Are you taking in enough protein? Too much? At the right times?

Protein is the only macronutrient left with generally positive associations. Fat has been considered “bad” for decades. Whose idea was it to call it fat, anyway? That’s bad marketing. The truth is, there’s nothing inherently wrong with fat. It’s just that most of eat too much of it, or too much of certain kinds of it.

Carbohydrate was generally regarded as a good nutrient until Robert Atkins came along and ruined it. The low-carb craze may be long gone, but Atkins casts a long shadow. The current popularity of the Paleo Diet among endurance athletes is very much an Atkins aftershock. The reputation of carbohydrate may never be fully rehabilitated.

This leaves protein, as I’ve suggested, as the lone unsullied macronutrient. Which is ironic, because humans require much less protein than they do carbs and fat, and protein consumption becomes “too much” at lower levels than carbohydrate and fat intake.

RELATED: Nutrient Timing Is Everything For Runners

There are, of course, protein zealots out there who believe that more is better, with no point of diminishing returns. The notion that massive amounts of protein intake are required to maximize muscle size and strength is an article of faith among the weightlifting crowd. Science clearly shows otherwise. The muscle-bound actually require less protein than the average person because their bodies are so adept at retaining the gigantic protein reserves already inside their bodies.

According to the World Health Organization, humans need to get only 10 percent of their daily calories from protein to maintain health. There is reason to believe that  runners may need more, however, because running breaks down muscle proteins and damages muscle fibers, and protein is needed for the muscles to recover from the daily onslaught of training. But a study of the diet of elite Kenyan runners found that they got only 10 percent of their daily calories from protein. Given their running performance, it would be difficult to argue that this wasn’t enough.

Such numbers are deceptive, though. It is more helpful to think of protein needs in terms of amounts of protein relative to body weight instead of protein as a percentage of daily calories. That’s because running increases total energy—carbohydrate, fat, and protein—needs. So you may get 10 percent of your daily calories as a non-runner and then continue to get 10 percent of your daily calories as a runner, but you’re eating more protein as a runner, because you’re eating more total calories.

So, how much protein do you need as an amount relative to your body weight? If you train lightly, 0.5 gram per pound of body weight should do; 0.8 gram per pound of body weight may be needed if you run a lot of miles.

RELATED: Don’t Play The Nutritional Numbers Game

You can eat substantially more protein without any harm, and with some potential benefits. Studies have shown that athletes trying to shed excess body fat do so more successfully on high-protein diets where 30 percent of daily calories come from protein, especially when weightlifting is added to the training mix. When calorie restriction is combined with increased protein intake and weightlifting, all weight loss is fat loss, whereas when calories are reduced alone, less fat is lost along with more lean body mass.

There is also some evidence that very high protein intakes help endurance athletes absorb heavy training loads. For example, a study at the University of Birmingham, England, found that cycling time trial performance was reduced less after a period of intensified training when cyclists increased their protein intake to 1.36 grams per pound of body weight at the start of that heavy training block instead of leaving it at 0.68 g/lb.

In short, there seems to be no magic sweet spot of protein intake that every runner has to hit on the nose every day. More important than the amount of protein consumed is the timing of protein intake. Numerous studies have demonstrated that exercise-induced muscle damage is reduced when protein is consumed immediately before and during workouts and that muscle repair proceeds most rapidly when protein is consumed immediately after workouts. You still don’t need a lot of protein, though. About 15 grams of protein per hour during exercise will suffice, while a total of 20 grams of protein in the first hour after exercise is as much as the body can use for immediate recovery.

****

About The Author:

Matt Fitzgerald is the author of numerous books, including Racing Weight: How To Get Lean For Peak Performance (VeloPress, 2012). He is also a Training Intelligence Specialist for PEAR Sports. To learn more about Matt visit www.mattfitzgerald.org.  

The post Protein Intake And Performance For Runners appeared first on Competitor.com.

Don’t let fluid follies slow you down.

Every runner knows that hydration is a vital component of performance. At no time is hydration more important to running performance than on race day. Yet race-day hydration mistakes are all too common. Here are the six most common race-day mistakes made by runners and how to avoid making them.

MORE: The 48-Hour Pre-Race Countdown

1. Drinking Too Much Before The Race

Some runners think they’re camels. They guzzle water or sports drinks before the start of a race on the assumption that they can store extra water in their bodies and thereby minimize dehydration during the race. But the human body is not designed to do this. Any fluid you consume beyond the amount required to attain normal hydration status will only wind up in your bladder, increasing the likelihood of time-wasting pit stops.

On race morning, drink just enough to satisfy your thirst and don’t drink anything in the last 45 minutes before the gun goes off.

2. Drinking Too Much During The Race

For decades, runners were taught that any amount of dehydration had a negative effect on performance and increased the risk for exertional heat illness, and were told to “drink as much as possible” to completely prevent dehydration. However, the human body was not designed to absorb large amounts of fluid during running. The jostling of the stomach that occurs on the run causes GI distress in runners who try to force down fluid.

RELATED–Running 101: Race Fueling Made Simple

What’s more, research has consistently shown that runners perform no worse and have no greater risk for heat illness when they simply drink according to their thirst, even though this typically results in only 65-70 percent replacement of sweat losses. While it is important to drink as often and as much as your thirst dictates during races, it’s a bad idea to drink more.

3. Carrying Your Own Drinks

Have you ever seen a runner win a marathon with a drink belt around his or her waist or a fluid bladder on his or her back? No, and you never will, because it’s a terrible idea. Fluid weighs a lot, and extra weight slows a runner down dramatically. Every running event worth participating in provides adequate drinks at aid stations. Use them. Even if the sports drink offered is not your favorite, you will almost certainly perform better by drinking it than you will by schlepping your own preferred beverage.

4. Using A Sports Drink You’ve Never Used Before

Some runners have cast-iron stomachs and can drink almost anything in races. Others have more sensitive stomachs and find that they tolerate some sports drinks better than others. If you are among the latter group, don’t risk finding out the hard way that your stomach can’t tolerate the sports drink available in an important race. Find out what it is and try it in training first.

RELATED–Quick Hydration: Electrolyte Tablet Review

What should you do if that sports drink upsets your stomach? Your next step is to give it another chance or two and see if it doesn’t become more tolerable over time. This does happen sometimes. If familiarization doesn’t help, then carry gel packets during the race and use them to get the carbs and electrolytes you need. Wash your gels down with water at aid stations to hydrate.

5. Using Caffeine Without A Prior Caffeine Fast

Caffeine boosts endurance performance by affecting brain chemistry in a way that lowers perceived exertion, or how hard it feels to run at a given pace. But it only works in those who are non-habituated to caffeine. If you’re a regular coffee drinker or user of caffeine in other forms, you must go caffeine-free for at least a week before a race to enjoy the performance-enhancing effect of taking caffeine on race morning.

MORE: The Performance-Enhancing Power Of Caffeine

6. Drinking In Race That Last Less Than An Hour

Studies have shown that consuming fluid during race-type efforts does not enhance performance unless the effort lasts longer than about an hour, and in some cases the threshold is as high as 90 minutes. Yet runners routinely drink in 10Ks and other shorter events that they can easily complete in an hour or less. Doing so will only slow you down.

The post Six Hydration Mistakes To Avoid On Race Day appeared first on Competitor.com.

This piece first appeared in the September issue of Competitor Magazine.

If you’re only focused on race-day nutrition, you’re missing the big picture, says Littleton, Colo.-based Bob Seebohar, the personal sport dietitian for the 2008 Olympic Triathlon Team and author of “Nutrition Periodization for Athletes: Taking Traditional Sports Nutrition to the Next Level.”

“You have specific physiological goals associated with each training cycle, such as increasing endurance, speed, strength and power, and improving technique, tactics and economy,” Seebohar said. “You should have specific nutrition goals as well.”

Those goals might include losing or gaining weight, losing body fat and increasing lean muscle mass, reducing inflammation and improving overall health. To achieve your goals, Seebohar recommends periodizing your nutrition plan just as you would your training.

“Look at your nutrition as a function of your energy expenditure and physical goals associated with each training cycle to guide your nutritional choices,” Seebohar said.

Seebohar shares five tips for fueling during your competitive season, when you have the highest energy expenditure needs.

The post Five Tips For Training Your Tummy appeared first on Competitor.com.

Gorging on carbs before a race may not be as necessary as you think.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Runners seldom hit the proverbial wall—that is, fall dramatically off their original pace toward the end of a race—in races of the half-marathon distance and less. But it happens all the time in marathons. Why? The prevailing belief has been that the wall occurs when a runner depletes his or her very limited reserves of glycogen, a carbohydrate-based fuel source for muscle contractions. The body stores plenty of glycogen to get through shorter races, but not always enough to deliver runners to the finish line of a marathon, especially if their pace is too aggressive.

