• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Cyclist in need of Mitochondrial Biogenesis


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 RideToLive

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 May 2009 - 03:32 PM


Fellow Cyclists. I've read some of your experiences in regards to resveratrol supplementation. I'm curious to learn more. I'm a USA Level II Cycling Coach with athletes spread about the country. I keep close tracks of their training, nutrition and supplementation routines.

Recently, I had two team mates bring to my attention their usage of resveratrol. My first concern was to ensure they weren't in violation of any USDA Doping Controls. Secondly, I wanted to ensure the safety of their supplementation. I'm fortunate here, because I have advanced Physiology Degrees and retain access to most all scientific publications. I've previously vetted their use of bulk Quercetin and FRS Energy products.

From my searching, it appears that most do not believe significant mitochondrial biogenesis is possible at lower dosages to affect V02Max or V02@CP30 (Critical Power 30 minutes). I accepted from my athletes that there was some biogenesis occurring, because both were in periodization phases that would not typically result in strong physiological gains they obtained. After doing my reading, they offered a 60 day supply for my testing of BF 500mg - Trans-resveratrol 98+% (RSV98). While they had been taking 1.5-2.0gms per day, I opted for a single 500mg dose accompanied by post workout meal. After 45 days, I can say I've had big gains, not reflective of any other training period since 1982-83 as a 24yo Cat II Racer. Hematocrit, Hemoglobin, and Cardiac Output remain unchanged from pre-RSV98 supplementation. however, the increased peripheral changes at the muscle are obvious, but still undocumented by biopsy.

Pleasantly surprised with my own results, I've order some un-capped micronized resveratrol (M98) from RevGenetics to continue my supplementation. Two questions remain:

1. Do I stay at 300-600mg with micronized, or ramp up for better results? I can't put my finger on the empirical research that points directly at the answer, so I trust some of you cyclists will have strong anecdotal experiences. My intent is to continue my pre-workout quercetin supplementation, and use M98 for post-workout recovery periods.

2. One dose, or split multiple doses 4-5 hours apart? One within 30 minutes after WO (10 minutes sublingual with whey/carb recovery drink to chase), and another dose five hours post-workout? Peak, or sustained for mitochondrial biogenesis?

I'm hoping this supplementation will springboard some altitude training over the next few weeks. I train 10-16 hours/week on average depending on periodization cycle. Most all my workouts are concluded by 0900 on weekdays and 1100 on weekends.

Recommendations, observations and insight welcome.

#2 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,299 posts
  • 406
  • Location:NW

Posted 20 May 2009 - 03:53 PM

- i would stay in the 300-600 mg range, no higher. lower size doses is really how the substance works over time. it is based on the theory of hormesis, where a small amount of poison helps you build up an immunity/tolerance. too much and you end up doing damage to yourself.

- divided doses with AM and noon meals, might be fine. almost everyone takes 1 dose in the AM upon waking. this is what i do. i would not take it at night.

- you never want SUSTAINED mitogenesis, because it is simply not natural. the body has a circadian rhythm... eat/work/rest, etc. no one is asking you to cycle on your bike 24 hrs a day, don't try to make your body do something it shouldn't.

- there is a documented synergistic effect of resveratrol with quercetin.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,935 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 May 2009 - 08:54 PM

While there are no formal studies on resveratrol dose vs VO2 max, velopismo reported very impressive improvements in his performance and recovery with doses in the 1 to 2 gram range. His wife showed similar improvement, if I remember correctly. I measured about a 5 to 7% improvement in power output for a half hour test on a Computrainer over the previous year, with less training, and doses at between 2 and 3 grams. My wattage figures were comparable to what I was doing over a decade ago. Another cyclist in this group reported remarkable improvement in his hill-climbing on group rides; he uses a combination of resveratrol, polydatin (which metabolizes to resveratrol) and luteolin, which is even better than quercetin at inhibiting sulfonation of resveratrol, as well as surfactants to improve absorption.

In vitro tests have shown the degree of mitochondrial biogenesis to be dose dependent: the more the better at least to some point. Possible adverse effects seem to be tendinitis or joint pain though this is not seen in everyone, or even in most who use it. I believe resveratrol is better taken in the morning to work with the body's recently discovered natural circadian variance in Sirt1 levels, as this might prevent such tendinitis. Before or after workout may not make much difference, though some people report feeling energized taking resveratrol befor workouts; this may be placebo effect. 98 or 99% resveratrol powder dissolves in whey protein drinks, which may function as well as a surfactant to increase absorption. It would be a convenient way (in whey) to take resveratrol and there is a cost advantage to powder versus pills.

There was a rumor that the UCI were looking into a test for resveratrol. As it stays in one's blood for well under an hour and the training effects probably last for weeks, this is a likely a forlorn effort.

