Training & Nutrition - Doc Dick Cranium's Top Ten Nutrition Myths

Everyone loves a list. So here it is for 2006:



Top Ten Modern Nutrition Myths

#1. If something is good for you, then you should take even more to be even more healthy.......

Please, quote, edit and add your favorite myth.

- Gaining/losing weight is dependent upon the time of day that you consume calories

- High-fructose corn syrup is more harmful to your health than cane sugar

- Your max heart rate is 220 minus your age/you will die if you exceed that number

- Training techniques, schedules, etc. of the Pros are good for all cyclists


I'll probably think of some others later. Something tells me this list will be more than ten items long...

-Eating more food will help you lose weight.
-Just exercising more will make you lose weight, even if you don’t monitor food intake.

More myths:

Eat before, during and after that 60 minute ride or you'll bonk.

As long as you ride a lot, you can eat as much as you want.

Whey protein is better than soy protein.

Soy protein is better than whey protein.

Wind is your friend.

Lifting weights will make you slow.

Weston Price is my nutrution god and I ride 300 miles a week on a diet of bacon and buttered sausage.

- Carbs are bad and should be avoided ...

More:

You must analyze and worry about every bit of food you put in your mouth.

If it tastes good, don't eat it. Never eat for pleasure because nutrition is serious business.

Bonk Training is a good way to lose weight

Avoid eating all fats

Eggs are bad

Slow down, you'll burn more fat....

XYZ supplements will make you faster with no cramping and zero recovery time. And they're UCI legal and have no side effects.

Aspartame will make you sick.

Food has less nutrition today because the soils are depleted.


Eating sugar will give you a "sugar rush" followed by a "sugar crash".

A 5 dollar recovery drink is waay better than 50 cents worth of chocolate milk, says so on the label, and the internet.

All doctors are wrong.....:)

Please, quote, edit and add your favorite myth.

Funny how everyone missed this.

Liquid calories DO NOT COUNT! (Especially beer....)

Higher price energy replacement foods can't possibly be better for you because the internet says so.

Everyone loves a list. So here it is for 2006:



Top Ten Modern Nutrition Myths

#1. If something is good for you, then you should take even more to be even more healthy.......

#2. Avoid eating all fats.

#3. Food has less nutrition today because the soils are depleted.

#4. Eating sugar will give you a "sugar rush" followed by a "sugar crash".

#5. Bonk Training is a good way to lose weight.

#6. If a supplement is mentioned in a scientific study - then it must be really, really good for you.

#.7 As long as you ride a lot, you can eat as much as you want.

#8. Hey, if this supplement, vitamin or food makes me faster, it must be healthy!

#9. I can't lose weight because I always go into "starvation mode" when I diet.

#10. If XYZ supplement works for me, then of course it will work for you.....
Maybe they aren't the top ten........ can we do better?

OK, here's a few more:

- Organic food is more healthy than non-organic food

- If the label tells you the food/pill is made from "all natural" products, it must be good

- Consuming carbs will make you gain weight

A couple more:

- All cholesterol is bad for you
- Low-fat milk has less calcium and not as good for you
- All fruit juice is healthier than soda-pop
- Eating fish is dangerous because of mercury levels

Low-fat means it is healthier than the higher fat equivalent

From advertising...

If it's low in fat, it must be good for you.
If it's low GI it also must be good for you.

Professional athletes believe in and use the products they endorse.

My Favorite at least from a few years ago - "If its low fat you cannot get fat by eating it."

You are fat because of a glandular problem.

If a person is thin, they can't tell you anything about losing weight. (this is my wife's pet peeve, she is thin because she maintains her weight - she can gain weight anything she wants.)

we'll all be like Jack LaLanne and live and be fit to over 90.
The aspartame users will all live to over 91.

If a person is thin, they can't tell you anything about losing weight. (this is my wife's pet peeve, she is thin because she maintains her weight - she can gain weight anything she wants.)


Oh yes ... that's one of my pet peeves too!! "You're thin you you have no idea what it's like ..." I work hard to maintain my weight! I do gain a little bit of weight once in a while if I'm not as vigilant with my diet and exercise as I should be, and once about 16 years ago I got a bit too heavy, but if I do gain weight, I work hard to bring my weight back down and not let it get out of control.

