T-Dog Supplement blog post

[EastHallApp]

I had hoped the article would be pulled, but as it appears it won't be, I'll at least unpack my issues with it.

- The title. It's inflammatory, sensationalist clickbait.

- Lack of research or background knowledge. Already covered in this thread, and even admitted by the author. He goes completely over the top and then, at the very end, throws it in there that everything he says may well be completely baseless.

- The tone. Wild and irresponsible. "If this thing goes unchecked, it could destroy the program." And in the very next sentence, "It’s very possible I could be fretting over nothing." Well which is it? A potentially program-destroying bombshell, or nothing? It can't be both.

- Potential impact on recruiting. Let me repeat that for emphasis: Potential impact on recruiting. For me, this is the big one. I mentioned this to the author privately, and he said he doesn't consider such things when he's writing. I think that's a mistake. This column is the kind of thing that winds up in binders that rival recruiters give to recruits and parents. And if you think a corrective response from App State would negate this effect, you're naive. You really think an "App State denies supplements are unsafe" story is going to be positive for App? People remember the original message - especially when it comes in such bombastic tone and especially when it comes from a source that purportedly supports App State. Even if App State did respond and answer all of the author's concerns to his full satisfaction, the impact on recruits and parents would likely be to muddy the waters, leaving them unsure who to believe.

- The misuse of "addiction." That's a serious subject. I'm not an expert on addiction either, but I'm fairly certain taking supplements to gain weight or recover faster than one could through diet alone doesn't meet the definition. That's not a word that should be thrown around lightly, and that's what the author does here.

- The double-standard of lack of responsibility combined with sense of entitlement. The author states that he is just a single blogger, not a journalist, and therefore he's not bound by even the most basic tenets of journalistic ethics. Fair enough. (Although I would argue that he's not an individual blogger, but a contributor to a fan site that has a larger platform than he would have on his own.) Yet he feels that a single, off-the-cuff blog post should be significant enough to warrant a public response from the university?

- The demand for public listing of the supplement's contents. The author seems to be confusing the university doing its due diligence to ensure the supplement's appropriateness with the university actually announcing that publicly. I don't know if they've done so or not. But there are a few reasons they might not have publicly announced it. 1) Competitive advantage. If App State has a nutritional component that's giving them a leg up on the competition, why would they want to say "Hey everyone, here's what we're doing, please copy it!" 2) Proprietary research. Perhaps the people who created the supplement don't want to disclose trade secrets. 3) Because why would they? How many other examples are there of athletic departments publicizing the details of their nutritional supplements? Maybe it happens, but I'm not familiar with it. The original article was just a way for a website to generate content during the offseason.

- The misrepresentation of Sirignano's "secret weapon" quote. Also already covered by other posters. It was petty. To his credit, at least the author included the original quote below so that readers can immediately contrast Sirignano's actual words with the inaccurate summary that the author presented.

- The throwaway Chris Foster remark at the end. The whole column is devoted to one subject, and then jerks wildly onto another in the last sentence, with no explanation. Now it's not just one nefarious story at App, it's two! And two's a pattern, right? What in the world is going on in Boone, anyway?

As others have said, as badly as it was executed, I do think the column raises some fair questions. I just feel that the way it was handled was totally irresponsible.

[boonetown1]

The article written on Scout did mention that individuals who had different needs would have supplements adjusted for them (ie taking away vitamin d due to significant time in sun). I'm sure different positions have different mixtures of supplements and the same goes with individuals with health conditions.

I will say, taking care of NCAA requirements is one thing, but I hope these kids are having their vitals monitored, as many supplements/stimulants can lead to various issues within the body (hypertension, heart disease, etc). That being said, I have been around many people who have graduated form the H&S department and I am sure they are conducting test on all involved. If we are making that much of an investment in the supplement program, I'm sure we are taking the steps necessary.

[AppStateNews]

There were some good questions in the article (i.e. does App have an exclusive deal on it?) that are fair to ask.. But, the few good questions completely undermine the entire purpose of the article. Sure, the author may have honestly had those questions after reading the Scout article. But, instead of finding those answers and demanding answers from the University/athletic department, he threw them under the bus. As a member on this board put it when talking to him privately, that article was not journalism -- it was farce and click bait.

Using supplements is nothing new. Every athletic department across the nation uses them. Hell, App has used them in the past. As a former walk on to the basketball team, I know for a fact the strength and condition department has been using supplements for at least 13 years -- again, nothing new. It's just Coach Iron Mike and Europa Sports teamed together to find a new and improved variety. Coach Mike and staff, as the Scout article states, works with each player individually to make sure they are getting the correct supplements for their bodies.

Back in 1965 a football team down in Florida had some members of their College of Medicine develop a drink that would help replace body fluids for the football team. This was thought to give a competitive advantage and was used by all the sports teams. If this was used by all the sports teams, why wouldn't the University make a public statement saying what the ingredients are? Because it gave them a competitive advantage! Unfortunately for Florida, the developer of said sports drink, agreed to a commercial deal to make it available to the public and NFL in 1967. Said drink is Gatorade.

