This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
All you need to know about what, when and where to eat to improve your climbing performance, with Robin O'Leary and nutritionist Rebecca DentRead more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=7195
1
7
3
1
1
1
In reply to Turdus torquatus:
I read that and promptly disregarded the rest of the article, the author has either been misquoted or is an unreliable authority.
I read that and promptly disregarded the rest of the article, the author has either been misquoted or is an unreliable authority.
9
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Are you a more reliable authority?
> ...the author has either been misquoted or is an unreliable authority.
Are you a more reliable authority?
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
They might be authorities on nutrition, but it's not a very well written article.
They might be authorities on nutrition, but it's not a very well written article.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Research has consistently shown creatine gives no benefits for stamina/endurance sports
Research has consistently shown creatine gives no benefits for stamina/endurance sports
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
It's helpful that UKC publish these articles, I now know to avoid taking any advice from Robin O'Leary or Rebecca Dent.
no-one knows more about nutrition than Rebecca Dent
This website is the Daily Mail of climbing journalism. The really sad thing is that there is no UK competition.
It's helpful that UKC publish these articles, I now know to avoid taking any advice from Robin O'Leary or Rebecca Dent.
no-one knows more about nutrition than Rebecca Dent
This website is the Daily Mail of climbing journalism. The really sad thing is that there is no UK competition.
4
2
In reply to UKC Articles: i thought this was a poor article with very little fact or evidence to back anything up, the only time studies were mentioned were to say they were inconclusive.
I am also highly dubious about their claims for creatine, everything I have read elsewhere suggests creatine would not be a good idea.
in my opinion this article was full of the typical waffle you get from nutritionists.
Ben
I am also highly dubious about their claims for creatine, everything I have read elsewhere suggests creatine would not be a good idea.
in my opinion this article was full of the typical waffle you get from nutritionists.
Ben
1
In reply to climbercool:
Possibly, but to be fair to Dent she's a dietitian, not a nutritionist, which is an important distinction in the UK.
> in my opinion this article was full of the typical waffle you get from nutritionists.
Possibly, but to be fair to Dent she's a dietitian, not a nutritionist, which is an important distinction in the UK.
3
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
But climbing, outside of the Alpine arena, isn't an endurance sport. I have little to no interest in taking supplements, but most of the advice given seemed fairly sensible to me, I'd be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt as this is her area of expertise and not mine.
> Research has consistently shown creatine gives no benefits for stamina/endurance sports
But climbing, outside of the Alpine arena, isn't an endurance sport. I have little to no interest in taking supplements, but most of the advice given seemed fairly sensible to me, I'd be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt as this is her area of expertise and not mine.
8
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
Article seemed fairly well written. Not exactly groundbreaking but then again diet stuff isn't rocket science to be honest. Ignore the hype, stick with relatively unprocessed foods when possible and you are most of the way there. Eating lots of salads is the gold standard, eating nutrient dense foods after hard training/climbing (and not just a shake) is best, and stay hydrated. Again with the omega 3 and Vit D advice, it's not controversial.
Why are people so upset? The creatine advice seemed fine to me. When I was a club swimmer I took creatine on and off for years and it helped in the training phases. It's standard advice to phase it out towards a performance phase in sports where bodyweight matters, and in theory you are left with the bigger muscles without the excess water storage.
Article seemed fairly well written. Not exactly groundbreaking but then again diet stuff isn't rocket science to be honest. Ignore the hype, stick with relatively unprocessed foods when possible and you are most of the way there. Eating lots of salads is the gold standard, eating nutrient dense foods after hard training/climbing (and not just a shake) is best, and stay hydrated. Again with the omega 3 and Vit D advice, it's not controversial.
Why are people so upset? The creatine advice seemed fine to me. When I was a club swimmer I took creatine on and off for years and it helped in the training phases. It's standard advice to phase it out towards a performance phase in sports where bodyweight matters, and in theory you are left with the bigger muscles without the excess water storage.
2
In reply to Snot:
Precisely.
My nutrition advice follows below.....
Wait for it.....
After a hard day climbing/ walking have 1. egg and chips. (Plus 2. EITHER a glass of Guinness OR a glass of grapefruit juice [depending on taste]).
There will be no charge for this fantastic advice.
> Even if some of it is a little hard to swallow...
Precisely.
My nutrition advice follows below.....
Wait for it.....
After a hard day climbing/ walking have 1. egg and chips. (Plus 2. EITHER a glass of Guinness OR a glass of grapefruit juice [depending on taste]).
There will be no charge for this fantastic advice.
In reply to Turdus torquatus:
Read that in a recent Climber as well, where Gaz Parry recommended creatine. Couldn't quite believe it. Apparently it's a thing. If you're a professional climber I can understand, but for mainstream climbers, it's not exactly like recommending peanut butter, is it?
Read that in a recent Climber as well, where Gaz Parry recommended creatine. Couldn't quite believe it. Apparently it's a thing. If you're a professional climber I can understand, but for mainstream climbers, it's not exactly like recommending peanut butter, is it?
2
In reply to planetmarshall:
I guess it comes down to what you class as 'endurance' and what you class as 'short duration high intensity'. I'd have said that apart from bouldering, all climbing is an endurance sport to some extent. And even boulderers get pumped after a while
> But climbing, outside of the Alpine arena, isn't an endurance sport.
