Steve Nash, how?

[Cleveland wins]

I just got finished watching espn, and the guy i forgot his name but he's one of the guys on pti and he said that Steve Nash cut sugar out of his diet, to me that's amazing, how can someone do that? I know i've stop drinking pop and trying to cut out other sugary drinks and foods, but Steve Nash is amazing, and the guy interviewing said, that Nash is better now than he was 8 years ago, do you believe this to be so?

[kibaxx7]

phpBB [video]

[benji]

Yes, this was a couple years ago he did this and it's been reported a number of times that he's gotten other players on the team to join in on the diet and they all go to eat together and ask him what they can get, etc.

It's actually not that hard and is one of the easiest ways to lose weight and get healthier. Part of controlling carb intake.

EDIT: Nash wrote a column about it here: http://www.mensjournal.com/living-sugar-free

And Simmons mentioned it here:

17. Steve Nash

Better than ever, which really shouldn't be the case because, you know, he just turned 36. We invited him to an ESPN dinner at Sundance, and he told us there were three reasons he's not aging: a no-sugar diet, a sleep journal and a steady supply of undetectable PEDs from the revolutionary Suns training staff. (Fine, I made the last one up.) He said the no-sugar diet made him recover faster after games and especially for back-to-backs. In fact, half the Suns are watching their sugar intake now. Nash brought Jared Dudley with him to dinner; Jared was reading the menu and asking Nash, "Can I have this? What about this?" like he was eating with Harley Pasternak or something. It was high comedy. Not only does Nash make his teammates better, he orders for them. Anyway, I don't see him going downhill anytime soon.

[Oznogrd]

As benji said its not that hard to cut stuff out of your diet. Just being conscious of what you're eating by knowing the ingredients and composition of it is huge to any nutrition plan.

as far as is he better now than he was 8 years ago? Is it really that hard for to find stats? Espn.com you can look up almost any player and get career stats on them divided by year

so here we go stat comparison (no metrics or anything like benji could pop off, simple stats like ppg etc.)

Then 2001-2002
34.6 MPG 17.9 PPG 7.7 APG 3.1 RPG 48.3 FG% 45.5% 3PT 88.7% FT

Now 2009-2010
32.8 MPG 16.5 PPG 11 APG 3.3 RPG 50.7 FG% 42.6% 3PT 93.8% FT

My personal Opinion is...yes he's better. Only a slight dip in point production with increases in shooting percentages and a huge upward jump in assists.

[benji]

Well, I don't know if that's exactly fair as his role and the system in Phoenix is different (as is the scorer) but what is important is that Nash used to burn out by the end of the season and would be non-existent in the playoffs to the point where Don Nelson would sit him in close games because he was too close to the minute threshold. At 27 he posted a PER of 20.7 and logged 2838 minutes. At 35 he's posted a PER of 21.6 and logged 2660 minutes. He's lost nothing over those eight years and only one other point guard has comparable numbers at age 35, John Stockton. When Nash signed with Phoenix he was 30 and people were writing things like:

Marbury is better and younger than Nash, and the Suns are paying Nash until he's 35, when he'll likely be a mere shadow of what he is today.

At the end of his contract, he'll be 35, making well over $10 million a year, and probably won't be more than a bit player.

[rise]

Steve Nash could play til he was 45, and he'd still be one of the better PGs in the NBA.

[Oznogrd]

Well, I don't know if that's exactly fair as his role and the system in Phoenix is different

Well yes, but i figured complex ideas like that might be too much for the usual person around here who asks "is Nash better now or then?" You get all complex on them and talk about systems can have in impact on production they tend to say "BUT HIS POINTS ARE DOWN" so i was just dumbing it down.

[Andrew]

Marbury is better and younger than Nash, and the Suns are paying Nash until he's 35, when he'll likely be a mere shadow of what he is today.

At the end of his contract, he'll be 35, making well over $10 million a year, and probably won't be more than a bit player.

Ouch.

[Modifly]

Nash just seems to get better every season. A couple of seasons ago (I think) his stats dropped and I was like "that's it, he's declining" and then the next season his stats went up again. Of course this doesn't tell anything but he just doesn't seem to age like other NBA players. Maybe it's because he play smartly and doesn't really take a lot of contact as well as having a good diet?

[Andrew]

It also helps that his game doesn't rely on having tremendous athleticism.

[The X]

It also helps that his game doesn't rely on having tremendous athleticism.

That's true, just look what happened to Payton & what will eventually happen to Rose & Wall

[Andrew]

After more than a decade in the league though, which is a pretty good run. Nevertheless, much like John Stockton, Nash's game seems to be more sustainable over a long career and past the age of 35. Then again, Michael Jordan was still winning championships in his mid 30s.

[Lamrock]

It also helps that his game doesn't rely on having tremendous athleticism.

That's true, just look what happened to Payton & what will eventually happen to Rose & Wall

I don't see Rose & Wall sustaining all-star play into their 30s (or even being above average defenders)

[Modifly]

I don't see Rose & Wall sustaining all-star play into their 30s (or even being above average defenders)

Same here, I think their body will worn out before then. Their games demands an awful lot from their body.

[Andrew]

Any more than Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant or any other athletic player who's ever played the game?

[benji]

Those guys didn't rely on their speed like the point guards who all fall apart around 30.

[Andrew]

Not to the same extent, granted. But washed up by 30? That's a big call.

[shadowgrin]

Michael Jordan was still winning championships in his mid 30s.

