Sports drinks....are they just a big con?

Cabaal

So, BBC ran this doc the other night about myths about sports products this included sports drinks. (They also covered how special running shoes etc make no actual difference)

One very amusing scene consisted of the reporter asking a scientist about low cal sports drinks....his response.....he couldn't stop laughing.

As we know people take in sports drinks to regain energy to keep on going, this energy is in the form of cals but here we now have a product with low or zero cals that is being marketed as a sports drink...its laughable.

Of course coca cola say the likes of Powerade zero is for hydration....but then so is water and its free. So the question is do YOU bother with sports drinks?

For me, I used to drink sports drinks but gave up and now all I do is drink water during running and milk after.

If its a long run of 13miles+ I'll take on gels etc but only if the sports drinks are free at an event will I even bother using them and most of the time i still opt for water anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4e85ZnVjmU

tunney

Cabaal wrote: »

So, BBC ran this doc the other night about myths about sports products this included sports drinks. (They also covered how special running shoes etc make no actual difference)

One very amusing scene consisted of the reporter asking a scientist about low cal sports drinks....his response.....he couldn't stop laughing.

As we know people take in sports drinks to regain energy to keep on going, this energy is in the form of cals but here we now have a product with low or zero cals that is being marketed as a sports drink...its laughable.

Of course coca cola say the likes of Powerade zero is for hydration....but then so is water and its free. So the question is do YOU bother with sports drinks?

For me, I used to drink sports drinks but gave up and now all I do is drink water during running and milk after.

If its a long run of 13miles+ I'll take on gels etc but only if the sports drinks are free at an event will I even bother using them and most of the time i still opt for water anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4e85ZnVjmU

One of the caveats on sports drinks was that for MOST people they are pointless. Some of the effects are valid in elite athletes.

For me I used to use them in long distance events (>8 hours) but moved to entirely gels simply because of the reduced tooth damage from gels over drinks.

Cabaal

tunney wrote: »

One of the caveats on sports drinks was that for MOST people they are pointless. Some of the effects are valid in elite athletes.

Thing is, if thats the case then why is a product that only apparently has any benefit to a very small group of people like elites so readily available in supermarkets in shops up and down the country?


On this basis along its clear its only about selling yet another sugary drink for the companys, but sure then the companys know this already

menoscemo

Cabaal wrote: »

Thing is, if thats the case then why is a product that only apparently has any benefit to a very small group of people like elites so readily available in supermarkets in shops up and down the country?


On this basis along its clear its only about selling yet another sugary drink for the companys, but sure then the companys know this already

It's called capitalism

I think that sports drinks are useful for someone running a marathon (or similar) to replace energy and electrolytes.

It's people walking 5k on a treadmill while supping a bottle of Powerade that are getting 'conned' but they are either being stupid or incredibly naive if they think the drink is doing anything for them.

ger664

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course coca cola say the likes of Powerade zero is for hydration....but then so is water and its free. So the question is do YOU bother with sports drinks?

In certain areas drinking tap water is not an option so water is not free and in the sports cap bottle is sometimes more expensive then the sweetened water in the fancy bottle.

When I was in Athens water was 50 cent per 1.5 Liter bottle, available at every street corner stall and the price was controlled.

robinph

I don't think they work in making you run faster. Getting carbs into you for an endurance event does work in enabling you to last the distance though, there are better ways of doing that than carrying a sugary drink round with you as gels are far lighter and the water to wash them down with is free and available on the side of the road.

vard

Most nutritional / enhancing type foods are flat out scams. Obviously calories are energy... but you can get a near calorie free stimulant in the form of black coffee. Not energy by definition, but it's pretty much the same effect.

I'm not bothered with any energy drinks. Most people I see using them are overweight, don't exercise and certainly don't need the extra sugar.

godtabh

What about protein shakes?

There was a thing on Matt Copper (but he wasnt presenting) saying its just expensive milk

vard

godtabh wrote: »

What about protein shakes?

There was a thing on Matt Copper (but he wasnt presenting) saying its just expensive milk

Right idea, but milk has sugar.

Protein shakes are simply a convenient way of upping your protein intake. No magic formula for anything - while I do have one from time to time, I generally prefer the satisfaction you get from real food.

