Hydration aids is my term for any kind of wearable gear that allows the runner or endurance athlete to carry fluid replenishment on the go.
Like energy replacement products, they’re popular among endurance athletes, but for some reason, less well known in Singapore. I have seen with my own eyes runners in the Bay Run or Singapore Marathon carry Nalgene bottles, or jury-rig belts or straps to carry flasks and gels. I remember one memorable chap strapping no less than six single serve Powergels around his waist.
Fuelbelts are without question, the most popular hydration aid among runners in Singapore. They’re available in a number of places. Users of the Fuelbelt claim that the Fuelbelt is comfortable to wear and doesn’t chafe, bump or drag. I can’t claim otherwise, seeing as how I’ve never tried one on before. Maybe those hordes of Fuelbelt-wearing runners are on to something. I’m skeptical though, that the swaying or bumping motion won’t annoy me for the 26 miles of a marathon. What is undeniable however is that the Fuelbelt has a good carrying capacity and the added flexibility of holding different bottles for different things (gels, drinks etc.)
Camelbaks are popular among the extreme trailrunning set. These are the elite runners that are hardcore enough to run self-supported trail races like the Marathon des Sables or the 4 Deserts Challenge. The Camelbak was originally popularized by the trekking community, but found a natural fit with these hardened runners. If you want a large carrying capacity, hands-free drinking through a straw, and don’t mind replacing your Camelbak every so often (I hear they’re impossible to wash, so putting anything other than water in the Camelbak probably doesn’t make it last too long), the Camelbak might be the right product for you. As an added benefit, I can imagine that it would be cooler to run under the sun if you’re carrying a pouch of cold water on your back.
As in all posts, being the unconventional oddball that I am, I ask and answer the question of, what do I use?
I use the Ultimate Direction FastDraw Extreme. Not available in Singapore at the time I bought it, I had to order it online and ship it over from the USA. I haven’t seen it in Singapore yet, but that’s mainly because I haven’t been looking for it.
So why the FastDraw? The Camelbak is overkill for me since I run only marathons.
And as mentioned above, I found the Fuelbelt unappealing because of the possible swaying and bumping motion. The FastDraw is strapped to the hand, so it avoids this problem. In fact, it’s a natural evolution if you’re one of those Nalgene bottle-carrying runners [full confession: I used to be one, but I carried a tiny Hammer gel flask instead and that was a really long time ago].
The FastDraw is comfortable, if heavy, at the start of the run when the bottle is filled to capacity. Even so, it’s possible to switch the FastDraw from one hand to the other if you get tired. The capacity of the FastDraw is limited, but it still packs a punch with my Perpetuem mix. Normal long run training days will see me carrying the FastDraw while stashing a 1-liter bottle of sports drink somewhere along my route. On race day, I carry only the FastDraw while relying on aid stations for fluid replenishment.
The molded polyurethane kicker valve is an innovative feature that allows you to drink without unscrewing any caps or lids. In practice though, unless you have really big strong hands, you’ll need to squeeze the bottle fairly hard to get the contents out. Sometimes with both hands when the bottle is less than half full. And it’s smart to aim the nozzle so that it points under your tongue. The first time I squirted the contents out, the spray came out so strong and hit the back of my throat and activated my gag reflex. Not fun.
As for the neoprene sleeve that’s unique to the FastDraw Extreme model? Genius, in our hot and humid weather. On moderate distance runs when I know I only need a limited volume of sports drink, I fill the bottle only three quarters of the way and put it in the freezer the night before (remember that water expands on freezing to ice). When I’m ready to run the next day, I take the FastDraw out of the freezer and bring it with me. I sip the meltwater as the popsicle in the bottle slowly melts, rationing out the icy liquid. Absolutely revitalizing. And no messy condensation or clammy hands to deal with.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Running: energy replacement
All distance runners use some kind of energy replacement product on their long runs. They’re popular with triathletes and other endurance athletes as well. Magazines on these sports frequently carry articles reviewing the range of products available out there.
In Singapore, the range of products available is somewhat limited. And they’re usually hideously expensive, the consequence of being imported in small quantities from the USA by specialty distributors, who obviously take the opportunity to mark up the prices. Sometimes, it really sucks to live in a tiny insignificant market like Singapore. A viable alternative to buying products retail here is to buy the products you need online in bulk, and ship them over to Singapore. It helps if you have friends to team up with or if you’re part of a spree. Sprees are sometimes organized on the local running or triathlon forums.
About the availability in Singapore, Powerbar and Powergel are literally everywhere; the more “cult” brands are harder to find. Clifbars, so ubiquitous in the USA, are less common here in Singapore. Not that Clifbars taste so great. “Compacted birdseed” is probably the most apt description I’ve heard. As for Powerbar, no one would ever accuse it of being a cult product. Admittedly, the current range of Powerbars does taste okay, although I think the simple sugar content is a bit too high, and if memory serves, is composed partly of high fructose corn syrup. The old school Powerbars I tried a few years ago, however, turned me off Powerbars forever. The type that is extruded and looks like a black bar of chocolate. Melts in the wrapper into goop under hot conditions, while hardening into an inedible BRICK in colder climes. And it obviously tastes terrible at temperatures when you can actually bite into it. Apparently, the Powerbars of yore were a running (sic) joke among mountaineers and trekkers.
There are other brands of energy bars out there, though much less common. As for energy gels, I’ve seen Powergel and Hammergel in Singapore, but not Gu or other brands.
So what do I use? For runs of less than ten miles: nothing. I hydrate myself and grab something to eat before the run and I can go up to ten or twelve miles without fluid replenishment, provided I run in the early mornings or evenings when conditions are mild. For runs of between ten and eighteen miles, or when conditions are more severe, I use a mix of honey, fresh limejuice and a conventional sports drink, usually the uncarbonated version of H-two-O. It’s cheap and it serves my purpose. Up to one liter usually suffices.
