What defines human microbiome health? The co-founder of American Gut Project discusses the differences we’ve found in the gut microbiome and how it influences our health. We look at tools and lifestyle choices that have been shown to change the microbiome (for good, and for bad).

Our microbiome plays an important role in our ability to overcome health issues. A healthy biome can make you resilient to these challenges, while a poorly-balanced one can create or worsen health problems. We first talked about the microbiome in Episode 9 with Jessica Richman, and today we are going to dig deeper into what affects it.

In this episode, we look at how the microbiome and our life choices impact each other. This can relate to how we live, our health, and even how many mosquito bites we get. Research shows that many chronic and gut diseases are related to our microbiome. We also talk about how medical interventions like antibiotics, Cesarean sections, and fecal transplants change our biome.

Anything that’s in the literature has got to be based on population averages. And one thing we know about people is that there are tremendous amounts of variability. So what works on average in the clinical trial is not necessarily going to be what works for you individually.
– Rob Knight

Advances in DNA sequencing have made it possible to look at the microbiomes of huge groups of people. Several large-scale projects, which we’ll discuss today, aim to look at microbiomes of groups or whole countries. It is also easier for individuals to learn about their own microbiome. This lets you see how your lifestyle, diet, or medical treatments alter your biome.

Today’s guest is Dr. Rob Knight, professor of Pediatrics and Computer Science & Engineering at the University of California San Diego. Dr. Knight was chosen as one of 50 HHMI Early Career Scientists in 2009. He is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Earth Microbiome Project, and a co-founder of the American Gut Project.

Dr. Knight and the Knight Lab at UC San Diego use state of the art computation and bioinformatics to understand the microbiome and what affects it. Dr. Knight is on the forefront of this exciting research and will walk us through the topic.

The episode highlights, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

What You’ll Learn

  • What DNA and RNA are (6:52).
  • Initially researchers thought that the human microbiome would be uninteresting (8:20).
  • Advances in DNA sequencing made projects like Human Microbiome Project and American Gut possible (9:53).
  • Novel information on how lifestyle affects the microbiome (13:50).
  • The different biomes of your body, what is known about them, and how the affect the body (16:50).
  • Long-term diet has the largest impact on your gut microbiome (19:40).
  • Individuals show variation in their microbiome from day to day, and this variation could make single samples less useful (20:05).
  • Research shows that only a few activities and dietary changes significantly affect the microbiome (22:50).
  • There are still questions about how variation within an individual’s microbiome relates to health (26:08).
  • Resources like American Gut can be used to assess your own response to medical interventions like antibiotics (27:20).
  • Fecal transplants to replenish your microbiome after medical intervention is an area of promise for those battling C. difficile (28:15).
  • The effect of antibiotics on the microbiome vary among treatments and individuals (31:06).
  • The microbiome is incredibly complex, but research into a few microbes could yield tremendous health benefits (33:16).
  • Although there is anecdotal evidence that probiotics are effective at positively impacting your microbiome post-antibiotics, there are currently no clinical trials on their effectiveness (37:44).
  • The Ancestral Microbiome Project is comparing the microbiomes of people with traditional lifestyles to see if the Western lifestyle or diet has led to a loss of certain microbes (41:05).
  • Living with a group of people or a new partner can change your microbiome (42:54).
  • IBS has been linked to the microbiome, and probiotics have shown promise for treating the condition (44:20).
  • Damien and Dr. Knight discuss places to find additional information on the microbiome (45:22).
  • Dr. Knight suggests tracking travel, medications, and diet if you are interested in how your lifestyle affects your microbiome (47:11).
  • Those interested in learning more could also track their fitness, do an EEG of brain activity, or an MRI of areas of interest (49:44).

Thank Dr. Rob Knight on Twitter for this interview.
Click Here to let him know you enjoyed the show!

Dr. Rob Knight

Tools & Tactics

Interventions

  • Fecal transplant: The purpose of this treatment is to re-balance the microbiome of the transplant recipient by placing fecal matter from the donor is placed in the colon of the recipient. The most common reason for this treatment is a serious illness caused by Clostridium difficile after the healthy gut microbiome is destroyed by antibiotics.

Supplementation

  • Probiotics: Probiotics are live bacteria and yeasts that assist in gut health; this includes antibiotic-related diarrhea, IBS, and IBD. They can be found in a variety of food products (like yogurt with “live cultures”) and in capsule form. Strains of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are the most commonly available.

Diet & Nutrition

  • Plant-based diet: Dietary changes can quickly alter the gut microbiome, and Dr. Knight specifically discussed the choice of animal vs plant-based diets on the rates of Prevotella and Bacteroides. Here is the paper by Gary Wu and others discussed Rob Knight. For more information, here is a paper discussing how people on animal-based diets had higher levels of microorganisms related to inflammatory bowel disease in their microbiome.

Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Microbiome community composition: To determine what is in your microbiome, labs report the percent of each type of bacteria present in your sample. We are still learning about how microbiomes affect health, so there is currently no information on what an “ideal” microbiome looks like.
  • Gut microbiome: This is the microbiome in your colon and is the most commonly assessed of the biomes. Some “good” bacteria like Akkermansia, Lactobacillus, and Faecalibacterium are associated with reduced obesity rates and gut health.
  • Fine grade fitness information: This biomarker includes daily information on caloric intake, steps taken, calories burned, sleep quantity, and sleep quality.
  • Blood and Urine Metabolites: These small molecules include amino acids, sugars, and fats. They provide insights into health, disease risks, and optimal diet. No specific biomarkers were discussed – the biomarker would be a specific metabolite. A common test is the blood metabolite panel (BMP), which looks at calcium, glucose, electrolyte, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine levels. For urine, proteins, leukocyte esterase, and hemoglobin are all commonly assessed biomarkers.

Lab Tests, Devices and Apps

  • American Gut Project: A not for profit, research-based initiative to understand the American microbiome. Participants are asked to provide details about their diet and lifestyle.
  • Michael_Pollan_Bug_Data

  • uBiome: This test can be ordered and used by anyone in their home. The test allows collection of microbes from your gut, mouth, ears, nose, or genitals.
  • Electroencephalogram (EEG): EEGs record electrical activity in the brain. The frequency of waves can indicate whether brain function is normal or disturbed. Alpha (8-13 waves per second) and beta (more than 13 waves per second) waves are the most common in healthy, awake adults.
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI): MRI scans are use pulses of magnetic energy to visualize internal organs and structures. It can be used on almost any area of the body and provides information on tumors, bleeding, injuries, blood vessels, or infection.

Dr. Knight’s Recommended Resources to Learn More About Microbiome

  • Follow Your Gut: The Enormous Impact of Tiny Microbes: Our guest’s book on how the microbiome affects our health. The Appendix includes information on how to interpret the results from American Gut.
  • Missing Microbes: Our guest recommended Martin Blaser’s book as a resource for those interested in learning more about microbiomes and antibiotics.
  • Not Exactly Rocket Science: A science blog written by Ed Yong, our guest suggested the posts on microbiomes as fun reading for those interested in the topic.
  • Some of My Best Friends are Germs: Written by Michael Pollen for NY Times in 2012, the article is a quick read on the relationship between microbiomes and health.
  • Jonathan Eisen’s TED talk: Dr. Eisen’s talk “Meet Your Microbes” focuses on microbes and their co-evolution with their hosts.
  • Jessica Green’s TED talks: Dr. Green is the founder of Biology and the Built Environment (BioBE) Center, and has given two TED talks on microbes.
  • NY Times Matter Column: A weekly science column written by Carl Zimmer.

