Maximum BMI?

[oldster]

Let me turn things around a bit on those who have attempted to place the burden of hard, once and for all, factual proof on me and others to show why it is never O.K. for athletes to substitute McDonald's for food that is known to be more generally nutritious: Provide one argument for why, from a performance point of view, athletes SHOULD ever eat McDonald's or other such food (assuming, as everyone but runnalittle seems to accept, that we can more or less reliably distinguish it from the broad category of good food)? Is it simply so delicious that foregoing it would completely undermine our will to train? I doubt there are many places outside North America where the urge to occasionally, or perhaps more than occasionally, binge on (or even just dine on) thoroughly processed, sugar, salt and (bad) fat laden food is considered completely normal. Since it stands to reason that food that is known to undermine our general health is also likely (but, granted, not 100% certain) to compromise athletic performance performance when eaten instead of food that is known to support good health (including lower body weight, reduced risk of diabetes, higher energy levels, lower blood pressure, higher levels of vitamins and minerals, etc, etc.), what, exactly, would be the argument for ever eating the bad food? (And "because some great athletes do it" is not an argument; they may only be "getting away with it" because of extraordinary ability. Again, Herb Eliot and Guy Lafleur both smoked cigarettes, yet I don't hear anyone arguing that smoking cigarettes, even in moderation, would be compatible with optimal athletic performance).

Imagine if the argument were not about whether eating "in moderation" food we know to be bad instead of always eating food we're pretty confident is good, but about whether it was a good idea to train poorly (that is, in ways we know to be generally sub-optimal) "in moderation" just because we feel the overwhelming need to be stupid in training once in a while. Now, this is something that many runners, in fact, do all the time, particularly ones who have no particular designs on optimizing their performance. This is also something that serious runners sometimes do moments of weakness. However, training stupidly is not something anyone who claims to want to be the best they can be would ever advocate as an acceptable practice-- i.e. training stupidly "in moderation". The GOAL of all serious athletes is to train the best way they know how 100% of the time. Likewise, the GOAL of all athletes interested in maximum personal performance should be to eat according to the best of their nutritional knowledge 100% of the time (i.e. not McDonald's, or similar food, if at all possible). As with training properly, serious athletes may occasionally lapse from this goal; but, it never ceases to be the guiding principle. Lapsing occasionally from an ideal goal never entails accepting the inevitability, or acceptability, of future lapses.

When I say serious athletes should NEVER eat at McDonald's (or eat other food they are pretty certain is crap) instead of food they're pretty sure is better for their general health, and quite probably for their performance, I mean that this should be the GOAL, or rule, of every serious athlete. And it's in this sense that anyone who says that eating crap food "in moderation" is acceptable is not an athlete interested in maximum personal performance, but someone who is willing to make easily avoidable, and therefore completely unacceptable, compromises with that goal.

[Steller]

RE: (from Oldster): "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." -- I generally agree.

Here is a decent article to get a feel on where nutrition can help assist training load:
www.active.com/running/Articles/Nutrition_Troubleshooting.htm

For example, recent data (just last year) has shown that for post-exercise muscle protein synthesis, whey protein is ~10% better than casein -- both of these come from milk. Here is an exmaple of a sudtle difference between different types of proteins which can have a significant impact on muscle growth.

Runalittle-- good "nutrionists" do not spend their time peadling leucine or glucosamine, unless they are on commision at GNC. They spend 95+% of their time working on the basics, getting good nutrition into the busy daily lifestyle, trying to woork on recovery nutrition, combining this approach with sleep/rest cycles, looking at how to best periodize body composition throughout the training year, etc. etc. Only, when all of the above appears to be well done, will I even discuss any supplement with an athlete. (plus, there are only a handful where the science is strong enough anyways).


BTW- The title "doctor" is also un-regulated. (just ask famed author Hunter S. Thompson, "Doctor" of Gonzo journalism).

[runalittle]

I don't think I have the time resources to keep up with your postings Oldster! You're going to win the argument by besieging it.

I'll answer a few of the questions that you posed directly to me and touch on some of your statements. I'm disinclined to add too much more since you're not really addressing any of the chinks I pointed out in your argument.

Anyways:

I find this to be a bit of a rambling mish-mash

That's a bit funny--I structured it in rebuttal format, commenting on your points sequentially. Mish-mash in mish-mash out, I guess. I do appreciate the guns-a-blazing start though.

(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).

Nope, that would be the totally laissez-faire approach. I'm in the moderate camp (I thought that was clear). I believe there is some good evidence suggesting you can't just eat anything in any quantity and still be successful. For example, you can't let yourself get fat. But at the same time, I don't believe there is enough evidence to take a hard-line stance and proclaim McDonald's off-limits.

And if you're athlete and you're eating when you're NOT hungry, you'll soon have other problems.

Agreed!

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.

This is a big part of your argument--the illusive "sh!t food" (sorry kids) and "relatively better" food dichotomy. In a previous post, I suggested what you could do to make this more convincing: lay out the basic distinction, provide examples, and remember to keep in mind the myriad of circumstances when one practice may be appropriate and another not.

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.

