Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mikhail Liebenstein

Beer and Peanuts better than sports drinks

Recommended Posts

Strangely I find a few pints the night before a run helps performance too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about beer, but I've found bags of salted peanuts to be a good fuel for long-distance cycle rides and walks - compact,robust and electrolyte-replenishing. I don't think I could digest them while running though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we all get carried away:

Quote

research which was unveiled at the European Beer and Health Symposium in Brussels, Belgium, advises them to drink alcohol after the race, according to The Sun

... says the Mail.

So The Mail says The Sun says the European Beer and Health Symposium says drink beer.

or:

A questionable source says a doubtful source says a vested interest group says drink beer.

You've really gotta want to believe this. Middle class drinking thread candidates form an orderly queue please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

Before we all get carried away:

... says the Mail.

So The Mail says The Sun says the European Beer and Health Symposium says drink beer.

or:

A questionable source says a doubtful source says a vested interest group says drink beer.

You've really gotta want to believe this. Middle class drinking thread candidates form an orderly queue please.

 

You say that, but there is plenty of evidence that moderate beer consumption is good for you - certainly 1 pint a night for 5 days a week is better than not drinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BristolBuyer said:

I don't know about beer, but I've found bags of salted peanuts to be a good fuel for long-distance cycle rides and walks - compact,robust and electrolyte-replenishing. I don't think I could digest them while running though.

Yes, peanuts, cashews and real nuts are all brilliant.  Avocados are superb, along with smoked salmon and eggs. If you want energy for the long run, and want to avoid snacking on sugary rubbish, eat these foods!

Plus a good measure of heathy veg and fruit/berries - in combo these are a great way to keep healthy and avoid going senile. And don't forget Green Tea, superb for rehydration.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

You say that, but there is plenty of evidence that moderate beer consumption is good for you - certainly 1 pint a night for 5 days a week is better than not drinking.

 

Well, mayo clinic sums it up thus:

Quote

Moderate alcohol consumption may provide some health benefits, such as:

  • Reduce your risk of developing and dying from heart disease
  • Possibly reduce your risk of ischemic stroke (when the arteries to your brain become narrowed or blocked, causing severely reduced blood flow)
  • Possibly reduce your risk of diabetes
 

Even so, the evidence about the health benefits of alcohol isn't certain, and alcohol may not benefit everyone who drinks.

and at heart.org:

Quote

Over the past several decades, many studies have been published in science journals about how drinking alcohol may be associated with reduced mortality due to heart disease in some populations.

Some researchers have suggested that the benefit may be due to wine, especially red wine. Others are examining the potential benefits of components in red wine such as flavonoids and other antioxidants in reducing heart disease risk. Some of these components may be found in other foods such as grapes or red grape juice. The linkage reported in many of these studies may be due to other lifestyle factors rather than alcohol. Such factors may include increased physical activity, and a diet high in fruits and vegetables and lower in saturated fats No direct comparison trials have been done to determine the specific effect of wine or other alcohol on the risk of developing heart disease or stroke.

Research is being done to find out what the apparent benefits of drinking wine or alcohol in some populations may be due to, including the role of antioxidants, an increase in HDL ("good") cholesterol or anti-clotting properties. Clinical trials of other antioxidants such as vitamin E have not shown any cardio-protective effect. Also, even if they were protective, antioxidants can be obtained from many fruits and vegetables, including red grape juice.

The best-known effect of alcohol is a small increase in HDL cholesterol. However, regular physical activity is another effective way to raise HDL cholesterol, and niacin can be prescribed to raise it to a greater degree. Alcohol or some substances such as resveratrol found in alcoholic beverages may prevent platelets in the blood from sticking together. That may reduce clot formation and reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke. (Aspirin may help reduce blood clotting in a similar way.) How alcohol or wine affects cardiovascular risk merits further research, but right now the American Heart Association does not recommend drinking wine or any other form of alcohol to gain these potential benefits.

The AHA does recommend that to reduce your risk you should talk to your doctor about lowering your cholesterol and lowering high blood pressure, controlling your weight, getting enough physical activity and following a healthy diet.

There is no scientific proof that drinking wine or any other alcoholic beverage can replace these conventional measures.

 

Personally , I hardly have touched a drop in maybe 30 years. I have a  "resting" blood pressure of about 100/65, tho I can manage 93/60 in the mornings on down-days, and a resting heart rate of ~52. I 'm also on the cusp of thrombocytopenia so I'm not worried about clotting.

I can't say for sure what has put my heart and vascular system in this apparently exceptional sweet spot, but it certainly is not alcohol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

Well, mayo clinic sums it up thus:

and at heart.org:

Personally , I hardly have touched a drop in maybe 30 years. I have a  "resting" blood pressure of about 100/65, tho I can manage 93/60 in the mornings on down-days, and a resting heart rate of ~52. I 'm also on the cusp of thrombocytopenia so I'm not worried about clotting.

