See our review of the full BMJ article on sports products here.
After writing the preview for this programme my expectations weren’t set too high, but after watching the show I was left awestruck and dazed by the degree of bias and lack of any external research which seemed to have been conducted by the Panorama team. Let’s tackle some of the key points made in the order that they came up in the programme.
Carbs are bad, or is that good if they are in jam?
The start of the show went to some length to point out that sports drinks such as Lucozade and Powerade were comprised of simple sugars for the most part. The show then went on to state that they contain an average of eight teaspoons of sugar in a drink. That sounds impressively high until you realise it works out to just 160 calories. To put that in context it works out to the same carbohydrate content as a couple of slices of bread. What the programme failed to grasp is that both bread and sports drinks convert in the body to glucose, yet clearly this was an attempt to shock the average uneducated tv addict into thinking this degree of sugar content was bad.
It got worse…
Next up, the programme makers dragged out Graeme Obree, a retired cyclist who at one time held the world one hour record, but whose efforts depended greatly on a style of riding which was banned because it was said to give him an unfair advantage.
Obree has, to say the least, a history most kindly described as eccentric and he seemed a curious person to bring out to support the programme makers’ case. At the very least you would think his more well renowned contemporary, Chris Boardman, would have made a better candidate, or indeed any top class athlete without the history of eccentric behaviour Obree has shown. Regardless, the case was made that since Obree survived off bread and jam then that was clearly a superior strategy to sports drinks. It might be of interest at this point to highlight that the better athlete, Boardman, was a keen sports science advocate who experimented with a number of different sports nutrition protocols before settling on a mixed carbohydrate/protein recovery drink.
Why did the programme markers not speak to the countless non-sponsored athletes here? Who knows, maybe all they could find was one who could agree with them?
An obvious point which eluded the Panorama team is why is jam, which is basically just sugars, okay, but the same sugars in drinks are somehow worse. Please explain that one to me.
Up to this point the argument seemed to be that sugar is bad unless it comes in food, where, by some mysterious, heretofore, unknown process (to anyone outside of Panorama that is), it becomes fine to consume.
If this wasn’t illogical enough the programme went on to attack the use of carbohydrates at all, saying that water is better to fuel performance. This would be in direct opposition to the hundreds of studies showing the benefits and importance of adequate glycogen status for powering sporting performance, as well as data showing that on-board consumption of carbohydrates is critical in long endurance events to maintain performance. The fact that they couldn’t drag anyone out to support their view on this spoke volumes.
So jam and water is the ticket?
Hmmm, maybe not, because next the programme went on to attack sports drinks which contain zero calories. I was puzzled how sports drinks had gone from being bad for containing sugar (but jam and processed bread is fine) to being bad for containing no calories (yet water which does the same is ideal).
I was left with the impression that the actual macronutrient content of drinks or food was irrelevant to the points made in this segment of the show and still remain puzzled how the show could conclude with such a blatantly contradictory view on carbohydrates.
Let’s gloss over the evidence on studies
I didn’t really understand how the programme could, on the one hand, accept that studies did show the efficacy of sports drinks for elite athletes, but then still deny their usage and sale based on the fact that the majority of studies were conducted in elite athletes.
First of all, the fact is that the majority of studies are conducted on university students who are hardly elite athletes, a fact which the makers of Powerade, Coca-Cola, pointed out but which the programme completely ignored. They had just given a platform to someone saying the opposite, while Coca-Cola were left with a written statement read in a suitably dull voice by an actor. Even then, I found it interesting the programme didn’t reject Coca-Cola’s point but skirted over it. No doubt the average joe this was aimed at missed that trick of Panorama.
The show then pulled out a Eurocrat from the European Food Safety Association to support their view. Interestingly, when the makers of Lucozade, Glaxosmithkline, demonstrated that they had EFSA approval for their product claims this again got the boring voice treatment and was ignored again.
Let’s banish all athletes from supermarkets!
The actual point made by the EFSA guy they trotted out seemed to be that these products shouldn’t be sold in supermarkets because they are designed for elite endurance athletes. Amazingly, the programme host went along with this, asking why sports drinks are available alongside other drinks in a supermarket. Clearly, in the alternate reality which these public sector employees inhabit, supermarkets are only there to serve non-athletes. Presumably athletes who do attend supermarkets are expected to show their talents at turning water, if not into wine, then at least into a sports drink.
Babbling nonsense this part of the programme and by now I was getting a bit sick of the bad science, contradictions, and silly arguments made.
Usain gets delivered a thunderbolt
I can imagine, if he was as stupid as the makers hoped, Usain Bolt might be chastising himself for his consumption of sports nutrition products and cursing himself that if he’d only eaten jam and bread with some water he’d be the best sprinter ever by now, instead of which he is….oh well, let’s ignore that point!
Maybe what Usain didn’t expect is to be told that he was wearing the wrong shoes and they aren’t helping him at all except financially. The programme decided to visit ONE study showing that the use of customised trainers didn’t reduce injury rates compared to those not needing them. On the surface this sounds bad but let’s explore it further.
