# Panorama: The Truth About Sports Products



## Scilly Suffolk (19 Jul 2012)

Worth watching this when it comes up on iPlayer, Graeme Obree is a highlight; it's based upon a study by Oxford's Centre For Evidence Based Medicine.

Several "sacred cows" slaughtered, including "drink before you're thirsty" which I have adhered to (until now).

In short: listen to your body, eat a balanced diet, stop wasting money.


----------



## MrJamie (19 Jul 2012)

Theres another thread on it somewhere on here btw 

I thought that it was trying too hard to make a story out of nothing though. They based "drink only when youre thirsty" on cats and dogs who dont sweat, they tried to make sports drinks seem ineffective by referring to their use for *moderate* exercise and spoke about protein shakes like they were an alternative to proper healthy balanced meals rather than a supplement.

Totally agree with listening to your body and learn though and its not as bad cycling because the wind stops overheating as badly but in other sports like running i can get dizzy and cramps before i get thirsty and sweat so much i need sports drinks on long/hot runs.

I didnt like the part on trainers either, although I agree there has been too much put on measuring gait and giving everyone specialist shoes where the majority could wear cheap shoes. From my own experience cheap and knackered trainers might not injure me more in a short test, but I can feel the impact is harder but then im twice the size of a typical runner. 

All anecdotal Ill admit, but the whole program seemed to be examples of where the products dont work, rather than examples of where they do.


----------



## Orange (19 Jul 2012)

The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..


----------



## Willo (19 Jul 2012)

Orange said:


> The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..


 
I can only base judgement on my experience, and others that I know, but I simply can't agree that applies in all cases. I suffered terribly from lower leg injuries from running and tried all sorts until the excellent folk at Run and Become in London sorted me out after spending loads of time watching me run in various styles of trainers. Since then I have had no real injuries. The argument may prove true for someone with a fairly neutral gait, but for those with over pronation and the like, advances in trainer design can mean the difference between being able to exercise or not.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (20 Jul 2012)

MrJamie said:


> ...They based "drink only when youre thirsty" on cats and dogs who dont sweat...


No, the boffin (not Panorama) was making the point that every other species of animal on the planet drinks when it is thirsty and not according to a schedule; this was illustrated with reference to cats and dogs (as species of animals). This conclusion was not based on animal research.



MrJamie said:


> ...they tried to make sports drinks seem ineffective by referring to their use for *moderate* exercise...


Panorama explained that a benefit had only been demonstrated in prolonged, high-intensity exercise and not in moderate exercise: this is relevant because the majority of consumers only engage in moderate (if any) exercise.



MrJamie said:


> ...and spoke about protein shakes like they were an alternative to proper healthy balanced meals rather than a supplement...


The point was that supplements are unnecessary if your diet is balanced.



MrJamie said:


> ...From my own experience cheap and knackered trainers might not injure me more in a short test, but I can feel the impact is harder...


The major predictors of injury are factors such as distance and intensity which are unaffected by the shoe. As demonstrated on the program a natural toe-strike style of running is much less stressful than the heel-strike style which modern running shoes protect us from; to put it another way: you don't need better shoes, you need [a] better running [style].



MrJamie said:


> ...All anecdotal Ill admit, but the whole program seemed to be examples of where the products dont work, rather than examples of where they do.


The thrust of the programme's argument (based upon the conclusions of a published and peer reviewed study) was that the majority of the claims made by manufacturers of sporting products are not supported or substantiated by research or science: it wasn't the purpose or intention of the programme to recommend products (although my conclusion would be "none").


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (20 Jul 2012)

Orange said:


> The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..


Exactly: if these cushioned and supporting shoes are so essential, why do athletes compete in shoes which are neither?

Although I am sure that there have been advances in materials and design, therunning spikes of Roger Bannister and Usain Bolt look remarkably similar.


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (20 Jul 2012)

Willo said:


> I can only base judgement on my experience, and others that I know, but I simply can't agree that applies in all cases. I suffered terribly from lower leg injuries from running and tried all sorts until the excellent folk at Run and Become in London sorted me out after spending loads of time watching me run in various styles of trainers. Since then I have had no real injuries. The argument may prove true for someone with a fairly neutral gait, but for those with over pronation and the like, advances in trainer design can mean the difference between being able to exercise or not.