My interest in this topic first developed at the age of nine and can be summarized in four short chapters...ahem...sorry.

I think any athlete with even a few hertz of self-reflection has to have some level of interest in nutrition. What I'm suggesting as far as nutrition is concerned is as I highlighted above: a moderate stance. Eat using the Canada Food Guide as a basic framework and then tailor extensively depending on individual needs and circumstances. Use metrics like weight as feedback.

(You write like some disembodied "presence" that just enjoys little casual musing now and then.)

That's the nicest thing somebody has said to me all day. Do I enjoy a casual musing now and then? Of course. Otherwise I wouldn't be partaking in this debate. I'm obviously not doing it because of the impact factor of TnF. Or because I think you're likely to change your mind.

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.

You (and the other three readers still muddling through this thread) should listen to Trent! I don't see why listening to Stellingwerf and I are mutually exclusive options! I should hope you don't have a problem with "amateurs" putting in their two cents--otherwise you'd have a really hard time sleeping at night.

Mark Trent's words though: "Will McDonald's effect your training when eating once a week-- probably not." He's not the one who's making the extremist posts about things that thou shalt never consume. Which begs the question, why should we listen to you and not Trent Stellingwerf, who is an actual researcher.

[runalittle]

Ugh...as if anyone had any attention span left:

Let me turn things around a bit on those who have attempted to place the burden of hard, once and for all, factual proof on me and others to show why it is never O.K. for athletes to substitute McDonald's for food that is known to be more generally nutritious: Provide one argument for why, from a performance point of view, athletes SHOULD ever eat McDonald's or other such food (assuming, as everyone but runnalittle seems to accept, that we can more or less reliably distinguish it from the broad category of good food)?

When the rules of thermodynamics make it the easiest and most practical approach. I previously posted on Michael Phelps's diet and the sheer amount of calorie-laden foods he eats. You could argue that he needs his food to be energy-dense in order to perform. Heaps of chocolate chip pancakes, French toast, and fried eggs! This regimen would be considered junk food by most, but it's the energy loading part of his diet. In our study of n=1, it seems to work.

Since all you're looking for are counter-examples, we might also consider an ultra runner or a multi-day adventure racer. They're going to eat what would normally be considered junk food or the nutritive equivalent thereof labeled ENERGY BLAST and sold in flashy packaging in order to provide calories for their race effort.

McDonald's can loosely be substituted into either of these examples--although I'm still waiting for you to draw the lines as to where "sh!t food" ends and "relatively better" food begins.

[runalittle]

Runalittle-- good "nutrionists" do not spend their time peadling leucine or glucosamine, unless they are on commision at GNC. They spend 95+% of their time working on the basics, getting good nutrition into the busy daily lifestyle, trying to woork on recovery nutrition, combining this approach with sleep/rest cycles, looking at how to best periodize body composition throughout the training year, etc. etc. Only, when all of the above appears to be well done, will I even discuss any supplement with an athlete. (plus, there are only a handful where the science is strong enough anyways).

Agreed. It's just that there are a lot of bad nutritionists out there and, as you say, a lot of them are driven more by profits than evidence. Buyer beware.

BTW-The title "doctor" is also un-regulated. (just ask famed author Hunter S. Thompson, "Doctor" of Gonzo journalism).

Right, but it's regulated when it comes to health care. You can't give people the impression you're a physician, naturopath, chiropractor, and so on if you're not.

[oldster]

The reason I counterposed you and Trent is because you seem to be saying different things on this-- you, that a "moderate" approach to sports nutrition is best, and he, that a "high performance" approach is possible; and by "listen to" I don't mean just read, I mean use as a guide for action. In this sense, we're going to have to choose who we want to listen to. (And whatever credibility you had on this issue is blown by your completely lame response to Trent's post. If you had anything useful to offer, you would offer to compare notes with him on this, for the edification of us all.)

Your so-called "moderate" approach is untenable. This is about using the best the science has to offer to guide a specific kind of practice, not politics or some other values-based issue. It boils down to this: I'm an athlete and I need to eat right now. What should I put in my mouth? And there is no moment at which the correct answer to this question is "McDonald's" or "a Kraft Lunchable".

On what do you base your claim that, once our caloric demands become high enough, we must inevitably resort to eating less nutritious food? (Fried eggs are still far better than a Big Mac, and chocolate chip pancakes, if they're home made and whole grain, are better than anything you can get at McDonalds. Your version of Phelps diet still looks far better than fast food, even if the example itself in completely irrelevant-- again, Herb Elliot smoked cigarettes.) I've spend a good deal of my life around long distance runners, and I've run over 100,000 miles in my life (I run a lot, not "alittle"). I know what it's like to have to eat a ton in a day (up to 4,000 calories in a day for someone 5', 9" and 138lbs), and I've never found myself having to eat the equivalent of junk food to meet my needs. If you have to, you resort to eating lots of basically the same nutritionally balance thing every day-- like the rest of the world has to do, BTW. (I'm interested in what a "moderate" on the subject of sports nutrition would look like in the context of Kenya or Ethiopia!).

