Maximum BMI?

[pq]

I'm not sure the Famiglietti example is useful to illustrate any particular angle in this discussion. As his running accomplishments are more impressive than anyone who's posted in this thread so far, if you wamted you could point out that he got there in spite of his crap diet/lifestyle.

By extension, diet isn't particularly important in his case.

I don't believe that to be true (that diet's not important), but his experience can hardly be used as evidence that the occasional indulgenve needs to be avoided at all costs.

Hence my question "illustrative of what?"

[oldster]

By his own admission, the guy ate nothing but crap before he crashed a burned physically. Then he made big some changes to his diet and lifestyle and turned things around. He ran well on crap likely because he was hugely talented; but, on the course he was on, there was no way he was going to realize his lifetime potential, and he knew it. Maybe he still won't, but clearly HE now believes he has a better chance, now that he is paying closer attention to his lifestyle, including his diet.

To repeat, his case is an illustrative, albeit extreme (i.e. in that very few athlete eat this poorly for this long), example of the importance of taking diet seriously.

And to repeat for the millionth time: The point is not that you can't do "well" if you eat crap either once in a while, or even all the time. The point is that if you don't try to eat as well as you know how ALL THE TIME, or of you try and fail a lot, you are not likely to be as good as you might otherwise have been. Diet is either important or it is not. And if you're going ALL OUT to be the best you can be, there is really never a good day to eat shit and compromise your recovery. And, if you can go, say, six months without eating crap, you will have proved to yourself that you can go without eating it at all.

Again, pq, there is NOTHING GAINED for serious athletes in ever eating shit. (Lots of good things taste great too). This is not a question an unfavourable risk/benefit calcuation; there is NO BENEFIT to eating shit food, ever.

And Ron, step out of the 80s for a moment. Top athletes no longer eat shit and get pissed all the time like we all used to back then. Hell, even the best GOLFERS are trying to clean up their acts to get a competitive edge. Athletes in the 80s got a lot of things right, but diet definitely wasn't one of them. And the discussion is not about being more interesting people. It's about giving ourselves the best shot to be the best we can be in the very short span of a serious athletic career. (Kid's, you've got your whole middle-age to be like pq and stop in at McDonald's every week or so. It won't kill you to aim for dietary perfection while you're trying to be your best, and it will remove one more reason for misgivings when it's all over. Also, to let you in on a little sercret, pq is not as lean as he could be;-)

[ronb]

Steve, I've out of the '80's for quite some time now, thank you.
I have coached distance runners from the late 1960's, and am still doing a bit of advising and consulting with runners. So that is the 40 year period to which I referred in my previous post.
Literally hundreds, maybe thousands of runners, and some very successful ones at that, so I do know a little of what I speak. I re-iterate that, in my opinion, the drive to be doing everything absutely perfectly, as if you were a robot and not a human being, can exhibit itself in all sorts of nasty ways. Especially if it is accompanied with guilt feelings over the occasional burger, pizza, doughnut, beer, etc...

[ronb]

Sorry, I meant to ask...
If the runners from 20 to 30 years ago were guilty of straying from the "perfect diet" (as if one existed that applied to everyone), then htf did they run so fast, as evidenced by the domination of Canada's all time lists, and significantly better results at the International level also. That kind of knocks the crap out of your diet THEORIES, Steve. Perhaps today's runners should be spending more time training harder and smarter, and less time going to confession for having a hamburger...

[oldster]

Slow down, Ron. I acknowledged that runners from the 80s got a lot of things right, just not nutrition. And, yet again, this discussion is not about "doing well", or even being great; it's about giving yourself your best shot at being your best, using the best information available to you at the time. (I'm sure you recall that a lot of great runners from the 80s, including some Canadians, used to get deep massage and sit in hot tubs following some of their hard sessions. This didn't stop them from being great, but it certainly was not an intelligent practice, based on what we know now about muscle physiology.)

