|
|
Post by SI on Mar 13, 2010 13:35:55 GMT -5
Complete and utter nonsense in the context of the argument you are making. You want 100% certainty that you are doing everything possible. How does one know, for example, that one isn't predisposed to alcoholism. Is it worth that risk? Some can't break down alcohol easily. Sorry, you are either misinformed or you are just funnin' these guys (and you are doing a fine job)and I know you aren't misinformed.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 13, 2010 13:37:24 GMT -5
I'd like to read your rationale for this: [with alcohol] ...we're talking about a clear nutritional cost-benefit trade-off than can be optimized. .. Why is it OK to pay the cost, and accept the trade-off, if the athlete is striving to be 100%? |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 13, 2010 13:42:51 GMT -5
I'd like to read your rationale for this: [with alcohol] ...we're talking about a clear nutritional cost-benefit trade-off than can be optimized. .. Why is it OK to pay the cost, and accept the trade-off, if the athlete is striving to be 100%? There isn't one. He's just fooling around. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 13, 2010 13:47:19 GMT -5
I'm also interested to hear more from oldster about what constitutes verboten foods, apart from food served in fast food outlets.
How about...
- chocolate
- ice cream
- cheese
- butter
- other dairy products
- cookies and other sweets
- bacon
- beef
- eggs
- pork
- chicken
- mushrooms
- white bread
- whole wheat bread
- bagels
- white rice
All good? Some good, some bad? Is "good" black and white (like your categorization of "fast food") or shades of grey, sometimes good, sometimes bad, depending on a variety of factors?
Could you describe your typical diet? I'm wondering what you eat to make up the bulk of your caloric and nutrient requirements in comparison with what I normally eat to try and put my occasional McPigs indulgence into context. I'd be happy to describe my normal diet as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 13, 2010 14:52:30 GMT -5
I'd like to read your rationale for this: Why is it OK to pay the cost, and accept the trade-off, if the athlete is striving to be 100%? There isn't one. He's just fooling around. I think you must be right. I suspect we've just seen the punchline in a long elaborate joke. On the one hand, it's a horrible idea to consume "fast food" which in most cases, its worst characteristic is it's comprised of empty calories. Not particularly useful in an athlete's diet, but neither "bad" if consumed as part of a well balanced healthy diet. On the other hand, it's perfectly acceptable to consume an actual poison because we can optimize the cost-benefit. I get it! ---- BTW I'm not opposed to alcohol in moderation, but it IS an actual harmful, poisonous substance when consumed to excess. The same can hardly be said of big macs or egg mcmuffins.. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 13, 2010 15:14:59 GMT -5
Okay, here's the first study that popped up in a 15-second search, from 2010: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19230764. Looks like anyone who has a beer after a workout or race is going to have some serious regrets at the end of their career.  J Sci Med Sport. 2010 Jan;13(1):189-93. Epub 2009 Feb 20. Acute alcohol consumption aggravates the decline in muscle performance following strenuous eccentric exercise. Barnes MJ, Mündel T, Stannard SR. Institute of Food, Nutrition, and Human Health, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. M.Barnes@massey.ac.nz This study investigated the effects of acute moderate alcohol intake on muscular performance during recovery from eccentric exercise-induced muscle damage. Eleven healthy males performed 300 maximal eccentric contractions of the quadriceps muscles of one leg on an isokinetic dynamometer. They then consumed a beverage containing 1g/kg bodyweight ethanol (as vodka and orange juice) (ALC). On another occasion they performed an equivalent bout of eccentric exercise on the contralateral leg after which they consumed an isocaloric quantity of orange juice (OJ). Measurement of maximal isokinetic (concentric and eccentric) and isometric torque produced across the knee, plasma creatine kinase (CK) concentrations and muscle soreness were made before and at 36 and 60h following each exercise bout. All measures of muscle performance were significantly reduced at 36 and 60h post-exercise compared to pre-exercise measures (all p<0.05). The greatest decreases in peak strength were observed at 36h with losses of 12%, 28% and 19% occurring for OJ isometric, concentric, and eccentric contractions, respectively. However, peak strength loss was significantly greater in ALC with the same performance measures decreasing by 34%, 40% and 34%, respectively. Post-exercise plasma creatine kinase activity and ratings of muscle soreness were not different between conditions (both p>0.05). These results indicate that consumption of even moderate amounts of alcohol following eccentric-based exercise magnifies the normally observed losses in dynamic and static strength. Therefore, to minimise exercise related losses in muscle function and expedite recovery, participants in sports involving eccentric muscle work should avoid alcohol-containing beverages in the post-event period. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 13, 2010 15:27:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 13, 2010 16:00:55 GMT -5
Hutch, I'd be interested to hear what you might pull up with, say, a 2 minute search.
