Metabolic Pathways

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

I understand and agree with what you’re saying about throwing shade. I apologize for not fully clarifying my position on the matter. I intended to draw equivalency between my own personal bias an the authors’. If I published peer-reviewed literature on any of my financial interests, I would encourage folks to look for independent corroboration identically as I did here with their article.

I’m not implying impropriety. I’m stating bias. Bias can be conscious or subconscious and is impossible to remove when financial incentives are in place.

@Dr_Alex_Harrison

Find an article where the authors aren’t direct investors in the subject

As far as I know, it is standard practice in research to proceed as I instructed, but I can see now how I completely failed to indicate that, or my more complex meaning, and for that I apologize. I would hope that I could have a reasonable conversation with the researchers themselves and would have no issue saying the same to them, about their work, in a face to face conversation.

@DarthShivious

I don’t know these researches and my work is not in their space. But their findings have potential to be very interesting and relevant for members of the TR forum. Will remain curious to hear about replication, advancements and anyone who has tried to utilize their results. You know, a discussion with content and consideration of data.

I think it is also standard practice, or certainly my own personal practice, that if the only supporting data for an idea, in the body of scientific literature, is coming from a group that has financial interest in a related product, I fully ignore it as a practitioner, and would advise others to do so as well, until other another research group(s) has/have corroborated their findings. The risk of not doing so is to be led down every rabbit hole startup that has a PhD who can write an article and find a journal seeking content to publish it in.

Do you happen to have seen any other research on this topic from researchers who are not financially invested? I would be happy to open a more thorough review, if so.

The three articles I found all have DayTwo employees and financial benefactors listed on the article authorship. That’s dubious. No shade here. Just generally a bad sign when the primary support for an idea is coming exclusively from those personally financially benefitting from the idea.

It’s questionable when all the research is funded by a single group. It’s more questionable when the group is the one authoring it all.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(15)01481-6

Personalized Approach to Predicting Postprandial Glycemic Responses to Food

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/110/1/63/5490305#137241538

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

PS.

@DarthShivious

Ironic perhaps that you turned up and were happily shilling your business here in the TR forum without a disclosure before being called out on it.

Please review my forum activity here and decide if it should be summarized as shilling. If you think my level of promotion of my own products is excessive, misplaced, or tangential to the community interest, please advise how you would like to see me change course and I will seriously consider your advice.

Also see below image. I don’t intend for this image to mean that I’m not shilling. Perhaps I am. Just to say that I specifically requested a review of my conduct by forum moderators because I wanted a fresh critical pair of eyes.

[DarthShivious]

@Dr_Alex_Harrison

Do you happen to have seen any other research on this topic from researchers who are not financially invested? I would be happy to open a more thorough review, if so.

Thanks - By way of continuing discourse on the topic…

That was the question I asked. Asking it back to me when I already revealed my level of knowledge on this specific topic and understanding of the data is sort of a strawman. But I don’t think you meant it that way.

The references provided were meant for the forum participants who are interested in this work. Given the almost certain microbiome - metabolic signaling connections, perhaps even on topic for the thread.

FWIW, I always question this type of research result and want to see independent validation and replication of findings and claims. For complex studies that is often a very difficult thing to do. But it is essential.

These authors understand validation and replication. The fact that they had a good discovery cohort and kept out a specific validation cohort speaks strongly to their knowledge on how to do these studies well.

The authors happen to be very good at the type of analysis they performed. Extremely good actually, and at a top institution known for this type of work and expertise. That doesn’t make them correct in the conclusions.

None of that means they have it nailed down. Not because of conflicts of interest, funding sources or other. Rather, because this is extremely complex systems work in its infancy. So while I find the work well done, the conclusions plausible, it will require extensive replication and validation to be useful. Perhaps even then will not be practicable for individuals.

That’s the science part. Folks who have done this type of work at scale know how extremely difficult, and expensive it is to do well and how hard it is to get it right and have findings hold up.

You mention the work is questionable because only one group is doing the work and publishing. That is not accurate. There is a tremendous amount of work going on in this space. A fair amount by for profit businesses which do not need to publish and frankly would rather not publish.

These authors happen to be leaders. Partly that means they started early and that means they generated and have data to analyze and reanalyze. Others will have to catch-up by gathering samples, patient data, funding etc. These studies are complex and difficult so not surprising there aren’t many of them.

Being leaders also means others with data may seek them out for help and they end up being co-authors on other work and new papers. That is normal and does not mean they are not putting out their best interpretations and representations of the space.

Financials

It is not at all uncommon for companies to start up based on research findings and for the investigators to be part of that. In this case, I believe the start up (day two) licensed the findings after the initial research was performed. That is normal. Most research institutions (universities) actively try to make that happen with patent filings and technology transfer offices. It is how this works.

In this particular space, there was a slew of microbiome companies started up in the 2010’s. Some still going, many gone already. Less common, but not dissimilar, for personalized diet start ups claiming to use genomics, microbiome, ML/AI to optimize food for an individual.

My take is while these areas are interesting, and there might be something there eventually, the personalized diet companies are not ready for prime time. But watching the space is free.

Conclusion

For the TR Forum, we have an interesting group of people. It is pretty small, but it it is technical and folks try stuff like Day Two (which I am not advocating btw). So we have a fun topic of interest, someone here might be involved in the research and want to add, someone might have given it a go and wants to share results. Those are the conversations I’m looking for.

Am sure most know this, but the big payoff if this type of work holds up is not in sport. It is toward combatting obesity and all the issue that brings for individuals and communities. It would be wonderful if someone here in the TR Forum can gain fractionally on w/kg, but if this research pans out the potential for impact is important.

All good - back to how much sugar I should consume for today’s workout please!

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

@DarthShivious

That was the question I asked. Asking it back to me when I already revealed my level of knowledge on this specific topic and understanding of the data is sort of a strawman. But I don’t think you meant it that way.

You’re right. Totally missed that. I rescind my request to you and make it more broadly to the greater audience. I will now read the rest of your post and appreciate you taking the time!

[DarthShivious]

To the question about the company relationship and forum rules. My opinion, you could have been more transparent about the company relationship. Its not about violating forum rules or TOS. Its about transparency. Being excellent could mean being transparent in that situation.

From a business perspective, you never know who is reading this stuff. Someone might be an investor, someone might be a client. It is always good to keep it professional.

Lets move on. You clearly have a lot to add and time to do so. That is very welcome and FWIW I hope you continue to add your expertise and contribute.

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

@DarthShivious

So while I find the work well done, the conclusions plausible, it will require extensive replication and validation to be useful.

I also find it plausible and potentially useful, pending verification by independent research groups specifically.

@DarthShivious

You mention the work is questionable because only one group is doing the work and publishing. That is not accurate. There is a tremendous amount of work going on in this space. A fair amount by for profit businesses which do not need to publish and frankly would rather not publish.

I mention that it’s questionable that I can’t seem to find ANY articles on these methods that are not funded by DayTwo. Questionable, as in, worthy of skepticism and avoidance of any agreement whatsoever with their conclusions until at least one other research group has corroborated.

@DarthShivious

These studies are complex and difficult so not surprising there aren’t many of them.

Agreed.

@DarthShivious

Being leaders also means others with data may seek them out for help and they end up being co-authors on other work and new papers. That is normal and does not mean they are not putting out their best interpretations and representations of the space.

Agreed. But humans best work is inherently biased because even the most rigorously rational and calculated among us present alarming irrationality if investigated thoroughly. I’m just justifying my strong hesitance here to even read into their conclusions until we uncover at least one independent investigation.

@DarthShivious

My take is while these areas are interesting, and there might be something there eventually, the personalized diet companies are not ready for prime time. But watching the space is free.

Agreed. Especially if made efficient and accessible via app-based nutritional guidance.

@DarthShivious

All good - back to how much sugar I should consume for today’s workout please!

More! (happy to entertain questions here fyi)

Most of all, thank you for this:

@DarthShivious

To the question about the company relationship and forum rules. My opinion, you could have been more transparent about the company relationship. Its not about violating forum rules or TOS. Its about transparency. Being excellent could mean being transparent in that situation.

From a business perspective, you never know who is reading this stuff. Someone might be an investor, someone might be a client. It is always good to keep it professional.

Lets move on. You clearly have a lot to add and time to do so. That is very welcome and FWIW I hope you continue to add your expertise and contribute.

I will implement this moving forward and expect criticism if I fail.

[Gnome]

Well I for one am enjoying the discourse here

[Crownan]

Its all very interesting and kept so civil! Well done guys.

Sorry, I got lost on the salt vs. Sodium Citrate issue. So which is “better”? How much should we be aiming for (ballpark)? What weights of one vs the other are they equivelent?

Thanks.

*Edit, just realised I think I’m getting my threads mixed up, there are quite a few similar ones going round at the moment!

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

TLDR: Sodium citrate is better for lower osmolarity.

For handy measurement awareness: Sodium Citrate has about 1000mg sodium per tsp. Table salt is about 2000mg sodium per tsp.

Posted in another thread somewhere: (I use TextExpander (no affiliation) for many of these info pieces I’ve written out before, so easier to repost than go find it).

Using sodium citrate in place of table salt allows your gut to tolerate more sodium consumption during training. Sodium citrate has 3 sodium molecules for every 1 citrate molecule. Sodium chloride has 1 sodium molecule for every 1 chloride molecule. That means that for the same amount of sodium consumption, there will be a greater number of molecules ingested, if using table salt, rather than sodium citrate. Osmolarity is the number of molecules per unit volume of solution. Our gastrointestinal tracts are sensitive to very high osmolarity solutions. During normal daily living, consumption of very high osmolar solutions (lots of molecules per liter) causes a laxative effect 20-60 minutes after consumption. During exercise, it causes gut cramping, THEN a laxative effect. My personal experience with this can be described as “not fun!”

Super hard to provide exacting sodium advice, even with sweat testing. Couple things I’ve written on the matter.

People Who Exercise Need More Sodium

Should You Be Sweat Testing? Let’s Examine the Trade-Offs

(TLDR: No. IMHO. Too variable and costly of time and money.)

Goal: understand what likely ranges for sodium loss during your training session(s) are, and meet them with sodium intake, if gut tolerance allows.

Figure below is from the book I authored with some colleagues at RP: The RP Diet for Endurance, entitled as such because of the large RP following of the other RP books. It’s just a basic quantitative breakout of fueling needs and diet strategy for performance-focused endurance athletes, based my best understanding of the summary of the scientific literature and I make exactly 55% of after-PayPal-fees revenue on every book sale, in the fullest of disclosures. @DarthShivious and others, I would love to know if you feel put off by this kind of info share and if you would prefer if I refrain from doing similar in the future. Happy to adapt to transparency/disclosure preferences.

I’ve personally never had success with 1800mg/hr intake without GI issues, even when consuming 1-1.2L/hr but have heard on the TR podcast that it is feasible for a lot of folks. I generally recommend 500-1500mg/hr for most scenarios, and assume that most folks can’t/don’t drink >1 L/hr. If you’re Nate, and can consume massive fluid quantities with no issue, I can see potential utility and feasibility of exceeding 2000mg/hr sodium intake if sweat rate merits it.

Unfortunately, I haven’t found good data (haven’t looked super hard) for cycling sweat rates in various temps.
I’m not sure it would be useful because of the more dramatic differences in air speed over the body during cycling, resulting in even wider variation in inter-individual sweat rates. Would love to review data if folks have it handy.

If on the trainer indoors, targeting upper end gut-tolerable consumption is a great call. Also get more fans and portable AC units!

[Crownan]

Really appreciate your reply, thanks.

[AJS914]

For a long while I did many deep dives on the microbiome. I read books, listened to podcasts, read studies, etc. The only conclusion I could finally come to was that we would all benefit by eating healthier foods. And by healthier foods I mean foods with fiber - real whole grains (not bread), root vegetables, green vegetables, high polyphenol vegetables and fruits. But it’s kind of a ‘no duh’ conclusion as I already knew all that. The research though did reinforce the types of good habits to strive for.

