Diet Article by Will Gadd

[Bronco]

I really like premise of this article by Will Gadd (http://gravsports.blogspot.com/):

 

I've received a few emails lately asking about "Sports Performance Diets." To sum up my philosophy on food for sports: You are what you eat, but the human body is amazing at processing just about anything. Here are some free-form thoughts:

 

 

-Unless you are truly "Elite," and by this I mean actually in the top one percent or so of a sport and not just claiming to be elite because you can do a workout that makes you gasp then what you eat is relevant only in that you have enough decent calories in your diet, but not way too many or you'll be too fat. Some body fat is OK; if you've been 12 percent your entire life then it's probably not worth the effort to drop to six percent, nor is it a realistic goal that will actually improve your performance as much as an extra few hours of training a week.

 

 

 

-The classic story about sports nutrition comes from my wife, Kim, who actually was an elite athlete--we know this because she got a scholarship to go to University as a nordic ski racer, along with some Americans and a few Norwegians. The Norwegians would win or place high in the ski race, eat a couple of boxes of Oreos for post-race recovery, have a beer, eat another huge dinner, and sleep 10 hours a night. The Americans would place mid-pack, recover with sports drinks, eat a "Pritikin" (very little fat) dinner, sleep poorly, and not improve. The Americans would also obsess about vitamins, body fat, etc. The Norwegians won races, the Americans worried about their diets... Chris Sharma does not eat Paleo/Zone/WTF. In fact, I can't think of one truly elite athlete that follows any incredibly strict diet. I would bet they are conscious of what they eat because they know their bodies, but not religious about it. Yet there are legions of people out there trying to improve their amateur sports performance through bizzare diets. I would call them idiots, but it's really a form of gullibility brought on by wishful thinking.

 

 

-Eat today as you will for the rest of your life. Radical exclusion diets of any kind eventually fail, every single one of them. There are no exceptions unless your diet kills you before you "fail" at it, which in a way anorexia or malnutrition can...

 

 

-The "Paleo/Pritikin/Atkins/Zone/Hollywood/Sports/WTF" diet are all doomed to eventual "failure;" I'd guess that optimistically maybe 1 in 10,000 people following them today will be following them in 20 years. That's the history of every diet ever, so why exactly does anyone think the latest "Best Ever For Sports Performance!!!" plans are any different? Diets and Ponzi schemes all end the same: the people who bought in either quit or are taken for a ride. It doesn't matter if it's real estate, investments or diets, it's never truly "different this time."

 

 

-Once you realize that the entire "diet" industry, even the "sports" version of it is somewhere between a scam and a religion (many religions have dietary prescriptions come to think of it) then you're on your way to decent nutrition, sports or otherwise.

 

 

-Generally eat food that's pretty close to the form it grew or lived in. Eat less when you don't need much energy (sitting at a desk). Eat more calorie-dense foods when you need calories (ski touring, etc.). If you're burning calories like mad ski touring then sugar is great. If you're sitting at a desk then it's not in general.

 

 

-Too much of anything for too long is a bad idea. One slice of cheesecake just doesn't matter. One hundred pieces do.

 

 

-Read up on insulin, the glycemic index, and listen to your body for what different foods make you feel like. Eat more vegetables for a week. What does that do? Drink less alcohol, drink more alcohol, take some notes, listen. Without the roar of the diet industry in your ears you might be surprised by what you find.

 

 

-Exercise hard, regularly. Exercise easily for long periods of time, like walking, regularly. Do sports that require serious effort at least once a week. Set aside one hour every single day to go out and breath hard, outside if at all possible, but at least breathing doing something fun.

 

 

-Spend way less time thinking about food than you do enjoying it. If you're spending more time thinking about what to eat than you are eating it then you have an eating disorder. I've seen a lot of athletes spend more time worrying about what they eat than actually training.

 

 

-There are no magic bullets, no metabolic master blasters, etc. etc. Sorry, the guy who trains 30 hours a week and eats at McDonalds will destroy the guy who trains five hours a week and eats a perfect Paleo diet. If Paleo boy steps his training up to 30 hours a week then he may be able to compete with McDonald's boy, but even then I'd bet that the skills, quality training time and attitude would still kick Paleo Boy's ass...

 

 

-Accept some fluctuation in your body. When you're training really hard and consistently you'll be leaner, stronger and generally "fitter." When you're only training two hours or less a week because of work, family, whatever, your body will change. This is OK, it's normal, either change life or accept it.