For longer runs of more than eighteen miles, I use Hammer Perpetuem, bar none the best energy replacement product that’s easily available in Singapore (relatively). Unfortunately, Perpetuem tastes truly horrible. I made the mistake of drinking it for the first time while on a long run without tasting it at home first. I had to abort the run because I ran out of energy halfway and I just couldn’t stomach the drink. FYI, I used the unflavored powder version that is dissolved in water by the user, not the single serve sachets that could possibly taste better.
For the uninitiated, Hammer products are great because they contain maltodextrins, longer chain branched carbohydrates that provide sustained energy without the surge and crash of simpler, sugary gels like Powergel. Perpetuem is especially good because it has a higher calorific content (energy density) than Hammer gel, so you take in more energy for the same mass that you ingest. Helps a lot if you have limited carrying capacity. How does it have a higher calorific content? Answer: Perpetuem has fat. So it basically tastes like unsweetened, fatty milk powder dissolved in water.
I know, totally gross right? Doesn’t help that I’m a supertaster. I can literally feel the fat molecules pressing down on my tongue. I still use Perpetuem powder, but mixed in my own original blend. It helps to mask the flavor, or lack thereof. Here it is. “Scoops” refer to the scoops that come with the corresponding original containers.
For 700 ml of solution
4 or 5 scoops of Hammer Perpetuem (big scoops)
12 scoops of Hammer Endurolytes (little scoops)
[I have a tendency to cramp post-20 miles, so I supplement my mix with Hammer Endurolytes. They may not be required for other runners as Perpetuem has a full electrolyte profile]
About 80 ml of honey (use a darker, more full-bodied honey for added flavor)
Freshly squeezed juice from one orange
Freshly squeezed juice from two limes
[Any sour fruit juice will help cut through the fat. The honey is there to balance out the sourness.]
Top off with your favorite conventional carton juice to capacity (I use apple). Dissolve and mix well with a long spoon.
The mix won’t be a solution, concentrated as it is with the Perpetuem that does not dissolve well. There’ll be lumps and it will be more of a suspension. But I’ve tried this mix and it can last me for upwards of 3 hours, provided I take along additional fluid replenishment, typically 1 liter of an undiluted sports drink. I weigh about 65 kilograms or 145 pounds, so adjustments will be necessary if you’re lighter or heavier.
In Singapore, the range of products available is somewhat limited. And they’re usually hideously expensive, the consequence of being imported in small quantities from the USA by specialty distributors, who obviously take the opportunity to mark up the prices. Sometimes, it really sucks to live in a tiny insignificant market like Singapore. A viable alternative to buying products retail here is to buy the products you need online in bulk, and ship them over to Singapore. It helps if you have friends to team up with or if you’re part of a spree. Sprees are sometimes organized on the local running or triathlon forums.
About the availability in Singapore, Powerbar and Powergel are literally everywhere; the more “cult” brands are harder to find. Clifbars, so ubiquitous in the USA, are less common here in Singapore. Not that Clifbars taste so great. “Compacted birdseed” is probably the most apt description I’ve heard. As for Powerbar, no one would ever accuse it of being a cult product. Admittedly, the current range of Powerbars does taste okay, although I think the simple sugar content is a bit too high, and if memory serves, is composed partly of high fructose corn syrup. The old school Powerbars I tried a few years ago, however, turned me off Powerbars forever. The type that is extruded and looks like a black bar of chocolate. Melts in the wrapper into goop under hot conditions, while hardening into an inedible BRICK in colder climes. And it obviously tastes terrible at temperatures when you can actually bite into it. Apparently, the Powerbars of yore were a running (sic) joke among mountaineers and trekkers.
There are other brands of energy bars out there, though much less common. As for energy gels, I’ve seen Powergel and Hammergel in Singapore, but not Gu or other brands.
So what do I use? For runs of less than ten miles: nothing. I hydrate myself and grab something to eat before the run and I can go up to ten or twelve miles without fluid replenishment, provided I run in the early mornings or evenings when conditions are mild. For runs of between ten and eighteen miles, or when conditions are more severe, I use a mix of honey, fresh limejuice and a conventional sports drink, usually the uncarbonated version of H-two-O. It’s cheap and it serves my purpose. Up to one liter usually suffices.
For longer runs of more than eighteen miles, I use Hammer Perpetuem, bar none the best energy replacement product that’s easily available in Singapore (relatively). Unfortunately, Perpetuem tastes truly horrible. I made the mistake of drinking it for the first time while on a long run without tasting it at home first. I had to abort the run because I ran out of energy halfway and I just couldn’t stomach the drink. FYI, I used the unflavored powder version that is dissolved in water by the user, not the single serve sachets that could possibly taste better.
For the uninitiated, Hammer products are great because they contain maltodextrins, longer chain branched carbohydrates that provide sustained energy without the surge and crash of simpler, sugary gels like Powergel. Perpetuem is especially good because it has a higher calorific content (energy density) than Hammer gel, so you take in more energy for the same mass that you ingest. Helps a lot if you have limited carrying capacity. How does it have a higher calorific content? Answer: Perpetuem has fat. So it basically tastes like unsweetened, fatty milk powder dissolved in water.
I know, totally gross right? Doesn’t help that I’m a supertaster. I can literally feel the fat molecules pressing down on my tongue. I still use Perpetuem powder, but mixed in my own original blend. It helps to mask the flavor, or lack thereof. Here it is. “Scoops” refer to the scoops that come with the corresponding original containers.