Other People, Books & Resources

People

  • Jeff Leach: Co-founder of the American Gut Project, and microbiome researcher.
  • Dr Catherine Lozupone: Professor of Biomedical Informatics andPersonalized Medicine at the University of Colorado, Denver. Dr. Lozupone researchers the impact of the gut microbiome on human health.
  • Dr. Jeffery I. Gordon: A research scientist studying the link between gut microbiota and obesity. Our guest collaborated with Dr. Gordon on this topic.
  • Dr. Pieter Dorrestein: A professor working at UC San Diego, Dr. Dorrenstein and our guest have collaborated on research. A recent paper of Dr. Dorrestein’s in PNAS looks at the chemical makeup of skin surface and relates it to the microbes that live in the skin.
  • Dr. Dan Littman: Professor of Molecular Immunology at NYU School of Medicine, Dr. Littman studies the human immune system.
  • Hans Herfarth, MD, PhD: Dr. Herfarth is a member of the UNC Multidisciplinary Center for IBD Research and Treatment and the author for the UNC Patient Guide to Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD).
  • Balfour Sartor, MD: Dr. Sartor is the co-chair of the UNC Multidisciplinary Center for IBD Research and Treatment.
  • Dr. Peter Turnbaugh: A professor in the UCSF department of Microbiology and Immunology.
  • Dr. Dave Relman: Dr. Relman’s research focuses on the human microbiome.
  • Dr. Cecil Lewis: Dr. Lewis studies anthropological genetics, including the evolution and ecology of the human microbiome.

Organizations

Other

Full Interview Transcript

Click Here to Read Transcript

[05:22][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Hi Rob, thank you so much for joining us on the show.

[Rob Knight]: Sure, thanks Damien, and thanks to your interest on this topic.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s great. So we’ve already looked at the microbiome, but I wanted to know, why is it that you got interested in this specific area? What is it that first caught your interest, or you first got involved in this area?

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, well it was a very indirect pathway from my graduate work at Predison’s Lab in studying the evolution of the genetic codes and a large part of that was looking at RNA molecules down to particular molecules that are useful in metabolism. So from there I went to the University of Colorado working on RNA sequence states and trying to figure out how many random RNA sequences you need to look at before you find one that does something interesting.

So there were a lot of one particular kind of sequence, the ribosomal RNA molecules in the database. I really wondered why were there so many of that particular sequence that had been studied. And so I started talking to Norm Pace, who was one of the other faculty members at Boulder. And I realized they were using the ribosome’s RNA not as an object of study in and of itself, but as a tool to understand the relationships between different organisms, and to read the mass in the communities that they were looking at. Everything from rocks to shower curtains to caves.

And so it really is just going from basic studies of RNA to understanding that you could use a particular kind of RNA as a tool to find out something about microbes, and then from there realizing that the microbial communities themselves could be used as a tool to find out about different environmental conditions, including the conditions within our own bodies.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great, thank you.

[06:52] For some of the people at home, they might not understand what RNA is in reference to DNA, and how that works. Could you give a quick overview of what the mechanism for RNA is, and what role it plays in our bodies and the other things that you’ve been talking about.

[Rob Knight]: Sure, absolutely. So I think everyone’s familiar with the idea that DNA is the genetic material we use that passes down from one generation to the next. So, the proteins are most of the catalysts that do reactions in our bodies, most of the structural elements. So what happens is the DNA gets transcribed into RNA, ribonucleic acid, which is chemically relatively similar to DNA. And then the RNA gets translated into proteins.

But there are some kinds of RNA that don’t get translated, and have a function that is of themselves. One really important kind of RNA is ribosomal RNA that actually makes up the factory in the cell, the ribosome, that makes the proteins. And so because it plays such an important role in life, you can detect similarities in those even between very distantly related organisms.

So similarities even between us and bacteria. And so you can use that molecule to reconstruct the evolutionary tree that relates all of those organisms together, based on the similarities and differences in the sequence.

[08:04][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. So then you, from those studies, you started working to look at the bacteria, because you saw that they had a pretty important role, and that there was a lot of similarities between the things you were studying. On a human level and in the animal level, could you tell us a little bit about what it was that kind of pushed you to look more at the microbiome?

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, sure.

Originally the tools that I was developing together with Cathy Lozupone, then a very talented graduate student from my lab but now a faculty member of the University of Colorado Health Science in Denver. Initially we were just looking at tools to compare microbial communities out there in the environment.

So looking at the effects of things like salinity and pH as the chemical factors, of drivers, for how microbes are different in different places, like different samples of soil, sea water, or other communities like that. And so at the time we thought that maybe the microbes associated with the body wouldn’t be that interesting, because at the time there was fairly heavy bias towards the idea that most people probably have the same microbes, because if you grow them on a Petri dish, you get more or less the same thing from everybody.

But it turns out there’s a huge number of microbes in there, even in our own bodies, that we don’t yet know how to culture. And as a result, when you look at them with these culture independent, they are directly sequencing the DNA that codes these ribosomal RNA genes. And figuring out what’s in the communities directly you see all this diversity in the human microbiome that no one ever suspected was there.

So, we started doing this in mice, actually, in collaboration with Dr. Jeffery I. Gordon, he’s a physician at Washington University, a gastroenterologist. He was really interested in looking at links between microbes in obesity. So we started with mice, then moved up to humans. And then increasingly we’ve been interested in looking at the microbiome not as a static system, but as a dynamic system. So looking at how it changes over time, both in health and in disease.

[09:53][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thank you very much. And of course you are a co-founder of a project, which is being designed to explore the microbiome in America, of the population in America. What kind of latest update of American Gut, and what you’ve been doing there?

[Rob Knight]: Let me give you just a little back-story to that project. So, before American Gut, we were involved in the Human Microbiome Project, which was a very large scale NIH funded initiative, 173 million dollars to characterize what the microbes look like in healthy people. And with their whole microbiome, is there a lot of variation person to person, and how does it vary in different parts of the body.

So during that process, and in part because of technology that was developed, during the Human Microbiome Project DNA sequencing and tools to analyze the DNA sequences made the whole process dramatically cheaper. So essentially we wondered can we bring this technology to members of the general public, using the tools that we were able to develop during the Human Microbiome Project, to essentially allow anyone who was interested in finding out about their own microbiomes to be able to do that at a reasonable cost.

Jeff Leach and I launched as a collaboration between the Earth Microbiome Project and the Human Food Project. The crowd funded initiative where basically it’s donation supporters. And people can find out directly about swabs from their gut, and how it compares to the gut microbes of other people around America, or around the world, especially including the people who were analyzed in the Human Microbiome Project.

And also including people in Africa and South America, and soon people in Asia, to try to compare what the microbes look like, and how do they relate to health and disease.

So, unlike the Human Microbiome Project, where there were very rigorous exclusion criteria, so you could only participate if you were certified by a physician as being extremely healthy, in American Gut, we are interested in anyone, essentially to see what kinds of microbiome configurations are out there in the wild when you give everybody the opportunity to participate.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. That’s a great back-story.

[11:54] What’s the number of samples that you’ve collected to date? You said it’s called American Gut, but it sounds like it’s not just focused on America now, that it’s spread out and it’s available to more widely internationally. Is that correct?

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, that’s correct. So it’s relatively expensive to pass inspection internationally because the shipping regulations are fairly burdensome. So what we’ve been doing is we’ve been launching spin-offs in other countries. And so we started with Australian Gut, and with British Gut essentially because it’s a lot easier to translate all the instructions from English into English, rather than to tackle those translation issues.

But we’re hoping to expand to a lot of other countries. And at the moment with the transition from the University of Colorado to the University of California, we’re essentially in a holding path, and at the moment waiting for AMX approval. But we’re hoping to scale up the project dramatically, and greatly facilitate the ability for people all over the world to participate.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Which approval did you say you were waiting for? Was it an academic program approval?