I guess it comes down to what you class as 'endurance' and what you class as 'short duration high intensity'. I'd have said that apart from bouldering, all climbing is an endurance sport to some extent. And even boulderers get pumped after a while
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Well it doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of opinion - there's a scientific definition of endurance activity, which is activity that uses solely aerobic, as opposed to anaerobic, metabolism.
If you never cross the aerobic threshold while climbing, you'll never feel a pump and then it's an aerobic activity and creatine will be of no benefit - but I would think that would be pretty unusual for most climbers.
Well it doesn't necessarily have to be a matter of opinion - there's a scientific definition of endurance activity, which is activity that uses solely aerobic, as opposed to anaerobic, metabolism.
If you never cross the aerobic threshold while climbing, you'll never feel a pump and then it's an aerobic activity and creatine will be of no benefit - but I would think that would be pretty unusual for most climbers.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Hi planetmarshall,
Just to clarify things here: Rebecca is specifically referring to strength/power training and recovery.
If you take it consistently over a long period of time, no-one is doubting you will increase size and the benefits will be outweighed by the weight.
However, small doses over a short period CAN help some people.
(Diabetics should not use Creatine as a supplement and under 18s are not recommended to take it either.)
http://www.nicros.com/training/articles/the-truth-about-creatine-for-climbe...
Here is Eric Horst's take on it...for the flipside, but he takes it for recovery in small doses...and it benefits him.
Hi planetmarshall,
Just to clarify things here: Rebecca is specifically referring to strength/power training and recovery.
If you take it consistently over a long period of time, no-one is doubting you will increase size and the benefits will be outweighed by the weight.
However, small doses over a short period CAN help some people.
(Diabetics should not use Creatine as a supplement and under 18s are not recommended to take it either.)
http://www.nicros.com/training/articles/the-truth-about-creatine-for-climbe...
Here is Eric Horst's take on it...for the flipside, but he takes it for recovery in small doses...and it benefits him.
Post edited at 12:54
3
In reply to rubben:
"small doses over a short period CAN help some people."
is rather different from
"Creatine is a supplement every climber should try"
"small doses over a short period CAN help some people."
is rather different from
"Creatine is a supplement every climber should try"
5
1
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
i feel like the article has suffered from touching upon too many things, and giving short thrift to some things that need a little qualification. However, the creatine thing is really - in my eyes - not nearly such a big a deal as you lot are making it out to be. She is not saying taking creatine all year round all the time. First of all its important to note she's working with athletes who's training and nutrition is periodised. Second, she qualifies the claim (albeit maybe too briefly) by saying the potential for weight gain is real, but it goes away when you stop taking the creatine. The result is something like this: take creatine during your strength and power phases of training (every athlete should have these, even alpinists). come off it when you get into the endurance/performance stages of your cycle. It's not wild, it's not dangerous, and it just might mean to make better progress in your strength training.
in a sport where there is such a massive strength element as competition climbing, this seems like really sound advice to me.
(i should qualify all this by saying i've never taken any supplements whilst climbing has been my main focus. However, i used to take creatine supplements at certain times of the year when i focused on judo and boxing. Both these sports strength to weight ratios also play a huge role)
i feel like the article has suffered from touching upon too many things, and giving short thrift to some things that need a little qualification. However, the creatine thing is really - in my eyes - not nearly such a big a deal as you lot are making it out to be. She is not saying taking creatine all year round all the time. First of all its important to note she's working with athletes who's training and nutrition is periodised. Second, she qualifies the claim (albeit maybe too briefly) by saying the potential for weight gain is real, but it goes away when you stop taking the creatine. The result is something like this: take creatine during your strength and power phases of training (every athlete should have these, even alpinists). come off it when you get into the endurance/performance stages of your cycle. It's not wild, it's not dangerous, and it just might mean to make better progress in your strength training.
in a sport where there is such a massive strength element as competition climbing, this seems like really sound advice to me.
(i should qualify all this by saying i've never taken any supplements whilst climbing has been my main focus. However, i used to take creatine supplements at certain times of the year when i focused on judo and boxing. Both these sports strength to weight ratios also play a huge role)
3
In reply to rubben:
It should mention at the very least that children should not take creatine..
Very disappointed in UKC with this tbh...
The argument that its a food derivative is weak...
It should mention at the very least that children should not take creatine..
Very disappointed in UKC with this tbh...
The argument that its a food derivative is weak...
1
2
In reply to UKC Articles:
If "no-one knows more about nutrition" than the author, she will be basing a lot of her statements on research. In an article like this, backing up statements with evidence based research can be hard, as it often leads to a science journal that is not open access. However, I feel that this is missing to support some statements.
As a scientist, if my name was going on a piece of work like this, I would have requested spaces between numbers and units ("3hrs, "2kg" etc), as is standard in any scientific publication.
If "no-one knows more about nutrition" than the author, she will be basing a lot of her statements on research. In an article like this, backing up statements with evidence based research can be hard, as it often leads to a science journal that is not open access. However, I feel that this is missing to support some statements.