Edit: There is actually nothing "moderate" about a high performance lifestyle, so why would anyone recommend a "moderate", mainstream approach to diet and nutrition? And we don't even know with complete scientific certainty which kinds of TRAINING work best, but we still have to act. So, why would things be any different where diet is concerned; why would we throw up our hands in the search for a high performance approach to diet, simply because the science is inconclusive (which it always is)?

[ronb]

Wow, getting away from this thread for a couple of days is dangerous --- I'll put a reply together after I have a chance to review all recent posts.
In the meantime, Steve, thanks for asking about my meds. I didn't know you cared. You will be glad to know that I am still on my meds., having been so since my trusted colleague WG shoved the knife in my back several years ago, and brought my professional coaching career to an abrupt halt. And several attempts to get off the meds. have been disastrous, so I assume I'm on them, until I "leave the building". Again, thanks for your concern...

[runalittle]

Okay, I can't spend much more time on this disagreement.

I've already touched on pretty much everything you brought up in your latest post so I'm not going to spend time beating a dead horse. Please, just re-read previous posts.

As for this:

Fried eggs are still far better than a Big Mac, and chocolate chip pancakes, if they're home made and whole grain, are better than anything you can get at McDonalds.

Do the research! The fried egg bit is hard to compare, but I'll use part of Phelps's lunch ("two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread") as an example. From the website Trent kindly linked us to earlier in this thread:
_________________________________
Nutrition Facts for one Big Mac Hamburger
Serving Size 1 sandwich (215.0 g)
Amount Per Serving
Calories 576
Calories from Fat 292

Total Fat 32.5g
Saturated Fat 12.0g
Polyunsaturated Fat 2.8g
Monounsaturated Fat 14.1g
Cholesterol 103mg

Sodium 742mg

Total Carbohydrates 38.7g
Protein 31.8g

Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 2%
Calcium 9% Iron 31%
_____________________________

Compared to (and I even bothered multiplying by two for you):
_____________________________
Nutrition Facts for two ham and cheese sandwiches (without mayo)
Serving Size 2 sandwich (292.0 g)
Amount Per Serving
Calories 704
Calories from Fat 278

Total Fat 31.0g
Saturated Fat 12.8g
Polyunsaturated Fat 2.8g
Monounsaturated Fat 13.4g
Cholesterol 116mg

Sodium 1542mg

Total Carbohydrates 66.6g
Protein 41.4g
Vitamin A 12% • Vitamin C 10%
Calcium 26% • Iron 36%
________________________________

They don't look all that different, really. But you said what Phelps ate was "far better" than anything you could get at McDonald's. You've been doing that the entire thread! Making claims about how horrible McDonald's is without actually looking at the numbers! Maybe you know about some toxic ether or something that's imparted by being prepared under the glow of golden arches. Back your opinion up!

...and not with how many kilometres you've run. That was cute.

Enjoy the spring running everyone!

[oldster]

Mar 7, 2010 12:16:39 GMT -5 runalittle said:

Okay, I can't spend much more time on this disagreement.

I've already touched on pretty much everything you brought up in your latest post so I'm not going to spend time beating a dead horse. Please, just re-read previous posts.

As for this:

Fried eggs are still far better than a Big Mac, and chocolate chip pancakes, if they're home made and whole grain, are better than anything you can get at McDonalds.

Do the research! The fried egg bit is hard to compare, but I'll use part of Phelps's lunch ("two large ham and cheese sandwiches with mayo on white bread") as an example. From the website Trent kindly linked us to earlier in this thread:
_________________________________
Nutrition Facts for one Big Mac Hamburger
Serving Size 1 sandwich (215.0 g)
Amount Per Serving
Calories 576
Calories from Fat 292

Total Fat 32.5g
Saturated Fat 12.0g
Polyunsaturated Fat 2.8g
Monounsaturated Fat 14.1g
Cholesterol 103mg

Sodium 742mg

Total Carbohydrates 38.7g
Protein 31.8g

Vitamin A 1% Vitamin C 2%
Calcium 9% Iron 31%
_____________________________

Compared to (and I even bothered multiplying by two for you):
_____________________________
Nutrition Facts for two ham and cheese sandwiches (without mayo)
Serving Size 2 sandwich (292.0 g)
Amount Per Serving
Calories 704
Calories from Fat 278

Total Fat 31.0g
Saturated Fat 12.8g
Polyunsaturated Fat 2.8g
Monounsaturated Fat 13.4g
Cholesterol 116mg

Sodium 1542mg

Total Carbohydrates 66.6g
Protein 41.4g
Vitamin A 12% • Vitamin C 10%
Calcium 26% • Iron 36%
________________________________

They don't look all that different, really. But you said what Phelps ate was "far better" than anything you could get at McDonald's. You've been doing that the entire thread! Making claims about how horrible McDonald's is without actually looking at the numbers! Maybe you know about some toxic ether or something that's imparted by being prepared under the glow of golden arches. Back your opinion up!

...and not with how many kilometres you've run. That was cute.

Enjoy the spring running everyone!