I'll tell you what amazes me. There have been very earnest discussions on this board about the most arcane aspects of run training, in which both you and pq have been active participants. (Pq being particularly anal about the multiple and precise paces he uses in training). Now, when it comes to discussing nutrition, which you both acknowledge is an important variable in achieving top performance, you're both willing to say, in effect, "don't sweat the details", "ya gotta live once in while", "don't be anal", and "go ahead and eat shit food 'in moderation'". ** My question is: What gives? If nutrition really is an important variable in the training process, why the laissez-faire attitude? And why would you find my "zero fast/junk food" position so provocative?

**Actually, pq starting out by saying this, then switched to arguing that McDonald's wasn't actually necessarily always bad, depending on what one ordered. Then he switched to demanding some clarity on the distinction between "good" and "bad" food that he seemed to understand and accept when he first entered the discussion-- hence the nutrition 101 posts you ridiculed. Finally, he as moved to picking nits over my characterization of the meaning of the Familglietti example. Who know what he'll come up with next.

[pq]

All I will come up with is a simple request that you focus on making your points without making personal attacks.

I've never held myself up as an example of a top athlete, so pointing out I'm a little less lean than optimum is simply gratuitous.

Not that I really mind being called fat (or short, if you like), but this seems to be your style... Attack the individual rather than the idea.

So far you've gone over the top calling out Ron (claimed personal arrangement with him notwithstanding, asking him in public if he's off his meds is hardly a professional example). You've attacked runalittle simply because he/she called himself a nutritionist. You've called me obtuse for disagreeing with you.

While I find your "argument" to be repetitive in the extreme (I think we all know your opinion now, as we've been bludgeoned with it over and over), I think we can all do without the cheap shots and lazy barbs.

[oldster]

1. Lighten up. I was joking. We all know you're an excellent age group athlete.

2. Let others defend themselves. We have enough indignant offense-taking on here without people taking it up on behalf of others.

3. If you understand my position you're not really showing it.

[oldster]

P.S. I'm a little hurt that you stood by quietly while I was called: "insane"; an "internet bully"; and "a moron" (if only a temporary one), among other things too hilarious to mention.

But wait, I get it. Ad hominens are fine when YOU agree with them!

And for all you other delicate flowers who think I play too rough sometimes: My posts are labeled, and I am not e-mailing them to you. You have to CHOOSE to read them, and they can't hurt you if you don't!

[Smithwicks]

But wait, I get it. Ad hominens are fine when YOU agree with them!

You started the ad hominem attacks in the first place. Of course we don't mind when they're reflected back to the original instigator.

[oldster]

Mar 10, 2010 14:11:56 GMT -5 Smithwicks said:

But wait, I get it. Ad hominens are fine when YOU agree with them!

You started the ad hominem attacks in the first place. Of course we don't mind when they're reflected back to the original instigator.

Still following along, eh?

BTW, I don't mind personal attacks at all, although I prefer when they contain some substance, or are actually clever in some way (e.g. pmac's droll and economical asides) When they don't or aren't, they just make the author look like he's lost it (e.g. Ron, you, and bystander). But the kind I like best are when someone comes on here with a full head of indignant steam, tries to sound authoritative, says something demonstrably stupid, and has it pointed out to him/her in no uncertain terms. Or, when they gratuitously point out that they have an important and impressive sounding job. Take you, for instance. Aren't you the one who said that all food is the same (including McDonald's) and it's only the quantity that matters? And didn't you, apropos of nothing really, self-importantly inform the board that you are a big, smart computer banking man?

You think it was a "personal attack" when I ridiculed your pretentiousness and nonsense and/or pq's obtuseness? Stupid is as stupid does/says.

[pq]

First obtuse, now I'm anal, a "delicate flower" and finally plain stupid? I could add that you also called me a liar in the training discussion you've referred to.

I don't think I've often been called any of these things, and I would suggest you're well off the mark on all counts.

I'd say "that's rich" but I fear I'd be repeating myself.

Steve, it's very tempting to lower myself a couple of levels to fence with you on your level, but respectfully I'll pass. BTW - I didn't call you any of those things you've mentioned. I'm not sure what logic you can use inside your head to assign responsibility to me.

-----------

How, may I ask, is it "anal" to follow a different training philosophy than you and the good doctor Daniels? Yes, we use more different gears than you. How is that "anal?"