As a scientist, if my name was going on a piece of work like this, I would have requested spaces between numbers and units ("3hrs, "2kg" etc), as is standard in any scientific publication.
2
In reply to UKC Articles:
"Each time you eat something, simply think is this having any benefit? Doing any good? Serving me a purpose towards my climbing goals?"
I just thank god I don't have to do this
"Each time you eat something, simply think is this having any benefit? Doing any good? Serving me a purpose towards my climbing goals?"
I just thank god I don't have to do this
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
OH.................................MY..................................WORD.
Most of the comments above are the perfect reason why an article like this is so necessary. Some absolute madness being spouted. There's some superb advice in the article. Do your own research if you're that bothered, people!!
OH.................................MY..................................WORD.
Most of the comments above are the perfect reason why an article like this is so necessary. Some absolute madness being spouted. There's some superb advice in the article. Do your own research if you're that bothered, people!!
12
In reply to UKC Articles:
>2015
>Relying on UKC to provide gainz
>being this new
>ISHYGDDT
>mfw http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/96d6c15225123c3ac1c43048be565f7ae4e1a090...
>2015
>Relying on UKC to provide gainz
>being this new
>ISHYGDDT
>mfw http://www.bbc.co.uk/staticarchive/96d6c15225123c3ac1c43048be565f7ae4e1a090...
In reply to Gus:
And there is some poor advice... Clearly every climber should not try creatine, this is an over the counter supplement. It should be clarified in the article that U18's shouldn't be using it. Young kids read these articles.
TBH though I think its poor for a dietician to advise supplements. I'd expect a dietician to provide me with the balanced diet so I don't need supplements. If you can't then for me you are taking it in abnormal amounts.
> OH.................................MY..................................WORD.
> Most of the comments above are the perfect reason why an article like this is so necessary. Some absolute madness being spouted. There's some superb advice in the article. Do your own research if you're that bothered, people!!
And there is some poor advice... Clearly every climber should not try creatine, this is an over the counter supplement. It should be clarified in the article that U18's shouldn't be using it. Young kids read these articles.
TBH though I think its poor for a dietician to advise supplements. I'd expect a dietician to provide me with the balanced diet so I don't need supplements. If you can't then for me you are taking it in abnormal amounts.
In reply to Roadrunner2:
Creatine is one of the most widely (if not the most) widely researched safe/legal sport supplement there is out there, apart from possibly caffeine. The whole point is that it should provide a beneficial effect on top of a healthy diet. What is so controversial about that? Bizarre.
Also some supplements are necessary for some people. Vitamin D if you are not getting enough sunlight for example. Research behind Omega 3's is pretty solid too, and not everybody likes fish
Creatine is one of the most widely (if not the most) widely researched safe/legal sport supplement there is out there, apart from possibly caffeine. The whole point is that it should provide a beneficial effect on top of a healthy diet. What is so controversial about that? Bizarre.
Also some supplements are necessary for some people. Vitamin D if you are not getting enough sunlight for example. Research behind Omega 3's is pretty solid too, and not everybody likes fish
2
In reply to jsmcfarland:
And yet the abuse of creatine is known to cause kidney problems and people with kidney issues are asked not to take creatine. And there is the fact that commercially available products are often contaminated with other substances. It is likely to be safe for most people, but recommending any kind of supplement should at least come with some caveats.
Once again it's not like recommending to eat more greens. You are absorbing something that has a an untraceable origin, be aware that there might be some risks.
And yet the abuse of creatine is known to cause kidney problems and people with kidney issues are asked not to take creatine. And there is the fact that commercially available products are often contaminated with other substances. It is likely to be safe for most people, but recommending any kind of supplement should at least come with some caveats.
Once again it's not like recommending to eat more greens. You are absorbing something that has a an untraceable origin, be aware that there might be some risks.
In reply to drolex:
Citation needed. There is very little evidence that creatine can cause kidney problems. In fact there is more evidence to the contrary.
Citation needed. There is very little evidence that creatine can cause kidney problems. In fact there is more evidence to the contrary.
1
In reply to JimboWizbo:
Its all bollocks anyway.
Just eat as much as you like before training and as much as you can afterwards* (if you don't have to lie down to swallow the last mouthful, your're not trying hard enough), and you can't go to far wrong.
*Double the quantities for alpine climbing.
> UKC Forums kicking off in true form.
Its all bollocks anyway.
Just eat as much as you like before training and as much as you can afterwards* (if you don't have to lie down to swallow the last mouthful, your're not trying hard enough), and you can't go to far wrong.
*Double the quantities for alpine climbing.
4
In reply to jsmcfarland:
Ok point me to one scientific study on children using creatine?
It is very very poorly studied .. Go on pubmed? Pull up the articles?
That is why the NHS amongst others advise kids not to use it..
As said the article should be amended.
Ok point me to one scientific study on children using creatine?
It is very very poorly studied .. Go on pubmed? Pull up the articles?
That is why the NHS amongst others advise kids not to use it..
As said the article should be amended.
1
In reply to jsmcfarland:
I never said no one should take creatine.
Personally I'm against using it but I have no issues with adults researching it and using it. I am against sweeping statements that encourage kids to take it.