This general explanation for the phenomenon of the wall in marathon running has stood up fairly well to scientific scrutiny. However, some runners hit the wall earlier than others, and some don’t hit it at all. Also, among those runners who escape the wall, some are able to do some at much faster paces than others. Obviously, then, glycogen depletion is a highly individual matter. Given this reality, what are the specific factors that determine the risk of glycogen depletion in marathons? And how can these factors be used to predict glycogen depletion for the individual runner and thereby help him or her choose a marathon pace that will avoid the dreaded wall?

More from Competitor.com: The Evolving Art Of Carbo-Loading

Benjamin Rapoport of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently asked himself these questions and answered them by creating a mathematical model. He found that the primary factors that determine how fast and how far a runner can run before glycogen depletion occurs are 1) aerobic capacity (or VO2max), 2) the mass of the runner’s leg musculature relative to the mass of the rest of the body, and 3) the concentration of glycogen stores in the leg muscles and liver.

1)   The higher an athlete’s aerobic capacity is, the faster he can cover 26.2 miles, provided he has adequate glycogen stores.

2)   The larger the athlete’s leg muscles are relative to his full body mass, the higher will be the percentage of his VO2max that he can sustain for 26.2 miles, because a lower body mass means a lower energy cost of running and bigger leg muscles mean more room to store glycogen.

3)   And, obviously, more concentrated glycogen stores in the legs and liver increase the runner’s absolute endurance range. Training greatly increases carbohydrate storage capacity. Carbohydrate loading enables runners to exploit that full capacity.

The formulas that Rapoport made on the basis of these rules yields some interesting insights. For example, it helps to explain why an even pacing strategy is the best way to avoid the wall and complete a marathon in the shortest time. It turns out you use up your glycogen stores faster if your pace fluctuates above and below a certain average than if your pace holds steady at that average. Another interesting finding is that, theoretically, some runners do not need to carbo-load to avoid the wall in marathons. They are able to store enough glycogen to go the full 26.2 miles at their maximum sustainable speed on any given day. Carbo-loading will only give them extra reserves that they will never use. Rapoport’s model can also be used to determine how much supplemental carbohydrate an individual runner must consume during a marathon to “push back the wall” to the finish line at a desired average pace.

Video–Eat & Run: Carbo-Loading Made Easy

But carbo loading may not even be necessary always for runners who theoretically can’t store enough glycogen to fuel an entire marathon. One reason is the taper effect. The amount of glycogen stored in a runner’s body is not only a function of how much carbohydrate he eats. It’s also a function of how much he runs relative to what is normal for that person. If a runner sharply reduces his mileage, as he normally would in a pre-marathon taper, then the amount of carbohydrate his muscles burn daily will also sharply decrease. This will cause glycogen stores to increase without any change in the diet. A 1992 study at McMaster University reported that a seven-day taper increased glycogen stores in middle-distance runners significantly and also resulted in a 22 percent increase in running time to exhaustion. Diet was not manipulated in this study.

A second reason carbo loading may be unnecessary is that carbs consumed during races tend to minimize the importance of initial muscle and liver glycogen levels. In a 1993 study, researchers at Ball State University had athletes perform a long time trial with either high or low initial glycogen levels and either with or without carbohydrate intake during the time trial. They found that the athletes performed just as well when they started with low glycogen levels and consumed carbs during it than when they started with high glycogen levels and did not consume carbs. What’s more, the athletes didn’t perform any better when they started with high glycogen levels and consumed carbs during the time trial.

For certain athletes in certain races, carbo loading certainly can make a difference even with a pre-race taper and carbohydrate consumption during the event. Therefore, I think it’s a good idea for runners to go ahead and carbo load before longer races as a kind of insurance. If there’s a 5 percent chance it can help and a 0 percent chance it will hurt, then it’s worth it.

****

Matt Fitzgerald is the author of Iron War: Dave Scott, Mark Allen & The Greatest Race Ever Run (VeloPress 2011) and a Coach and Training Intelligence Specialist for PEAR Sports. Find out more at mattfizgerald.org.

The post Do You Need To Carbo-Load? appeared first on Competitor.com.

Never assume that your diet is already good enough.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once famously said the following: “There are known knowns; there things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns—that is to say we know there are some things we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the things we don’t know we don’t know.”

This statement is famous not for its poetry but for its convolution, but the point that Rumsfeld was trying to make was pretty simple: The things you don’t know you don’t know are more dangerous than the things you do know you don’t know.

This principle applies to the domain of sports nutrition as much as it does to any other domain. Consider the specific example of carbohydrate intake. It’s better to know that you don’t know whether you’re getting enough carbohydrate in your diet than to have no clue that you’re not getting enough. If you are aware that a diet with inadequate carbohydrate hampers training, and you are aware that your diet may lack sufficient carbohydrate, all you have to do to ensure that lack of carbohydrate does not hamper your future training is find out how much carbohydrate you should be eating, calculate your current level of habitual carbohydrate consumption, and make an adjustment if necessary. But if the thought never even crosses your mind that you might not be getting enough carbs, you are likely to continue to train with suboptimal results without ever realizing it.

Wait: without ever realizing it? Yes. There is a tendency to assume that problems in an athlete’s diet always manifest themselves in obvious ways: injuries, anemia, overtraining syndrome, etc. But this is not always the case. Some diet problems can simply cause you to get a little less benefit from your training than you would otherwise get. You still get fitter, and you still feel good overall, but you don’t know that you could perform even better if your diet were fixed.

This truth was demonstrated in a recent study conducted by researchers at Australia’s Charles Sturt University. Ten healthy male volunteers participated in a two-day intervention. On day one the subjects performed a long workout designed to deplete their muscle glycogen stores. That same evening, they were fed either a high-carbohydrate meal to replenish their muscle glycogen stores or a low-carbohydrate meal to keep those stores low. But the subjects were not aware that their meals were being manipulated in this fashion.

The following day the subjects completed another workout. This one was a 60-minute run that included a 15-meter sprint every minute. The subjects who had been fed a low-carbohydrate meal unknowingly started this workout with almost 47 percent less glycogen (i.e. fuel) in their muscles than those who had been fed the high-carb meal. They also covered 4.9 percent less total distance in the 60-minute run and 8.1 percent less distance in the sprint segments of the workout.

In addition to measuring performance, the scientists overseeing the study took ratings of perceived exertion from the subjects as they performed the workout. Interestingly, those ratings were the same between the two groups. Even though they were getting their butts kicked, the glycogen-depleted subjects felt that the workout was no harder for them than the glycogen-replenished subjects felt it was for themselves. In other words, the glycogen-depleted subjects had no idea their performance was being compromised by their diet.

If the design of this study had been a little different, such that the subjects were forced to try to cover just as much distance in a glycogen-depleted state as they had covered previously in the same workout performed in a glycogen-replenished state, it would have been a different story. In that case the subjects would have found it much harder to match their previous numbers and would have ultimately failed in the effort. But the workouts in this study were self-paced. Free to regulate their running pace by feel, both the glycogen-depleted and the glycogen-replenished groups chose the same level of perceived effort. But because the glycogen-depleted athletes had only half as much fuel to work with, the same level of perceived effort was associated with a much lower level of performance.

This is how a poor diet can compromise your training without your ever realizing it. What’s the solution? Don’t assume your diet is good enough. Always be on the lookout for ways to improve how you fuel your body. Also consistently measure your performance in training so that you have a basis to determine whether a particular changes helps or not. If a dietary change has no effect, so be it. But if does—well then, you now know what you didn’t know.

****

About The Author:

Matt Fitzgerald is the author of Iron War: Dave Scott, Mark Allen & The Greatest Race Ever Run (VeloPress 2011) and a Coach and Training Intelligence Specialist for PEAR Sports. Find out more at mattfizgerald.org.

The post Is Your Diet Holding You Back Invisibly? appeared first on Competitor.com.

The jury’s still out.

Written by: Matt Fitzgerald

The average American gets 17 percent of his or her daily calories from sugar.

Sugar is not inherently bad, but it’s easy to eat too much of it, and most Americans eat too much sugar. In fact, the average American gets 17 percent of his or her daily calories from sugar. The problem with eating so much sugar is that sugar provides a lot of calories without a lot of satiety. You can easily consume several hundred calories of sugar in one sitting and still be hungry afterward. For this reason, sugar promotes fat accumulation more than any other nutrient.

Nearly half of the sugar that the average person eats comes from beverages including energy drinks, sodas, and coffee drinks. Zero-calorie artificial sweeteners such as aspartame were created to help people reduce the number of calories they consume in beverages. But do they really work? That depends on how we define “work”. If working means simply reducing the number of calories consumed in beverages, then of course zero-calorie artificial sweeteners work. One 12-ounce can of Pepsi contains 150 calories, all of which come from sugar. A 12-ounce can of Diet Pepsi, sweetened with aspartame, contains zero calories. But if working means helping people consume fewer calories overall in their diet, lose excess body fat, and maintain a healthy body weight—well, that’s not so clear.