Or should I simply take the random insult as code for "different than Steve thinks?"

I like it better when you call my training "arcane and idiosyncratic." To me, that suggests you just don't understand it. And that's OK.

But "anal?" I honestly think the approach is the opposite of anal, as it is adaptive in real time in response to daily feedback, and relies on general guiding principles as opposed to rigid constructs.

Perhaps you could explain to everyone how my training is "anal." I assume by making that declaration you are confident you have a good understanding of the training I do and the principles I follow, and not simply vague general notions. So please use real examples to illustrate your position. Thank you.

[cda]

Mar 10, 2010 11:23:13 GMT -5 oldster said:

(I'm sure you recall that a lot of great runners from the 80s, including some Canadians, used to get deep massage and sit in hot tubs following some of their hard sessions. This didn't stop them from being great, but it certainly was not an intelligent practice, based on what we know now about muscle physiology.)

Why is that?

[zen]

Oldster, you haven’t managed to put a dent in my germ analogy. Yes, there is an energy cost in killing the small amount of germs we are exposed to everyday (white blood cells being sent to destroy the ‘intruder’, etc.); but, we need to draw the distinction between what is MEASURABLE and what is MEANINGFUL. The white blood cells sent to fight off the germ are measurable (we could say that x number of white blood cells were sent), but they are not meaningful in terms of the effect felt on the body. As I put it: “we don’t even notice.” In the same way, suboptimal food on rare occasions is measurable in terms of caloric intake, fat, sodium, etc., but it is not meaningful in terms of ultimate athletic performance (the runner continues to race at 100%). I anticipated your objection that “we get sick more easily if we don’t get enough sleep or we eat poorly” when I wrote “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.” Did you not read this, or did you just choose to ignore it?

And what exactly was the point of mentioning the Saturday Night Live parody (besides giving us all something to youtube later)? The humour of this sketch stems from the fact that Belushi (an obese, sedentary man, who presumably ONLY eats suboptimal food) is advocating the consumption of more suboptimal food. It’s funny because his heart really couldn’t take it. But how does this relate to the discussion we’ve been having about a nutritionally balanced peak performing athlete who consumes suboptimal foods on rare occasions?

You harp on the notion that indulging on these kinds of foods is a “compromise” of training ideals; however, your arguments have failed to establish that any compromise exists (besides a moral one). I can’t really think of another way of posing this so I’ll just quote from my previous post: “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.” What I’ve tried to establish in this argument is that an athlete training “the best way they know how 100% of the time” is not actually going to outperform the same athlete training the best way they know how 99.99% of the time. This seems counterintuitive in some ways, doesn’t it? A percentage closer to the ideal of 100% training must be better, mustn’t it? But the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming! Athletes who are doing everything else right can afford to indulge on suboptimal foods every now and then with no detriment to their performance. I’m not claiming that there’s anything to be “gained” or any “benefit” from eating suboptimal foods on occasion. It’s just clear to me that there’s nothing to be lost either.

Your argument (as it stands now) is a based on morality. You believe that an athlete training to be his best must train the best way he knows how 100% of the time and that to do less than this is a compromise of his athletic integrity. That’s fine. If you entered this discussion stating how you think an athlete trying to achieve peak performance SHOULD approach their training, you likely wouldn’t have gotten much of a response from anyone. Where I (and others) disagreed with you is about what an athlete trying to achieve peak performance COULD neglect in their training (eating suboptimal foods occasionally) and still perform at 100%.

[spaff]

Just remembered this photo on coldneck's blog...

coldneck.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/007-2.jpg

....and not a Big Mac to be seen!

[oldster]

Mar 10, 2010 15:47:44 GMT -5 pq said:

First obtuse, now I'm anal, a "delicate flower" and finally plain stupid? I could add that you also called me a liar in the training discussion you've referred to.

I don't think I've often been called any of these things, and I would suggest you're well off the mark on all counts.

I'd say "that's rich" but I fear I'd be repeating myself.

Steve, it's very tempting to lower myself a couple of levels to fence with you on your level, but respectfully I'll pass. BTW - I didn't call you any of those things you've mentioned. I'm not sure what logic you can use inside your head to assign responsibility to me.