First, if someone’s running mechanics mean they don’t require any extra heel or foot support then that is great as it means their running pattern allows them to run both injury free and to a high level of performance. On the other hand, those who do need support from their running shoes would presumably have the kind of imperfect mechanics that makes them more prone to injury surely?
Given that we then create in the second group the same conditions enjoyed by the first, which is correcting their faulty movement patterns using customised trainers to offset their poor running mechanics, surely we would hope that their injury rates would match those of the first group?
Well, that is actually what the study showed but, in a staggering display of not understanding sports science at all, this was construed by the programme as meaning that the customised shoes were ineffective. Even though they had given the latter group the same success in avoiding injury as the first group this was taken to mean that it was a bad thing, as if a customised shoe should show less injuries compared to the injury rates enjoyed by those with perfect bio-mechanics. This is absurd as the whole point surely is to allow the group with a dysfunctional running style to run with no more risk of injury than that enjoyed by the group who had a perfect running gait.
The show attacked Puma for showing no supporting evidence for their shoes’ performance merits (world records run by Bolt not counting here apparently), although it failed to say what runners such as Bolt should run in until later in the show.
You could see that nobody on the show had any sporting expertise when they then made the point that some recent research and treadmill analysis had shown the benefits of running barefoot and ergo, this meant barefoot running was superior to running in trainers. Let’s analyse that for a second.
No runner has ever set a world record barefoot.
Many of the great African runners grew up running barefoot and continued to do so even when professional.
In the end, even among those Africans without contracts with shoe companies (the vast majority of them don’t have sponsorship deals such is their strength in depth) they all end up adopting running shoes.
Despite this abundant empirical evidence with the world’s greatest ever runners, the programme somehow touted the opinion that westerners with no running expertise, who are more likely to be out of shape, and with a running style unadapted to barefoot running, should run this way even as those who grew up running this way abandon it.
A final point to make on the running barefoot trend.
Go to a running track and attempt to run 100m pace barefoot, or even in shoes modelled on barefoot running, and see how it goes. Even though some endurance runners use minimalist shoes, you will see that it is entirely unsuitable to running at maximum pace on a hard track due to the tremendous impact forces sustained when running at maximal speed. The fact that literally not a single sprinter ever has tried this style of running might have served as a clue to Panorama but apparently not.
Clearly Usain Bolt should get rid of his shoes and go barefoot, preferably with a glass of water and a jam jar at his side.
Dehydration blah blah blah
I don’t know why the show spent so long trying to prove the point that you should only drink when you are thirsty. I don’t know of too many who would disagree really although implying over consumption of water, or any drink, can be deadly was a ridiculous argument. The fact that there have been no reported issues with those drinking while training showed just how desperate the programme was getting, literally clutching at straws to construct a ridiculous strawman argument with the point of saying what? I still don’t have the foggiest idea.
Supplements get a shelling
Finally, at long last, the programme turned its turrets onto supplements and concluded that only two ingredients had peer proven research supporting them, namely creatine and caffeine. Leaving aside the copious research on the likes of beta alanine, protein powders, nitrates, free form amino acids and others, the show singled out Branched Chain Amino Acids, which quite literally must have more supportive research behind them than just about any other nutrient.
Instead the show stated that protein powder was an expensive way to get in milk (actually milk is more expensive but let’s ignore that for now), ignoring the fact that milk is predominantly sugar and fat, as opposed to protein, making it more of a meal replacement in the way our customers would understand. This fallacy also missed out the key point that whey protein can both superior to milk protein in certain situations, while ignoring the issues many would have with milk in terms of it having excessive calories on a diet if used as a protein source. This is to say nothing of the digestive issues many would experience if the had to drink litres of it daily.
In the segment on supplements it again ignored the empirical evidence in favour of the lab. Even then, their understanding of the research was hardly thorough. In fairness to the show there are many supplements out there which are relatively untested and some have indeed been shown to be ineffective.
A bigger issue which the show highlighted is the lack of testing on new ingredients. Unfortunately, the problem faced by many supplement companies is that clinical trials cost way more than what almost any company can afford, and even if results are positive they come with twin side effects of first, making it more likely the ingredient gets regulated, and second, a greater likelihood that the company coming out and running the trial gets its product ripped off. It is important to remember that unlike the trials pharmaceutical companies pay for, there is no patent on an ingredient once a study is conducted. All you get out of it is some positive marketing followed by loss of sales and a potential ban.
Having said that, the fact the show ignored the voluminous amount of research on effective compounds with a lot of research behind them was mystifying. Even more strange is that, as with the case with sports drinks and shoes, the show completely ignored the considerable empirical evidence available to them.
Summary
Summing the programme up:
Sugar is bad except in food
Water is a better choice than carbs for fuelling training
Athletes shouldn’t be allowed in supermarkets
Everyone should take their shoes off
Drink water but if you drink when you are not thirsty prepare your funeral now
Don’t take supplements but if you still want 80 grams of protein a day from dairy sources go ahead and drink over a gallon of milk a day
The sad truth is that this show could have been much better and with a more balanced view of the issues it would have been worth a much more thorough review.