For 700 ml of solution
4 or 5 scoops of Hammer Perpetuem (big scoops)
12 scoops of Hammer Endurolytes (little scoops)
[I have a tendency to cramp post-20 miles, so I supplement my mix with Hammer Endurolytes. They may not be required for other runners as Perpetuem has a full electrolyte profile]
About 80 ml of honey (use a darker, more full-bodied honey for added flavor)
Freshly squeezed juice from one orange
Freshly squeezed juice from two limes
[Any sour fruit juice will help cut through the fat. The honey is there to balance out the sourness.]
Top off with your favorite conventional carton juice to capacity (I use apple). Dissolve and mix well with a long spoon.
The mix won’t be a solution, concentrated as it is with the Perpetuem that does not dissolve well. There’ll be lumps and it will be more of a suspension. But I’ve tried this mix and it can last me for upwards of 3 hours, provided I take along additional fluid replenishment, typically 1 liter of an undiluted sports drink. I weigh about 65 kilograms or 145 pounds, so adjustments will be necessary if you’re lighter or heavier.
Monday, June 9, 2008
The price of being financially unsophisticated
This post is timely given the recent interest in OCBC preference shares. The Sunday Times had a good article explaining the difference between fixed deposits and preference shares, highlighting the fact that most people only focus on the superior yields of the shares.I'm going to talk about a kind of investment that I almost never use. I'm talking about fixed income assets. It's quite a deviation for me, considering that I invest my money mostly in equities and related assets. But considering the poor financial literacy of many people I know, this post might make useful reading. A caveat though, I use financial jargon here so some terms may be confusing. The gist of this post should be clear enough though.
First, let's talk about why I don't invest in fixed income assets - bonds, money market funds and time deposits. While preference shares behave mostly like bonds, I will not include them in this discussion as they rank after debt in receiving the residuals following liquidation. Preference shares are equity, and as such have considerably higher credit risk in the event of default.
With oil trading at about $135 per barrel and food prices soaring, inflation is on the minds of everyone, from policymakers to CEOs to the proverbial man in the street. Under inflationary circumstances like now, fixed income assets are a poor performer in real terms. By definition, any asset that returns less than the rate of inflation is losing real value, and most fixed income assets today fall into this category due to low interest rates and high inflation rates (which may also be understated due to the vagaries in computing the CPI). In financial parlance, real interest rates today are mostly negative, so fixed income assets are almost definite loser investments.
Yet, most people find themselves uncomfortable with volatile investments like equities or equity funds. Indeed, due to poor market sentiment, equities in the near term are probably poised for even greater losses than have been seen so far. Hence, "no-risk" investments like time/fixed deposits are still where most people in Singapore put their money, even if they are loser investments in real terms. Even investors accustomed to risk-taking like myself find fixed income assets suitable places to park my money while waiting for new opportunities to surface, or for conditions to stabilize.
So if you must invest in fixed income, which fixed income assets to invest in? For myself, liquidity trumps return, so I leave most of my cash in my brokerage account, which earns a money market rate of return while being highly accessible for purchases of stocks.
But this post isn't about me. It's about the vast numbers of people in Singapore who place their very substantial savings in fixed deposits for fear of market volatility, and for lack of financial sophistication.
A quick check turns up fixed deposit rates here and here. The rates are truly dismal, obviously. And the marginally better rates require large amounts of cash to be placed on deposit.
Now let's look at Singapore Government Securities (SGS). For the uninitiated, and you know who you are, SGS are bonds and Treasury Bills (T-Bills) issued and backed by the Singapore Government, which, owing to decades of fiscal surpluses, is triple super duper whammy A rated.
The indicative "interest rates" or to be technically correct, yields to redemption, for the most recent tranches are here for 3-month T-bills, 1-year bonds and 5 or 10-year bonds. Look at the average yields. They are much higher than fixed deposit interest rates offered by the banks (though still lower than the rate of inflation).
SGS are open for investment to retail investors as well as institutional investors and the minimum denomination is SGD1000. Based on yield (clearly better), minimum investment (only SGD1000), security (backed by the Singapore Government for the full face value, and not just the first SGD20000 in deposits) and duration (as little as 91 days), they are clearly better than fixed deposits. On the measure of liquidity, SGS are slightly less liquid than fixed deposits and incur dealing costs (but not at subscription and not if held to maturity), but these are probably comparable to breaking the term of a fixed deposit before maturity.
In short, SGS are a closer equivalent to fixed deposits than preference shares can ever be, and they are superior to fixed deposits on almost all measures.
So why don't more people invest in SGS instead of fixed deposits? Simple, ignorance. Most Singaporeans have poor financial literacy, and also lack the skills to look for information independently. Furthermore, while the Monetary Authority of Singapore has appointed market makers for SGS, it is simply not in the interest of these dealers to cater to retail investors. Too administratively costly. So the primary dealers don't advertise this service.
Instead, they advertise their fixed deposits and the "attractive" interest rates. You can bet that some of this money that the banks get from depositors ends up in SGS. What is the price of being financially unsophisticated? One answer could be the spread between fixed deposit rates and SGS yields.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
"Real thought for food for long workouts"
Another article from the Times. My own note on fancy recovery bars like Powerbar is that some of them actually have high fructose corn syrup.
Published: June 5, 2008
Real Thought for Food for Long Workouts
By GINA KOLATA
DR. MARK TARNOPOLSKY, a muscle physiology researcher at McMaster University in Canada and a physician, knows all about the exhortations by supplement makers and many nutritionists on what to eat and when to eat it for optimal performance.
The idea is that you are supposed to consume carbohydrates and proteins in a magical four-to-one ratio during endurance events like a long run or bike ride, and right after. The belief is that such nutritional diligence will improve your performance and speed your recovery.
Dr. Tarnopolsky, a 45-year-old trail runner and adventure racer, might be expected to seize upon the nutritional advice. (He won the Ontario trail running series in 2004, 2005 and 2006.)
So might his colleague, Stuart Phillips, a 41-year-old associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster who played rugby for Canada’s national team and now plays it for fun. He also runs, lifts weights and studies nutrition and performance.