-----------

How, may I ask, is it "anal" to follow a different training philosophy than you and the good doctor Daniels? Yes, we use more different gears than you. How is that "anal?"

Or should I simply take the random insult as code for "different than Steve thinks?"

I like it better when you call my training "arcane and idiosyncratic." To me, that suggests you just don't understand it. And that's OK.

But "anal?" I honestly think the approach is the opposite of anal, as it is adaptive in real time in response to daily feedback, and relies on general guiding principles as opposed to rigid constructs.

Perhaps you could explain to everyone how my training is "anal." I assume by making that declaration you are confident you have a good understanding of the training I do and the principles I follow, and not simply vague general notions. So please use real examples to illustrate your position. Thank you.

For chrissakes pq, could your skin get any thinner? I think it's great that you are "anal" about your training paces, if that's the way you want to do things. I never said there was anything WRONG with it. I only mention it to illustrate a contrast between attention to detail about some aspects of training and seeming lack of concern with others. Can we keep our eye on the ball here?

And the point about the name calling was not that you were personally attacking me (although you did call one of my suggestions, later explained to you, "pure horseshit"); it was that you jumped to ron's and others defense in the face of my so-called "personal attacks", and not to mine in the face of fairly obvious ones, including one from a guy (and a well known dickhead, BTW) who hadn't even been involved in the discussion to that point, let alone been a victim of one of my terrifying "attacks". (Not that I cared in the least whether you defended me or not, of course). Ask smithwicks. He understood perfectly what I was getting at when he replied that "I started it".

Lame, very lame.

[pq]

BTW - to me, being "anal" about training would include things like worrying about exact pace on easy days, exact mileage on easy days or for the week. It would also include finishing a workout at target pace regardless of conditions and feedback from the body.

I never worry about pace on easy days, and generally don't know it because the watch stays home if I know how far I'm running, and is used to estimate distance on days when I haven't decuded how far/long I will run.

I almost never know how far I'll run on an easy day - I finish when I decide I've run fart enough.

I never start the week with a specific mileage goal, rather just some vague general notion, that I hope to hit within maybe 10-1d percent, roughly.

Workouts are always started with a specific objective and target paces or effort, but the body decides whether or not to complete as planned. I probably bail from a dozen planned workouts a year earlier than planned. And I've actually seen a strong correlation between stopping early (when I know I still have something in the tank, rather than when I've overextended myself) and strong race performances 3-4 weeks later.

Anal? I don't think so.

I think by "anal" you really meant complex, sophisticated, or containing "arcane and idiosyncratic" subtleties that may be beyond your comprehension. Yes?

[oldster]

Mar 10, 2010 20:18:43 GMT -5 zen said:

Oldster, you haven’t managed to put a dent in my germ analogy. Yes, there is an energy cost in killing the small amount of germs we are exposed to everyday (white blood cells being sent to destroy the ‘intruder’, etc.); but, we need to draw the distinction between what is MEASURABLE and what is MEANINGFUL. The white blood cells sent to fight off the germ are measurable (we could say that x number of white blood cells were sent), but they are not meaningful in terms of the effect felt on the body. As I put it: “we don’t even notice.” In the same way, suboptimal food on rare occasions is measurable in terms of caloric intake, fat, sodium, etc., but it is not meaningful in terms of ultimate athletic performance (the runner continues to race at 100%). I anticipated your objection that “we get sick more easily if we don’t get enough sleep or we eat poorly” when I wrote “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.” Did you not read this, or did you just choose to ignore it?

And what exactly was the point of mentioning the Saturday Night Live parody (besides giving us all something to youtube later)? The humour of this sketch stems from the fact that Belushi (an obese, sedentary man, who presumably ONLY eats suboptimal food) is advocating the consumption of more suboptimal food. It’s funny because his heart really couldn’t take it. But how does this relate to the discussion we’ve been having about a nutritionally balanced peak performing athlete who consumes suboptimal foods on rare occasions?