I do not think doses under a gram will show much improvement in a normal periodization cycle, or even over several, but one could always try it and hope for the best.

Edited by maxwatt, 20 May 2009 - 08:58 PM.


#4 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 728 posts
  • 151
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 20 May 2009 - 11:58 PM

Interesting post, RideToLive, thanks. I would say your post is at least one of the more detailed ones we've seen in terms of a positive effect since you are a professional athlete/coach. I think most of us around here are weakened-warriors, as MaxWatt once said,
and so our reports are much more anecdotal. I've certainly noticed improvements in my "athletic" performance. eg, daily workouts of either running, biking and/or weight training but cannot quantify.

I would stick w/ the higher doses as Maxwatt says as that is where mitochondrial biogenesis by Auwerx was first noted (2006) (since that is what you are seeking). Quercetin does show a positive synergistic effect so I would continue to include that as well. Personally, I
would shoot for 1 higher dose, say 1-2 grams, (in the AM) vs. the same total amount split several times over the day. You want to get your plasma and intracellular levels as high as possible (which is not easy w/ resveratrol) in order to bind to the proper receptors (Sirt1, PGC-1 alpha, etc) and stimulate biogenesis amongst its other positive effects. Now if we could only get our hands on some of that SIRT1720....... ;)

Please keep posting your results. Thanks!!

#5 RideToLive

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 May 2009 - 12:05 AM

Thanks so far guys. I'll check the dosages and resveratrol type these guys used. I've seen some of their posts, but failed to record type/amounts. I have referred to the absorption study illustrating the peak plasma concentration differences between trans resveratrol and micronized resveratrol. I want to ensure I won't be over reaching for no reason.

The post WO M98 supplementation with Whey works out very well. Three days a week, I'm on the Computrainer (CT) by 0530, and off by 0700. I usually have the PostWO shake around 0800. I have a mid-morning meal, then have a pre-afternoon WO meal around 1230-1300 that includes a supplemental dose of Whey. That may be a good time for a split dose of M98 should that have better benefits than single dose. However, it looks as if single dose is preferred.

I've ran a number of athletes through CT Ramp tests, both for V02 and threshold estimations. While I'm not sampling gas, the watt output is about as stable as any lab device under normal controlled and well calibrated conditions. I was involved with a hyperoxic gas study last year, and we brought the CT in for some training during the study. We were pleased to find great linear correlation with lab equipment and metabolic carts results. I would be fun to run a small "out of band" pilot with some disciplined masters athletes M98 (5-10mg/kg) vs. M98 (25-30mg/kg). Verify blood parameters, set training loads, set supplementation protocols, then do some CP6 and CP30 testing at 14 and 45 days. Not pure science, but none the less, pretty good data to reflect upon.

I've been on both ends of the biopsy needle. Hard to get athletes motivated to sacrifice vastus lateralus unless they get a new training dimension that will have tangible benefits. There can be so much to infer from simplier, non-invasive efforts.

"no one is asking you to cycle on your bike 24 hrs a day, don't try to make your body do something it shouldn't"

I'm with you there. I've done a few 24 hour races in the last few years, and two 500+ milers back in the 80's.... 29:53 in the saddle. Your body is wacked hormonally and physiologically after those type efforts. The same will occur with over-stimulation through supplementation.

No Pro License here ... the kids are too fast now and I only have 12-15 a week to train. However, it's cool to ride with my younger athletes and feel their energy. Makes me remember how it was to be 19-25 racing hard with nothing to lose.


Edited by RideToLive, 21 May 2009 - 12:24 AM.


#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 May 2009 - 03:33 AM

Thanks for a great post, RideToLive.

There was a rumor that the UCI were looking into a test for resveratrol. As it stays in one's blood for well under an hour and the training effects probably last for weeks, this is a likely a forlorn effort.

I was wondering when this might happen. I'm not so sure that it's a lost cause, though. While resveratrol may drop below therapeutic levels pretty quickly, it will take a lot longer for all species to be below the limits of detection for modern analytical instrumentation. I don't know exactly how long, but I'd bet it's going to be a couple days at least, possibly a lot longer depending on the tissue they sample. Still, the training effects should last far longer than the drug, so as long as you aren't sampled at odd times, you might get away with it.

#7 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 710 posts
  • 85
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 21 May 2009 - 05:29 AM

Still, the training effects should last far longer than the drug,


This is interesting. Any guess on how long, if 500mg or over? I always assumed a week or two....maybe a month.