Related Content: Should You Be Concerned About The Calories In Sports Drinks?

A new scientific review of past studies on the effects of artificial sweeteners sought to determine whether they work in this second sense of not. The authors of the review analyzed the results of 53 studies involving 1,126 participants. Two of these studies compared the effects of including beverages containing sucrose sugar in the diet and substituting these with non-caloric alternatives on total daily energy intake. They found that subjects consuming the drinks sweetened artificially consumed 250 to 500 fewer total calories throughout the course of the day. Another study compared the effects of sucrose-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages on body mass index over a period of several weeks. This study found that BMI was slightly reduced by a switch to noncaloric beverages, while drinking sugary beverages produced a slight increase in BMI.

It’s not a lot of evidence, but it does seem to favor the idea that drinking beverages sweetened with zero-calorie sugar alternatives reduces total daily caloric intake and helps promote a healthier bodyweight. However, there is a big difference between the clinical environment in which the above-described studies were conducted and the real world. Epidemiological studies in which large numbers of people have been surveyed about their diet and also placed upon scales and weighed have found that people who consume diet soft drinks regularly are just as fat as people who consume regular soft drinks and are fatter than people who consume neither sugar-sweetened nor artificially sweetened soft drinks.

More from Competitor.com: The Other Benefits Of Sports Drinks

There are a couple of theories to explain this observation. One is that people who drink soft drinks tend to have bad overall diets. So it’s not the diet soft drinks per se that are responsible for fattening those who drink them but the association of these drinks with other foods in the diet. In other words, people who drink diet soft drinks are more likely to eat potato chips than people who avoid all soft drinks. A second theory is that artificial sweeteners promote weight gain by tricking the brain into increasing appetite.

So, where does this leave us? Clearly, the best thing we can do to control our bodyweight is avoid both sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened drinks altogether. But what about the person who is currently somewhat dependent on regular consumption of sugary drinks and is considering replacing them with zero-calorie alternatives? The most we can tell this person is that making the switch can’t hurt and it might help a bit, but one shouldn’t expect too much from the change. Better results are likely to come from an outright reduction in the consumption of sweet-tasting drinks and an effort to clean up the rest of one’s diet.

****

Matt Fitzgerald is the author of Iron War: Dave Scott, Mark Allen & The Greatest Race Ever Run (VeloPress 2011) and a Coach and Training Intelligence Specialist for PEAR Sports.

The post Artificial Sweeteners: Better Than Sugar? appeared first on Competitor.com.

Photo: Scott Draper/Competitor

This piece first appeared in the October issue of Competitor Magazine.

Written by: Mackenzie Lobby

As an athlete, you’re always looking for that extra edge. In this eat-on-the run, hustle and bustle world, however, good nutrition is one of those potential advantages that often falls to the wayside. Fortunately, there is a simple, once-a-day ritual that can help fill some of those dietary gaps: the multivitamin.

“Multivitamins cannot replace a healthy eating plan, but they can serve as an insurance policy,” said Jane Pentz Ph.D., of The American Academy of Sports Dietitians and Nutritionists (AASDN).

More from Competitor.com: Should You Take A Multivitamin?

Nutritionist Monique Ryan, author of “Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes,” agrees. “Supplementation should be considered in the context of your diet,” she explained. “It really is the best way to get everything you need on a daily basis.”

While the concept of multivitamins is simple and convenient, the labels that adorn their bottles are not. Prices are across the board, nutrition advice varies and the labels are nearly impossible to interpret. By arming yourself with the basic information on how to read multivitamin labels, you’ll end up with the best supplement for you.

The post Demystifying Multivitamins appeared first on Competitor.com.

This piece first appeared in the October issue of Competitor Magazine.

Written by: Wendy Wilson

Earlier this year, Americans bid farewell to the iconic Food Guide Pyramid as government officials unveiled the new-and-improved symbol of healthful eating: a color-blocked Food Guide Plate denoting proper dietary ratios of protein, fruits, vegetables, grains and dairy.

As part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s and Health and Human Service’s release of its 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americas, the plate supplanted the pyramid as an “upgraded visual to demonstrate how the general population should be eating for a healthy diet,” explained Nicole Kuhl, a certified clinical nutritionist at Life Span Medicine in Los Angeles.

That’s great for sedentary individuals or recreational athletes, but what does the Food Guide Plate represent for hard-core competitors?

It is a good place to start, Kuhl said, particularly for those training for races.

“An athlete is going to be burning through hundreds if not thousands of calories per day during training, so that’s going to increase their caloric and nutritional needs,” Kuhl said. “The Plate will give them a generally healthy diet, but it’s not going to meet the demands of really high-level training.”

The post Out With The Pyramid, In With The Plate appeared first on Competitor.com.

Written by: Shawn Talbott, PhD

Without a doubt, dietary supplements have widespread usage and appeal—to the tune of more than $25 billion in annual sales in the United States alone. Approximately 85 percent of Americans have used dietary supplements at one time or another, and more than six in 10 members of the population are regular users of supplements (using them on most days of the week). The numbers for supplement use are even higher for athletes.

Despite the large number of people currently buying and using dietary supplements, however, a huge gap often exists between the practice of supplementation and the knowledge behind those choices and usage patterns. For example, many consumers are not careful about recommended dosages for supplements—and the common assumption that “if a little is good, more is better” can pose serious health consequences.

Choosing a Supplement

In choosing dietary supplements, ask the following questions:

1.  Is it safe and legal?

2. Do the product’s claims make sense?

3. Do studies exist on the actual finished product (not the individual ingredients), and were those studies conducted in endurance athletes?

4. Was the amount of the supplement in the study the same as the recommended amount on the label?

5. Is it right for you (do you need something for general nutrition or endurance or recovery or nothing at all)?

Natural Versus Synthetic Vitamins

In most cases, natural and synthetic vitamins and minerals are handled by the body in exactly the same way. A good example of this is the B-complex vitamins, which can be obtained in supplements as “natural” B vitamins (usually from brewer’s yeast or a similar substance) or as purified chemicals and listed on the product label as thiamin (B-1), riboflavin (B-2), niacin (B-3), and so forth. When any of these supplemental sources of B vitamins is consumed, the vitamins are absorbed, transported, and utilized by the body in exactly the same way—so we can say with confidence that there is no difference between natural and synthetic when it comes to B vitamins.

Two interesting exceptions to this rule are folic acid, which is better absorbed in the synthetic form (compared to natural forms found in foods), and vitamin E, which is far superior as the natural form (absorbed and retained in the body two to three times better than synthetic vitamin E).

Brand Name or Generic?

This is one of the most common questions that I get when it comes to multivitamins. People want to know if they can just buy the “grocery store version” to get their daily nutrients. The ultimate answer is really less about generics vs. brand-name products than it is about choosing between supplements that provide “basic” versus “optimal” levels of particular nutrients. Therefore, the answer to this question will depend on two primary factors: How much money can you afford to spend on a supplement, and are you looking for a basic or an optimal supplement?

Many of the generic or private-label store-brand supplements on the market will do a satisfactory job of helping you meet the basic RDA (recommended daily allowance) levels for essential vitamins and minerals. The primary limitation with these generic products, and even with many brand-name supplements, is that the basic RDA levels of most vitamins and minerals fall far below the levels associated with optimal health and certainly below those needed for optimal endurance performance.

With respect to the B vitamins, there is good scientific evidence to support daily intakes at 200-500 percent of RDA levels for optimal stress response and cortisol control. These levels are two to five times higher than the levels found in most multivitamin products.

Calcium and magnesium are two minerals that are known to help regulate the body’s stress response, yet most generic supplements and one-tablet-a-day-type brand-name supplements provide only a small fraction of the 250–500 milligrams (mg) of calcium and the 125–250 mg of magnesium needed to promote a normal stress response. The primary reason for skimping on the calcium and magnesium in these products is not cost (both are very cheap), but rather space considerations in the capsules and tablets. Both calcium and magnesium are bulky minerals—that is, they take up a lot of space—so an optimal daily dosage requires more than a single capsule each day (and sometimes as many as four capsules, depending on the mineral source).

The bottom line here is that everybody should take at least a basic multi-vitamin/multi-mineral supplement (MVMS)—and virtually any product, generic or brand-name, on the shelf at Wal-Mart, Rite-Aid, or your local grocery store will satisfy the basic RDA-level requirements. However, if you are interested in a supplement that delivers more than the rock-bottom levels of nutrients, and if you can afford to spend a little more on your daily supplement regimen, then you will want to consider a MVMS that provides higher levels of B-complex vitamins, calcium, and magnesium.