The funny thing is, if you want to learn how to eat and lose weight - don't watch dieters - watch the people who manage to keep thin year after year - especially if they are over 40. If you want to know how to gain weight - watch people at a all you can eat buffet!

Top Ten Modern Nutrition Myths

#1. If something is good for you, then you should take even more to be even more healthy.......

#2. Avoid eating all fats.

#3. Food has less nutrition today because the soils are depleted.

#4. Eating sugar will give you a "sugar rush" followed by a "sugar crash".

#5. Bonk Training is a good way to lose weight.

#6. If a supplement is mentioned in a scientific study - then it must be really, really good for you.

#.7 As long as you ride a lot, you can eat as much as you want.

#8. Hey, if this supplement, vitamin or food makes me faster, it must be healthy!

#9. I can't lose weight because I always go into "starvation mode" when I diet.

#10. If XYZ supplement works for me, then of course it will work for you.....



Holy cow, "starvation mode" makes the "top ten" myth list..........

These are all "on the bike" nutrition myths:

• Simple carbs are bad for you and shouldn't be consumed during exercise. Complex carbs are much better.

• You need to consume at least 250 Calories per hour when riding, or you'll bonk.

• Consuming protein along with carbs while riding will give you more power/speed/endurance.

• Americans get plenty of salt in their daily diets, they don't need to consume salt when riding.

That any particular food item is either good or bad....as if nutrition and life were that black and white.

that there is any way to maintain your weight besides exercising and working on your diet EVERY SINGLE DAY!

that there is any way to maintain your weight besides exercising and working on your diet EVERY SINGLE DAY!Yeah, a SINGLE DAY of gluttony can really set you back weeks or months in training. I used to gain 5-lbs over Thanksgiving weekend every year from trying to out-eat my brothers. Then over Christmas, I'd pile on another 5-lbs. Just a couple days of excess that would require two months of workouts to trim off...

Then over Christmas, I'd pile on another 5-lbs. This year was tough, I had 3 days in a row of family gatherings, and each one had excellent turkey, ham, beef and this year - BAR B QUE! I went nuts, so to speak and probably ran a 5000 cal surplus for those three days.

In general any activity that forces you to conduct "rituals" or alter everyday dining routines is unlikely to affect long term weight loss. If people would realize this - there would be no diet industry.

You are fat because of a glandular problem.
Just feel I should point out that this isn't always a myth. Admittedly, it's rare but not a myth.

or that thyroid problems are a big cause of obesity. In fact, the weight from thyroid is mostly retained water and the average gained is 15 lbs.

- if you eat while walking, the calories don't count! (not entirely serious here...)
- exercising will counteract even the greasiest most unhealthy crap.
-if you're thin, then you shouldn't worry about eating fatty foods, or your weight or your health!

How about..

Don't eat after 5pm? Myth or fact? My guess it's myth.

These are all "on the bike" nutrition myths:
• You need to consume at least 250 Calories per hour when riding, or you'll bonk.


. . . isn't this a decent "rule of thumb" though? or depending on the glycogen load prior to riding, isn't there logically "some number" of calories that needs to be consumed to prevent bonking? are you saying that "bonking" itself is a myth?



These are all "on the bike" nutrition myths:
• Consuming protein along with carbs while riding will give you more power/speed/endurance.


. . . but doesn't protein aid in recovery which in turn results in the ability to train more which in turn increases power/ speed/ endurance?

I'm no expert, just started reading Friel, so I'm curious if I am misunderstanding something basic, or there is substantial disagreement about these issues???

How about..

Don't eat after 5pm? Myth or fact? My guess it's myth.

I read "dont eat after 8pm" (Ultrametabolism by Hymen) as a rule of thumb because the body has less time to burn the calories. I think there is a difference between reasonable rules of thumb that have basis in science and are true or helpful for most people most of the time and "myths" which are just plain false for everyone all the time.

Top Ten Modern Nutrition Myths

#4. Eating sugar will give you a "sugar rush" followed by a "sugar crash".


What is untrue about this statement? Isn't it true that eating simple sugars like glucose and sucrose . . . without fiber . . . increases blood sugar in the short term, then triggers a release of insulin, which in turn causes blood sugar to drop???

