Zirbel = Moninger
Scott
test on contaminated supplements, since he claims he has no knowledge
of how DHEA got into his body. He may be telling the truth, I don't
know.
Anyway, it has occurred to me that with all the supplements that
racers are taking these days there is an ever increasing chance that
cross-contamination can occur at the manufacturer.
Here's my suggestion: keep every bottle or container of every
supplement you buy. Keep every receipt and mark both the container
and receipt so you can cross-reference and prove date and place of
purchase. Never use the last tablet/pill/scoop of whatever was in the
container, but save it so that it can be tested for contaminants later
if necessary.
You ma not be able to beat the doping charge, but if you can find the
particular product that is contaminated, you can then perhaps go after
the manufacturer or the store where you bought it. This may seem like
a lot of trouble, but hey, it may help save your 12k dream of a career.
Bob Schwartz
This is obvious enough that the fact that it never happens leads
me to believe that most if not all of the people claiming
supplement contamination are lying about it. Like Moninger did.
It may still be worthwhile, it was for Moninger. His story was
completely shredded when the judgment came out but no one reads
that. And by then he wasn't news anymore.
Bob Schwartz
marco
> Here's my suggestion: keep every bottle or container of every
> supplement you buy. Keep every receipt and mark both the container
> and receipt so you can cross-reference and prove date and place of
> purchase. Never use the last tablet/pill/scoop of whatever was in the
> container, but save it so that it can be tested for contaminants later
> if necessary.
Here's an alternative suggestion... don't take supplements!
A. Dumas
> Here's an alternative suggestion... don't take supplements!
Exactly. Completely unnecessary.
Tom Kunich
news:4b390679$0$22913$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Op 28-12-09 19:24, marco wrote:
>> Here's an alternative suggestion... don't take supplements!
>
> Exactly. Completely unnecessary.
I don't think that's correct. Athletes do use more vitamins and minerals
than non-athletes and according to the analyses the increased amount of food
that athletes eat still don't supply enough supplementary nutrition.
However, I do have questions about such things.
bar
> "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr> wrote in message
i don't buy the 'dodgy supplement' defense. folks like Zirbel are
elite athletes and shouldn't be putting anything into their bodies
without knowing exactly what's in it. so he's either lying or
stupid. i say the sport can live without him.
of course, his loss just increases Garmin's 2010 suck factor ... can't
wait till they start talking smack with Columbia though ...
Tom Kunich
news:e019c80b-daa6-4b95...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 3:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that's correct. Athletes do use more vitamins and minerals
> > than non-athletes and according to the analyses the increased amount of
> > food
> > that athletes eat still don't supply enough supplementary nutrition.
>
> elite athletes and shouldn't be putting anything into their bodies
> without knowing exactly what's in it. so he's either lying or
> stupid. i say the sport can live without him.
We weren't discussing the failure of Zirbel. We were discussing whether or
not you need suppliments. And while I don't think that you need a great deal
of suppliments I think indeed you do need some.
> of course, his loss just increases Garmin's 2010 suck factor ... can't
> wait till they start talking smack with Columbia though ...
??? Garmin is interested in winning spring classic type events and Columbia
is interested in pushing sprints if they aren't in the running for the rest
of the events.
dave a
Is this just one of your wild ass assumptions or can you cite a
scientific report? Here is a study that suggests you might want to
reconsider your assertion. While most athletes get all the vitamins and
minerals they need from the extra food they eat, those who are
restricting their calories might not.
or
- dave a
Tom Kunich
news:hhbbv...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that's correct. Athletes do use more vitamins and minerals
>> than non-athletes and according to the analyses the increased amount of
>> food that athletes eat still don't supply enough supplementary nutrition.
>>
>> However, I do have questions about such things.
>
> Is this just one of your wild ass assumptions or can you cite a scientific
> report? Here is a study that suggests you might want to reconsider your
> assertion. While most athletes get all the vitamins and minerals they
> need from the extra food they eat, those who are restricting their
> calories might not.
>
> <http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/healthy_living/lifestyle/exercise/diet_exercise/vitamins.html>
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yz9ayx3
Dave: part of the problem is that there are several opinions concerning
vitamins. For instance, there are some claims that MOST people are short of
Vitamin D.
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400408/Storing-Enough-Vitamin-D.html
The Harvard Health Letter claims that a large percentage of the population
is short of Vitamin B12.
http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/vitamin-b-14.htm
Vitamin B1 deficiency problems.
There are many claims that Vitamin C of all things has had the "minimum
daily allowance" set WAY far low. So claiming that you're making your daily
requirement may not be correct.
All this is what I mean when I say that I have questions about the
"requirements" for supplementary vitamins.
Scott
> i don't buy the 'dodgy supplement' defense. folks like Zirbel are
> elite athletes and shouldn't be putting anything into their bodies
> without knowing exactly what's in it. so he's either lying or
> stupid.
I wonder... he said he didn't even know what DHEA was until he got the
positive result back, yet he lives in Boulder, not far from TH, who
was busted for DHEA earlier this year. Even if his curiousity didn't
drive him to look into what it was, he must have at least heard of it.
bar
yes, he's full of shit. but then most pro cyclists are morons ... or
they'd try to have real career where they might make some decent money
or have some positive impact on the world.
