Eating Law according to the NCAA

[Guest guest]

Joe Alden suggested that we read the following webpage about NCAA laws on

which nutrients or supplemenst may or may not be ingested by collegiate

athletes.

<http://www.ncaa.org/news/20000814/active/3717n22.html>

It must be a rare human being who does not agree with Jay

<ukjay@...> who wrote:

<<This is absolutely embarrassing to the NCAA. Are you kidding me? No

supplemental protein? No glucosamine for soft tissue injury relief? I

don't even know where to begin to rant.>>

For those who may not know what the NCAA is, especially non-USA members, it

describes itself thus:

<<The National Collegiate Athletic Association is the organization through

which the nation's colleges and universities speak and act on athletics

matters at the national level. It is a voluntary association of approximately

1,200 institutions, conferences, organizations and individuals devoted to the

sound administration of intercollegiate athletics. >>

*** Some of you may not have had the time to read that web page, so I have

extracted some of the astounding BYLAWS that seem to have been handed down

by some latter day NCAA Moses deprived of thought enriching oxygen in the

rarefied and obviously polluted atmosphere of one of the NCAA inner circle

meetings.

If I received a copy of these regulations in the mail, I would swear that

some friend of mine was playing a practical joke on me, but, believe it or

not, this appears not to be the case!

Read it and weep. Maybe they need to recount, recount and recount the votes

on a few NCAA issues Maybe a vote of no confidence in the NCAA leadership

is in order. Certainly their technical committee or whoever assesses

scientific material needs a brain transplant or two - unless, of course, this

whole affair is an elaborate urban legend or Internet hoax.

----------------------------------------

NCAA Bylaw 16.5.2.2 (Proposal No. 99-72)

Nutritional Supplements

Division I institutions should note that pursuant to NCAA Bylaw 16.5.2.2

(Proposal No. 99-72), which became effective August 1, 2000, institutions may

provide only non-muscle-building nutritional supplements for the purpose of

providing additional calories and electrolytes, provided they do not contain

any NCAA-banned substances. Please note that there is an error in the 2000-01

Division I Manual relating to the new Bylaw 16.5.2.2.

The second sentence should read as follows: " Permissible non-muscle-building

nutritional supplements are identified according to the following classes:

carbohydrate/electrolyte drinks, energy bars, carbohydrate boosters, and

vitamins and minerals. "

In adopting Proposal No. 99-72, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors noted

a lack of long-term studies on the possible side effects of muscle-building

supplements and agreed that muscle-building supplements are

performance-enhancing and provide a competitive advantage to those

institutions that can afford to provide these supplements to their

student-athletes.

Further, during the June 11 meeting of the NCAA Committee on Competitive

Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports, the committee developed a list of

nutritional supplements/ingredients identified as permissible and

nonpermissible under Bylaw 16.5.2.2. The committee considered input provided

to it by relevant outside

organizations. The legislation reflects a philosophy that proper nutrition

based on scientific principles is one of the tenets to optimal performance.

Permissible

Vitamins and minerals

Energy bars

Calorie-replacement drinks (for example, Ensure, Boost)

Electrolyte-replacement drinks

(for example, Gatorade, Powerade)

Nonpermissible

Amino acids

Chrysin

Condroitin

Creatine/creatine-containing compounds

Ginseng

Glucosamine

Glycerol

I-carnitin

Melatonin

Pos-2

Protein powders

Tribulus

Also during the July 26 telephone conference, the subcommittee, at the

recommendation of the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical

Aspects of Sports, determined that a supplement that contains protein may be

classified as a non-muscle-building supplement, provided it meets all of the

following conditions:

* It is included in one of the four permissible categories set forth in

16.5.2.2;

* It does not contain more than 30 percent of calories from protein (based

solely on the package label); and

* It does not contain additional ingredients that are designed to assist in

the muscle-building process (see examples of nonpermissible supplements).

---------------------------

***Note how they have spelled chondroitin and L-carnitine. Does this alone

suggest a touch of ignorance on some matters? If the NCAA classes joint

rehabilitating substances, glucosamine and chondroitin, as performance

enhancing drugs, then they should do the same for energy and electrolyte

supplements, like Gatorade, which research has shown to offer certain

advantages over 'natural' fluids.

After all, the IOC rules state (in paraphrased form) that any substance is to

be considered as an illegal ergogenic aid if it is not found naturally, if it

is taken in amounts or concentrations not found naturally or taken via a

route which is not 'natural' for the body (e.g., via injection or infusion).

Gatorade and Powerade are entirely synthetic drinks and certainly fall into

those classes, but the NCAA would not dare to even raise such a contentious

issue, because the manufacturers of such products offer some rather useful

sponsorships. As a matter of fact, that IOC definition also could be

extended to synthetic vitamins and minerals, at which point this whole saga

becomes even more ludicrous.

Does it not occur to the NCAA that some of the amino acids such as

L-carnitine (why did the NCAA classify it on its own?) and L-arginine can

play a useful role in the health of athletes with cardiac problems, while

L-glutamine may play a helpful role in fighting infection? There are several

other amino acids which can enable one to cut down on 'hard' pharmacological

drugs - would the NCAA rather that the athlete used beta blockers (oh no,

this is also illegal, so what is the poor athlete to do?), powerful

anti-inflammatories and various prescription drugs some of which are also

banned or subject the athlete to some serious side-effects?

Banning supplementary protein because it is " muscle building " , while approving

Ensure and similar drinks (with whey, casein and other protein components

that provide over 35 percent of one's daily protein per one glass) is

hypocritical, unscientific and ignorant. Maybe they are able to quote

research which shows that high levels of protein enhance hypertrophy and

performance in the absence of heavy strength training - if so, they must know

something that the scientists don't.

Why don't they ban heavy resistance training because it is definitely an

artificial ergogenic aid which works so well that it can double the strength

of many beginners in their first year of training? I know not of any AA

steroids which work that well - let alone any protein drinks, glucosamine or

creatine.

Most of us on the group probably are bystanders and can afford to simply

shake our heads at the illogicality of all of this, but not so the poor

collegiate athlete who has to abide by these questionable laws or have a

sporting career cut very short. Surely there are some rational beings in the

NCAA who are concerned about this farce, and feel that something should be

done to re-examine these 'laws'? Do any collegiate coaches on this group

know if anything is being done to repair some apparent NCAA brain

damage?

Dr Mel C Siff

Denver, USA

mcsiff@...