halfway through the morning. Now breakfast is probably the largest meal of my day, and I still have a snack (bigger now) halfway through the morning. I also cut out the granola bars. Can't stand them anymore. I started eating a good lunch instead of ... whatever it was I was eating before. I can't imagine it was much since I don't really remember eating much of a lunch. Probably just more granola bars and an apple or something. I eat another snack in the afternoon, a couple hours before my run. Protein shake with fruit after the run. Dinner is much smaller than it used to be (about 1/2 size I think), but otherwise hasn't changed much. I think I used to get most of my intake from dinner.

So pretty much everything changed. I switched from white to whole grain/multigrain bread, started eating salads, a lot more fruit, and more chicken and fish and eggs. I would have eaten those in small amounts before, but now most of my diet is pretty basic. Also, I drink a lot more water.

The five main things I've noticed are:
1. I have to pretty much schedule all of my food intake like I schedule running or I tend to forget to eat, or eat less than I was supposed to.
2. I am no longer constantly depressed or irritable. I haven't noticed a huge difference in energy levels, but I'm also running more than ever before so I think it's hard to compare.
3. If I do miss eating when I'm supposed to, it's usually very noticeable within a couple of hours, and definitely during my runs.
4. Even when I eat when I'm supposed to, I'm still hungry.
5. I don't get cravings for junk food anymore unless I miss a meal or a snack, so I don't bother eating junk food anymore.

[Steller]

Dear Smithwicks...

Indeed, your search for daily protein requirements for athletes is correct (~1.5 to 1.8 g/kg BW/day).

However, I want to stress that this is just the daily snap shot, but does not take into account the best way to consume this protein and what type of protein is best.

For example: you train in the morning, but then consume all of your daily protein requirement some 8 hrs later at dinner, and you consume all soy protein, you are meeting you "daily protein requirement" but you are probably doing it in the least efficient manner.

For example, nutritional timing is imporant. So immediatley after training ~0.3g PRO/kgBW (~20g of protein) are very important to optimize post-training muscle protein synthesis (recovery). Also, it appears, that for muscle whey protein is better than soy or caesein (or at least a combination of proteins).

hope this helps.

[Smithwicks]

Also, it appears, that for muscle whey protein is better than soy or caesein (or at least a combination of proteins).

Sources? I'm not doubting your statement, I simply like to know the source so I can read it, then reference correctly in the future. I have access to journal archives from home.

Also, do you also know off hand any articles discussing the protein requirements for either endurance and/or weightlifting athletes which I eluded to?

CS

[Steller]

Sure Smithwicks....

I appreciate someone who wants the reference (I should've provided in the first place).

Actually, a lot of the really recent protein work has been done right in Canada with Prof. Stuart M. Phillips and Mark A. Tarnpolsky, both of McMaster University. So on pubmed just type in Phillips SM or Tarnopolsky MA with the keyword protein, and you will get a whole host of recent protein and exercise articles. (32 studies since 2008 alone for Stu Phillips!). I currently work with one of the main McMaster protein guru's Dr. Daniel Moore.

but, specifically assessing whey vs. caesin vs. soy, and showing that whey was best for muscle protein synthesis, here you go:

Tang JE, Moore DR, Kujbida GW, Tarnopolsky MA, Phillips SM. Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein, or soy protein isolate: effects on mixed muscle protein synthesis at rest and following resistance exercise in young men. J Appl Physiol. 2009 Sep;107(3):987-92.

If you want this article, or others, then just email me: [e-mail]

cheers, Trent

[ahutch]

Just to follow up on what Trent said... I spoke to the guys at Mac for an article about protein needs last year ( www.theglobeandmail.com/life/do-i-need-to-quaff-protein-powders-to-gain-muscle/article1139578/ ). When they do nitrogen tracing studies to find out how much protein is actually being processed as opposed to excreted, they find surprisingly low rates -- typically around 1 g/kg/day, even for athletes. But there are methodological limitations to these studies, so they don't necessarily recommend going that low for serious athletes.

The rough numbers Phillips and Tarnopolsky gave me were:
0.8: what you'd get following the government dietary recommendations
1.1: what studies have found endurance athletes processing
1.3: what studies have found strength athletes processing (slightly higher, 1.6-1.8, for sedentary people who start weight training for the first time and do it extremely intensely under professional supervision -- these are the people who gain muscle most quickly)
1.5-1.8: as Trent said, a good safe range for serious athletes, given the uncertainties inherent in the studies
1.6: what the typical North American gets in his or her diet, with no special effort
>3: what lots of muscle mags recommend!

Here's a review by Tarnopolsky on protein needs for endurance athletes:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15212749

He says 1.0 is fine for most, 1.6 is the top-end need for very serious athletes. Most athletes get this without special effort, but if you're restricting calories you might need to take care to get sufficient protein.

[ahutch]

Oh, and if you just want to fodder to argue with your brother-in-law, here's the joint position stand on "Nutrition and Athletic Performance" from the ACSM, American Dietetic Association, and Dieticians of Canada:

journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2009/03000/Nutrition_and_Athletic_Performance.27.aspx

Full text is available free. A quote: "Recommended protein intakes for strength-trained athletes range from approximately 1.2 to 1.7 g·kg-1·d-1 (30,32)."

[Steller]

Since ALex raised the methodological issues...I thought I would clarify a bit more.

All of these dailly protein intake studies are based on nitrogen (N)-balance in the urine. Meaning, that since proteins contain nitrogen, we can find out when the body is in balance between protein intake and protein breakdown. But, talk to real experts, and they will agree: What the heck does n-balance really mean? Is this really a functional outcome? Does N-balance suggest any improvement in recovery or performance?

Therefore, more work needs to be done looking directly with muscle biopsies at muscle protein synthesis, combined with N-balance, to get at more functional outcomes.

[ahutch]

For anyone who's interested in getting more details about this stuff (and this should be everyone!), you can read good summaries of the latest research in the fantastic new book "Sports Nutrition: From Lab to Kitchen," which is now available to preorder from Amazon for $14. (I downloaded the e-version directly from the publisher because I wanted to see it right away.)

www.amazon.com/Sports-Nutrition-Kitchen-Asker-Jeukendrup/dp/184126296X

Phillips and Tarnopolsky, mentioned above, wrote the chapter on building muscle. They say that maximum dietary protein requirement for an elite athlete performing weight training and/or endurance training would be 1.7 g/kg/day. Related to the discussion of milk above (and as Trent noted on the Big Mac thread), they say "there is evidence that milk proteins are superior to soy proteins with respect to protein accretion."

And there are many other chapters that would be of interest to readers of this board, including:
Ch. 2 The optimal pre-competition meal (by Asker Jeukendrup)
Ch. 7 Nutrition for recovery (by Louise Burke)
Ch. 10 Train low - compete high (by Kevin Baar - on the idea of doing some hard morning training sessions without eating for a greater training stimulus)
Ch. 22 Marathon running (by John Hawley)
Ch. 23 Nutrition for middle distance running (by one Trent Stellingwerff)

The authors are basically a collection of the leading researchers in nutrition and sport from around the world. Definitely worth a read.

[nscoach67]

Alex and Trent, in terms of sources (food not citations) of protein particularly, are your opinions that naturally occurring foods are easier or more difficult for the body to process than say that of things that you would be buying at GNC?

[oldster]

Mar 25, 2010 10:22:12 GMT -5 nscoach67 said:

Alex and Trent, in terms of sources (food not citations) of protein particularly, are your opinions that naturally occurring foods are easier or more difficult for the body to process than say that of things that you would be buying at GNC?

NScoach, if you haven't had the chance to read that NY Times piece, you should. It has some interesting things to say on this general question.

And, Hutch, thanks for the book reference. Looks like just the thing.

[nscoach67]

Mar 25, 2010 10:30:11 GMT -5 oldster said:

NScoach, if you haven't had the chance to read that NY Times piece, you should. It has some interesting things to say on this general question.

It's in our library, for sure. I thought the question might be appropriate for this thread, as I walk by the signs saying 4lbs of Protein $44.99.