I'm not surprised you would wrap up your contribution with a selective restatement of by far the weakest element of your argument-- the Micheal Phelps N of 1. (I'll grant that the Phelpsian "ham and cheese sandwich is nutritionally no better than McDonald's). But, we already acknowledged about 8 pages ago that many champion athletes eat lousy food and still succeed. This proves very little about what's best for serious athletes in general . As I keep saying, Herb Elliot, one of the world's greatest distance runners of all time smoked cigarettes. Does this prove anything about the average optimality of smoking for distance runners?

Why didn't you just directly answer my challenge to your claim that, the higher the caloric requirements of a given athlete, the more they are compelled to compromise the quality of their intake? (That, BTW, is why I mentioned how much I run and have run all my life.)

And don't pretend you're bowing out of this discussion because you have better things to do. You're bowing out because you're not prepared to directly engage any of the broader points I've been making about high performance sport and nutrition, because you have nothing of use to offer on the subjects of either high performance sport or nutrition, and because your credibility on the subject is now non-existent. Have you forgotten that you entered this discussion by trying to pass yourself off as a "nutritionist"!? I'll grant you this: you got a certain amount of chutzpah to have pushed it out this far!

Edit: You do realize that in your first reference to Phelps diet you don't mention the "cheese sandwich" over which you berate me for not recognizing is as bad as McDonald's, don't you? You only mentioned fried eggs, french toast and chocolate chip pancakes, making your whole "cheese sandwich" post completely redundant and ridiculous! If you'd added the "white bread cheese sandwich" the first time I might not have said his diet was still better than McDonald's. As with pq, why don't you stop trying to score cheap point and take on the logic of my argument rather than just a few of the details?

[runalittle]

Mar 4, 2010 14:29:29 GMT -5 oldster said:

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).

Take a step back and read your posts, oldster. You're easily the most wound up and are now the only one left flailing.

And now you're grasping at straws. You're making this big stink because I compared what Phelps eats for lunch instead of what he eats for breakfast as if it would have made any difference. Mark my words: Do your own research. I can go get the nutritional information for homemade pancakes and compare them to those available at McDonald's. You would again see that the product available at McDonald's isn't "far worse" than that you make yourself, despite what you've been repeating ad nauseam.

...but then you'd probably lash out that you can't compare pancakes and hotcakes.

Look, I am walking away from this because it's not worth my time putting together replies for your sake alone. The pace is just too slow via message board. I know that it's frustrating as hell when someone disengages from a debate you're really passionate about. I know that. Look, if you'd like to continue the discussion, I'd consider PMing you my number and we could try setting something up over the phone. To be honest, though, I doubt it would be very productive.

Anyways, enough. The last word is yours if you want it.

[oldster]

Talk to you over the phone!? You can't be serious. Anyone who enters a debate on an anonymous message board vaguely claiming to be a "nutritionist", then just as vaguely backs away from the claim, is sending out some pretty obvious signals about the stability of his/her personality. These kinds of people are best kept at arms length! I already have plenty of other sources on nutritional science (including two ACTUAL nutritionist who post regularly on this board) without relying on some nutcase with obviously no experience with elite sport in any capacity, and no capacity to fully engage an argument.

Wound up? If you were actually trying to wind me up, and/or doing it in a funny or entertaining way, and not just out to lunch, then the l guess you'd be entitled to the last laugh!

And, then there's your actual contribution to the debate, which consists of charging me, as pq has already done, with not being able to prove the EVERYTHING that McDonald's sells is worse than EVERY other available nutritional alternative. While you were going back over the thread to review my posts (which you were in order to pick out the one your clipped), you should have noticed that my argument does not rest on being able to say the McDonald's is always the worst thing that you can eat, OR, that there is always some ideal "perfect" food for performance. My argument only depends on being able to make the broad distinction between RELATIVELY better and worse foods. My argument is that McDonald's, like all fast food, is ALWAYS going to be in the "relatively worse" category, and therefore should ALWAYS be avoided.

Then you have fixated on the fact that one great athlete may or may not have a diet that is no better than eating at McDonald's. This argument has been covered. Hell, Usain Bolt ACTUALLY EATS at McDonald's and he's the fastest man in history! Clearly, the point is not that eating at McDonald's forecloses one's ability to a great athlete (again, there have also been great athletes who smoked cigarettes). The point is what we're about to recommend for athletes interested in reaching their personal maximum potential. If nutrition plays a role in this AT ALL, then I doubt McDonald's, or any other fast food, is going to be a recommended choice.

Another small example of your inability to properly engage a debate:

In another of you lame "gotcha" attempts, you claim that you have "caught me" admitting that an athlete may be able to eat some McDonald's if he/she is not replacing meals with it, but only eating it on top of a generally good diet. When I counter that this has limits-- i.e. the athlete will get fat-- your response is simply "Agreed!", completely neglecting the larger point, which is that the problem of "opportunity cost" of substituting McDonald's for relatively better food -- my point all along-- quickly becomes the issue if we're not assuming that athletes can eat as much food as they want.

