ScienceDaily (July 11, 2011) — Vitamin D deficiency has been known to cause an assortment of health problems. Now, a recent study -- being presented at the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine's (AOSSM) Annual Meeting in San Diego -- suggests that lack of the vitamin might also increase the chance of muscle injuries in athletes, specifically NFL football players.
"Eighty percent of the football team we studied had vitamin D insufficiency. African American players and players who suffered muscle injuries had significantly lower levels," said Michael Shindle, MD, lead researcher and member of Summit Medical Group.
Researchers identified 89 football players from a single NFL team and provided laboratory testing of vitamin D levels in the spring 2010 as part of routine pre-season evaluations. The mean age of the players was 25. The team provided data to determine the number of players who had lost time due to muscle injuries. Vitamin D levels were then classified based on player race and time lost due to muscle injury.
Twenty-seven players had deficient levels (< 20 ng/ML) and an additional 45 had levels consistent with insufficiency (20-31.9 ng/mL). Seventeen players had values within normal limits (>32 ng/mL). The mean vitamin D level in white players was 30.3 ng/mL while the mean level for black players was 20.4 ng/mL. Sixteen players suffered a muscle injury with a mean vitamin D level of 19.9.
"Screening and treatment of vitamin D insufficiency in professional athletes may be a simple way to help prevent injuries," said Dr. Scott Rodeo, MD, Co-Chief of the Sports Medicine and Shoulder Service at the Hospital for Special Surgery.
Don
Sunday, July 17, 2011
2011 NSCA Conference - Sport Nutritional Support
The Use of Creatine as a Nutritional Supplement
We need to relalize the the use of ergogenic aid need to be utilized and will be consumed by athletes. In accepting this and understanding the science behind the athletes descission we are better able to provide the athlete with healthy and nutritionally dense alternatives to the synthetic nutritionally devoid choices the currently have.
International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: creatine supplementation and exercise
ISSN Position Statement: The following nine points related to the use of creatine as a nutritional supplement constitute the Position Statement of the Society. They have been approved by the Research Committee of the Society. (2007)
1. Creatine monohydrate is the most effective ergogenic nutritional supplement currently available to athletes in terms of increasing high-intensity exercise capacity and lean body mass during training.
2. Creatine monohydrate supplementation is not only safe, but possibly beneficial in regard to preventing injury and/or management of select medical conditions when taken within recommended guidelines.
3. There is no scientific evidence that the short- or long-term use of creatine monohydrate has any detrimental effects on otherwise healthy individuals.
4. If proper precautions and supervision are provided, supplementation in young athletes is acceptable and may provide a nutritional alternative to potentially dangerous anabolic drugs.
5. At present, creatine monohydrate is the most extensively studied and clinically effective form of creatine for use in nutritional supplements in terms of muscle uptake and ability to increase high-intensity exercise capacity.
6. The addition of carbohydrate or carbohydrate and protein to a creatine supplement appears to increase muscular retention of creatine, although the effect on performance measures may not be greater than using creatine monohydrate alone.
7. The quickest method of increasing muscle creatine stores appears to be to consume ~0.3 grams/kg/day of creatine monohydrate for at least 3 days followed by 3–5 g/d thereafter to maintain elevated stores. Ingesting smaller amounts of creatine monohydrate (e.g., 2–3 g/d) will increase muscle creatine stores over a 3–4 week period, however, the performance effects of this method of supplementation are less supported.
8. Creatine products are readily available as a dietary supplement and are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Specifically, in 1994, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DSHEA allows manufacturers/companies/brands to make structure-function claims; however, the law strictly prohibits disease claims for dietary supplements.
9. Creatine monohydrate has been reported to have a number of potentially beneficial uses in several clinical populations, and further research is warranted in these areas.
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2007, 4:6doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-6
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/6
We need to relalize the the use of ergogenic aid need to be utilized and will be consumed by athletes. In accepting this and understanding the science behind the athletes descission we are better able to provide the athlete with healthy and nutritionally dense alternatives to the synthetic nutritionally devoid choices the currently have.