For whey they've just tfound an effective way to sell the leftover egg/cheese bits that would have once been thrown away.

tunney

A statement from Torq on this:
http://www.torqfitness.co.uk/news/panorama

Well worth a read.

hardCopy

I try and avoid gels if I can as they give me awful cramps that last for days. I find Lucozade Sport easier on the tummy but it's just not practical on longer races to carry loads of liquid so use the gels sometimes.

macinalli

In the last year I've gotten into the habit of taking lucozade sport on long runs. I don't think of it as an energy drink, but I had found that when I only drank water on my long runs (>15 miles) I would have headaches for the rest of the day no matter how much water I drank. I guessed that it was a salts imbalance and tried making my own isotonic drinks, but still got the headaches. I don't like the lucozade sport (not a fan of sugary drinks) but I take it as for me it seems to work.

I would however happily ditch the stuff; any recommendations for less sugary alternatives?

MrCreosote

tunney wrote: »

A statement from Torq on this:
http://www.torqfitness.co.uk/news/panorama

Well worth a read.

They're right about the carbohydrates. Right about electrolytes.

They're wrong about dehydration and overdrinking. "Serious" dehydration isn't going to kill you or harm you in a endurance event. You'll slow down, stop even or give in to the maddening thirst well before you harm yourself. Very few of those ironman/endurance event IVs you read about are actually needed. Almost none of those finish line collapses are dehydration. The whole dehydration myth is a money-making marketing exercise.

Overdrinking has killed and hospitalised far more people in endurance events than dehydration.

BobMac104

I read that thing by nokes on the hydration issue and it was very interesting.

I didnt make a choice on the poll. but i reckon sports drinks 99% of the time are not needed or taken with no benefit to the consumer.

I agree there is a serious problem when a person can buy a 750ml bottle of lucozade sport for the same price/cheaper than a bottle of water. Most will feel they are getting a better "deal" if they buy the lucozade.

It's criminal to see kids drinking them away when they are out kicking a ball or whatever.

nerraw1111

But is water a better alternative on a 15 mile run? If you're running over two hours, my understanding is that energy drinks are of some benefit.

dna_leri

BMJ article on The Truth about Sports Drinks - here
A detailed history on the marketing of hydration.

BrokenMan

macinalli wrote: »

I would however happily ditch the stuff; any recommendations for less sugary alternatives?

If it is an electrolyte imbalance then try taking salt tablets

G-Money

I just finished watching that Panorama documentary there now. It was interesting but I wonder how many people will ditch the runners based on gait analysis and just wear one's that they find comfortable?

I liked the advice the cyclist gave when it came to what he took for energy and hydration - bread with jam and water. It reminds me of the Marathon Talk interview with Steve Jones. I think he said back in the day they wouldn't be taking these gels, and sports drinks. I also remember from Paula Radcliffe's book, her father used to run and what he took for energy was a Mars bar and Coca-Cola.

plodder

nerraw1111 wrote: »

But is water a better alternative on a 15 mile run? If you're running over two hours, my understanding is that energy drinks are of some benefit.

You're better off training lean imo. Let the body get used to burning fat, which is less likely to happen if you keep topping up with sugar. Personally, I think the only value sports drinks have is in running races (ie. not training runs) at marathon distance and longer. Though some people use them in shorter distances, I don't think there is a hard physiological need for them.

tunney

plodder wrote: »

You're better off training lean imo. Let the body get used to burning fat, which is less likely to happen if you keep topping up with sugar. Personally, I think the only value sports drinks have is in running races (ie. not training runs) at marathon distance and longer. Though some people use them in shorter distances, I don't think there is a hard physiological need for them.

What you say *sounds* good but unfortunately alot of is is cack

Physiological is not the one reason - have you seen the research into the effects of a high carbohydrate mouth wash on time to exhaustion in elite athletes?

nerraw1111

G-Money wrote: »

I liked the advice the cyclist gave when it came to what he took for energy and hydration - bread with jam and water. It reminds me of the Marathon Talk interview with Steve Jones. I think he said back in the day they wouldn't be taking these gels, and sports drinks. I also remember from Paula Radcliffe's book, her father used to run and what he took for energy was a Mars bar and Coca-Cola.

That's Grame Obree, who's a bit of a scientific wonder. He's mentioned in the TORQ link Tunney posted. Broke world records on a bike made out of a washing machine so he's a unique character.

tunney

nerraw1111 wrote: »

That's Grame Obree, who's a bit of a scientific wonder. He's mentioned in the TORQ link Tunney posted. Broke world records on a bike made out of a washing machine so he's a unique character.