#8 RideToLive

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 May 2009 - 10:10 AM

I can't tell you specifics, but some of the same techniques that were used on equine and canine are now being used for human Doping Controls. I have close association with a few colleagues that work in the top Racing Lab in the country, and understand the science behind many techniques now used for testing athletes. There are ways around every test for a while, but the risk level during periodic; out of season testing is the kicker that get's most top athletes now.

I've pulled athletes off of ePo and GH. It's that, or I drop association with them. I do that for many reasons. First, ePo or GH is dangerous to an athlete when un-regulated. Secondly, there's no end to their usage. Can an athlete cycle ePo and get away with it. Sure, you bet they can, as long as they know the testing schedule, or compete in venues where testing is not performed. They problem becomes when you get off the drug. Performance soon wanes to pre-supplemented levels. Back in the old days, we didn't have ePo, just Blood Doping. I can tell you first hand as a participant and investigator, it's a Superman like experience to have 500ml of autologous whole blood re-infused. Those 1-2% differences you see in Elite Athletes are magically eroded for a few weeks. However, you sure miss that magical fitness when the effects subside.

I think eventually, we'll see similar things with pharmacological resveratrol products. The techniques will evolve quickly just has with Blood Doping and ePo detection. Irrevocable Trace Markers are getting easier and easier to indentify and support in the courts. I for one never want to be ID'd as a doper. I know guys around me have dabbled with doping agents, as you can see it in their season fitness. 12 weeks of ePo could have me winning many CAT I/II GM events, but 6 weeks later, I could not push the same gear. Not worth it, no way. I'd rather be consistently average, and control the race around me than to have in my mind the pack is behind me and I have to keep up the doping to stay there. I make more money coaching than I ever did racing, and it's not my main profession. I got beat many times in the early 80's on the track by guys "on the roids." I never, ever wanted a podium that bad. I've beaten some Olympiads/Pros, and lost to them as well. None the less, I raced them clean and hard. For those in competition:

http://www.usantidop...rch/search.aspx

http://www.usantidop...g/what/process/

So now, let's step back a bit. While ePo, GH and other doping agents have large risks, I see future in "proper resveratrol supplementation" from a health standpoint. Hey, if it becomes a widespread healthy thing that everyone can do safely. Cool. No different than FRS Energy in my view. However, if it becomes risky or abused, control it and drop cash on detection.

Edited by RideToLive, 21 May 2009 - 10:19 AM.


#9 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,935 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 May 2009 - 10:38 AM

Thanks for a great post, RideToLive.

There was a rumor that the UCI were looking into a test for resveratrol. As it stays in one's blood for well under an hour and the training effects probably last for weeks, this is a likely a forlorn effort.

I was wondering when this might happen. I'm not so sure that it's a lost cause, though. While resveratrol may drop below therapeutic levels pretty quickly, it will take a lot longer for all species to be below the limits of detection for modern analytical instrumentation. I don't know exactly how long, but I'd bet it's going to be a couple days at least, possibly a lot longer depending on the tissue they sample. Still, the training effects should last far longer than the drug, so as long as you aren't sampled at odd times, you might get away with it.


I wonder how they would get liver, heart, lung and brain samples. I can find no studies on long-term retention of the aglycone or metabolites, but guessing based on thisand other papers, there could be something detectable in the urine above normal levels from dietary sources for some time. Tissue retention provides a mechanism for an effect I've noted: with time, lower doses seem to be needed toachieve the same effect.

Br J Nutr. 2006 Jul;96(1):62-70.Links
Distribution of [3H]trans-resveratrol in rat tissues following oral administration.

Abd El-Mohsen M, Bayele H, Kuhnle G, Gibson G, Debnam E, Kaila Srai S, Rice-Evans C, Spencer JP.
School of Food Biosciences, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AP, UK.
Resveratrol has been widely investigated for its potential health properties, although little is known about its metabolism in vivo. Here we investigated the distribution of metabolic products of [3H]trans-resveratrol, following gastric administration. At 2 h, plasma concentrations reached 1.7 % of the administered dose, whilst liver and kidney concentrations achieved 1.0 and 0.6 %, respectively. Concentrations detected at 18 h were lower, being only 0.5 % in plasma and a total of 0.35 % in tissues. Furthermore, whilst kidney and liver concentrations fell to 10 and 25 %, respectively, of concentrations at 2 h, the brain retained 43 % of that measured at 2 h. Resveratrol-glucuronide was identified as the major metabolite, reaching 7 microm in plasma at 2 h. However, at 18 h the main form identified in liver, heart, and brain was native resveratrol aglycone, indicating that it is the main form retained in the tissues. No phenolic degradation products were detected in urine or tissues, indicating that, unlike flavonoids, resveratrol does not appear to serve as a substrate for colonic microflora. The present study provides additional information about the nature of resveratrol metabolites and which forms might be responsible for its in vivo biological effects.
PMID: 16869992



#10 tom a

  • Guest
  • 121 posts
  • 0

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:11 PM

So now, let's step back a bit. While ePo, GH and other doping agents have large risks, I see future in "proper resveratrol supplementation" from a health standpoint. Hey, if it becomes a widespread healthy thing that everyone can do safely. Cool. No different than FRS Energy in my view. However, if it becomes risky or abused, control it and drop cash on detection.