You harp on the notion that indulging on these kinds of foods is a “compromise” of training ideals; however, your arguments have failed to establish that any compromise exists (besides a moral one). I can’t really think of another way of posing this so I’ll just quote from my previous post: “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.” What I’ve tried to establish in this argument is that an athlete training “the best way they know how 100% of the time” is not actually going to outperform the same athlete training the best way they know how 99.99% of the time. This seems counterintuitive in some ways, doesn’t it? A percentage closer to the ideal of 100% training must be better, mustn’t it? But the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming! Athletes who are doing everything else right can afford to indulge on suboptimal foods every now and then with no detriment to their performance. I’m not claiming that there’s anything to be “gained” or any “benefit” from eating suboptimal foods on occasion. It’s just clear to me that there’s nothing to be lost either.

Your argument (as it stands now) is a based on morality. You believe that an athlete training to be his best must train the best way he knows how 100% of the time and that to do less than this is a compromise of his athletic integrity. That’s fine. If you entered this discussion stating how you think an athlete trying to achieve peak performance SHOULD approach their training, you likely wouldn’t have gotten much of a response from anyone. Where I (and others) disagreed with you is about what an athlete trying to achieve peak performance COULD neglect in their training (eating suboptimal foods occasionally) and still perform at 100%.

Son, nice try, but this is pure sophistry. You've simply played around with the terms "measurable" and "meaningful" to conjure away the problem. We "may not notice" the germs attacking our systems, but our systems themselves notice them all the time, and use real energy to fight them off. This is why it is very easy to catch viruses when tired or otherwise compromised. And if you catch enough viruses, you're training is compromised. A suboptimal diet has a long term cost, however small. We just never know what it is because, as I say, we only get one career and not two to see how it might have been had we done it better, whether in relation to our training or our diet. Diet either matters or it doesn't. If you don't think it does, say so.

And you woefully misunderstood the SNL joke. The joke was that athletes usually promote things that HELP them get better, not things that just don't make them any worse. The joke was about PORK, not the athlete promoting it (which was an a little side joke, because Belushi has already starred as a fat athlete in a fake ad for "Chocolate Donuts". )

As for how your construe my position as being about morality rather than science, this is logical contortionism of the highest order. The SHOULD in my argument has to do with removing uncertainly at the end of one's career. If you believe nutrition is a factor in achieving your best lifetime performance, and you want to leave not stone unturned, you should not eat shit food if at all possible.

The only thing I've actually learned from you guys in this this discussion is not to get between Canadians and their god-given right to eat shitty food!

[oldster]

Pq, are you losing your mind? I think you're training plan is actually great, and I think it's great that you pay such close attention to things that you are convinced matter. Everyone should be so detailed. Honestly. I just wonder why this attention to detail suddenly stops where your diet in concerned.

[pq]

And another BTW - I don't think I'm particularly thin skinned, but I suppose that's for others to judge. How would I know, right?

I'm following up on this "anal" insult to emphasize two related points:

- you like to attack the individual instead of the idea; and,
- you often make claims with no basis in fact, relying on the force of your personality to get people to agree

This was just a simple example that fit both bills. Calling me "anal" is hardly the most offensive thing I've been called. "Dickhead" would be pretty offensive mind you. When you call me obtuse or stupid, that I just find humourous.

Mind you, I was deeply offended when you called me a liar, but honestly I't pretty much forgotten about that until you started calling me names again. I think if you were to call me. A liar again, that might be enough to get me to stoop to name calling, although I'm not sure...

[zen]

I don’t think it’s sophistry, I think it’s a sophisticated argument that you’re having a difficult time posing any real objections to. The difference between what’s “measurable” and what’s “meaningful” is significant. You can’t sweep this distinction under the rug. Lots of things are measurable without being meaningful. There are likely many toxins in my body right now in some measurable amount; however, I am completely healthy. They will only become meaningful to me if they accumulate beyond a certain point. Once again, you’ve failed to explain how the rare consumption of suboptimal food will affect an athlete on a meaningful level. It’s not a case of “diet either matters or it doesn’t,” it’s a case of diet matters… up to a point. After which, the rest is gravy… maybe a whole bowl of poutine even

