New York Times article on carbs and proteins

I obviously posted this to see what kind of reaction I'd get...or if I'd get one at all. I have my answer...

First of all...these are VERY well-respected researchers...and if you want to plug their names into Pubmed, you'll have plenty of sports nutrition research to mill over. That said, another prominent sports nutrition researcher and one of the elected officials of the NSCA did argue that this article is somewhat one-sided, and he mentioned that he will be writing a rebuttal in a different publication.

A few points....

There are plenty of researchers that advocate nutrient timing...two of the most prominent being John Ivy and Robert Portman, the authors of the book Nutrient Timing. Tipton, Wolfe, Kreider and many others also advocate it...and even those in the article are aware of the supportive research, no doubt.

The issue with the carb to protein ratio is important...
The article mentions that a specific ratio isn't really needed...and this may be true to a degree. The research actually supports ratios of 2:1 all the way to 10:1 of carbs to protein, and I've posted this in a blog before. I would argue that several supplement companies and researchers keyed in on the well-known 4:1 ratio because it isn't too high (for the carb-phobic bodybuilding crowd) nor too low for the endurance crowd (and their glycogen replenishment needs).

The other important issue is that carbs and proteins are actually addressed separately in this article. The researchers discuss the fact that only protein is needed to diminish muscle catabolism and switch the body into an anabolic state, which is absolutely true. They also point out that carbs are needed for glycogen replenishment, but unfortunately they don't point out that it's natural for athletes and exercisers to want to accomplish both of these goals simutaneously. Hence the carb:protein ratio in the first place. This is a critical point that was missed in the article...

I do think the overwhelming theme of the article is solid. In other words, can you replenish glycogen with some fiber-containing whole grain...absolutely. Can you stimulate muscle protein synthesis with traditional protein sources from food...of course!! Their point seemed to be this: If you're a casual exerciser and you want to accomplish both goals, how much more effective will simple sugars and whey protein be compared to traditional foods? The answer is probably not all that much...

Since I started working with Jamo, I've been telling people that 40-60 grams of protein is simply not needed post-workout. Tipton and Wolfe did the cardinal study that showed 6 gms of essential amino acids was effective in stimulating muscle protein synthesis, which is where the 15 gram recommendation comes from (a complete protein has roughly 37% essential amino acids). Excessive protein, especially in the face of inadequate carb, will most likely be converted into sugar. By the way, it takes an additonal 16 grams of protein daily to gain 1 pound of muscle over the course of a week...that's it!!!!

Again, why is chocolate milk just as effective as leading sports nutrition beverages when it comes to stimulating muscle protein synthesis and general recovery, despite the high concentration of slower-acting casein protein in milk?? Maybe because the specific type of protein doesn't matter quite as much as we thought...the needed amino acids are present after all. The difference in digestive timing isn't great enough to cause a significant delay in recovery...
And why does one of my fellow colleagues, and a nationally-known sports nutritionist herself, eat cold pizza before every marathon she runs?? It works for her...her time puts most to shame, but would we consider pizza a performance food? Probably not, but it does have carb, protein and fat...

I don't think we want to be in the business of telling people that you can't reach your goals in an "optimal" fashion without your maltodextrin/ whey protein combo...

Do I think nutrient timing is valid...yes, we have some good research. Do I recommend some recovery beverages...yes, for several of my clients. Do I use them myself...not currently. Do I optimally recover and get to my fitness and physique goals...yes. The point here, which was made in the article, is that "Avergae Joe's" don't necessarily need to overanalyze their nutrition...especially when they'll just be doing another 45-minute workout the next day....and there's 23 hours to recover until that time comes.

And Stevers...your last point really hit the nail on the head. These aren't guys that care about their physiques per se...that's not the focus for these guys. That said, several of them are ELITE athletes (well defined and strong).

And Dr. Clair....sugar is not something that all individuals need to avoid. Fruit juice and bagels can fit into an active individual's diet plan.

Thanks for the dialogue fellas...

B

Brian Zehetner MS,RD,CSSD,CSCS
JamCore and Myfittribe "Nutrition Guy"

The most obvious declaration I see in these articles is always "everyone is different", but I don't think readers often understand the magnitude of this statement. Two people with the same body composition, height, weight, muscle mass, activity levels and lifestyles may have two totally different reactions to different types of diets. Metabolic processes can vary wildly from individual to individual. Genetics can play a huge role in determining even the simplest things related to metabolism. Even intestinal flora can assist or inhibit digestion of certain chemicals and food components. Allergies can disrupt absorption of certain nutrients. Too much zinc can compete with copper absorption (which is a co-factor for certain enzymes). Too much vitamin D can raise blood levels of calcium. Gastric emptying rates vary from individual to individual. There are literally thousands of factors affecting metabolism and digestion.