So, why would App need to make a public statement that says what AppFuel is?

"Hey, this is what AppFuel has in it, this is why we are using it, this is what it has done for our players -- its 100% legal so you guys go ahead and use it and take away the competitive advantage we have gained and use our research and $100,000+ to help your program. We are just that nice, go ahead and use it now!"

That doesn't make any sense. Likewise, why would they make a statement saying "trust us, its 100% legal" without giving any specifics of ingredients? That would be like a kid who knows they haven't done anything wrong and when the parents walk in the door saying "Hi Mom.. i didnt do anything wrong!" Just makes them seem guilty without any question even when nothing wrong has been done.

Again, using supplements is commonplace in all higher level athletics (hell, even some high schools use them!). It is nothing new so a statement about them should not be required. That would be like requiring a statement as to why a specific player switched positions. That is commonplace and nothing new -- no need for a statement.

Also, I did a quick mock up of simply adding a disclaimer to the top of the home page.. Obviously a change in color or styling to bring it out more might be needed, but it's a good start

[Appftw]

Wow, I really think it's ridiculous to pile on T-Dog like this. Moose said his piece; there's no need to parrot him endlessly. Guess what? Most of us don't know even know what we're talking about when it comes to football so who cares? Does "Iron" Mike have paper thin skin? He is not above being questioned even if it's in an accusatory manner.

[AtlAppMan]

From my perspective, when I read this article on the front of Yosef's Cabin it immediately came across as a flame thrower piece meant to stir the pot. In fairness, I don't know whether the author meant for it to come across that way or not but in today's world and my years of experience reading news and blogs, this style and tone are "usually" intended to do just that, stir the pot.

Another thing, whether you like it or not, when I read the "front page" article on Yosef's Cabin, I interpret that differently than I do one of the individual blogs down in the message board. I also associate it with the "opinion" of the message board itself and not the opinion of one of the lowly bloggers like myself.

I am not going to comment on whether the contents are accurate or not because I don't know and have not spent any time checking it out. I just wanted the author to know how I reacted to the article when I read it.

[APPdiesel]

SO MUCH BUTTHURT

Maybe everyone should stop looking at this site as an official Appalachian State news source (which it is not) and as a fan site filled with op-ed pieces (which it is). Yes, a good portion of this site's (and others like it) come from official news sources, but not all of it. This site is not intel from the mothership, but a news-gleaner from a variety of sources with its fair share of opinion.

[EastHallApp]

SO MUCH BUTTHURT

Maybe everyone should stop looking at this site as an official Appalachian State news source (which it is not) and as a fan site filled with op-ed pieces (which it is). Yes, a good portion of this site's (and others like it) come from official news sources, but not all of it. This site is not intel from the mothership, but a news-gleaner from a variety of sources with its fair share of opinion.

I'm fine with people writing whatever opinions they want on here, up to the point where it has the potential to damage the program. Then I have a problem with it. Just because this is a fan site doesn't mean what's written here doesn't get noticed.

[T-Dog]

After sleeping it off, I wrote an epilogue.

http://www.yosefscabin.com/supplement-article-epilogue/

[firemoose]

After sleeping it off, I wrote an epilogue.

http://www.yosefscabin.com/supplement-article-epilogue/

Thank you for the post and the disclaimer at the top. I was hoping that the admins would add something like that to the front page anyway, just for those who don't know how the site works. Haven't heard back though.

I was on the phone with two members of the HES dept when your post came up. I only have one question for you. Could you provide a link to the Rice study you quoted? Would just like to read it so I can see what sport these athletes compete in. The reason is I read the quote to the HES professors and they replied "the protein requirements for athletes differ from sport to sport. High endurance sports and those that require heavy weightlifting require more recovery than other sports. In fact, protein requirements and those of other substances in the body for every sport are different and requirements for men and women playing the same sport are different. You can't lump every athlete into one figure. This is why we study and test athletes from every sport and test humans of all ages in general, from children to the elderly, so we can development the proper guidelines for nutrition and any supplementation that may be needed for the best health and performance." They are the experts and this is what they do.

Based on reading the entire Scout article my understanding was that each sport would take a supplement that is in the proper range for the athletes in that sport. And from talking to HES people they will be testing and monitoring athletes along with S & C.

Again, thank you for your post.

[T-Dog]

The Rice University study takes from the Sports Nutrition Guidebook written by Nancy Clark in 1990. 0.4 grams per pound for a sedentary person and an upper limit of 0.9 grams per pound for athletes trying to build muscle.

Here's something else I've seen that suggest the absolute limit for a strength athlete to increase gains is 0.82 grams per pound and after that, it levels off. That article has references upon references which all basically say the same thing.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myt ... dybuilders.