I'll allow that there's the possibility that even tiny amounts of alcohol MIGHT negatively effect performance, and outweigh the well established nutritional power of wine (antioxidants) and top quality beer (complex carbs, electrolytes); but, one study is not going to convince me. However, IF I were to be shown that ANY consumption of alcohol negatively effected athletic performance, I would make the same case as I have made re: sub-optimal food. However, lets remain clear that we are still talking about vastly different things when we compare something like wine to McDonald's; which, as I say, has NO upside whatsoever, apart from sating the taste of those who like it.
BTW, the "poison" thing is a bit of a distortion. Other nutritionally good food also contain small amount of "poisonous" ingredients (e.g. apple seeds). Wine may have more "poison" than other foods, but it has a ton of other very good things.
Beside, pq, I think you're, once again, and willfully, missing one of my central points. I think it's up to everyone to decide for himself exactly what a reasonable or practical concession to everyday reality as an athlete represents. Living like a monk is probably the only way to really ensure top performance, from a strictly physical standpoint; but, most serious athletes aren't willing or able to go that far for practical reasons, so they do next best thing. My argument, remember, was against people who want to have it BOTH WAYS; who want to do things that they must know are sub-optimal and claim it is "fine", and that there is no sacrifice involved. People can go ahead and eat crap, lose sleep, get pissed (or even just sip wine, if that turns out to be sub-optimal too) if they value it more than doing the best they can; just don't go around saying that "it doesn't matter", or it doesn't cost me anything.
Now, my question is: will you register any of this, or will you just wait for your next perceived opportunity to pounce on some detail, or at some small slight? So far, you have yet to acknowledge that the consumption of McDonald's actually does represent a sacrifice to top performance. It has taken you long enough just to accept the difference between good and bad food!
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Mar 13, 2010 16:08:37 GMT -5
I'm also interested to hear more from oldster about what constitutes verboten foods, apart from food served in fast food outlets. How about... - chocolate - ice cream - cheese - butter - other dairy products - cookies and other sweets - bacon - beef - eggs - pork - chicken - mushrooms - white bread - whole wheat bread - bagels - white rice All good? Some good, some bad? Is "good" black and white (like your categorization of "fast food") or shades of grey, sometimes good, sometimes bad, depending on a variety of factors? Could you describe your typical diet? I'm wondering what you eat to make up the bulk of your caloric and nutrient requirements in comparison with what I normally eat to try and put my occasional McPigs indulgence into context. I'd be happy to describe my normal diet as well. I for one actually think this thread is turning into one of the best ever on this site, nutrition is seldom discussed on here and is obviously important till run at one's optimal level pq brings up an interesting sub-topic here in typical diet, be interesting to see oldster's typical daily diet as well as other (pq, SI(when training), Kevin S. if lurking and anyone else for that matter), I recently purchased a new book called Racing Weight which I was skeptical at first about but has proven to be a great tool of information for endurance athletes in regards to optimal racing weight so lets see some typical daily food intakes and keep the nutrition talk going |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 13, 2010 16:11:30 GMT -5
P.S. The tiny sacrifice in performance that MAY be involved in the moderate consumption of good beer and wine is one that I would personally be willing to make. Is anyone out there willing to say the same about the "moderate" consumption of fast food?
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 13, 2010 16:30:22 GMT -5
I will register tha consuming absolutely any amount of McDs food represents a sacrifice to performance when someone shows it to be true, ie never.
You have painted all foods sold by all fast food outlets with the same brush and labelled it all bad. This is patently untrue. Are you prepared yet to acknowlegde this truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by benjamin on Mar 13, 2010 16:42:08 GMT -5
I second the request for examples of typical food intake from some of the people on here. I recently made substantial changes to my diet and would like to see what works for other people.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 13, 2010 18:46:15 GMT -5
Hutch, I'd be interested to hear what you might pull up with, say, a 2 minute search. I'll allow that there's the possibility that even tiny amounts of alcohol MIGHT negatively effect performance, and outweigh the well established nutritional power of wine (antioxidants) and top quality beer (complex carbs, electrolytes); but, one study is not going to convince me. However, IF I were to be shown that ANY consumption of alcohol negatively effected athletic performance, I would make the same case as I have made re: sub-optimal food. However, lets remain clear that we are still talking about vastly different things when we compare something like wine to McDonald's; which, as I say, has NO upside whatsoever, apart from sating the taste of those who like it. Sadly, I'm on deadline, so I don't have two minutes to search! But seriously, Steve, if you think there's just "one study" that links alcohol to impaired recovery, you really haven't been paying attention. That study was literally the first thing that popped up when I searched "alcohol exercise recovery." If you prefer to search about alcohol and sleep, you get stuff like