International Society of Sports Nutrition position stand: creatine supplementation and exercise
ISSN Position Statement: The following nine points related to the use of creatine as a nutritional supplement constitute the Position Statement of the Society. They have been approved by the Research Committee of the Society. (2007)
1. Creatine monohydrate is the most effective ergogenic nutritional supplement currently available to athletes in terms of increasing high-intensity exercise capacity and lean body mass during training.
2. Creatine monohydrate supplementation is not only safe, but possibly beneficial in regard to preventing injury and/or management of select medical conditions when taken within recommended guidelines.
3. There is no scientific evidence that the short- or long-term use of creatine monohydrate has any detrimental effects on otherwise healthy individuals.
4. If proper precautions and supervision are provided, supplementation in young athletes is acceptable and may provide a nutritional alternative to potentially dangerous anabolic drugs.
5. At present, creatine monohydrate is the most extensively studied and clinically effective form of creatine for use in nutritional supplements in terms of muscle uptake and ability to increase high-intensity exercise capacity.
6. The addition of carbohydrate or carbohydrate and protein to a creatine supplement appears to increase muscular retention of creatine, although the effect on performance measures may not be greater than using creatine monohydrate alone.
7. The quickest method of increasing muscle creatine stores appears to be to consume ~0.3 grams/kg/day of creatine monohydrate for at least 3 days followed by 3–5 g/d thereafter to maintain elevated stores. Ingesting smaller amounts of creatine monohydrate (e.g., 2–3 g/d) will increase muscle creatine stores over a 3–4 week period, however, the performance effects of this method of supplementation are less supported.
8. Creatine products are readily available as a dietary supplement and are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Specifically, in 1994, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA). DSHEA allows manufacturers/companies/brands to make structure-function claims; however, the law strictly prohibits disease claims for dietary supplements.
9. Creatine monohydrate has been reported to have a number of potentially beneficial uses in several clinical populations, and further research is warranted in these areas.
Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition 2007, 4:6doi:10.1186/1550-2783-4-6
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://www.jissn.com/content/4/1/6
Friday, July 15, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Protein Needs......
While carbohydrates are the key nutrient for fueling intense training, protein is the key nutrient for maximizing training adaptations.
- Increased rates of protein synthesis
- Increased lean muscle mass accretion
- Improved strength
- Improved recovery from exercise
- Improved immunity
- Decreased musculoskeletal injuries
The current recommended level of protein intake (0.8 g/kg/day) is estimated to be sufficient to meet the needs of nearly all (97.5%) healthy men and women age 19 years and older. This amount of protein intake may be appropriate for nonathletes, but it is likely not sufficient to offset the oxidation of protein/amino acids during exercise training (approximately 1 – 5% of the total energy cost of exercise) nor is it sufficient to provide substrate for lean tissue accretion or for the repair of exercise induced muscle damage. In fact, some of the leading research organizations serving athletes have published recommendations that exceed the 0.8 g/kg/day threshold.
There is a consistent observation that 0.8 g//kg of body weight is NOT sufficient for supporting whole body protein synthesis or inducing a positive net protein balance.
The National Strength and Conditioning Association recommends athletes consume 1.5 to 2.0 g/kg of body weight of protein to ensure adequate protein intake.
- Athletes involved in moderate amounts of intense training (2 – 3 times per week for 30 – 45 minutes per session) should consume levels at the lower end of this range (110 – 130 grams/day for a 75kg athlete).
- Athletes involved in high volume intense training should consume levels at the upper end of this range (130– 150 grams/day for a 75kg athlete).
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
2011 NSCA Conference
After attending NSCA National Convention this year, I will look at several topics discussed at the National Convention to bring awareness to what is being promoted out there and how we can adjust and present this accepted knowlede in a healthy fashion.
Topic presented were:
Topic presented were:
- Creatine - Can we consistantly get enough from our diet?
- Are we getting enough Calories?
- Macronutrients: Is this our only concern?
