"Eat your pasta" says granny!!

One may have heard, throughout their athletic life, that they should eat pasta before sport. Many may even have a specific pre-game meal that they have been eating prior to competition since they can remember. However, how many people really know what they are eating? What is this food doing to my body, and will I score a goal tonight if I eat this, or miss the net if I eat that?

Well, here it is, the myths and facts of carb loading and its effects on performance. Typically, one consumes roughly 50% of their diet through carbs, one of the three macronutrients (proteins and fats make up the three).  With one carb resulting in the equivalent of 4 calories, a person who is supposed to consume 2400kcal in a day would see 1200 of those come from carbs, meaning 300g of carbs per day. Initially upon looking at the numbers, 300g of carbs in a day is a lot, but not to the general public in terms of what is a carb. The simplest of terms, a carb is anything that is not a fat or protein. Well, gee thanks! Carb are things such as all of our grains, wheat’s, pastas, sugars and breads. It is also, our vegetables, our juice, and even some hidden in things like almonds.

So, why would we carb load for performance?

Simple, carbs are the fastest at metabolizing in the body to supply energy to the muscles. Intramuscular glycogen and glycogen stored in the liver come from our exogenous carbs we ingest. As well, carbs are the ONLY fuel used by the brain. The more carbs in the blood stream, stored in muscles and liver, the more work we should be able to complete. Yes protein and fats are wonderful forms of fuel for the body, however, they take longer to be used up and it is harder for the body to burn them as fuel. Carb loading, by my definition, is exceeding 8g of CHO per kg of body weight. This same said individual, who need 2400kcal a day weighs 98kg, would now need to consume 784g of CHO a day, which works out to 3136kcal. Yes, much over the kcals required to maintain weight, but we have not factored in their sport performance and the calories expelled there. In my opinion, carb loading can be effective, if done correctly. Give at least 24 hours of CHO loading prior to performance for best results. Is it necessary or recommended for recreational athletes? Absolutely not. It is impractical to spend that much money on more food combined with the time requirements and the effect on the body (ie. feeling bloated, feeling sick, gastrointestinal issues, higher blood pressure, etc). What athlete would want that before an event?!

New Age Carb Load: Personally, I would follow this ‘carb load’ in high intensity, long endurance events such as a marathon, ironman, ect. Mainly, it is only effective in sports where there is no ability to refuel during the sport. These athletes should follow the 1 to 1 rule when exercising. 1g CHO for every one minute. This would be why carb loading is not effective for the big 5 professional sports: NHL, MLB, NFL, NBA, PGA. The newest idea in the sporting world is 3-4 days before a major event would be to simply add 200-300g to your daily CHO consumption.

Questions? Langdon.4747@gmail.com

Running Shoes, You Need Them to Run..or Do You?

As we enter the long weekend, the weather is slowly (and I men slowly) getting nicer.  With the weather getting above freezing temperatures, it is time to start running outside, if you haven't already.  Running is an easy form of exercise, as you can do it pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost you a dime.  There are many things I can get into when it comes to running, such as your form, your arm movement, your cadence, how high your knees should raise, how low your heels should be and more.  But before I ever get into those things, many of you need to know the importance of running shoes...or lack thereof.  I will briefly discuss barefoot running and minimalist running compared to running with your good, ol' fashioned running shoes.

There is quite a craze going on with barefoot running and minimalist running. It seems every shoe company has some sort of minimalist shoe to complete with the Vibram Five Fingers shoe. Everything from the Nike Free to the New Balance Minimus.  Many people want a barefoot feel, or run barefoot itself.  But what is the big difference?  First of all, if you've always run with shoes on, borrow a pair of Vibram's and go for a run.  Then, over the next couple of days, tell me how your calves feel. Basically, it's the heel strike.  Barefoot or minimalist running greatly reduces the impact of the heel strike by forcing you to strike with the mid foot. and forefoot  Running shoes with a nice cushion, allow for a heel first impact.  Take a look at the two graphs below. They are from Daniel Lieberman's 2010 Nature paper, which discusses the footsrike patterns in barefoot runners compared to those who run with shoes.  

 

It seems pretty clear that barefoot running is better than running with shoes on, as the amount of impact with your initial foot strike is absent.  Not so fast.  According to certain work done by various doctors, 75% of running injuries occur during push-off, not during heel-strike.  So tendonitis, plantar fascitis and shin splints are caused after heel-strike and impact force is pretty much the same in both graphs, barefoot or shod.  Interesting, eh?  If all the injuries occur during push-off, then why the big push for barefoot or minimalist running?

Barefoot and minimalist running has been around for a long time, even though shoes like the Vibrams are more recent to come out.  There is a reason why we were led to believe that cushioned heels were more important.  It's because the research suggested it.  Research pointed towards running with cushion soled shoes.  It reduces injuries is one argument.  But the same can be said for barefoot running.  Two theories stemming from the same research.  If you like barefoot running, you are probably drawn to the graphs above and the impact (or lack of it) with barefoot running.  But you could be an advocate of shod running, and are more drawn to the injury rate and what causes them.

So, what does that mean for you? It means you have a choice.  Running with Nikes and a nice cushioned sole isn't necessarily bad, but either is running with Vibram's and no cushion.  The debate on whether you with shoes or without comes down to how you interpret the research and individual preference.  I like minimalist shoes and run with Vibram's, but you may like a thick, cushioned sole for your running shoes.  Shoes are an important piece of equipment when it comes to running and I may have just confused you even more with no answer to "with or without", so you'll have to draw your own conclusions on the debate!!