 

 

Yeah! Now I gotta go train, it's been a lousy two months due to all kinds of great stuff. I traded some fitness for some life stuff for a while, now the stoke is high again, time to get after it!

[timmy_t]

Thanks for the link and your thoughts. I just wanted to address one comment you made:

 

I can't think of one truly elite athlete that follows any incredibly strict diet. I would bet they are conscious of what they eat because they know their bodies, but not religious about it.

 

I have a friend who is an "elite athlete". He's on the BMC Racing Team (they were in the Tour de France this past year), and he has told me that they are religious about their diets, at least leading up to/during races. They have it so dialed in that they eat a certain amount of a certain kind of protein, fat, etc. at a certain time of the day or exactly so many minutes before a stage. That in no way negates your comments, but it's interesting...

[lummox]

Is that dude like a scientist or sumpin? Or philosopher on food?

[Tyson.g]

[chirp]

Awesome! Thanks for sharing this.

I learned about diet the hard way and lived to tell

 

[Dane]

I really though Will's comments were spot on. Most aren't elite and even high end atheletes can usually eat what they want or at least what they burn.

 

"They (tour riders or pro riders in general) have it so dialed in that they eat a certain amount of a certain kind of protein, fat, etc. at a certain time of the day or exactly so many minutes before a stage."

 

Few train as hard as those guys and yes nutrition is a big part of their lives. The real stand outs climbing in any generation put it "all" together.

[xhen]

A friend of mine does Iron Man's and while training, he just goes for calories and eats whatever he wants. Race day, he focuses up a bit.

[layton]

Should be directed at climbers in Colorado. Pickiest eaters I've ever met

[Kimmo]

pretty good points, but just to pick a little:

 

 

if you've been 12 percent your entire life then it's probably not worth the effort to drop to six percent, nor is it a realistic goal that will actually improve your performance as much as an extra few hours of training a week.

 

depends on what you're doing. with rock-climbing, i'd argue this point. if you weigh 150, and are at 12% bf, dropping to 6% would put you in the 130's. if you drop this intelligently and don't lose strength, it's not very intelligent to claim this wouldn't make a difference in your climbing.

 

 

Radical exclusion diets of any kind eventually fail, every single one of them. There are no exceptions unless your diet kills you before you "fail" at it, which in a way anorexia or malnutrition can...

 

firstly, i doubt there are many "anorexic" climbers in danger of losing their lives. secondly, "radical exclusion diets" can work to drop weight for a specific goal. in this context, speaking of their "eventual" failure doesn't really make sense; one isn't necessarily trying to make a lifestyle of starvation.

 

the rest is pretty spot-on.

[DanO]

There is about a million different ways to do diet.

 

Recently I just found out that ancient man ate about 8 grams of sugar a day. Today in the world of processed products the average person in the USA eats about 170 grams of sugar a day. A single 12 oz soda has 39 grams of sugar, about 5 times the ancient man's daily intake.

 

No doubt short term, in the 20's you may be able to get away with a poor diet, but many catch hell in later years.

 

There are many paths to be healthy, just be aware.

 

Dan

[JosephH]

My next door neighbor is an ultramarathoner doing about 120 mile / week. Does 'casual' 50-70 mile runs all the time and is pretty lackadaisical about diet. Good guitarist as well - totally laid back and doesn't look a bit like an athlete of any sort.

[rob]

There is about a million different ways to do diet.

 

Recently I just found out that ancient man ate about 8 grams of sugar a day.

 

While I agree with your sentiment, ancient man was hardly a paragon of health and vitality, and emulating their diet may not be the best method to attain long-life and athletic fitness. Just because they were sugar-starved doesn't mean it's a good thing, or that 8 grams of sugar a day is desirable (Especially for an athlete). I mean, an apple alone is ~20 grams of sugar.

 

I also doubt they ate a lot of fresh produce in the winter, but does that mean we should all stop buying produce in December?

 

I don't think the diet of ancient man produced a lot of world-class athletes.

[markwebster]

It's funny to hear a bunch of desk jockey weekend climbers talk about their struggles to maintain climbing weight. That certainly describes me. I've had good luck staying in reasonable shape by avoiding white flower and sugar. But when that doesn't work, and I can't get enough exercise due to work, and or family, and the pounds start to pile on, I revert to my "prison camp diet", which I sort of invented after reading about the Bataan Death march in WW2. Here it is:

 

Prison Camp Diet

 

I've managed to succeed on my 'prison camp diet', dropping from 174 down to 159 over the course of 3 weeks.