And speaking of sophistry, thanks for your explanation of how I’ve “woefully misunderstood the SNL joke.” Reread what I wrote. I said that the joke stemmed from both the fact that Belushi was an obese, sedentary man, who likely only consumed suboptimal food, as well as the fact that he was promoting the consumption of still more suboptimal food. So you think the joke was more about the product that was being promoted (pork), than the ‘athlete’ promoting it (Belushi)? Would the bit have been as funny if it was Eddie Murphy in the commercial instead? No! I made a relevant critique about why you had mentioned this in the first place (because it did nothing to support your stance). Your attempt at a rebuttal to my entire argument is all smoke and mirrors. You have no real answers, and you’re trying to save face by critiquing my skills in debating rather than the merits of what I’m saying.

So your stance isn’t just one of morality, but there’s a scientific basis for it as well? How will we scientifically measure “removing uncertainty at the end of one’s career?” I’m dying to find out.

[oldster]

Mar 10, 2010 23:37:09 GMT -5 zen said:

I don’t think it’s sophistry, I think it’s a sophisticated argument that you’re having a difficult time posing any real objections to. The difference between what’s “measurable” and what’s “meaningful” is significant. You can’t sweep this distinction under the rug. Lots of things are measurable without being meaningful. There are likely many toxins in my body right now in some measurable amount; however, I am completely healthy. They will only become meaningful to me if they accumulate beyond a certain point. Once again, you’ve failed to explain how the rare consumption of suboptimal food will affect an athlete on a meaningful level. It’s not a case of “diet either matters or it doesn’t,” it’s a case of diet matters… up to a point. After which, the rest is gravy… maybe a whole bowl of poutine even

And speaking of sophistry, thanks for your explanation of how I’ve “woefully misunderstood the SNL joke.” Reread what I wrote. I said that the joke stemmed from both the fact that Belushi was an obese, sedentary man, who likely only consumed suboptimal food, as well as the fact that he was promoting the consumption of still more suboptimal food. So you think the joke was more about the product that was being promoted (pork), than the ‘athlete’ promoting it (Belushi)? Would the bit have been as funny if it was Eddie Murphy in the commercial instead? No! I made a relevant critique about why you had mentioned this in the first place (because it did nothing to support your stance). Your attempt at a rebuttal to my entire argument is all smoke and mirrors. You have no real answers, and you’re trying to save face by critiquing my skills in debating rather than the merits of what I’m saying.

So your stance isn’t just one of morality, but there’s a scientific basis for it as well? How will we scientifically measure “removing uncertainty at the end of one’s career?” I’m dying to find out.

I have no doubt you find your own argument sophisticated. But, all you have done is chosen to define the amount of junkfood you choose to eat (however much that may be as) "not meaningful". That's not an argument. That's a simple statement. Let me put it too you more simply, using the concept of a continuum. If McDonald's everyday is probably far too much junk food for an athlete, and none is probably the nutritionally best amount, at precisely what point should an athlete begin to restrict his/her consumption of McDonalds food? Fifty percent? Thirty percent? You see what I'm saying.

My argument is that since there IS NO BENEFIT from eating McDonald's food, and some harm (which varies with amount consumed, as in a continuum, not as in a threshold, before which there is NO harm and after which there harm sets in) then serious athletes are advised to consume NO McDonald's food, period.

The only arguments I've heard so far IN FAVOUR of consuming shit food are:

-it's available and tastes good.

-restricting yourself from eating it will make you uptight and may thereby harm your performance.

This is very weak.

And there can be no scientific proof that, at the end of his career, and athlete will have reached his/her ultimate potential. This is a completely idiotic understanding of my reference to science. The science involved is in determining how to train and live optimally for top personal performance. If you KNOW you have done the best you can with your training and lifestyle at the end of the day, then you have done your best and should have no regrets. If you knowingly compromised your program in any way, and you really wanted to be your best, then you will, or should, have regrets.

Explain to me when, exactly, is a good time for an athlete who is doing all he/she can to be his/her best to eat shit food instead of better food? When you're seriously trying to be your best, every day is important, even your rest days.

