RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Racing


Archive Home >> Racing(1 2 3 )


How much do you spend on supplements a month?(15 posts)

How much do you spend on supplements a month?Tim Connelly
Apr 8, 2001 6:39 PM
I am writing a paper on cyclests and supplements. You don't have to tell me your secret wepons, just how much money do you spend, and how many differnt things do you take. Supplements can be vitimins, protien, l-cranitine, or anything other than food you take to help with your cycling.
Thank you!
re: How much do you spend on supplements a month?Duane Gran
Apr 9, 2001 3:56 AM
You might get more response if you provide a more formal form questionaire. It might also be useful to know if the given cyclist is recreational, sport or racer. There are probably other classifications I'm not aware of, but I'll bit first.

I race and I spend about $50-$60 a month. This seems a modest cost to me, but in reality I probably spend closer to $150 a month when I figure my increased caloric needs. I need to consume about 3500 calories a day, due to training 16-20 hours a week. In a sense I'm having to suppliment a standard 2500 calorie intake, but I'm not sure how broadly you define a supplement.
NothingKerry Irons
Apr 9, 2001 4:26 PM
An active cyclist (or any endurance athlete) who eats anything close to a balanced diet gets all the nutrition needed from something called FOOD. Supplements benefit those with deficiencies. Are there any studies showing benefits of supplements over a proper diet?
My studyEarth Child
Apr 10, 2001 10:43 AM
I just drink water and eat the grass and weeds that I pass on the side of the road. That's plenty. If I need electrolytes, I just drink my own urine. All other food staples have been created as a marketing ploy. Are there any studies showing the benefits of food over ones one bodily wastes over a period of 7.6 years in adult males age 31-32, earning between $6-$7/hr? I didn't think so.
Nothingwayne scott
Apr 12, 2001 3:32 AM
I agree with the basic idea of Kerry's posting. Most supplements are a waste of money, and if they really do have a significant performance affect, it will be shown in studies and the substance will be banned as a drug. I'm not talking gatorade, protein powders, vitamins, etc these are just alternate, more convenient (?) forms of food. But stuff like ginseng, creatine, androstenodione, caffeine (which is banned above certain levels and has great performance enhanceing effects for endurance athletes), etc.
So are you talking about food supplements or the latest/greatest supplement that is going to turn everyone into a superstar?
By the way, the reason most supplements are fads, is because a company makes claims about a product, it achieves popularity, after a number of years the science is done, the claims are shown to be false, this info takes a while to trickle down, and then people stop buying the stuff. I think Creatine (at least for endurance athletes) will follow this path, and adrostenodione (for endurance or strength training) as well.
Hey KerryJava
Apr 17, 2001 6:50 PM
Having read "Optimum Sports Nutrition" by Dr. M. Colgan, I'm not sure your statement is accurate for more competitive cyclists. I'm not going to pretend that I'm well versed in this area, but Colgan's book impressed me with its analysis and the general message. One of the points he makes is that the RDA's for vitamins and minerals are based on the needs of the average American, not a competitive athlete. Thus, for those putting their bodies through serious training (internal punishment), he states that there is a benefit to supplementation (anti-oxidants in particular) in addition to a proper diet. This feeds into another, rather obvious but often overlooked, point that our bodies each have different needs. So Duane Gran above might need less supplementation than I do for certain vits/mins even though he's putting in more training time than me (lucky bugger). I think it's the second point that is the real unknown variable. That is, I believe we can reasonably conclude that the greater the training, the more likely that supplementation will be beneficial in general. However, short of getting lab testing done for your individual needs, how are you to know whether a simple multi, a super multi or a whole wack of vits/mins is what YOU need. Therein lies the real guess work. The other problem here is that Colgan claims getting the right level of vits/mins and other building blocks (proteins, carbs and good fats through proper diet) will take up to six months to manifest in your performance, so it's hard to measure.

Maybe he's on retainer from TwinLab (products he does mention) to hype supplementation in general, but Colgan's message seems simple and convincing to me. The way I apply it to my own needs are as follows: supplement lightly in the off season (simple multi and flaxseed oil) and moreso when the training really picks up. I do think that one should be careful not to let supplementation become counter-productive by abusing their liver through over-supplementation.

