shocking advice

BlueIsland

http://gaelicplayers.com/health-a-fitness/diet-a-nutrition/183-losing-weight-for-gaa-players

Is it me or is this not just shocking advice on diet?

g'em

What parts of it do you think are shocking? It's not perfect, but adhering to that would be better than what the majority of the general populace deem 'healthy'. Seems to be an emphasis on vegetables, fresh foods, avoiding processed foods. The anti-fat message isn't ideal but national nutritional guidelines are only starting to catch up with the research.

Hanley

I’d be interested to see what’s so “shocking” about it in your opinion.

Remember, they’re athletes, they require carbs to fuel their activity… Not everyone sits around at a desk job all day and does some weights and a light bit of aerobic work in the evenings and can live off fat and protein. You need to match your recommendations to your population, which is something that most people seem to miss on here.

Yah some of the whole grain/fibre stuff might be misplaced, but it’s a hell of a lot more sensible than the majority of recommendations.

How would you suggest a GAA player fuels their activity levels sufficiently to drop fat while maintaining performance?

ray jay

Got to say, I agree that it's largely good advice.

Hanley wrote: »

How would you suggest a GAA player fuels their activity levels sufficiently to drop fat while maintaining performance?

In all fairness, judging by the tone of the article and the accompanying picture the article is aimed at more casual players rather than top level athletes. These are people who may very well significantly drop their activity level between seasons, so they won't need so many calories from carbs. The article has that covered in so far as it recommends reduced portion sizes though.

Mellor

It's a diet for fat loss during pre season training.
Calorie deficit to loss weight. 500 per day. Decent carbs for energy. Keep cals down in cooking. Lean meat.
It's obviously not perfect, and they could highlight that carbs sources can be calorie dense. But it's certainly not something I'd call shocking.

BlueIsland

Right I said id play devil's advocate and went slight bit far with word "shocking". The major issues I have,
1- the emphasis on LOW FAT.
2- The heavy emphasis on Breakfast cereals (another part of websites advocating corn flakes, fruit and fibre et al)
3- Heavy emphasis on snacking on grains...particularly sandwiches as snacks.

I play intercounty (not senior granted) and fuel my training (6 days a week) on fats, protein, salad, veg and fruits. I understand it is better than what most eat but sure thats not a great gague of nutrional adivce now is it considering how brutally most people eat!

ray jay

The advice in that article seems more along the lines of how not to get fat rather than how to stop being fat. If you're not overweight, you're not going to fatten up eating bread and cereals once your caloric intake is reduced to match your off season activity levels.

Mellor

BlueIsland wrote: »

Right I said id play devil's advocate and went slight bit far with word "shocking". The major issues I have,
1- the emphasis on LOW FAT.
2- The heavy emphasis on Breakfast cereals (another part of websites advocating corn flakes, fruit and fibre et al)
3- Heavy emphasis on snacking on grains...particularly sandwiches as snacks.

I understand you point that fat isn't the enemy.
But the artical is aimed at cutting calories. Reducing fat had help your deficit get a head start. For example, I'm on a cut now, and while i know that fat is fine. I also go for lean beef and chicken as the macros are better per serve.

I only seen cereals mentinoed twice. Oats or wholegrain cereal for breakfast. I don't see whats wrong with that. Oats are great, and wheatabix is n't far behind (I know not all cereals are up here but whetabix is what I consider wholegrain)

It was mentinoed that its a bit grain heavy, bread pasta. And should reinforce protein a bit more. But as a diet, its better than 80% or the population or more.

corkcomp

Hanley wrote: »

I’d be interested to see what’s so “shocking” about it in your opinion.

Remember, they’re athletes, they require carbs to fuel their activity… Not everyone sits around at a desk job all day and does some weights and a light bit of aerobic work in the evenings and can live off fat and protein. You need to match your recommendations to your population, which is something that most people seem to miss on here.

Yah some of the whole grain/fibre stuff might be misplaced, but it’s a hell of a lot more sensible than the majority of recommendations.

How would you suggest a GAA player fuels their activity levels sufficiently to drop fat while maintaining performance?

what he said +1.

Not sure if anyone else finds the same, but too much fat in the meal or two prior to training slows me down, especially while running. Most sedentary people eat too many carbs but clearly the guidelines on that site dont apply to these people.