At Predator Nutrition we don’t particularly recommend anyone drink a load of sports drinks unless engaged in endurance activity and nor would I buy into fads for the sake of it. There was the potential for a rigorous debate between different groups of sports scientists but all this was missed.
The programme completely ignored the fact that some carbohydrates will refill glycogen faster than others while others will actually have a glycemic index more akin to starchy compounds (the debate on glycemic index is another issue altogether though).
When discussing supplements it referred back to research from 1932 which was bizarre as it gave the misleading impression that companies were using outdated research to support their product claims. It completely ignored masses of research published more recently, and perhaps most damningly of all, did not speak to an single elite athlete to support their view apart from somebody with a history of eccentric behaviour.
As a publicly funded organisation, the BBC should be ashamed for producing such a biased, one sided, inaccurate, not to mention misleading television programme.
Rather than being titled The truth about sports products, a more apt description might have been “This is what happens when powerful lobbies work together to produce a programme designed to encourage public support for a government tax on sports nutrition products to take the heat off an inept and underperforming government”.
Recommended reading:
Review of BMJ Paper Behind Panorama Sports Drink Programme – Part 1
Can creatine make you smarter?
Fat loss roundtable with the experts
© 2012, Reggie Johal. All rights reserved.
I lost interst after about 20 mins although i left the programme on. I couldnt understand why they had to go half way round the world -Canada -to find someone to prove their (panaroma)argument. I heard caffeine and creatine mentioned in the same sentence and was looking forward to the presenter elaborating on those, but it didnt happen
.As I saw it , on the jam and bread issue , they were just pointing out that the same goal could be acheived by eating bread and jam as drinking a sports drink ie providing energy, for an activity.I personally didnt see it as one against the other.
I agree it could have been a better made programme but i suspect it was put together by people at the BBC who probably have little time for exercise and as the Olympics approach , thought they might as well be topical by producing a so called investigative programme on one aspect of it -sports supplementation. The down side is it didnt go far enough considering what there is out there.
I found it intersting that no -one from any GB olympic team , whether athlete or nutritionist was approached to find out what if any supplements they are allowed to take and how they are taken and what evidence they had to supprt the inclusion into their diet.
Well thats my bit said , now whats for dinner/ -ah yes a sandwich- bread and jam
The programme was a joke… funny how it coincides with the tax on sports supplements!! BBC yet again produce a biased and ignorant programme. God knows why we pay for a TV licnce!!
Fair Play Reggie
an intelligent unbiased response unlike like the Panorama program. Its a shame as you say because its always good to have a informed debate
Paul
You know, I’m glad I wasn’t able to see this. I had pretty poor expectations of it, and it seems those expectations were more than fulfilled. Watching it would have just annoyed/disappointed me more than reading about it.
I just wish your response could reach a wider audience, Reggie.
A couple of points of correction.
The study on trainers didn’t look at peoples biomechanics prior to separating them into groups. It was a group from the army that was split into 2 groups. Then 1 group was all given the same sort of trainers and the other group had someone inspect their biomechanics and ‘prescribe’ them some trainers. Both groups showed the same injury rates and this was being used to indicate that using a prescribed shoe is no better than just choosing something comfortable.
Running spikes (worn by sprinters such as Usain Bolt) are effectively barefoot shoes. They are a very thin although not flexible sole but they improve grip due to the spikes so allow the runner to accelerate faster as the foot doesn’t slip. The sole offers no cushioning and does nothing to reduce impact forces. I have sprinted on a track in normal trainers and in ‘barefoot/minimalist’ trainers and there is very little difference. The modern running track is made of rubber and offers impact reduction of approximately 35%.
I agree however that the programme was biased against sports nutrition products. Maybe a better programme would be to investigate the impact the olympics sponsors (McDonalds, Coca cola have on the health of the nation and why they are tax free when health food such as sports supplements are now to be taxed.
Peter
Program was very well informed. back in the we did studies on sports supplements like in the program for sports science, we came to the same conclusions. Most of them are bull, and just hype. Go on pubmed and you will find countless studies to back up the show. As for running barefoot, this would make sense, Kenyan marathon runners have been running barefoot when they train back home for years. The running style used by long distance runners tends to be the same as a barefoot runner.
I dont understand why you think the show was biased ? I know beliefs are hard to drop but when you have science on your side that should be easy ?
Peter – Ok that is not what I thought listening but it was hard watching and trying to go on twitter at the same time. Do you have the study to show this? I disagree though that they treated spikes as barefoot as they clearly said Puma had no evidence to support their claims (not sure what claims they have made in fairness) and then proceeded to state that barefoot was better than wearing trainers as it moves people to run on their forefeet (which agreed is better), However, sprinters run on their balls anyway and the part of the spike which has a little protection is under there. Some actually have force plates at that point. Have you tried sprinting at 100m pace on a hard track either barefoot or in shoes like Vibrams? If not, I encourage you to do so and then to run in a pair of 100m spikes. The spikes alone will enhance power.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, had a wait before I next ran on a track.