What is untrue about this statement? Isn't it true that eating simple sugars like glucose and sucrose . . . without fiber . . . increases blood sugar in the short term, then triggers a release of insulin, which in turn causes blood sugar to drop???


In a non diabetic individual, blood sugar is closely regulated by at least 2 hormones with opposing actions.
Insulin is released by the pancreas when a glucose load is sensed. This, as you have stated lowers the blood sugar levels. Insulin has a life span of approximately 8 minutes in the blood stream, which is really not very long. Should the blood sugar drop too low, the pancreas releases glucagon. The main action of glucagon is to signal the liver to take some of the 400+ Kcals worth of it's stored glucose and release that into the blood stream. This hormone can act with in seconds of its release. In fact, it is so powerful and quick that some diabetics carry it with them to counteract severely low blood sugar reactions.

So, I would generally that the idea of a rush followed by a crash in a healthy individual is at least an overstatement and more like a myth.

In a non diabetic individual, blood sugar is closely regulated by at least 2 hormones with opposing actions.
Insulin is released by the pancreas when a glucose load is sensed. This, as you have stated lowers the blood sugar levels. Insulin has a life span of approximately 8 minutes in the blood stream, which is really not very long. Should the blood sugar drop too low, the pancreas releases glucagon. The main action of glucagon is to signal the liver to take some of the 400+ Kcals worth of it's stored glucose and release that into the blood stream. This hormone can act with in seconds of its release. In fact, it is so powerful and quick that some diabetics carry it with them to counteract severely low blood sugar reactions.

So, I would generally that the idea of a rush followed by a crash in a healthy individual is at least an overstatement and more like a myth.

Well, 8 minutes is 8 minutes. Whether that seems short or long is a matter of perception. I believe most healthy people are able to perceive the increase and decrease and may adequately describe the feeling of low blood sugar as a "crash". I do. Your detailed explanation (good stuff!) says to me that the raising and lowering of blood sugar is a biological reality, which hardly qualifies as a myth.

Well, 8 minutes is 8 minutes. Whether that seems short or long is a matter of perception. I believe most healthy people are able to perceive the increase and decrease and may adequately describe the feeling of low blood sugar as a "crash". I do. Your detailed explanation (good stuff!) says to me that the raising and lowering of blood sugar is a biological reality, which hardly qualifies as a myth.

In a healthy individul blood sugar is normally maintained within a narrow range. The AACE considers normal blood glucose to be between 70mg/dl and 100 mg/dl. I read an article in Diabetes Forecast where a doctor , I believe she was an endocrinologist, wore a CGMS (continuous glucose monitoring system) for several days to see if her blood sugars ever deviated from the normal range. Despite her consumption of donuts and fried foods, her blood sugars never rose above 106 mg/dl and never fell much below 80 mg/dl. She was completely unaware of the changes except for the reading by the CGMS.

If you are experience hypoglycemia after high carbohydrate intakes, I suggest you talk it over with your doctor. Reactive Hypoglycemia is considered to be a precursor to type 2 diabetes by some professionals.

Low-fat means it is healthier than the higher fat equivalent
That's a good one.

If you are experience hypoglycemia after high carbohydrate intakes, I suggest you talk it over with your doctor. Reactive Hypoglycemia is considered to be a precursor to type 2 diabetes by some professionals.

I think that's another myth: hypoglycemia. I agree if it is truly documented (ie blood sugar level less than 60) then it can be a precursor to NIDDM. However, many people get hungry and have indulged their hunger for so long that they are uncomfortable with hunger and don't like the way it feels. They eat to combat this "hypoglycemia" and just get fat. Most of you reading this know what hunger is and this doesn't apply to you. However, the diagnosis is used by primary care personnel as a garbage can diagnosis to give people who have vague complaints but nothing really wrong with them, in some cases.

disclaimer: generalizations above do not apply to all cases.