J-Fit

I'm leaning towards BlueIsland on this one. The info in the article seems correct almost by default. There are plenty of factual inaccuracies in there i.e. 5/6 meals "maintain energy levels, prevent hunger and avoid fat storage". Who says? How has he qualified that statement? Where are his references?

He fails to understand that fat doesn't make you fat and the whole losing muscle if aiming for more than 2lbs of fat loss per week etc. is all a bit old school.

It's fundamentally correct but still should not have been published on the GPA's site.

BlueIsland

J-Fit wrote: »

I'm leaning towards BlueIsland on this one. The info in the article seems correct almost by default. There are plenty of factual inaccuracies in there i.e. 5/6 meals "maintain energy levels, prevent hunger and avoid fat storage". Who says? How has he qualified that statement? Where are his references?

He fails to understand that fat doesn't make you fat and the whole losing muscle if aiming for more than 2lbs of fat loss per week etc. is all a bit old school.

It's fundamentally correct but still should not have been published on the GPA's site.

Yup that's kinda my point! I understand it is better nutrition that 80% population or whatever figure been thrown about but I would never use that as a benchmark! I genuinely believe it is too inaccurate to be put up on GPA website! Explain some of the assumptions! The brother got a nutrional sheet from his club last night and the same crap spurted out such as shredded wheat for breakfast and never leave longer than 3 hours between meals !

Hanley

The 3 hour meal thing is frickin' fantastic for appetite control and preventing binging due to hunger.

Sure, there's no metabolic advantage - but in terms of actual kcal consumption it can be huge. And is therefore beneficial to dieters. Not explained as it should be in the article - but certainly a key factor when dieting IMO.

mannequinhands

yea most sports people ive seen asked about there diets go with this one it controls your appetite
It is bull if there telling your bro that he should eat shredded wheat do not all cerals are bad but shredded wheat defiantly is not one i would consider good

BlueIsland

http://www.theperformanceandfitnessacademy.com/5-reasons-why-you-should-never-listen-to-athletes/ I think the bit at the end about the gaa advice kinda sums it up! Again I'm not saying it's not a better approach to nutrition than a huge amount of people have but the old we need carbs for energy advice is a massive cause of unhealthy bodies IMO!

emeraldstar

mannequinhands wrote: »

not all cerals are bad but shredded wheat defiantly is not one i would consider good

Actually it's one I would consider one of the best. Its ingredients are: 100% wholewheat. Far better than any of the other sugar-laden crap from Kellogg's et al.

Transform

emeraldstar wrote: »

Actually it's one I would consider one of the best. Its ingredients are: 100% wholewheat. Far better than any of the other sugar-laden crap from Kellogg's et al.

Emm shredded Wheat is digested faster than table sugar as is whole wheat bread. Even from a simple GI perspective it's not a good choice.


This again goes back to understand fat loss or improved performance from a hormone perspective not from a calorie perspective

J-Fit

Hanley wrote: »

The 3 hour meal thing is frickin' fantastic for appetite control and preventing binging due to hunger.

Sure, there's no metabolic advantage - but in terms of actual kcal consumption it can be huge. And is therefore beneficial to dieters. Not explained as it should be in the article - but certainly a key factor when dieting IMO.

Horses for courses. I myself love to gorge on food so I hate picking at small amounts at regular intervals. I tolerate hunger better in the early part of the day so I have a 1500 cal meal at 16:00 and another at around 21:00. That's how I currently keep my appetite under control as I hate night time hunger.

mannequinhands

emeraldstar wrote: »

Actually it's one I would consider one of the best. Its ingredients are: 100% wholewheat. Far better than any of the other sugar-laden crap from Kellogg's et al.

hmmm maybe im wrong
Anyway the ones id usually go for porridge or wheatabix the all bran ones arent to bad if you need to get more fibre in

Anyway not everyone has time to make eggs or whatever in the morning.So sometimes cerals are just the realistic option.I usualy find some porridge and a protein shake is decent for keeping hunger at bay till my next meal

Mellor

Transform wrote: »

Emm shredded Wheat is digested faster than table sugar as is whole wheat bread. Even from a simple GI perspective it's not a good choice.

Link or source?