In fact, neither researcher regularly uses energy drinks or energy bars. They just drink water, and eat real food. Dr. Tarnopolsky drinks fruit juice; Dr. Phillips eats fruit. And neither one feels a need to ingest a special combination of protein and carbohydrates within a short window of time, a few hours after exercising.
There are grains of truth to the nutrition advice, they and other experts say. But, as so often happens in sports, those grains of truth have been expanded into dictums and have formed the basis for an entire industry in “recovery” products.
They line the shelves of specialty sports stores and supermarkets with names like Accelerade drink, Endurox R4 powder, PowerBar Recovery bar.
“It does seem to me that as a group, athletes are particularly gullible,” said Michael Rennie, a physiologist at the University of Nottingham in England who studies muscle metabolism.
The idea that what you eat and when you eat it will make a big difference in your performance and recovery “is wishful thinking,” said Dr. Rennie, a 61-year-old who was a competitive swimmer and also used to play water polo and rugby.
Here is what is known about proteins, carbohydrates and performance.
During exercise, muscles stop the biochemical reactions used to maintain themselves such as replacing and resynthesizing the proteins needed for day to day activities. It’s not that exercise is damaging your muscles; it’s that they halt the maintenance process until exercise is over.
To do this maintenance, muscles must make protein, and to do so they need to absorb amino acids, the constituent parts of proteins, from the blood. Just after exercise, perhaps for a period no longer than a couple of hours, the protein-building processes of muscle cells are especially receptive to amino acids. That means that if you consume protein, your muscles will use it to quickly replenish proteins that were not made during exercise.
But muscles don’t need much protein, researchers say. Twenty grams is as much as a 176-pound man’s muscles can take. Women, who are smaller and have smaller muscles even compared to their body sizes, need less.
Dr. Rennie said that 10 to 15 grams of protein is probably adequate for any adult. And you don’t need a special drink or energy bar to get it. One egg has 6 grams of protein. Two ounces of chicken has more than 12 grams.
Muscles also need to replenish glycogen, their fuel supply, after a long exercise session — two hours of running, for example. For that they need carbohydrates. Muscle cells are especially efficient in absorbing carbohydrates from the blood just after exercise.
Once again, muscles don’t need much; about one gram of carbohydrate per kilogram of body weight is plenty, Dr. Tarnopolsky said. He weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, which means he would need 70 grams of carbohydrates, or say, 27 ounces of fruit juice, he said.
Asker Jeukendrup, a 38-year-old 14-time Ironman-distance finisher who is an exercise physiologist and nutritionist at the University of Birmingham in England said the fastest glycogen replacement takes place in the four hours after exercise. Even so, most athletes need not worry.
“Most athletes will have at least 24 hours to recover,” Dr. Jeukendrup said. “We really are talking about a group of extremely elite sports people who train twice a day.” For them, he said, it can be necessary to rapidly replenish muscle glycogen.
The American College of Sports Medicine, in a position paper written by leading experts, reported that athletes who take a day or two to rest or do less-intense workouts between vigorous sessions can pretty much ignore the carbohydrate-timing advice.
The group wrote that for these athletes, “when sufficient carbohydrate is provided over a 24-hour period, the timing of intake does not appear to affect the amount of glycogen stored.”
For protein, it is not clear what the window is. Some studies concluded it was less than two hours, others said three hours, and some failed to find a window at all.
Dr. Rennie and his colleagues, writing in Annual Reviews of Physiology, concluded that “a possible ‘golden period’ ” for getting amino acids into muscles “remains a speculative, no matter how attractive, the concept.”
Although studies by Dr. Jeukendrup and several others have shown that consuming protein after exercise speeds up muscle protein synthesis, no one has shown that that translates into improved performance. The reason, Dr. Jeukendrup said, is that effects on performance, if they occur, won’t happen immediately. They can take 6 to 10 weeks of training. That makes it very hard to design and carry out studies to see if athletes really do improve if they consume protein after they exercise.
“You’d have to control everything, what they do, how they train, and also their carbohydrate and protein intake,” Dr. Jeukendrup said. “Those studies become almost impossible to do.”
As for the special four-to-one ratio of carbohydrates to protein, that, too, is not well established, researchers said. The idea was that you need both carbohydrates and protein consumed together because carbohydrates not only help muscles restore their glycogen but they also elicit the release of insulin. Insulin, the theory goes, helps muscles absorb amino acids.
Insulin may stimulate muscle protein synthesis in young rodents and in human cells grown in petri dishes, Dr. Rennie said. But studies in people have shown convincingly that insulin is not required for protein synthesis in adult human beings; it is amino acids that drive protein synthesis. As yet no convincing evidence exists that a special carbohydrate-to-protein ratio makes a noticeable difference in muscle protein maintenance after exercise. “There is no magic ratio,” Dr. Jeukendrup said.
The American College of Sports Medicine is equally skeptical. “Adding protein does not appreciably enhance glycogen repletion,” its paper states.
“Some studies suggested that adding proteins to carbohydrates during exercise can enhance performance,” Dr. Tarnopolsky said. “Many other studies suggested it didn’t do any good.”
Even if there are effects of protein and carbohydrates, they are not important to most exercisers, these researchers say. Serious triathletes and elite runners, who work out in the morning and at night, need to eat between training sessions. But people who are running a few miles a few days a week don’t need to worry about replenishing their muscles, Dr. Phillips said.
Dr. Rennie agreed. “If you are a superathlete, hundredths of a second matter,” he said. “But most Joes and Janes are just kidding themselves,” he said.
Some, like Dr. Jeukendrup, say they use a commercial protein-energy drink after training hard, for convenience.