> Creatine is one of the most widely (if not the most) widely researched safe/legal sport supplement there is out there, apart from possibly caffeine. The whole point is that it should provide a beneficial effect on top of a healthy diet. What is so controversial about that? Bizarre.
> Also some supplements are necessary for some people. Vitamin D if you are not getting enough sunlight for example. Research behind Omega 3's is pretty solid too, and not everybody likes fish
I never said no one should take creatine.
Personally I'm against using it but I have no issues with adults researching it and using it. I am against sweeping statements that encourage kids to take it.
In reply to Kid Spatula:
for the part about those already having issues: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19124889
For healthy people, I will gladly admit that I was wrong as further research has shown there was no evidence for creatine causing kidney issues (apparently the myth came from some sports newspapers and has been debunked since).
Now your turn to show that it is good for kidneys
for the part about those already having issues: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19124889
For healthy people, I will gladly admit that I was wrong as further research has shown there was no evidence for creatine causing kidney issues (apparently the myth came from some sports newspapers and has been debunked since).
Now your turn to show that it is good for kidneys
In reply to UKC Articles:
It looks like her credentials are legitimate:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=147606421&authType=NAME_SEARCH...
It looks like her credentials are legitimate:
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=147606421&authType=NAME_SEARCH...
In reply to UKC Articles:
I think there's a bit of difference between disagreeing with some of the points in the article and suddenly going on a witch hunt and questioning people's credentials. I've written technical articles for UKC (with gaps between numbers and units, naturally, and plenty of journal references) but wouldn't fancy writing them again if I got half the response that some people have come out with here. That's not to say I couldn't take criticism, it's just I couldn't take criticism from people claiming they know a lot, without providing any evidence to back up their opinions. Research into diets/nutrition/supplements is still in its infancy and this, coupled with people getting furious about it because it affects them directly, means arguments will happen, but using proper evidence (in this thread as well as the original article) would be a very good idea.
In my opinion UKC should have more technical articles, but no one will write them if it just turns into a witch hunt against the author. Imagine if there were articles occasionally on everything from how different rocks are formed and how that affects their climbing properties (there must be 100 geology PhD students who could do that), how falls are really arrested (Jim Titt or someone similar must be able to cook up something pretty awesome on that), how different rock shoe rubbers have different properties (how do those Boreal shoes stick to each other), future developments in climbing gear (carbon fibre's been looked at, but what about aerogel-filled clothing, spider silk ropes... proper sky-high stuff), what really happens when you soak your slings and ropes in DEET, petrol, battery acid, etc.. Those sort of articles would get me super psyched, but won't happen if authors feel they are writing to an audience who are just out to get them!
I think there's a bit of difference between disagreeing with some of the points in the article and suddenly going on a witch hunt and questioning people's credentials. I've written technical articles for UKC (with gaps between numbers and units, naturally, and plenty of journal references) but wouldn't fancy writing them again if I got half the response that some people have come out with here. That's not to say I couldn't take criticism, it's just I couldn't take criticism from people claiming they know a lot, without providing any evidence to back up their opinions. Research into diets/nutrition/supplements is still in its infancy and this, coupled with people getting furious about it because it affects them directly, means arguments will happen, but using proper evidence (in this thread as well as the original article) would be a very good idea.
In my opinion UKC should have more technical articles, but no one will write them if it just turns into a witch hunt against the author. Imagine if there were articles occasionally on everything from how different rocks are formed and how that affects their climbing properties (there must be 100 geology PhD students who could do that), how falls are really arrested (Jim Titt or someone similar must be able to cook up something pretty awesome on that), how different rock shoe rubbers have different properties (how do those Boreal shoes stick to each other), future developments in climbing gear (carbon fibre's been looked at, but what about aerogel-filled clothing, spider silk ropes... proper sky-high stuff), what really happens when you soak your slings and ropes in DEET, petrol, battery acid, etc.. Those sort of articles would get me super psyched, but won't happen if authors feel they are writing to an audience who are just out to get them!
13
In reply to UKC Articles:
Rebecca is a highly respected dietician with the following qualifications: International Olympic Committee Nutrition Diploma, MSc Sports Nutrition, BSc Applied Human Nutrition Dietetics. As someone who has actually used her services I think that she is brilliant and, contrary to what some of you on this forum are suggesting, she's very much interested in encouraging people to eat healthily and without supplements if that works for them.
I recently went to Africa and she provided me with nutrition information and advice for climbing Kilimanjaro and running a marathon over there, where I had access to very little food, at times. She was great. I felt really confident about her advice - it was bang on the money in terms of being realistic and meeting my needs.
With regard to the article, what she says seems sensible to me. The thing about nutrition and articles is that diet is so individual. She offers up a range of options, with sufficient details to digest. It's difficult to reference every single thing, but I'm sure she would be able to give you the references if you feel that you've been hard done by in any way by the article in terms of the information provided. To some people the advice might seem straightforward, but I think that there is a minefield of information available and sometimes just having a professional go through the basics is a goo away of checking you're doing the right things.