Alchoholic and manic depressive. N=1 isn't worth sh1t, wouldn't have held up to the scrutiny that the BBC applied to the research used by the sports drinks companies.

nerraw1111

plodder wrote: »

You're better off training lean imo. Let the body get used to burning fat, which is less likely to happen if you keep topping up with sugar. Personally, I think the only value sports drinks have is in running races (ie. not training runs) at marathon distance and longer. Though some people use them in shorter distances, I don't think there is a hard physiological need for them.

I agree with that. Tend to only take gels in long races. The programme seems to suggest that energy drinks are only on benefit in activities lasting longer than 2 hours.

tunney

nerraw1111 wrote: »

I agree with that. Tend to only take gels in long races. The programme seems to suggest that energy drinks are only on benefit in activities lasting longer than 2 hours.

When an activity is taken in isolation.

2 hours when fully fuelled and rested.

Now say you've done 2-3 hours the day before (split in 2 sessions) and then the next day you won't have fully refueled.

(playing devils advocate here, I've done 6 hour events on water but sometimes gels are required)

plodder

tunney wrote: »

What you say *sounds* good but unfortunately alot of is is cack

which bits are cack then?

Physiological is not the one reason - have you seen the research into the effects of a high carbohydrate mouth wash on time to exhaustion in elite athletes?

I don't know what you're saying there. Presumably, a high carbohydrate mouthwash either has a psychologically beneficial effect or it doesn't, which either way, wouldn't contradict what I said.

tunguska

G-Money wrote: »

I liked the advice the cyclist gave when it came to what he took for energy and hydration - bread with jam and water.

Thats the Flying scotsman himself, Graham Obree. You should check out this biopic, great little film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472268/

Big Ears

tunney wrote: »

Alchoholic and manic depressive. N=1 isn't worth sh1t, wouldn't have held up to the scrutiny that the BBC applied to the research used by the sports drinks companies.

It's funny they used Tim Noakes as one of their main scientists aswell (the guy who couldn't stop laughing at the low-calorie sports drinks idea), as he is best know for his central governor theory, an idea which is every bit as easy to pick holes in and criticise as a low-calorie sports drinks.

Not that I'm advocating low calorie sports drinks, I don't know why anyone would bother with them unless they really liked the taste, and drank it as an alternative to low calorie soft drinks.

While the programme pointed out a lot of flaws in the research used to market sports products and the genuine benefits of many of these products, it did take a very one sided view of many things. They pretty much completely dismissed hydration and electrolyte replacement as quackery, and also protein supplements (which can be useful in athletes in weight restricted sports, to meet their protein requirements and also specifically leucine requirements without gaining excess mass).

Also as regards running shoes, yes selecting a pair that is comfortable is of prime importance, but merely saying this could encourage people to wear crappy flat footwear such as plimsolls, regularly exercising in this sort of footwear could cause someone to suffer from collapsed arches (potentially causing knee problems), or plantar fasciitis.

All in all, while it's good to make people question things they are told (particularly by companies like Glaxosmithkline) and find out what is truly beneficial, I feel there is a sense of irony in that I'm not sure this Panorama investigation would hold up to a Panorama investigation.

MrCreosote

Big Ears wrote: »

It's funny they used Tim Noakes as one of their main scientists aswell (the guy who couldn't stop laughing at the low-calorie sports drinks idea), as he is best know for his central governor theory, an idea which is every bit as easy to pick holes in and criticise as a low-calorie sports drinks.

He's best known for his drink-to-thirst theories. These have changed the advice given at most major marathons.

I'd be interested in hearing your evidence against the central governor theory though. It's pretty much the accepted theory these days.

tHE vAGGABOND

Bought the noakes book on Hydration, interesting to see what it actually says - not that I dont trust people on the interweb misquoting and journalists taking their own spin on things :pac:

BobMac104

Big Ears wrote: »

....
Also as regards running shoes, yes selecting a pair that is comfortable is of prime importance, but merely saying this could encourage people to wear crappy flat footwear such as plimsolls, regularly exercising in this sort of footwear could cause someone to suffer from collapsed arches (potentially causing knee problems), or plantar fasciitis...

:rolleyes::mad:

pc11

Joe Friel has been posting on Twitter on this recently, he's clearly a sceptic.

E.g.