Herbal Supplements

When it comes to selecting herbal supplements, the situation can quickly get very confusing. Because herbals are really a form of natural medicine, it is crucial that you select the right form of the herb so that you get the safest and most effective product. Herbal supplements are an area in which generic products are not equivalent to brand-name products. It is vitally important to select either the exact product that has been used in clinical studies, or a product that contains a chemically equivalent form of the herb that has been studied. The easiest way for most consumers to select a safe and effective herb is to select only those extracts that have been “standardized” to provide a uniform level of the key active ingredients in each batch of the product. The best scenario would be to select only those specific products that have undergone clinical studies of their own and in endurance athletes (rather than selecting products that contain ingredients on which studies have been conducted)—but there are far fewer finished products that have been subjected to clinical testing than there are raw ingredients (cordyceps, rhodiola, glucosamine etc.) that have been evaluated in such research.

Where to Buy Supplements?

The preceding three points should offer enough general guidance to help you weed through the many less desirable supplement products on the market and select products that can make a difference in your overall health. With the explosive growth in the supplement market over the past decade, consumers can now find vitamins, minerals, herbs, and other supplements for sale in a variety of places—including specialty supplement stores, natural-foods stores, drugstores, grocery stores, discount department stores, and through direct marketing, infomercials, catalog sales, and the Internet. Are any of these outlets “better” than the others? Not really—but each has its own particular niche.

For example, the least expensive “bargain” products will be found at supermarkets and discount department stores (e.g., Wal-Mart), but these products may suffer from many of the problems outlined above with regard to basic versus optimal supplementation. Supplements that are a step above the cheapest and most basic of products can typically be found at drugstores, natural-foods markets, and specialty supplement outlets, including running and cycling shops. These are the middle-of-the-road products that do a decent job of balancing high-quality and optimal nutrient levels with moderate prices. The most expensive products, and those with the widest range in terms of quality, safety, and effectiveness, are typically sold through direct sales channels such as the Internet, catalogs, and independent sales agents. In some cases, these products are designed to deliver optimal levels of all nutrients in the most bioavailable forms, but the obvious downside is their high price. In other cases, all you get is the high price—without any of the optimal levels of the crucial nutrients.

So how can you differentiate among these premium-priced products? By asking to see the results from their clinical studies. Products in this “premium” category will almost certainly need to justify their high price with strong scientific evidence to support their claims and to show that their product is justified at this price. If the company cannot provide you with scientific evidence to support its premium products, then you are well advised to look elsewhere for your supplement.

Using Supplements

After you have selected your supplements with the help of the above information, the following guidelines can help you use those supplements in the proper manner (that is, to optimize both safety and effectiveness):

• Remember that a dietary supplement is just that—meaning that it is meant to be added to an otherwise healthy diet. It is not meant to substitute for a balanced diet or to make up for a poor diet.
• Follow the dosage recommendations on the package. The recommended dosage is important for safety and effectiveness—especially for herbals and other supplements that combine multiple ingredients. Don’t assume that if one tablet is recommended per day, two or three will be even better.
• Keep all dietary supplements in a safe place—away from heat and light that may accelerate their breakdown, and away from children who may accidentally ingest them.

Summary

Now that you know how to choose your optimally-formulated, research-proven, endurance-specific supplement based on the broad criteria above, you can put it to its best use by adding it to your otherwise super-charged diet and training regimen (and not hoping that the supplement will act like a magic bullet).

####

About the Author: Shawn Talbott is multiple Ironman and ultramarathon finisher and a sports nutrition expert with a Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry and a master’s degree in exercise science. He lives in Salt Lake City. For more information visit www.ShawnTalbott.com

The post Performance in a Pill? Choosing And Using Supplements appeared first on Competitor.com.

Written by: Shawn Talbott, PhD

Surveys on dietary supplement use among the general population suggest that 50-75 percent of adult Americans are “regular users” of dietary supplements, primarily multi-vitamin/multi-mineral supplements. Supplement usage rates among athletes are less clear, with some reports indicating 100 percent usage of dietary supplement among bodybuilders, and other estimates indicating 30-50 percent usage among elite and non-elite endurance athletes.

It is generally accepted that bodybuilders and weight-training enthusiasts consume dietary supplements at a significantly greater level compared to endurance athletes (runners, triathletes, cyclists, etc), but the reasons for this disparity are not well understood. Differences in supplement effects, marketing, and mode of education (e.g. where/how athletes get their information) may account for some of the differences in supplement usage between strength and endurance athletes.

My research group, SupplementWatch, conducted a study entitled “Dietary Supplement Use Among Endurance Athletes” that was presented at the International Society for Sports Nutrition (ISSN). Our overall conclusions were:

• Triathletes at both Olympic and Ironman distances are avid users of dietary supplements (almost 100 percent in some cases).
• Primary sources of information about supplements are the Internet (95%), friends and training partners (89%), and coaches (83%).
• Longer-distance triathletes appear to take more supplements for recovery and endurance and also tend to report greater supplement usage after exercise, as compared to shorter-distance triathletes.

In our study, we recruited 326 triathletes from events in California, Texas, and Oklahoma (174 were Iron-distance triathletes with 103 men and 71 women, and 152 were Olympic-distance with 89 men and 63 women). Triathletes reported that, on average, they consumed dietary supplements five days per week and spent $51/month on their supplements (range $15 to $140).

Interestingly, we also found that despite the widespread use of supplements among triathletes, they also felt that they needed more information about supplements (90 percent) and they had difficulty in finding accurate/unbiased information (90 percent).

When we asked triathletes why they took supplements, 89 percent indicated that they felt they were not able to get the nutrients they needed from foods alone. Other reasons for taking supplements included:

• They give me energy (82%)
• To perform better (73%)
• General health (62%)
• To help me recover (61%)
• To lose body fat (41%)
• To prevent disease (28%)

When asked what types of supplements they were using, we found a wide range of endurance-specific products:

• Carbohydrate (beverage) = 98%
• Multi-vitamin = 93%
• Electrolyte (beverage) = 90%
• Carbohydrate (gel)            = 78%
• Fish oil = 60%
• Antioxidant = 56%
• Recovery = 56%
• Endurance = 52%
• Fat Loss = 42%

When we looked at when supplements were consumed, we found that triathletes were avid users of dietary supplements before (95 percent) and during (88 percent) exercise, but less so after training (only 54 percent), despite the fact that some of the most proven sport nutrition supplements are post-exercise recovery enhancers.

Overall, we found that triathletes are avid consumers of a wide range of dietary supplements for reasons including endurance enhancement, general health, post-exercise recovery, and other benefits – but that they were in search of more information about supplements. While we did not survey runners, considering the wide degree of overlap between the two sports we would expect to obtain similar findings.

Future installments in this “Performance in a Pill?” series will attempt to give you the information you need to make informed decisions about the pros and cons of choosing and using dietary supplements as an endurance athlete.

####

Shawn Talbott, PhD, is a multiple Ironman and ultramarathon finisher and nutritional biochemist based in Salt Lake City. For more information visit www.ShawnTalbott.com.

The post Performance In A Pill? Supplement Use Among Endurance Athletes appeared first on Competitor.com.

Written by: Shawn Talbott, PhD

Doping. Even uttering the word makes many of us in the endurance community cringe. It is a word charged with ethics, emotion, politics. For us non-elite athletes, the issue of doping, or use of banned performance-enhancing drugs and methods, is mostly a theoretical one. Even if you were stuffed to the gills with testosterone and amphetamines at your next event, chances are you wouldn’t have to fear urinating in a cup or providing a blood sample for a doping test (even if you were on the top step of the podium). However, if you plan on stepping onto the podium at Kona, or an Olympic Trials race, or a state championship cycling event, or even a NCAA-sanctioned running race, your chances of peeing in that cup are greater. The higher your level of competition is, the more likely you are to find yourself subjected to a doping analysis. (I’ve been tested twice as an elite-level rower, but never as a triathlete.)

Are Your Supplements Tainted?

According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), athletes are “strictly liable” for any prohibited substances which are found in their bodies (blood and urine samples)—no matter how the banned substance made its way into the athlete’s body. It’s not overly cynical to “expect” any doping athlete to blame a contaminated dietary supplement for his or her positive dope test, but WADA doesn’t let athletes off the hook for “accidents”; even when some supplements have clearly been found to contain undeclared steroids and stimulants.

According to a much-quoted 2001 study commissioned by the International Olympic Committee, nearly 15 percent of sports supplements (634 products from 215 suppliers in 13 countries) tested positive for undeclared prohibited substances (anabolic agents or stimulants). Such findings have led to a policy of “supplement avoidance” among many people in the endurance community – even when scientific evidence clearly supports the use of some types of dietary supplements for promoting wellness, enhancing recovery, and generally helping athletes maintain a high state of mental and physical performance. Taking a “just say no” approach to supplements is simply unrealistic for some endurance athletes, however. We need to explore every option that can help keep us going amidst the demands of work, family, and other aspects of our life outside of our endurance training.