Running at my max 100m pace on a track in a number of different types of shoes and barefoot I found very little difference in my time comparing barefoot to my normal trainers and minimalist shoes. Spikes (which I had to borrow as I’m not really into running on a track) were faster than any other shoes or barefoot but this isn’t due to me not being able to run as hard, it’s all down to grip. Sprinting in spikes I had far better traction than any other run so could accelerate better and I didn’t lose power to my foot sliding backwards.
As an aside, if you watch Bolt in the olympics, particularly in the last 50m of each of his races he is stood very upright and his foot is moving backwards before it hits the floor and it goes down with very little downwards force. Mo Farah is the same, foot is not hitting the floor hard, no cushioning is required.
Hi Peter
Do you sprint much though or mainly a longer distance runner (where vibrams etc will work fine although note marathon runners have not adopted them yet so interesting to see if that changes)?
Sprint speed is largely down to force production though. That is what the research shows.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120801132723.htm
I will say that if you can sprint barefoot at a fast speed I’d like to see a video. I have trained with sprinters and never known one to run barefoot or in vibrams to this day but not denying it might be possible. Perhaps a video of you sprinting barefoot on a track and recording the time would be useful?
Dan – There are countless studies to support the claims. Click the supplements tab on this blog to go through a few which have all been published in journals and are not funded by the industry either. If you pick a particular ingredient such as BCAA you will see so many studies not to mention feedback from athletes using them which supports them that it beggars belief they missed this.
Which kenyan endurance athlete do you refer to who competes barefoot? Training in them is one thing but arguing against the fact that spikes help performance is amazing. Would you play football barefoot or would you accept the studs help traction and powering off the track?
Ok, So I spent an hour going through papers and looking for results specifically to do with Bcaa’s since the program concentrated A good amount on that. The study you have posted on bcaa’s is not good enough, I would really question the training methods with the “without bcaa’s” having only increased a weight by 2 reps in ten weeks.They also combined the bcaa’s with glutamine, so the paper is not proving anything about bcaa’s alone. I cant find any peer reviews on the paper. I also cant find one study that indicates Bcaa’s increase performance, some cite an effect on recovery based on Bcaa’s ability to reduce levels of catabolic enzymes in endurance sports, but this does not cross over to performance.
Unless you have another paper ? I’m standing my ground with this one. Back in the day at university I was in the Olympic lifting club, when we asked about supplements we were told by our coach that 0.5-1 litre of milk was just as good as anything out there after a workout, this was only 4 years ago. Worked just fine.
Dan – Plenty more info on BCAA’s out there.
Here is one we wrote about but a load more out there if you go to pubmed. If you can wait we will get more papers on BCAA’s covered on our site though.
http://blog.predatornutrition.com/2012/04/05/adding-leucine-to-your-post-workout-shake-can-increase-muscle-growth/
Milk is very low in protein and mainly carbs and fat. You might say, in direct contradiction to what the show claimed, that it is an expensive and inefficient source for obtaining protein.
I believe program was not biased afterall. Lets admit that marketing made lots of stuff sound better than they truly are through ads and by paying athletes. There are cheap alternatives, i agree that its better just to eat banana and drink water – a much better way than pouring down those lucozades. And how much maximuscle costs? like 40-50 and it lasts 2-3 weeks? for 40-50 you can buy some good fish/nuts/meat/cottage cheese etc. Nothing beats proper meal, especially at that price.
The paper ignored a ton of studies and self-selected a bunch to prove a point. The actual BMJ paper the show was based on is full of flaws and we are in the process of addressing the arguments made in it point by point.
The programme did not fit the format your ‘blog’ suggests, and their findings were altogether different.
Those who want to see this programme for themselves, go to the BBC iplayer website, and look for ‘Panorama The Truth About Sports Products’.
Their REAL findings included:
1. Sports nutrition drinks such as those made by lucozade and powerade are only effective when you can do intense endurance exercise for over one hour. As very few gym users can do intense endurance exercise for anything like this time, it is only ELITE athletes who benefit from such supplements. They went on to say the research carried out by the supplement companies and the European food boards confirmed this theory, and that despite this, supplement companies aim their products at non sports people, amateur sports people and children.
2. Sports drinks contain as much as 8 spoons of sugar, yet are sold openly to under 16s. The sports companies comments included ‘we dont advise under 16′s to drink this stuff’ yet Panorama found that parents were giving it to children as young as 8. They said that high levels of sugar in such young children can lead to obesity, tooth decay and behaviour problems.
3. Their advise on shoes for sport included buy one which fits comfortably, as there is no evidence that the specialist shoes perform any better than those which are just regular training shoes. They did show how barefoot running has less impact than running in shoes, but never said you should go out and do it, in fact they even critisized a new company who were selling shoes claiming to mimic the barefoot running research, without a dot of reaearch behind it.
