Panorama: The Truth About Sports Products

MrJamie

Oaf on a Bike
Theres another thread on it somewhere on here btw :smile:

I thought that it was trying too hard to make a story out of nothing though. They based "drink only when youre thirsty" on cats and dogs who dont sweat, they tried to make sports drinks seem ineffective by referring to their use for *moderate* exercise and spoke about protein shakes like they were an alternative to proper healthy balanced meals rather than a supplement.

Totally agree with listening to your body and learn though and its not as bad cycling because the wind stops overheating as badly but in other sports like running i can get dizzy and cramps before i get thirsty and sweat so much i need sports drinks on long/hot runs.

I didnt like the part on trainers either, although I agree there has been too much put on measuring gait and giving everyone specialist shoes where the majority could wear cheap shoes. From my own experience cheap and knackered trainers might not injure me more in a short test, but I can feel the impact is harder but then im twice the size of a typical runner. :crazy:

All anecdotal Ill admit, but the whole program seemed to be examples of where the products dont work, rather than examples of where they do.
 

Orange

Active Member
Location
Northamptonshire
The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..
 

Willo

Well-Known Member
Location
Kent
The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..
I can only base judgement on my experience, and others that I know, but I simply can't agree that applies in all cases. I suffered terribly from lower leg injuries from running and tried all sorts until the excellent folk at Run and Become in London sorted me out after spending loads of time watching me run in various styles of trainers. Since then I have had no real injuries. The argument may prove true for someone with a fairly neutral gait, but for those with over pronation and the like, advances in trainer design can mean the difference between being able to exercise or not.
 
OP
Scilly Suffolk

Scilly Suffolk

Über Member
...They based "drink only when youre thirsty" on cats and dogs who dont sweat...
No, the boffin (not Panorama) was making the point that every other species of animal on the planet drinks when it is thirsty and not according to a schedule; this was illustrated with reference to cats and dogs (as species of animals). This conclusion was not based on animal research.

...they tried to make sports drinks seem ineffective by referring to their use for *moderate* exercise...
Panorama explained that a benefit had only been demonstrated in prolonged, high-intensity exercise and not in moderate exercise: this is relevant because the majority of consumers only engage in moderate (if any) exercise.

...and spoke about protein shakes like they were an alternative to proper healthy balanced meals rather than a supplement...
The point was that supplements are unnecessary if your diet is balanced.

...From my own experience cheap and knackered trainers might not injure me more in a short test, but I can feel the impact is harder...
The major predictors of injury are factors such as distance and intensity which are unaffected by the shoe. As demonstrated on the program a natural toe-strike style of running is much less stressful than the heel-strike style which modern running shoes protect us from; to put it another way: you don't need better shoes, you need [a] better running [style].

...All anecdotal Ill admit, but the whole program seemed to be examples of where the products dont work, rather than examples of where they do.
The thrust of the programme's argument (based upon the conclusions of a published and peer reviewed study) was that the majority of the claims made by manufacturers of sporting products are not supported or substantiated by research or science: it wasn't the purpose or intention of the programme to recommend products (although my conclusion would be "none").
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mao
OP
Scilly Suffolk

Scilly Suffolk

Über Member
The shoe part was spot on - you simply don't need these unnatural overly cushioned shoes for running. They positively encorage a poor gait and long term injury. The minimalist footwear of the athletes of yesteryear were and are much more fit for purpose and long term joint health..
Exactly: if these cushioned and supporting shoes are so essential, why do athletes compete in shoes which are neither?

Although I am sure that there have been advances in materials and design, therunning spikes of Roger Bannister and Usain Bolt look remarkably similar.
 
OP
Scilly Suffolk

Scilly Suffolk

Über Member
I can only base judgement on my experience, and others that I know, but I simply can't agree that applies in all cases. I suffered terribly from lower leg injuries from running and tried all sorts until the excellent folk at Run and Become in London sorted me out after spending loads of time watching me run in various styles of trainers. Since then I have had no real injuries. The argument may prove true for someone with a fairly neutral gait, but for those with over pronation and the like, advances in trainer design can mean the difference between being able to exercise or not.
I'm sure that there are extreme cases which require correction in the form of special shoes, but the conclusion of the scientists they interviewed was that for the overwhelming majority of people it is distance, intensity and running style that are the major predictors of injury and not the type of shoe.

Do you run heel or toe strike?
 

MrJamie

Oaf on a Bike
No, the boffin (not Panorama) was making the point that every other species of animal on the planet drinks when it is thirsty and not according to a schedule; this was illustrated with reference to cats and dogs (as species of animals). This conclusion was not based on animal research.

Panorama explained that a benefit had only been demonstrated in prolonged, high-intensity exercise and not in moderate exercise: this is relevant because the majority of consumers only engage in moderate (if any) exercise.