None of us, elite or amateur, wants our supplements to contain any “undeclared” ingredients, especially if they’re prohibited by the rules of our sport. If your electrolyte powder has a smidge of testosterone in it, you probably won’t have to give back the Maillot Jaune, but you want your nutrition products to contain what they’re supposed to and nothing else. This is where good quality control comes in.

Contamination and Quality Control

Most manufacturers of dietary supplements are responsible and ethical, and they have no desire to market contaminated products. But even while many companies will tell you that their products are “formulated without banned substances” or that their products are “manufactured in a facility which contains no banned substances”, you never really know that the products you’re ingesting are clean unless those products are specifically analyzed to confirm the absence of prohibited substances.

Testing products for banned substances is an extremely intricate area of analytical chemistry. The credibility of a banned substance screen really comes down to the sensitivity (or the “limits of detection”—the smallest amount of a substance that can be detected) of a particular analytical method, because even a minute “trace” amount of a banned substance present in a nutrition product could result in a positive doping result. Many labs can analyze substances down to microgram levels of sensitivity (mcg), but banned substances present at nanogram-levels (ng = 100 times lower than most labs can detect) could cause a positive doping result.

I have personally been involved in several projects where doping risks have been associated with dietary supplements used by elite athletes. In two instances, we were able to trace contaminated herbal extracts (containing undeclared ephedrine in one case and intentionally spiked with sildenifil, the active ingredient in Viagra, in another) back to their origin (China in both cases). In another instance, the individual raw materials checked out clean but the finished product tested positive for testosterone precursors (DHEA and androstenedione) – with contamination eventually traced to an improperly cleaned encapsulating machine that had been used months before to manufacture bodybuilding supplements.

Endurance athletes also need to understand that some dietary supplement ingredients (and medications) that are perfectly legal in the United States may also be considered prohibited by WADA for use in sport (training and competition). DHEA, a precursor for testosterone synthesis used for anti-aging benefits, and sildenifil (Viagra), used for other types of “performance enhancement”, are two examples of substances that are perfectly legal for the market, but banned for athletes.

You could take one of several positions on the issue of dietary supplements and the risk of consuming banned substances:

1.     I’m an elite athlete who can’t afford to take the risk with supplements, so I’ll just say no, even if that means I’m giving up a legal performance edge to my competition by forgoing the all supplements).

2.     Who cares? I’m an age-grouper doing this for fun and a challenge. I’ll take the risk of taking supplements so I can gain any edge that can help me train harder and go faster.

3.     I want the benefits of the right supplements, but I don’t want to break the rules, and I want to know what I’m putting into my body.

No matter which group you fall into, you ought to be concerned that your nutrition products are produced under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), which are mandated and overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and that they contain only those ingredients that are disclosed on the label (which is mandated by U.S. law). There are a handful of organizations that can analyze dietary supplements for the presence of prohibited substances (primarily anabolic agents like steroids and stimulants like ephedrine and amphetamines). They include Banned Substances Control Group (BSCG), HFL Sports Science, NSF International (which certifies supplements for Major League baseball and the National Football League), ConsumerLab, and the National Products Association. Be aware that the limits of detection and the compounds they analyze differ between the organizations.

Buyer Beware

As you’ll read in coming editions of the “Performance in a Pill?” series, there are certainly some dietary supplements that are of potential value to endurance athletes—but the responsibility for choosing and using the right supplements (and avoiding the “wrong” ones) comes back to the individual athlete. Only through self-education and asking the right questions can you make an informed decision about which supplements are right for you.

####

About the Author: Shawn Talbott is multiple Ironman and ultramarathon finisher and a sports nutrition expert with a Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry and a master’s degree in exercise science. He lives in Salt Lake City. For more information visit www.ShawnTalbott.com

The post Performance In A Pill? Banned Substances: Buyer Beware appeared first on Competitor.com.

Written by: Shawn Talbott, Ph.D.

Nearly 2,500 years ago, Hippocrates, the “father of modern medicine”, embraced the concept, “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” Although we know that diet plays a role in five of the 10 leading causes of death (including coronary heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, Type II diabetes, and atherosclerosis), the advent of modern pharmaceutical therapy in the 19^th century caused the “food as medicine” philosophy to fall into relative obscurity as a “quaint” concept among many healthcare professionals.

As endurance athletes, we’re concerned as much about health as we are about performance, so this “food first” approach is certainly something that we should be taking to heart. We know that diet is at least as important for optimal physical and mental performance as exercise training—but too few of us pay as much attention to our diets as we pay to choosing our next pair of running shoes.

Many of the athletes that I work with are looking for ways to “fix” the nutrition side of their performance, or looking to tweak their nutrition for a performance “edge” over their competition. This article is the first in a series, “Performance in a Pill?”, where I’ll explore the evidence for/against certain dietary supplements: some that might help us as endurance athletes, some that might not help, and others that might be downright dangerous or illegal (or both).

Herbal preparations have been used as medicinal agents and performance enhancers since time immemorial in all cultures the world over. Since 1994, however, with the passage of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), millions of American consumers have readily and avidly embraced the use of food, dietary supplements, and herbal extracts for more than just basic nutrition. The past decade has seen the dietary supplement industry grow in size from almost zero to almost $25 billion in annual domestic sales with more $100 million in worldwide sales. Although estimates vary, approximately 50-60 percent of adults in the United States identify themselves as consumers of dietary supplements (close to 200 million Americans consume supplements, according to the FDA). Among endurance athletes, some studies suggest that as many as 90 percent of elite-level athletes are regular users of dietary supplements (and close to 100 percent of power athletes use supplements).

When considering any dietary supplement, we all face the often-daunting challenge of trying to determine whether or not a particular product meets our needs (or lives up to its claims). The broad definition of dietary supplements permits the use of a wide variety of plant constituents (roots, leaves, stems, etc.), vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and other ingredients that can have essential or nonessential bioactive constituents with associated health benefits (or risks). Endurance athletes tend to use dietary supplements either as preventive nutrition, where, for example, a daily multivitamin supplement is intended to provide nutritional “insurance”, or as ergogenic aids, or performance enhancers. For example, cordyceps and rhodiola are intended to improve oxygen utilization and boost endurance performance. Of course, consumers also use dietary supplements in myriad other ways to promote weight loss, to increase energy levels, and to treat specific diseases.

The Food and Drug Administration regulates dietary supplements in many of the same ways that it regulates conventional foods—but supplement products are required to carry the disclaimer, “This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” Like foods, but unlike drugs, dietary supplements do not require pre-marketing approval by the FDA, but the FDA has the authority to restrict sales and remove specific supplements from the market if they are shown to pose a public health risk. Because the scientific and medical evidence for the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements is highly variable in terms of both quantity and quality, it is very much a situation of “buyer beware” when it comes to choosing and using dietary supplements. However, by understanding the risks and benefits associated with use of these products, we can make an educated decision about which supplements are worth their cost to help with endurance, recovery, or general nutrition—and (perhaps more importantly) which others are best avoided.

This series of articles is intended to provide endurance athletes with a basis and background on which to make educated decisions about the appropriate use (or avoidance) of specific dietary supplements. The most important thing to realize is that dietary supplements are not panaceas or magic bullets that can counteract poor health habits; rather, they are supplements to a comprehensive lifestyle approach that also includes a balanced diet, regular physical training, stress management, adequate sleep, and other positive health practices.

Research studies of dietary supplements are often difficult to evaluate because of differences in the ingredients from study to study, incomplete description and analysis of the active ingredients, and variations in the dosing, duration, and population studied. Considering the large number of dietary supplements on the market, this series will focus on the supplements that are most likely to be of interest to endurance athletes and those that have a sufficient body of clinical evidence to evaluate.

Each article in this series will cover 3 main areas:

• Claimst/theory behind the supplement (What is it supposed to do and how?)
• Science (What does independent research say about this supplement?)
• Recommendations (How might this supplement benefit you, the endurance athlete?)

I am generally a fairly “pro-supplement” kind of person, but I am also a staunch advocate of the idea that food and fitness must come first—so I won’t be pushing any magical pills or potions to make up for poor diet or lack of training. Thanks for starting this journey with me. I look forward to exploring the world of endurance supplements with you in the coming weeks.

About the Author: Shawn Talbott is multiple Ironman and ultramarathon finisher and a sports nutrition expert with a Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry and a master’s degree in exercise science. He lives in Salt Lake City. For more information visit www.ShawnTalbott.com

The post Performance in a Pill? Introduction to Dietary Supplements appeared first on Competitor.com.

The post Race-Day Nutrition Advice From Greg Meyer appeared first on Competitor.com.

Low Vitamin D levels are very likely limiting your running performance, and may compromise your health.