4. You can over hydrate by drinking before you are thirsty, which can lead to dizziness and even death, and 1600 marathon runners have been hospitalised, and 16 have died in the past 6 years due to ‘drinking before they are thirsty’. They then showed an elite Unit of the South African Armed Forces, and done reaearch over a decade on thousands of soldiers, proving it is most effective to drink when thirsty, and this backs up other studies. They also interviewed several marathon runners who had suffered adverse effects such as fainting when over drinking water.
5. They never said not to take protein, but said if you have a well balanced meal you do not need it, and that taking supplements on top of meals can lead to obesity, and becoming overweight. They also said unless you are ELITE you can get enough protein from milk, in fact they acknowledged many times that elite athletes can benefit from some of the supplements the regular gym goer will not benefit from, which includes Usain Bolt, and so invalidates the blog argument that ‘they want Bolt to go barefoot’. No. They would simply advise Bolt to choose a comfortable pair of shoes over a more expensive so called specialist pair.
6. They showed how poor 99% of the ‘data dump’ they were given was, and that some of it was from the 1930s, and conducted on mice, to simulate how a supplement behaved in an elite human being.
7. They said you can get enough sugar and carbs from bread and jam, and its much cheaper than guzziling down energy drinks. Nowhere did they pretend bread and jam is not sugar, or that food is better than drinks, again your blog is misleading.
There is plenty more in your blog you falsify, and I would simply advise anyone to go and watch the documentary for themselves.
Tom – As stated we are in the process of a rebuttal of the actual paper the show was based on so I suggest waiting for that but to summarise and respond to some of the points you made:
1. Can you provide evidence to support this? The BMj paper is pretty useless but if you look at the source material feel free to post a response based on that.
2. 8 teaspoons of sugar is less than the amount of carbs in a slice of bread so does that mean you should avoid bread? Both convert to glucose so the source of carbs is irrelevant when it comes to body composition. In addition, why were sports drinks demonised but not regular soft drinks or fruit drinks containing more than 8 teaspoons?
3. Shoes – Are you suggesting Olympic sprinters should wear regular trainers because they are comfortable? Is this a serious point? Why do you think nobody does? Why criticise Puma for providing no evidence to support the claims and not consider the fact EVERY SINGLE SPRINTER FOR DECADES HAS WORN SPIKES? Anything but a barefoot style shoe like Vibrams.
4. Hydration – Cherry picked studies with some relevance to endurance sport only and zero relevance to the types of sport they discussed at the time such as football. They ONLY discussed endurance sport. In addition, despite claiming to only select studies with a great amount of rigour behind them, the actual reality is anything but. They argued against studies funded by sports drinks manufacturers yet ignored many others such as a well know one conducted by Australian Institute of Sport. Their claims to require high participant numbers in trials etc are exposed as a sham as the studies they used to try to fit their theory were very small studies.
5. Milk is low protein so a poor (and expensive) protein source. Two things the guy who said protein powder was expensive milk was clueless about. Ok, so if Bolt likes a pair of casual loafers why doesn’t he get a casual shoe made by Puma to endorse? After all, that would help sales of the shoe much more for Puma so it would make commercial sense. Maybe because the people behind the show have never sprinted in their lives except for first to the buffet queue? Do you realise NONE of the CEBM team who wrote the paper have ANY background either academically or in participation in exercise science or sports?
6. Did they? If you feel it was poor why not prove it instead of claiming to say it was? Why were the studies they selected poor then!? Why did they ignore the hundreds of studies on humans conducted in the last decade? Oh yeah, let’s make it sound like the industry is using mice studies from 1932 because the ignorant general public will fall for it!
7. Why not show some studies on jam and bread then?
For what it’s worth we do not sell any sports drinks, footwear or drinks designed for endurance athletes so before people accuse us of bias answer that as the only thing which impacts our business is the palpably false statements made with respect to protein being expensive milk which a 10 year old can show was wrong by googling the nutritional content of milk.
Can I just comment on the second point – you are conflating running shoes for the general athletic populace with sprinting shoes.
I agree with the fact that the majority of people do not need customised shoes to run, but that is irrelevant when it comes to specialist disciplines – I would not advise an olympic sprinter to run in a battered old pair of nike high tops
The reason the sprinters wear the shoes they do is not to do with the injury rates; it is to do with the grip and the functional use for the 100m. How much cushioning do sprint shoes have? Very little or none, because that would increase the contact time and slow them down.
John – I disagree on this. Let me try to explain why.
They specifically mentioned Usain Bolt and Puma in the show. I think it is on iPlayer still so watch that bit again. I never saw them say anything to detract from that message. Also, I really, really disagree that track spikes resemble barefoot shoes like spikes (an argument some have made). Since the programme specifically talked about his use of Puma shoes, his spikes, in common with others, will have a hard sole that does not resemble how a man would sprint barefoot. They are quite an unnatural shoe.
