I was just taking to the head guy of the Elite Performance Center here in my city about nutrition, well I wasn't actually talking. Anyway some of the stuff he said I found just absurd, I really wish I could remember word for word of what he was saying but I'll try and retell it the best I can.
First he stated that he is a biochem major, elite performance centers create the best athletes and most athletes diets are missing fat from there diet. Ok that's great no problem. He then tells me that it is needed because there is two ways of utilizing energy: aerobic (while sitting and very light training) which uses fat, and anaerobic (during normal training) which burns carbs and that's why athletes need fat. I am then told that the top athletes diet should be 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) but normal athletes don't need this much fat because they will not be training nearly as hard so they should be consuming a 45/30/25. I'm now thinking hmmm this guy has a biochem major, well isn't that just dandy. Second thought did he just contradict him self, if a top athlete is training extremely hard then by his logic he should be consuming more carbs because of his concept on burning energy.
He then states we need tons of protein to build and repair muscles, that's about it for protein.
Now on to carbs. He went on about carbs for several minutes but his explanation was so simplified I'm finding it hard to remember exactly what he said. It was pretty much simple carbs have high GI and produce quick bursts of energy which quickly crashes and complex carbs are better because they give off a steady source of energy. He then states carbs during exercise is a bad idea because blood would be needed to carry the carbs around in the blood and that is not good because during exercise it should be removing waste from our muscles instead of shuttling carbs. He also contradicted himself again there since right before that he said the best pre-game meal would be pasta.
Now on to creatine, he really didn't like it. First when he started talking it seemed like he was going to promote it. Since he stated how it helps increase ATP production which we need during activity. But then wham he then started calling it names and saying how it was not good because it increases the amount of water the muscle holds. His analogy was that your muscle fibers are like balloons and that they can stretch the most when they are empty, but when they ar full they can't and are at risk of breaking. Now unless if I am wrong this is just a theory? I just found it strange that he seemed to hate the stuff just for this reason, he was actually calling it names.
I just found this encounter interesting, and wish I had questioned his believes more. Too bad I was in no mood for talking at the time. It also goes to show that if your a solid 230-250 pounds of muscle at 5' 7" and you have a biochem major just one of the possible jobs you can get.
First he stated that he is a biochem major, elite performance centers create the best athletes and most athletes diets are missing fat from there diet. Ok that's great no problem. He then tells me that it is needed because there is two ways of utilizing energy: aerobic (while sitting and very light training) which uses fat, and anaerobic (during normal training) which burns carbs and that's why athletes need fat. I am then told that the top athletes diet should be 40/30/30 (carbs/protein/fat) but normal athletes don't need this much fat because they will not be training nearly as hard so they should be consuming a 45/30/25. I'm now thinking hmmm this guy has a biochem major, well isn't that just dandy. Second thought did he just contradict him self, if a top athlete is training extremely hard then by his logic he should be consuming more carbs because of his concept on burning energy.
He then states we need tons of protein to build and repair muscles, that's about it for protein.
Now on to carbs. He went on about carbs for several minutes but his explanation was so simplified I'm finding it hard to remember exactly what he said. It was pretty much simple carbs have high GI and produce quick bursts of energy which quickly crashes and complex carbs are better because they give off a steady source of energy. He then states carbs during exercise is a bad idea because blood would be needed to carry the carbs around in the blood and that is not good because during exercise it should be removing waste from our muscles instead of shuttling carbs. He also contradicted himself again there since right before that he said the best pre-game meal would be pasta.
Now on to creatine, he really didn't like it. First when he started talking it seemed like he was going to promote it. Since he stated how it helps increase ATP production which we need during activity. But then wham he then started calling it names and saying how it was not good because it increases the amount of water the muscle holds. His analogy was that your muscle fibers are like balloons and that they can stretch the most when they are empty, but when they ar full they can't and are at risk of breaking. Now unless if I am wrong this is just a theory? I just found it strange that he seemed to hate the stuff just for this reason, he was actually calling it names.
I just found this encounter interesting, and wish I had questioned his believes more. Too bad I was in no mood for talking at the time. It also goes to show that if your a solid 230-250 pounds of muscle at 5' 7" and you have a biochem major just one of the possible jobs you can get.
looks at protein and energy supply. carbs and fat are lumped together because it is unimportant to deal with them seperately. Excess energy will be stored as fat. lack of energy will involve the breakdown of stored fat. 
. By no way did I mean to imply all biochemists are ignorant in nutrition. I was just really disappointed with this guy because a coach I know seems to think he is some sort of god.