is this really for diabetes or just their way to finally get approved for usa?
It’s pure snake oil IMO. Take a medical device for diabetes, market the crap out it with pro athlete endorsements, and voila you have a product. Where are the studies showing that this is a game changer for training? Where’s the 10% FTP increase or the world/national TT podiums because a supersapiens was used?
3 Likes
But haven’t you heard?
“CGM is the best thing to happen to cycling training since the heart rate monitor!” according to the ads.
Sources: none.
I guess they forgot about the invention of the power meter…
2 Likes
No snake oil. I used a CGM for 4 months at the beginning of the year and it was absolutely one of the greatest learning and training aids I have ever used or am aware of. Gave me tremendous insight as to how my body was reacting to different foods, stress, various efforts on the bike, illness, etc. Helped me improve my blood sugar maintenance on and off the bike, and helped me dial in a nutrition strategy for keeping my blood glucose where I needed it for performance without massive spikes and crashes.
Like a power meter or HR monitor, it is a tool that can be used to improve your training and performance. At this point, the only negative I can see is the cost, and the slightly variable accuracy.
6 Likes
They will have better luck getting it approved for non-medical use than for targeting diabetes, IME…the validation studies required for a 510(K) for medical devices is pretty extensive.
Much easier to make non-medical claims…
And honestly, good luck to them getting into the Diabetes category. They will be going up against billion dollar pharma companies with DEEEEEP promotional pockets. In addition, they are (to the best of my knowledge) just using the Abbott device, not a proprietary device they are producing themselves. SO what is their point of differentiation vs. the Abbot CGM and how do they justify their price premium over Abbott?
Tough market to crack…
Supersapiens or just a CGM? Are you diabetic?
How did you change your fueling?
Why would a non-diabetic person experience massive spikes and crashes while riding?
2 Likes
Their app is the only difference.
1 Like
I used a Dexcom CGM. Like power meters or HR monitors, there are minor differences between CGMs, but they all provide essentially the same information. The Supersapiens website and newsletter have been useful resources in developing fueling strategies.
FWIW, I was diabetic 10 years ago, but reversed my diabetes through diet and exercise.
Second question first: Probably not “massive”, but certainly more than ideal under certain circumstances. We’ve all had days on the bike when it felt like we could go hard forever, and most of us have bonked at some point. If you can hit an ideal BG level and keep it there, you’ll be able to perform at a higher level.
What I found worked for me was 20-30g of high glycemic index carbs shortly before getting on the bike and 80-100 grams of carbs an hour in a drink mix (1:1 fructose and maltodextrin with scoop of beet powder). That keeps my BG fairly steady in post-prandial levels throughout my workout.
FWIW, the CGM was also useful for identifying foods that were producing larger than expected spikes in BG, and showing the impact of stress and sleep quality on BG. If CGMs were more affordable, I’d love to have the information available year round, but would absolutely make one a regular part of of my training.
BB
4 Likes
My question was really more rhetorical……they are using the Abbott device. And while I have not used the Abbott app, I’m pretty sure it is a pretty robust experience (billions of revenue dollars will do that).
SS is entering into a highly competitive market (against competitors with tens of millions of dollars for promotions), with little to no brand recognition and a me-too product that has no price advantage.
An app won’t be a key differentiator……
I’m going to disagree with you here, the app can make all the difference. If it can provide useful metrics to analyze and use for improvement, better than other tools of it’s kind, then it can be a huge differentiator.
I don’t only use TR to follow blue bars, I use it because it’s a powerful tool to analyze my training.
3 Likes
I disagree. If the app is specifically targeting athletic performance, that’s a difference worth paying for. I can certainly tell you from personal experience that there is a huge difference between nutritional strategies for athletes vs non-athletes. A product targeted at weight lass, for instance, would specifically direct users to maintain a much lower BG level than is desirable for performance.
1 Like
Then you are targeting a very small piece of the diabetic market.
Which is fine, but the potential revenue is going to be very small.
ETA - and it would be very simple for a company like Abbott to include similar metrics analysis for athletes. In the end, they have WAY more data, nutritional experts and expertise than SS.
1 Like
I thought we were talking about whether a tool was useful, not doing investment analysis. But niche products for athletes aren’t rare. We’re using one right now.
Note that adapting SS for diabetics is likely a smaller leap than adapting a general use product for athletes. But I’ll leave that for the investors and programmers. If SS makes it to the US and is affordable I’ll absolutely take advantage of it.
2 Likes
I never said it was “bad”…in fact, I specifically said the opposite. (I was also not the one who labeled it “snake oil”)
Abbott has an entire business division dedicated to diabetes, and not just glucose monitors. Nutritional supplements, etc. (Not to mention their infant formula business). They drive billions of dollars of revenue. Providing diabetes care is a wholistic approach, not just making monitors.
I’m not bashing SS…in fact, I have used their product as part of their trial in the US that started at SBT GRVL last year. I think it is a great product (if somewhat overpriced).
I am questioning their business decision to directly enter the diabetes market. I have outlined the reasons why it is a tough proposition (and I haven’t even touched the issue of reimbursement, etc.)
Appologies, for labelling you, mixing two people into one was part of the reason for my rant, should know, and now that I have read your posts back with my glasses on (my excuse for mixing you up) I can see the error of my ways, sorry for my post
1 Like
Perhaps you were confusing my posts with other posters…I think I have been fairly straightforward in my thoughts.
I have some professional experience in the market and know first-hand how hard it can be. As a consumer medical device company, we have tried to push into the glucose monitor business. With minor success in other global regions, it has been next-to-impossible in the US market for all the reasons I outlined above. My division strongly advised against the strategy in the first place (especially since we were just sourcing monitors form another supplier)…so we had no brand, no technological differences and no price advantage. We also lacked the promotional funding necessary.
There is a reason the category is dominated by billion dollar companies…it is high revenue business that they protect fiercely.
1 Like
Sure…there is definitely a market for it. Cracking it is one thing and then sustaining it will be another.
Look at it this way…if you are Abbott, you have already decided that the athlete market is too small to pursue (I assume so since they opted to let SS use their product vs. going after the market themselves). If SS starts to have success in the diabetes market, then it would be relatively easy for Abbott to simply develop similar features into their own app, using their own (arguably superior) expertise. I don’t believe their is any proprietary analytics involved in the SS app, just targeting glucose monitoring towards athletes.
So Abbott can simply let SS have their little piece of the pie and benefit by selling them devices, or if they see substantial market opportunity, they come in and essentially squash SS with their market dominance. Win-win.
Getting 510(K) clearnace (not approval) form the FDA can be challenging…and expensive. IMO, SS’s original strategy was / is the right one…not targeted for medical use, which loosens some of the requirements (and can even remove the need for 510(K)'s in some instances).
An example would be Normatec…they market two different Sequential Compression Devices, one for professional medical use and another targeting the athletic community. They are essentially the same device (like almost literally, based on my discussions with them)…the only “difference” is in how they market them. They make no medical claims about the boots we all know. For the version that is 510(K) cleared, they can make claims about preventing clots, etc.
So in this sense, going after the non-medical market (and really, creating a whole new category) is a brilliant move for SS…they are able to compete only against themselves and looser requirements for 510(K).
I don’t know why they have had issues getting an OTC 510(K) for the US market…it was my understanding that the study they ran with participants from SBT GRVL was designed to gather data to get the 510(K) / clearance they needed. Which is also what baffles me about trying to directly enter the diabetes market…if they have not been able to get the 510(K) for non-medical use, the 510(K) for medical use is usually harder to obtain. Seems like a tough road to hoe…
Will be interesting to see what develops.
1 Like
It is probably worth noting that they are not exclusively in the diabetic athlete market. They are very clearly marketing to all athletes. But as part of that effort, it makes perfect sense to target athletes who are already more BG aware than your average athlete, and who need more sophisticated monitoring and strategies. Given that many of those athletes already associate SS with being an athletic performance company, they have a leg up over a much larger general market company.
I hope you saw where I addressed this above…I 100% agree with their primary business model. I am questioning their decision to enter the diabetes category as a secondary opportunity (at least in the US market).