I would say, if you're not interested or you don't like what she's saying, then there's no compulsion to heed her advice. The other option is to find out more for yourself or engage her services: http://rebeccadent.co.uk/about/
Rebecca is a highly respected dietician with the following qualifications: International Olympic Committee Nutrition Diploma, MSc Sports Nutrition, BSc Applied Human Nutrition Dietetics. As someone who has actually used her services I think that she is brilliant and, contrary to what some of you on this forum are suggesting, she's very much interested in encouraging people to eat healthily and without supplements if that works for them.
I recently went to Africa and she provided me with nutrition information and advice for climbing Kilimanjaro and running a marathon over there, where I had access to very little food, at times. She was great. I felt really confident about her advice - it was bang on the money in terms of being realistic and meeting my needs.
With regard to the article, what she says seems sensible to me. The thing about nutrition and articles is that diet is so individual. She offers up a range of options, with sufficient details to digest. It's difficult to reference every single thing, but I'm sure she would be able to give you the references if you feel that you've been hard done by in any way by the article in terms of the information provided. To some people the advice might seem straightforward, but I think that there is a minefield of information available and sometimes just having a professional go through the basics is a goo away of checking you're doing the right things.
I would say, if you're not interested or you don't like what she's saying, then there's no compulsion to heed her advice. The other option is to find out more for yourself or engage her services: http://rebeccadent.co.uk/about/
7
In reply to Mr Fuller:
I dont think its a witch hunt...
The argument she's qualified is poor. That's what science is about, challenging views.
Wakefield was qualified.. he was still wrong.. and has been a major factor in the re-emergence of deadly diseases in the US at least.
“The Doctors' Choice Is America's Choice”.. what was that tag line from? Probably the greatest killer of the 20th century..
http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62...
So yes, we should be free to challenge.
But all climbers should not use Creatine. Adults can consider it but kids should not, far more qualified people than Rebecca say otherwise.
I dont think its a witch hunt...
The argument she's qualified is poor. That's what science is about, challenging views.
Wakefield was qualified.. he was still wrong.. and has been a major factor in the re-emergence of deadly diseases in the US at least.
“The Doctors' Choice Is America's Choice”.. what was that tag line from? Probably the greatest killer of the 20th century..
http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62...
So yes, we should be free to challenge.
But all climbers should not use Creatine. Adults can consider it but kids should not, far more qualified people than Rebecca say otherwise.
2
In reply to EmilyCreative:
Again this is disingenuous. Of course her view can be challenged. That is what we as scientists do, that is why we publish. Science is about falsifying, challenging views, You NEVER cede to authority on authority alone in good science, there is no hierarchy.
> I would say, if you're not interested or you don't like what she's saying, then there's no compulsion to heed her advice. The other option is to find out more for yourself or engage her services: http://rebeccadent.co.uk/about/
Again this is disingenuous. Of course her view can be challenged. That is what we as scientists do, that is why we publish. Science is about falsifying, challenging views, You NEVER cede to authority on authority alone in good science, there is no hierarchy.
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
'Being dehydrated by 3-4% of your body weight can compromise strength performance by 2%'
Is that a gain in power weight then?
'Being dehydrated by 3-4% of your body weight can compromise strength performance by 2%'
Is that a gain in power weight then?
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
Interestingly this article coincided with an article in the AMI quaterly magazine, can't quite remember the guys name but he was an IFMGA and some kind of food biologist and taught food science (or somthing like that). Basically the gist of his advice was eat a reasonably balanced, healthy diet all year round, don't worry about it too much and a snickers is as good as an energy gel in the mountains. People pulled of some incredible feats of human endurance long before we had nutritionists giving us advice, perhaps at the peak level of olypian sport diet makes a small difference. For mountaineering I suspect someone with a normal healthy diet doing a large volume of training will see little difference by changing their diet, for the rest of us sitting at our desks and playing at the weekend I doubt it will make any difference at all.
Having found nutrition quite intersting in the past I have to say that all the conflicting expert advice leads me to start having a preference for the more simplistic approach to food, i.e. eat it, don't eat too much of it, don't eat too little of it, don't eat too much of one thing or too much of one type of thing. I remember learnign at primary school the different types of food in a "pie chart" explaining how we need so much of each thing, i.e. not a lot of fat, quite a lot of complec carbohydrate. I'm not convinced anything has really changed.
Interestingly this article coincided with an article in the AMI quaterly magazine, can't quite remember the guys name but he was an IFMGA and some kind of food biologist and taught food science (or somthing like that). Basically the gist of his advice was eat a reasonably balanced, healthy diet all year round, don't worry about it too much and a snickers is as good as an energy gel in the mountains. People pulled of some incredible feats of human endurance long before we had nutritionists giving us advice, perhaps at the peak level of olypian sport diet makes a small difference. For mountaineering I suspect someone with a normal healthy diet doing a large volume of training will see little difference by changing their diet, for the rest of us sitting at our desks and playing at the weekend I doubt it will make any difference at all.
Having found nutrition quite intersting in the past I have to say that all the conflicting expert advice leads me to start having a preference for the more simplistic approach to food, i.e. eat it, don't eat too much of it, don't eat too little of it, don't eat too much of one thing or too much of one type of thing. I remember learnign at primary school the different types of food in a "pie chart" explaining how we need so much of each thing, i.e. not a lot of fat, quite a lot of complec carbohydrate. I'm not convinced anything has really changed.