I was wondering what in general is the philosophy behind the decision that a substance represents forbidden doping.

I'd think that if most nutritional supplements, including, say, vitamins, had a positive effect on one's muscle, that would not be regarded as something that needs to be prohibited. Certainly as most of us understand the effects of resveratrol, that's how we expect it might act, though perhaps in a more extreme form. Certainly none of us takes it in the expectation that it will be doing us long term harm -- quite to the contrary. It is, we hope, purely to the good.

If all that proves to be true, would it still be regarded as something to be prohibited, merely on the ground that it confers great competitive benefit?

Edited by tom a, 21 May 2009 - 02:11 PM.


#11 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,935 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 May 2009 - 02:40 PM

So now, let's step back a bit. While ePo, GH and other doping agents have large risks, I see future in "proper resveratrol supplementation" from a health standpoint. Hey, if it becomes a widespread healthy thing that everyone can do safely. Cool. No different than FRS Energy in my view. However, if it becomes risky or abused, control it and drop cash on detection.


I was wondering what in general is the philosophy behind the decision that a substance represents forbidden doping.

I'd think that if most nutritional supplements, including, say, vitamins, had a positive effect on one's muscle, that would not be regarded as something that needs to be prohibited. Certainly as most of us understand the effects of resveratrol, that's how we expect it might act, though perhaps in a more extreme form. Certainly none of us takes it in the expectation that it will be doing us long term harm -- quite to the contrary. It is, we hope, purely to the good.

If all that proves to be true, would it still be regarded as something to be prohibited, merely on the ground that it confers great competitive benefit?


Caffeine in amounts greater than two large and strong cups, or maybe three espresso, was considered doping until maybe three years ago. Now it's off the list, and you can drink as much coffee as you wish.

#12 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 728 posts
  • 151
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 21 May 2009 - 06:35 PM

Caffeine in amounts greater than two large and strong cups, or maybe three espresso, was considered doping until maybe three years ago. Now it's off the list, and you can drink as much coffee as you wish.


Wasn't Alberto Tomba notorious for downing a couple of espressos before crashing thru the slalom gates and winning???

#13 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,935 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 May 2009 - 09:10 PM

Caffeine in amounts greater than two large and strong cups, or maybe three espresso, was considered doping until maybe three years ago. Now it's off the list, and you can drink as much coffee as you wish.


Wasn't Alberto Tomba notorious for downing a couple of espressos before crashing thru the slalom gates and winning???


Or falling.... The Italian press took to calling him "Cicciotombolo ("falling fatty").

#14 VP.

  • Member
  • 436 posts
  • 152

Posted 22 May 2009 - 03:03 AM

Great post ridetolive. I have been searching for years for evidence that "real" athletes were taking resveratrol and now you show that some are. Let me first say I am a 48yr old weekend warrior and in no way do I consider myself an athlete. I have to say I was blown away when I first started taking resveratrol at doses over 300mg in early 2007. It took me from an above average rider on my club rides to the best on most days. I have always believed it could have been a placebo effect but your experience tells me that it probably is not. I did not get a power meter until after supplementation so I have no hard data. The data I do have shows that I have remained steady over the last few years with no major changes in 5s, 30s or longer power levels. I have not changed my riding hours or intensity so that's to be expected. For a short time I was taking 5-10g of 98% res a day just to what happened. I was surprised to see no changes over my normal 1-2 g a day (at night all at once). In fact one day I bonked badly on a long climb that I would normally have no problem with. I don't know if this had any relation to my increased res intake at the time. I did an open cat5 race last year which I did not win but I was the only racer to make the break who was over 40 : ) I also noticed that res seems to aide recovery efforts on the road and off. I seem to recover faster then most riders after hard efforts and bounce back quickly from down times off the bike. Last August I had surgery for a torn rotator cuff (complete break) from some kiteboarding incidents. I did absolutely no aerobic exercise for 10 weeks. When I got back on the bike my riding partners were stunned I had lost very little fitness. They were not happy as they were looking forward to stomping on me. This lead me to believe that res worked better with "untrained rats" but your experience tells me that may not be true. If you have more details please post them. What has res done for your clients power numbers, VO2, 5s, 30s etc? Thanks again for posting.