Other researchers take their own nutritional advice. Dr. Tarnopolsky has a huge glass of juice, a bagel and a small piece of meat after a two- or three-hour run. Or he might have two large pieces of toast with butter and jam and a couple of scrambled eggs. But no energy bars, no energy drinks.
Dr. Phillips might have an energy bar during a long workout. But ordinarily he does not worry about getting a special carbohydrate-to-protein mix or timing his nutrition when he exercises. Instead, Dr. Phillips said, he simply eats real food at regular meals.
Published: June 5, 2008
Real Thought for Food for Long Workouts
By GINA KOLATA
DR. MARK TARNOPOLSKY, a muscle physiology researcher at McMaster University in Canada and a physician, knows all about the exhortations by supplement makers and many nutritionists on what to eat and when to eat it for optimal performance.
The idea is that you are supposed to consume carbohydrates and proteins in a magical four-to-one ratio during endurance events like a long run or bike ride, and right after. The belief is that such nutritional diligence will improve your performance and speed your recovery.
Dr. Tarnopolsky, a 45-year-old trail runner and adventure racer, might be expected to seize upon the nutritional advice. (He won the Ontario trail running series in 2004, 2005 and 2006.)
So might his colleague, Stuart Phillips, a 41-year-old associate professor of kinesiology at McMaster who played rugby for Canada’s national team and now plays it for fun. He also runs, lifts weights and studies nutrition and performance.
In fact, neither researcher regularly uses energy drinks or energy bars. They just drink water, and eat real food. Dr. Tarnopolsky drinks fruit juice; Dr. Phillips eats fruit. And neither one feels a need to ingest a special combination of protein and carbohydrates within a short window of time, a few hours after exercising.
There are grains of truth to the nutrition advice, they and other experts say. But, as so often happens in sports, those grains of truth have been expanded into dictums and have formed the basis for an entire industry in “recovery” products.
They line the shelves of specialty sports stores and supermarkets with names like Accelerade drink, Endurox R4 powder, PowerBar Recovery bar.
“It does seem to me that as a group, athletes are particularly gullible,” said Michael Rennie, a physiologist at the University of Nottingham in England who studies muscle metabolism.
The idea that what you eat and when you eat it will make a big difference in your performance and recovery “is wishful thinking,” said Dr. Rennie, a 61-year-old who was a competitive swimmer and also used to play water polo and rugby.
Here is what is known about proteins, carbohydrates and performance.
During exercise, muscles stop the biochemical reactions used to maintain themselves such as replacing and resynthesizing the proteins needed for day to day activities. It’s not that exercise is damaging your muscles; it’s that they halt the maintenance process until exercise is over.
To do this maintenance, muscles must make protein, and to do so they need to absorb amino acids, the constituent parts of proteins, from the blood. Just after exercise, perhaps for a period no longer than a couple of hours, the protein-building processes of muscle cells are especially receptive to amino acids. That means that if you consume protein, your muscles will use it to quickly replenish proteins that were not made during exercise.
But muscles don’t need much protein, researchers say. Twenty grams is as much as a 176-pound man’s muscles can take. Women, who are smaller and have smaller muscles even compared to their body sizes, need less.
Dr. Rennie said that 10 to 15 grams of protein is probably adequate for any adult. And you don’t need a special drink or energy bar to get it. One egg has 6 grams of protein. Two ounces of chicken has more than 12 grams.
Muscles also need to replenish glycogen, their fuel supply, after a long exercise session — two hours of running, for example. For that they need carbohydrates. Muscle cells are especially efficient in absorbing carbohydrates from the blood just after exercise.
Once again, muscles don’t need much; about one gram of carbohydrate per kilogram of body weight is plenty, Dr. Tarnopolsky said. He weighs 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, which means he would need 70 grams of carbohydrates, or say, 27 ounces of fruit juice, he said.
Asker Jeukendrup, a 38-year-old 14-time Ironman-distance finisher who is an exercise physiologist and nutritionist at the University of Birmingham in England said the fastest glycogen replacement takes place in the four hours after exercise. Even so, most athletes need not worry.
“Most athletes will have at least 24 hours to recover,” Dr. Jeukendrup said. “We really are talking about a group of extremely elite sports people who train twice a day.” For them, he said, it can be necessary to rapidly replenish muscle glycogen.
The American College of Sports Medicine, in a position paper written by leading experts, reported that athletes who take a day or two to rest or do less-intense workouts between vigorous sessions can pretty much ignore the carbohydrate-timing advice.
The group wrote that for these athletes, “when sufficient carbohydrate is provided over a 24-hour period, the timing of intake does not appear to affect the amount of glycogen stored.”
For protein, it is not clear what the window is. Some studies concluded it was less than two hours, others said three hours, and some failed to find a window at all.
Dr. Rennie and his colleagues, writing in Annual Reviews of Physiology, concluded that “a possible ‘golden period’ ” for getting amino acids into muscles “remains a speculative, no matter how attractive, the concept.”
Although studies by Dr. Jeukendrup and several others have shown that consuming protein after exercise speeds up muscle protein synthesis, no one has shown that that translates into improved performance. The reason, Dr. Jeukendrup said, is that effects on performance, if they occur, won’t happen immediately. They can take 6 to 10 weeks of training. That makes it very hard to design and carry out studies to see if athletes really do improve if they consume protein after they exercise.
“You’d have to control everything, what they do, how they train, and also their carbohydrate and protein intake,” Dr. Jeukendrup said. “Those studies become almost impossible to do.”
As for the special four-to-one ratio of carbohydrates to protein, that, too, is not well established, researchers said. The idea was that you need both carbohydrates and protein consumed together because carbohydrates not only help muscles restore their glycogen but they also elicit the release of insulin. Insulin, the theory goes, helps muscles absorb amino acids.