The point was that supplements are unnecessary if your diet is balanced.

The major predictors of injury are factors such as distance and intensity which are unaffected by the shoe. As demonstrated on the program a natural toe-strike style of running is much less stressful than the heel-strike style which modern running shoes protect us from; to put it another way: you don't need better shoes, you need [a] better running [style].

The thrust of the programme's argument (based upon the conclusions of a published and peer reviewed study) was that the majority of the claims made by manufacturers of sporting products are not supported or substantiated by research or science: it wasn't the purpose or intention of the programme to recommend products (although my conclusion would be "none").
Im not really disagreeing with the programme, as much as I felt that for people trying to highlight misleading information in marketing they were a bit to close to doing the exact same thing from the opposite view. I know that a lot of unfit and overweight people are very willing to throw money rather than effort at the situation and buy anything claiming to help.

My point about the Boffin was just that the other animals dont need a schedule, because I dont think anything sweats to the extent humans can, or at least not many animals. Itd be like saying we shouldnt wear hats in the sun because cats and dogs dont or pretty much anything else we'd like to argue :smile:

Ive tried to change running style as a very heavy heel striker, high-arched so very minimal natural absorbtion in my foot and I started running at over 20 stone (~19 now) so probably an extreme case. If you run barefoot your central nervous system is meant to keep you off your heels and run on the forefoot to naturally avoid impact, but it feels terrible on my ankles and not much better on my forefoot. In cheap £20 trainers I go straight back to heelstriking and can feel discomfort in my lower part of my lower leg, in rrp £130 Asics cushioning trainers (last seasons are always like half price) it feels allround comfortable. Ive run over 2000km in the last couple of years in just 3 pairs of Asics and not had a single injury which I think given my size is well worth £100 a year given theres next to no other expense :smile: The other detail they skipped over is the quality of cushioning varies, you can see the cracks where a crumple zone forms in trainers as the cushioning is less effective, the £20 Reeboks got this in maybe 100km with my weight mashing them up, but the Asics do stay well cushioned for a lot longer. I do get the point that a lot of the skinny 8 stone gym women running on shock absorbing treadmills probably dont need to be buying £100 trainers especially some of the Nike ones that arent even very technical.

It was still interesting to watch anyway :smile:
 

T.M.H.N.E.T

Disc brakes - Stopping things since 1902
Location
Northern Ireland
Equal amounts of bullshit and common sense spewed forth from iplayer. :laugh:
 

broomwagon

Active Member
Location
Cheshire
My lad's a sports scientist working abroad and he poured scorn on the programme. It was just some cranks from Oxford. Good timing though with the olympics just around the corner.
 

Garz

Squat Member
Location
Down
I think all they proved were that unless you are in the top tier of sports that extra 2% :laugh: was a shed-load of marketing. OK, the drinks and trainers arent useless and in some cases make a difference however the advertising misleads folk into thinking they have to buy it.

Obree seemed to be genuine - as in that is exactly what he thinks and not someone pushing him to express that opinion. In conclusion, after watching the programme I did feel that drinking sport products wasn't really making any impact looking back (in life).
 

T.M.H.N.E.T

Disc brakes - Stopping things since 1902
Location
Northern Ireland
I had typed a massive reply prior to a pc crash but I'm going to shorten it now lol

The entire program was aimed at recreational gymgoers/walk-joggers who slug it down thinking they need it and it's doing good things for them. For your 30mins a day(or couple times a week) you DO NOT need Lucozade Sport or Powerade. They WILL NOT make you faster,they WILL NOT improve anything! Doing the fecking sport will improve that sport.

The lack of focus on endurance sports was duly noted too,no surprise there.

I think all they proved were that unless you are in the top tier of sports that extra 2% :laugh: was a shed-load of marketing. OK, the drinks and trainers arent useless and in some cases make a difference however the advertising misleads folk into thinking they have to buy it.

Obree seemed to be genuine - as in that is exactly what he thinks and not someone pushing him to express that opinion. In conclusion, after watching the programme I did feel that drinking sport products wasn't really making any impact looking back (in life).
Even for the elites they mentioned the products wouldn't really have achieved anything. Mo Farah was conceivably the only one who would go anywhere near to needing some form of carb intake. Usain Bolt and Jessica Ennis' sports aren't exactly lengthy endurance efforts.

But I think that was the overall point, they ringfenced the ignorant who occasionally partake in sport and told them they were wasting money which is 100% truth. But they didn't dare mention endurance sport athletes like cyclists who frequently do successfully consume energy drinks,bars and gels to good effects. Because on the face of it - they do work for us as do cake stops and carrying food.

But yep,Obree was actually hilarious:laugh:
 
Top Bottom