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 May 2009 - 03:10 AM

For a short time I was taking 5-10g of 98% res a day just to what happened. I was surprised to see no changes over my normal 1-2 g a day (at night all at once). In fact one day I bonked badly on a long climb that I would normally have no problem with. I don't know if this had any relation to my increased res intake at the time.

The high dose res should have pushed your blood sugar down. It seems at least plausible that this would make you more bonk-prone.

#16 stevei

  • Guest
  • 18 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 May 2009 - 10:57 AM

I was wondering what in general is the philosophy behind the decision that a substance represents forbidden doping.

A substance is added to the banned list if it meets two of the following three criteria:
  • The potential for enhanced performance
  • The potential for being detrimental to health
  • Violation of the spirit of sport
Something can therefore be banned even if it is not detrimental to health. Obviously the 3rd criterion in that list is rather vague, so your question could be rephrased as "What is the general philosophy behind the decision that a non-harmful substance violates the spirit of sport?". I don't know the answer to this, but one line of thinking could be that no substance should be banned if it enhances performance as a side effect of enhancing general health, rather than its primary purpose being to enhance performance. If a substance were widely taken by non-athletes who have no desire to enhance performance, but believe the substance to be beneficial to health, I think there would be a strong case for not banning it.

We can also get some insight into how they think from the Q&A on the 2009 banned list:
"Arguments that led WADA's stakeholders to take caffeine off the List in 2004 included research indicating that caffeine is performance-decreasing above the 12 microgram/ml threshold that was historically used in sport. In addition, caffeine is metabolized at very different rates in individuals. Many experts believe that caffeine is ubiquitous in beverages and food and that reducing the threshold in order to unmask cheaters might therefore create a serious risk of sanctioning athletes for social or diet consumption of caffeine."

#17 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,935 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 May 2009 - 11:31 AM

For a short time I was taking 5-10g of 98% res a day just to what happened. I was surprised to see no changes over my normal 1-2 g a day (at night all at once). In fact one day I bonked badly on a long climb that I would normally have no problem with. I don't know if this had any relation to my increased res intake at the time.

The high dose res should have pushed your blood sugar down. It seems at least plausible that this would make you more bonk-prone.


It doesn't push mine down. (I measured it.)

#18 RideToLive

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 May 2009 - 12:06 PM

What has res done for your clients power numbers, VO2, 5s, 30s etc?


Well, let's look back and remember that I caught them supplementing. While they could have fibbed to me, they fessed up, and had their cursory research prepared for the defense. I'm lucky to have some smart guys. We did not see any unexpected changes in 5s or 30s power. Where we did see changes were in the third build phase where both of these guys start to typically flatten out on their 6-30minute power. Reflecting on my notes from training, both appeared very sharp during their later weeks of this Build Phase, almost as if they went through a solid taper. Repeatability at threshold work was "better than seen" in previous phases, and the training stress was higher than they experienced before. 12 weeks of Build Work a this stage of periodization with these guys can typically result in 4-5% CP30 improvement. They both were pushing 8-10% increases at CP30. CP6 numbers were up a bit, but not significant. From their notes, that was about 60 days into 1.5-2.0gms daily of Biotivia Transmax. Both agreed to blood work, but crit/hb levels were not significantly different from 24 weeks prior. If I see big jumps in CP6 or V02 numbers, I start looking for reasons. In the highly trained athlete, once the early central and peripheral modifications have been made, V02 reacts slowly. You rarely see big changes.

30 days into my 500mg/day supplementation, my notes, and CP30 indicated a freshness just like they exhibited. At 45 days, CP30 numbers were higher than expected on both CT and PowerTap with prescribed training loads. Again, it felt like I'd tapered. I can say recovery was positively affected from 30-45 days.

If a substance were widely taken by non-athletes who have no desire to enhance performance, but believe the substance to be beneficial to health, I think there would be a strong case for not banning it.


Agreed.

I leave this weekend for some altitude and hills in UT and CO. I tried 900mg M98 single dose yesterday post training, and it made me feel a bit too energized. The micronized stuff may hit a bit harder than the non-micronized. I stepped back to 600mg M98 today, and have not felt the same over stimulation. I think I'll maintain 600mg/sinlge dose through the next two training weeks.

#19 Hedgehog

  • Guest
  • 462 posts
  • 1

Posted 25 May 2009 - 12:39 AM

What has res done for your clients power numbers, VO2, 5s, 30s etc?