Insulin may stimulate muscle protein synthesis in young rodents and in human cells grown in petri dishes, Dr. Rennie said. But studies in people have shown convincingly that insulin is not required for protein synthesis in adult human beings; it is amino acids that drive protein synthesis. As yet no convincing evidence exists that a special carbohydrate-to-protein ratio makes a noticeable difference in muscle protein maintenance after exercise. “There is no magic ratio,” Dr. Jeukendrup said.
The American College of Sports Medicine is equally skeptical. “Adding protein does not appreciably enhance glycogen repletion,” its paper states.
“Some studies suggested that adding proteins to carbohydrates during exercise can enhance performance,” Dr. Tarnopolsky said. “Many other studies suggested it didn’t do any good.”
Even if there are effects of protein and carbohydrates, they are not important to most exercisers, these researchers say. Serious triathletes and elite runners, who work out in the morning and at night, need to eat between training sessions. But people who are running a few miles a few days a week don’t need to worry about replenishing their muscles, Dr. Phillips said.
Dr. Rennie agreed. “If you are a superathlete, hundredths of a second matter,” he said. “But most Joes and Janes are just kidding themselves,” he said.
Some, like Dr. Jeukendrup, say they use a commercial protein-energy drink after training hard, for convenience.
Other researchers take their own nutritional advice. Dr. Tarnopolsky has a huge glass of juice, a bagel and a small piece of meat after a two- or three-hour run. Or he might have two large pieces of toast with butter and jam and a couple of scrambled eggs. But no energy bars, no energy drinks.
Dr. Phillips might have an energy bar during a long workout. But ordinarily he does not worry about getting a special carbohydrate-to-protein mix or timing his nutrition when he exercises. Instead, Dr. Phillips said, he simply eats real food at regular meals.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Foreign currency during travel
Everyone knows that you need foreign currency when you travel. The question is, where do you get your foreign currency from?
Most people I speak to get the currency of their destination from moneychangers, either in Singapore or at their destination. In other words, they carry rather large amounts of cash while travelling, and they change currency on the street.
I get my foreign (or rather local) currency after I reach my destination, from a local ATM on the PLUS or Cirrus network.
There are a number of advantages to doing so: convenience, safety (particularly in those autobanking lobbies), zero likelihood of a con-job, and an ability to better control how much cash I draw or will spend. I almost never have leftover currency after a trip, other than coins, which I consider souvenirs of my trip.
The biggest problem most people have with this method of getting local currency is that they worry about bank charges, and that they feel the rate is inferior to the street rate. More to the point, the rate is not transparent (you won't know until your next bank statement) and hence, most people are wary of drawing local currency from an ATM.
On the other hand, the pro-ATM argument states that since the rate at which local currency is drawn from an ATM is the interbank rate, the rate should in fact be superior to the street rate, and even after deducting fees and charges, should be broadly comparable to the street rate. [The interbank rate is the wholesale rate at which forex transactions between banks are carried out through the interbank networks. In theory, the bid-ask spread should be narrower than the street rate due to the sheer volume of transactions.]
I believe in the pro-ATM argument, but after hearing so many people claim to the contrary, I decided to look into this myself. In the past month, I've made two trips, one to Taiwan on business and one to Bali for a vacation. For both trips, I drew local currency from ATMs multiple times and I checked my bank statements after I returned to Singapore. I computed the effective rates and compared them against the street rates I saw while in Bali. I didn't see any moneychangers in Taiwan while there, but I checked the rates on XE.com before my trip. Rates on XE.com really are the best rates you can get, XE being a forex broker. So any rate close to the XE rate is a really good rate.
Here's what I found:
In all cases, I drew currency using a Citibank ATM card, which according to the customer service officer I spoke to in Singapore, levies no charges on foreign ATM withdrawals. However, I was warned that the foreign bank that owns the ATM may choose to levy charges.
Well, I saw no extra charges on my bank statement, so if there were charges, they were probably built into the exchange rates.
In Taiwan:
I drew NTD7900 from a Chinatrust ATM at Kaohsiung airport, and my statement recorded a withdrawal of SGD360.97. So the effective rate was SGD1 = NTD21.89. Not bad considering the XE rate was about just north of NTD22 to SGD1 at the time of my trip.
[Why did I draw such a funny number like NTD7900? To get the small NTD100 notes, duh.]
Incidentally, I also charged my ABN AMRO Switch card twice while in Taiwan.
The effective rates for those two purchases were SGD1 = NTD21.95 and SGD1 = NTD21.85. Both rates are comparable to drawing cash from an ATM.
In Bali:
The street rates in Kuta ranged from SGD1 = IDR6600 to SGD1 = IDR6800.
I drew local currency four times, from ATMS belonging to three different banks:
The effective rates were:
BNI bank at the airport: SGD1 = RUP6235
BII bank in Kuta: SGD1 = RUP6637
Citibank at the airport (after immigration but before customs; the only Citi ATM I saw while in Bali):
SGD1 = RUP6656
ABN AMRO Switch card purchase
SGD1 = IDR6601
The street rates in Bali were better, particularly when compared against the rate I got at BNI bank, which was clearly a rip-off. The fact that the BNI ATM was at the airport could be a factor though. More fees perhaps. The street rates were slightly better, but not substantially so, than the rate I got from BII bank in Kuta itself, and also the rate I got from the Citibank ATM at the airport (remember I used a Citicard to draw money).
From the above data, it also appears that it's cheaper to pay cash for purchases than to charge purchases to a credit card.
While the street rates appear to be better, I still think I'll rely on ATMs when I'm in Bali. Money changer scams in Bali are egregious. Just google for it and the horror stories will pop up. A slightly inferior rate is worthwhile insurance against con-artists.