[Rob Knight]: Institutional Review Board Approval. So in order to ensure that the project was conducted ethically and that the results that we get are going to be meaningful, everything we do in American Gut has been approved by Institutional Review Boards from the beginning.

I moved from the University of Colorado to the University of California right at the beginning of this year. What’s happening right at the moment is we’re waiting for the ethics approvals to be transferred from one institution to another, which can take a lot of time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. Got it.

[13:19] How many samples have you collected to date for the project?

[Rob Knight]: We’ve released data from about 4500 samples. We’ve sent out about 9,000 kits. We have about another 1500 samples in hand that we’re just waiting for that ethics approval to be able to move forward on sequencing.

So, for anyone who’s listening, if you’re wondering where your results are, we’ll be able to get them out pretty soon. We just need to make sure that everything is completely compliant with all the regulations that apply to the Human Subject Research in the United States. Just to make sure that everything is completely above board.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Excellent. So, has any analysis come out of it, or insights yet that you’ve been able to do?

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, absolutely. So one thing that was exciting about it, or already, in the Human Microbiome Project, this paper, which came out in Nature in 2012, we looked at about 250 healthy subjects. So I think we reported data for 242 where there was information from all body sites.

So you have about 250 people involved in that project. Versus American Gut, where you have thousands of people involved. As a result, with a much larger population size we have much more statistical power to look at subtle effects.

And we also put on the questionnaire all sorts of things that were considered too crazy to ask in the HMP. But in the intervening time we’ve discovered so much more about what the microbiome does, especially in a range of different animal models. And it seemed a lot less crazy to ask those questions in 2012 than it did in 2008.

As a result, we’ve been able to see associations between the microbiome, and all kinds of things you might not have expected. So you might have expected that how old you are affects the microbiome, which it does, but you might not have expected that, for example, how much sleep you say you get a night is also linked to the microbiome. And we see a statistically significant effect of that.

Similarly, you might have expected that how much alcohol you drink affects the microbiome, but you might not have expected that we can also pick up a difference based on how much you exercise. Or I should say how much you say you exercise, because all of this is reported data. But how much you say you exercise, even whether you say you do it indoors or outdoors, has an effect.

So we’re really picking up a lot of interesting associations. And what we’re hoping to do in the next stage of the project is to take a bunch of these associations and turn them into something where we can start to get causality. So what we’d love to know, if we see in association with alcohol and an association with exercise, or with sleep or with any of these other things, is to actually encourage people to change what they’re doing in those respects, or you know more obvious things like diet, or antibiotics.

Where the idea is that if you take a sample before you have a change in any of those things, and then you have the change and then you take another sample again after. Can we start figuring out which of those changes are actually caused by those different lifestyle things that you could be doing. This is watching simply effect.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, because a lot of when we’re thinking about the microbiome, and –just to make sure I’m correct here — you’re just looking at the gut, right? The microbiome of the gut?

[Rob Knight]: Well, actually with American Gut you can look at the microbiome. So most people are looking at their gut biome, but it’s also interesting to look at other body sites. We have been sending out a number of batches of kits that allow you to sample multiple sites simultaneously.

So another project we’re doing, we’ve been looking at skin. So for example, we had a very interesting paper that came out in PNE of last week with Pieter Dorrestein doing very high resolution maps of the skin in relation to the microbes, to the metabolites. And then there’s also a lot of interest in the oral microbiome, the vaginal microbiome, and so on.

So, although the gut microbiome is where most attention has been focused, there is a lot of interest potentially in looking at other body sites. And linking them not just to health effects of that site, but also to all over the body. So for example the gut microbiome has been linked to asthma and to rheumatoid arthritis, and to cardiovascular disease, all of which takes place in sites outside the gut, but are nonetheless affected by the microbiome.

And it’s entirely possible that, for example, the oral microbiome, or the skin microbiome might also be having systemic effects we’re only just beginning to understand. Whether it’s through interactions with the immune system or through release of particular metabolites, or other mechanisms.

[17:32][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Maybe it’s too early to say this, but have you seen anything that would indicate that the microbiomes are related to each other, in terms of if you have a different gut microbiome it may influence or be influenced somehow by the fact that your nose or your skin biome is different also?

[Rob Knight]: Well that’s a very interesting and controversial question. So actually, the fifth Human Microbiome Project main papers, which said that there are statistically significant but relatively weak associations between the different body sites, and then later that’s been confirmed by other researchers using different statistical methods.

At the moment there’s a lot of debate about how strong the associations are, and what effects they have on health when you’re looking at the overall configurations. But certainly some individual organisms that are very interesting. So, for example, Dan Littman at NYU has shown some very nice work linking Prevotella in the guts to rheumatoid arthritis. And so we’ll probably see a number of other associations like that with specific organisms at one site having unlikely effects on what happens, what helps with other sites in the body.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Very, very interesting.

I think the surprising thing for a lot of people of what you just said is that there are a lot of lifestyle factors not related to diet. Because we normally think of the biome, and especially the gut biome, being immediately related to our diet, and what do we eat, but [not] a lot of things you mentioned, sleep, age, exercise. And you said exercise indoors or outdoors can be different as well, is that correct?

[Rob Knight]: Correct, yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you know, it’s very interesting. These small changes in your lifestyle, nothing to do with diet, can have significant impact on the gut also, which we haven’t looked at.

[Rob Knight]: Sure, although I should clarify that long term diet has the largest effect that we’ve seen. The work with Gary Wu and others at Penn came out in 2011 in Science. What we saw there is this long-term dietary pattern had a profound effect on the gut microbiome, especially changing the ratio of Prevotella to Bacteroides, two of the major taxa in the gut. And only changing the overall configuration, more than essentially anything else.

So the only thing we’ve seen that gives you comparable changes is either antibiotics or acute infection with some kinds of pathogens. Like C. diff, for example, has a very large effect on your gut microbial community. So long term diet is really very important.

Short term diets, unless it’s something really extreme, is a lot less important than what we see in long term diet. This was maybe consistent with people’s experiences with going on a diet for a short period, losing some weight, but then going off the diet and bouncing back again. In general your microbiome is very resilient.

[20:05]Damien Blenkinsopp]: This comes to the topic of variability of the microbiome over time.

I did see one presentation of yours where you were showing the biome of a newborn baby, actually, as it was growing up. And you’re showing the changes at that stage of its life, which were quite significant at that stage. But for adults who are fully developed, in our day to day, week to week lives, are our microbiomes changing significantly? Or are they very, very stable?

[Rob Knight]: Both of those are true. So, our microbiomes change statistically significantly one day to the next. And especially when we do things like travel or take antibiotics, or if we have a chronic, immunologically associated disease. Like, for example, inflammatory bowel disease, or rheumatoid arthritis, or other conditions where there’s a lot of variability in whether you’re in remission or whether you’re having a relapse.

There can be fairly large changes there, but typically small compared to the differences between different people. So we tend to be stable in terms of, especially if we’re healthy and there’s nothing particular going on, we tend to be stable in the sense that we’re more similar to ourselves day to day than we are to other people.

But that doesn’t mean that you can’t detect the differences one day to the next. And so a very interesting question at the moment is what is the significant of those day to day fluctuations? Might it actually be more important how much you vary than what your current state is right now. And that’s one of the things that we’re just starting to investigate at the moment.

[21:29][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yes, and in terms of how meaningful data would be for someone who’s collecting it for themselves, if they take one sample and they get one reading is that meaningful to them? Or would you suggest they take one this week, and one next week. How would you go about making sure you have something representative?

[Rob Knight]: Right. Well having one sample is certainly a lot better than having no samples, in terms of getting some information about what’s in your gut. Because even having one sample is going to do a tremendous amount to place yourself on the microbial map, relative to other people.