Well, let's look back and remember that I caught them supplementing. While they could have fibbed to me, they fessed up, and had their cursory research prepared for the defense. I'm lucky to have some smart guys. We did not see any unexpected changes in 5s or 30s power. Where we did see changes were in the third build phase where both of these guys start to typically flatten out on their 6-30minute power. Reflecting on my notes from training, both appeared very sharp during their later weeks of this Build Phase, almost as if they went through a solid taper. Repeatability at threshold work was "better than seen" in previous phases, and the training stress was higher than they experienced before. 12 weeks of Build Work a this stage of periodization with these guys can typically result in 4-5% CP30 improvement. They both were pushing 8-10% increases at CP30. CP6 numbers were up a bit, but not significant. From their notes, that was about 60 days into 1.5-2.0gms daily of Biotivia Transmax. Both agreed to blood work, but crit/hb levels were not significantly different from 24 weeks prior. If I see big jumps in CP6 or V02 numbers, I start looking for reasons. In the highly trained athlete, once the early central and peripheral modifications have been made, V02 reacts slowly. You rarely see big changes.

30 days into my 500mg/day supplementation, my notes, and CP30 indicated a freshness just like they exhibited. At 45 days, CP30 numbers were higher than expected on both CT and PowerTap with prescribed training loads. Again, it felt like I'd tapered. I can say recovery was positively affected from 30-45 days.

If a substance were widely taken by non-athletes who have no desire to enhance performance, but believe the substance to be beneficial to health, I think there would be a strong case for not banning it.


Agreed.

I leave this weekend for some altitude and hills in UT and CO. I tried 900mg M98 single dose yesterday post training, and it made me feel a bit too energized. The micronized stuff may hit a bit harder than the non-micronized. I stepped back to 600mg M98 today, and have not felt the same over stimulation. I think I'll maintain 600mg/sinlge dose through the next two training weeks.


I also have taken resveratrol and tried to judge my cycling performance or enhancement. It is really hard to judge... I believe it has made my climbing and endurance aspects better. I can ride for a hard 5 hours with minimal food and about 2 large water bottles (water only). My daily intake has varied a lot but typically 300-600mgs. I don't have any way to judge my cycling other then times and how well I feel.

L8ly my times are better than some of the local mens college cycling times. Plus I have a nice heavy cyclocross bike w/ a luggage rack =)

#20 RideToLive

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 July 2009 - 08:29 PM

I'm finally getting back to posting after many busy weeks.

Well UT and CO was a blast. I have to say that I've never had a better block of training. I went into it with a higher state of overall fitness than ever, but what still impresses me was my ability to recover. I had several days over 240 TSS (Training Stress Score) and a few over 325TSS. In 14 days, I amassed ~1750TSS. That's big for me. Not Tour Quality, but more than I've ever endured for a 14 day block of training at altitude. My peak load in a build week (7days) usually peaks around 700TSS, with average 28 day score around 85-90TSS/day.

Not unusual, but I had solid weight loss over those 14 days, yet never felt low on fuel. BF 6.25% down to 5.5% and some visible upper body muscle mass to go with it. Being lighter than previous blocks there from the start, my uphill scores were way up. I came back to sea level stronger, and healthier.

I maintained my 600gm/day regimine of M98 for 40 days. Once complete, I started a 30 day block of Nitro250. While my numbers didn't climb a lot in the last 24 days on Nitro250, I've felt darn good and recovery is again better than I can ask for daily. I'm ordering more M98 to continue some dossage manipulations and see how hard I can drive this bus before the fall XC Season hits.

#21 APBT

  • Member
  • 802 posts
  • 329

Posted 29 July 2009 - 03:47 AM

While anecdotal, I find this entire post very interesting. I hope more contributions are forthcoming.

If this stuff really works, maybe RevGenetics should team up and co-sponsor with with Radio Shack. Then, just maybe, Lance could usurp El Pistolero Contador in 2010. And Hincapie could finally win The Hell of the North. :|?

#22 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,935 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 29 July 2009 - 05:10 PM

While anecdotal, I find this entire post very interesting. I hope more contributions are forthcoming.

If this stuff really works, maybe RevGenetics should team up and co-sponsor with with Radio Shack. Then, just maybe, Lance could usurp El Pistolero Contador in 2010. And Hincapie could finally win The Hell of the North. ;)


I think the report is a bit more credible than the typical "anecdotal" report, in that reproducible measurements were made, and careful records kept. It might even be suitable for publication is a physiology journal, properly written up.

Hincapie seems to have found his true calling as a gifted lead-out man. Cavendish couldn't have done it without him.

#23 davidd

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 29 July 2009 - 05:55 PM

I just want to echo what others have said. Thanks, RideToLive, for sharing your data. There have been various discussions between some of us who measure our VO2 max (mostly indirectly) while using resveratrol (and sometimes quercetin). Having more, good measurements done by others helps a great deal.

You mentioned faster recovery times. That's been a common thread in some of our discussions and certainly something I've noticed after exertion.