I can't say for sure what has put my heart and vascular system in this apparently exceptional sweet spot, but it certainly is not alcohol.

 

And my resting heart rate is about 38 - and i drink like a beast 2 days a week.

Neither my example or your example really means sweet ****** all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

You say that, but there is plenty of evidence that moderate beer consumption is good for you - certainly 1 pint a night for 5 days a week is better than not drinking.

 

It might be the that water is good for people who don't drink enough otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/04/2017 at 8:01 AM, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

I find this hard to believe. One has only to try and play tennis for 2 hours in 80 degree heat to know that sports drinks can be invaluable.

Do you see the top ATP tennis players using peanuts and beer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ccc said:

And my resting heart rate is about 38 - and i drink like a beast 2 days a week.

Neither my example or your example really means sweet ****** all.

Is low heart rate "all that"? My >80 year old Dad has a ~50 ish heart rate .... and hypertension - the biggest cause of stroke and heart attack.

Of course, there is nothing in heart rate that tells you much about your system unless you also consider blood pressure. A large left ventricle makes a slow heart rate. Athletes therefore have slow heart rates.

But here's the problem. As I said w/ my dad, you can have a low heart rate and high BP. How? Peripheral resistance - ie how clogged up you are and how efficiently your kidneys work in allowing your arteries to expand during periods of high pressure. Kidneys are known to be damaged by high BP, and once you have furred up arteries, ... well, it's then down to whatever the gp can give you.

On the other hand a large left ventricle is NOT a permanent condition. 3 months and it is largely back to normal size. Leaving you with b*****d kidneys and furred arteries. Guess what happens to the heart rate then?

I know it's hardly a scientific view, but what if your bedroom radiator, the furthest point from your boiler, isn't as hot as, say, the lounge radiators? One theory you might develop is that the water is hanging around too long in the lounge and therefore losing too much heat there, making the bedroom radiator cold.

You might conclude you need a bigger pump to push the water through quicker. You fit one and lo and behold the bedroom radiator gets warmer. Fine, problem solved. Bigger pump made the system healthy.

But that does not change the fact that your radiator pipes are all chalked up, and that originally, the smaller pump worked fine.

What happens when you switch back in your old pump, but still want a warm bedroom? You have to increase its current to pick up the revs.

 

 

           
           
           
           
           
           
           
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed heart rate does not tell the whole story. I was just giving an example though that using simple measures like these can be difficult to evaluate.

I have worked out that over my lifetime my heart will beat literally billions of times less than the average person at 72 BPM. Some of this will of course be evened up by my higher heart rate when exercising. But nowhere near enough. If my heart beats billions of time less to do exactly the same job as someone elses - I would class that as a positive.

I also see having regular high heart rates in exercise as a sort of flush of the system. As you say - lots of issues people have with clogged arteries etc.. At a very basic level I think beasting yourself regularly - which shoots your heart rate and blood pressure up extremely high - is akin to someone using water power to clean out the gunk in a houses pipes or sewers etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2017 at 2:52 PM, ccc said:

Yes indeed heart rate does not tell the whole story. I was just giving an example though that using simple measures like these can be difficult to evaluate.

I have worked out that over my lifetime my heart will beat literally billions of times less than the average person at 72 BPM. Some of this will of course be evened up by my higher heart rate when exercising. But nowhere near enough. If my heart beats billions of time less to do exactly the same job as someone elses - I would class that as a positive.

I also see having regular high heart rates in exercise as a sort of flush of the system. As you say - lots of issues people have with clogged arteries etc.. At a very basic level I think beasting yourself regularly - which shoots your heart rate and blood pressure up extremely high - is akin to someone using water power to clean out the gunk in a houses pipes or sewers etc...

Are you aware of this?
 

Quote

 

The results suggest a mechanism for sinus bradycardia [low RHR] in athletes, and also might help scientists understand why athletes can have heart problems later in life.

...

Many amateur athletes wear their reduced heart rates as a competitive badge of honor, proof that they are really fit. Unfortunately, sinus bradycardia is not always an effect worth boasting about. Lifelong athletes with low heart rates need pacemakers later in life much more often than the general population.

...

Boyett points out that the bradycardia was reversible in their young, fit animals, as it is in young athletes when they take time off from training. “But in older athletes it may not be reversible.” So for now, he says, the main message is “everything in moderation.”

- A slow heartbeat in athletes is not so funny


 

 

 

Not only does the article suggest that bradycardia can be problematic later in life. it also more or less states that the only kind of low RHR worth having is one you lose as soon as you stop training!

Hardly the news we wanted to hear.

With my BP in hypotension figures and RHR in bradycardia territory I'm wondering what it is I'm aiming for.

Probably time to cut the reps for a while and bulk a bit more ... or just eat cake!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that is interesting. Never knew that. Not going to stop me though. I still think the overall benefits must outweigh any potential negatives ?

My RHR has always been naturally low. My mum's is similar. Without exercise it would probably still be around the 50 mark.

