the shizzle > diet, training and injuries
resources: Training (Coaches, books and web articles)
jwi:
Nice article about how supplements likely make you a worse athlete, even when they have some small positive effect on average.
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/sweat-science-performance-supplements/
--- Quote ---paradoxically, taking what seems like a shortcut to better performance can nudge you toward doing a worse job on the basics.
A 2011 study in Taiwan illustrates this. Researchers gave a group of volunteers an inert supplement, telling half of them that it was a multivitamin and the other half that it was a placebo. Both segments thought they were helping with consumer product research, providing feedback on the size, shape, and texture of the pill. Then they completed a series of bogus consumer tests while the researchers monitored their behavior. While testing a pedometer, for example, those who thought they’d taken a multivitamin didn’t walk as far as the placebo group; at lunch, they were more likely to overdo it at the buffet table than to select the healthy organic option.
--- End quote ---
(here is a link to the study: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611416253 )
(The litterature on the self-licencing bias is substantial and rapidly growing.)
I've always said that the way to figure out if a supplement work is to check if it is on FIDE's list of banned substances, but I think this argument might be even better:
--- Quote ---These disadvantages might be worth tolerating if any of them really did deliver a significant edge. What would that look like? Think of the recent furor over carbon-plated running shoes: a demonstrated performance boost of as much as 3 percent has completely upended the sport. The reason supplements haven’t had a similar impact isn’t because they’re a secret that only Andrew Huberman’s listeners know about. It’s because they don’t work in any meaningful way.
--- End quote ---
Argue how much Creatine help you below this line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dingdong:
I did a full year (2022) of non cycled creatine and a year without (2023) and I couldn’t tell any difference tbh
User deactivated.:
--- Quote from: jwi on January 22, 2024, 10:43:00 am ---Argue how much Creatine help you below this line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- End quote ---
Interesting. Whilst the study confirms that most people in a population will take a supplement then train less hard / eat worse / etc., this cannot apply to those who are completely devoted to the church of training and diet! I (for example) would never miss a training session or try less hard due to using creatine because I train with set percentages or RPE caps and record everything I do in a training diary and count my macronutrient intake every day. Therefore, the proven benefits of creatine should apply, as have been shown in countless studies and meta analyses and are now almost universally accepted.
Bias disclaimer - I've been using creatine monohydrate daily for over 10 years based on the positive research and trivial financial cost. Whenever I've taken a small break, I lose around 1-2kg and a few reps off of my strength exercises. Of course this could be placebo but that does not matter to me.
mrjonathanr:
Out of interest, how much do you take daily, Liam? And do you have a view on the merits of mono hydrate vs fancier versions? Asking for a friend. Thanks.
petejh:
I always found I got worse forearm pump when taking creatine.
If using weight of evidence as your guide then there's more weight of evidence showing a performance benefit for creatine, beta alanine or high nitrate than there is for them showing worse performance due to 'licencing bias'. One study - which wasn't using creatine/BA/nitrate - showing a 'licence bias' is interesting but not very convincing.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version