anybody else going to watch Panorama tomorrow?

Nexus said:
I think they were referring to supplements in general there and I personally think he is right.

Just look at the sponsorship that sports drinks put into athletes and sporting events.

Secondly if you look at sports/fitness magazines and gyms they are all advertising and selling supplements.

I've seen loads of people down the gym who are using all kinds of the supplements they sell (and Im not talking just whey) and yet they aren't really doing body building or serious athletes. Its because they've been convinced by the gym and marketing that they should be. There are certainly a lot of young guys at the gym I use who seem to love showing off that they are taking supplements.
Click to expand...

This, I've done a fair amount of weight lifting (strength based) and I don't touch any of that ****. It seems that people tend to look at it as magic power when in reality it's intended to be a supplement to your diet, and that's it.

A friend of mine once tried to convince me (and he wasn't winding me up) that he got rid of a cold in a day by drinking protein shakes.

The commercial aspect is most definitely why they're pushed so hard as being "necessary". They are extremely high profit. They're a great convenience for people who can't sit down to a protein rich meal due to work commitments and all that, but they are in no way a replacement to a good diet, which is how people seem to be using them.
 
Apparently they found only creatine and caffeine increase performance. Protein powder is much cheaper than the amount of food I'd have to buy to get that much protein.
 
Just watched it, I think I pretty much fully endorse practically everything said there, especially about BCAAs, caffeine and creatine.

I would've liked a bit more of a balanced discussion though, but ultimately they at least fell on the right side of the discussion.

I can't really understand people that get upset by this sort of information - they should be relieved that this doesn't have to be as expensive and complicated as it's made out to be. I suppose embarrassment? Or a misguided genuine belief?
 
Jakeee said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293


This guy clearly has not done his research and later goes on to describing it as expensive milk, it is clearly a one-sided assessment and does not look into the other factors such as the speed of absorption and the anabolic signaling effect of leucine.
Click to expand...

It was a bit one sided. But how exactly do you think rate of amino acid absorption effects... well anything?
 
Kimi said:
I've not watched it yet but basically they say we don't need protein shakes anymore?
Click to expand...

Didn't even say that. Basically seemed to be an excuse for the presenter to go on jollies round the world. Synopsis;
Sports drinks have sugar in (!) and are useless if you're just doing a workout. Despite repeatedly referencing marathon runners the programme provided no information about their use in that area except to say that if you drink too much water you can get water intoxication and you'd probably do the same with too much sports drinks.
Wearing prescribed running shoes for your foot "type" appears to make little difference to injury rates, barefoot running might be better for you (as they show a little graph of impact forces from the presenter running) but they're not really sure as no one has done enough good quality research yet. There was also a little tirade against barefoot shoes (with no good justification).
On supplements, I know you'll be surprised, but those flashy tubs of powders in H&B that makes claims about how super pumped and strong you'll get if you use them, there's no evidence to support those claims. Not that many people took them seriously anyway. There was nothing said about the efficacy of using protein powders in general except that it was possible to obtain the same nutrition through diet, completely missing the point of why most people take them.

In summary; advertising claims for many sports products don't have good/any scientific evidence to back them up (except caffeine and creatine apparently), or they're advertised at people who will not benefit from them. It was a pretty poor programme really IMO.
 
bam0 said:
Didn't even say that. Basically seemed to be an excuse for the presenter to go on jollies round the world. Synopsis;
Sports drinks have sugar in (!) and are useless if you're just doing a workout. Despite repeatedly referencing marathon runners the programme provided no information about their use in that area except to say that if you drink too much water you can get water intoxication and you'd probably do the same with too much sports drinks.
Wearing prescribed running shoes for your foot "type" appears to make little difference to injury rates, barefoot running might be better for you (as they show a little graph of impact forces from the presenter running) but they're not really sure as no one has done enough good quality research yet. There was also a little tirade against barefoot shoes (with no good justification).
On supplements, I know you'll be surprised, but those flashy tubs of powders in H&B that makes claims about how super pumped and strong you'll get if you use them, there's no evidence to support those claims. Not that many people took them seriously anyway. There was nothing said about the efficacy of using protein powders in general except that it was possible to obtain the same nutrition through diet, completely missing the point of why most people take them.

In summary; advertising claims for many sports products don't have good/any scientific evidence to back them up (except caffeine and creatine apparently), or they're advertised at people who will not benefit from them. It was a pretty poor programme really IMO.
Click to expand...

This is basically a perfect summary. There was about 50minutes on hydration and running (sports drinks and shoes) and then about 10 on muscle building supplements. There was a single sentence on creatine where they basically said "in fact, we only found scientific evidence to support two nutrients, caffiene and creatine." Entertaining but nothing new.
 
The funny thing is caffeine and creatine are the only 2 things I've took where I can physically feel/see a difference. Caffeine tablets made me much more alert and awake and creatine helped size and strength gains after just 1 cycle.
 
I actually thought that probably the most telling part of the Panroama investigation was the bit with the young kids at a school football match who all had sports drinks at half-time.

When they interviewed the kids they said things like:

"Well all the professionals drink them, so they must be good".

"I like the taste of the berry one, so I drink that".

When you look at all the marketing and the likes of Wayne Rooney being used to advertise Powerade, you can see how it works on children who aren't informed enough to see it otherwise.

The guy who explained about hydration was also quite interesting to listen to, as he explained that its not as necessary as they try to make out. His response on low calorie sports drinks was certainly funny.

When I was in School playing Football and Rugby we got orange slices at half-time in a match. You could have a sip of water from a water fountain after the game in the changing room.

Its a far cry from kids today having to be hydrated with high energy sports drinks.
 
I actually thought that probably the most telling part of the Panroama investigation was the bit with the young kids at a school football match who all had sports drinks at half-time.

When they interviewed the kids they said things like:

"Well all the professionals drink them, so they must be good".
Click to expand...
This is also the mindset for the adult population, so in this resepect it is no different from that of the kids. The same for particular brands of protein endorsed by professional bodybuilders- and so on.
 
ethan said:
This is also the mindset for the adult population, so in this resepect it is no different from that of the kids. The same for particular brands of protein endorsed by professional bodybuilders- and so on.
Click to expand...

Of course. My point was that kids though don't have the intelligence yet to be able to make an informed decision of their own, they are even more influenced by advertising than adults.
 
Septym said:
Protein powder obviously aids recovery but I think their point was it can be replaced by good quality high protein foods.
Click to expand...

It can, but even for those of us who're aware supplements are just that, they offer an advantage in financial terms. In an ideal world I could afford buy enough meat/fish to hit my protein targets (I'll ignore say, quark, which I eat, because I couldn't have it with every meal), but food is expensive.

A very quick guesstimate =
40g of MP Impact Whey is about 26p p/day
Tin of tuna from a 4 pack on special offer (half-price) is 87p p/day for 25g.

I just see whey the same as I see oats - they're a cheap, basic high carb source - whey is just a cheap, basic protein source. It'd get pretty boring eating just whey and oats though, which is why most people here will use them as part of their overall diet.

This price-gap obviously narrows significantly if you're buying stupidly priced, overly elaborate powders though, in which case yes, if you're buying them instead of food, then you should be buying food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom