Beet juice... what are you taking?

This is a good suggestion. I like to take a shot of beet kvass before or after a tough run. Probiotics help digest it for me.

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Your question is akin to asking, why would having more red blood cells increase VO2max? After all, your body makes those as well; shouldn't the amount produced normally/naturally be optimal? (The answer, obviously, is no, at least with respect to VO2max.)

Not at all. In the case of RBC's, it's clear enough that there is no surplus capable of handling any level of gas exchange the muscles and lungs require of them. That is not at all clear with NO; you haven't demonstrated that there isn't plenty of that available for any workload. What I'm asking is more akin to why should eating extra carbs let you run farther, a myth that led countless people to pointlessly "carbo-load" for decades.

I'm not interested in dime-a-dozen "supplement improves performance" studies, but a coherent description of the mechanism by which that supposedly happens. I'm sure there were plenty of studies supporting carbo-loading too, but the concept of storing extra glycogen was bunk. Creatine loading was another baseless supplement fad. Are you saying you can somehow "load up" on NO, and if so: where is it stored, how quickly is it used up/replenished, how specifically does it create the advantage beyond the amounts already present?

Are you saying you can somehow "load up" on NO, and if so: where is it stored, how quickly is it used up/replenished, how specifically does it create the advantage beyond the amounts already present?

Clearly you are just trolling, but for the benefit of others, the answers to your questions above can be found in the recent studies of muscle nitrate metabolism by Piknova, Schechter, et al., as well as in our review that I previously cited and also earlier reviews by, e.g., Jones.

Bad Wigins wrote:

[quote]Andrew Coggan wrote:

I'm not interested in dime-a-dozen "supplement improves performance" studies, but a coherent description of the mechanism by which that supposedly happens. I'm sure there were plenty of studies supporting carbo-loading too, but the concept of storing extra glycogen was bunk. Creatine loading was another baseless supplement fad. Are you saying you can somehow "load up" on NO, and if so: where is it stored, how quickly is it used up/replenished, how specifically does it create the advantage beyond the amounts already present?

Agree with Dr. Coggan that you are likely trolling...

But show me the evidence that glycogen super compensation doesn't exist? While the methods of getting there have changed, there are numerous studies independently reproducing the concept that you can increase glycogen storage, and that is beneficial for performance. Similarly, creatine is one of the few supplements to have solid experimental evidence showing it can be taken up by muscle to increase concentrations. As alluded to in previous posts, new evidence from Andy Jones' lab has also shown that there is a nitrate/nitrite store within muscle, which may be important for improving the contractile characteristics (Ca2+ handling etc.) - an area Dr. Coggan has published in.

a handle a day wrote:

YMMV wrote:

I simply shared a fact, and you threw a tantrum with o counterevidence. I will concede that your brain damage may have etiology other than vegan malnutrition.

You simply shared a lie, as you do on a daily basis.

As you insult me again, go fvck yourself, you lying pork-breath turd.

Big words posted anonymously..... tone it down. if you cant take it just stop posting...

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Are you saying you can somehow "load up" on NO, and if so: where is it stored, how quickly is it used up/replenished, how specifically does it create the advantage beyond the amounts already present?

Clearly you are just trolling, but for the benefit of others, the answers to your questions above can be found in the recent studies of muscle nitrate metabolism by Piknova, Schechter, et al., as well as in our review that I previously cited and also earlier reviews by, e.g., Jones.

Coggan, you are an old school fool. Wigins is right to question your dogmatic beliefs. You are still clinging to a very old model of oxygen delivery that was already long out of date when you were taught it.

Actually it was nonsense even when it was set in stone in the 1930s. Ever heard of Thornton's Law? It's over 100 years old. You never learned it but it's essential knowledge for anyone claiming to be an 'Exercise Physiologist'.

How do you propose that these supposed increases in energy transfer Stop pontificating get studying.

can be attained without a concomitant increase in heat production? Where is your bioenergetics model to support such grandiose claims. You and Jones need to learn some basic biology and biochemistry, but you won't because you are riding this gravy train of peer reviewed pseudoscience for the rest of your careers.

beet the bush wrote:new evidence from Andy Jones' lab has also shown that there is a nitrate/nitrite store within muscle

Barbora Piknova and Alan Schechter at NIH's intramural labs actually deserve the credit here:

Jean Nyakayiru working in Luc van Loon's lab was the first to extend this work to humans (although they messed up on the tissue processing, and couldn't measure nitrite):

We have collected a fair bit of data using the method described in this paper, but not ready to publish it yet:

Another pathetic troll. For the life of me I don't understand what motivates people like you to post this sort of nonsense. Does it somehow make you feel more important? Are you just hoping to get a rise out of people? Seriously, I really don't get it.