As for endurance runners the point still remains that athletes from every distance from 800m to a marathon are not using barefoot style shoes although they are popular among club runners.
In addition the point was made about choosing comfortable shoes and again that is not necessarily the best advice if you lose the advantages of increased force production that a harder soled, less comfortable shoe provides.
@predatornutrition – well said!
LOL in for Tom’s response after well and truly getting his arse handed to him
I highly disagree that you can get enough protein from milk. A few of the studies done on non-elite athletes show that they benefit as well. Consuming .82g/kg of protein with just milk? Sorry, too many carbs for my liking, not to mention expensive as hell. Protein supplements work out cheaper than milk, chicken, turkey and tuna for meeting your protein macros. Too many, just like the Panorama show fail to see the big picture. They see £35+ for 5lbs of protein and think expensive. If I tried to meet my macros with nothing but whole food, two things will happen.
1) I will have less money per month.
2) Wholefoods have higher calories to meet the same protein per serving as a scoop of powder.
So, since wholefood is more dense in calories, how exactly does one put on fat by supplementing with protein powder? Come off it, you can not blame a supplement for weight gain, you blame the person. Supplements are a weapon to use in the effort to get fit. How one uses that weapon determines the results.
At what point did it become acceptable to take blame away from the individual and place it on products that are nothing more but powdered food?
As for the whole sugar debate with Lucozade etc, again it is the actions of the individual. If that person chooses to be ignorant and not read up on nutritional needs, should we blame companies who are there to make a profit, as per a businesses goals? Yes they target through advertising, yes they portray health yada yada yada but in the age of the internet and information literally at your fingertips, it is a pour excuse. People have enough sense to read reviews and research what TV to buy, which gas supplier to join, what phone is best etc. They can bloody well do the same with supplements. Stop taking blame away from the ignorant.
Dino – Well said. Given the way the guy in the show talked about protein being expensive milk was truly ridiculous and, for a doctor, displayed an embarrassing level of knowledge about nutrition.
I’ve always read in magazines like muscle & fitness that people should aim to drink between 2 & 6 litres of water a day but doctors continue to say that i t’s too much so what’s the truth? I’ve put away 9 litres in a day once.
couldnt agree more with the guys at predator nutrition! do your research tom!!
BOOM!! Sit the fuk down Tom, ha ha
The best comment on the show was protein supplements don’t make you a better footballer, that is not relevant for what the gym goer uses them for it had no evidence or anything said about how it affected the bridges in the muscle!
Funny enough just watched this on I player this evening, i recently
bought some vibrams for my uphill sprints that I do in the woods for some
Hiit cardio, and leg days based on various bits I have read, and so far found
I was landing on the front of my foot and reducing the pain I usually felt
In one of my knees, but would it be better in this case to use regular trainers with
that style running and just barefoot on leg days?
I wouldn’t really class hill sprints as true sprints in that you never approach anything like a top speed so Vibrams etc will be fine (I think they are quite good where max performance isn’t a necessity).
I feel there are hundreds of ridiculous sups on the market…most of which do bugger all worth noting.
HMB etc etc….
There are a small amount that I have noticed a benefit from ( a genuine benefit, not placebo effect) Creatine being the best one.
I feel there is a whole host of bunk protein products being sold under various guises. Those of you that know me will know i conducted a boat load of trials on certain supps and found some pretty damning evidence in terms of false label claims etc.
I also had the bollocks to stick the data on the net with my name on the data sheets and also the letter from trading standards highlighting the fact a certain company got nailed for pedalling shite and had been doing so for years. The levels of mislabbeling were hideous and contained numerous substances they claimed not to contain.
I would pressume that as with any BBC documentory it will be full of crap however the fact remains that most people wouldnt even notice a proportionate strength/speed increase in comparison to the cost spent on sups however they have their agenda as stated and anybody selling the products would also have theirs.
Anybody in the know has already seen what lengths companies will stoop to to offload shite onto the public to make a fast buck. If the truth was told people need only buy one magazine and they would have all the training data etc for a few £s however its all about marketing and advertising.
Everyone of the supps companies that shows off monster bodybuilders etc fails to tell Joe Public the real reason for the size and power of the people in their ads.
Maybe if people see a pro bodybuilders cycle they would instantly realise where the real gains are made and i feel that the bulk of the silly supplements would dissapear as sales dried up overnight.
I havent watched the programme yet but I do know that my lifting shoes increased my lifting dramatically in lifts such as squats and deadlifts however know nowt about sprinting at a high level so will refrain from commenting on the subject.
Just to say, that’s a great blog you’ve written there @PredatorNutrition, I’m a big fan of the company and even though I see very slight biases, I feel that your blog is a more balanced view of a highly negatively bias program . I plan to watch the show later, as I’ve yet to see it and then i’m going to post a follow up comment. Looking forward to sharing my views on this topic with you all later, but meanwhile, it’s gym time. Have a good day everybody.