And, finally, there's your unwillingness to defend perhaps the only actual sport-relevant claim that you have made in all of your offerings: the claim that the nutritional quality of an athlete's intake must be compromised as their caloric demands increase (the Phelps example). This, I may say, is complete bullshit, and anyone who has ever had to sustain a demanding training programs knows it. Some athletes, like Phelps, may choose to eat some crap in order to meet their high needs, but many others, like African marathoners covering over 200kms a week, week in and out, get by fine without chocolate chip pancakes, fried eggs, or your beloved cheese sandwich! Seriously, if you want to make a real contribution to the discussion on this board, why don't you try defending that claim? (And, believe me, this is not just a little argument between the two of us. The thread has over 3,000 views. Runners are always hungry for new insight into these matters. Why don't you provide some?)

[bystander]

9 pages on why McDonald's may not be the best source of nutritional meals?! Unbelievable.

Oldster, you have spent all this time/effort defending a ridiculous position (frankly who gives a damn if you're right or not), and attacking those who question your assertions, all in the name of argument. Really? Do you consider yourself sane? BTW, most of the views are to see what an idiot like you will say next. Please get over yourself, no one cares how many miles you have run or how good of a masters runner you are, or even who you coach - tell your captive audience, don't bore the rest of us. Why do you feel the need to constantly take over almost every thread that ever comes on here? Do you really think that your opinion matters over anyone else's? Are you that arrogant and self-centred?
People like Trent (amongst others) post their opinions as a matter of education, the leave it alone, they don't take over a thread and turn it into something about them, why have you? You have, frankly, chased away many who might otherwise contribute to the discussion, you are what is called an internet bully. Disagreeing is one thing, but beating people over the head (in effect) just to get in the last word on every subject (if this were the only thread in which you have done this it would be different, but it isn't, it's a pattern you display over and over) says more about you than anything, and it isn't good. If you would actually stop talking down to people, then they might actually listen more to you. You need a time-out to reflect on what it is that you actually think that you contribute here. But maybe I'm wrong and this is actually a dissertation you are trying to put together (it's certainly long enough), although your reader's stopped paying attention to the actual discussion long ago.

[wrestlerun]

Mar 8, 2010 10:55:44 GMT -5 bystander said:

9 pages on why McDonald's may not be the best source of nutritional meals?! Unbelievable.

I started this thread only to make fun of the US bobsledder and any other 'fat' Olympians I could think of.....the McD's argument may have been lamer than my thoughts that certain levels of BMI should preclude you from being an Olympian...DAMN YOU CORPORATE AMERICA FOR HIJACKING MY POST.

PS Saw Oldster at McD's yesterday stuffin his face...just sayin'

[oldster]

Mar 8, 2010 10:55:44 GMT -5 bystander said:

9 pages on why McDonald's may not be the best source of nutritional meals?! Unbelievable.

Oldster, you have spent all this time/effort defending a ridiculous position (frankly who gives a damn if you're right or not), and attacking those who question your assertions, all in the name of argument. Really? Do you consider yourself sane? BTW, most of the views are to see what an idiot like you will say next. Please get over yourself, no one cares how many miles you have run or how good of a masters runner you are, or even who you coach - tell your captive audience, don't bore the rest of us. Why do you feel the need to constantly take over almost every thread that ever comes on here? Do you really think that your opinion matters over anyone else's? Are you that arrogant and self-centred?
People like Trent (amongst others) post their opinions as a matter of education, the leave it alone, they don't take over a thread and turn it into something about them, why have you? You have, frankly, chased away many who might otherwise contribute to the discussion, you are what is called an internet bully. Disagreeing is one thing, but beating people over the head (in effect) just to get in the last word on every subject (if this were the only thread in which you have done this it would be different, but it isn't, it's a pattern you display over and over) says more about you than anything, and it isn't good. If you would actually stop talking down to people, then they might actually listen more to you. You need a time-out to reflect on what it is that you actually think that you contribute here. But maybe I'm wrong and this is actually a dissertation you are trying to put together (it's certainly long enough), although your reader's stopped paying attention to the actual discussion long ago.

Apparently YOU haven't stop paying attention,and you're not even interested in the thread! And, thanks for following my "work" on here so closely. (Who is making you, if you find it so unpleasant?) And, BTW, do you have some special device for detecting who has and hasn't stopped paying attention, and what they're thinking when they are reading thread, that the rest of us don't? (Moulton, can I get this too?). You, sir, are a jackass!

As for "internet bullying", you actually have come on here and volunteer to get bullied, if that's even a justifiable description of what's happening when someone who should know better poses as some kind of authority, says stupid things, and gets their nose rubbed in it! (From the very use of the phrase, I'm going to bet you're a high school teacher. They love to level this charge!) Stop being such a milquetoast. This kind of thing is what message boarding is, and always has been, all about. At least I'm not hiding my identity.

[cda]

Mar 8, 2010 11:42:32 GMT -5 oldster said:

milquetoast

Word of the year, hands down.

[oasis]

Mar 8, 2010 11:45:25 GMT -5 cda said:

Mar 8, 2010 11:42:32 GMT -5 oldster said:

milquetoast

Word of the year, hands down.