Post edited at 08:16
1
In reply to Roadrunner2:
That's a pretty unfair comparison. To say Wakefield was "wrong" implies that he was honest - he wasn't. His research had a financial conflict of interest and he lost his licence due to fraud.
> Wakefield was qualified.. he was still wrong.. and has been a major factor in the re-emergence of deadly diseases in the US at least.
That's a pretty unfair comparison. To say Wakefield was "wrong" implies that he was honest - he wasn't. His research had a financial conflict of interest and he lost his licence due to fraud.
2
In reply to Iclimb:
I expect she is indeed an expert, and that her advice is useful to some people. But she recommends that all climbers take creatine, a recommendation that is so wrong that I wouldn't know what what else she says that I can trust
I expect she is indeed an expert, and that her advice is useful to some people. But she recommends that all climbers take creatine, a recommendation that is so wrong that I wouldn't know what what else she says that I can trust
1
In reply to Roadrunner2:
No disrespect to the author, but you can forgive the great unwashed for being slightly sceptical of the dietician/dietetics/nutritionist/nutritional therapist sector. It's a flipping minefield and we generally don't understand the job titles sufficiently to recognise the difference between the medically qualified and the chancers. Who can forget such comedy greats as Gillian McKeith and her made up doctorate (and the prestigious diploma, also awarded to Ben Goldacre's cat in return for filling in the application form with payment). Patrick Holford dancing a fine line between commerce and academia for another example.
And I'm really not trying to insult Rebecca Dent, just pointing out there's a PR battle to be fought.
No disrespect to the author, but you can forgive the great unwashed for being slightly sceptical of the dietician/dietetics/nutritionist/nutritional therapist sector. It's a flipping minefield and we generally don't understand the job titles sufficiently to recognise the difference between the medically qualified and the chancers. Who can forget such comedy greats as Gillian McKeith and her made up doctorate (and the prestigious diploma, also awarded to Ben Goldacre's cat in return for filling in the application form with payment). Patrick Holford dancing a fine line between commerce and academia for another example.
And I'm really not trying to insult Rebecca Dent, just pointing out there's a PR battle to be fought.
1
In reply to Sharp:
Cheers Ben - a well reasoned reply.
My personal opinion is that there are too many fads in all things diet wise, and this is a direct result of there being money to made from selling one particular diet over another. Will Gadd wrote some brilliant advice in his Gravsport blog - I've quoted it verbatim here, with my own highlights:
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!
Cheers Ben - a well reasoned reply.
My personal opinion is that there are too many fads in all things diet wise, and this is a direct result of there being money to made from selling one particular diet over another. Will Gadd wrote some brilliant advice in his Gravsport blog - I've quoted it verbatim here, with my own highlights:
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!
15
In reply to Ally Smith:
-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...
Love that paragraph. Nailed on.
Cheers for this Ally.
-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...
Love that paragraph. Nailed on.
Cheers for this Ally.
All the cool kids are supercharging creatine with baking soda. Fact.
In reply to will909:
Because there are many people for whom it is a bad idea, and many more for whom it will make no difference at all (other than perhaps a bit of weight gain).
Because there are many people for whom it is a bad idea, and many more for whom it will make no difference at all (other than perhaps a bit of weight gain).
In reply to Sharp: exactly..
For all this new diets.. New trainers.. Compression gear..
How have times changed?
They haven't..
The British marathon record is what? 30 years old...
For all this new diets.. New trainers.. Compression gear..
How have times changed?
They haven't..
The British marathon record is what? 30 years old...
In reply to Ally Smith:
In Training for the New Alpinism, Steve House and Scott Johnson point out that two of the most impressive groups of high altitude climbers, Slovenes and Nepalese Sherpas, have wildly different altitude diets: the former high fat/high protein/low carbohydrate (cheese and sausages), the latter low fat/low protein/high carbohydrate (dal and rice).
In this training beta podcast Adam Ondra, who trains more intensively than 99.99% readers of this website, says he just eats food - mostly vegetables - and doesn't use supplements.
https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/tbp-017-adam-ondra-things-training/?port...
Try different diets but don't obsess over them (which can lead to some nasty places). Have a healthy skepticism about whatever the diet, supplement and pharma industries are pushing this week.
In Training for the New Alpinism, Steve House and Scott Johnson point out that two of the most impressive groups of high altitude climbers, Slovenes and Nepalese Sherpas, have wildly different altitude diets: the former high fat/high protein/low carbohydrate (cheese and sausages), the latter low fat/low protein/high carbohydrate (dal and rice).
In this training beta podcast Adam Ondra, who trains more intensively than 99.99% readers of this website, says he just eats food - mostly vegetables - and doesn't use supplements.
https://www.trainingbeta.com/media/tbp-017-adam-ondra-things-training/?port...
Try different diets but don't obsess over them (which can lead to some nasty places). Have a healthy skepticism about whatever the diet, supplement and pharma industries are pushing this week.
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
I don't think it is.
I never said she was dishonest but if you extrapolate her comments she's advising junior climbers to do something the NHS advise not too..