Cake ? I'm on that training plan !

Offices are ******ing brutal for trying to avoid the stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's some more depressing / heartening stuff:

Quote

Using information about a smaller and more diverse group of Olympians — 9,889 men and women, including participants as well as medalists — scientists from Leiden University in the Netherlands found that “athletes from disciplines with moderate cardiovascular intensity or high cardiovascular intensity were similar,” in terms of their lifespans, to “athletes from disciplines with low cardiovascular intensity.”

Cyclists, rowers, runners, cricketers and golfers who competed at the Olympics all enjoyed similar lifespans. - Live as Long as an Olympian

Also in the article it says that Olympians live 2.8 years longer than peers, but to my mind that might come from fame / fortune / better genes / early intense medical screening and scrutiny.

If golfers can benefit to the same extent it's hard to see how it can have much to do with strenuous exercise.

makes me wonder what all these health messages from government are all about. probably has more to do with gdp uplift from consumptionon health and fitness than other benefits.

let's face it, the people who could really benefit from more exercise are cocking a deaf 'un.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares how long you live. It's the quality that's important imo. As long as its a reasonable level. 60+ or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ccc said:

Who cares how long you live. It's the quality that's important imo. As long as its a reasonable level. 60+ or so.

Nowadays, dying at 60 would mean barely even meeting your grandchildren let alone knowing them. That matters to some people.

 

Maybe not you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, EmmaRoid said:

Nowadays, dying at 60 would mean barely even meeting your grandchildren let alone knowing them. That matters to some people.

 

Maybe not you. 

I was talking about quality of life. I didn't mention relatives. That can go any way. 

I really don't see what would be so great about living to 90 so you can see your small grand child when you're in a wheelchair having someone else wipe your backside with no clue what planet you are on.

Extreme example but you get the point. 

Quality of life is what's important imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ccc said:

I was talking about quality of life. I didn't mention relatives. That can go any way. 

I really don't see what would be so great about living to 90 so you can see your small grand child when you're in a wheelchair having someone else wipe your backside with no clue what planet you are on.

Extreme example but you get the point. 

Quality of life is what's important imo

Millions of 'typical' people would disagree with you. Most people would take a hit on their quality of life if it gave them a chance to see their family flourish. Its within us all, even you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ccc said:

Who cares how long you live. It's the quality that's important imo. As long as its a reasonable level. 60+ or so.

Well, earlier you mentioned how your RHR would put less wear and tear on your heart, so forgive me if I mistook this for a longevity thing. If you only plan on reaching 60+ish I wouldn't worry about RHR!

My view is that most reasonably fit people with a good approach to diet, currently in their 40s, 50s, should make 90 w/o too many health problems. Then again, that would be south of the border. can't vouch for how this plays in the land of deep-fried mars bars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... then again, I've this minute learned about the all-too early demise of Master Lee Barden, a 7th grade Black Belt who was a bit of a star on the nunchaku scene. Liver cancer took him at 57 back in March. RIP Lee.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EmmaRoid said:

Millions of 'typical' people would disagree with you. Most people would take a hit on their quality of life if it gave them a chance to see their family flourish. Its within us all, even you.

We are all different. I have no kids or desire to have any. I have nieces though. And whether i am alive or not they will continue to grow and do with their lives what they are going to do with their lives.

I don't really get whether i see it or not as particularly important - life goes on.

Taking a hit on their quality of life to see their family flourish ? If you are talking health - then that's purely a theoretical question as it has no base in reality. So it's pointless.

The only real true life example i can think of is people choosing to retire to a location that means they will see their family very little.

And a hell of a lot of people appear more than happy to do that. And most of their family give this their blessing - as they want their parents / grandparents to end their lives in a pleasant place where they are content. 

As I've said - i firmly believe quality of life trump's quantity of life Evey time. I think most people would agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ccc said:

We are all different. I have no kids or desire to have any. I have nieces though. And whether i am alive or not they will continue to grow and do with their lives what they are going to do with their lives.

I don't really get whether i see it or not as particularly important - life goes on.

Taking a hit on their quality of life to see their family flourish ? If you are talking health - then that's purely a theoretical question as it has no base in reality. So it's pointless.

The only real true life example i can think of is people choosing to retire to a location that means they will see their family very little.

And a hell of a lot of people appear more than happy to do that. And most of their family give this their blessing - as they want their parents / grandparents to end their lives in a pleasant place where they are content. 

As I've said - i firmly believe quality of life trump's quantity of life Evey time. I think most people would agree.

 

Because people don't think and when they don't think they act selfishly and are hopelessly optimistic.

 

I believe that you individually feel that way and I also believe that if you ask random people in the street if quality of life is more important than longevity, they will say yes.

 

But if you ask them if they would rather live with fantastic quality of life till 60 then cark it without seeing their children and grandchildren grow up I think most people would tell you they would rather take their chances of living a bit longer in reasonable health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   91 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.