Personally, I think that on an individualized basis, even with all of our knowledge, we have very scientific evidence to support many of the common practices that athletes follow. Even the old adage of 8 glasses of water a day was misinterpreted over the years. Few people realize that the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council recommended that people get 1ml of water per calorie of food intake (which works out to an average of 8 glasses a day for many people) but followed it up with the statement that "most of this quantity is contained in prepared foods". One of the top researchers in this field rejects the claim that *everyone* should drink 8 glasses of water a day, and he debunks a lot of other myths that people claim as gospel. Click Here for the Article

Most health agencies claim the maximum safe dose of vitamin D is 2000 IU a day, but a top researcher in the field was quoted here saying he takes 4000IU a day and thinks there is nothing wrong with that (he's been studying vitamin D for 30 years). So who's right?

I think it's important for everyone, including athletes to be critical thinkers and reevaluate their thinking from time to time. And to educate themselves as much as possible. I see so many people chugging back 200 grams of protein in a day even though they only weigh 180lbs and workout 45 mins a day. Do they know for sure if all that protein is actually being synthesized? Odds are it isn't. But to be fair, there is no practical way to tell EXACTLY how much protein you need, or what your serum levels of creatine are or how much glycogen is stored in your tissues or if you are in a positive nitrogen balance or what your cortisol levels are... the list goes on and on and on.

In the future, metabolomics and metabonomics will provide "real" answers to most of these questions. Until then I think everyone has to make their own decisions and educate themselves as much as possible. And I like to abide by a variation of the Precautionary Principle, insofar as there should be a burden of proof on those that condone an action when there is a possibility that action could cause harm or unknown consequences.

I also like to make my own judgments using performance based feedback. And to evaluate whether the claim the manufacturer makes produces the expected outcome on a repeatable basis. And sometimes people need to ask themselves if some of those claims even make sense!

that you don't have to eat specific recovery supplements to attain good results with your training and workouts. I do think you can get what you need from regular, healthy foods. I don't think, though, suggesting that drinking sugar water in the form of fruit juice, and eating sugar in the form of a bagel is a good practice for anyone, including in particular, athletes. Those who train hard have greater requirements for the vitamins and minerals missing from this sort of diet. This type of example reminds me of many doctors who counsel on health while being 30 pounds or more overweight.
Darren Clair, MD
Vibrance Health Services

the idea of getting away from some of these ridiculous supplements that are designed to "increase" performance over food is one I endorse. Stever brings up some good points - but I was never a proponent of the "one diet fits all" approach either - and in this case it's the "one post-workout eating strategy fits all".

I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water on this one --

Upon finishing this article, if I were not already biased in some of my knowledge I would be lead to believe that I can eat whenever I want during the 'following 24 hours' .

The amount of protein and carbs a body needs makes sense, but I did not like this article much at all. THe only thing I got from it was how during exericse your body is in a different state. I read / heard somewhere about the notion that you should wait about 15 minutes following your exercise to drink your shake, and the logical reasoning behind it was so your body has time to switch over from 'catabolism' to 'anabolism', which to me makes sense and they briefly discussed that in the article. Other than that, I dont see how anyone could possibly think that nutrient timing isnt important.

TO me, the proof's in the pudding. What you eat and when you eat it is what has given me more and faster results than most of the other people in my gym (I feel at least...) I mean I do bust my ass harder than anyone else that I see (save for a few), but I dont think that its really my ability to break down my muscles further than them that has given me the edge. I truly feel its nutrition and timing.

Again, this article really bugged me for some reason, and as soon as I finish posting this comment i'm going to pretend i never read it ><. Or at least disbar it.

Also, at the very end of the article, they mention that 'possibly nutrient timing is important for the superathlete only' but the regular joes and janes its not. Well I can agree with that only to the extend that the regular j's probably are not giving half the effort in the gym and to their diet as the superathletes, so they dont require nearly as much nutrition to repair.
But again, the article doesnt mention this until close to the end, so you dont know what audience it's targetting until you're done reading it. I'd like to see the physiques of these doctor's that are making these claims.

"Obsession is a term the lazy use to describe the dedicated" - Anon.
"Shoot for the stars, you might just reach the sky" - Unknown

Great info to consider when designing an exercise program & diet. It's always good to get several opinions on the same subject. Thanks Brian.