I'm sure that there are extreme cases which require correction in the form of special shoes, but the conclusion of the scientists they interviewed was that for the overwhelming majority of people it is distance, intensity and running style that are the major predictors of injury and not the type of shoe.

Do you run heel or toe strike?


----------



## MrJamie (20 Jul 2012)

Scilly Suffolk said:


> No, the boffin (not Panorama) was making the point that every other species of animal on the planet drinks when it is thirsty and not according to a schedule; this was illustrated with reference to cats and dogs (as species of animals). This conclusion was not based on animal research.
> 
> Panorama explained that a benefit had only been demonstrated in prolonged, high-intensity exercise and not in moderate exercise: this is relevant because the majority of consumers only engage in moderate (if any) exercise.
> 
> ...


Im not really disagreeing with the programme, as much as I felt that for people trying to highlight misleading information in marketing they were a bit to close to doing the exact same thing from the opposite view. I know that a lot of unfit and overweight people are very willing to throw money rather than effort at the situation and buy anything claiming to help.

My point about the Boffin was just that the other animals dont need a schedule, because I dont think anything sweats to the extent humans can, or at least not many animals. Itd be like saying we shouldnt wear hats in the sun because cats and dogs dont or pretty much anything else we'd like to argue  

Ive tried to change running style as a very heavy heel striker, high-arched so very minimal natural absorbtion in my foot and I started running at over 20 stone (~19 now) so probably an extreme case. If you run barefoot your central nervous system is meant to keep you off your heels and run on the forefoot to naturally avoid impact, but it feels terrible on my ankles and not much better on my forefoot. In cheap £20 trainers I go straight back to heelstriking and can feel discomfort in my lower part of my lower leg, in rrp £130 Asics cushioning trainers (last seasons are always like half price) it feels allround comfortable. Ive run over 2000km in the last couple of years in just 3 pairs of Asics and not had a single injury which I think given my size is well worth £100 a year given theres next to no other expense  The other detail they skipped over is the quality of cushioning varies, you can see the cracks where a crumple zone forms in trainers as the cushioning is less effective, the £20 Reeboks got this in maybe 100km with my weight mashing them up, but the Asics do stay well cushioned for a lot longer. I do get the point that a lot of the skinny 8 stone gym women running on shock absorbing treadmills probably dont need to be buying £100 trainers especially some of the Nike ones that arent even very technical.

It was still interesting to watch anyway


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Jul 2012)

Equal amounts of bullshit and common sense spewed forth from iplayer.


----------



## broomwagon (20 Jul 2012)

My lad's a sports scientist working abroad and he poured scorn on the programme. It was just some cranks from Oxford. Good timing though with the olympics just around the corner.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (20 Jul 2012)

Can't find this on tv on demand, thanks virginmedia!


----------



## phil_hg_uk (20 Jul 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> Can't find this on tv on demand, thanks virginmedia!



its on iplayer just watching it now. 

Sent from my portable telephone


----------



## Rob500 (20 Jul 2012)

Andrew_Culture said:


> Can't find this on tv on demand, thanks virginmedia!


 
I've got VirginMedia too and I'm just watching the programme right now. It's on iPlayer.


----------



## Garz (20 Jul 2012)

I think all they proved were that unless you are in the top tier of sports that extra 2%  was a shed-load of marketing. OK, the drinks and trainers arent useless and in some cases make a difference however the advertising misleads folk into thinking they _*have*_ to buy it.

Obree seemed to be genuine - as in that is exactly what he thinks and not someone pushing him to express that opinion. In conclusion, after watching the programme I did feel that drinking sport products wasn't really making any impact looking back (in life).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (20 Jul 2012)

I had typed a massive reply prior to a pc crash but I'm going to shorten it now lol

The entire program was aimed at recreational gymgoers/walk-joggers who slug it down thinking they need it and it's doing good things for them. For your 30mins a day(or couple times a week) you DO NOT need Lucozade Sport or Powerade. They WILL NOT make you faster,they WILL NOT improve anything! Doing the fecking sport will improve that sport.