Written by: Reyana Ewing, MPH, RD, CLE

As runners we want to do everything possible to perform well and have a great season.  We are meticulous about our training schedules, hydration, sleeping habits, etc.  Yet many times we fall short when it comes to nutrition.

My Story

In the summer of 2008 I started to feel rather lethargic during workouts and I struggled to maintain my normal training paces.   My recovery from my harder efforts and long runs took longer than usual.  I immediately and incorrectly assumed I had low serum ferritin levels indicating iron deficiency anemia.

One colleague to whom I lamented about my chronic fatigue asked me if I had checked my Vitamin D levels.  “Vitamin D levels?” I exclaimed.  I live in California, it is summer, and I am outside way more than the recommended 20 to 30 minutes a day.  There is no way I could be Vitamin D deficient, especially since in addition to being exposed to sun most days, I eat a very balanced diet that includes a daily multivitamin supplement.  However, a visit to my doctor confirmed that my serum 25–hydroxy-Vitamin D (25(OH)D) value was dangerously low (18 ng/ml).  Normal levels are between 40-70 ng/ml.  And for those with chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis, normal blood levels should be between 55-70 ng/ml.  I was shocked.

I immediately started daily supplementation with 1,000 IU of vitamin D (Vitamin D3).  After 8 weeks, my 25 (OH)D level had improved somewhat (28 ng/ml).  I did feel slightly better, but I wanted to recover completely, so I upped my dosage to 2,000 IU daily.  A few weeks later my levels were within the normal range (56 ng/ml).  I felt noticeably stronger and was able to hit my usual paces during training.  And in October 2008, I set a half-marathon personal record.

Vitamin D Deficiency

This was my very first experience with Vitamin D deficiency and I have since learned that Vitamin D deficiency is becoming an epidemic worldwide, not only in geographic regions where sun exposure is limited.  And my discussions with fellow dietitians working with college runners and professional athletes in generally sunny states (Texas and Florida) confirmed the alarming prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency across ethnicity and gender.

Athletes who live in northern latitudes (north of 35 degrees), or use sunscreen consistently, perform their sport indoors, or keep their skin covered are at the greatest risk.  Melanin affects the production of Vitamin D.  So those with more melanin or darker skin produce less Vitamin D.  Since Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, athletes with fat malabsorption problems such as cystic fibrosis, Crohn’s disease, and celiac disease are at risk for deficiency.  Those who have normal levels typically (around 50 ng/ml) live in sub-equatorial Africa and work outdoors for most of the summer.

Once thought of as being primarily involved in bone development, activated Vitamin D (calcitriol), a steroid hormone, is responsible for regulating more than 1,000 human genes.  Almost every cell in the human body has receptors for Vitamin D.  Recent research shows that Vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of different types of cancer (such as breast cancer and prostate cancer), as well as heart disease, diabetes, depression, autoimmune diseases, hypertension, obesity, gum disease, chronic pain, muscle wasting, inflammation, birth defects, osteoporosis, influenza and colds, etc.

Importance for Endurance Athletes

We are only just beginning to understand the complexity and importance of Vitamin D in relation to health.  Of importance to athletes is the function of Vitamin D as it relates to overall health, bone density, innate immunity, muscle wasting, and exercise-related inflammation and immunity.  To train and race optimally, an athlete should not have any nutrient deficiencies.

Bone Health:

Deena Kastor, Olympic Marathoner, broke her foot in Beijing during the 2008 Olympic Marathon.  It was discovered that her calcium levels were normal, but her 25 (OH)D levels were reported to be around 15 ng/ml.  And Kastor lives in sunny California.  Because of an early scare with skin cancer, she is known to apply sunscreen for all of her outdoor runs, thus limiting her ability to manufacture Vitamin D from sun exposure.  Even with the extensive research to show Vitamin D and calcium’s role in preventing osteoporosis, elite, college, and high school athletes continue to be deficient in one or both nutrient(s).  Stress fractures are quite prevalent in runners and yet so preventable.

Increased VO2 max:

German research studies dating back to the 1950s show that athletes exposed to Vitamin D-producing ultraviolet light had improved athletic performance.  Other studies showed that athletic performance peaked at the end of the summer.  Peak performance was also associated with 25 (OH)D levels around 50 ng/ml.  In addition, maximal oxygen uptake was found to drop when less ultraviolet rays reached the earth, for example, in the late fall.  This is particularly a problem for marathoners training through the summer for fall marathons.

Reduced Inflammation:

After intense exercise, endurance athletes experience inflammation due to elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines.  Vitamin D reduces the production of these cytokines while increasing the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines, thereby speeding the recovery process between hard workouts.

Improved Immunity:

In a February 2009 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Vitamin D3 levels were tested in 19, 000 Americans. Those with low levels of Vitamin D had the highest incidence of colds and influenza.  This is important information for endurance athletes who strive to balance heavy training loads and staying healthy.

What can be done?

1. Check 25(OH)D levels regularly and supplement as needed.
2. Check for total 25(OH)D and not 1, 25(OH)D, which will tell you nothing about your blood stores. Total 25(OH)D reflects all sources of Vitamin D – from food, UV energy (photo-production), and supplementation.
3. Deficient athletes measuring less than 30 ng/ml should supplement with 20,000 IU to 50, 000 IU of vitamin D3 per week for 8 weeks andrecheck serum 25(OH)D until normal values are attained.

1. Get regular, safe, twice-daily (5-30 minutes) exposure to sun between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm. Note that sunscreen and glass (being indoors) reduce or block UV energy.
2. Supplement with 1000 IU to 2000 IU of Vitamin D3 to maintain normal levels.
3. For those living or competing in northern latitudes (north of Atlanta, GA) little to no vitamin D production will occur, so consumption of fortified foods and supplements is a necessity.

Food Sources of vitamin D

There aren’t many naturally occurring foods that contain vitamin D.  Most of the foods containing Vitamin D have been fortified, for example milk and certain juices.

Table 1. Food Sources of Vitamin D

Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet.  National Institute of Health (2007)

Caution

High intakes of Vitamin D can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, weakness, and constipation.  Current safe upper limits are set at 2,000 IU by the National Institute of Health, but there are newer data supporting upper limits as high as 10,000 IU per day.

***

Reyana Ewing, MPH, RD, CLE is a registered dietitian, sports dietitian and runner based in Santa Rosa, Calif. Find our more about her at www.fueltomove.com.

The post Vitamin D Deficiency And Endurance Exercise appeared first on Competitor.com.

Written by: Bob Seebohar, MS, RD, CSSD, CSCS

Now is the time of the year when thoughts of dropping weight and body fat become extremely popular among runners.  But what about planning your race-day nutrition to eliminate the demon of GI distress that rears its ugly head during your races?  Attaining metabolic efficiency will have a significant impact on your body composition and GI comfort during races and will also reduce your need for simple sugars when racing.

“Efficiency” is a term that is typically associated with sport. From a nutrition perspective, being metabolically efficient simply means being able to use the proper nutrients that are stored in the body at the right times.

Metabolic Efficiency Training

Metabolic Efficiency Training (MET) comprises specific nutrition and physical training techniques that manipulate cellular processes in ways that improve the body’s ability to utilize macronutrients. The main benefit of MET is that it allows the body to more efficiently use macronutrients.

Aerobic training induces cellular changes that improve the body’s efficiency in using macronutrients, specifically fats. This is important, because fat burning is the main source of energy when the exercise intensity is low.  Because the muscle stores of glycogen (carbohydrate-based fuel) can deplete rather quickly (after two to three hours of moderately intense exercise) and supplemental carbohydrates (e.g. sports drinks) cannot provide adequate energy for longer-distance training due to the GI distress they cause or the inconvenience of transport, it is beneficial to teach the body to become more metabolically efficient in using fats as an energy source.  These metabolic changes can typically happen in as little time as two weeks with the proper eating and training program.

The Crossover Concept

The crossover concept is a physiological term that describes the relationship of fat and carbohydrate oxidation to intensity of exercise. As exercise intensity increases, the body prefers to use carbohydrate for energy.  The crossover point is the intensity where fat and carbohydrate intersect with the energy from fat decreasing and the energy from carbohydrate increasing. The crossover point, or what I term “metabolic efficiency point”, can be manipulated with proper aerobic training, but only if intensity is maintained at lower levels.  Training at higher intensities will surely improve power and speed but it will not improve fat metabolism during training.  A runner who is more aerobically conditioned can use more fat as energy at higher intensities and this can provide a glycogen-sparing effect.

The metabolic efficiency point can be further manipulated through nutrition.  Eating a higher carbohydrate diet will lead to an increase in carbohydrate oxidation. While the benefits of eating a higher-carbohydrate diet are certainly justified during certain times of the year when the training load is high, this type of eating can work to a runner’s disadvantage during lower-volume and -intensity cycles.

