Sunday, April 8, 2012

Mirror, Mirror: Nutrition Part 1.


In this day and age of fast food and inactivity, the media is filled with stories about weight. In the last week I’ve read stories about both our burgeoning obesity problem,

 and a model told she was too fat to be a plus size model. In 2011, the estimated costs due to an obese population was $270 BILLION, while in Israel, laws have been passed outlawing models who are too thin. With diets like Skinny Bitch, and shows like The Biggest Loser and America’s Next Top Model on prime time TV, I am reminded of the saying:

“Common Sense Isn’t Vary Common.”

 Unfortunately, athletes who should be role models in health often fall into the trap of polarized approaches to their weight also. In my experience non-healthy behaviors of athletes usually fall into one of two categories.

1. The Obsessors

2. The Hot Ovens


The Obsessor is the athlete who worries about every ounce. They follow an extremely strict diet, weigh themselves constantly (or, if very in denial, never), and are always convinced they need to be lighter in order to perform better.

The Hot Oven is the opposite of the Obsessor. The only thing that the Hot Oven is ever worried about is then when and where of their next meal. The name comes from the idea that “If the oven is hot enough, it will burn anything.” The basic “philosophy” behind the Hot Oven is that if you train, you can eat whatever, whenever, and as much as you want.


What BOTH of these athletes lack is COMMON SENSE. Everyone has an optimal weight determined by their sport and their desired level of competition. Basically what I mean by that is that some sports will require more muscle, and a lower level of desired competition widens the range of optimal weight. For example, a marathoner who wants to make the Olympics needs to weight less than a recreational cross country skiers.

BUT YOU CAN BE TOO SKINNY (like the Obsessor can often be), and YOU CAN BE TO FAT (Like the Hot Oven can often be).

Not only can absolute weight directly affect performance (too skinny means not enough strength, too heavy means you’re ass drags you back down the hill), but both of the above extremes can lead to poor nutritional situations. The Obsessor is the most likely true nutritional issues, as a negative calorie state can often result in the athlete not taking in enough essential vitamins and minerals. The Hot Oven, can actually have the same problem, oddly enough, as they hunt calorie dense food which, in this day and age, means nutritionally barren food.

A better metric than weight is body composition (body fat percentage). The easiest way to gauge how much body fat you have, is a mirror. If you can see 6 abs, you’re probably around 10%. The only problem with the mirror, is that it allows for subjectivity, which, with a neurotic athlete isn’t always the best idea. The next best, and the best bang for your buck, is a bioelectric scale. While not a very good measure of your ACTUAL body fat, if you measure yourself at the same time every day, it can measure your bodies change quite well.


So what’s it all mean? Have Common Sense! It IS possible to be too light, and it IS possible to be too heavy. Focus on body composition rather than weight! If you think you’re to heavy, have your body fat tested, and if you think you need to lower your body fat percentage, change your diet (next blog post). IF you think you are to light, follow the same protocol, measure, decide, act.

Tomorrow: Nutrition and the Athlete. 

2 comments:

  1. You might consider a separate post about cyclists and all their neurosis. That said, what they're really alighting on is the sacred strength to weight ratio. The problem is, at the lower levels, they totally miss the forest for the trees. As you told me once, I used to climb with a buddy of mine that was 130 pounds when I was 185 and I kicked his ass every time. You gotta have the legs.

    That said Joey boy, if you or I could ever whittle ourselves down to 160 or so and keep the leg strength....well...um....scary...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm, I actually don't think that, when it comes to nutrition, cyclists are really any worse than runners, triathletes, or nordies. I've seen runners wearing shirts that say "Gaunt is Beautiful." The pure VOLUME of crazy brought out in cyclists is only beaten by tri-geeks though, might be a good post.

      Trees? There are tree's in the forest? What people don't realize is that power is by far the most important part of the power:weight ratio. Sure it's neat if you can climb forever because you weigh less than your anorexic bike, but when your ass gets dropped on any little roller, sidewind, or acceleration, WTF is the point?

      I make no bones about the fact that I would be a much faster runner and cyclist if I lost 15-20 pounds of upper body. But I LIKE to be able to do 20 pullups and bench press 200. An old friend of mine used to tell stories about when he was a Cat 1 they would brag about how LITTLE they could lift with their arms, because it was a sign that the muscle (and associated weight) were going away.

      Delete