Beet juice... what are you taking?

Mr Gullible wrote:

Maybe this? :

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29368802-dietary-nitrate-induced-increases-in-human-muscle-power-high-versus-low-responders/

What about it?

As the data in that paper demonstrates, in terms of the effects on neuromuscular power, there seem to be both high- and low-responders to dietary nitrate supplementation. The same has been reported for the effects on endurance performance. With respect to the latter, well-trained athletes seem to be less likely to benefit, but with respect to the former, that doesn't seem to be important (i.e., trained as well as untrained individuals benefit...or at least about 3/4s of them do).

Now if you think that simply stating facts is somehow "selling beetjuice", well, sorry, but I can't help you there. Facts are just that, facts, and it is a fact that numerous studies have demonstrated that dietary nitrate supplementation increases maximal muscle speed and power (cf. our paper in ESSR for review). If this were not true, we wouldn't have been provided >$1M by NIH to study the matter.

So how much did the >$1M influence the "facts"?

I'm not doubting the message signalling. I'm dubious about every study and the conclusions drawn from the data and the way data is collected etc etc.

That's just as it should be. I am aware of the correct scientific method of testing a hypothesis and not trying to prove a hypothesis.

Back in '99 I wrote a letter to Mr Boardman with my super insightful ideas about RBCs and natural Hematocrit boosting, cuz I was Mr Gullible about the whole shebang. But then I questioned the dogma and realized the whole issue was nonsense because everyone was ignoring the thermodynamics of oxygen uptake. And they still are. Look at Mr Armstrong's supposed power outputs and then consider his real power outputs. There is a huge difference between the belief and the reality.

That's what I mean when I say that Ex Phys is stuck in the 1930s and if you go back and look at where this Supercalometric mythology comes from and how it has influenced all the researchers you cited in another thread on the subject. A whole world of delusion.

Considering that our results have essentially been replicated in numerous other laboratories, the answer to your first question is, "not at all".

As for the rest, I still think you are trolling. Either that, or you don't live in the same fact-based universe as the rest of us.

Okay, to your second point. Show me how I'm wrong? LA 38 minutes up Alp d'Huez 13.8k @21.8 kmh 8.3% grade.

So his VO2 max pace would be 24 kmh on that grade. That is not a superhuman power output.

The idea that it is is delusional. And this delusion has been in the sport for a very long time.

You ignore every point I make because you can't accept your own gullibilty on these issues. You are basically denying that thermoregulation is real. And you've got the gall to say I'm trolling.

What's really scary is that you have a degree in Bioenergetics and you don't even understand heat transfer and energy transfer.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or what your point is. I imagine that 99.999999999999999999999999999999% of others here feel the same way.

ETA: if you wish to estimate Armstrong's power output, I recommend the mathematical model described in this study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121252

Andrew Coggan wrote:

I have no idea what you are talking about, or what your point is.

Yes I know. That's what bothers me. The point is the the supposed epitome of doped up super human cycling is actually a normal power output for elite athletes and that exercise physiology is corrupted by the most dreadful pseudoscience dating back to the 1930s

In a nutshell, there is no enhanced calorimetry attainable from either training or drugs but many of your colleagues don't understand this.

We know Armstrong doped, or at least he said that he did. Others, however, have generated essentially the same power, but deny doping. So, what is "superhuman", and what isn't?

In any case, what does any of this have to do with your claims re. classic exercise physiology? More importantly, what does it have to do with the efficacy of, e.g., dietary nitrate? I fail to see the connection (and as anyone who knows me could tell you, I am logical to a fault).

Andrew Coggan wrote:

We know Armstrong doped, or at least he said that he did. Others, however, have generated essentially the same power, but deny doping. So, what is "superhuman", and what isn't?

In any case, what does any of this have to do with your claims re. classic exercise physiology? More importantly, what does it have to do with the efficacy of, e.g., dietary nitrate? I fail to see the connection (and as anyone who knows me could tell you, I am logical to a fault).

LA gave a presentation to a Sports Ethics class at CU-Boulder back in 2016. He characterizes EPO as a "high-octane" PED for endurance athletes vs "low-octance" PEDs (e.g., androgens, GH, corticosteroids). He says it's a 10% boost in performance (i.e. "Ten-Percenter"). Anecdotally, if anyone would know it would be him. ?

Yeah, there is absolutely no question that increasing hematocrit (via blood transfusion or EPO) increases endurance performance substantially. Although the US military apparently did experiments back in the 1940s, this was the study that really definitively proved it:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7380690

Nothing like a thread, whch could have been interesting, being taken over by 2 pussies having a slap fight.

C'mon, are you telling me you haven't learned anything interesting from any of the things that I have posted?