Because he developed a reliable post move which is his fadeaway jumper.
Same reason that I think LeBron won't be as effective later in his career unless he stops relying on his monstrous athleticism and develop some sort of post move.

[Andrew]

Indeed. So long as there is some evolution, new moves in the arsenal, athletic players should be able to adapt as their physical gifts decline and continue to play at a high level.

[Sauru]

cutting sugar and other foods that are bad for you is not hard if.............. you have money. the sugar filled fatty foods are also the cheaper foods to buy. eating healthy costs alot more than just eating junk. hell for 10 bucks i could feed myself for an entire month on ramen noodles lol

[benji]

cutting sugar and other foods that are bad for you is not hard if.............. you have money. the sugar filled fatty foods are also the cheaper foods to buy. eating healthy costs alot more than just eating junk.

This is not true outside of select areas. It can cost the same or less to eat "healthy" if you're not buying the "organic" scam products and considering only that "healthy." And there's nothing wrong with fat in the diet. Feels good man.

hell for 10 bucks i could feed myself for an entire month on ramen noodles lol

I don't think anyone would consider ramen to be sugar filled or necessarily fatty. If you eat cheap what you're getting is usually not extra sugar or extra fat, you're getting extra sodium. (To cover up the disastrously poor faux-flavoring.) As ramen, canned anything and especially something like canned ravioli proves. (If you love sodium, find the cheapest canned ravioli at your store. Check the nutrition facts. You're welcome.)

The correspondence between poor diets and cost is because a large percentage of the poor diet usually contains sugary breakfasts (cereals, pop tarts), pop/soda/soft drinks or faux-juice (the kind with no actual fruit, just flavored water and extra sugar, so you get all the sugar and none of the fruit) and candy. There are just as cheap or cheaper alternatives that provide as much calories and such that can easily slash the sugar content of your diet. An easy example would be taking your morning cereal and moving from say Lucky Charms to Cheerios which will drop you from 42 grams of sugar in a bowl to 3 grams. (And you can usually save a buck or two, even more if you move to those giant store-brand knock-off bags.)

We won't even start on the silly government impositions like the food pyramid or their insane system where they tariff outside sugar, then subsidize internal sugar and sweeteners. Not to mention corn. But I digress.

You really can't live on anything other than ramen (and maybe cheap canned soup) at $10 a month. So we'll ignore that price point. Hell, WIC only lets you buy sugary foods if you waste your cereal portion and splurge on peanut butter, otherwise you can get quite a few fruits and veggies, good amount of milk and cheese, a shit ton of eggs in your monthly allowance. If it wasn't for those subsidies and regulations with the subsequent lobbying that results, food stamps would give you more bang for your stamp on "healthy" stuff. (Instead production is subsidized, and then the food stamps overpay for those goods, hooray corporate welfare hidden in a program supposedly for the poor! A fine tradition the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act upheld.) If you can find $40-60 a month to spend on food it is incredibly easy to eat in a diverse and "healthy" manner avoiding sugar. If you're spending the $120 a week most families of four spend?

I've eaten a very low sugar diet for years on the cheap (not out of any kind of intent it just happens) and the things I eat with the highest sugar contents are fruits and vegetables. Next are things like pizza and milk. Hell, when I om nom nom nom out at McDonalds for 1250 calories at $4, there's only 12 grams of sugar in that which is the same as one glass of milk.

Anyway, zero-sugar is difficult and likely more expensive, but low-sugar (even combined with low-sweetener) is pretty easy and can be cheaper. Many people don't even eat medium-sugar diets. More like high- or overdose-sugar with tons of other carbs in a relatively non-diverse diet.

[cyanide]

cutting sugar and other foods that are bad for you is not hard if.............. you have money.

I go to Costco and buy a crapload of whole foods that don't contain sugar (with fruits being the exception). It's pretty easy, and the bill isn't so bad considering how long the food lasts, with its chockful of nutrients.

Problem with ramen is that there's virtually no nutritional value to it, and as benji mentioned, a ton of sodium.

[rise]

An easy example would be taking your morning cereal and moving from say Lucky Charms to Cheerios which will drop you from 42 grams of sugar in a bowl to 3 grams.

Because, when you're watching your diet, you're definitely eating a bowl of Lucky Charms for breakfast.

[Oznogrd]

An easy example would be taking your morning cereal and moving from say Lucky Charms to Cheerios which will drop you from 42 grams of sugar in a bowl to 3 grams.

Because, when you're watching your diet, you're definitely eating a bowl of Lucky Charms for breakfast.

benji's point was that alot of people dont realize how simple a fix limiting sugar is. Its not this impossible unrealistic monster people make it out be:

Good for Nash eating healthy and good for him helping his teammates off the court also

As for me? ill stick with my sodium, sugar, fat, and what not.

But then again i'm not in the NBA

[benji]

Right, it's even easier because you don't have to immediately drop out the sugar but you can mix cereals, or sprinkle sugar in gradual decreasing ways. So on.

Anyway, everyone should eat what they want. (Outside of obvious dietary limitations.) But should try to diversify what they eat. (As that's not just good for you, it's tastier.) And not lecture others about their dietary choices. (Instead, in our Brave New World, we should legislate and regulate others dietary choices until they become the New American Man!) That's about all the dietary advice I give.

That said, most professional athletes should (and do) look into no-sugar or low-sugar diets because it's more efficient in providing energy. (And in many cases that's really because it's more about distribution of sugars, you aren't overloading your body with tons of it at one time and providing it with none at others.)