The question about how frequently you should sample and how many samples you should take to get a baseline, that’s something that’s actually a very active research topic at the moment. And we have collaborations with a number of different investigators exploring that in different contexts.

So, for example, one thing we’ve been doing is work supported by the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation of America with Hans Herfarth and Balfour Sartor of the University of North Carolina, where we’re trying to address exactly that clinical question. If you have patients with IBD should you sample daily, should you sample weekly. So how does that compare to what you should do in healthy controls.

Unfortunately, the only way we can assess that baseline data is to take very frequent samples. And it’s difficult to get people to do that. So for example, I’ve been collecting my own samples daily for over six years now. It’s relatively difficult to get people to come up to that kind of level of commitment.

[22:50][Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, I’m interested. What kind of insights have you learned about yourself from that n=1?

[Rob Knight]: As you know it’s always relatively difficult to draw conclusions from a sample size of one, but it does look like things like travel have a fairly large effect. We’ve seen that for a number of different locations.

So I should clarify that only about the first two years of that have been sequenced so far. Most of the rest are in a queue for processing, but it keeps getting bumped due to things like making sure we get the American Gut results and so on. The rest of the time series is currently pending.

We’ve done the DNA extraction so that’s currently pending sequencing. And some of the things that we’re going to be really interested to follow up on, having a time series that goes that long is, for example, the seasonality effects that we seen in American Gut. And we see those even within one individual. Because if you can repeat that for many years, then you can start to see systematic patterns.

I’ll tell you about some results from another study, which is one by Lawrence David and Eric Alm at MIT, where they sampled themselves daily for a year and collected a very large number of auxiliary variables. I think they collected over 100 variables every day, including everything they ate. All kinds of things like how much exercise they did, how much they slept, and so on.

And they found very few systematic associations. So, for example, about the only thing they saw in diet was citrus, which had a significant effect, whereas many other things that they recorded did not. And they also saw associations with travel, and associations with getting GI illnesses. And that was about it.

So, I think the issue is that a lot of the effects, although they might be important, they’re probably subtle and cumulative. And so although you’re going to get very interesting information from some of these n=1 studies, like this study. And by Larry Snar here at UCSD has been doing looking at his own gut in the context of IBD, in the context of my studies myself.

Although there’s going to be some interesting stories that come out of them, those are going to be most interesting in terms of the technology development, of asking how frequently should you sample to establish a baseline, and over what interval to you need to sample to get a decent view of dynamics.

But we did a study with Noah Fierer and Rob Dunn, Greg Caporaso that came out in Genome Biology towards the end of last year looking in healthy students at the variation of the gut microbiome over the course of the semester. One thing that was very interesting about that, looking at weekly samples, was the variability itself seemed to be very important for relating to the variables that we had about each subject, and each sample.

And so it’s entirely possible that the variability itself was going to wind up being really important. But of course, it’s also a lot more difficult and a lot more expensive to look at than just looking at a single snapshot. And so the single snapshots are still very valuable, I meant to say, even though you could potentially get more information by looking at the dynamics than you would from a single snapshot.

It’s like having a video of an event can often be very informative, but that doesn’t mean that photography has vanished as a discipline despite the fact that we all carry around little video cameras on our cellphones.

[26:08] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great.

So in terms of the variability, is it looking that that’s a positive or a negative association? Maybe you can’t really call it yet, but have you got an idea on which way it would be going? Like, for instance, is it potentially that the microbiomes when it’s healthy it’s able to adapt a lot more to the day to day situation, travel and all those things, so it would vary more. Or have you got any insight on that yet, or ideas on which way it might go?

[Rob Knight]: Yes.

So we don’t really have enough information at this point, and as you say it could go either way. Either you might want to see a fair amount of flexibility in your microbiome to be able to adapt to different circumstances, or you might want to see more resilience, and if it’s wandering all over the place it’s more likely to fall off a cliff, and to input the community configuration.

Right now we don’t have the basis to discriminate between those two. Most of the variability studies have been done at baseline in healthy people, and that doesn’t necessarily let you conclude anything about disease.

Most of the disease studies have looked at a relatively small number of samples. Often just a single sample where you’re looking at a case controlled paradigm where you round up some healthy people, round up some sick people, and you look at the differences at that state. So, really we’re waiting for the right kinds of studies to be done for variability in these diseased populations.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thank you very much. I mean, we could get a couple of guidelines, just for people who are already using American Gut or one of the other services.

[27:26] I’m actually just about to take some antibiotics, for instance, so I’ve got a kit I intend to use, and then once the course is finished I intend to use it again. And actually based on your presentation, I intend to do one 30 days later to see if it will recover. Is that something reasonable as a baseline experiment? Just to see what’s going on.

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, that’s certainly very reasonable.

You might want to look at Dave Relman’s paper, it came out in Pathobiology a few years ago. And what he had there was three subjects who were taking ciprofloxacin from a healthy baseline, and they measured how long it took them to come back.

What was interesting about that is three people, they all responded totally differently. But then it’s kind of difficult to figure out what you should say about that, because the sample size is only three, and they all responded very differently from one another. But it’s certainly reasonable.

One thing that’s very interesting at the moment is the concept that maybe you should freeze your stool before you take the antibiotics, so that you could potentially replenish the members of your community. And again I should point out that that’s still in its very early stages as a therapy. This is not medical advice or anything.

But the concept that you might want to have that material available in case we figure out how to replenish your microbes from it later, kind of the way people are saving their cold blood for the stem cells. It’s certainly very interesting, and has a lot of potential.

And of course, right, you’ll be hoping for is that in the relatively near future – and there’s a lot of companies and a lot of academic research groups interested in this now – the idea that you might not actually have to take the stool itself, but rather isolate just a few of the beneficial microbes from it, encapsulate those into a pill and swallow those, for example. That’s shaping up to some very interesting research direction, although at this point it is very much in the lab and not in the clinic.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It does sound safer, also compared to the current fecal transplants. I think one of the concerns of fecal transplants is we don’t really know what’s in them.

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, that’s exactly it.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You know, because just the state of technologically today.

While you might make someone better in some extreme cases, like C. difficile, obviously that’s helpful. But for someone else who has maybe taken a lot of antibiotics and they had gut issues, to take a fecal transplant could be seen as a little bit extreme, as currently we’re not exactly sure what’s in it, and we could be putting something in there that we’ll discover later is not such a good thing.

[Rob Knight]: Yes, that’s certainly a concern. I’m on the science advisory board for the American Gastroenterological Association’s Microbiome Center, and one thing we’re actively trying to set up is a long term registry for fecal microbiome transplant, essentially so that we can track people who’ve had them over time, and make sure that it remains effective.

So for Clostridium difficile associated disease, it’s remarkable effective. Like 90 to 95 percent effective in many different studies. And the last large scale study comparing it to antibiotics for C. diff actually had to be stopped early because the people who got the FMT were responding so well that it was unethical to continue withholding FMT from the people who were on the antibiotics.

So, how widely that’s going to work for other conditions, we don’t really know. One thing you can do for antibiotic associated diarrhea that’s very effective is probiotics. There’s a number of different ones that are now pretty well supported by clinical trials at reducing both the severity and duration of antibiotic diarrhea.

And so in general, it’s not because the organisms themselves are establishing in your gut, but they’re creative a favorable environment where they can crowd out the weeds, like the proteobacteria and things that often come back after antibiotics. And essentially they’re creating more favorable conditions for your own microbes to come back.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great.

[31:06] So, to kind of backtrack a bit. So in the presentation I saw, you saw after the antibiotic treatment, which was a baby with earache I believe it was, the microbiome pretty much came back to where it was before.