If not, what the heck were hoping to read...more anecdotal reports from people who just threw some beets in a blender and believe that is what made them fly?

[quote]Andrew Coggan wrote:

Yeah, there is absolutely no question that increasing hematocrit (via blood transfusion or EPO) increases endurance performance substantially.

Sorry, but you'rs spouting dreadful dogma. This is what I'm trying to get through to you, that you have these delusional beliefs in so called performance enhancers. It's the same thing with Andy Jones belief in Beetroot juice supposedly improving oxygen economy. Oxygen economy is a vastly complicated subject involving Biochemistry, Neuroscience, training concepts, mood changes, the surfaces we run or bike on and the equipment technologies we use.

But despite your cautionary disclaimers, this product is being aggressively marketed as a performance enhancer and the potential to exploit gullible people is considerable.

Now back to EPO/blood tranfusion dogma; just how do you propose that having more red blood cells circumvents thermoregulation? The problem is, despite your degree in Bioenergetics, you don't seem to understand the question.

Not dogma, published science.

Exercise economy/efficiency is indeed determined by numerous factors, but that doesn't make it hard to quantify. The changes due to nitrate ingestion are small, but do seem to be real, as this meta-analysis shows:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26772523

Finally, as for blood doping/EPO/thermoregulation, there is no conflict: if you can turn over ATP more rapidly and go faster because you can deliver more oxygen, you will create more heat that needs to be dissipated. However, since that is also largely the job of the CV system, then blood doping/EPO may help with that process as well (since blood flow to muscle can be reduced).

I'm the OP. I've purchased several bottles of Lakewood Organic Pure Beet Juice based on its rating in Dr. Coggan's review of beet juice products showing the sample they tested as having 18.77 mmol/500ml serving of NO3 (sorry, the 3 should be superscript, but I don't know how to make superscripts).

I do three hard track workouts/week. I plan to test beet juice by taking 250ml (9.38mmols of NO3) of beet juice 2.5 hours before one of these workouts and then do the same workout later in the week without beet juice. I'll track HR, time, perceived exertion level, and next-day recovery.

BACKGROUND: I'm 72. I do 3 interval or tempo workouts/week and 3-4 hard weightlifting workouts/week. I run ~15 miles/week so my endurance training is lacking, but I'm not a distance runner. My events are the 400 and 800m.

Obviously, this will be an unscientific experiment-of-one. If anyone has suggestions on how to improve this approach, let me know.

Regardless of whether there is a perceived difference, I plan to try a couple more beet juice products. If you have recommendations for a specific product, let me know. I am currently looking at the Beet It Sport Pro Elite shot (70ml) and Dr. Mercola's Fermented Beet and Red Spinach. I trust Mercola's products for purity so that's why it's on the list.

My biggest question at this point is whether I should supplement daily or whether I can get by with only supplementation before hard workouts. Lakewood's cost/serving isn't too bad, but Beet It's $3.50/serving/day is pricey for me, especially if I need to take it every day.

I'm impressed with your regimen fisky. I hope that in a couple decades, when I reach your current age, that I'm doing the same things (except for taking beets or other ineffective and potentially harmful supplements...).

Appreciate the discussion and willingness to share evidenced here.

I have been taking about 4-6 grams of organic beet root powder (mixed with a little black pepper for absorption purposes) before runs every day for several months. I have noticed no gains or benefits.

Simply put, in your opinion, is there anything besides the smallest of gains to be got for your average runner in doing so based on current research?

I realize some products may be marginally more effective. But for me, at least, i am not willing to pay more than a fraction of a dollar per dose.

THanks in advance.

My take on the literature is that any effect lasts only as long as nitrate/nitrite levels are elevated. At a typical dose in a younger individual, that's about 24 h. Aging may, or may not, slow clearance, however, *perhaps* depending on how well your kidneys function. (I am submitting a grant to NIA next week proposing to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ingested nitrate in older subjects in detail.)

IOW, no need to supplement on a daily basis.

I have yet to come across any beetroot powder that provides enough nitrate per recommended dose to expect any physiological effects. You therefore might as well save those few pennies.

Note: for Edgar's paper, we kept careful track of what each product cost us, so that we could include that information in the paper. We ended spending >$1000 on beet juice, most of which we just poured down the drain. (My son liked the taste of the Beet Fizz, so I let him drink the two dozen plus cans we had to buy to test just one. At something like $8/can, though, I told him that when it was gone, it was gone.) As it turned out, there really wasn't anything much less expensive than about $3/"dose", which is about what Beet It costs. We eventually decided, however, not to include these calculations in the paper, as local costs may vary considerably.