[firemoose]

The Rice University study takes from the Sports Nutrition Guidebook written by Nancy Clark in 1990. 0.4 grams per pound for a sedentary person and an upper limit of 0.9 grams per pound for athletes trying to build muscle.

Here's something else I've seen that suggest the absolute limit for a strength athlete to increase gains is 0.82 grams per pound and after that, it levels off. That article has references upon references which all basically say the same thing.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myt ... dybuilders.

Thank you. I will give this to our HES dept and will return with their answer. We have one of the top ES departments in the US and three of the last five Sports Scientists of the Year have come out of our one department. I'll let them answer since they are the experts.

But while we wait I'll do the same thing and yahoo search "protein requirements for athletes". The Rice study was the first thing to appear but there are several others that say something different. For anyone who wants to they can click the search link and read them yourselves. There appear to be hundreds of articles written about this topic and some of these are written by the same people referenced in the article you gave.

Again, I'm going to wait for the experts in our department to give me their response. Much like they can't tell me how to operate a freight train as both a conductor and an engineer, tell me how to fight a fire or which types of fires require light water or foam, how to extricate a victim of an MVA, what is the correct needle gauge for an iv in a given situation, how to write computer programming code, etc (things I do), I will defer to them for an answer.

https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Av ... 20athletes

[firemoose]

While trying to sleep this morning I finally realized that I'm in my own Kobayashi Maru, and there's no reason for me to even be here. I said what I did not because I had any problem with someone asking questions but because when the article was posted, an article that even T-Dog now admits he didn't handle correctly, people took exception to the way it was written and the insinuations that were made. And this wasn't directed at T-Dog, or Yosef, nor 89' or any other admin or mod on this board but at me because I'm associated with this site. I said many times that I had no problem with anyone asking valid questions but did with the way they were presented and the fact that no questions were really ever asked. If one wants a question answered then they need to actually ask them, not just write about them.

Every one of us has an opinion and has the right to express that opinion. It's what makes this country great. And none of us should expect that everyone will agree with that opinion. No matter what it is there will always be someone who will disagree. And we each have that right. But I realized I was pushed into a situation and made the mistake of trying to argue something I had nothing to do with. This whole thing has nothing to do with me. It's between this site and those that took exception with what was posted here.

After putting my last post above I took some time to search using different terms and came up with hundreds of studies, most of them saying different things. Every single member of this board could have a different opinion on the exact amount of protein or supplement in general that is needed and every single member could find a study done that backs up their point of view. This is no different than what all of us have heard for years about everything from food to sun. Butter is bad and Margarine is much better for you. Now it's the other way around. Salt is good. Salt is Bad. Salt is ok in moderation. Only a little salt is ok. Alcohol is bad. Alcohol is good. Alcohol is ok but in moderation. Wine is good for you. But how much wine is ok? 1 glass? 2 glasses? 3 glasses? A week? A month? Dark Chocolate is bad. No wait, it's actually good, but only if it's above 70%. 72%. 76%. And on and on and on.

No matter what it is there is a study out there that says something different. And each person(s) that conducted the study think it's the correct one. This situation is no different. I forwarded the study T-Dog posted above to several people in HES. And after I did I found dozens that disagreed with it myself just searching the net. Whatever I get back from them I will give to someone to post. And no matter what they say. No matter how many years of experience they have or the fact that they are all members of the ACSM and the NSCA, organizations that are overseers for most all of the studies, someone can find something somewhere that will disagree if they look hard enough.

I choose to put my trust in the staff, nutritionists, and scientists that we have here that will monitor the use of these products. I choose to believe that our people will never do anything to hurt our athletes. T-Dog and others may choose to feel this way or not. They have questions and have been given a path to have those questions addressed should they choose to do so. But as of this moment I am out.

Only thing left is to decide whether I stay or leave. Guess I will sleep on that one.

[Yosef84]

After reading through this thread and the excerpts (not a Scout member anymore) of the original article, I will say that I can understand T-Dog's reaction, although I wish his blog post had been toned down a bit. It's important to remember that the tone set in the Scout article is created by the author and editor and doesn't necessarily reflect the actual tone of the people being quoted (reference T-Dog's comments about the never-ending mutual compliments). I will say this though....if the Coach actually thought these supplements were creating a risk (either compliance or health), I SERIOUSLY doubt he would be talking about it to a reporter for purposes of publication!

We have no reason to question the integrity of our coaches. Until we have evidence to the contrary, I believe that we have a coaching staff with a very high degree of integrity, and that includes S&C. Mike is doing a great job, and all indications are that he is implementing an aggressive supplement program using reputable resources from within the university and third party.

I'm sure that Mike didn't love reading the tone of the blog by T-Dog, but I'm equally sure that his program can withstand the scrutiny of a message board blog. Sounds to me like he is willing to ask questions so I'm thinking he is probably already past any knee jerk reaction he might have had initially.

It's great to be a Mountaineer! I can't wait to see the results on the field this year!

GO APPS!!!