So what's the conclusion to all this? My hypothesis is that the ATM rates are probably really good when you're drawing money in a developed country (which squares with my own experience back when I was a backpacking student in Europe), but street rates are probably better in developing or third world countries. Bear in mind that third world countries exhibit some peculiarities that probably account for this. For example, I've travelled to Peru and people there *love* US dollars, even if the dollar is going to the dogs in today's weakening US economy. And changing a single USD100 note compared to USD100 in smaller bills gives a better rate in many Southeast Asian countries (e.g. Thailand). It's no wonder that the street rates tend to be better than ATM rates. Still, this is balanced against exposing yourself to scams while changing money on the street.
Most people I speak to get the currency of their destination from moneychangers, either in Singapore or at their destination. In other words, they carry rather large amounts of cash while travelling, and they change currency on the street.
I get my foreign (or rather local) currency after I reach my destination, from a local ATM on the PLUS or Cirrus network.
There are a number of advantages to doing so: convenience, safety (particularly in those autobanking lobbies), zero likelihood of a con-job, and an ability to better control how much cash I draw or will spend. I almost never have leftover currency after a trip, other than coins, which I consider souvenirs of my trip.
The biggest problem most people have with this method of getting local currency is that they worry about bank charges, and that they feel the rate is inferior to the street rate. More to the point, the rate is not transparent (you won't know until your next bank statement) and hence, most people are wary of drawing local currency from an ATM.
On the other hand, the pro-ATM argument states that since the rate at which local currency is drawn from an ATM is the interbank rate, the rate should in fact be superior to the street rate, and even after deducting fees and charges, should be broadly comparable to the street rate. [The interbank rate is the wholesale rate at which forex transactions between banks are carried out through the interbank networks. In theory, the bid-ask spread should be narrower than the street rate due to the sheer volume of transactions.]
I believe in the pro-ATM argument, but after hearing so many people claim to the contrary, I decided to look into this myself. In the past month, I've made two trips, one to Taiwan on business and one to Bali for a vacation. For both trips, I drew local currency from ATMs multiple times and I checked my bank statements after I returned to Singapore. I computed the effective rates and compared them against the street rates I saw while in Bali. I didn't see any moneychangers in Taiwan while there, but I checked the rates on XE.com before my trip. Rates on XE.com really are the best rates you can get, XE being a forex broker. So any rate close to the XE rate is a really good rate.
Here's what I found:
In all cases, I drew currency using a Citibank ATM card, which according to the customer service officer I spoke to in Singapore, levies no charges on foreign ATM withdrawals. However, I was warned that the foreign bank that owns the ATM may choose to levy charges.
Well, I saw no extra charges on my bank statement, so if there were charges, they were probably built into the exchange rates.
In Taiwan:
I drew NTD7900 from a Chinatrust ATM at Kaohsiung airport, and my statement recorded a withdrawal of SGD360.97. So the effective rate was SGD1 = NTD21.89. Not bad considering the XE rate was about just north of NTD22 to SGD1 at the time of my trip.
[Why did I draw such a funny number like NTD7900? To get the small NTD100 notes, duh.]
Incidentally, I also charged my ABN AMRO Switch card twice while in Taiwan.
The effective rates for those two purchases were SGD1 = NTD21.95 and SGD1 = NTD21.85. Both rates are comparable to drawing cash from an ATM.
In Bali:
The street rates in Kuta ranged from SGD1 = IDR6600 to SGD1 = IDR6800.
I drew local currency four times, from ATMS belonging to three different banks:
The effective rates were:
BNI bank at the airport: SGD1 = RUP6235
BII bank in Kuta: SGD1 = RUP6637
Citibank at the airport (after immigration but before customs; the only Citi ATM I saw while in Bali):
SGD1 = RUP6656
ABN AMRO Switch card purchase
SGD1 = IDR6601
The street rates in Bali were better, particularly when compared against the rate I got at BNI bank, which was clearly a rip-off. The fact that the BNI ATM was at the airport could be a factor though. More fees perhaps. The street rates were slightly better, but not substantially so, than the rate I got from BII bank in Kuta itself, and also the rate I got from the Citibank ATM at the airport (remember I used a Citicard to draw money).
From the above data, it also appears that it's cheaper to pay cash for purchases than to charge purchases to a credit card.
While the street rates appear to be better, I still think I'll rely on ATMs when I'm in Bali. Money changer scams in Bali are egregious. Just google for it and the horror stories will pop up. A slightly inferior rate is worthwhile insurance against con-artists.
So what's the conclusion to all this? My hypothesis is that the ATM rates are probably really good when you're drawing money in a developed country (which squares with my own experience back when I was a backpacking student in Europe), but street rates are probably better in developing or third world countries. Bear in mind that third world countries exhibit some peculiarities that probably account for this. For example, I've travelled to Peru and people there *love* US dollars, even if the dollar is going to the dogs in today's weakening US economy. And changing a single USD100 note compared to USD100 in smaller bills gives a better rate in many Southeast Asian countries (e.g. Thailand). It's no wonder that the street rates tend to be better than ATM rates. Still, this is balanced against exposing yourself to scams while changing money on the street.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Bali, May 2008
I went to Bali for the first time for a 9-day vacation in early May. It was supposed to be a 10-day vacation, but I changed my return flight to fly back early. It was without doubt, the least fun holiday I have ever taken. This marks the first time ever that I changed my return flight while on a vacation.Bali's a nice enough place, I suppose, if you're into the surfing, lying-on-a-beach-getting-a-tan-with-a-bintang kind of vacation. It's also reasonably cheap, although I think the whole island of the gods on USD10 a day notion is a bit far-fetched. Being a terribly popular tourist location located in the exotic Far East, it's also stuffed with Australians, Europeans, Japanese, Koreans and increasingly, mainland Chinese (who I hear are also buying property in Bali).