And if nobody challenged Wakefield we'd not have the truth.. The fact he lied is immaterial to that argument. Science is about falsifying.. This is basic science... Popper...
> That's a pretty unfair comparison. To say Wakefield was "wrong" implies that he was honest - he wasn't. His research had a financial conflict of interest and he lost his licence due to fraud.
I don't think it is.
I never said she was dishonest but if you extrapolate her comments she's advising junior climbers to do something the NHS advise not too..
And if nobody challenged Wakefield we'd not have the truth.. The fact he lied is immaterial to that argument. Science is about falsifying.. This is basic science... Popper...
1
In reply to Matt_b:
I could have sworn I saw a reply from the author on Monday evening here, but it seems to have now gone. I would not like to misquote anything, but if I recall, it was clarification of the creatine for under 18s discussion. Most of the heated discussion seems to be stuck on this point. If I was not imagining this, hopefully the article can be amended by the author so that a clearer message is given regarding this.
When people point out things like spelling mistakes, spaces between units, and sentence structure, it is easy say "who cares?". However, as is highlighted here, communication is a key part of science. An important message could be lost or misinterpreted without proper attention to these finer details. In this case, it all spirals into a massive discussion, based mostly on one sentence it seems.
With regard to the references, I really like the Guardian science articles format of hyperlinks within the sentence, so that you can dig further if you wish, but if not, it doesn't clutter up the article.
I could have sworn I saw a reply from the author on Monday evening here, but it seems to have now gone. I would not like to misquote anything, but if I recall, it was clarification of the creatine for under 18s discussion. Most of the heated discussion seems to be stuck on this point. If I was not imagining this, hopefully the article can be amended by the author so that a clearer message is given regarding this.
When people point out things like spelling mistakes, spaces between units, and sentence structure, it is easy say "who cares?". However, as is highlighted here, communication is a key part of science. An important message could be lost or misinterpreted without proper attention to these finer details. In this case, it all spirals into a massive discussion, based mostly on one sentence it seems.
With regard to the references, I really like the Guardian science articles format of hyperlinks within the sentence, so that you can dig further if you wish, but if not, it doesn't clutter up the article.
In reply to drolex:
commercially available products are often contaminated with other substances?...........errr sorry but the two biggest players in the UK (bulkpowders, myprotein) and I imagine most other big companies all have their products independently tested. That's almost a borderline libelous statement. (I have no interest in these companies or creatine btw but I really cant help calling out statements like that) If you bought milk formula from china most people would be suspicious, same as anything.
commercially available products are often contaminated with other substances?...........errr sorry but the two biggest players in the UK (bulkpowders, myprotein) and I imagine most other big companies all have their products independently tested. That's almost a borderline libelous statement. (I have no interest in these companies or creatine btw but I really cant help calling out statements like that) If you bought milk formula from china most people would be suspicious, same as anything.
In reply to Roadrunner2:
Your posts are verging on the bizarre. Comparing a dietitian (who made no mention of creatine use for kids btw) to Wakefield is just beyond the pale.
Your posts are verging on the bizarre. Comparing a dietitian (who made no mention of creatine use for kids btw) to Wakefield is just beyond the pale.
In reply to jsmcfarland:
Then you have no understanding of science...
I didn't compare them directly.. Just the argument you should not question based on qualifications... If you don't understand that then you are ignorant .
And no, she didn't mention kids.. That was the whole bloody point! She said ALL climbers... Therefore including climbers under the age of 18...
Then you have no understanding of science...
I didn't compare them directly.. Just the argument you should not question based on qualifications... If you don't understand that then you are ignorant .
And no, she didn't mention kids.. That was the whole bloody point! She said ALL climbers... Therefore including climbers under the age of 18...
In reply to jsmcfarland:
You do realize that the US have sent cease and desist letters to some of these supplement companies because they don't contain what they say they do...
You do realize that the US have sent cease and desist letters to some of these supplement companies because they don't contain what they say they do...
In reply to jsmcfarland:
No, this one is well-known. I don't target any brand in particular. Some are probably clean, but there are several papers describing this issue.
One of them: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814610016377
No, this one is well-known. I don't target any brand in particular. Some are probably clean, but there are several papers describing this issue.
One of them: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814610016377
In reply to drolex:
It's actually an incredibly unregulated industry.. McFarland is highlighting his ignorance on this one.
Look at the recent Welsh doping cases....
It's actually an incredibly unregulated industry.. McFarland is highlighting his ignorance on this one.
Look at the recent Welsh doping cases....
Post edited at 19:43
In reply to Roadrunner2:
Nobody made that argument, you're attacking a straw man. Qualifications (at least, those awarded by a trustworthy body) bring authority, nobody argued that they bring infallibility.
> I didn't compare them directly.. Just the argument you should not question based on qualifications...
Nobody made that argument, you're attacking a straw man. Qualifications (at least, those awarded by a trustworthy body) bring authority, nobody argued that they bring infallibility.
In reply to planetmarshall:
Rubbish.. Read it all again.
Very disappointed in Alan et al in this, as a qualified/certified athletics youth coach and international athlete I deal with this and am amazed and disappointed its been left to stand as it was written, which clearly flies in the face of all guidelines.
Rubbish.. Read it all again.