[Rob Knight]: Yup. But remember that’s an n=1 study, because we just had one kid in there. Yup.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is that a possibility for some? We always talk about antibiotics like it could be potentially permanent. Because everyone’s pretty concerned. I’m pretty concerned when I’m going on a course of antibiotics now what kind of impact down the line is it going to have.

But it seems like it can depend on the severity, because antibiotics are used in many different cases. They can be used for a couple of days in some cases, sometimes, and there’s lots of different forms of antibiotics, which have different impacts as well, and potentially more severe or less severe.

It seems that in some cases the microbiome may be able to recover, and in other cases it’s not able to fully recover, and it’s quite variable for the moment, I’m guessing. Or do you have any insights as to the insights of antibiotics and how it varies?

[Rob Knight]: Basically what we know at this point is that different antibiotics have very different specificities, so they’ll target different bugs when they’re growing in the lab in isolation. We know a lot less about what effects the antibiotics have in more complex settings. And so the same microbe might only be targeted by antibiotics in some stages in it’s growth cycle.

And so Pete Turnbaugh, he’s now at UCSF but did this work while he was at Harvard, did some very interesting research looking at the effects of the same antibiotics microbes in different communities, that had come from different individual people. And so what he found is even if you have the same microbe, whether the same antibiotics would target that microbe depends a lot on who it came from.

And that’s very interesting. It just suggests that there’s a lot of complexity that we don’t understand at this point about how microbes are going to be targeted by a particular antibiotic, or will escape that depending on what other microbes are around. Depending on whether it’s expanding its population or contracting it, and all kinds of other factors.

So I think we’re just right at the beginning of understanding what’s going on in the complex situation of the human body itself.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yes, absolutely.

[33:16] I think a bit of context to that is if you look at the size of DNA in our genetics versus the microbiome, right the microbiome is a lot bigger, and we don’t fully understand DNA yet. So, basically is it a much bigger task to understand the microbiome?

[Rob Knight]: Yes, it’s a tremendously more complex task. So each of us has about 20,000 human genes, but the size of the microbial gene catalog is somewhere between 2 and 20 million. So, by that measure you could say that we’re only about one percent human, and about 99 percent microbial in terms of the gene counts that we’re carrying around with us.

And so, on the one hand understanding it is tremendously complicated. On the other hand, if you look at other fields where there’s tremendous complexity, like say nutrition for example, but if you ran a potato through the mass spec you’d see all these compounds that you’ve never seen before, and that you don’t understand, and that don’t appear in any catalog from any chemical company. On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that we don’t know a fair amount about what happens if you rely on potatoes as your main food source.

And additionally, if you look at, for example, a lot of chronic diseases from a century ago, so things like rickets, goiters, and so on. A lot of those kind of diseases have just been completely eliminated by knowing that there’s some nutrient that if you give it to the whole population, like for example iodine in salts or fortifying milk with vitamin D, fortifying flour with thiamin, and so on, you can just eradicate these diseases from the whole population.

And so, in the same way it’s going to take us a long time to understand the microbiome, but it might not take that long before we understand how replenishing some of these microbes might potentially be really important for addressing some of the chronic diseases that affect us now, including many of the chronic diseases still linked to the immune system.

[35:11][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. And there are also macro levels. It’s a pretty good example, I think, you just gave nutrition, because we look at the macros and there’s lots of discussions about proteins, fat, and carbohydrate breakdown in diets. And in the same way there’s macro levels of our microbiome, right? There’s groups of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes and others on a macro level, which I guess you could see patterns with those as well, and don’t necessarily have to dig down to the fine levels.

[Rob Knight]: Yes. That’s exactly right. Although in the same way that micronutrients are really important, some of the rare organisms might be really important.

And a useful analogy is something like Yellowstone National Park, where the reintroduction of wolves caused a profound change to the ecosystem. But if you go to the park – and not without, but you’d never get permission to do this right – but if you went to the park, and you round up say a cubic kilometer of material and then run that through DNA sequencing, you wouldn’t find a lot of wolf DNA.

And the reason why we know their important is you know people shot them all and the ecosystem changed, and they reintroduced them and the ecosystem changed again. So on the one hand, what technology is that we have right now, we’re probably missing the equivalent of the microbial wolf that could be playing really important roles.

On the other hand, if you were trying to understand that ecosystem, you’d be crazy to ignore the pine trees and the bison and the other really abundant taxa as well. So you can tell a lot looking at what’s common as well as needing to know what’s rare to fully understand the system. But I think we’ll be able to do a lot with the understand that we have now.

And it’s important to remember that that understanding has increased dramatically just in the last decade. So in 2005 it was a major achievement to sequence the gut microbial communities out of three people. And that was expanded by a fifth to hundreds of people, and then to thousands of people. And we’re just getting a much broader picture of what kind of microbes are in there, and what their roles are in responding to different things.

And so, the idea that you might be able to look at the microbes in somebody every single day for a year, would have been an impossible dream in 2005 but the technology has gotten so much better that it’s been done for a number of people now. And the prospects for developing further technology to open that up to the whole population I think will totally transform what we can know about microbial sides of yourself.

So, being able to push that additional technology development forward I think is one of the most critical things we can do at this point.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Excellent, thank you very much.

[37:44] One of the things we kind of skipped over but I thought might be interesting for the audience is you spoke about probiotics being useful in connection with the antibiotics treatment, and specific types of probiotics.

Do you know specifically what those are? Or could you point us to any papers which highlighted those? And in terms of the timing, do you take them while on the antibiotics, or is it a post treatment?

[Rob Knight]: The different studies that have been done at the moment haven’t really had a lot of consistency in methodology, so it’s difficult to make specific recommendations. It’s a fairly complex topic. I cover this in a reasonable amount of detail in my book, Follow Your Guts, which is just coming out tomorrow. But essentially I give a few examples of pointers to studies that have been focused on individual probiotics that have shown to be effective for particular conditions.

So one thing to remember with this is although there’s a tremendous amount of enthusiasm to probiotics and they’re very widely available, most of the specific products don’t have any particular evidence backing them. And so it can be a bit daunting to wade through the literature and try to find the ones that are actually supported by clinical trial data.

At the moment, at least to my knowledge, there’s no really good resource that summarizes the clinical trial information to tell you what species, what strains, and what products containing those strains have actually been shown to be effective. Although that’s something that’s a clear opportunity, where if someone sets it up that will be tremendously valuable for the public, especially given the level of enthusiasm.

One problem at the moment is, in the US at least, that the FDA’s official stance is that a dietary supplement can’t modify a disease endpoint. So as a result, if you find that your product actually does modify a disease endpoint, then it gets re-regulated as a drug, and so the manufacturing standards are certainly much more stringent.

And so if you want your yogurt with live and active cultures to continue to be a buck or two a cup, rather than being a thousand bucks a cap, which is about what it would cost if you had to manufacture it as biologic, there’s that issue to consider as well. So, that’s also a substantial problem for research in this area.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, so again, in that case we’re kind of hoping that no one tries to do clinical trials with the probiotics in products. It’s kind of no-win situation in that respect.

[Rob Knight]: Well it is a bit of an issue. It’s sort of like the issue with dietary supplements for athletic performance. So any time one tends to actually be effective, like say steroids, for example, it gets banned immediately. So you can draw your own conclusions about the effectiveness of the ones that are still on the market.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I guess one of the nicer things about that is currently when we take antibiotics it’s not really acknowledged that it causes any specific disease, although people may have gut upsets and any issues like that.

So I guess if these supplements continued to be marketed, and perhaps trials are just done on the basis of changing microbiome, that wouldn’t interfere because it’s not a disease endpoint. A specific disease endpoint, as I understand it, would be a specific classified disease, which is currently basically regulated today. So as long as they stay out of those disease areas, is it not a problem?