Anyways, I didn't go to Bali for the surfing, the beach (Seminyak good, Kuta not so good, really), the diving, the massages (which were incidentally, great value), the food, or god forbid, the culture. My opinion is that if you've seen one temple/cathedral/mosque/torii, you're seen 'em all. In any case, I'm a flaneur by nature. Walking the streets is how I really get to know the feel of a place, and not just through visiting the canned tourist attractions. I once footed it from Canal Street to the Met when I was in Manhattan.
I went to Bali for one very simple reason: I wanted to learn how to paraglide, and Bali's the most convenient, accessible and reasonably priced location close to Singapore to learn how to do so. Seeing as how I knew no one else who wanted to throw themselves off a cliff (!), I travelled alone to Bali. Not an issue though; there are just some of us that have always dreamt of flying.
The learning site was at Timbis beach (more accurately, the cliff above Timbis beach that pilots step off after inflating the canopy), and the views were spectacular. Definitely not a part of Bali many tourists visit. The closest place to Timbis that most people would recognize is Nusa Dua, but in truth, Timbis is nowhere near Nusa Dua. It's actually closer to the temple at Pura Gunung Payung. Timbis lies along the southeastern edge of the Bukit peninsula.
The instructor was experienced, competent and safety conscious. Those are all good things. Unfortunately, he wasn't such a great teacher. There were of course practical handling lessons, but no theory or classroom lessons. We were just expected to read the textbook he gave us.
The real issue was the weather. Although I was there for nine days, I flew all of one day. That's right, one day. The instructor claimed that the weather wasn't typically so bad, that they would normally fly more than twenty days in a single month. But I wasn't so sure. I can personally attest that Bali is a great place to fly, if you already know how. But is it a great place to learn?
Beginner pilots can only fly in light, steady (non-gusty) winds of less than 15 mph. That by itself already doesn't happen consistently everywhere, not just Timbis in Bali. But what complicates matters at Timbis is that Timbis isn't a training hill. Instead, it's a cliff site that relies on sea breezes and ridge lift. That makes for spectacular views and pictures for sure, which is attractive to someone new to the sport. But what the splashy websites don't say is that while everyone takes off from the cliff, only advanced pilots are skilled enough to land back on the cliff (a difficult and dangerous feat for a beginner to attempt). In contrast, the beginners like me are supposed to take off from the cliff, but land on the beach at the foot of the cliff, where the L-Z is a long narrow stretch of sand (cushions falls, just in case). The problem is, at high tide, there is no beach.
Every morning I spent in Bali was spent bumming around in Kuta or Jimbaran, while waiting for the all-important phone call at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon telling us
Both the wind and tide conditions have to be just right for student pilots in Bali. Most days, we spent the afternoons from 3pm onwards at the cliff, hoping for the winds to die down before it got dark, while more experienced pilots circled overhead. Most days, the wind didn't didn't die down. It wasn't very fun sitting there watching the instructor give tandem flights to the gawking tourists for USD75 a pop. I got so frustrated I cut my trip short and came home early.
While waiting for the winds to die down, I was entertained by stories by one of the Singaporeans (who apparently loves Bali enough to want to retire there) who saw, on her previous trip to Bali, a bunch of Filipinos and an American complete the entire 8 day course in one week.
I thought that was a fascinating story and how lucky indeed the Filipinos were! I was even kind enough not to point out that this was her fourth trip to Bali without completing the course. She's going to be back in Bali in August again, apparently on a month-long trip.
So, what's a landbound Singaporean with a yen for flying, living on an island where the national pastimes are really, let's face it, just eating, shopping and chillin', to do? Now that Bali's not really an option, I guess I'll just have to look for some place else that really does have reliable conditions for students.
a note on generic drugs
From the Straits Times:
Coming: cheaper drugs as generic enter market
Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent
Published: June 1, 2008
Patients here will be able to save millions of dollar on medicine over the next few years as several commonly used branded drugs lose their patents and cheaper generic ones come on the market.
…
A generic drug, which can cost just half the price of a brand-name one, is allowed for use here only if it produces almost the same results as the original.
…
____________________________________________________________________
This is what patients should know and doctors should already be aware of.
Bioequivalence doesn’t necessarily translate into therapeutic equivalence. While it’s likely that the vast majority of generic drugs perform just as well as brand-name drugs, sometimes formulation differences do matter for individual drugs. This is a controversial issue, by no means are all brand-name drugs better than their generics. And lobbyists for big pharma muddy the picture too. What is probably true in all cases is that brand-name drugs are backed by more extensive research (otherwise they wouldn't have got the patent in the first place). In contrast, no generic drug manufacturer is going to conduct an expensive trial to find out if their formulation is just as effective as the brand-name drug, particularly if the results might show that the generic is worse.
If you’re planning to switch to a generic from a brand-name drug, it’s probably smart to find out more on the generic.
Coming: cheaper drugs as generic enter market
Salma Khalik, Health Correspondent
Published: June 1, 2008
Patients here will be able to save millions of dollar on medicine over the next few years as several commonly used branded drugs lose their patents and cheaper generic ones come on the market.
…
A generic drug, which can cost just half the price of a brand-name one, is allowed for use here only if it produces almost the same results as the original.
…
____________________________________________________________________
This is what patients should know and doctors should already be aware of.
Bioequivalence doesn’t necessarily translate into therapeutic equivalence. While it’s likely that the vast majority of generic drugs perform just as well as brand-name drugs, sometimes formulation differences do matter for individual drugs. This is a controversial issue, by no means are all brand-name drugs better than their generics. And lobbyists for big pharma muddy the picture too. What is probably true in all cases is that brand-name drugs are backed by more extensive research (otherwise they wouldn't have got the patent in the first place). In contrast, no generic drug manufacturer is going to conduct an expensive trial to find out if their formulation is just as effective as the brand-name drug, particularly if the results might show that the generic is worse.
If you’re planning to switch to a generic from a brand-name drug, it’s probably smart to find out more on the generic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