You mentioned that your athletes used quercetin prior to using resveratrol. Did you note any large improvements after they started using it (and prior to using resveratrol)? Were the gains you saw in resveratrol realized by taking both resveratrol and quercetin over the same time period, or was the quercetin replaced by resveratrol?

I plan on measuring VO2 max with resveratrol alone and then resveratrol and quercetin. I may then drop resveratrol and see what quercetin alone does. I had some confounding results this past winter that has caused me to start over. My hunch is that winter vitamin D deficiency may have played a role. It is tough to do single variable change testing with something like mitchondrial biogenesis due to it not being an overnight phenomenon. My situation is a bit different, in that I do not exercise regularly (although I'm fairly "active").

Speaking of the biogenesis, do you have access to any sources on the lifespan of a mitochondrion? The reason I ask is because it would be nice to know how long it would take to rid your body of the extra (and extra special) mitochondria produced through resveratrol usage for testing purposes.

Thanks again and please keep sharing this great data.

David

Edited by davidd, 29 July 2009 - 06:05 PM.


#24 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,299 posts
  • 406
  • Location:NW

Posted 29 July 2009 - 06:01 PM

ride2live - do you find yourself needing more protein w/ the resveratrol?

also - thx for the pos

Edited by prophets, 29 July 2009 - 06:01 PM.


#25 APBT

  • Member
  • 802 posts
  • 329

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:03 AM

While anecdotal, I find this entire post very interesting. I hope more contributions are forthcoming.

If this stuff really works, maybe RevGenetics should team up and co-sponsor with with Radio Shack. Then, just maybe, Lance could usurp El Pistolero Contador in 2010. And Hincapie could finally win The Hell of the North. ;)


I think the report is a bit more credible than the typical "anecdotal" report, in that reproducible measurements were made, and careful records kept. It might even be suitable for publication is a physiology journal, properly written up.

Hincapie seems to have found his true calling as a gifted lead-out man. Cavendish couldn't have done it without him.




Yes, I tend to agree, "...a bit more credible than the typical "anecdotal" report...."

RideToLive certainly seems to have a detail-oriented, anal retentive, perfectionist streak. And I truly mean this in a complementary way. Details do make the difference.

Me thinks George is gonna show up on the Radio Shack roster. I believe he wants Paris-Roubaix baaaaad. He's been close so many times. Although, he is a damn good lead-out man.

#26 RideToLive

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 July 2009 - 04:25 PM

Yes, I tend to agree, "...a bit more credible than the typical "anecdotal" report...."

RideToLive certainly seems to have a detail-oriented, anal retentive, perfectionist streak. And I truly mean this in a complementary way. Details do make the difference.

Me thinks George is gonna show up on the Radio Shack roster. I believe he wants Paris-Roubaix baaaaad. He's been close so many times. Although, he is a damn good lead-out man.


Yup. That's me. I too think GH with be a Team Radio Shack guy. Perfect match, and the Team will promote and reward his efforts. Then again, others have other ideas:

http://www.cyclingne...radioshack-team

Empirical research demands more than a few isolated data points. This would be a complicated endeavor, with many forks in the road to discovery. It's easy to see what you want, but science demands strong irrefutable evidence to support a strong theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis

Knock yourself out reading:

Google "mitochondrial apoptosis muscle pubmed"

I have a few hundred articles in this in my Zotero Cache ... I've been working on a nice literature review for over two years and it's still not even close. Keep in mind, I have a full journal access, so there' a huge amount of reading I'd like to do. I wish someone would Podcast these journal articles!

I've been using Quercetin from a long while back. I had insight into some research about the time FRS was making a debut. I've used FRS, but find the dosage not sufficient, so I choose straight supplementation for 750mg preworkout + B100Complex + GreenTea. I feel my body responds to it better than the FRS dosage. I'll get back on these details when I have a bit more time. I could get carried away. However, I choose Quercetin as an antioxidant and anti inflammatory to compliment recovery.

I'm a moderate to high protein intake type-o-guy. Most of my workouts involve lots of time above LT Watts. After all, consistent progressive muscle recruitment to provide overload is what makes the muscle units respond and create modifications, structurally and biochemically. Spending time below LT Watts doesn't have the regenerative demands as compared to LT-VO2 efforts. Therein, for me, I find it easy to "get behind" on my protein intake. Certainly, when were talking new components of a muscle unit, we can easily see the demands being higher for any athlete in serious training, reseveratrol or not. For me, I tried cutting back on protein, and I just experienced more soreness with similar training and longer recovery. 1.5gms/kg is my lower limit. I'll never have anyone think I'm a "Schleck Like" roadie. Health comes first, fitness/speed comes next, but form only develops with recovery.