If you've got info to the contrary, I would sincerely like to hear about it. But I think that a proper diet, on its own, probably falls short of optimum fuel for seriously competitive athletes unless that diet you're speaking of is really, really proper.
Hey JavaKerry Irons
Apr 22, 2001 3:13 PM
The primary basis for my statement is a huge amount of information in books by people who are not working for supplement companies (Nancy Clark, David Smith, etc. etc.) AND one very important point you overlook. It is quite easy to get the RDAs for everything in a properly balanced diet for a healthy adult. I think it's a fair assumption that an active athlete needs more micronutrients than that average healthy adult. But I also think that the active person is going to eat more. So, these things should balance out. In the past 30 years there have been innumerable supplement fads, and not one of them has been proved to offer benefits over a normal diet. The reason for this is that the research starts out trying to identify beneficial components, and then picks on one thing (recent example = beta carotene). People who eat lots of fruits and vegetables are healthier, fruits and vegetables contain beta carotene, therefore beta carotene is healthy. One problem - studies of supplementation with beta carotene show no benefit. Eating carrots has benefit, but beta carotene does not. Real food is good for you, supplements are marginal, expensive alternatives to a good diet.
re: How much do you spend on supplements a month?EPO
Apr 9, 2001 4:32 PM
I get all my supplements free threw sponsersip deals.But I use GU and Endurox R4. I use R4 after races for recovory. I use Gu during shorter races to keep me going.
Food is NOT enoughsteveuk
Apr 18, 2001 5:23 PM
Hey Kerry listen up. Modern intensively produced food DOES NOT contain the same level of vitamins or minerals that the food our species has eaten for millenia did. Modern practices deplete the soil of minerals and all our vegetables are pumped up with artificial fertilises and sprayed with chemicals which reduce vitamin production in the plants so the end quantity per gramm etc is well below what our body has evolved to expect and thrives on. So the point is you CAN get all the vitamins you'll ever need form a well balanced ORGANIC food only diet. I'd recommend it if you can afford that but if u can't you should definately replace those MISSING vitamins + minerals by taking multi suppliments. Not to do so is folly.

Another point touched on is - is our body supposed to work as hard as the average athelete pushes it? I'd say yes probablly as no widespread ill effects occur throughout atheletes lives really that can't be explained by periods of over training or not warming up enough! And all the couch potatoes are dieing of a myriad of diseases so we certainly aren't designed to be under active.

Finally I once read a study which found that humans can develope and retain bone mass perfectly across a very wide range of calcium levels in the diet. I think from 200mg to 1,500mg per day was found between nomads and typical westerners I think. So the body can tolerate differences in intake levels of vit + mins - there is NO prefect quantity. But I also read that this RDA is the MINIMUM that was found to be needed to PREVENT DISEASE. Both these facts suggest that the body expects and certainly can utilise MORE than the RDA - and the study which established these levels was done on everyday lazy people right? So we fit guys + gals definately need more considering the 'damage' that heavy exercise does to cells and muscle (which we naturally repair but this uses extra vitamins). BTW I know you can definately take too much vitamin A but many vitamins are simply passed away in the urine if u take too much - vit c for example. But then again is this a waste when it's proven that the vit c in the urine acts as a detoxifyer to prevent bladder/urinary canal infection??? There are some good books around 'Guide to Nutritional Healing' (by I don't know - saw it on Amazon once) is one which gives revealing advice on vitamin levels and what speciallised doctors + reserachers advise.
Food IS enoughKerry Irons
Apr 22, 2001 3:24 PM
Steve, I know that you can find lots of articles in magazines and on the Internet which PROVE that supplementation is required, that our food supply has been destroyed by modern agricultural and food processing practices, and that we are consuming toxic doses of pesticide residues. What you cannot find is scientific literature in peer reviewed journals to support this proof. I've heard this jive for going on 30 years, and there is no proof of it. More importantly, there is no epidemiological evidence to support the claim. You can find a "scientist" to state damn near anything as fact, including cold fusion. However, the scientific method requires more than a claim in a popular magazine, or a theory based on assumptions about the way things work. It requires proof of cause and effect. Your statements are not supported by the science.
'Your statements are not supported by the science'steveuk
Apr 28, 2001 8:26 PM
Er but you are totally BLINDED by your 'rational' mind or something? If a landslide is heading towards you, you need to cross check in some scientific journal the dangers of being consumed and entombed by a mass of earth before jumpimg out of the way? I'd venture not because though you've never been under a landslide you can assume being there would probablly kill you? So can you not assume that vitamin deficient food is a bad thing possibly even dangerous? I'm not even sure what you mean. There is no evidence (in SJ's) that intensively produced food has fewer vitamins OR that supplementation is 'required' which? If u are seriously saying there is no evidence that modern food is lacking in vitamins then I must question that. I am quite sure there is a mass of hard experimental data to prove otherwise.

'Science' is a big joke. It's all based on repeatble results right? So tens of thousands of deaths from cancer is not a 'repeatable (or repeating) result? NOTHING is true unless some scientists agree on it after repeated independent laboratory confirmation? Ofcourse this #belief# would provbe that that G W Bush is not the President of the USA - because that fact has not been coroborated by various scientists in seperate laboratory tests. Belief in science is not scientific.