(Now really subtle trolling I do understand, as there the game is see if you can people guessing whether you truly believe what you write.)

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Another pathetic troll. For the life of me I don't understand what motivates people like you to post this sort of nonsense. Does it somehow make you feel more important? Are you just hoping to get a rise out of people? Seriously, I really don't get it.

(Now really subtle trolling I do understand, as there the game is see if you can people guessing whether you truly believe what you write.)

No I'm not trolling. You are making fantastic claims. This is what you do. What is your bioenergetics model? What is your oxygen uptake model? It is based on fantastic claims from the 1930s that ignore thermodynamics. You learned this stupid dogma back in the 1980s and it was out of date even then. You don't even recognize Thornton's law as it relates to exercise physiology.

STOP MAKING FANTASTIC CLAIMS OF SUPPLEMENT EFFICACY.

Mr Gullible wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Another pathetic troll. For the life of me I don't understand what motivates people like you to post this sort of nonsense. Does it somehow make you feel more important? Are you just hoping to get a rise out of people? Seriously, I really don't get it.

(Now really subtle trolling I do understand, as there the game is see if you can people guessing whether you truly believe what you write.)

No I'm not trolling.

Then let me guess: you probably don't believe in climate change, but do believe that there was a second shooter on the grassy knoll, that the moon landing was shot in a Hollywood soundstage, that Obama was born in Kenya, and that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 US elections? Am I right, or am I right?

Where is your bioenergetics model? Where is your biomechanics model? Where is your understanding of the two integrated?

You never answer the tough questions because you can't.

We have a thermodynamic framework in which we operate and you can't grasp this or relate it to your 1930s dogma so you ignore it.

I don't have a "bioenergetics model" (although I do have a degree in human bioenergetics). I also don't have a "biomechanics model" (although I do know a few biomechanists). It is therefore difficult for me to understand how to integrate them (or to understand what it is you are ranting about).

So with your degree in bioenergetics you will know that we operate within a thermodynamic framework and this puts a limit on our physical performance?

And with your knowledge of biomechanics you will know that our efficiency is greatly dependent on the above and our skill at being able to perform at a given intensity for a certain length of time as well as our adaption to the atmospheric conditions?

And yet you wish to promote Beet juice as a performance enhancer that supposedly reduces oxygen cost for a given intensity with spurious evidence and many reports of no such benefit?

Wouldn't it be more honest and intelligent to state that race performances are variable due to many different reasons and that the researchers' bias in believing a supposed reduced oxygen cost from using beet juice has deluded them into fantastic claims that this product is a performance enhancer? As is true of many other supposed performance enhancers?

You are well known for giving training advice to racing cyclists. You must surely be aware how they are worse than runners for believing any old nonsense regarding supposed performance enhancing products? Has this affected your own beliefs? I am certain that it has, because it's a very contagious disease.

I wrote this earlier, but somehow I must not have hit "Post Reply."

Dr. Coggan, thank you for taking the time to post and for providing links. I will take a look at them. I'm not a scientist and I barely understand some of the things that these studies discuss, but I will add this.

Humans appear to vary significantly in their response to many natural substances. As long as there are no significant adverse side effects, I really don't care how beet juice affects the masses. I'm interested in how it affects highly trained athletes over the age of 50.

Simply put, I want to be able to train harder and recover faster. As an elite 72-year-old middle distance runner, recovery is currently my biggest nemesis.

I've seen enough anecdotal positive responses to give it an experiment-of-one by trying it. Now, I'm looking for brand recommendations. I really appreciated the juicer approach. I'm sure I'll give that a try as well.

As for those of you who think this is snake oil, I'm completely okay with your opinion. If anyone out there has tried beet juice and it did not work, I'd like to hear from you as well.

Apparently you haven't read my prior posts, or at least not carefully enough. I already made the point that dietary nitrate supplementation often *fails* to enhance *endurance* performance in *well-trained* individuals. Why that is is still really a matter of speculation (as is the precise mechanism by which it reduces oxygen consumption and hence improves endurance performance in less-trained/untrained individuals, patients with heart failure, PAD, etc., in the first place) but clearly I have not been "promoting" beetroot juice.