Eating and therefore oxidizing more carbohydrates decreases the body’s ability to oxidize fat at higher intensities; therefore, to properly teach the body to utilize fats more efficiently, carbohydrate intake should be more balanced with lean protein and healthy fats. This is not a recommendation to follow a low-carbohydrate diet. The goal is to balance macronutrient intake so proper metabolic changes can happen.

The good news is that any athlete can accomplish these metabolic changes in a short amount of time. There are no special tools or devices that you need. The following three steps will help in your quest to become more metabolically efficient and use more of your fat stores as energy.

1. Adopt a nutritional paradigm shift.  As you approach your daily food selection, prioritize your meals and snacks.  First on your plate should be a source of lean protein and healthy, omega-3-rich fat.  Second up is a healthy portion of fruits and/or vegetables.  Then, save just a little room for those whole grains and healthier starches if you decide you need them at this point in your training cycle.

2. Use the “out of sight, out of mind” concept.  Nutrition supplements that are high in simple sugars such as sports drinks, energy bars, gels and chews will inhibit your progress toward metabolic efficiency. Focus on eating good meals as I described above and save the nutrition supplements for when you really need them.  Remember, you are trying to teach your body to use its fat stores more efficiently and these products will just interfere with that goal at this time.

3. Follow the 90/10 rule.  Stay on track with these steps 90 percent of the time and allow yourself to “miss” the other 10 percent of the time.  Remember, you are human and life happens.  Don’t stress out if you have the occasional “miss”.  Be gentle with yourself and allow some room to deviate.

This is the best time of the year to implement a metabolic efficiency plan.  Focus on good aerobic training with some nutritional shifts and you will be on the road to using more of your internal fat stores as energy.

***

For more information about this topic, refer to Bob’s newly published book Metabolic Efficiency Training: Teaching the Body to Use More Fat.

Bob Seebohar, MS, RD, CSSD, CSCS, is one of the foremost experts on sports nutrition for endurance athletes. He was previously the Director of Sports Nutrition at the University of Florida and most recently a Sport Dietitian for the US Olympic Committee.  Contact him at coachbob@fuel4mance.com

The post Become A Fat-Burning Machine appeared first on Competitor.com.

Uncooked quinoa. Photo: net-efekt.

It’s time to venture beyond whole wheat, oats, and brown rice for your whole grains.

Written by: Matthew Kadey, M.S., R.D.

By now most of us have heard about the benefits of eating whole grains. Crammed with nutrients, they can help fend off a laundry list of ailments: diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, to name a few. A 2009 study in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported that among 4,200 subjects, those who noshed on the most whole grains were the least likely to pack on unwanted body weight. Plus, there are all those complex carbohydrates needed to replace spent energy stores after a big run.

Few health-savvy runners venture much past brown rice, oats and whole-wheat spaghetti to get their whole-grain fix. With so many new and exciting whole-grain choices becoming readily available on store shelves and in bulk bins, why not try one or more of these great grains, each with the goods to fight disease, boost performance and re-stimulate a bored palate?

Wehani Rice

Developed from Indian basmati rice by the Lundberg Family Farms in northern California, long-grain wehani is a russet-colored, slightly chewy whole-grain rice with a pleasant nutty taste. As it cooks, the kitchen becomes redolent of buttery popcorn. Besides the taste, another reason to choose it over white rice is this: Harvard researchers followed more than 197,000 US adults for up to 22 years and found those who had a penchant for eating refined white rice were at a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those who consumed more whole-grain rice.

Teff

Indigenous to Ethiopia and now grown in Idaho, teff is the world’s tiniest grain. What this tanned grain lacks in size it makes up for with a nutritional windfall. A serving contains plenty of B vitamins, fiber, protein, magnesium, bone-building calcium and more iron than other grains. Essential for delivering oxygen to working muscles, adequate iron intake is a must for runners in training.

Teff has a slightly malty taste with hazelnut undertones. The grain is somewhat gelatinous when cooked, making it a wonderful alternative to oat porridge in the morning when mixed with berries, spices and nuts. Also add some salubrious teff flour (available along with many other whole grains at www.bobsredmill.com) into your next batch of pancakes, waffles, muffins or chocolate cake.

Quinoa

A sacred source of strength and vitality for the ancient Incas, South American quinoa (pronounced keen-wah) has lately enjoyed increasing popularity in the U.S. Grain lovers appreciate that this shining star cooks up in half the time as brown rice (about 10 to 12 minutes) and contains a full complement of essential amino acids, making it a complete protein source for repairing and building lean muscle tissue.

Gluten-free, nutty-tasting quinoa also contains a wealth of magnesium. Often under-consumed, magnesium plays a crucial part in hundreds of biochemical reactions including those involved in normal muscle and nerve function, heart rhythm regulation, bone strengthening and immune defense. Quinoa is most often sold in its beige form, but red and black quinoa are also sporadically available.

Amaranth

The ancient cereal grain amaranth was a dietary staple of the Aztecs who believed it possessed supernatural powers, even incorporating it into religious ceremonies. The seeds are diminutive and oval-shaped with a creamy complexion and earthy flavor. Amaranth has among the highest protein and fiber levels of any of the whole-grains – about 9 and 5 grams per cooked cup, respectively. To fight off diabetes, weight gain and digestive disorders, health experts recommend we consume 25 to 38 grams of fiber daily; on average we’re consuming half that amount.

Spelt

Slightly sweet and pleasantly chewy, spelt berries are an ancient cereal grain in the same family as wheat, but offer a broader spectrum of nutrients—including protein, fiber, magnesium, selenium and niacin—than today’s common hybrid wheat. Almond-shaped spelt does contain gluten, so it’s off limits to those with celiac disease, but some with wheat sensitivities can properly digest it. Whole-grain spelt flour can be used just like whole-wheat or all-purpose flour when baking, with a caveat: It’s more water-soluble, so add about 25 percent less liquid than the recipe requesting wheat flour asks for.

Forbidden Rice (a.k.a. Chinese Black Rice)

Rice is available in a wide array of eye-catching hues. Case in point: Black-purple forbidden rice can add a serious “wow” factor to any meal. Chinese lore says the whole-grain rice got its name because only emperors in ancient China were allowed to indulge in it due to its rarity and nutritional might. More than other rice variety, medium-grain heirloom forbidden rice is particularly rich in anthoycanin antioxidants, which help mop up disease-provoking free radicals. Rousing the taste buds, each mouthful provides a wonderful roasted nutty taste. Look for it at health food stores or online at www.lotusfoods.com.

Buckwheat

Buckwheat is the seed of a plant related to rhubarb that is native to northern Europe and Asia. Commonly available are buckwheat groats, also called kasha, which is whole-grain buckwheat that has been roasted and broken into bits. Buckwheat is a rare food source of the phytochemical rutin. Rutin may have a number of beneficial effects including that of halting the expansion of body fat cells and keeping cholesterol levels in check. A Canadian study found that buckwheat extract was effective at lowering blood glucose in diabetic animals. In Japan, buckwheat is ground into flour to make quick-cooking and delicious soba noodles, which can be used like normal pasta. Like amaranth and quinoa, buckwheat is free of gluten. If you find the strong taste of buckwheat too overpowering on its own, try mixing it with other grains like rice or quinoa when serving as a side dish.

Whole-Grain Cooking

In general, cook whole grains like the aforementioned in a saucepan with two parts liquid and one part grain. Bring to a boil, reduce heat and simmer covered until the water is absorbed. Remove from heat and let stand covered for five minutes. Using apple cider, fruit juices and vegetable broth for the cooking liquid adds interesting flavor twists. Some whole grains such as quinoa and amaranth become even more flavorful when toasted in a dry skillet for a couple minutes before boiling.

Whole Grain Anatomy

Whole grains are made up of three parts: bran, germ and endosperm. The endosperm, which consists mostly of carbohydrates, makes up about 80 percent of the mass of a grain. The germ and bran provide the remaining 20 percent. When whole grains are refined—for example, when whole-wheat flour is turned into all-purpose flour—much of the germ and bran is removed, leaving behind the endosperm. Manufacturers do this because it cuts down on rancidity to extend shelf life. Unfortunately, most of the naturally occurring fiber, magnesium, vitamin E, unsaturated fats, potassium, zinc and other vital nutrients are found in the germ and bran, and are removed when whole grains are refined. Some refined grains are enriched with B vitamins and iron, but the enrichment process is inadequate to make up for all the nutrients that have been stripped away.

Matthew Kadey is a Canadian-based dietitian and food writer. Find him at www.wellfedman.com

The post Great Grains appeared first on Competitor.com.

Think you know everything you need to know about protein? Get ready for some myth busting.

