80% nutrition 20% training?

[mtc 0]

In a video, pk subban said that training is 80% nutrition and 20% training. Is that true? Shouldn't it be more like 60% nutrition 40% training?

[Chadd 916]

Depends on the person, everyone is different.

[jds 20]

I find that for me it is 18% training, 6%nutrition, 43% drinking and 33% frustration.

But seriously, proper nutrition is HUGE.

[Jason Harris 31]

I'd put it more the opposite.

Proper nutrition provides improved energy and a leaner physique, which can lead to better speed, but it doesn't make muscles grow out of air. Nutrition wouldn't make the heart and lungs substantially better (if at all); that only comes from training.

[Munsons 2]

You can train as hard as you want, but without proper nutrition it will get you nowhere. I'd agree with the 80/20 because working out only makes up a small part of your day, whereas eating well is an all day battle.

[frankie56 0]

Most pro athletes already near or at their genetic strength/conditioning potential and can expect only small gains with training alone. Nutrition is essential to keep them where they are. Time spent with strength/conditioning training takes away from their time spent improving their sport skills. At the end of the off season would the Canadians want Subban to be able to bench 10 more kilos or have a faster shot release?

The average person is far from their genetic strength/conditioning potential and should get substantial gains from strength/conditioning training, even with a normal diet (sensible but not overboard). I think training is more important for the average person.

[Jason Harris 31]

You can train as hard as you want, but without proper nutrition it will get you nowhere. I'd agree with the 80/20 because working out only makes up a small part of your day, whereas eating well is an all day battle.

The problem with this reasoning is it seems to assume the extremes. If all one were to do is eat well, then he would essentially be a granola head, whereas if all one did was exercise and eat poorly, he would be muscular and obese, so we have to consider somewhere in the middle of this equation.

The bottom line is, while proper nutrition can fuel better growth, none of that growth can occur without stressing the muscles properly. For instance, you could eat absolutely perfectly, but it would do very little to improve your cardiovascular fitness other than to unclog your arteries. Maybe one example of this would be when pro athletes are returning from injury; it's highly likely that they have continued to eat as they had prior to the injury -- which I assume is relatively decently for world class athletes -- yet we always read they need to get back into game shape.

Maybe we shouldn't follow Subban's suggestion that it's 80/20, but I'd take a very strong/fit athlete carrying ten extra pounds due to poorer nutrition versus a weaker athlete whose body fat and blood levels are outstanding. That said, I'd take someone who concentrates on both.

[Speedz98 15]

It's like all things in life, it requires a balance. They have to coexist and it's good to have both. You need fuel and a strong engine.

[tareatingrat 4]

I think the quote is more to emphasize quality nutrition while training, not to give an accurate stat.

The idea is that you can train very hard, for whatever it is you're doing, but you won't see maximum results until you get your diet dialed in.

Fact is, we eat terribly nowadays. Most people don't have a clue at what they're putting in their bodies. Even those who do know damn well they shouldn't eat fast "food" and other junk but still do anyway.

The point is that it's much harder to eat properly than it is to train properly.

In addition, I'd actually say that most people would benefit more from a proper diet than training.

[jds 20]

I think the quote is more to emphasize quality nutrition while training, not to give an accurate stat.

The idea is that you can train very hard, for whatever it is you're doing, but you won't see maximum results until you get your diet dialed in.

Fact is, we eat terribly nowadays. Most people don't have a clue at what they're putting in their bodies. Even those who do know damn well they shouldn't eat fast "food" and other junk but still do anyway.

The point is that it's much harder to eat properly than it is to train properly.

In addition, I'd actually say that most people would benefit more from a proper diet than training.

I would agree with this. Cardiovascular fitness requires a certain amount of aerobic training that is not possible without the proper fuel. Training hard with poor nutrition actually sets you back as your body is forced to feed off itself in a vain attempt to rebuild the damage done by training.

[JR97 2]

I would agree with this. Cardiovascular fitness requires a certain amount of aerobic training that is not possible without the proper fuel. Training hard with poor nutrition actually sets you back as your body is forced to feed off itself in a vain attempt to rebuild the damage done by training.

