In her June 5th article for the Times, Gina Kolata questions the “conventional wisdom” around sports nutrition. 

Here are the main assumptions that she (and the researchers she interviews) question:

1.  “As yet no convincing evidence exists that a special carbohydrate-to-protein ratio makes a noticeable difference in muscle protein maintenance after exercise. “There is no magic ratio,” Dr. Jeukendrup said.”

Let’s take a gander at the recommendations made later in the article.  Dr. Rennie suggests 15-20 grams of protein for a 176 lb man, and Dr. Tarnopolsky suggests 1 gram of carbs per kilogram of body weight.  So, for that same 176 lb guy:

176/2.2 = 80 kg

So, he would take a recovery drink/meal of 15-20 grams protein and 80 grams of carbs.  That’s roughly a 4:1 ratio.  And yet,

“As for the special four-to-one ratio of carbohydrates to protein, that, too, is not well established, researchers said. As yet no convincing evidence exists that a special carbohydrate-to-protein ratio makes a noticeable difference in muscle protein maintenance after exercise. “There is no magic ratio,” Dr. Jeukendrup said.”

Ok - if you say so.

2. “Muscles don’t need much protein; just 20 grams for a 176 lb man.”

Need and optimally function are two very different things.  Again, the good doctor is talking about endurance athletes here, whose primary concerns do not include increasing muscle mass.  And .05 grams of protein per lb of bodyweight would certainly spell disaster for any athlete engaged in high-intensity effort.  It’s instructive here to look at the research of Dr. Peter Lemon, who says studies on protein requirements by athletes are closer to 1.6-1.8 grams per kg (or 0.8-0.9 grams per pound) of protein.

I think the Times article loses on this one.

3. “Although studies by Dr. Jeukendrup and several others have shown that consuming protein after exercise speeds up muscle protein synthesis, no one has shown that that translates into improved performance.”

 Improved protein synthesis = more muscle.  More muscle = improved performance.  There’s really no two ways around this, I’m afraid.

The saving grace of this misleading article?  This quote from Dr. Stuart Phillips:

“But ordinarily he does not worry about getting a special carbohydrate-to-protein mix or timing his nutrition when he exercises. Instead, Dr. Phillips said, he simply eats real food at regular meals.”

Hear, hear - “real food” at regular meals is a great plan for success.  What’s most difficult for most laypersons to understand is that supplements are just that - supplements to what should be an already healthful, nutrient-filled diet, not to be used in lieu of eating the foods these supplements are designed to mimic (or are derived from) themselves.  Do you need to consume protein shakes to grow muscle?  No, of course not.  Will a runner fail if she fails to consume Powergels during her 10k?  No; not if she’s eating properly for performance.

The real disservice here is that misleading statements are touted as “Scientific Truth” without paying attention to context.  Context is everything.  Remember that Gina Kolata is (and writes for) the endurance athlete, so the advice she profers is geared towards that population.  A strength athlete or weekend warrior would do themselves a disservice to follow her guidelines since the demands of their respective sport(s) and situation call for a different set of guidelines.

So take it with a grain of salt.  I’m sure Ms. Kolata would approve.

(Nota bene: Read the linked article about salt again.  It’s 20 years old.  Yet, does the rhetoric remind you of some other, more contemporary, so-called health hazard?  Hint: Rhymes with “Uncle Fester’s Awl.”)

If you read the Harvard Women’s Health Watch, then chances are you’ve already caught wind of a study published in the January 2008 issue of the journal Arthritis Care and Research.  This small study compared the effectiveness of strength training and general fitness training on reducing chronic work-related neck pain.

Result: The group who participated in “general fitness training” (defined by the researchers as riding a bike 20 mins 3x a week) saw no decrease in pain.  The group who strength trained experienced a 75% decrease in pain symptoms both during the training period and 10 weeks post (during which no workouts were performed). 

There are some points that need to be addressed:

• The group size was small (48 participants) and was comprised exclusively of women. This limits the study’s applicability across all populations.
• The strength-trained group performed: dumbbell shrug, one-arm row, upright row, reverse fly, and lateral raise.  While these exercises do meaningfully engage the neck/shoulder muscles, one can’t help but wonder how the results might have been had the participants engaged in more direct neck work (say, manually-resisted neck flexion or extension).
• The participants suffered from overuse pain in the trapezius, likely a result of work-related factors.  This means that the study findings may not apply to those looking for relief from a more acute neck trauma; say, a blow to the head (of course, if you ask me, I’d wager that it would). 

Strength training isn’t some sort of miracle cure-all, but it does help in relieving chronic muscle pain.