If you, personally, are carrying this attitude that strictly unnecessary compromises, even small ones, are normal and acceptable, then I can all but guarantee that you will not become as good as you otherwise could. Once the rot sets in, it usually doesn't stop.

[Roy]

zen, i'll try to keep this short - here's where your argument fails:

Mar 10, 2010 20:18:43 GMT -5 zen said:

But the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming! Athletes who are doing everything else right can afford to indulge on suboptimal foods every now and then with no detriment to their performance.

how do you justify 'no detriment'? because they perform well, you say they perform at 100% - this isn't anecdotal evidence, this is a HUGE assumption.

I believe I understand what you're saying - you're trying to introduce some diet-related ceiling effect where every athletes who puts, say, 99% or more effort into their eating habits will still achieve 100% performance. this could be true - i can't say it's not. but you certainly don't know it's true, you don't know where the ceiling is, and in every other aspect of training athletes try to get things as perfect as possible. why assume that diet is the one aspect of training where less than 100% is still optimal?

[oldbones]

letsrun.com has nothing on this thread!

TnFnorth_letsrun.com ... new domain name!

[ess92]

What could have been a very legit thread for people to express different views on nutrition has become a flurry of senseless name calling. Its childish and nobody takes anything away at the end of the day.

Back to the topic at hand. Last year my club had a nutritionist come in and talk us about healthy eating and what not. She was very informative but completely unrealistic. The only thing she encouraged us to eat was stuff that was twice as expensive as its "unhealthy" substitute and to throw out our boxes of Vector Cereal and meats from the Deli Counter. I am sure that she was right but the very idea tht this is possible is completely ridiculous. The point of the story is that optimal nutrition is almost impossible to achieve for the average family or the already very broke competitive runner just out of university. Nothing is perfect but you do the best you can. We all know that Macdonalds is not as great as real food and if you lay off it for an extended period of time it will taste like cardboard the next time you try it. However, it is not going to kill you. Eat it if you want. You will be the only one who pays the price for the choices you make.
Oldster: I don't see your motivation for trying to change an opinion engrained in the minds of these reputable individuals. I guess you are trying to persaude today's and tomorrow's elite to eat better in some small way but believe me when I say that if they don't figure these lessons out for themselves then no amount of preaching will help. Get your statement out there and then let it be.
*I would just like to point out that I am with Oldster on the Macdonalds has terrible food angle because he is right. I am surprised this stuff qualifies as food but if you enjoy it, go ahead. When the gun goes off then we will see who was right.

[ronb]

Well said, ess92. I am in the midst of moving, so haven't been able to keep up with this thread, as much as I would like to. Soon...

[SI]

"Gault's secret isn't so much a secret as it is a difficult lifestyle choice. As the majority of his one-time NFL peers filled their retirement hours with golf, cookies, cigars, beer and a soft spot on the softest couch, Gault continued to live as if the next big game were always around the corner. He refuses to eat chicken or red meat, sticking to a diet of fish (twice per week), vegetables and soy. "I might have an oatmeal raisin cookie once in a while," he says. "But I don't live to eat. I eat to live.""

sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jeff_pearlman/03/12/willie.gault/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin#ixzz0i0pHhisg






sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jeff_pearlman/03/12/willie.gault/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin

[zen]

Roy, that’s a fair criticism of my argument (I’m sure Oldster would agree). My stance is predicated on an assumption that I can’t prove factually. Neither side in this debate is able to produce any cold hard facts, unfortunately. Oldster’s (and others) response to this lack of 100% certainty is for an athlete to train the best way he knows how 100% of the time, so that he can look back on his athletic career and have no doubts whether he accomplished all he could. This is certainly a logical enough stance. You give 100%, you get 100%.