 

 

 

I eat 2.5 cups of food at dinner, and snack on a cup of something healthy during the day....maybe nuts, or carrots.

 

 

Deep and painful hunger at work is the main feature of this diet, and success seems to mean making hunger my friend, instead of something that needs to be fixed. It's kind of like having a new toy, in a way. I feel the hunger and think, cool, that's my friend, reminding me that I am loosing weight.

 

 

I'm sure I could gain it all back in a few days if I let myself start eating each time I feel a hunger pain...I'll try not to let that happen.

 

Through all this dieting I've continued to work out, and climb whenever I have time. Surprisingly, I am climbing better than ever, despite being hungry. It helps that I weigh 15 pounds less. Also, I've been working on my pull up strength every day. So my arms are stronger, and they have less to lift, it's a lovely combination.

 

 

I don't recommend this diet unless you are completely disgusted with how you look. The pain of hunger is not something to take lightly. But, contrary to public opinion, you won't keel over, or faint just because you are very hungry. You get used to it after a while, and becomes the new normal.

 

 

I do allow myself several cups of coffee, sweetened with that fake creamer from Safeway. If you put enough creamer in your coffee, it's almost like a sandwich :-)

 

--------

 

I've had a few people ask me what I eat, if I only eat 3 cups of food a day. When you only get that much, you can trust your body to pick the right things...and Oreo cookies, will not be your first choice.

 

The original poster was spot on. But if you need to lose weight, and or have a tool to shake it off fast, see above. And weigh every day, so you can catch the trend before it gets bad.

[Brian A]

http://esciencecommons.blogspot.com/2011/06/dawn-of-agriculture-took-toll-on-health.html

[G-spotter]

There is about a million different ways to do diet.

 

Recently I just found out that ancient man ate about 8 grams of sugar a day. Today in the world of processed products the average person in the USA eats about 170 grams of sugar a day. A single 12 oz soda has 39 grams of sugar, about 5 times the ancient man's daily intake.

 

 

There are differences between sugars, and if you don't understand them, your diet advice is irrelevant.

[wetslide]

Yes...but...the basic unit of energy used by the body is carbohydrates (glucose to be specific). With some exceptions they are what are used by the body. Everything is converted into them prior to use.

[spionin]

i wonder what he means by "radical exclusion". i think the extent of "radical", and what we may consider essential for ourselves may mean different things to different people.

 

i think the pedantic, critical, and prescriptive approach here is inappropriate.

 

in a previous thread (i think it may have started with a question about post-exercise nutrition or something), dean karnazes's diet was used as an example of not discriminating (and practically inhaling ham pizzas on the run).

 

my personal favorite example of an elite athlete who excludes a whole category foods is scott jurek. arguably a much more accomplished ultramarathoner than karnazes, and a vegan. many people would probably consider his diet "radically exclusive", even nytimes called his diet "extreme", but i think it'd be hard to argue that it doesn't work for him.

 

just an example. it's not a "bizarre diet", as gadd puts it. but i think that the laissez-faire approach that's advocated here seems somewhat mocking of those for whom mainstream meat and potatoes diet is not right.

[G-spotter]

Kangaroos eat the same grass that cows do but produce no methane.

[DanO]

Hello all, the rate of change of food is far greater than we are able to adapt.

 

What is the magic number for grams of sugar a day? I don't know, I think the main concern is processed sugar in processed products. On average humans are not designed to eat so much processed sugar.

 

So most likely fruit sugar from fresh fruit is not harmful, but processed sugar in excess in soda's or pastries can be really harmful over time for many people. From my reading processed sugar is a greater cause for heart disease than saturated fats.

 

This post of mine is a heads up, if you drink lets say a 20 ounce soda a day that is 65 grams of process sugar and then add in a pastry that could put you to about 75 grams of extra processed sugar. Over time this could destroy your health, there is a epidemic of diabetes today.

 

What is moderate for a cave man verses what is moderate for a

person living today is totally different and we have the genetics

of that cave man. Hence the epidemic of overweight people, heart disease and diabetes. Some people may be able to handle it better than others, genetic differences, but on average many people can't handle the modern processed foods in great concentration. Just a heads up post, good day all.