I'm not doubting you, you're pretty up to speed re those areas.
I'm just surprised that shredded wheart has a higher GI than sugar (or have I misunderstood)

Transform

mannequinhands wrote: »

hmmm maybe im wrong
Anyway the ones id usually go for porridge or wheatabix the all bran ones arent to bad if you need to get more fibre in

Anyway not everyone has time to make eggs or whatever in the morning.So sometimes cerals are just the realistic option.I usualy find some porridge and a protein shake is decent for keeping hunger at bay till my next meal

its not a fibre issue man and fibre has nothing to do with it. Latter choice is best

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

Link or source?

I'm not doubting you, you're pretty up to speed re those areas.
I'm just surprised that shredded wheart has a higher GI than sugar (or have I misunderstood)

William Davies says it in a podcast with Robb Wolf I believe. I was surprised to hear it too. Could never find anything to support it tho.

Transform

Mellor wrote: »

Link or source?

I'm not doubting you, you're pretty up to speed re those areas.
I'm just surprised that shredded wheart has a higher GI than sugar (or have I misunderstood)

this is one of my faves for a number of years.

http://www.mendosa.com/GI_GL_Carb_data.xls

It really depends on the company making and the studies them but on average -

Table sugar is about 68
Whole wheat bread about 74
Shredded wheat about 75

you can go onto a number of sites which will give slightly varying numbers but overall foods like shredded wheat and wholewheat bread are digested quicker and raise insulin levels faster than table sugar so every time you eat these foods you are dipping a big ol spoon into a bowl of sugar (not to mention the probelms with amylopectin A, glyadin, leptin etc)

Precious1

I go for cheese, nuts, yogurt, and fruit any time over cereal for breakfast, unless it's raw,uncooked oat bran, mixed with walnuts and frozen raspberries, say, when fresh ones are out of season.. :] But eggs, like a broccoli omelet with salmon and goat cheese, no bread, or just over easy with roasted garlic, still give the most satisfied feeling and satiation of hunger.Then, the past year, have been eating a big main meal, low carb, at noon, or earlier, and usually nothing but tea, preferably chai green tea, with a dash of cream, for the rest of the day, unless it's a special occasions and I am dining out with friends, or on vacation in Europe when the jet lag skews things up anyway, lol, and have enjoyed great benefits in energy, weight maintenance and good spirits, the latter most of the time, lol,as a result. :]

Mellor

Transform wrote: »

this is one of my faves for a number of years.

http://www.mendosa.com/GI_GL_Carb_data.xls

It really depends on the company making and the studies them but on average -

Table sugar is about 68
Whole wheat bread about 74
Shredded wheat about 75

Thanks for that.
I had in my head sucrose was around 80.
One thing that may or not be relevant. The shredded wheat studied is canadian and from looking at other cereals and such, US and Canadian brands are higher than others (see Australian figures listed). And having lived in both the US and Oz, american cereal (and bread) is definitely loaded with sugar.

But that only makes so much difference, it's still essentially bread, which is interesting.

Transform

Mellor wrote: »

Thanks for that.
I had in my head sucrose was around 80.
One thing that may or not be relevant. The shredded wheat studied is canadian and from looking at other cereals and such, US and Canadian brands are higher than others (see Australian figures listed). And having lived in both the US and Oz, american cereal (and bread) is definitely loaded with sugar.

But that only makes so much difference, it's still essentially bread, which is interesting.

most of the common cereals are listed here - http://www.cerealpartners.co.uk/brands/default.aspx

ignoring the GI of any of them the major effect wheat has on the body with the aformentioned effects make it the cocaine of the food industry

Thomas Magnum

BlueIsland wrote: »

I play intercounty (not senior granted) and fuel my training (6 days a week) on fats, protein, salad, veg and fruits.

Which are carbohydrates. I don't know why you mentioned fat & protein but said "veg and fruits" instead of carbs!

Transform

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Which are carbohydrates. I don't know why you mentioned fat & protein but said "veg and fruits" instead of carbs!

Maybe to emphasise his food quality

Thomas Magnum

Transform wrote: »

Maybe to emphasise his food quality

Doesn't make any sense. Fat & protein could be anything. Just seems odd to not acknowledge carbs like that.