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, that’s exactly right. And that’s in part why as a consumer, it’s often very frustrating to see what claims are being made because those claims are now typically very carefully worded and very carefully negotiated.

[41:05][Damien Blenkinsopp]: So I know that you’re also involved in the Ancestral Microbiome Project.

[Rob Knight]: Uh-huh

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Could you give us a quick update on how far you’ve got with that, and also what it is for the people at home.

[Rob Knight]: Sure, absolutely.

So the goal of this project is essentially to compare the microbiomes of different people living relatively isolated lifestyles and seeing whether they contain microbes that we as Westerners have lost with the hygiene or antibiotics. Or diets perhaps, that cause us to lose some of those kinds of microbes that could be beneficial.

There was a paper that just came out two weeks ago led by Cecil Lewis at the University of Oklahoma on the Matses who are a group of hunter-gatherers in Peru. There’s another one coming out soon that I can’t tell you about because it’s embargoed. But there’s some ongoing work that we’re doing with the Hadza in Tanzania, and the project that’s led by Jeff Leach.

So the Hadza are the last hunter-gatherers in East Africa in the Rift Valley where, of course, humanity evolved. So they’re the last group that’s still exposed to the microbes and to the mammals and to the plants that we would have evolved with during our early evolution. And so they’re very exciting to look at from that standpoint.

But basically the idea is to compare different groups and to understand first there’s still anything that they have in common that we might have lost more recently. And then the second thing is that try to understand similarities and differences in different human populations in terms of their microbiomes and how those microbes relate to different lifestyle features, to human genetics and to other factors.

It’s going to be incredibly fascinating from a science point of view. And from the point of view trying to figure out how our microbiomes should be shaped to optimize health.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, this is great.

I understand that Jeff — have you spent time with the Hadza as well, or has it just been Jeff that’s spent the time with the tribe?

[Rob Knight]: I went there for a week last year. It was just a spectacular experience.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I understand that Jeff, at least just spending time there, his microbiome changed. And he also used a fecal transplant from the Hadza to see a more extreme change.

But what I thought was interesting was just living amongst them and spending time with them, he saw some changes in his microbiome also. But I guess you haven’t had your sequenced yet, but potentially over that week you would have seen the same changes.

[Rob Knight]: Possibly. We don’t have the sequence data for that, although that would certainly be interesting to look at.

I should note that’s also true if you start living with a new partner, for example. You’ll converge on their microbiomes relatively rapidly. And one thing of interest at the moment is trying to figure out how much your microbiome records about the people you’ve lived with and the places that you’ve lived.

We don’t really know the answer to that at this point, but it’s certainly interesting to think about.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well it is, just from a health perspective as well. Especially as it’s getting quite common to have IBS and things like that these days. It kind of makes you question these kind of things. How communicable is it, or not? I guess there’s a lot.

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, that’s a great question. I don’t [think] there’s been done a lot on communicability of IBS, but there are some probiotics that have done pretty well in clinical trials for IBS.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. So we’ve got a solution anyway.

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, and it has been linked to the microbiome by a number of different studies including some work we did with [unclear 44:25]. So yeah, it’s definitely a fascinating area. And the potential that some of these conditions could have microbial cures as well as microbial causes is very interesting.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thank you very much Rob.

[44:40] So what are the best ways for people to connect with you, and learn more about you and your work?

[Rob Dunn]: Well, my TED Talk is a really good starting point. There’s a book associated with that Talk called Follow Your Gut, which is going on sale tomorrow actually.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is that on Amazon?

[Rob Knight]: Through Amazon, and also I think it’s available as an iBook through the Apple Store. That’s a good way to find out more. It’s a relatively short book. The idea is to make it a friendly general introduction rather than going into a lot of technical detail about a whole lot of names that you’ve never heard about.

And also it’s got an Appendix that gives you a good overview of how you should interpret your American Gut results, and what things you can and can’t learn at this stage, and what we hope to be able to find out from us in the future.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, we’ll put links to all those in the show notes.

[45:22] Are there any other good books or presentations for people interested in the microbiome in general, and learning more about it? Are there any references that you commonly give out to people, which are good resources to check out?

[Rob Knight]: Yeah, Marty Blaser’s book. So Marty Blaser’s book Missing Microbes is fantastic, and really gets into a lot of detail about how hygiene and antibiotics may have led to the rise of a lot of autoimmune diseases, and other chronic diseases that are a problem today. And also one specifically about the dangers of over prescription of antibiotics. So I definitely recommend that one.

Ed Yong’s blog, Not Exactly Rocket Science, routinely covers microbiome topics. As do Carl Zimmer’s columns. Michael Pollan wrote a very nice piece in the New York Times in 2012 called “Some of My Best Friends are Germs,” and he’s continued to cover the microbiome on and off since then. Those pieces are all very good.

Jonathan Eisen and Jessica Green both have talks that are available through TED. Jonathan’s talk gives a very good introduction to what microbes are and what they do out there in the world. And Jessica’s features, it’s focused more on the built environment. And it’s talking about the relationship between the microbes in our bodies, and in the spaces we inhabit, and how we might want to design buildings that are green not just in terms of the plants, but also in terms of the microbes. So not just energy, but also microbial use.

So those would be some really good places to start. There’s definitely a lot of more technical resources out there, but you can probably get to those from the ones that I mentioned. And especially the references in Marty’s book and in my book are a good place to get started with more technical material.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thank you so much for that. That’s very extensive, clearly.

[47:11] So I’m also interested what your personal approach is to body data, whether it’s for your health, your longevity, or your performance. Do you track and metrics or biomarkers for your own body on a routine basis?

You’ve already said that you take stool samples every single day. Is there anything else you do? And those stool samples, just by the way, for instance if you go to the toilet twice per day, do you take two stool samples, or are you taking one per day?

[Rob Knight]: Initially I was taking one per day, and I’m trying to capture all of them to the extent possible.

So in terms of auxiliary data I must admit that I’m not nearly as diligent as some other people who are interested in this sort of thing have been at tracking every single thing they’re doing every day. In part that’s informed by some of the studies where people have tracked a tremendous number of measures and not seen a lot. So that’s been relatively difficult to justify that level of additional time commitment.

Mostly what I’m tracking are things like, so periodically I’ll do a food and dietary inventory. Tracking things like travel is important. I would track medications except I essentially haven’t had any during that interval. But it’s the sort of thing that I would keep track of if it became relevant. That kind of thing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. I’m guessing that most of these things are something that you’re doing in the realm of science, because you’re exploring the specific subject.

Do you think you would control for any of these if you weren’t involved in the science itself, out of a personal interest? How would you kind of modify that, if you weren’t currently studying you as an n=1 experiment to further the science? On a personal level, what kind of things do you think you would be doing?

[Rob Knight]: All kinds of things are interesting, it’s just a matter of how much time you’re willing to put into it, and how much money. So it would be very interesting to do blood and urine metabolites frequently, perhaps even daily.

It would be very interesting to get finer grade resolution on fitness, like with an activity tracker, that kind of thing. Given what we’re now starting to find out about brain microbe links it might be really interesting to, for example, track EEG readings over time and draw those microbial data.

You could even imagine doing like an MRI of yourself every day to see whether that complex multifarious specs tracks what the multifarious specs to find biomarker biome. Although that’s definitely a level of efforts and expense that it’s just not worth it at this point.

But what I think this is one of these things where the more data you have, the more potential you have to find out something really interesting that you wouldn’t have expected.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thank you so much.

[49:44] The last question, what would be your number one recommendation to someone who is trying to use data in their life for better decisions about their health, their performance, or longevity? Something about their body. What would be your number one recommendation on how to use data effectively?