Written by: Matthew Kadey, MSc., RD

Like training for a marathon, dietary protein is not something to take lightly. Protein is essential for a wide range of bodily processes, most notably the synthesis and maintenance of muscles, enzymes, hormones, bones, cartilage, hair and skin. Plus, protein helps dull hunger, preventing surreptitious midnight fridge raids, and provides an auxiliary fuel source for runners to be used alongside fat and carbohydrate.

So, if all you focus on is carbohydrates, your body won’t function to its full potential. Yet, there remains considerable confusion about protein, which may you with no idea how best to approach this macronutrient. Let’s set the record straight.

Myth #1: Only bodybuilders need more protein.

The Facts: To encourage recovery of mile-ravaged muscle, improve strength, help meet increased caloric requirements and offset protein oxidation during bouts of running, runners undeniably require more dietary protein than someone who only runs to the fridge during halftime. Those undergoing endurance training need about 0.55 to 0.65 gram of protein per pound of body weight. So a 160-pound runner needs roughly 88 to 104 grams of protein to meet training needs.

As intensity, frequency and duration of training increases shoot for the higher end of the protein range. Skimp on this, and your body will borrow from muscle to meet its needs—undermining fitness growth. Fortunately, you should have no trouble meeting your protein quota if you nosh on a varied, whole-food diet (See Protein Power below).

Myth #2: Protein plays no role in replacing spent carbohydrate stores.

The Facts: The power of protein post-exercise doesn’t stop with building lean body mass. Studies have demonstrated that consuming a combination of carbohydrates and protein early during the post-workout period enhances muscular glycogen levels (the storage form of carbohydrate) above what is incurred if only carbohydrates are sent down the gullet.

It’s believed that protein stimulates a larger rise in insulin levels, which helps drive more sugar into muscle cells to build more glycogen. Having saturated glycogen stores is vital to running performance since this is the primary fuel used for high-intensity exercise. Studies suggest that the ideal ratio of carbs and protein in a post-exercise meal is roughly 4:1. So, after a hard run, top that plate of pasta with some meat sauce.

Myth #3: Only protein from animals is complete.

The Facts: The protein that is found in a hunk of steak is made up of a chain of amino acids, 12 of which can be manufactured by the human body. Another nine, called “essential amino acids”, must be obtained from food because the body is unable to make them from other substances. A complete protein is a protein source that contains all of the essential amino acids and does a better job at repairing and building muscle cells damaged through exercise than an incomplete protein source, which lacks one or more of the key amino acids.

Steak lovers like to trumpet protein from animal sources such as beef, chicken, eggs and milk as the only real way to get enough complete protein to meet muscular needs. But on top of providing serious nutritional firepower, the plant foods soy, quinoa, hemp, spirulina, chia and amaranth do contain a full complement of amino acids, making them a worthy addition to any post-run repast. The plant foods that are incomplete and need a little help such as brown rice, beans, nuts and lentils can be paired together at a meal to form complete proteins. Examples are beans and rice, lentils and corn, and nut butter on whole-grain bread. Whether you are a vegan or meatarian, as long as you consume a varied diet you should have no problem consuming enough high-quality protein to meet your training needs.

Myth #4: Protein “megadosing” maximizes muscular benefit.

The Facts: A watershed study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association determined that the ingestion of more than 30 grams of protein (about 113 grams of lean beaf) in a single meal does not further boost the stimulation of muscle protein synthesis in both young and elderly persons. Excess protein will be lost to oxidation (at the expense of fat stores) or potentially converted to fat stores. Yes, like carbohydrates, too much protein can pad your midriff with doughy flesh. The upshot is that it’s wise to spread protein intake throughout the day to maximize muscle repair and synthesis instead of loading up during one or two meals.

Myth #5: Protein powders are a must-have supplement for athletes.

The Facts: Those tubs of protein powder do have their merits, particularly fast-digesting whey, which has a very high protein quality score, but it’s very much possible for runners to meet their increased protein requirements from food alone. For example, a post-run smoothie that contains a half-cup Greek yogurt, 1 cup fat-free milk and two tablespoons peanut butter without any powder supplement has about 25 grams of protein. According to a 2009 study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 20 grams of protein post-workout is the magic number to stimulate muscle recovery and synthesis.

Protein Power

Here’s the grub that can help a 160-pound runner get enough protein.

2 hard-boiled eggs

Protein: 12 grams

6 ounces Atlantic salmon

Protein: 34 grams

1 cup cooked quinoa

Protein: 8 grams

1 cup cooked lentils

Protein: 18 grams

1 ounce almonds

Protein: 6 grams

1/2 cup low-fat cottage cheese

Protein: 14 grams

1 cup fat-free milk

Protein: 8 grams

1 cup cooked oatmeal

Protein: 6 grams

Total Protein: 106 grams

The post The Truth About Protein appeared first on Competitor.com.

Shawn Talbott.

How disobeying a common rule of nutrient timing can help you reach your race weight.

Written by: Shawn Talbott, PhD

If you’re having trouble losing fat and getting down to your optimal “race weight” this season, then you’re not alone. Among the endurance athletes that I work with (recreational age-groupers and elite-level alike) one of the most difficult balancing acts is to solve the conflict between consuming more calories (to completely fuel your muscles and improve/maintain performance) and eating “less” (to induce an energy deficit and encourage fat/weight loss). Go too far toward “fueling” and you don’t lose weight and go too far toward “cutting” and your performance suffers. So, how do you find the right balance point between fueling enough and not enough (or too much)?

Much has been made over the past few years about the importance of nutrient timing – which most of the time is interpreted as fueling immediately (or at least as soon as possible) following a bout of training. The general idea here is that your body is better able to replenish muscle and liver glycogen stores if you consume a blend of carbs/protein as soon as possible following exercise (for a variety of metabolic reasons including blood flow, enzyme activity, etc). True enough – but do you really need to be doing that? If your main objective is to fully restore glycogen levels for another high-intensity workout later in the day or the following day, then maybe you do need to fuel right away. If, however, you’re like most non-professional endurance athletes, and your main objective it to maximize weight/fat loss (to enhance performance later in the season), then the answer might be that you should not be fueling immediately after exercise.

This recommendation goes against a great deal of what many age-groupers hold as common knowledge. You’ve been taught to slurp a carb gel before, sip a carb beverage during, and chug a carb/protein shake after your workouts. In doing so, you’re certainly enhancing your replenishment of glycogen – but you’re also reducing your body’s ability to burn fat and your ability to achieve your optimal race weight. In metabolism research, there is a saying that “fat burns in the flame of carbohydrate” – meaning that optimal fat metabolism occurs when some carbs are being metabolized (certain breakdown products of carbohydrate metabolism are needed as cofactors for cellular fat metabolism). The problem is that the constant supply of carbs before/during and especially after training reduces insulin sensitivity and reduces our ability to use fat for fuel and thus our ability to lose body fat. When your glycogen stores are stuffed full, as they are when you’re constantly fueling before/during/after training, there is nowhere left to store more glucose, so we burn it in preference to fat. If you can’t burn fat, you can’t lose fat.

A useful approach for many endurance athletes who are trying to lose those last few pounds to get them to their race weight is to simply stop eating after their workouts, because doing so will improve insulin sensitivity and enhance fat-burning and weight loss (Black et al. Improved insulin action following short-term exercise training: role of energy and carbohydrate balance. J Appl Physiol 99: 2285–2293, 2005). If you’re a bodybuilder, or a Tour de France rider, or have aspirations of finishing on the podium at Kona, then you’re probably training hard enough and often enough (at least twice daily) that you’re already at your optimal body fat level and you can (and should) eat (and eat a lot) immediately after every workout. But, even very good and highly competitive endurance athletes probably do not need to fuel immediately after their workouts – unless they’re already at your optimal race weight and have no need to shed any body fat. Instead, save the immediate post-workout fueling for after your most epic workouts (when you really need to maximize your glycogen replenishment) and instead allow your body to use that post-exercise period to benefit from enhanced fat metabolism. Eating later (2 or 3 hours later at your next meal) will still result in replenished glycogen stores – at least to a level that is enough to adequately support the typical training regimens for most recreational endurance athletes – and you’ll notice a gradual and progressive drop in body fat (with the same training regimen) that may have been eluding you previously.

***

About the author: Dr. Shawn Talbott is an avid iron-distance triathlete and ultrarunner. He holds a MS in exercise science (Massachusetts) and a PhD in nutritional biochemistry (Rutgers) and develops products and programs for endurance athletes in a variety of sports.

The post Now Or Later appeared first on Competitor.com.

The post Boost Your Daily Diet With Super Shakes appeared first on Competitor.com.

A review published in the Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition late last year found that drinking milk after exercise has positive effects on recovery, muscle building, and hydration.

The author concluded that low-fat milk has been shown to be as effective, if not more effective, than commercially available sports drinks as a rehydration beverage.

Click here to read more.

The post Study Finds Milk Is Best For Hydration appeared first on Competitor.com.