this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8959467One drink, six hours before bed (so blood alcohol was zero by bedtime): "Compared with the control condition (mineral water), sleep was perceived as more superficial. Sleep efficiency, total sleep time, stage 1, and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep were reduced. In the second half of the sleep episode, wakefulness exhibited a twofold increase... The data demonstrate that late-afternoon ethanol intake in middle-aged men disrupts sleep consolidation, affects the sleep stage distribution, and alters the sleep EEG." Of course, you're welcome to decide that the benefits of alcohol, for you, outweigh possible effects on your training. But, as you've said many times on this thread, you can't have it both ways and pretend that it's optimal for your training. Yes, alcoholic drinks have various possibly beneficial ingredients in them. But if you want resveratol and other antioxidants, why not drink some grape juice? Or better yet, eat some fruit! And, bringing it back to fast food, are you seriously under the impression that a Big Mac has no beneficial ingredients? The protein in a Big Mac can be pretty important for post-workout recovery. In fact, I guarantee that you could construct a study showing that you gain more strength in a 12-week resistance training program when you eat a Big Mac after every workout than if you just eat a granola bar. Are there better ways to get that protein than from a Big Mac? Of course -- just like there are far better ways to get complex carbs than from beer. So both alcohol and fast food have some potentially negative impacts on performance. And they both have some potentially useful ingredients, which in both cases can be obtained from other sources without the same downsides. Remind me again what the difference is between these two, other than that you like one and don't like the other? Just to clarify: I'm not saying runners should eat Big Macs (I certainly don't). And I'm not saying runners should never drink alcohol (though I certainly think many otherwise serious runners hold their performance back by drinking too much). I just don't see why one should be subject to moral absolutism while the other gets bemused tolerance. (What I actually think, as I tried to convey earlier in the thread, is that runners should pay a lot MORE attention to nutrition and other "lifestyle" aspects of training. I agree that they shouldn't eat at McD's. But I think that's a fairly meaningless gesture if you're still eating sugary cereal for breakfast, Kraft Dinner for lunch, a frozen pizza for dinner, and then only getting six hours of sleep. And the reason I've been arguing this point is because of how often I've heard runners who are guilty of all the latter sins say things like "Yeah, I'm really taking things seriously to get to the next level -- I never go to McD's and BK anymore.") |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 13, 2010 19:17:44 GMT -5
P.S. The tiny sacrifice in performance that MAY be involved in the moderate consumption of good beer and wine is one that I would personally be willing to make. Is anyone out there willing to say the same about the "moderate" consumption of fast food? What ahutch said. Seriously dude. You are a very smart guy who is now digging himself into a very deep hole here. If you can't see that, I don't know what else can be said. The science isn't settled on alcohol at all. If you are going to take the fascist position on fast food, you HAVE to take the same position on alcohol. I don't think it is necessary to take the fascist position on either but to not be consistent on both reduces your cred on your argument on fast food. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 13, 2010 19:33:55 GMT -5
[pq brings up an interesting sub-topic here in typical diet, be interesting to see oldster's typical daily diet as well as other (pq, SI(when training), Kevin S. if lurking and anyone else for that matter), Already explained-barely coached, busy as hell at work, fat, fed with very little water and pretty well junk junk food 100 per cent of the time and got down to a 2:25 in a very short period of time(21 months from a standing start). I am not impressed with that time and think I should have run better but I have no idea how all of that reconciles with this discussion. I guess with a proper diet and the "guidance" Hayden takes about, I would have done it in what, a year-six months? If that is the case, it must be a pretty easy enterprise. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 13, 2010 19:37:08 GMT -5
I will register tha consuming absolutely any amount of McDs food represents a sacrifice to performance when someone shows it to be true, ie never. You have painted all foods sold by all fast food outlets with the same brush and labelled it all bad. This is patently untrue. Are you prepared yet to acknowlegde this truth? Pq, if I repeated everything I've already said about opportunity costs, optimization, and the relative "badness" of all-fast food compared with very readily available and better alternatives you would only accuse me of beating you over the head with my argument. You are one of the people I was meant when I referred to people to whom I would never get through. I'm completely through trying to clarify this for you. Go back and re-read my old posts if you're still unclear. Everyone else who's still interested seems to understand what I've been saying. There is no factual, once and for all, proof for this as far as a know, so carry on eating whatever you like in the complete confidence you're getting it about right. Hutch, I have a few serious questions re: the alcohol question. This study seems to deal only with basically muscle repair from quick bouts of eccentric muscle loading. We've been talking specifically about "endurance sport" for most of this thread (acknowledging that nutritional optimization may differ for other kinds of athletes); how