The lack of focus on endurance sports was duly noted too,no surprise there.



Garz said:


> I think all they proved were that unless you are in the top tier of sports that extra 2%  was a shed-load of marketing. OK, the drinks and trainers arent useless and in some cases make a difference however the advertising misleads folk into thinking they _*have*_ to buy it.
> 
> Obree seemed to be genuine - as in that is exactly what he thinks and not someone pushing him to express that opinion. In conclusion, after watching the programme I did feel that drinking sport products wasn't really making any impact looking back (in life).


Even for the elites they mentioned the products wouldn't really have achieved anything. Mo Farah was conceivably the only one who would go anywhere near to needing some form of carb intake. Usain Bolt and Jessica Ennis' sports aren't exactly lengthy endurance efforts.

But I think that was the overall point, they ringfenced the ignorant who occasionally partake in sport and told them they were wasting money which is 100% truth. But they didn't dare mention endurance sport athletes like cyclists who frequently do successfully consume energy drinks,bars and gels to good effects. Because on the face of it - they do work for us as do cake stops and carrying food.

But yep,Obree was actually hilarious


----------



## Willo (20 Jul 2012)

Scilly Suffolk said:


> I'm sure that there are extreme cases which require correction in the form of special shoes, but the conclusion of the scientists they interviewed was that for the overwhelming majority of people it is distance, intensity and running style that are the major predictors of injury and not the type of shoe.
> 
> Do you run heel or toe strike?


 
Heel (mostly) and I over-pronate......motion control shoes have really helped me with running. My point is more that these things often end up making a valid point but over emphasising one side to hit home the message......of course lots of £s are drawn by the marketing men for stuff folk don't need but equally there are some great products that really do provide benefit. Re the bit about distance, intensity and running style being the major predictors of injury, then of course there's no argument with that. The sublety (for me anyway) is not making the case that trainers in themselves cause injuries but that for many* trainers can prevent them* (i.e. mitigate certain running styles that would otherwise cause injury over distance and/or running at a certain intensity).


----------



## snorri (20 Jul 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> But they didn't dare mention endurance sport athletes like cyclists who frequently do successfully consume energy drinks,bars and gels to good effects.


Only a tiny minority of cyclists would be classed as endurance sport athletes, but supplements are often recommended as essential kit along with a spare tube, for even relatively short outings on a bike.


----------



## Orange (20 Jul 2012)

These people out on a 5 mph jog for a couple of miles, who find it essential to carry a water bottle make me laugh. Bravo for getting out there and doing something but at that level of intensity you are not going to need a drink. Maybe it's extra weight for training their forearms at the same time.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (21 Jul 2012)

snorri said:


> Only a tiny minority of cyclists would be classed as endurance sport athletes, but supplements are often recommended as essential kit along with a spare tube, for even relatively short outings on a bike.


The "endurance sport athletes" who for the point being made would be the long distance commuters - the sportive riders - the century riders - the cat # racers - the domestic tour riders - marathon runners - triathletes - duathletes - swimmers and probably more. Doesn't matter how you group them up or what the term is,still doesn't change the fact the program was irrelevant to them.

Most people would be happy to be referred to as an athlete  But if you like I'll refer to you as something else


----------



## Andrew_Culture (21 Jul 2012)

Rob500 said:


> I've got VirginMedia too and I'm just watching the programme right now. It's on iPlayer.



I shall have another look.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (21 Jul 2012)

This is kinda doing my swede in now, I'm doing a search and in the results there are two Panoramas available, both from two different dates, and both about fly tipping!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (21 Jul 2012)

Eh that makes no sense. Can you not watch iplayer on your desktop/laptop/ipad?


----------



## Rob500 (21 Jul 2012)

That is weird. When I search via all programmes it comes up with a choice of 3 episodes.


----------



## Andrew_Culture (21 Jul 2012)

I'm on the v+ box which virginmedia seem to deny exists. Sorry for taking this thread off-topic!