Maybe someone's already mentioned this, but Subban is also a pro athlete, probably been playing/training full-time most of his life, and physically at a stage where he probably requires less training. Whereas a beer league'r or even a kid close to Subban's age is probably no where near Subban's physical development and thus the ratio wouldn't apply.

[DEATHTRON 19]

I've heard the 80/20 for weights before as well. I think some people have already touched on this here. Anyway, one point in time, when I was lifting weights, I really felt like I hit a "wall", I was not able to lift anymore weight, and I was not gaining anymore weight. Then I read an article about how Ryan Reynoldds got into shape for movies. He bascially said that getting "cut" was 80% nutrition, 20% lifting. Which of course makes sense becuase you will knock down your body fat percentage to let the muscles you have show.

Point in case, I really clamped down on my diet, and I lost 4% body fat, and gained 5 pounds (of muscle + whatever the body fat translates to) in about 2ish weeks. It was unreal.

Now...eating like that really required a large amount of preperation and I sincerely missed french fries and became extremely tired of baked chicken breast, but you get the idea. I think that was what Subban was addressing, not necessarily hockey training per say.

Zach

[Ralphiv#13 0]

I'd put it more the opposite.

Proper nutrition provides improved energy and a leaner physique, which can lead to better speed, but it doesn't make muscles grow out of air. Nutrition wouldn't make the heart and lungs substantially better (if at all); that only comes from training.

But also there are protien drinks and foods that help you gain more muscle mass, thats actually what im doing atm. I'm 5'8" and 130, and not that i dont have muscle, just i need more core muscle and thats what my trainer has me doing.

[#44wannabe 4]

Protein shakes do NOT help you gain muscle. When mixed with carbohydrate in a balance that suits your body compisition it can have a marginal effect on your gains if you are training properly. Shakes (carb/protein mix) probably help 0.5% in the grand scheme of things. Google Scholar LINK

[MURedhawk 0]

I have heard this % used with overweight people trying to lose weight. I agree with the poster stating that it isn't meant to be an exact ratio though.

Obviously nutrition is key but it does depend on the person. PK might be in great shape and just continues training like he has always trained and his improvement area is in nutrition. Someone like Kyle Turris would be better with 80% working out and 20% diet. Lift as much as you can and eat as much as you can. Two different players with two different levels of fitness.

[IniNew 53]

Body composition is 80/20 for sure. You can lose or gain weight based on diet alone, but to gain muscle you will have to train.

[Jarick 5]

Yes for weight loss, at least 80% nutrition. Jogging for 30 minutes is the same calories as the 30 seconds it takes to eat a donut. You'd have to work out 7 days a week for roughly 45-60 minutes a day just to lose a single pound. Or you can eat slightly less food or slightly healthier.

For conditioning or strength though it's the work you do, followed by the rest and then nutrition.

[danno25nh 3]

Protein shakes do NOT help you gain muscle. When mixed with carbohydrate in a balance that suits your body compisition it can have a marginal effect on your gains if you are training properly. Shakes (carb/protein mix) probably help 0.5% in the grand scheme of things. Google Scholar LINK

I don't understand how you came to your conclusion based on that single study of eight 21 year old men. See the last line:

"would be supportive of a positive net protein balance, which, over time, would lead to hypertrophy."

In English this means a positive net protein balance would over time increase muscle size.

While I don't support hypertrophy as a means to increase hockey performance, body builders have long known that increased protein is required to achieve hypertrophy.

[third man in 0]

The % definitely depends on the person but sometimes it's about what you don't do that will help you the most (ie, don't overtain, don't eat crap).

[Xion 0]

As far as health and fitness goes, that's absolutely true. You can lift weights and run all you want, if you're not eating right it'll get you nowhere. A balanced diet, high protein intake, and proper hydration (combined with whatever exercise regiment you feel is right for you) will really improve your life. That, and the occasional drink to keep everything alright in the world ;)

As far as hokey goes, it probably involves a bit more training than 80/20. There's a lot more going on than in, say, basketball or straight lifting. I'd say more 60/40. But that's a BIG 60. You can have the best wrister in the world, but if you're unhealthy and out of shape and can't get to the puck before the opponent, what good is it going to do you?