Pre and Post Workout Nutrition – A Hoax?

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.”)