So, I’m currently watching the program, After each section I plan on writing my beliefs in regards to the content. First up, Sports drinks.
After the first 20 minutes, All information has been directly related to Powerade and Lucozade. I find it really quite unbelievable that thus far, there have been only 1 athlete and 3 scientists talking about the drinks, as stated (very frequently may I remind) these drinks are aimed at top athletes and a high number of sales indicates that they are sold and used en-mass, which being the case, begs the question; Why are there no inclusion of more top athletes? Such as 2012 Olympians, Sports stars (Meaning current, peak form athletes, not a retired cyclist) and highly regarded coaches/ personal trainers? I Understand that there is a limit as to the volume of participants in the program but, come on, A few old scientists that may know of nutritional foodstuffs but have no idea as to the physical demands of, for example: HIIT training, doesn’t exactly scream CONVINCING. Before I proceed to watch the next part, I have some food for thought, Panorama like to highlight that powerade contains 8 teaspoons of sugar and shouldn’t really be sold in supermarkets however, compare this to 330ml can of coca-cola or 500m can of relentless for example… The 330ml coke contains 35g of sugar and relentless contains, predictably, even more – Compare this to the 19g of sugar in Powerade ION4. Using the program’s method of deduction and also a little bit of arrogance, supermarkets should also not stock the most popular soft drink in the world, but, another blatent disregard to the imperative factor in consumerist marketing, the program seems to rule out the fact the some people (including the kids interviewed, who again, have to working knowledge of the biological mechanics involved in exercise) consume the drink because the enjoy the taste, not the benefits, in which case, it is down to the consumer, not the manufacturer. IF, for one moment, we accept the premise of the ineffectiveness of sports drinks, Panorama would have umpteen celebrities to back up their claims. I sincerely hope that the next section draws away from manipulative persuasion techniques that this episode appears to have set it’s foundations upon.
I’ve now reached the shoes section, what has immediately drawn my attention here is the emphasis on the military study, now, as a man of science (Completed A-level in chemistry, physics and biology, as well as, psychology) if there is one thing I know, it’s what needs to be in a study. In order to measure injury rates, it requires a longitudinal study, for people that don’t know, this type is study is set over a long period of time, anything from months up to decades. Panorama seem to have left out the information on how long the study ran for e.g. was it over a 1-mile running event? Or set over 3 years of intense training? Because of this, it would lead me to believe they are using a selective technique in order to make their own argument more persuasive. By deliberately leaving out, what I am assume is a short study set over a single, short event, maybe one marathon, I can advise you guys that this study is irrelevant and results are insignificant. They also state “Those results are supported in two other studies” Oh, really? Which ones? What did they include? Again selective information giving. Because, I can already tell, my review is going to in-depth and substantial in size, I’m not even going to bother commenting on the ridiculous idea of only drinking when thirsty, this is not to say that the program has got this idea correct, because they haven’t in fact, one professor actually states “Dehydration is not life threatening” How did that guy get a phD? I really don’t know. What I will say, though, is yes, manufacturers play on a psychological model of persuasion in order to market their product (The athlete/celebrity endorsement) however, first and foremost, a company MUST make money, without sales, revenue and profit margins will obviously decrease, if this happens the company cannot substantiate product, blah blah blah… But using this method does not detract from the effectiveness of the product, the product is not created solely as a “fashionable accessory”, as was earlier compared. The fact of the matter is, Hollywood body celebrities, elite athletes and top coaches around the world all use the products, even the ones who don’t endorse it! This is because they work, they’ve been proven to work. It’s truly abysmal of panorama to state that the effects only matter to high end athletes such as the examples I gave. As any body reading this will know, the effects of these drinks and shows will be down to individual intensity. The Panorama claims are true when compared to those who go to the gym/ sporting clubs, and walk around doing bare minimum, with little or no knowledge of exercise and diet principles, but this would apply to not only sports drinks and shoes, but too whole foods, clothing brands, car manufacturers… Just about any consumerist company in actual fact, this is because it is down to free will and individual choice not the product mission statements.
With regard to sports shoes vs. Barefoot running, well, the professor stated himself “Not much research has been done” regardless of reason, this gives no scientific significance and I’m therefore, dismissing that part of the program from this review, just as the program has done the entire time with any topic they’ve chosen so far… Do you consider this to be tactically ignorant? Yes, me too.
Now onto what I’ve been waiting for the entire time, supplements, I’ll warn any Pro-panorama readers now, in this section, I will rip the entire premise of the program apart because I consider their “Disproof” to be absolutely infantile and down right imbecilic. The shock factor used is the idea that Vega Sports base their product claims on evidence developed from a study in 1930 based on rats, this study was actually done in relation to diseased children. However the other studies, that you can see on the screen at the same point in time, are 2010 – positive influence of nutritional alkalinity on bone health and 2004 – Defining high quality protein, total health as well as a further study that I feel is irrelevant due to prior justification of my point. If you still haven’t guessed, yes, Panorama have again picked to justify their points, using what I regard as ‘Confounding’ experiments rather than relevant ones.