• Your body knows when to sleep, breathe, sweat, eat and drink. Most athletes believe it's always wrong about the last one.
• I seriously doubt that yellow urine is always a definitive marker of excessive dehydration.
• seriously ously doubt that 2% dehydration inhibits performance.

pc11

G-Money wrote: »

I just finished watching that Panorama documentary there now. It was interesting but I wonder how many people will ditch the runners based on gait analysis and just wear one's that they find comfortable?

Surely people who do gait analysis are still ultimately guided by a shoe that feels good??!

menoscemo

pc11 wrote: »

Surely people who do gait analysis are still ultimately guided by a shoe that feels good??!

+1, anytime I have done gait analysis, I was given several shoes to try and encouraged to choose the most comfortable ones...

nerraw1111

Very good article on the "new" thinking regarding hydration and ultra running.

A runners takes the new recommendations and runs the Western States 100 miler. Goes back to the author of Waterlogged with his experience.

http://www.irunfar.com/2012/08/waterlogged-part-ii-trials-questions-and-suggestions-regarding-hydration-and-ultramarathons.html

rom

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Very good article on the "new" thinking regarding hydration and ultra running.

A runners takes the new recommendations and runs the Western States 100 miler. Goes back to the author of Waterlogged with his experience.

http://www.irunfar.com/2012/08/waterlogged-part-ii-trials-questions-and-suggestions-regarding-hydration-and-ultramarathons.html

The important thing here is that it is "A runner". People are different and have different needs. What might work for someone who can do an ultra might not work for someone doing their first 10k for example. Peoples needs change, people sweat at different rates and lose different amounts of salts etc. If the same thing worked for everyone then there would be no need for different drinks for elites at big city marathons.

robinph

Nobody should need water for running a 10km.

Unless you are taking three hours to cover the distance in which case you'd have most likely taken on water during that three hours if sat behind a desk just due to thirst.

rom

robinph wrote: »

Nobody should need water for running a 10km.

Unless you are taking three hours to cover the distance in which case you'd have most likely taken on water during that three hours if sat behind a desk just due to thirst.

You see people running 5K's clinging to water bottles or people running 10 mile races with camelbak's even though there are 3 water stations. They shouldn't need it but they think they do cause they don't pace themselves correctly.

PS: I used to do both during training.

I don't take too much liquid on board during runs, hydrate a lot beforehand and then really would want to be running a bit beyond 10k or 10 miles anyway before I'd feel the need, unless it's a muggy or hot day.

Where I notice the difference in drinks is on long hikes. Not sure if they mentioned the taste factor. After 7 or 8 hours taking in water, you just get sick of it. For long hikes I'll always bring a sugary drink, sports drink, anything, because water is just so bland, and the change of taste is a psychological boost for me anyway. In the couple of marathons I've done, I will take water, but near the end I like anything that just has a sweet taste.

Murph_D

Big Ears wrote: »

While the programme pointed out a lot of flaws in the research used to market sports products and the genuine benefits of many of these products, it did take a very one sided view of many things. They pretty much completely dismissed hydration and electrolyte replacement as quackery, and also protein supplements (which can be useful in athletes in weight restricted sports, to meet their protein requirements and also specifically leucine requirements without gaining excess mass).

Evidence to support these claims about protein supplements, please?

Big Ears

murphd77 wrote: »

Evidence to support these claims about protein supplements, please?

Well in relation to weight related sports, it's logical that a protein supplement which is relatively low in energy intake and fat content when compared to nuts for example (or insert other useful source of protein here) may prove useful for helping to achieve a certain protein consumption without consuming an excessive amount of calories.

In terms of Leucine, it's certainly not concrete that a focus on leucine consumption above other amino acids is required or that supplementation is necessary for an athlete to achieve required amounts of leucine, but an argument for why an athlete may undertake leucine supplementation or protein supplementation in general is presented in this review article http://www.kriswragg.co.uk/pdf/9898.pdf.

I will admit that most of the research I've read on recommended leucine intake and leucine supplementation is 8+ years old so quite dated, it's not an area I specialise my attention in. So if you've good quality articles that are more recent I'd be eager to see them no matter which side of the argument they fall on.

I'm not heavily in the pro supplementation camp by any means, and I do question myself the absorption rate of processed supplements like whey protein. But I don't think it's fair of the programme to dismiss them simply as an 'expensive way to get a bit of milk', especially when as pointed out (it was either here or somewhere else on boards) that to get the same protein intake from milk would actually be more expensive.