Despite the above facts, I am sure that you will continue to offer vague criticisms and misdirected commentary. That is, after all, what ineffectual trolls do.

1. You're welcome.

2. Indeed, you are correct, i.e., there seem to be high and low-responders to dietary nitrate (just like there are to anything else). With respect to the effects of dietary nitrate on muscle speed and power, we explored potential mechanisms that might account for this fact in this study (hint: it doesn't seem to be related to muscle fiber type):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29368802

3. There are, in fact, possible detrimental effects of beetroot juice supplements, i.e., high oxalate content and potential carcinogenicity of nitrate/nitrite.

4. If it is brand-specific information you are seeking, you can refer to Edgar's study that I previously posted. I would not rely on just tossing a few beets in blender/juicer, though, as the nitrate content of beets can vary up to 6-fold, even when different varietals* are grown in the same plot together.

*Who knew that there were beet varietals, just like grapes/wine?

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Apparently you haven't read my prior posts, or at least not carefully enough. I already made the point that dietary nitrate supplementation often *fails* to enhance *endurance* performance in *well-trained* individuals. Why that is is still really a matter of speculation (as is the precise mechanism by which it reduces oxygen consumption and hence improves endurance performance in less-trained/untrained individuals, patients with heart failure, PAD, etc., in the first place) but clearly I have not been "promoting" beetroot juice.

Despite the above facts, I am sure that you will continue to offer vague criticisms and misdirected commentary. That is, after all, what ineffectual trolls do.

Maybe you should read your own posts?

I don't think many of these natural supplements work that well with middle-aged individuals in terms of being able to train harder & recovery faster. Testosterone and other hormones decline too much in your middle-age (by the time a man reaches 60, he has less than half the T-levels he had at age-25 peak levels). This is why many competitive middle-age bodybuilders use HRT - you just can't build muscle with declining hormones (no surprises tbere).

I'm an old beat up 60 yr old who doesn't race anymore due to too many acute & chronic injuries, including 2 tendon ruptures (plus chronic back pain from an acute injury while playing college football back in the late 70s). A lot of guys I know in the gym (where I do most of my fitness training these days) are using TRT. Some are former D-1 college football and basketball players. In working out with them, their recovery is phenomenal, body fat melts away and they look good. Most of them have tried various supplements to no avail. Physiologically, testosterone and other hormones just can't be replaced to youthful levels through diet & supplementation. Low-T centers are cropping everywhere these days - TRT may be future for many aging people as our longevity increases and we want to be active (and look good) well into our retirement years.

This is 73 yr old Jeffery Life - amazing, that is one heck of a physique at the age!

Mr Gullible wrote:

Maybe you should read your own posts?

You mean where I wrote this (in my very 1st post)?

"It is also equivocal whether nitrate supplementation has any beneficial effect on *endurance* performance, at least in trained athletes"

Or do you mean where I later wrote this?

"again, the available evidence suggests that well-trained endurance athletes don't benefit from nitrate supplementation"

Or maybe you mean this?

"when you look carefully at the literature the evidence that nitrate supplementation improves performance in well-trained *endurance* athletes is equivocal at best. Indeed, even in moderately trained/physically active subjects it only increases sustainable power by ~2%. "

Maybe this?

"Beet Elite is an interesting product. In addition to beet powder, it is spiked with nitrite, and thus elevates plasma nitrite and (breath) nitric oxide more rapidly than other beet/nitrate-based products. However, it doesn't contain all that much nitrate, and in fact a study from Andy Jones's lab showed that the earlier elevation in plasma nitrate and nitrite is not maintained over time."

Perhaps this?

"The nitrate content of various beet-based products (and of beets themselves) varies enormously"

This?

"watch out for GI distress, pink urine or stools, and, yes, the relatively high oxalate content if you are prone to kidney stones. "

Or this?

"Beets are relatively high in oxalate. If you are prone to kidney stones, guzzling lots and lots of beet juice might not be the best idea"

Or this?

"While we are on the topic of safety, *any* food source containing large amounts of nitrate and especially nitrite will increase formation of potentially carcinogenic nitrosamines. This includes vegetables such as beets"

Please, point me towards where you think that I was doing anything other than stating facts, so that I can address your concerns more directly.