In a healthy individul blood sugar is normally maintained within a narrow range. The AACE considers normal blood glucose to be between 70mg/dl and 100 mg/dl. I read an article in Diabetes Forecast where a doctor , I believe she was an endocrinologist, wore a CGMS (continuous glucose monitoring system) for several days to see if her blood sugars ever deviated from the normal range. Despite her consumption of donuts and fried foods, her blood sugars never rose above 106 mg/dl and never fell much below 80 mg/dl. She was completely unaware of the changes except for the reading by the CGMS.

Sounds like a study with n=1. Maybe other people would be aware of changes of that magnitude or maybe the magnitude of their blood sugar swings would be greater.

Anyway, not to be too argumentative but I've bought into the "advice", eg. in Dr. Hymen's Ultrametabolism, not to eat sugar without fiber to avoid spikes in blood sugar which he says cause additional cravings. This has worked for me but maybe there is another biological mechanism at work. No doubt more complex, but then advice for the masses has to be less technical and less nuanced for it to be understood and put into practice. But that doesn't mean it isn't helpful or true. Isn't it a good thing to eat an apple and raw cashews at break instead of a Snickers bar, my old vice?

OK, now I'm a little worried. No one else out there experiences a sluggish feeling shortly (say 15-30 min) after eating a Snickers on an empty stomach? (or similar snack, if you can remember the last time you did it).

I've had a fasting glucose tolerance test come back normal in the past year.

Ask for a glucose challenge test. You will have to drink a concoction that has a specified amount of pure glucose in it. I believe the drink contains 75g of glucose, but can't recall for sure. You will then have your blood glucose monitored every 30 minutes for the next 3 (?) hours. You may be one of the few that has reactive hypoglycemia and nothing more to worry about, or you may need to take further action.

Either way, I would not fret over it too much. If you have Reactive Hypo, then a low GI diet will be beneficial to you.

Oh yeah...an apple and a handful of nuts is a much better snack than a snickers. I agree with you 100% on that one. But I love a good snickers on occasion, however, as I am a diabetic, I try to limit it 1 fun size snicker every blue moon.

Ask for a glucose challenge test. You will have to drink a concoction that has a specified amount of pure glucose in it. I believe the drink contains 75g of glucose, but can't recall for sure. You will then have your blood glucose monitored every 30 minutes for the next 3 (?) hours. You may be one of the few that has reactive hypoglycemia and nothing more to worry about, or you may need to take further action.


that's exactly what they did but only took one set of blood about 30 minutes later. doc said everything was normal. huh, go figure. maybe I shoulda had a Snickers instead of that horrible glucose crap. :)

Just feel I should point out that this isn't always a myth. Admittedly, it's rare but not a myth.

Hey Tom, you were who I was thinking about! You prove the point. If someone HAS a glandular problem, that is a medical issue that can be corrected - as in your case. Unless I am missing something, when someone has a glandular problem, medicine (or surgery) can help. It might be a while until they find out, but once they find out, you would expect the weight to start coming off.

They might say I HAD a glandular problem and that would make sense. Often the "I HAVE a glandular problem" is an excuse I would assume.

But I could be way off base too.

I'll say this quietly...

-- All EPO is bad for you
-- All steroids are bad for you at any dose level

No one else out there experiences a sluggish feeling shortly (say 15-30 min) after eating a Snickers on an empty stomach? (or similar snack, if you can remember the last time you did it).Certainly, there seems to be considerable misuse of the terms surrounding hypoglycemia and diabetes. My reasoning, and understanding of simple-sugar metabolism would account for a range of energy substrate recruitment across a range of metabolic activity [exercise?] - meaning that simply the ingestion of mono or disaccharides is not a cause by and in itself for a swing in blood glucose levels.

In other words, exercise and other metabolic activity often mediates blood glucose levels, but not always. Hence, the "it is myth, that sugar always causes highs and lows."

Certainly, there seems to be considerable misuse of the terms surrounding hypoglycemia and diabetes. My reasoning, and understanding of simple-sugar metabolism would account for a range of energy substrate recruitment across a range of metabolic activity [exercise?] - meaning that simply the ingestion of mono or disaccharides is not a cause by and in itself for a swing in blood glucose levels.

In other words, exercise and other metabolic activity often mediates blood glucose levels, but not always. Hence, the "it is myth, that sugar always causes highs and lows."

What's an example of how ingestion of, say glucose, does NOT cause a rise in blood glucose levels?