Scott
Most? That's pretty strongly worded, and I'd bet you don't know
nearly half of all pro cyclists. How can you feel so certain
declaring them morons? Please don't tell me it's because so many of
them dope. Hell, Vino got caught doping and as we've been
definitively set straight by TK, he's really intelligent.
heather
> "bar" <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > of course, his loss just increases Garmin's 2010 suck factor ... can't
> > wait till they start talking smack with Columbia though ...
>
> ??? Garmin is interested in winning spring classic type events and Columbia
> is interested in pushing sprints if they aren't in the running for the rest
> of the events.
Columbia was "commenting" that some team wasn't working enough during
one of the grand tours last year. All I can remember is the
complaining :) Was it Garmin that they were upset with?
out-of-it-heather
stage 2, tdf
1. Mark Cavendish (Columbia) 4hr 30min 2sec
2. Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Slipstream) s.t.
stage 10 tdf
1. Mark Cavendish (Columbia), 4hr 46min 43sec
2. Thor Hushovd (Cervelo) s.t.
3. Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Slipstream) s.t.
stage 11 tdf
1. Mark Cavendish (Columbia) 4hr 17min 55sec
2. Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Slipstream) s.t.
stage 21 tdf
1. Mark Cavendish (Columbia) 4hr 2min 18sec
2. Mark Renshaw (Columbia) s.t.
3. Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Slipstream) s.t.
stage 2 giro d'italia
1. Mark Cavendish (Columbia) 4hr 16min 13sec. 38.639 km/hr
2. Allan Davis (Quick Step) s.t.
3. Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Slipstream) s.t.
stage 11 giro d'italia
1. Mark Cavendish (Columbia) 4hr 51min 17sec, 44.08 km/hr
2. Tyler Farrar (Garmin-Slipstream) s.t.
bjwe...@gmail.com
> "bar" <barbari...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e019c80b-daa6-4b95...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 28, 3:55 pm, "Tom Kunich" <tkun...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > I don't think that's correct. Athletes do use more vitamins and minerals
> > > than non-athletes and according to the analyses the increased amount of
> > > food
> > > that athletes eat still don't supply enough supplementary nutrition.
>
> > i don't buy the 'dodgy supplement' defense. folks like Zirbel are
> > elite athletes and shouldn't be putting anything into their bodies
> > without knowing exactly what's in it. so he's either lying or
> > stupid. i say the sport can live without him.
>
> We weren't discussing the failure of Zirbel. We were discussing whether or
> not you need suppliments. And while I don't think that you need a great deal
> of suppliments I think indeed you do need some.
No legitimate scientific study supports this position.
Most (all?) legitimate sources say that although a
physically active person may need to eat more calories
to maintain a steady state, they do not need to ingest
more vitamins and minerals than normal.
Fennelli and Alexandre are right. There isn't any good
reason to use supplements. Most of them are snake-oil
at best, and you can get some idea of that by how
vigorously the supplement industry fights any sort of
safety, efficacy, or truth-in-advertising regulation.
Probably the only reason to like supplement manufacturers
is that I think some of them sponsor sporting events. So if
you feel like rewarding that, buy some products and give them
to your neighbor (or your neighbor's dog, maybe), just don't
eat them yourself.
Channeling Amit here, it says something about the lameness
of the sport that we have occasional supplement manufacturers
sponsoring events, while big-name sports have legitimate
businesses, cars and so on (like GM/Chrysler? Uh, never mind)
as sponsors. Although, in most of the cases I can think of,
the sponsors are actually food producers (Clif, Powerbar,
etc) which are much less shady than supplement makers.
Foods are also much more regulated for safety than
supplements.
Don't put that crap in your body. You have literally no guarantee
that it's even safe to consume, let alone effective.
Ben
Anton Berlin
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It comes down to the psychology of the elite athlete. Once you've
done everything legitimately possible to prepare,years of prepping,
tens of thousands miles, hundreds of hours of intervals and climbing,
weight loss and weight lifting etc...you'll look for a slight edge
that has the possibility of getting your reality to match your
aspirations.
For some it's just a single supplement.... for others it's every
doping technique and substance ever known to man all at once.
There's some that can avoid this completely but as always they either
picked the right parents or were raised by the right parents. It
might even take both.
Donald Munro
> Fennelli and Alexandre are right. There isn't any good
> reason to use supplements. Most of them are snake-oil
> at best, and you can get some idea of that by how
> vigorously the supplement industry fights any sort of
> safety, efficacy, or truth-in-advertising regulation.
That may or may not be the case but the next generation of supplements
that the drug companies are working on may be the real deal:
<http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/next-generation/>
They almost certainly will be performance enhancing. And if people have
the choice between staying young much longer or abiding by WADA's rules
guess which choice most people would take.
z
Anton Berlin
It's just a question of time before a 23 old Lance Armstrong comes
back to win 11 TDFs in a row.
Michael Press
<ef86fba9-5e77-47a7...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
"b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree. Taking supplements, vitamins, minerals changes
the homeostasis. When somebody stops taking
supplements, the balance has to be redressed, and the
body can become malnourished. Eat balanced, buy good
clean food. pay attention to cravings, and you will be
well-nourished. Any reasonably balanced diet is
acceptable because out digestion will sort it out.
Be sure to eat treats. If you like a double
cheeseburger then eat them. Sweets? Eat them. I found
that quality food is like quality anything. Pay more
for quality? sure, but I do not really pay more,
because high quality food goes farther.
--
Michael Press