would this kind of study relate to something like distance running, if at all? Is there anything else that relates specifically to distance running and alcohol consumption. And, I don't see where they specify the "recovery period". Does this mean immediately following exercise? A couple of hours later? How about a "Sweat Science" posting on this subject? And one more comment on the "poison" thing. There are commonly consumed things that are NOT so-called "poisonous" that are worse for you than the small amounts of alcohol contained in wine and beer, especially after the nutritional benefits of the latter are weighed against the possible downside of the alcohol. Trans fats, for instance, which are awful, and have no offsetting upside. But, at the same time, there are great foods for athletes that nevertheless contain some ingredients that we would generally want to stay away from. Even the best quality red meats, for instance, contain naturally occurring trans fats. And many foods that are good for athletes contain more than small amounts of sodium (something we dump faster than non-runners). There are still trade-offs within a good diet, in other words. The really unique thing about fast food is it's overall, relative nutritional irredeemability. This is why we call it crap in the first place; it has no upside compared to almost any freely available alternative. Finally, there are those may argue that wine and beer are "suboptimal" because the benefits they confer can easily be replaced by substitutes that don't contain the possible downside of alcohol. And this is true. However, as two of the crown jewels of human civilization-- both aesthetically, and as ingenious and potent stores of nutrition from an age before refrigeration-- they are unmatched. In this sense they have no substitutes, in my view, and their moderate enjoyment (once or twice a month) is worth what must be a very tiny downside, if there is indeed a performance-related downside at all. Finally, unlike fast food, no one but an alcoholic is going to use them as a substitute for an entire meal; they are typically consumed as adjuncts only, so whatever opportunity cost may be involved in their consumption must be that much more minuscule. Finally, finally, as for the question of my own diet, it is pretty good and very simple. However, at almost 47, I don't see the discussion about trying to optimized nutrition for performance as really relevant to me any more. I'm going to get slower now matter what I do, and I'm not interested in making any extreme sacrifices to simply reduce my rate of age-graded decline. Here's what I ate today, which is very typical of the way I have eaten for the past 17 years: -Large flake oatmeal (I usually have steelcut, which is nutritionally superior); a mixture of blueberries, blackberries, raspberries and strawberries); artisanal whole wheat bread and peanut butter; coffee. -Two chicken breasts one whole grain buns with lettuce, mayo (a much better fat than given credit for) and dijon mustard; pasta with basil pesto; mixed green salad; organic African red tea; 85% dark chocolate; and (later tonight) two pints of stout. I have consumed "fast food" perhaps 10 times in the past 20 years, and always when stuck on the highway with no easy alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Mar 13, 2010 20:03:48 GMT -5
Hutch, I have a few serious questions re: the alcohol question. This study seems to deal only with basically muscle repair from quick bouts of eccentric muscle loading. We've been talking specifically about "endurance sport" for most of this thread (acknowledging that nutritional optimization may differ for other kinds of athletes); how would this kind of study relate to something like distance running, if at all? Is there anything else that relates specifically to distance running and alcohol consumption. And, I don't see where they specify the "recovery period". Does this mean immediately following exercise? A couple of hours later? How about a "Sweat Science" posting on this subject? The muscle recovery study checked in at 36 hours and 60 hours after the bout of exercise -- relevant time frames if you're hoping to recover for a subsequent workout. You're right that this study is looking at an acute strength exercise. However, the reason they're using eccentric muscle contractions is that these are what is thought to produce DOMS. So if you run an unusually long run, or a very hilly route, or an unusually hard speed session -- anything that would leave you stiff or sore the next day, in other words -- then you're interested in ways of speeding up recovery from strenuous eccentric muscle contractions. You're right that it would make an interesting Sweat Science topic -- it'd be interesting to dig into the actual research. In terms of training effects, what I'd always been more worried about was disrupted sleep -- not that you sleep less (though being out at the bars could have that effect!), but that your sleep is of lower quality. My suspicion, though, is that there won't be a whole lot of well-designed, relevant research on the topic, and we'll be left to draw inferences from studies that were designed to address other questions -- much as we're all doing for nutrition, for the most part. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Mar 13, 2010 20:14:38 GMT -5
much as we're all doing for nutrition, for the most part. Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Mar 13, 2010 21:21:48 GMT -5
As I said, I'm busy moving, so my full response will happen soon...
In the meantime, I ask all younger athletes and coaches to ignore what Oldster is on about here. He is either totally "messing with you", or he has lost it. You only need to look at how many times he has contradicted himself in this thread. Or ask what he has accomplished as an athlete, or a coach, to allow himself the luxury of putting down the rest of humanity...
Offered with great respect for Steve, but this is ridiculous...
|
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 13, 2010 22:29:49 GMT -5
Word of the year, hands down. A tasty treat! Or, wait, is that melbatoast? |
|
|
|
Post by journeyman on Mar 13, 2010 22:31:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by distancechick on Mar 13, 2010 23:18:53 GMT -5
I'd take "McDonalds in moderation" over "alcohol in moderation" any day... Oldster, i'm absolutley stunned about your stance on alchohol given your stance on Mcd's. www.scienceofsocceronline.com/2009/06/no-place-for-alcohol.htmlSome notes from the above article: A new study published in the Journal of Science and Medicine in Sports emphasizes this point. The researchers examined the effect of post-exercise alcohol consumption on markers of muscle damage and soreness. They asked their subjects perform a strenuous bout of exercise which was followed by a meal. One group drank orange juice (control) while the alcohol group drank orange juice mixed with vodka. For this group the total amount of alcohol consumed was equal to 8-9 standard drinks. At 36 and 60 hours after exercise, muscle force produced by the alcohol group was considerably lower than the control group, 15-20% lower. Those in the alcohol group also reported higher ratings of muscle soreness and the 36 and 60 hour measures. Diminished muscle performance and increased pain, clearly two strikes against alcohol. The investigators explained that the alcohol consumption after exercise likely magnifies the amount of muscle damage that is typically associated with strenuous activity. The type of muscle damage that leads to muscle soreness typically occurs in several stages (see The Painful Truth About Muscle Soreness). The first occurs during exercise. The second occurs immediately after exercise and the process usually last for several hours. This is the process that seems to be increased by alcohol , possibly through its negative effects on the immune system and inflammation. Whatever the cause, it’s clear from this study that the effects of drinking after exercise can literally be felt for several days. The conclusion that alcohol is not a good recovery drink is supported by several earlier studies. These studies show that consuming alcohol after exercise adversely affects energy replenishment. Drinking after a match can impair the metabolism of carbohydrates which leads to reduced blood glucose levels and diminished replacement of muscle glycogen. So, as far as this goes, I never heard of a hamburger impairing muscle recovery. And really, if drinking alcohol in place of water, or any non-alcoholic beverage for that matter, doesn't represent an 'opportunity cost' i dont know what does. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 13, 2010 23:58:27 GMT -5
Whoa! Hold on here, folks!
Hutch, thanks very much for your thorough, clear, and reasoned response. As I said, I am prepared to argue for zero alcohol consumption if it turns out that the costs outweigh the nutritional benefits (including opportunity costs); or, have the rest of you not bothered to read those posts?
Ronb, you're starting to sound like the desperate ex-McDonald's manager that you are. Will you stop at nothing to salvage something of your fulsome support for McDonald's consumption? We only started discussing alcohol one page ago. How exactly have I "lost it" and where are the "multiple times" I have contradicted myself. At the VERY MOST, I am not up to speed on some very arcane scientific research on the specific effects of alcohol on muscle recovery and sleep quality. BTW, Ron, why didn't you point this out to me earlier, with your extensive knowledge of the finer points of this sort of thing? Same goes for you, SI. (Fascistic? I was at pains to point out that my case against fast food was not based on morality. No one, after all, morally HAS to want to be the best they can be.)
At the end of the day, we're not going to have to reject my basic argument; on the contrary, we just may have to include alcohol in it. If you simply want me to be harder on alcohol consumption, I will. I only said it was a small sacrifice that I was personally willing to make. Others can make theirs for other reasons; but, again, don't attempt to have it both ways. (Am I out of my "deep hole", SI?) Nowhere in any of this has the argument that I originally entered this discussion to oppose-- that "moderate" consumption of McDonald's food is a relatively healthy, that is to say an optimal, practice for athletes-- been salvaged, either by ahutch (who wasn't trying to) or any of the rest of you.
And distancechick, we already had this info from Hutch. And who said that hamburgers in general was suddenly out? There's still a big difference between a hamburger you could make at home and a Big Mac. Hutch seems to have forgotten this too. And who is talking about using alcohol to rehydrate? I was talking about drinking beer or wine as an adjunct to a meal, the way it was originally created to be used, not as a post workout beverage.
|
|
B-rads
Junior Member
Posts: 58
|
Post by B-rads on Mar 14, 2010 0:10:53 GMT -5
speaking of hamburgers I could go for a junior chicken right about now, only a dollar 39, decent or maybe just a good old big mac, dons here I come
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 14, 2010 0:25:06 GMT -5
BTW, Ron, what precisely do you mean by "what he has accomplished as an athlete or a coach" that would grant him license to "put down the rest of humanity"? Aside from the patent absurdity of the suggestion that I am judging all of humanity, what possible bearing could my record as an athlete or coach have on any of this? I would strongly advise you to be very careful here. You're about to get yourself into trouble again.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 14, 2010 1:28:55 GMT -5
... I am not up to speed on some very arcane scientific research on the specific effects of alcohol ... You would need to review arcane scientific research on the specific effects of alcohol to be aware that it could have negative impacts on performance? Seriously? I believe it is common knowledge, understood by the average layperson, that alcohol has acute toxicity (can kill you suddenly through overdose), chronic toxicity (can kill you slowly by attacking internal organs such as the liver), is associated with mental illness (depression, for which I believe the jury is out as to which comes first - does innate depression lead to alcoholism or does excess alcohol consumption lead to depression), and can be addictive, leading to a whole host of psycho-social deficits (marital problems, work performance issues, etc etc). While it may be a socially acceptable poison (and I enjoy wine and beer as much as the next guy, and think drinking in moderation is fine for most people), there is no cogent argument that can be made to suggest that it is NOT a poison. Or that it probably doesn't have an impact on the development of high performance athletes. Those assertions are pure rubbish. Nonsense. I agree with the others. Your willingness to suggest moderate consumption of alcohol is OK completely undermines your position vis a vis "fast food." Nothing in a Big Mac has acute or chronic toxic effects, nor leads to Big Mac dependency or social problems. I will claim with considerable confidence that the number of high performance athletes' careers derailed by alcohol exceeds those derailed by fast food by a factor of at least 100. |
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 14, 2010 1:37:19 GMT -5
From the MSDS for 190 proof ethyl alcohol:
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), . Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact
(permeator), of ingestion. Non-corrosive for skin. Non-corrosive to the eyes. Non-corrosive for lungs.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (sensitizer)
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified PROVEN by State of California Proposition 65 [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof].