BlueIsland

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Transform wrote: »

Maybe to emphasise his food quality

Doesn't make any sense. Fat & protein could be anything. Just seems odd to not acknowledge carbs like that.

Well it's not a conspiracy theory im involved in! Neither fruits or veg are wheat based carbs! Good fats and sources of protein are great but 95% of today's carbs are simply not good for your body to function best! This is simply my view!

Mellor

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Doesn't make any sense. Fat & protein could be anything. Just seems odd to not acknowledge carbs like that.

Well if he is going to the trouble of choosing fruit and veg for his carb choices, I really doubt he is eating margarine and tofu for his protein.
Obviously, he was implying good sources for both.

Spunge

J-Fit wrote: »

Horses for courses. I myself love to gorge on food so I hate picking at small amounts at regular intervals. I tolerate hunger better in the early part of the day so I have a 1500 cal meal at 16:00 and another at around 21:00. That's how I currently keep my appetite under control as I hate night time hunger.

same here, for me the best way to control my diet is to eat 2 or 3 big meals and leave it at that. and usually eat it most at night time.

Thomas Magnum

BlueIsland wrote: »

Neither fruits or veg are wheat based carbs!

True but both are carbs nonetheless.

BlueIsland wrote: »

95% of today's carbs are simply not good for your body to function best! This is simply my view!

When you say 95% of todays carbs I presume you are refering to refined/processed carbs.. ie junk food. I don't think anyone seriously thinks junk food is good for you.

Mellor wrote: »

Well if he is going to the trouble of choosing fruit and veg for his carb choices, I really doubt he is eating margarine and tofu for his protein.

No harm in asking questions unless you're against that?

Mellor wrote: »

Obviously, he was implying good sources for both.

How is it obvious. He didn't state what either was. You are assuming. I'm asking for clarification.

BlueIsland

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

True but both are carbs nonetheless.





When you say 95% of todays carbs I presume you are refering to refined/processed carbs.. ie junk food. I don't think anyone seriously thinks junk food is good for you.







How is it obvious. He didn't state what either was. You are assuming. I'm asking for clarification.

When I guesstimate 95% I am including breads, pastas, potatoes,cereals...oh and all the other more "recognisable" junk food.

Hanley

Forum becomes more frustrating by the day.

Thomas Magnum

BlueIsland wrote: »

When I guesstimate 95% I am including breads, pastas, potatoes,cereals...oh and all the other more "recognisable" junk food.

Whats wrong with potatoes?

Thud

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

When you say 95% of todays carbs I presume you are refering to refined/processed carbs.. ie junk food. I don't think anyone seriously thinks junk food is good for you.

dunno about that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Fogle

BlueIsland

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Whats wrong with potatoes?

Lots of carbs, easy to overeat on, high enough GI load.......

Mellor

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

No harm in asking questions unless you're against that?



How is it obvious. He didn't state what either was. You are assuming. I'm asking for clarification.

Of course I have no problem with questions. It wasn't actually a question by the way, but it doesn't change my issue with it.
Its intentional confrontational and aggressive posts that I think are pointless. It's becoming more and more common and frankly its irritating. His overall point was quite clear, re:carbs. I don't think your post establishing that fruit and veg were carbs was relevant. It was of course technically accurate, but I thought his point was obvious. Appeared confrontational, maybe that wasn't the case and I took you up wrong.

BlueIsland

Mellor wrote: »

Of course I have no problem with questions. It wasn't actually a question by the way, but it doesn't change my issue with it.
Its intentional confrontational and aggressive posts that I think are pointless. It's becoming more and more common and frankly its irritating. His overall point was quite clear, re:carbs. I don't think your post establishing that fruit and veg were carbs was relevant. It was of course technically accurate, but I thought his point was obvious. Appeared confrontational, maybe that wasn't the case and I took you up wrong.

You are not wrong. The poster has done has one thing. 1- question advice of other people. be more beneficial to offer "counter" advice!

metamorphosis

People - chill and llet the egos out of this thread

Posters can style their posts whatever way they want. So if someone wants top state 'veg and fruit' instead of saying 'carbs' - whats such a big deal about it?No one is dead, or sick or the world isnt ending. Let.it.be. A poster isnt here to post the way somebody else wants to read it.