I had to google that one

I for one think that people like oldster bring a necessary spark to this message board and always find his post's informative (and expanding my vocabulary as well!!!). He has been in the game for a longtime and know's what he talking about. I believe he would be the first to say he is not an expert but to not listen and learn from his experience would be a mistake. An internet bully, come on bystander are you for real, no offense to oldster but at 5'8" and 138lbs I doubt he is bullying anybody .

So keep posting oldster as well as the rest of the TnF allstars, you no what they say, "knowledge is power".

[zen]

Oldster, here is where I think your argument falls short. You have repeatedly failed to address the fact that a suboptimal diet does not necessarily lead to suboptimal athletic performance. Instead, you’ve adopted a philosophical stance and argued that a serious athlete needs to be serious in every aspect of their training. I think we all take your general point that athletes interested in peak performance need to exercise extreme diligence; but, the fact remains that athletes who occasionally deviate from what is otherwise a nutritionally balanced diet continue to excel, suffering absolutely no ill effects to their training and racing. We’ve been offered many examples of successful athletes with suboptimal diets who have trained and competed successfully, and you’ve acknowledged the difference between healthy eating and eating for performance. Honestly, when it comes to the question whether a serious athlete COULD ever eat at McD’s and continue to perform at 100% you’ve essentially waved the white flag haven’t you? All you’re doing now is arguing whether a serious athlete SHOULD ever eat at McD’s (or consume similarly suboptimal food).

[pmac]

Mar 8, 2010 12:51:26 GMT -5 oasis said:

I believe he would be the first to say he is not an expert

Come again?

[oldster]

Mar 8, 2010 20:02:26 GMT -5 pmac said:

Mar 8, 2010 12:51:26 GMT -5 oasis said:

I believe he would be the first to say he is not an expert

Come again?

Very sly but, judging from the context, I believe he meant in nutritional science.

And, Zen, my response to your objection would be as follows:

Athletes do not get to have two careers, one where they eat crap once a week or month, and one where they take their diet very seriously, which they can then compare to see what worked best. The same goes for training in general (many athletes, after all, still manage to succeed on some level on minimal training too). The fact that some athletes still do well without caring much about their diets or optimizing their training does not mean that YOU would be advised to attempt this too-- not if you wanted the best chance at being the best you could be. Like these other athletes, you might still succeed on some level; but, you might have doubts at the end of your career as to whether you did all you could to be the very best you could. And I think that all any serious athlete wants at the end of the day is to be able to say that they did their very best within the real world constraints facing them (and the omnipresence of shit food begging to be eaten is not a reasonable constraint on doing one's best).

EDIT: Granted, there is no guarantee that a simply healthy diet is going to improve athletic performance; but, where are you going to place your bets? We can be pretty sure that an all McDonald's diet is not going to work, so the optimal consumption of McDonald's food is somewhere between every day and not at all. And, since no one actually NEEDS to eat McDonald's food (most African runners don't even have the OPTION of eating it more than may be once a or twice a year, and those are the ones who get to travel), I would say the safest bet is probably zero McDonald's food. You never HAVE to eat this shit, so why on earth would you if there's even a sliver of chance that it will impair your performance, even in just one workout? What is the actual case for eating McDonald's? Lots of good things taste great-- even better than McDonald's.

[spartan]

Oldster has mentioned Herb Elliott a couple of times regarding his smoking habit . (Not sure if McDonalds existed back then down under but rumour has it that Percy C got upset with Herb when he stopped to visit Ronald while on a US tour.

Several would say this would be dentrimental to ones athletic career.

In Herb's case, he liked to kick back and relax in his off season and have a few cigs. I am not aware that he smoked at all during the rest of the year. However with the way he trained I bet he could knock every bit of nicotine damage from his lungs within a month or two of endurance training. If any was left it would be absorbed by the raw oatmeal he ate or he would toss it after one of his sand dune workouts.
But seriously, it is not the occasional cigarette, or McDonalds hamburger that matters, it is what you are made up of: your genetics, your guts, your discipline and your lifestyle.


An neither will probably fit into either your or my lifestyles!

[zen]

Oldster, if we’re in agreement that an athlete can ever consume suboptimal food and continue to perform at 100% (and you haven’t put up much of a fight here), then it doesn’t really matter WHY that athlete might consume suboptimal food on occasion. There’s no case to be made. Let little pq eat his McMuffins because he thinks they taste good! If he will experience no drop in performance, his reasons are irrelevant.

In all seriousness, though, you’re holding onto the belief that even the very smallest amount of “junk” food has the potential to affect an athlete’s performance, even if we’re only talking about the very smallest fraction of overall fitness. It’s as though you’re imagining that there’s some giant scoreboard. Every time an athlete does something optimal for achieving peak performance, you would put a little check into the “good” column, and every time an athlete does something suboptimal for achieving peak performance, you would put a little check into the “bad” column. When all is said and done you’re saying that those few ticks in the “bad” column will (or at least have the potential to) nullify a few of the many ticks in the “good” column (remember, we’re talking about an athlete who is trying to achieve peak performance, and is only deviating from their normal optimal diet on rare occasions). I just don’t think (based on the examples of others and my own personal experience) that it works this way.