This is my concluding paragraph, for those who’ve seen the sheer size of my review and wish to skip to the easy part… No hard feelings. After watching approximately 59 minutes, minus advert time, of this horrendously bias program, I’m left stunned as to the obnoxious contrivance of Panorama. If you watch carefully and pay attention, using careful phrasing and framing of the video, this video is based solely upon clever persuasive techniques. If you get a chance, or indeed, have, read any psychological books on influence… This television program draws exactly from those principles. Strong and current evidence IS available for all of the matters mentioned in this program, however, you must keep in mind that sport science principles, ingredients, catalysts and equipment mechanics CANNOT be patented, this is based on the idea that the ability to patent these things as well as; ideas, limits the market productivity and exportation with regard to supply and demand. So, the fact that a PRIVATE university team were unable to gather much information is hardly surprising… I don’t know about you, but if I were the CEO of a million/billion dollar company, i’d hardly to divulge the secrets of my products either. My advice to anyone who may be effected by the conclusions of the program… Ignore it, instead, go read some of the other blogs on this website to help build and strengthen your knowledge base because at the end of the day, what you put in, is what you get out. I’m willing to bet anything that if two exact copies were to undergo the exact same fitness-diet plan with the exact same intensity, mentality, focus and determination, but one were using all of the products analyzed in this program, that individual would yield unbelievable results when compared to the individual without them. Panorama – You absolutely suck. I can’t believe that anybody would even begin to support the ideas of such a bias program, I do generally believe that this program has been aired to increase the support base for the attempt of taxing sporting supplements. I’d also like to add the people involved in making this program, need to get into the thick of a fitness and diet plan, work as harder than they possibly can, and STILL argue against the effectiveness of those products mention, the Panorama team must be a idiocratic hierarchy.
My final note is that, even though I do take the side of sports products vs. Panorama, I still think that upon interest of the product, you must consider the purchase first, and take all information with a pinch of salt, just as you would a Men’s health magazine, or new car because after all, the primary function of advertising is of course, enticing the audience.
Thanks for reading everyone, I hope my review satisfied.
I think that one major problem you have when stating that athletes use the brands in question is that none of the sponsored athletes are going to say “i drink this for the money!”
We would receive as much of a biased view from them as we do for any anti-sups documentary.
As stated earlier I noted there was nobody writing off creatine or a good quality protein from a trusted manufacturer.
I personally like lucozade (the original stuff) because it gives me a good fix of simple carbs when necessary. All the other supposed “special” drinks are nothing more than panorama stated and marketed to the masses with psuedo science and weird studies in all sorts of guises.
the big corporate machine doing its thing again i spose!
A bit like pop-ups on a porn site! lol
I thought your paragraph about dragging out Obree was a bit below the belt. Your talking about the early/mid 90′s and he did hold the hour record twice on a bike which was legal at the time till they banned it . Although it is well publicised about Obree’s mental state, I would like to see any people on this site come close to any of those times. Also it was at a time when there were not really a lot of energy stuff about. A days cycling had you pockets full of bananas or fig rolls.
Give the lad a bit credit
Stu – In fairness nobody is denying he wasn’t good at what he did but Obree relied heavily on what was determined to be an invalid technique and without it wasn’t much of a cyclist when his technique mirrored other peoples. The point being that if you took away the crutch that the technique gave him his actual physiological stats could not have been so impressive. To use an analogy, I could probably beat Lewis Hamilton in a race if I drove a Porsche and he was in a Skoda but once we were in the same car I am sure he would destroy me.
Ironically, the BBC used Chris Boardman in their Olympics commentary. It would have been an opportune time to ask him if he used any supplements (he actually developed something which was later brought to market by a sports nutrition firm).
With reference to sports drinks I can tell you that they are consumed by children from primary school age onwards. They are purchased just like coke or pepsi. They are not purchased for the intended use in sport. It is possible that many parents could assume that if there son or daughter drinks Lucozade Sport or Powerade it it healthier for them than drinking coke. Sadly this is just showbusiness. Lets be honest if Wayne Rooney was shown drinking Beet Root Juice before an important match then I bet sales of it would go through the roof. Sadly the Beet Root Juice manufaturers cannot afford Waynes sponsorship money only “Big Sugar” have that kind of financial clout. For now the kids are happy to consume Powerade laden with sugar which because many of them dont exercise anyway will only get more obese. At least if they drank Beet Root Juice it may not taste as nice a Powerade but I bet it would do them far more good. As for Wayne what does he really drink when the cameras are not on him ?
Peter, we tend to agree with the points made by you. Note however, that beetroot juice has failed to show a real effect in recent studies.
Could I just answer one question that’s come up a few times on this thread, which is ‘Why no current athletes?’ I have a strong suspicion that this is because top-level athletes are so entrenched in sponsorship and legal red-tape, that it’s very difficult for them to talk about what they consume or what effect it has.