This is your statement.
People who eat real food don't bonk as much as people who use energy drinks & gels.
You have not managed to back this up in any form.
This is your "opinion" which amazingly is very similar to the factual statement above.
In my opinion people who eat real food rather than rely on gels or energy drinks tend to bonk less than people who have been brainwashed into believing they need to consume carbohydrate in the form of gels or energy drinks and have trained their body to become dependent on said energy drinks & gels.
Now. With that in mind
Please(referring to your original statement) back it up.
With your latter "opinion" I would like to know how you came by that,given the similarities to your previous statement and lack of scientific evidence.
Trev The Rev wrote:How did you become by your opinion? Do you have your own opinions? Or do you just parrot dogma taught by your teachers?
I didn't post any opinion - I have my own opinions - My teachers are brilliant, they offer actual fact rather than make statements as fact then backtrack calling it an "opinion".
So please stop trying to dig elsewhere and answer the question.
Read Noakes, also read what Obree has to say and what Carl Heneghan has to say.
Also read http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e001702
Go talk to your teachers. Ask them about this.
Assessment of evidence behind sports products
A team at the Centre of Evidence Based Medicine at Oxford University assessed the evidence behind 431 performance enhancing claims in adverts for 104 different sports products including sports drinks, protein shakes and trainers.
If the evidence wasn’t clear from the adverts, they contacted the companies for more information. Some, like Puma, did not provide any evidence, while others like GlaxoSmithKline— makers of Lucozade Sport—provided hundreds of studies.
Yet only three (2.7%) of the studies the team was able to assess were judged to be of high quality and at low risk of bias. They say this absence of high quality evidence is “worrying” and call for better research in this area to help inform decisions.
What the research found
As part of the BMJ’s analysis of the evidence underpinning sports performance products, it asked manufacturers to supply details of the studies. Only one manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline provided a comprehensive bibliography of the trials used to underpin its product claims for Lucozade—a carbohydrate containing sports drink.45 Other manufacturers of leading sports drinks did not and in the absence of systematic reviews we surmise that the methodological issues raised apply to all other sports drinks.
Carl Heneghan, Rafael Perera, David Nunan, Kamal Mahtani, and Peter Gill set out to appraise the evidence and found a series of problems with the studies (see online for full article).9
Small sample sizes limit the applicability of results—Only one of the 106 studies —in 257 marathon runners—exceeded the acceptable target for a small study of 100 participants per group. The next largest had 52 participants and the median sample size was nine. Thus the results cannot be generalised beyond people with the study group characteristics
Poor quality surrogate outcomes undermine the validity—Many studies used time to exhaustion or other outcomes that are not directly relevant to performance in real life events
Poorly designed research offers little to instil confidence in product claims—Most studies (76%) were low in quality because of a lack of allocation concealment and blinding, and often the findings contrasted with each other. The studies often had substantial problems because of use of different protocols, temperatures, work intensities, and outcomes
Data dredging leads to spurious statistical results—Studies often failed to define outcome measures before the study, leaving open the possibility of numerous analyses and increasing the risk of finding a positive result by chance.
Biological outcomes do not necessarily correlate with improved performance—Reductions in use of muscle glycogen, for example, did not correlate with improved athletic performance. Physiological outcomes such as maximal oxygen consumption have also been shown to be poor predictors of performance, even among elite athletes
Inappropriate use of relative measures inflates the outcome and can easily mislead—One study inflated the relative effect of carbohydrate drinks from 3% to 33% by excluding from the analysis the 75 minutes of exercise both groups undertook before an exhaustion test
Studies that lack blinding are likely to be false—Studies that used plain water as the control found positive effects whereas those that used taste matched placebos didn’t
Manipulation of nutrition in the run-in phase significantly affects subsequent outcomes—Many studies seemingly starve participants the night before and on the morning of the research study
Changes in environmental factors lead to wide variation in outcomes—Although dilute carbohydrate drinks may have some benefit in heat, studies found no effect in cold environments. No plausible reason given for benefits
There was no substantial evidence to suggest that liquid is any better than solid carbohydrate intake and there were no studies in children. Given the high sugar content and the propensity to dental erosions children should be discouraged from using sports drinks. Through our analysis of the current sports performance research, we have come to one conclusion: people should develop their own strategies for carbohydrate intake largely by trial and error.
Another problem with the research is transparency. Even though a large proportion of the studies have been conducted by scientists with financial ties to Gatorade (PepsiCo), GSK, and Coca-Cola, the authors’ individual conflicts of interest are either not published or not declared. Conflicts of interest also exist within the key journals in sports medicine—GSSI funded scientists pepper their editorial boards and editorships.
Around half of the studies supplied by GSK appeared in four journals—the Journal of Applied Physiology (20), Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise (24),International Journal of Sport Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism (11) and the Journal of Sports Science (9). Several of these journals belong to organisations that have long relationships with Gatorade (box).
Most of the scientists identified as being on the GSSI board have prominent roles in journals. Even its global senior director, Asker Jeukendrup, professor of exercise metabolism at Birmingham University, is an editor of the European Journal of Sport Science—the official journal of the European College of Sport Science. His biography states that “he has been a member of the advisory editorial board of theJournal of Sports Sciences, and served on the editorial board of the International Journal of Sports Medicine and Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise. To date, Asker has served as a reviewer for 35 different scientific journals.”53Jeukendrup is one of the main authors of a series of research papers given to theBMJ by GSK to demonstrate the effectiveness of its sports drinks.9