Very disappointed in Alan et al in this, as a qualified/certified athletics youth coach and international athlete I deal with this and am amazed and disappointed its been left to stand as it was written, which clearly flies in the face of all guidelines.
Post edited at 21:00
In reply to flaneur:
>> This website is the Daily Mail of climbing journalism. The really sad thing is that there is no UK competition.
This thread is like the comments section of the Daily Mail website.
The article itself was almost entirely good sense on meal content and nutrient timing for athletic performance, and accords with other up-to-date literature I've read. If the author added one small edit to qualify 'all climbers (not including under 18s, who are not the target audience of this article)', then this whole thread would be a ridiculous argument over nothing.
To me, the article could be summed up by this quote:
"Your meal should include around 20-25g of good quality protein...PLUS some good quality carbohydrate e.g. brown rice, oats, quinoa, sweet potato, starchy vegetables (carrots/ parsnip/pumpkin/butter nut squash) and plentiful vegetables ideally green leafy/cruciferous veg.
Not forgetting some healthy fats (olive oil, olives, avocado, oily fish, nuts & seeds). Protein will help repair and rebuilding of muscles, carbohydrate will help refuelling and green leafy vegetables again help muscle repair, recovery and health."
>> This website is the Daily Mail of climbing journalism. The really sad thing is that there is no UK competition.
This thread is like the comments section of the Daily Mail website.
The article itself was almost entirely good sense on meal content and nutrient timing for athletic performance, and accords with other up-to-date literature I've read. If the author added one small edit to qualify 'all climbers (not including under 18s, who are not the target audience of this article)', then this whole thread would be a ridiculous argument over nothing.
To me, the article could be summed up by this quote:
"Your meal should include around 20-25g of good quality protein...PLUS some good quality carbohydrate e.g. brown rice, oats, quinoa, sweet potato, starchy vegetables (carrots/ parsnip/pumpkin/butter nut squash) and plentiful vegetables ideally green leafy/cruciferous veg.
Not forgetting some healthy fats (olive oil, olives, avocado, oily fish, nuts & seeds). Protein will help repair and rebuilding of muscles, carbohydrate will help refuelling and green leafy vegetables again help muscle repair, recovery and health."
5
In reply to UKC Articles:
Dear all,
The article has now been edited.
The Creatine sentence now says:
Creatine is a supplement *most* adult climbers should try [NB. if you are thinking of taking Creatine and have health issues, please consult your GP].
Thanks for bringing this important issue to our attention.
Jack
Dear all,
The article has now been edited.
The Creatine sentence now says:
Creatine is a supplement *most* adult climbers should try [NB. if you are thinking of taking Creatine and have health issues, please consult your GP].
Thanks for bringing this important issue to our attention.
Jack
4
1
1
In reply to RockSteady:
But it wasn't over nothing..
Do you coach kids? They think short term, look for short term gains that don't happen. Hence huge steroid problems in sport. There's also some poor arguments on here re drugs and what should be legal. Many banned drugs are entirely naturally available, just not in sufficient quantities, hence needing the pills or supplementation of them. In itself that they are found in natural foods is irrelevant.
How can you say kids aren't the target? It was 'all climbers'.. its very important kids involved in sport look at diet. I spent 3 hours on Friday driving out to coach at a race and then wasted my time as the guy had a shocker.. his diet is atrocious, beyond bad. Until he sorts his diet such races will continue. I'm hoping at some point he starts eating better when the penny drops. The sooner youcan get people on the right path the better they will be at sport.
McFarland is as uneducated as they come.. NIMBY.. he has no idea of the meaning of the word.
> >> This website is the Daily Mail of climbing journalism. The really sad thing is that there is no UK competition.
> This thread is like the comments section of the Daily Mail website.
> The article itself was almost entirely good sense on meal content and nutrient timing for athletic performance, and accords with other up-to-date literature I've read. If the author added one small edit to qualify 'all climbers (not including under 18s, who are not the target audience of this article)', then this whole thread would be a ridiculous argument over nothing.
But it wasn't over nothing..
Do you coach kids? They think short term, look for short term gains that don't happen. Hence huge steroid problems in sport. There's also some poor arguments on here re drugs and what should be legal. Many banned drugs are entirely naturally available, just not in sufficient quantities, hence needing the pills or supplementation of them. In itself that they are found in natural foods is irrelevant.
How can you say kids aren't the target? It was 'all climbers'.. its very important kids involved in sport look at diet. I spent 3 hours on Friday driving out to coach at a race and then wasted my time as the guy had a shocker.. his diet is atrocious, beyond bad. Until he sorts his diet such races will continue. I'm hoping at some point he starts eating better when the penny drops. The sooner youcan get people on the right path the better they will be at sport.
McFarland is as uneducated as they come.. NIMBY.. he has no idea of the meaning of the word.
3
In reply to UKC Articles:
I personally think the reply from Ally Smith at 12.08 on Wednesday has more sound advice and would make a far more sensible and relevant nutrition article than the one in discussion.
Ben
I personally think the reply from Ally Smith at 12.08 on Wednesday has more sound advice and would make a far more sensible and relevant nutrition article than the one in discussion.
Ben
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...