Classified A4 (Not classifiable for human or animal.) by ACGIH [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof].
MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof]. Mutagenic for
bacteria and/or yeast. [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof].
TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified PROVEN for human [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof].
DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Classified Development toxin [PROVEN] [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof]. Classified
Reproductive system/toxin/female, Reproductive system/toxin/male [POSSIBLE] [Ethyl alcohol 200 Proof].
The substance is toxic to blood, the reproductive system, liver, upper respiratory tract, skin, central nervous
I welcome anyone to dredge up toxicity data for the components of a Big Mac.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 14, 2010 1:38:32 GMT -5
From the wiki article on ethyl alcohol:
[edit] Drug effects
Pure ethanol will irritate the skin and eyes. Nausea, vomiting and intoxication are symptoms of ingestion. Long term use can result in serious liver damage.[81] Atmospheric concentrations above one in a thousand are above the European Union Occupational exposure limits.[81]
[edit] Short-term
Main article: Short-term effects of alcohol
BAC (mg/dL) BAC
(% v/v) Symptoms[82]
50 0.05% Euphoria, talkativeness, relaxation
100 0.1 % Central nervous system depression, nausea, possible vomiting, impaired motor and sensory function, impaired cognition
>140 >0.14% Decreased blood flow to brain
300 0.3% Stupefaction, possible unconsciousness
400 0.4% Possible death
>550 >0.55% Death
[edit] Effects on the central nervous system
Ethanol is a central nervous system depressant and has significant psychoactive effects in sublethal doses; for specifics, see effects of alcohol on the body by dose. Based on its abilities to change the human consciousness, ethanol is considered a psychoactive drug.[83] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3–0.4%.[84]
The amount of ethanol in the body is typically quantified by blood alcohol content (BAC), the milligrams of ethanol per 100 milliliters of blood. The table at right summarizes the symptoms of ethanol consumption. Small doses of ethanol generally produce euphoria and relaxation; people experiencing these symptoms tend to become talkative and less inhibited, and may exhibit poor judgment. At higher dosages (BAC > 100 mg/dl), ethanol acts as a central nervous system depressant, producing at progressively higher dosages, impaired sensory and motor function, slowed cognition, stupefaction, unconsciousness, and possible death.
More specifically, ethanol acts in the central nervous system by binding to the GABA-A receptor, increasing the effects of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA (i.e. it is a positive allosteric modulator)[85].
Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs. See Alcohol consumption and health.
In America, about half of the deaths in car accidents occur in alcohol-related crashes.[86] The risk of a fatal car accident increases exponentially with the level of alcohol in the driver's blood.[87] Most drunk driving laws governing the acceptable levels in the blood while driving or operating heavy machinery set typical upper limits of blood alcohol content (BAC) between 0.05% and 0.08%.
Discontinuing consumption of alcohol after several years of heavy drinking can also be fatal. Alcohol withdrawal can cause anxiety, autonomic dysfunction, seizures and hallucinations. Delirium tremens is a condition that requires people with a long history of heavy drinking to undertake an alcohol detoxification regimen.
[edit] Effects on metabolism
Main articles: Ethanol metabolism and Alcohol dehydrogenase
Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into acetic acid by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. The product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde,[88] is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver,[76] multiple forms of cancer, and alcoholism.
[edit] Drug interactions
Ethanol can intensify the sedation caused by other central nervous system depressant drugs such as barbiturates, benzodiazepines, opioids, and phenothiazines[84]
[edit] Magnitude of effects
Most significant of the possible long-term effects of ethanol. Additionally, in pregnant women, it causes fetal alcohol syndrome.Some individuals have less-effective forms of one or both of the metabolizing enzymes, and can experience more-severe symptoms from ethanol consumption than others. Conversely, those who have acquired alcohol tolerance have a greater quantity of these enzymes, and metabolize ethanol more rapidly.[89]
[edit] Long-term
Main article: Long-term effects of alcohol
[edit] Birth defects
Ethanol is classified as a teratogen. See fetal alcohol syndrome.