[Rob Knight]: There are a lot of different ways that could answer that question, but I guess my number one recommendation would be that what’s in the literature, like randomized controlled trials about what works and what doesn’t, are probably a really good guide as to what you should do initially.

Now, you might want to modify that based on observations of your own body, because anything that’s in the literature has got to be based on population averages. And one thing we know about people is that there are tremendous amounts of variability. So what works on average in the clinical trial is not necessarily going to be what works for you individually.

So, start with solid evidence from clinical trials, especially randomized placebo controlled trials, and then modify that based on your own observations about your own health whether it’s meticulously recorded, and you have over a long enough period of time that you have reproducible observations, not just off one anecdote.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Thank you there for some great insights into randomized controlled studies, and the averages also, which comes up sometimes on this show. Averages don’t necessarily mean you. So thank you for reinforcing that point.

Rob, thank you also for making time available today. I really enjoyed this show. You’ve obviously got a very, very deep background in this stuff, and we covered a lot of material. Looking forward to read your book also.

[Rob Knight]: Okay, great. Well thanks Damien, and thanks again for your interest in this, and this is only going to get more exciting as we find out more and more about the microbiome.

Leave a Reply

Water fasting or ketogenic therapies may be effective with some cancers, and not with others. Learn about the PET scan and how it can provide insights into whether a cancer is likely to be responsive or not to the water fast tactic we’ve covered in previous episodes.

In this episode, we return to look at ketosis and water fasts as a tool to help treat cancer. This builds on the previous episodes looking at Ketosis with Jimmy Moore and the impact of water fasts on cancer with Dr. Thomas Seyfried.

In this episode, we dig deeper into the cancer topic looking at how ketogenic or low-carb diets may contribute via mechanisms related to insulin and ketones to inhibit cancer growth. We look at why only some types of cancers may benefit from these types of ketogenic treatments, and the data behind it. The data backing up this episode, is that of the PET scan — Positron Emission Tomography. PET Scans can be used to understand what type of cancer a person is dealing with and more importantly, whether it is likely to respond to ketogenic therapies or not.

For cancers that are dependent on glutamine more than glucose… They can be aggressive… and they may not show up on a PET scan, and they also may not be responsive to a low carbohydrate diet.
– Dr. Eugene Fine

Our guest is Dr. Eugene Fine. He’s currently a professor of Clinical Nuclear Medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. Most recently, in 2012, he published a study in the scientific journal of Nutrition on 10 cancer patients treated with a low-carb diet. He’s currently expanding his research by working on the use of low-carbohydrate diets combined with chemotherapy in animals.

This is all linked through his area of specialism, which is PET scans — positron emission tomography — where he has been identifying and monitoring cancers for the use of this type of scan. We’ll also touch on some of his studies looking at the impact of ketones, in vivo, on normal cells and malignant cells, and how that differs compared to glucose.

The episode highlights, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

What You’ll Learn

  • Reducing carbohydrates in diet and reducing insulin secretion in the body may inhibit cancer growth (4:06).
  • How ketones inhibit cancer cells (10:06).
  • Why are cancer cells over-expressing uncoupling protein 2 and reactive oxygen species (12:35)?
  • Dr. Fine explains how he uses PET scans to identify many different types of cancerous cells and severity by using fluorodeoxyglucose, or FDG (17:32).
  • If the cancer does not show up on the PET scan (as is the case with prostate cancer and glutamine dependent cancers) it may not respond to a low carbohydrate diet (23:57).
  • Dr. Fine discusses quantitating the PET scans (30:50).
  • Any inflamed area might also show up on the PET scan associated with the FDG (32:36).
  • This research is in the beginning phase and needs to be studied on a larger scale as the next step (34:11).
  • Dr. Fine describes his “recharge trial” where cancer patients were put on a low carbohydrate diet to observe the effects of the diet (35:00).
  • During the trial the patient’s blood levels were measured to determine whether they were ketotic (37:42).
  • Dr. Fine discusses the results of this recharge trial by identifying that inhibiting insulin may have effects on cancer progression/remission (40:31).
  • Cancer may adapt to the environment where it “grew up”. So if you develop cancer already on an low carb diet, will not be affected by a low carb diet as an intervention (45:05).
  • Damien and Dr. Fine discuss other ways to change ketone/insulin levels (49:44).
  • High calorie versus low calorie diets are discussed (53:13).
  • The biomarkers Gene Fine tracks on a routine basis to monitor and improve his health, longevity and performance (1:03:29).
  • Gene Fine’s one biggest recommendation on using body data to improve your health, longevity and performance (1:09:14).

Eugene J. Fine, MD

Tools & Tactics

Drugs & Supplements

  • Metformin: A drug which is used to improve blood sugar regulation in diabetes. Researchers are looking at its wider applications with cancer treatment as it has been found to inhibit insulin secretion.
  • Ketone esters and salts: A new range of supplements making ketone bodies directly available to the body and thus inducing ketosis. There are various forms including Beta Hydroxybutyrate Monoesters (BHB monoesters), and Beta Hydroxybutyrate mineral salts (BHB combined with Na+, K+, and Ca2+). One available for purchase is Ketosports KetoForce and Ketosports KetoCaNa.

Diet & Nutrition

  • Low-carbohydrate diet: this programme limits carbohydrate consumption to increase ketosis. This was the main discussion point for this episode.
  • Ketogenic diet: The ketogenic diet is a low carb diet which also raises the level of ketone bodies in the blood.

Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Beta-Hydroxybutyrate/β-hydroxybutyrate (Blood ketones): Ketone bodies can be used as a source of energy, similarly to glucose, for most cells in the body. However, now it is recognized that ketone bodies might inhibit the growth of cancer cells instead of fueling them. Some information about testing ketone levels can be found here. Normally, there should be little to no ketone bodies in the blood or urine. However, ketone bodies increase during a low-carb diet. The most accurate way to measure ketone bodies is through a blood draw but urine tests are also available. More information on ketones and ketogenic diets can be found in episode 7.
  • Insulin: Insulin is a hormone produced in the pancreas and released in response to blood sugar levels and metabolism of carbohydrates and fats. This hormone controls the glucose blood levels to attempt to maintain normal levels. Fasting insulin levels are normally less than 25 mlU/L. After a spike of glucose in the system (after eating) insulin levels will rise but should normally not reach levels higher than 275 mlU/L. Glucose production in the body is inhibited when more insulin is released. Hyperinsulinemia occurs when there is too much insulin circulating in the body.
  • Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c): Measure of glycated hemoglobin, or hemoglobin to which glucose has become attached – a process that occurs when blood sugar levels become excessively elevated. A proxy measure used to assess your average blood sugar over time. Since hemoglobin is part of the red blood cells it is exposed to blood sugar over the lifetime of the red blood cell, thus giving a measure of exposure over the cells average lifetime (approx. 3 months). As such this measure is used to identify blood sugar control issues. Standard lab reference ranges show anything below 6% as fine, however this already represents blood sugar dysregulation. Optimum HbA1c levels are below 5%. HbA1c has been well researched.
  • Blood Glucose Levels (mg/dL): A measure of the level of glucose in the blood at one point in time. Fasting blood glucose levels are specifically taken when you have not eaten for at least 8 hours and optimally would be between 75 and 85 mg/dL. Health concerns with blood sugar regulation such as diabetes risk start to rise over 92 mg/dL. Levels can be measured at home using a glucose monitor and glucose testing strips (an explanation for the use of glucose monitors can be found in this episode).
  • Cholesterol-HDL and LDL: The cholesterol biomarkers include lipoproteins and triglycerides which are found in the blood. There are standard markers that all doctors and labs will run, and some newer specialist labs that are more specific and accurate. There are two main types of lipoproteins, HDL and LDL. We covered these markers extensively in episode 7.