I'll be back.

#27 davidd

  • Guest, F@H
  • 328 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:05 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis

Knock yourself out reading:

Google "mitochondrial apoptosis muscle pubmed"

I'm aware that the mitochondria often play a role in cell death, but I guess I was working under the impression that the individual mitochondria might die off before the host cell. Are you saying that the mitochondria stick around until the cell dies?

If so, then we'd be going off the lifespan of muscle cells. The information I've found puts those at about 15 years average lifespan. Of course, that really means that some are dying and some are being created all the time. Would that mean that you'd have to go 15 years without resveratrol to completely rid your muscles of the extra (and extra special) mitochondria produced from resveratrol? In other words, does it mean that one year after going without resveratrol, 93% of the cells would still be benefiting (subtracting 1/15 cells) and after two years, 87% of the cells would still be benefiting, etc?

If so, that would be great, but I guess I was assuming we wouldn't be that fortunate and that the individual mitochondria within the cells generally had a lifespan less than the cell itself.

I've been using Quercetin from a long while back. I had insight into some research about the time FRS was making a debut. I've used FRS, but find the dosage not sufficient, so I choose straight supplementation for 750mg preworkout + B100Complex + GreenTea. I feel my body responds to it better than the FRS dosage. I'll get back on these details when I have a bit more time. I could get carried away. However, I choose Quercetin as an antioxidant and anti inflammatory to compliment recovery.

Don't worry about getting carried away! That's considered a good thing around here. ;)

So did you notice any improvements in performance with that quercetin regimen or just the post-workout benefits of reduced inflammation, etc.?

Thanks again,
David

#28 VP.

  • Member
  • 436 posts
  • 152

Posted 30 July 2009 - 09:22 PM

Thanks Ridetolive,
Great report as usual. I think GH is still pissed at Astana though so he may not move. It certainly looks like resveratrol and quercetin reports are not just placebo based. If you want to see what a sport placebo looks like in real life check out this story on oxygen tents. I remember Lance used to use these.
http://www.wired.com...ic-performance/

#29 porthose

  • Guest
  • 107 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 30 July 2009 - 11:16 PM

Health comes first, fitness/speed comes next, but form only develops with recovery.


but form only develops with recovery. to me, this is gold! well done RideToLive ;)

currently studying a sports coaching science degree at the Uni of Canberra and in the course requirements, we get access to excellent front line sports research at the AIS. while off topic to this thread, steps have been put in place at the AIS to discourage athletes from overtraining.

in relation to recovery and overtraining, i would like to point everyone to an excellent book called Overtraining Athletes by Sean O Richardson, Mark B Andersen and Tony Morris. Check it out at Amazon or Human Kinetics.

The culture that encourages athletes to overtrain, has to do with sexual, physical and verbal abuse by coaches, the fact that your 'not a man (or woman) if you show signs of weakness' in the face of injury and past psychological trauma during childhood.

Epidemiological research suggests that 30% of athletes either at the elite level or even at the grass roots level will suffer abuse from coaches and thus be vulnerable to overtraining and the risk of serious injury. This is extremely sad and worrying.

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 RideToLive

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 August 2009 - 11:50 AM

Thanks Ridetolive,
Great report as usual. I think GH is still pissed at Astana though so he may not move. It certainly looks like resveratrol and quercetin reports are not just placebo based. If you want to see what a sport placebo looks like in real life check out this story on oxygen tents. I remember Lance used to use these.
http://www.wired.com...ic-performance/


That's pretty funny. I had three athletes I've kept out of tents email me this in the last two days. I've had the pleasure of doing a variety of testing in High Altitude chambers over the past 30 years. A tent can't come close to what an athlete can get from living at altitude as for as central accommodations. Most frequently, you see an over tired --> over reached --> over trained --> then unhealthy athlete coming out of these tents. You just can't simulate everything in life. It's a good way to lose your significant other as well.


I find my 2-3 hour power to be 3-5% higher on quercetin. Not a real significant difference at 30-60 minute power, but the recovery off those efforts is improved with everyone I have using the supplement. I attribute most of this to the antioxidant qualities.


One thing "very special" about the mitochondria post supplementation is a shift in the antioxidant potentials. Remember, what appears to drive some of the apoptosis is a delicate balance of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) and antioxidant defenses. Not all, but some. Some is the gene interplay. So an ROS imbalance seems to be a common denominator in various pathological processes in where the resulting oxidative challenge causes tissue damage and, eventually, cell death. You can have mitochondrial modifications without cell death. However, biogenesis of mitochondria involves a complex interplay between the genetic systems of both the organelle and the nucleus. What we want in the end, is to have more healthy, stable mitochondria.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users