I think a better model would be to imagine that all optimal training/nutritional practices represent the healthy body of a trained athlete, and any suboptimal training/nutritional practices represent individual, single cell germs that may try to infiltrate and attack the healthy body. We’re all aware that our bodies are constantly coming in contact with simple germs, but we’re able to fight them off with no ill effects: we don’t even notice. We simply carry on with our training, and the germs that might have been potentially dangerous to us if allowed to multiply (i.e. consuming suboptimal foods more than occasionally) become a non issue. Those few ticks in the “bad” column don’t have to be countered by a few ticks in the “good” column. The mass of the “good” eradicates the fraction of “bad” entirely. And I use the term training/nutritional practices because there are so many easily imagined scenarios where an athlete might slightly deviate from their intended training/nutritional practices and not suffer any drop in performance. We can imagine someone getting 7 hours of sleep instead of their usual 8 hours and still completing their workouts as planned. We can imagine someone only completing 10 minutes of their cool down run when they usually do 20 minutes. As long as these instances remain infrequent, the athlete will perform exactly as they would have had these instances not occurred.

[oldster]

Your "germ" analogy falls down at the first hurdle: There is still an energy cost in fighting off attacks on our system, which is why, for example, we get sick more easily if we don't get enough sleep or we eat poorly. Serious athletes do not KNOWINGLY, and for no good reason, do things that are quite probably sub-optimal in their training. Ever. Shit happens, but that doesn't mean you accept it, or invite it.

Your argument reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live parody, wherein an overweight John Belushi plays an athlete in an ad for the Pork Marketing Board of America and utters the pitch line: "I eat pork because my heart can take it!" (And, it doesn't matter that we now know that eating pork is probably not as bad for athletes as they believed in the 80s). Your compromises with your best idea of how to train and eat are just that, compromises, or missed opportunities to do it correctly; and, again, you only get one career in which to do things correctly. Go ahead and knowingly compromise your own training ideals; it happens all the time, which is why so few athletes get anywhere near their full potential. But, don't try to argue that it is somehow a generally advisable practice.

I tried to cover all this in this previous post:

Imagine if the argument were not about whether eating "in moderation" food we know to be bad instead of always eating food we're pretty confident is good, but about whether it was a good idea to train poorly (that is, in ways we know to be generally sub-optimal) "in moderation" just because we feel the overwhelming need to be stupid in training once in a while. Now, this is something that many runners, in fact, do all the time, particularly ones who have no particular designs on optimizing their performance. This is also something that serious runners sometimes do moments of weakness. However, training stupidly is not something anyone who claims to want to be the best they can be would ever advocate as an acceptable practice-- i.e. training stupidly "in moderation". The GOAL of all serious athletes is to train the best way they know how 100% of the time. Likewise, the GOAL of all athletes interested in maximum personal performance should be to eat according to the best of their nutritional knowledge 100% of the time (i.e. not McDonald's, or similar food, if at all possible). As with training properly, serious athletes may occasionally lapse from this goal; but, it never ceases to be the guiding principle. Lapsing occasionally from an ideal goal never entails accepting the inevitability, or acceptability, of future lapses.

When I say serious athletes should NEVER eat at McDonald's (or eat other food they are pretty certain is crap) instead of food they're pretty sure is better for their general health, and quite probably for their performance, I mean that this should be the GOAL, or rule, of every serious athlete. And it's in this sense that anyone who says that eating crap food "in moderation" is acceptable is not an athlete interested in maximum personal performance, but someone who is willing to make easily avoidable, and therefore completely unacceptable, compromises with that goal.

EDIT: Athletes who consistently (i.e. regularly, or "in moderation") can't bring themselves to eat and train according to the best of their knowledge about training and sports nutrition (which has come a long way since I was running seriously) are simply mentally weak. If they happen to have abundant physical talent (like Elliot or Bolt), or they're O.K with being mentally weak, then it won't matter as much; but, they are still weak, and not as likely to finish their careers having run as fast as they could have (guys like Elliot get a bit of a pass, because he really didn't know he SHOULD probably be trying not to smoke.) You can't have it both ways here. You're either doing your best, or your not. And when it comes to a discussion about sports nutrition, McDonald's, or other food like it, simply has no place.

[powerboy]

Its fair to say that we all agree that the goal is to eat and train as close to the optimal way as possible. Where many of us disagree with you Oldster is that some slippage is not a sign of moral weakness.
. Here is a funny anecdote in light of the discussion.(although I am not telling it to prove my point- I am merely telling it)
On the front page of Letsrun today is a video of Craig Virgin defeating Nick Rose at World xc in 1980. I ran against Nick Rose regularly in college and obviously got pounded. As most of you know, US coaches can be fanatical about rules-bed checks, no drinking etc. So one time indoors just as we had received the usual warnings from our coach, we walked by the hotel bar and were hailed by Nick and his main pal Tony Staynings. They had each had at least 3 beers by that time and wanted us to join them.
We didn't of course, and who knows how late they stayed. Next day at the meet they went 1-2 and broke the meet record.
I got to know them reasonably well over time and can tell you that they trained hard-close to flat out all the time, long before the word tempo was even known.

