Sports Drinks, Protein Shakes and Running Shoes don't actually work
- Thread starter Hammer
- Start date
- Status
Deleted User 18963
New Member
Awful article.
Lewberry pie
Striker
I'd agree lucozade doesn't do anything some milk or a banana can't do, but its still fuel which your body uses.
I've no idea about bcaa tbh, but whey protein is as good as any high protein food as far as I'm aware, although you don't need it if you can eat your protein and that's where is say some drink the shakes and eat too much
The Guardian article is better. It finishes with a quote from one of the researchers that basically says 'for the majority of people eating a healthy balanced diet gives you everything you need'.
What about the research it's reporting on?
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
The problem is, it's very easy to make an argument sound very convincing if you just cherry pick snippets of data/findings from research. It's hard to really determine anything as non of the research is actually presented.
Hammer said:
Does it tell you what the results of the research are anywhere?
Yeah, they did a meta-analysis of the research that GSK use as evidence for Lucozade and their BCAA rich protein and most of the studies were too poor to be included and the others didn't show any benefit in the products. Did you not read it?
It sounds more like GSK have done some shit studies into the products and claim that they work. When you actually subject these studies to proper scrutiny they don't support the claims being made. The same sort of thing homeopaths do.
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4848
I don't mind reading the articles. They include the entire content of the programme and only take a couple of minutes to read. Usually slightly less sensationalised as well.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
I don't think it's anything new that supplements are marketted with felacious claims, it doesn't necessarily mean they "don't work". All you have to do is go to the muscletech website for example and you'll like see some advert making ridiculous claims that are simply beyond physiological normality, it's not to say that the product "doesn't work" though, because there's no context.
There are a lot and I mean A LOT of pre-workout products in particular though, that "won't work" if you go by their serving recommendations (often even exceeding that), because they just underdose everything massively and often use fillers that are cheap as fuck and slam "MUSCLE BUILDING BLEND" on the label.
Yeah fair enough. I'd imagine a lot of the studies use inappropriate controls, which is a trick a lot of pharmaceutical companies use.
Having had a proper read through of the BMJ article it seems that the main things they look at with supplements are 'recovery' drinks and BCAAs and the main conclusion is that if you have a good enough diet then they have absolutely no benefit.
The drinks stuff in it is more to do with when/how much to drink rather than what you drink.
Hammer said:
I can read what they said the results were just wondered if there was a link to the actual study that might give more idea.
I'm on my phone so could have missed it.
I posted the BMJ article a few posts back. Don't think the BBC article linked to it actually, got it from another article that was in the Guardian.
Safc_Number10
Striker
Creatine and Caffine were the only two supplements proven to work according to Panarama. But of course the other supplements like protein/recovery drinks help IMO as a top up (or convience) to a healthy diet.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
I also like beta-alanine, a lot of studies showing benefits.
- Status