[edit] Other effects
Frequent drinking of alcoholic beverages has been shown to be a major contributing factor in cases of elevated blood levels of triglycerides.[90]
Ethanol is not a carcinogen.[91][92] However, the first metabolic product of ethanol, acetaldehyde, is toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic.
|
|
|
|
Post by pq on Mar 14, 2010 2:00:35 GMT -5
oldster offered up his diet (or one days' meals) as an example, so I'll reciprocate as promised.
We tend to eat a lot of fish, mostly salmon and trout. I get red meat (by which I only mean beef) once a week (if I'm lucky!), and occasionally pork (usually tenderloin), lamb or chicken. We don't eat much in the way of processed meats, although maybe once a month we'll fry up some sausage from the local butcher.
Our dinners are most often salad, or mostly salad. This could start with a base of greens (usually baby spinach, but I like the spring mix and some of the others - my wife won't let romaine or iceberg lettuce in the house), and then could have literally ANYTHING else that's kicking around. Often tomatoes or some kind of fruit (strawberries, melon, apple, pear are common), some kind of toasted nuts (almonds, pine nuts - I know they're not really nuts - pistachios, etc), maybe some avocado, possibly some mushrooms, maybe some cooked veggies. We call them "kitchen sink salads" because they can have anything but the kitchen sink.
Salad dressings are all made from scratch, starting with olive oil and maybe some kind of vinegar or lemon juice, then maybe one of a dozen mustard varieties my wife keeps around.
We also eat a lot of grain salads that start with a grain base. Maybe quinoa. Could throw lots of different stuff in these, like dried fruit, chickpeas etc.
For starch we eat a lot of wild rice, but I have a sweet tooth for overn fried potatoes (usually with garlic oil on them) and LOVE LOVE LOVE sweet potato. Ditto squash, many different kinds.
Any salad could have a slab of fish on it, or might be alone, just a big meal sized salad.
Most bread is whole grain, multigrain etc, although I love some of the locally baked Italian herb or herb and cheese white loaves you can get at our local bakers.
Lunch is often a simple sandwich. I like mine on a toasted 12 grain bagel.
Breakfast at home for me is dry cereal. I have 3 or 4 favourites. They're all on the "healthy" end of what you can find in a grocery store, but honestly if you scan the nutrition details you'll find they're not as perfect as you'd like.
I have a soft spot for breakfast sandwiches at fast food places. Could be McDs, timmy's, starbucks, you name it. A sandwich with fried egg, bacon (nature's perfect food...) and processed cheese food starts the day off right. :-) I probably do that once every couple of weeks, although more often when I'm doubling with morning runs before work.
Weak spots in my own diet are a sweet tooth (chocolate is a staple, not a treat) and a taste for too much salt.
If I were younger and training seriously, and distance running was my only focus, I would possibly cut some salt intake (not sure, since in heavy training we need more than average people), would likely reduce my sweets intake, and would probably eat more fruit. I don't think I'd change my "fast food" eating patterns. I don't indulge that often, and almost never eat the heart stopping stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Mar 14, 2010 9:38:59 GMT -5
From the wiki article on ethyl alcohol: [edit] Drug effects Pure ethanol will irritate the skin and eyes. Nausea, vomiting and intoxication are symptoms of ingestion. Long term use can result in serious liver damage.[81] Atmospheric concentrations above one in a thousand are above the European Union Occupational exposure limits.[81] [edit] Short-term Main article: Short-term effects of alcohol BAC (mg/dL) BAC (% v/v) Symptoms[82] 50 0.05% Euphoria, talkativeness, relaxation 100 0.1 % Central nervous system depression, nausea, possible vomiting, impaired motor and sensory function, impaired cognition >140 >0.14% Decreased blood flow to brain 300 0.3% Stupefaction, possible unconsciousness 400 0.4% Possible death >550 >0.55% Death [edit] Effects on the central nervous system Ethanol is a central nervous system depressant and has significant psychoactive effects in sublethal doses; for specifics, see effects of alcohol on the body by dose. Based on its abilities to change the human consciousness, ethanol is considered a psychoactive drug.[83] Death from ethyl alcohol consumption is possible when blood alcohol level reaches 0.4%. A blood level of 0.5% or more is commonly fatal. Levels of even less than 0.1% can cause intoxication, with unconsciousness often occurring at 0.3–0.4%.[84] The amount of ethanol in the body is typically quantified by blood alcohol content (BAC), the milligrams of ethanol per 100 milliliters of blood. The table at right summarizes the symptoms of ethanol consumption. Small doses of ethanol generally produce euphoria and relaxation; people experiencing these symptoms tend to become talkative and less inhibited, and may exhibit poor judgment. At higher dosages (BAC > 100 mg/dl), ethanol acts as a central nervous system depressant, producing at progressively higher dosages, impaired sensory and motor function, slowed cognition, stupefaction, unconsciousness, and possible death. More specifically, ethanol acts in the central nervous system by binding to the GABA-A receptor, increasing the effects of the inhibitory neurotransmitter GABA (i.e. it is a positive allosteric modulator)[85]. Prolonged heavy consumption of alcohol can cause significant permanent damage to the brain and other organs. See Alcohol consumption and health. In America, about half of the deaths in car accidents occur in alcohol-related crashes.