Sent from my FondleSlab using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Garz (21 Jul 2012)

Reboot your box. Mine requires this regularly when I experience odd behaviour.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (22 Jul 2012)

So to sum up.

Water does exactly the same thing as Lucozade Sport, the latter actually lists water as it's no1 ingredient.

Electroytes didn't really seem to get much discussion: But if there is any merit to them then the average 30mins twice a week gym-mum isn't going to require them EVER.

Carbs: Again the gym-mum isn't going to require them in a bottle for a 30min treadmill walk. But given this is a cycling forum, we should all be aware that carb intake a couple hours into a ride is often an essential aspect. If that happens to be via gels,drink or cake then so be it.

BCAA's: Often in bold letters and mixed in big fancy tubs with whey protein yet no real evidence to back up the claims. (The claims made are based on the BCAA's not the protein! The documentary doesn't distinguish this fact)

Protein: Ideally protein should really come from your general diet, but sometimes this just isn't feasible. The program managed to label whey protein powders in the same group as the actual point being made(that was BCAA's being grossly expensive) as " an expensive way to get a bit of milk"

Do you absolutely "need" to buy protein shakes? Hell no, but read on 

This might actually shock you. I priced these earlier today,using ASDA own brand products and myprotein.com
1 25g serving of impact whey protein made with water from myprotein.com contains 20g protein for a cost of 30p,
A pint of ASDA semi skimmed is 49p for 18g protein.
ASDA chicken breast is pretty much £1 per 100g, each breast being worth 30g protein.

That is £109.50 - £178.85 and £365 per year respectively.

Gentlemen start your keyboards!


----------



## lordloveaduck (22 Jul 2012)

I'll stick to Ribena.


----------



## Garz (22 Jul 2012)

There is no need for the supplements unless you do not have the time to eat/cook. I would only say they were useful for diets (weight loss) as I have seen obese children put on a supplement shake program and seen them lose weight.

On the sky bus the guys don't rally together for supper after the stage for a round of supplements then bed!


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (22 Jul 2012)

Garz said:


> There is no need for the supplements unless you do not have the time to eat/cook. I would only say they were useful for diets (weight loss) as I have seen obese children put on a supplement shake program and seen them lose weight.
> 
> On the sky bus the guys don't rally together for supper after the stage for a round of supplements then bed!


Exactly. I've lost count of the number of people who completely didn't understand the point the article or program was making.

But I did find this! 
View: http://youtu.be/06WRBI1NZpU


----------



## Andrew_Culture (24 Jul 2012)

Finally seen it and it was was interesting. There really is no substitute for not eating shite 


Sent from my FondleSlab using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ian turner (25 Jul 2012)

Article in the British medical journal about the sponsored research backing up sports drinks.


----------



## Garz (25 Jul 2012)

Blimey that took me ages to read...


----------



## LarryDuff (25 Jul 2012)

This from the same program that told us Poland and Ukraine were full of nazis and the Euros would be a blood bath on the terraces and in the streets.


----------



## Trevrev (8 Aug 2012)

Orange said:


> The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..


 

I've moved away from "Proper" running shoes. I'm now using Minimalist footwear. I'm finding them so much better to run in. They just seem more natural.
But it's early days, so we'll see. But so far so good!


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

"1 25g serving of impact whey protein, A pint of ASDA semi skimmed is 49p .
ASDA chicken breast. 
That is £109.50 - £178.85 and £365 per year respectively."

Best to compare like with like so if you go the powder route you can get £109.50 versus £50 
Go a more natural food route and it is as low as £109.50 versus £4


Obviously for a realistic quantity that would be £547.50 of supplements versus £20 spent on protein eating natural food.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> "1 25g serving of impact whey protein, A pint of ASDA semi skimmed is 49p .
> ASDA chicken breast.
> That is £109.50 - £178.85 and £365 per year respectively."
> 
> ...


Um. What?


----------



## musa (8 Aug 2012)

water and good food is really all you need you just need the effort and time really

quick fixes are the thing of the free wondering mind lucozade is not helping you its full of sugar so I learnt in Biology


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Um. What?



That means you are paying up to 30+ times more by buying supplements compared to simply popping down the supermarket and choosing real protein enriched food.


I never watched the show but can only guess I'm confirming much of what was said.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> That means you are paying up to 30+ times more by buying supplements compared to simply popping down the supermarket and choosing real protein enriched food.
> 
> 
> I never watched the show but can only guess I'm confirming much of what was said.


How did you arrive at 30+ times more? Clearly you need to watch the documentary and learn how to count.


----------



## Trevrev (8 Aug 2012)

Uncle Mort said:


> Which shoes are you wearing now? I've gone from high range New Balance motion control ones to a pair of el cheapo Keen ones I picked up in the US and I don't see any difference to be honest.


 
I've gone from wearing high end Brooks, to New Balance MT10 Minimus. I think they're great. I wear them with no socks, so comfy.


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

Try it for yourself next time you visit the supermaket. 

It's dead easy to multiply protein intake many times whilst actually reducing food casts.
The main sacrifice will be avoiding eating too many pizzas.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Try it for yourself next time you visit the supermaket.
> 
> It's dead easy to multiply protein intake many times whilst actually reducing food casts.
> The main sacrifice will be avoiding eating too many pizzas.


I'm pretty sure that nobody will actually be able to understand what point you're trying to make. And again, you've arrived at whatever it is you have and have still managed to completely misquote my post.


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

That is quite obvious.

It was not for 'quick and easy consumption'.
We leave that to 'sports products.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> That is quite obvious.
> 
> It was not for 'quick and easy consumption'.
> We leave that to 'sports products.


What the hell are you on about?


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

It was you who promoted that easy consumption specialist protein was cheaper.

Sorry if I offended you and your favourite web site.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (8 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> It was you who promoted that easy consumption specialist protein was cheaper.
> 
> Sorry if I offended you and your favourite web site.


You really aren't making sense


----------



## Garz (8 Aug 2012)

Come on now ladies.. dont need to take up a page quarrelling - take it to pm or move on.


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

LOL , ain't the internet weird.

You an break up an argument 5 hours after it ended.


----------



## albion (8 Aug 2012)

On a topical note I rad that its a balanced diet that makes you live longer.
Higher protein compared to carbs has been shown to reduce lifespan in ants up to 10 fold with plenty of evidence that mammals suffer too.

I guess that is why sports science is so important.


----------



## Becs (8 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> On a topical note I rad that its a balanced diet that makes you live longer.
> Higher protein compared to carbs has been shown to reduce lifespan in ants up to 10 fold with plenty of evidence that mammals suffer too.
> 
> I guess that is why sports science is so important.


 
The only thing that has been documented to make you live longer is (fairly extreme) calorie restriction - bloody boring if you ask me!

Backing up the chap's point about milk being cheaper than protein shakes (I think that was the message), milk is awesome and has all the leucine (they amino acid that drives the rate of protein synthesis) you need. No need for whey protein - just drink cow juice (not red top).


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Aug 2012)

Becs said:


> The only thing that has been documented to make you live longer is (fairly extreme) calorie restriction - bloody boring if you ask me!
> 
> Backing up the chap's point about milk being cheaper than protein shakes (I think that was the message), milk is awesome and has all the leucine (they amino acid that drives the rate of protein synthesis) you need. No need for whey protein - just drink cow juice (not red top).


Nono, read the post again.


----------



## lukesdad (9 Aug 2012)

Whats wrong with red top ?


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2012)

Panorama? Nuff said. Another "how can we manufacture a story to fill the weekly slot we have to fill" no doubt.


----------



## Becs (9 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Whats wrong with red top ?


It tastes disgusting! 

Also if I remember rightly "white water" has a lower protein content.


----------



## Becs (9 Aug 2012)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Nono, read the post again.


 
Ah fair enough. I would still advocate British milk over processed protein powders - our dairy farmers need all the help they can get while the supermarkets are trying to screw them over!


----------



## lukesdad (9 Aug 2012)

Becs said:


> It tastes disgusting!
> 
> Also if I remember rightly "white water" has a lower protein content.


 
Oh ! I thought protein content was the same across the board, but I stand to be corrected. Ive used red top for 30 years and anything with more fat content tastes 'orrible. i guess its what your used to.


----------



## psmiffy (9 Aug 2012)

lukesdad said:


> Oh ! I thought protein content was the same across the board, but I stand to be corrected. Ive used red top for 30 years and anything with more fat content tastes 'orrible. i guess its what your used to.


 
The dairy council seems to think that skimmed and semi skimmed has a marginally higher protein content than whole milk


----------



## lukesdad (9 Aug 2012)

psmiffy said:


> The dairy council seems to think that skimmed and semi skimmed has a marginally higher protein content than whole milk


 
Thank you psmiffster, I can sleep easy now.


----------



## Andrew_P (9 Aug 2012)

psmiffy said:


> The dairy council seems to think that skimmed and semi skimmed has a marginally higher protein content than whole milk


 Phew I only drink Skimmed, it is my recovery drink of choice. Well that is how I justify a large Costa skimmed milk coffee post the morning commute.


----------



## Becs (9 Aug 2012)

psmiffy said:


> The dairy council seems to think that skimmed and semi skimmed has a marginally higher protein content than whole milk


my bad - I remembered wrongly!


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (9 Aug 2012)

Awesome: my longest thread ever! Can we get to 100 posts?


----------



## GrasB (9 Aug 2012)

Garz said:


> There is no need for the supplements unless you do not have the time to eat/cook.


Sometimes dietary protein intake doesn't work. For the best recovery you want to be taking in high quality protein within 30 min of finishing your session. Personally I can't eat anything that'll give me the sort of protein intake I want after a high intensity session that won't come back up fairly quickly. For me whey protein, electrolytes & some other supplements in about half a litre of water gets me the essentials for after exercise recovery quickly in a way I can digest. Sure I could wait the 45-60min for my body to be ready for digesting real food but It really does have a noticeable effect on my recovery over a week. Another reason for using whey mixtures over milk is caloriesrotein ratio. Assuming I've done my maths correctly (not always the case) 25g of protein in semi-skimmed milk is 330kcal give or take, in whey protein it's more like 120kcal. So after a tempo session the choice of milk or whey mix comes down to my judgement of how much I've over/under eaten that day.


----------



## albion (9 Aug 2012)

No, the advice was that out of kilter protein intake was bad. It all needs balancing with carbs etc.

If you want cheap protein drink just buy powdered milk.
You will also have to spend far less balancing your diet.


----------



## GrasB (9 Aug 2012)

Immediately after I've finish hard exercise normal foods aren't in a form that can be easily digested. They take up too much energy to digest so my body removes the need to digest the food & I throw up! Allowing the body to recover & produce enough energy to eat normal foods needs rest, about 45-60min before eating. The problem is this is sub-optimal for consumption of the resources the bodies' needs for recovery. The knock on effect is that physical fatigue from exercise is drawn out over a longer period & the fatigue is deeper. As a one off it's not significant. However, over 5 days of commuting it's the difference between needing 1 & 2 rest days in the week. That difference IS significant. 

90min or so after a hard session I will often have something to eat like a roasted veg or salad sandwich. However if I tried to do that with a glass of milk when my body actually was most receptive to it's protein intake, within the first 30 min of finishing exercise, I'll eject the whole lot in a rather less than pleasant manner. Hell if I just had a glass of milk or some re-hydrated milk powder there would be a high probability of it coming back up. That's why "_If you want cheap protein drink just buy powdered milk._" simply shows you have little understanding of the problems faced by athletes when they do train to their limits.

Now my 'tempo training' would be what your average fairly fit & active person would consider hard exercise. So in that context there is little to no need for supplements due to the fact they aren't pushing them selves hard enough to cause the problems outlined above.

As for your assertion about price, for me at least, you're wrong. I have financial records which show when I'm making my own recovery mixtures after exercise I'm spending a little less on food than when I'm recovering on normal foods. It's about £5/week less.