I’ve chosen to look at the anecdotal evidence provided throughout this thread and which I’ve read online and in print over the years. I’ve read dozens and dozens of examples of elite runners (past and present) consuming suboptimal foods on occasions (but who otherwise have nutritionally balanced diets). We’re talking about record holders, championship medalists, etc. These are runners with access to world renowned coaches, their own nutritionists, and who are training harder than anybody on these boards, yet they’re still indulging on suboptimal foods on rare occasions. Why would a group of people who would otherwise push over their own mothers to be the best engage in this kind of behaviour if they thought for one second that it was going to compromise their performance? The assumption I’ve drawn is that they wouldn’t consume suboptimal food EVER if they thought for one second that their performance would be compromised. They’re not morally weak people (they couldn’t be with the training they do!). They’ve simply recognized that treating themselves to ‘x’ will do no harm to their fitness, so they indulge on rare occasions. And I can’t claim that some elite athletes wouldn’t have done better if they avoided all suboptimal foods. Maybe Fam really could have been better if he paid more attention to his diet; but then, we’re not talking about a guy who was consuming suboptimal foods on rare occasions. I’ve just argued that nutritional diligence has its rewards up to a point (99.99 whatever %), after which some slippage will have no real affect on performance. It’s my theory, which has been formed by reading about these athletes and my own personal training history. At this point, I’ve argued my case and you, Oldster, whoever are free to reject it.

And Oldster, I thought about replying to your last response to me, but as I was thinking about what I would write I realized that my response was going to amount to me accusing you of misinterpreting my argument, restating my argument, restating the things I find flawed in your argument, and then trying to come up with a snarky comment that would get ya good ; after which, you’d be left on your side of the monitor thinking the same things. I figured (for now anyway) we’ve probably danced around this issue enough. We’re unlikely to change each other’s views or offer any new perspectives.

[oldster]

Ess92, you're right. If I haven't successfully made this case to certain individuals by now, I'm never going to make it. What's kept me going is my gobsmacked incredulity at having to make what I think is so logically straightforward an argument, at least where athletes are concerned. And I actually think the resistance to the notion of a "no junk/bad" for diet is cultural in origin-- in spite, that is, of the various strategies people (including people in this thread) will devise in order to convince themselves that their dietary practices are "fine" (as though athletes should ever settle for "fine"). The sheer ubiquity of nutritionally lousy food in North America has created as sense that consuming it "once in while" is somehow normal-- and, for athletes, fine, because most citizens consume much more of it than they do. What strikes me is the utter untranslatability of this argument into cultural contexts where junk food is simply not readily available-- i.e. places where people's diets are based on the consumption of a few simple but nutritionally balanced staples; places like Ethiopia, Kenya and Japan (although a little less so today). (Kenyan runners may argue about who's drinking too much beer, but that's a little different, since well made beer is actually good nutrition).

So, zen, I can certainly see where you would be getting your various "anecdotals" about bad-eating North American elites. I have no doubt that many North America elites DO eat sub-optimally; but, for the simple reason that bad food is such a taken-for-granted aspect of their culture. We can completely understand how they would think they were doing "fine" if they were eating only a 10th of the crap their fellow citizens were eating. As Trent hinted at, however, there are plenty of anecdotals about non-North American elites who never touch lousy food. I also think North America athletes are very rapidly changing their ways where diet is concerned, in order to get an edge. And there is just so much excellent food out there now-- both healthy and delicious-- that I can't understand how anyone, let alone a serious athlete, could feel the need, or find space withing their allotted 2000-4500 calories a day, for something like a Big Mac. (Although I do certainly take the point about cost; if you're broke and you want to eat well, you're not going to have much variety in your diet, which can make you feel like an outcast in a society where a huge range of dietary variety is considered the norm.)

[SI]

Mar 13, 2010 10:56:49 GMT -5 oldster said:

since well made beer is actually good nutrition).

At the cost of consuming alcohol? Now it's obvious you are just trying to get these guys going.

[oldster]

Who's trying to get people going now? Unless you have it in your system when training or racing, or drink enough of it to impair sleep, alcohol is not a problem. Besides, in the case of good beer and wine, we're talking about a clear nutritional cost-benefit trade-off than can be optimized. As I've been saying over and over again, there is no cost-benefit dimension to eating lousy food; relatively bad food confers no special benefit and has clear opportunity costs. Beer and wine are ancient staples that have been helping keep people healthy for millennia (the widespread and extreme abuse of them is a relatively recent-- and, again, culturally specific-- phenomenon.) Athletes don't NEED them, but they are certainly more than compatible with a healthy diet.