PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Parker Reed
program are the same thing. Check into the products and you'll find
PR*Bars are not the same thing as Biozone bars! The PR*Bars bars contain
saturated fat and hydrogenated oils, plus their high glycemic index
is caused by incorrect carbs which slows fat loss. And, I understand the
PR*Bar company is a spin-off of Biozone started by a former Biozone
member & a used car salesman!
Don't be fooled by the PR*Bar program or advertising like so many of us;
after doing some research, you'll find out who's got the real program.
And Biozone does not push their supplement--they have a full program
available through a book which teaches you how to use real foods to
successfully lose bodyfat. I've had better and faster success from
Biozone than I could imagine. Can Dave Scott, Biozone user, be wrong?
JJSJ
us;
after doing some research, you'll find out who's got the real program.
And Biozone does not push their supplement--they have a full program
available through a book which teaches you how to use real foods to
successfully lose bodyfat. I've had better and faster success from
Biozone than I could imagine.
Can Dave Scott, Biozone user, be wrong?<<
Yes he can . Where was Biozone during the good old days of the man.
I suppose his deal has nothing at all to do with money.
What a crock of shit.
JJ
Jeffrey Justice
pr...@usa.net
Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
Subject: PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Date: 22 Aug 1995 21:11:02 GMT
Message-ID: <41dh56$r...@tpd.dsccc.com>
Organization: DSC Communications Corporation, Plano, Texas USA
There seems to be a big misconception that PR*Bars & the Biozone
program are the same thing. Check into the products and you'll find
PR*Bars are not the same thing as Biozone bars! The PR*Bars bars contain
saturated fat and hydrogenated oils, plus their high glycemic index
is caused by incorrect carbs which slows fat loss. And, I understand the
PR*Bar company is a spin-off of Biozone started by a former Biozone
member & a used car salesman!
Trek55291
Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
Subject: Re: PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Date: 22 Aug 1995 19:36:18 -0400
Message-ID: <41dpli$6...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Ah yes you are correct.
But if the Pr Bar Advertising is true. Can MARK ALLEN be wrong.
Guess we'll have to see this year in Kona.
By the way I think most ad's should be taken with a grain of salt. Just
think about Dionne Warwick the Psychic expert (didn't she sing or
something).
later
Trek...@aol.com
Jjsj
Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
Subject: Re: PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Message-ID: <41e384$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
>>>Don't be fooled by the PR*Bar program or advertising like so many of
us;
after doing some research, you'll find out who's got the real program.
And Biozone does not push their supplement--they have a full program
available through a book which teaches you how to use real foods to
successfully lose bodyfat. I've had better and faster success from
Biozone than I could imagine.
Can Dave Scott, Biozone user, be wrong?<<
Kazez
It's been dull, dull, dull, around here. I hear MIM has been sold. To
whom? Maybe JJ?
Ruth Kazez
ex...@psu.edu
Andrew R. Coggan
>(stuff deleted)
>Can Dave Scott, Biozone user, be wrong?
>
Yes, he might very well be wrong (assuming, of course, that he does in fact
follow "The Zone" diet, and isn't simply paid to endorse it). An old saying is,
"Never copy the program of champion, because you don't know if he/she is a champion
BECAUSE OF or IN SPITE OF his/her program". Despite a recent thread in the
"sportsci" newsgroup regarding the value of empirical data, the fact remains that
objective, scientific testing is the only way to really assess the validity of
claims for improved performance, sex appeal, or whatever. When we reviewed the
literature (citation below) several years ago, the evidence clearly favored the
long-standing concept that the optimal diet for an endurance athlete was one
relatively high in carbohydrates. Although PR*Bar, Biozone, etc., try to use
"science" to sell their products, the fact is that there has never been a good study
published in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature to back up the claim that
performance is improved by increasing the fat content (or decreasing the CHO
content) of the diet. While at least one paper has appeared just recently in a
lesser journal, this study (which was commissioned by PR*Bar) suffers from severe
methodological flaws, and is discounted by almost all knowledgeable exercise
scientists.
So, to paraphrase one of the old hamburger-chain commercials, "WHERE'S THE
DATA?"
Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.
Exercise physiologist
References:
Coggan, A.R., and L.A. Mendenhall. Effect of diet on substrate metabolism and
performance during exercise. In: Perspectives in Exercise Science and Sports
Medicine, Vol. 5: Energy Metabolism in Exercise and Sport. D.R. Lamb, and C.V.
Gisolfi, eds. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark, 1992, pp. 435-464 (
Timothy Gotsick
Timothy
--
Timothy Gotsick
got...@neon.chem.utk.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parker Reed
negative?
Eico
For the past two years at Dave Scott's Triathlon camps held at Vail, I
give the nutrition lectures on the hormonal effect of diet on physical
performance. I can assure you that Dave does sit in on my lectures.
Current nutritional wisdom predicts that the greater the levels of muscle
glycogen, the greater the performance of any endurance athlete.
Unfortunately there are no controlled studies in the scientific literature
to support this statement if the diet is held constant for more than seven
days. In fact several of these studies in which the diet has been
controlled for at least seven days have demonstrated statistically
significant decreases in oxygen transfer for the athletes on a
high-carbohydrate diet. This decrease in oxygen transfer negates many of
the potential benefits that should be observed with the increased muscle
glycogen storage which is a consequence of the high-carbohydrate diet.
There is a distinct difference between the hormonal consequences of the
diet (especially in terms of eicosanoid modulation) and the caloric
effects. Of the two, I believe and the existing literature strongly
supports that the hormonal adaptation to the diet is the stronger of the
two influences.
Finally, I believe the study which you refer to in your e-mail was
conducted by Munio et al. and published in 1994. That study was not
sponsored by PR Nutrition, Inc. In fact, I am unaware of any study that
PR Nutrition has ever sponsored.
Barry Sears, Ph.D.
Kazez
Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
Subject: Re: PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Message-ID: <41f3ge$9...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>
Organization: PSU
aco...@usa.net
Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
Subject: Re: PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Message-ID: <41f8ht$2...@atlantis.utmb.edu>
Organization: University of Texas Medical Branch/Shriners Burns Institute
Timothy Gotsick
Newsgroups: rec.sport.triathlon
Subject: Re: PR Bars vs. Biozone: THE TRUTH!!
Message-ID: <41f6qc$t...@martha.utcc.utk.edu>
Organization: University of Tenn, Knoxville. Chem Dept.
Andy Foggo
As a scientist it makes basic sense to me, I'd like to try and find out
more.
Dr Andy Foggo
Oxford University Dept. Zoology
Parker Reed
As I'm fairly new to this page, I'm not up on all the "terms" passed
around. Hence, the unsureness as to the implication of your comment.
My intention was to point out to PR*Bar users what their product
contains--a substantial amount of garbage. I don't know if you have
purchased either product, but I had bought the PR*Bars from a friend and
was unhappy with the results vs. what was advertised. And after doing
some digging, the answers I found included the ingredients I mentioned,
which I don't think anyone on this page would want to ingest.
I'd hoped that pages such as this provided a location for the free
exchange of ideas and information, not for someone to sit back and make
petty comments from their PC at home. Fortunately, I did receive more
constructive and intellegent criticism or feedback from several others
people.
Andrew R. Coggan
>For the past two years at Dave Scott's Triathlon camps held at Vail, I
>give the nutrition lectures on the hormonal effect of diet on physical
>performance. I can assure you that Dave does sit in on my lectures.
>
It is good to know that Dave takes an active interest in the information
presented at the camps bearing his name. However, the fact that he attends such
lectures does not prove that he in fact follows your recommendations. Moreover, even
if he (or any other elite athlete) does follow your recommendations, their
performance cannot be used as evidence as to the validity of such recommendations.
What counts is good science (see below).
>Current nutritional wisdom predicts that the greater the levels of muscle
>glycogen, the greater the performance of any endurance athlete.
>Unfortunately there are no controlled studies in the scientific literature
>to support this statement if the diet is held constant for more than seven
>days.
You are quite correct in pointing out that the literature contains a paucity of
studies that have altered dietary composition for more that 1-2 weeks. We made this
same point is our review (1). However, I am aware of at least 3 studies in humans
that altered dietary CHO intake for periods of 4-6 weeks and measured endurance
performance pre/post:
Phinney et al (2) measured time to fatigue during treadmill exercise in 6 women
consuming a low CHO diet. Their endurance decreased by 23% after 1 week, but was
actually *increased* by 32% after 6 weeks. At first, these data would therefore
appear to support the idea that duration of adaptation is key. Unfortunately, these
obese subjects lost nearly 25 pounds during the study; as a result, the exercise was
considerably easier (requiring only 60% of VO2max after training, compared to 75% of
VO2max before training) after the diet. This, and not adaptation to the diet,
probably explains the increase in performance.
Bogardus et al. (3) essentially repeated the above study, except that
performance was measured on a cycle ergometer, where changes in body weight are much
less important. Time to fatigue fell by 50% after both 1 and 6 week. *Importantly,
changes in muscle glycogen concentration were highly correlated (r=0.79) with
changes in performance.*
Finally, in another study Phiney et al. (4) measured time to fatigue and muscle
glycogen levels in 5 cyclists consuming a low CHO diet for 1 month. Although
performance on average was not affected by the diet, this was due entirely to the
aberrant response of one subjects, whose performance increased by 57% (in my
opinion, and those of many others, such large changes in performance are not
believeable, suggesting that the pre-diet performance of this individual was greatly
underestimated). In the other 4 subjects, performance fell in conjunction with a
decline in pre-exercise muscle glycogen concentration.
>In fact several of these studies in which the diet has been
>controlled for at least seven days have demonstrated statistically
>significant decreases in oxygen transfer for the athletes on a
>high-carbohydrate diet. This decrease in oxygen transfer negates many of
>the potential benefits that should be observed with the increased muscle
>glycogen storage which is a consequence of the high-carbohydrate diet.
>
I am uncertain exactly what you mean by "oxygen transfer". If you mean VO2max,
I am unaware of any solid data suggesting that VO2max is reduced by a high CHO diet.
If you mean VO2 during submaximal exercise, it is true that several studies have
found VO2 to be lower during exercise when CHO intake is higher (or vice-versa).
This, however, is a beneficial adaptation, resulting in less stress on the
cardiovascular system to deliver O2 to the tissues. While in part this may simply
reflect the greater metabolic efficiency of metabolizing CHO, the magnitude of the
difference is such that other factors must be involved. Probably a major component
of the higher whole-body VO2 observed during exercise following a low CHO diet is
due to increased VO2 by the liver, necessary to meet the great energetic demand of
elevated rates of gluconeogenesis.
>There is a distinct difference between the hormonal consequences of the
>diet (especially in terms of eicosanoid modulation) and the caloric
>effects. Of the two, I believe and the existing literature strongly
>supports that the hormonal adaptation to the diet is the stronger of the
>two influences.
Stronger in terms of? Certainly not performance.
>Finally, I believe the study which you refer to in your e-mail was
>conducted by Munio et al. and published in 1994.
The study I was alluded to was not that of Muoio et al. (5), but one sponsored
by Bio-Foods, Inc. (Not yet published; my mistake. I also apologize if I have
confused some of the corporations/personalities involved in the "balanced" diet
movement). The study by Muoio et al. (5), though, is an excellent example of how the
results of poorly controlled research can create apparent controversy where none
really exists. This study attempted to manipulate the diets of members of a
university track team; unfortunately, since the athletes' season was about to
commence, at the request of their coach the treatment sequence (normal diet, low CHO
diet, high CHO diet) was not randomized (as required for good science), but given in
that order. Food was not supplied to the athletes; rather, they were given a dietary
checklist. Although the authors of the study attempted to monitor compliance via
questionaire, such tools are notoriously unreliable. Time to fatigue during exercise
was reported to be longest on the low (50% of calories) CHO diet; however, time to
fatigue during VO2max testing did not differ across the treatments. The latter
finding is not consistent, however, with the fact that VO2max was reportedly
significantly higher on the low CHO diet and significantly lower on the high CHO
diet (findings which themselves are quite unusual; see above). In short, the
experimental design and methods of this study have so many flaws and shortcomings
that one cannot trust the data, especially since they run counter to numerous
previous well-designed and well-executed experiments. Yet, I am sure that this study
will be cited in support of the concept that endurance athletes should reduce their
CHO intake below currently recommended levels.
>That study was not sponsored by PR Nutrition, Inc.
>In fact, I am unaware of any study that PR Nutrition has ever sponsored.
I apologize to everyone (and to PR Nutrition, Inc. in particular) if I appeared
to imply that corporate sponsorship *per se* invalidates the results of a scientific
study. Clearly, many times science could not proceed without the generous financial
support of corporations. My point, though, is that one must be an educated consumer
of the scientific literature, just as one needs to be an educated consumer in other
areas. When evaluating claims based on "science", one must ask, where does the data
come from? Were the studies carefully designed and executed? Are the results
published in an accepted, peer-reviewed journal? Are they corroborated by other
data, ideally from other researchers? And, unfortunately, does somebody have an axe
to grind or something to sell? Only by addressing such questions will one be able to
separate the wheat from the chaff, and discover scientific "truth" (if such a thing
really exists).
References:
1. Coggan, A.R., and L.A. Mendenhall. Effect of diet on substrate metabolism during
exercise. In: Perspectives in Exercise Science and Sports Medicine, Vol. 5: Energy
Metabolism in Exercise and Sport. D.R. Lamb and C.V. Gisolfi, eds. Dubuque, IA:
Brown and Benchmark, 1992, pp. 435-464.
2. Phinney, S.D., E.S. Horton, E.A.H. Sims, J.S. Hanson, E. Danforth, and B.M.
LaGrange (1980). Capacity of moderate exercise in obese subjects after adaptation to
a hypocaloric, ketogenic diet. J. Clin. Invest. 66:1152-1161.
3. Bogardus, C., B.M. LaGrange, E.S. Horton, and E.A.H. Sims (1981). Comparison of
carbohydrate-containing and carbohydrate-restricted hypocaloric diets in the
treatment of obesity. Am. J. Clin. Invest. 68:399-404.
4. Phinney, S.D., B.R. Bistrian, W.J. Evans, E. Gervino, and G.L. Blackburn (1983).
The human metabolic response to ketosis without caloric restriction: preservation of
submaximal exercise capability with reduced carbohydrate oxidation. Metabolism
32:769-776.
5. Muoio, D.M., J.L. Leddy, P.J. Horvath, A.B. Awad, and D.R. Pendergast. Effect of
dietary fat on metabolic adjustments to maximal VO2 and endurance in runners. Med.
Sci. Sports Exerc. 26:81-88, 1994.
Ted Weber
to support prbar's claims. When are we going to get some
well-designed controlled studies to put this issue to
rest?
Ted
Timothy Gotsick
Parker Reed <pr...@ccmail.dsccc.com> wrote:
>
>I'd hoped that pages such as this provided a location for the free
>exchange of ideas and information, not for someone to sit back and make
>
Here in r.s.t., advertisements are not considered a suitable vehicle for
the "exchange of ideas and information". And the commments you refer
to don't strike me as petty, but rather pointed. And as is typical of
posts like yours, the only "evidence" you can offer is the supposed
experience of one user. If you want to make wild claims for a product
while trashing another, I suggest you learn how to back it up.
JJSJ
and now the 40/30/30s vs the other 40/30/30s could go on longer than the
OJ trial.
Each side(s) can produce expert witnesses to make a fairly good case to
the jury.
Won't be long before we start hearing and arguing the Met-Rx concept.
Jeffrey Justice
Andrew R. Coggan
funding some scientific studies into *long-term* diet and athletic performance?
Andrew R. Coggan, Ph.D.
Crhis Gwozdo
of the convo, but what are your views of the 40-30-30 diet and what
do you think of PR*Nutrition? I have yet to read your study, but I
am in the process of locating a copy...Thanks for your opinion in
advance...
-Chris
btw, I'm new at this internet stuff so please excuse any poor form..