- Fluid and Electrolytes
- Protein requirements for different training populations.
- Pre and post workout supplimentation: Nutritional Timing of it all.
- Milk: Where does it fit into the equation?
- Some products that I liked.
What is Organic Foods
The USDA currently has a program for certifying organic foods. On their website, they answer the question, "What is organic food?" in this way:
Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.
It is my position that organically grown foods offer Americans a healthier alternative to conventionally grown foods. So let's examine the evidence for organic food.
On August 22, 2002, Dr. Erik Steen Kristensen of the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming presented data on food safety from an organic perspective at the 14th International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Congress in Victoria, Canada. Dr. Kristensen offered the following reason's to consider organic foods:
* Discovery of animals with BSE
* Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, aka, mad cow disease
* Increased occurrence of Salmonella in meat and eggs
* Increased occurrence of campylobacter in meat
* Listeria in dairy products
* Increased occurrence of dioxin in food and fodder
* Too high amounts of pesticides, antibiotics, additives etc. in food * Toxic fungi in food from stocks
Indeed, various data indicates that compared to conventionally grown produce, organically grown produce has:
* Higher vitamin C levels
* Lower nitrate levels (less carcinogenic potential)
* Higher phenol levels (protection against cancer and cardiovascular disease)
* Lower levels of heavy metals
* Lower or zero levels of food additives (less food intolerance and carcinogenic potential)
Likewise, Dr. Kristensen presented data indicating that compared to conventional animal foods (e.g. meat), organic animal foods have:
* Higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid or CLA (preventive against cancer and arteriosclerosis)
* Higher levels of vitamin C
* Higher levels of fat-soluble vitamins
* Higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids
* Zero myotoxins (less potential problems for liver, kidney, nervous system)
* Lower residues of medicines (less transfer of resistance genes to human pathogens)
In addition, animal studies show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically. Furthermore, when given a choice, animals prefer organic to conventionally produced fodder. At this point, however, similar studies have not been conducted on humans.
Collectively, all of this data makes a pretty good case for recommending that the public make organic foods choices whenever possible, especially when trying to detoxify and avoid additional sources of toxins.
Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.
It is my position that organically grown foods offer Americans a healthier alternative to conventionally grown foods. So let's examine the evidence for organic food.
On August 22, 2002, Dr. Erik Steen Kristensen of the Danish Research Centre for Organic Farming presented data on food safety from an organic perspective at the 14th International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements Congress in Victoria, Canada. Dr. Kristensen offered the following reason's to consider organic foods:
* Discovery of animals with BSE
* Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, aka, mad cow disease
* Increased occurrence of Salmonella in meat and eggs
* Increased occurrence of campylobacter in meat
* Listeria in dairy products
* Increased occurrence of dioxin in food and fodder
* Too high amounts of pesticides, antibiotics, additives etc. in food * Toxic fungi in food from stocks
Indeed, various data indicates that compared to conventionally grown produce, organically grown produce has:
* Higher vitamin C levels
* Lower nitrate levels (less carcinogenic potential)
* Higher phenol levels (protection against cancer and cardiovascular disease)
* Lower levels of heavy metals
* Lower or zero levels of food additives (less food intolerance and carcinogenic potential)
Likewise, Dr. Kristensen presented data indicating that compared to conventional animal foods (e.g. meat), organic animal foods have:
* Higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid or CLA (preventive against cancer and arteriosclerosis)
* Higher levels of vitamin C
* Higher levels of fat-soluble vitamins
* Higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids
* Zero myotoxins (less potential problems for liver, kidney, nervous system)
* Lower residues of medicines (less transfer of resistance genes to human pathogens)
In addition, animal studies show higher fertility and less morbidity in animals fed organically. Furthermore, when given a choice, animals prefer organic to conventionally produced fodder. At this point, however, similar studies have not been conducted on humans.
Collectively, all of this data makes a pretty good case for recommending that the public make organic foods choices whenever possible, especially when trying to detoxify and avoid additional sources of toxins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)