----------



## amaferanga (9 Aug 2012)

I'm in favour of whey protein after a hard training ride or a race - just to be clear that I don't agree with albion. To be honest, I've not really understood anything he's said anyway. 

But it's pretty unusual to throw up if you eat any real food within half an hour of a hard ride. I can and do eat pretty much anything that's available within 5 or 10 minutes of finishing even the hardest race or training session.


----------



## albion (9 Aug 2012)

Good for you.
Wasn't it Chris Obrey who espoused the benefits of jam and bread?
I'm the same as amaf in that if I have a calorie deficit I'm munching away almost immediately.

All I was saying is that it is quite easy to eat good cheap nutritional food at less cost than buying specialist sports food.
That probably correlates with the Panorama I never saw.

Of course I could also save money buying specialist food if I then ate with less thought.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Good for you.
> Wasn't it Chris Obrey who espoused the benefits of jam and bread?
> I'm the same as amaf in that if I have a calorie deficit I'm munching away almost immediately.
> 
> ...


It doesn't because protein shakes were barely mentioned,and not nearly enough to be in any way indepth. The concentration was on other areas. The problem with barely mentioning something was the entire internet exploded with misinformation and stupid claims.

You appear to have missed the part where 1 serving of a protein shake was cheaper than a pint of milk. Do I advocate supplements over diet? NO,but there is a time and place for supplementation, people should be aware that the "omg crazy prices" claims aren't actually true in some cases.


----------



## albion (9 Aug 2012)

Your example was £109.50 protein powder versus £178.85 real milk.
I got £109.50 protein powder versus £50 or so of the cheapest powdered skimmed milk at 15p per pint.
I'm not a fan of skimmed milk but compared to twice the price protein shakes it is bliss.

I imagine Panorama was inspired by rubbish adversing such as 'burn 41% more fat during exercise' that comes with CRC samples. 
Surely they are describing the magic properties of tap water.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> Your example was £109.50 protein powder versus £178.85 real milk.
> I got £109.50 protein powder versus £50 or so of the cheapest powdered skimmed milk at 15p per pint.
> I'm not a fan of skimmed milk but compared to twice the price protein shakes it is bliss.
> 
> ...


You're making sense now


----------



## albion (9 Aug 2012)

"Best to compare like with like so if you go the powder route you can get £109.50 versus £50"

and later

"If you want cheap protein drink just buy powdered milk."

I'd say Panorama advocated thinking for oneself so I'm not going to advise on saving that 30 times the cost of supplements.
It would be an unbalanced protein diet.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (9 Aug 2012)

albion said:


> "Best to compare like with like so if you go the powder route you can get £109.50 versus £50"
> 
> and later
> 
> ...


Palatability means a lot. No human would consume whiskas because a pouch of that is cheaper than a tin of John Wests's finest.


----------



## GrasB (9 Aug 2012)

amaferanga said:


> But it's pretty unusual to throw up if you eat any real food within half an hour of a hard ride. I can and do eat pretty much anything that's available within 5 or 10 minutes of finishing even the hardest race or training session.


It's a personal physiological thing &, apparently, surprisingly common. The thing is most people who suffer from this simply don't feel hungry after exercise that's intense enough to cause the reaction. The only reason I hit it is because I started getting serious about minimising my recovery times.


----------



## Garz (9 Aug 2012)

GrasB said:


> Sometimes dietary protein intake doesn't work.


 
Yes, for *you*. The general population can get by with eating chicken/turkey/dairy/beef or milk. You sound like you have a tough time, but at least your on top of it.


----------



## albion (9 Aug 2012)

Many reckon it is the higher protein in our diet that increases cancers such as colon cancer.
You can fart and poop a lot after too much protein. Its your body failing to process it.

And by itself it is surely more dangerous.


----------



## GrasB (10 Aug 2012)

Garz said:


> The general population can get by with eating chicken/turkey/dairy/beef or milk. You sound like you have a tough time, but at least your on top of it.


Which is why I said sometimes


----------



## Scilly Suffolk (30 Aug 2012)

On a similar vein from the British Medical Journal...


----------