 

Dan

[Julian]

i wonder what he means by "radical exclusion". i think the extent of "radical", and what we may consider essential for ourselves may mean different things to different people.

 

i think the pedantic, critical, and prescriptive approach here is inappropriate.

 

in a previous thread (i think it may have started with a question about post-exercise nutrition or something), dean karnazes's diet was used as an example of not discriminating (and practically inhaling ham pizzas on the run).

 

my personal favorite example of an elite athlete who excludes a whole category foods is scott jurek. arguably a much more accomplished ultramarathoner than karnazes, and a vegan. many people would probably consider his diet "radically exclusive", even nytimes called his diet "extreme", but i think it'd be hard to argue that it doesn't work for him.

 

just an example. it's not a "bizarre diet", as gadd puts it. but i think that the laissez-faire approach that's advocated here seems somewhat mocking of those for whom mainstream meat and potatoes diet is not right.

 

I don't think this is what Gadd is talking about - veganism and related dietary beliefs are a combination of ethical/spiritual/mental factors that go beyond "I want to lose weight/have ripped abs/climb ----/etc". I think Gadd is more referring to when people exclude foods they otherwise enjoy, like someone saying "I'm never going to eat pizza or ice cream again, even though I love both".

 

Personally I can see Will's point because I'm going through a period right now where I am trying to lose weight, and I've been quite successful so far (15lbs in 5 weeks) by ramping up my exercise, controlling my portions a bit better, and making some smart food substitutions (but no outright banishments). The other night I was really hungry for dinner, and I eat a frozen pizza after a 2 hour gym workout. Last night I wasn't as hungry, so I made a chicken and veggie stir-fry with a small sweet potato as the only starch. It's all about finding the balance you are comfortable with, and not feeling guilty for the occasional indulgence.

[spionin]

don't get me wrong - i agree with most of what he wrote. i mostly agree with previous posters about the sugar statements, exercise, etc.

 

the assertion of reasons for vegan diet (combination of ethical/spiritual/mental factors that go beyond "I want to lose weight/have ripped abs/climb ----/etc") is not necessarily true for everyone. there's a pretty strong physical component to this lifestyle.

 

i just think it's possible that some individuals eat the way they do because they happen to truly like it, because it just happens to actually work for them - even if it looks like deprivation, or "bizarre" or "radically exclusive" to some.

 

sorry for the tangent.

[G-spotter]

Hello all, the rate of change of food is far greater than we are able to adapt.

 

we have the genetics

of that cave man.

 

Nope, wrong. Genes associated with diet have been among the fastest-evolving amongst humans and are still being actively selected for today. For instance, genes for lactose tolerance have independently evolved 3 times in the last 10,000 years amongst three separate pastoralist populations. Likewise, in the Inuit, biological adaptations to the high fat content of a traditional diet that was mostly or all animals are found, and these adaptations developed within the last 3,000- 4,000 years.

 

Whether the evolution in this case is within the human genome itself or within commensal gut microbes is irrelevant

 

What does that mean? It means the assumptions of the paleo diet, humans haven't evolved in 100,000 years crowd are entirely wrong.

[Julian]

don't get me wrong - i agree with most of what he wrote. i mostly agree with previous posters about the sugar statements, exercise, etc.

 

the assertion of reasons for vegan diet (combination of ethical/spiritual/mental factors that go beyond "I want to lose weight/have ripped abs/climb ----/etc") is not necessarily true for everyone. there's a pretty strong physical component to this lifestyle.

 

i just think it's possible that some individuals eat the way they do because they happen to truly like it, because it just happens to actually work for them - even if it looks like deprivation, or "bizarre" or "radically exclusive" to some.

 

sorry for the tangent.

 

Don't apologize, it's not a tangent at all. I'll admit my characterization of vegans was probably a bit too generalized (although I certainly know plenty who view veganism in those terms), and doesn't apply to everyone. But I think the key thing you picked out, and what puts this outside of what Will is talking about, is that they feel good and are happy with their choice of food consumption lifestyle. I don't want to put too many words in Will's mouth, but I really think that he's talking about people who are punishing themselves/depriving themselves of food they enjoy, in order to meet some diet/weight loss regimen's requirements. What he's talking about is more like a vegan who loves cashews forcing themselves to never eat cashews because they are high in fat, and chewing a stick of celery as a substitute.