[86] The risk of a fatal car accident increases exponentially with the level of alcohol in the driver's blood.[87] Most drunk driving laws governing the acceptable levels in the blood while driving or operating heavy machinery set typical upper limits of blood alcohol content (BAC) between 0.05% and 0.08%. Discontinuing consumption of alcohol after several years of heavy drinking can also be fatal. Alcohol withdrawal can cause anxiety, autonomic dysfunction, seizures and hallucinations. Delirium tremens is a condition that requires people with a long history of heavy drinking to undertake an alcohol detoxification regimen. [edit] Effects on metabolism Main articles: Ethanol metabolism and Alcohol dehydrogenase Ethanol within the human body is converted into acetaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase and then into acetic acid by acetaldehyde dehydrogenase. The product of the first step of this breakdown, acetaldehyde,[88] is more toxic than ethanol. Acetaldehyde is linked to most of the clinical effects of alcohol. It has been shown to increase the risk of developing cirrhosis of the liver,[76] multiple forms of cancer, and alcoholism. [edit] Drug interactions Ethanol can intensify the sedation caused by other central nervous system depressant drugs such as barbiturates, benzodiazepines, opioids, and phenothiazines[84] [edit] Magnitude of effects Most significant of the possible long-term effects of ethanol. Additionally, in pregnant women, it causes fetal alcohol syndrome.Some individuals have less-effective forms of one or both of the metabolizing enzymes, and can experience more-severe symptoms from ethanol consumption than others. Conversely, those who have acquired alcohol tolerance have a greater quantity of these enzymes, and metabolize ethanol more rapidly.[89] [edit] Long-term Main article: Long-term effects of alcohol [edit] Birth defects Ethanol is classified as a teratogen. See fetal alcohol syndrome. [edit] Other effects Frequent drinking of alcoholic beverages has been shown to be a major contributing factor in cases of elevated blood levels of triglycerides.[90] Ethanol is not a carcinogen.[91][92] However, the first metabolic product of ethanol, acetaldehyde, is toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic. Obviously, I know that alcohol is a "poison". I never said it wasn't. Stop trying to score points and read what I said. The articles on alcohol and performance were not "common knowledge" and I have seem many journalistic pieces of over the years stating the compatibility of very moderate consumption of beer and wine with running from a nutrition perspective. And beer and wine, "poisonous" or not, are often generally recommended as supports of general good health. Show me one instance, outside of a McDonald's ad, where fast food has ever been supported or recommended for either good health or athletic performance? As I said, if I turn out to have a weakness or inconsistency in my argument, I will change my position, just the way I have changed it over the years when I have been convinced by mounting evidence to do so. But, at no point will accepting that any amount of alcohol is also sub-optimal for athletes turn into support for your "moderate" junk food position. McDonald's will still have NO place in any serious discussion about nutrition and top athletic performance. Same goes for Ron, who is crowing because I appear to be inconsistent where moderate alcohol is concerned; yet, he supports the "moderate" consumption of BOTH alcohol and McDonald's. Again, my case has always and primarily been against those who want to have it both ways, since I acknowledged that everyone must choose what he/she is willing to sacrifice for top performance. My objection has, consistently and from the beginning has been against those who want to argue that there is NO sacrifice, however tiny, involved. You, Ron, and a few others have been re-energized by my possible weakness on the alcohol thing, but it really changes nothing about the basic argument I have been making. Even if I'm a hypocrite and decide to ignore whatever good research their may be on alcohol and performance (of which Hutch has said there is actually little), which I will not do, that doesn't make my argument about bad food wrong. And hutch, one final thing about the position you have taken on this question. You concern seems to be that we need to look beyond the fast food or no fast food question when we consider nutrition and performance (e.g. the kids who think they're doing o.k. simply because they don't eat McDonald's of BK). I, for one, have not for a second been against broadening this out, quite the contrary. But, if a kid thinks he/she is helping his/her running by simply not eating fast food, do we turn around and tell them that it is actually o.k. to eat it in moderation, if they look harder at other aspects of their diet? Or, do we say "that's a start, but you need to try harder"? My point is that if we broaden the discussion beyond fast food, we are likely going to get even FURTHER away from recommending the "moderate" consumption of fast food, not closer! No matter how hard people like ron and pq what to keep fast food in the discussion, it will continue to have NO PLACE in any serious discussion about sport and nutrition. |
|