Come on fella. I have read that organic food DEFINATELY contains more vitamins than food grow in artificially fertilised, over used soil = and that sounds highly reasonable to me. I also know that vitamins help combat disease - that IS scientifically accepted. I also know that 70% of cancers are said to be 'life style' created by the UK medical profession and that cultures all over the world have started suffering from 'Westerner's' diseases like cancer as never before after adopting our diets of intensivly produced food. Eskimo and Japanese are two noteable examples.

I also know that most scientists are at it. They are commisioned often by buisness to do their various 'studies' and never fail to find results which need more examination. Science evidence is a BUISNESS and you really shouldn't think of it as unquestionably definative. The history of science is littered with false claims. Only time will tell if you are wrong about modern food being nutritious enough.

I know that I am going to keep eating the organic food that I do because after doing so I feel incrediblly well and clear headed. Now THAT is repeatable because it's not everyday I eat a complete organic meal - when I do I know about it. Cause and effect in operation though you will naturally doubt my findings/sanity? Of course my personal repeatable 'experiment' does not equate to 'scientific' proof in your book - or does it? 'Placebo' just about nulifies my experience of life here. Isn't science patronising.
Kerry is rightpeloton
Apr 30, 2001 9:46 PM
You really don't need anything more than a balanced diet. A healthy, balanced diet that provides enough caloric intake to deal with the calories burned will also provide a satisfactory amount of nutrients to sustain health human life. The problem becomes that most people don't consume a healthy balanced diet. That is where supplementation can be needed as a second rate cure to having a proper diet. The best supplements that you can take are food, water, and sleep.
what kind of name is 'EPO' u numbskull - that can kill u andanon
Apr 18, 2001 5:28 PM
this drug is putting cycling into disrepute. If u want to cheat and con people go play cards and stab people in the back that way. If u don't train enough to keep up with the pack you shouldn't con eveyone who ARE putting in the hours by injecting sh't into yer viens. If your name is intended as ironic I aplogoise - if not F Off and die under a stone.
chill out and get a grip.3kidney
Apr 26, 2001 12:31 PM
If you hate people who take drugs to enhance their performance quit watching sports. They have always been there and always will. If the thought of it causes you to foam at the mouth it would be better for your health to find something else to occupy yourself. Lance Armstrong doesn't get all worked up about it even though he has to compete against them, why should you?

Also get your facts straight. EPO is actually remarkably safe unless you overdo it and turn your blood to jello. Erythropoietin is produced naturally by the kidneys, so if it was dangerous in and of itself we would all be dead. The package insert has the fewest warnings and side-effects of any drug I have ever taken (before you blow a gasket it was for kidney failure). Also it is injected subcutaneously not intravenously.

If you want to worry about drug use I recommend spending your energy fighting the abuse of Ritalin and Prosac that are prescribed like water these days. Having a nation of Zombies is far more alarming than people cheating at a GAME.
yeah chill and let injustice reign?anon again
Apr 28, 2001 7:36 PM
You are just plain dumb or what? 'EPO is actually remarkably safe unless you overdo it' - well, er, yes EXACTLY you idiot. It can KILL YOU quite easily like many drugs not to mention long term organ damage. Lance this, Lance that - do you know him or something? Is he happy to spend his career on an unlevel playing field? Oh he told you personally? That is OK then. Most don't mention it because it's a f##kin embarresment. It's dirty, scummy and anyone who takes performance drugs has no respect for him/herself or the truely faithful fans who give so much of their lives and hopes to sportstars. Lance actually maintains at every opertunity that himself and the Postal team are entirely clean.

Not a game fella - life, death, careers, big buisness. Maybe we allow all drugs in sport and you could help clear up the corpses of the young men of the Peloton forced by Directeur Sportifs to take their injections because everyone else is doing it? Maybe you would tell the lads parents why he had to die too?

The last thing Pro cycling needs is total idiots like you giving a sly wink to drug cheats. The fans don't want drugs and neither do the riders ultimately want to risk their health. The sooner the riders decide umong themselves to treat drugs cheats like the scum they are the sooner everyone will have the level playing field.

If you think that saying 'drugs have always and will always be there' is ATALL original, inteligent or some kind of justification you are wrong. The same can be said about murder or rape so we shouldn't bother about them either? Oh and I follow cycling because I KNOW plenty of riders don't cheat. I also KNOW scum bag cheats prevent them from attaining the success they train very hard for and deserve. If some guys don't do the traing we should let them win with dope? Yeah that's a great game. Very dignified.