Looking at the first paper reinforces this idea. Everybody in the study has a high HbA1c and is at least borderline diabetic. In the chart E, we see that a good percentage of the diet is bread, sweets, and baked goods. If the cohort simply cut out the high glycemic, low nutrition foods and ate more vegetables they would probably improve their HbA1c across the board and then individual variations to different foods would just be an interesting observation.

[Richard_Williams]

@QuittingBikes

Extended VO2 efforts scattered throughout a 5 hour event will probably slow you down overall.

Not always an option. Especially on 15% plus climbs that last for over a mile. Trust me… I would be a above threshold if I didn’t have to do so.

[Richard_Williams]

@DarthShivious

tracking developments in the microbiome / personalized diet

I did a test. Interesting, but your microbiome changes all the time. So, unless you get a test several times a year, to see how it changes overtime with what you eat… not very helpful. And… marginally if you do test all the time. My takeaway was eat healthy and try not to each the same thing over and over again as too much of a good thing isn’t great. You gut likes variety within good healthy, high fiber foods.

[Richard_Williams]

@Dr_Alex_Harrison

Even chronically low-carb folks can handle 90g/hr, in the vast majority of cases and I suspect up to maybe 100g/hr. Just need to nail sugar ratios to close 1:1 gluc:fruc.

How do you achieve this without massive GI issues: gas, diarrhea, etc. post ride?

Also, how do you carry that much carbs on you? That like 6-8 bottles of carbs. Then, how to you handle hydration? SIS gels are 22g and you can take 3/hr, so 66g plus a bottle 40g. But that like 12 gels in your pocket, not to mention carb drink mix. And, that doesn’t count hydration. Just trying to figure logistics of 100+ carbs an hour.

[jarsson]

@Richard_Williams

Just trying to figure logistics of 100+ carbs an hour

One bottle with carbs and one with water? Carbs can be really concentrated, make small sips and flush with water. No problem with 200-300g of carbs this way.

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

@Richard_Williams

How do you achieve this without massive GI issues: gas, diarrhea, etc. post ride?

Optimal sugar ratios and hydration throughout. Must hydrate to meet carb consumption rates. Must consume high sodium tor retain fluids consumed and not get hyponatremic. Target 1:1 glucose:fructose. Target 800-1200mL water and 700-1500mg sodium per hour from sodium citrate, primarily.

How I do it:
Saving Money as an Endurance Athlete

Review a few of my other recent threads’ activity and you’ll see a few responses that detail much much more.

@jarsson

One bottle with carbs and one with water? Carbs can be really concentrated, make small sips and flush with water. No problem with 200-300g of carbs this way.

This is exactly how my wife and I do it. For her 7-hr, 140-mile ride yesterday she had 500g carbs in one bottle, 300g carbs in a second bottle, and a plain water bottle. She stopped for a water refill as soon as she finished the 300g bottle and the water bottle.

At that point she then had 500g of carbs onboard and 2 fresh bottles of water. I think that lasted her through to the end, but she’s a bit of a light sweater. If it were me, I’d have done 600 & 300, + 1 water, then stopped twice for top-ups on water.

Plain white sugar comprised ~85% of her total carbs. Gatorade was the remainder. Sodium Citrate were her electrolytes. Plus 2 caffeine tabs. One pre-ride, one mid-ride for 400mg caffeine. She weighs 63kg for reference.

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

This thread is useful throuhgout. How are people getting 100g+ carbs in a bottle? - #198 by Dr_Alex_Harrison

[Richard_Williams]

@Dr_Alex_Harrison

How I do it:
Saving Money as an Endurance Athlete

Thank you for the tip on saving money.

Do you mix the sodium with the glucose/frutose in the same bottle.

[Dr_Alex_Harrison]

Yes.
Front bottle = carbs + sodium + water
Back bottle = water only

[bbarrera]

Needed to buy new water bottles last year and I got color coded:

• blue top = water only
• black top = electrolytes (if eating food) or carbs+electrolytes