[pmac]

I don't believe this has been posted yet: www.universalsports.com/news/article/newsid=319279.html

[SI]

Mar 9, 2010 11:56:17 GMT -5 powerboy said:

Nick Rose

Same training methods as David Bedford, Steve Jones and Mike McLeod.

[oldster]

Mar 9, 2010 12:25:30 GMT -5 pmac said:

I don't believe this has been posted yet: www.universalsports.com/news/article/newsid=319279.html

Thanks for posting this, pmac. Fam is an extreme but still illustrative case. If he had retired as early as some of the hard-living, bad-eaters of the 70s/80s (with Jones being the exception) people would be holding him up an an example of the relative lack of importance of diet and other lifestyle related "details" (BTW, a tenth of a second is also a "detail", folks; it can also be the difference between winning and losing.)

And, powerboy, my case has nothing to do with morality. Not caring about chasing every practical edge to get ahead in the sport does not make someone a bad person. No one HAS to want to be the best they can be. I just don't like it when people try to have it both ways by saying that the little things "don't matter".

I actually come out of the same era as Jones, McLeod, Bedford, etc., etc.-- the era when everyone believe the stupid adage "if the engine is hot enough, anything will burn". My diet wasn't nearly as bad as most of the English guys I met, nor Fams, but I didn't pay much attention to it till much later in life either. And, no one would have said I didn't run well in my late 20s. Before I starting thinking a little more systematically about my diet, however, I would get colds and other viruses probably 6-8 times a year, leading to tons of lost training time. After I starting approaching my diet-- which was, as I said, still pretty good by the standards of the time-- a little more systematically, I basically stopped getting sick at all. I owe the fact that I ran all of my P.B.s after the age of 30 in part to that simple adjustment-- i.e. no more crap food AT ALL. If I had managed to make this shift in my early 20s, I have no doubt I'd be much prouder of my running accomplishments than a I am today.

[pq]

Mar 9, 2010 14:35:03 GMT -5 oldster said:

Fam is an extreme but still illustrative case.

Illustrative of what?

To my knowledge, nobody yet in this thread has suggested eating crap all the time is a good idea.

Let me reiterate my request from earlier in the thread... this discussion would be (IHMO) more useful if people would contribute specific constructive dietary advice, going beyond the generalities "never eat (insert purveyor of "bad" food here) if you want to reach your best."

[oldster]

Mar 9, 2010 14:54:49 GMT -5 pq said:

Mar 9, 2010 14:35:03 GMT -5 oldster said:

Fam is an extreme but still illustrative case.

Illustrative of what?

To my knowledge, nobody yet in this thread has suggested eating crap all the time is a good idea.

Let me reiterate my request from earlier in the thread... this discussion would be (IHMO) more useful if people would contribute specific constructive dietary advice, going beyond the generalities "never eat (insert purveyor of "bad" food here) if you want to reach your best."

Illustrative of what can happen if you don't consider your diet as a variable in the training process.

Extreme as in an example of a North American athlete-- and human being-- who ate basically as poorly as it is possible to eat for his entire life. Most athletes, even those who don't care about their diet, probably don't eat this poorly.

Good Foods

Whole grains.

Omega 3 and 6 fats (nuts, fish oil).

Lean meats.

Dark green vegetables (brocoli, kale)

Fresh Fruits (esp. dark skinned).

Bad Foods

Processed grains (white bread/flour).

Simple sugars.

Food high in sodium.

Foods low in fibre.

This would be just a start. I know that Trent has some more sport specific suggestions re: the timing of intake, etc..

Did I really need to make this explicit?

And to anticipate your response, yes, McDonald's and other fast food joints sometimes try to offer some choices that fit somewhat into category one; but, only because the vast majority of what they serve fits into category two, which they know they will sell you once you come in the door. Besides, when people refer "eating at McDonald's" or eating fast food in general, they're generally not talking about garden salads and grilled chicken wraps-- which, anyway, usually, as in the now infamous "baked potato" example, contain some nutritionally heinous twist that makes them as bad as a burger or "filet o' fish". People do not go to McDonald's or Burger King if they're looking for something healthy.

If we were having a serious discussion about sports nutrition, McDonald's would NOT be part of the discussion, period. Whatever they sell, you can always make or buy a nutritionally superior version of.

[oldbones]

see Toronto Olympic Club website (sport nutrition):


www.torontoolympicclub.com/pdf/uoftpresentationsnutpsychewells1a.pdf
www.torontoolympicclub.com/pdf/uoftpresentationsnutpsychewells-2.pdf

[ronb]

Wow ! !! This thread is getting more ridiculous by the post.
Elementary 101 nutrion lectures just as if the vast majority of elite runners and coaches are unaware, and haven't been for the last 30 years or so...
For you younger athletes and coaches, I would also suggest reading up on OCD, sometimes referred to as anal-compulsive disorder. With over 40 years of distance running coaching under my belt, I would suggest the OCD behaviours are much more destructive to human performance, than the burger or the doughout or the pizza or a few brewskis. Having been at several dozen Olympic, World, Commonwealth events, and interacting with the athletes on those teams, I have direct (not theoretical ) knowledge about their comsumptions...You may be surprised, especially if you are an OCD guy.