Lab Tests, Devices and Apps

  • Positron Emission Tomogrophy (PET) scan: A PET scan is a functional imaging technique used to image body processes. As described in this podcast, a PET scan can be used to identify cancer presence and severity. A radioactive tracer, fluorodeoxyglucose, is used to tag these cancerous cells. As discussed by Dr. Fine, the cancerous cells identified in this way may be treated using a low-carb diet as a supplement.

Other People, Books & Resources

People

  • Steve Phinney, MD, PhD: Dr. Phinney has completed research regarding low carb diets.
  • Jeff Volek, PhD: Dr. Volek has also participated in research about low carb lifestyles. Together, Dr. Phinney and Dr. Volek wrote a book called The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living.
  • Douglas Spitz, PhD: Dr. Spitz is a radiation oncologist who has studied the ketogenic diet as an additional treatment for cancer. His research can be read here.
  • The Caveman Doctor: Colin Champ, MD is a radiation oncologist who has researched the role diet plays as a supplemental treatment for cancer.
  • Otto Warburg: Warburg hypothesized in the early 1900’s that aggressive cancer growth is due to energy generated by the breakdown of glucose.
  • Thomas Seyfried, PhD: Dr. Seyfried is interested in fasting and diets used to treat cancer. More information can be found in The Quantified Body podcast.
  • Valter Longo, PhD: Dr. Longo has published many articles regarding fasting benefits for cancer patients.
  • Dominic D’Agostino, PhD: Dr. D’Agostino is well known for his research with ketogenic diets and performance. More information can be found here.
  • Richard Feinman, PhD: Dr. Feinman is a professor at the State University of New York. He has collaborated multiple times with Dr. Fine. Dr. Fine wrote two blog posts on Dr. Feinman’s site: Part 1 and Part 2.

Full Interview Transcript

Click Here to Read Transcript

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Gene, thanks so much for joining us on a call today.

[Gene Fine]: Oh sure. Good to be here.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: To give a better background, we spoke to Dr. Seyfried about his ideas and his work on ketogenic diets, fasting, and cancer. And what I found interesting about your work is you’ve dug into different areas, and you’ve differentiated cancers and I wanted to get up to speed about what you’ve been up to. And potentially, also, you’ve got some slightly different views on the whole thing.

So, first of all I wanted to talk about what do you see as the mechanisms of effect behind, if we’re inducing ketosis to inhibit the cell growth of some cancers. How is that working from your perspective?

[Gene Fine]: There really are three linked mechanisms, I believe, that have the potential to inhibit cancer growth. And two of them — well actually all three of them — one is that by reducing carbohydrates in a diet. And we have to realize that most of the carbohydrates we consume are sugars and starches, which digest the sugars — about 90 percent of them.

[And] that if we strictly limit carbohydrate to very low values, we’re inhibiting insulin secretion. And insulin alone is a stimulus to cancer growth. So, if you inhibit insulin you’re reducing one of the important stimuli to cancer growth through that alone. The insulin receptors on cancer cells will be inhibited, and so the growth signals will be inhibited.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is that differentiated? Normal cells have uptake of insulin and they respond to insulin also. Is it that the cancer cells respond to a greater degree? Or what’s the difference there, if there’s any?

[Gene Fine]: No, not at all. In fact, I think the concern would be that the cancer cells may respond to a lesser degree. However, the important thing is that as adults we need some insulin. Without any insulin, we’re Type One Diabetics, but we don’t need much insulin at all.

We need insulin when we’re kids, because kids grow up when they have carbohydrates and protein and insulin helps them grow. When you’re an adult and you eat too much carbohydrates it tends to make you grow sideways. So excess insulin in an adult is not such a good thing; it contributes to obesity and to diabetes.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I guess we would throw in body builders in there as well, because they’re always trying to stimulate insulin to stimulate greater muscle growth.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, well I mean if you’re extremely physically active, you probably can eat whatever you want. I’m not talking about recommendations for body builders; I haven’t studied that. I know that others have. Jeff Volek and Steve Phinney have looked at athletes, and they recommend low-carb diets for them as well.

But the main group that I’m really talking about is the average person who is, unfortunately, a little bit more sedentary than they used to be. And in this group we really don’t need very much insulin to go about our normal activities. And so carbohydrate restriction is probably safe.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So would you put protein in there as well? Because protein also can stimulate insulin.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, that I think is an interesting and maybe more controversial area.

Protein certainly can stimulate insulin. And the question about how much protein to consume in a diet is really an important one, but an independent question which I think has not been answered. I mean, if you look in the literature recommendations for protein in the diet are all over the page; they vary from 20 grams a day to 150 grams a day.

So I don’t know that I’m really in a good position to comment on that because it hasn’t really been adequately studied by anyone, including us. In our own study we didn’t limit protein, so we might have done better than we did if we had.

But nonetheless, our human study did show that the patients that had the highest level of ketosis were the ones who did the best in terms of stable disease or partial remission of their cancers. And those who had the lowest levels of ketosis had progressive disease.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you’re talking about how insulin inhibition mechanism, are they basically opposite correlates? So when insulin goes down [it is] in response to ketosis going up? Is that basically the rough mechanism, so that you could map those to each other? That’s why with a low carbohydrate diet, ketosis goes up and insulin goes down.

[Gene Fine]: Yes. I didn’t actually clarify that. I was saying, yes, that’s the general idea.

I didn’t quite complete the thought that really there are three mechanisms by which a very low carbohydrate diet could inhibit cancer growth, and one of them is, as I say, by reducing carbohydrates in the diet and reducing insulin secretion.

Insulin by itself is a stimulus to cancer growth, but very low insulin will at least have the potential to slow that. So insulin by itself would slow the cancer growth. And there are two cellular mechanisms, so I could insulin twice.

But in addition, there are systemic effects in the whole body, and very low insulin causes mobilization from fat cells — in fact, that’s how you end up losing weight — and the fat gets broken down in the liver. And increased breakdown of fat in the liver leads to production of ketone bodies and ketosis. And ketosis independently, we’ve shown at least in metabolic studies in cell culture, that ketosis itself can cause inhibition of cancer cells. So it can inhibit cancer cells; it leaves normal cells alone. And as I say, we also showed that in our human study.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yes. Yes, thank you. So there’s three mechanisms.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah. Well two of them I consider to be insulin, because there are two different insulin pathways that could be inhibited. And the third mechanism is the systemic effect of low insulin causing ketosis in the liver.

Increased fat mobilization causes ketosis in the liver, and the ketone bodies circulate in the body. Normal tissues tolerate it very well and can use ketone bodies as a fuel, but the cancer cells — at least that we’ve shown in vitro — can be inhibited by them.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. It’s interesting to look at the mechanisms, just in case later on people discover different tactics for modifying insulin, for example. I mean, like there’s drugs and stuff. Or, for introducing additional ketones or something.

So, we were talking just before the call about the study where you were actually looking at how ketones inhibit some of the cancer cells. Could you talk a bit about that? Because I know there was some glucose and ketones involved, and it was interesting how it’s done.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah. In cell culture studies, when we started this a few years ago, we studied three different normal tissue lines that were fibroblasts, which are normal connective tissue that we have in our body. And we also studied seven different cancer lines. Five colorectal cancer line variants and two breast cancer lines.

And what we found was that all seven of the cancer lines — well we grew all of the tissues for four days in a cell culture in glucose medium. And we saw how much they grew. But in parallel with that, we also grew the same cells in glucose medium but with added ketone bodies.

And, as I mentioned before, ketone bodies are a nutrient for normal cells, so we didn’t expect there to be any problems in the fibroblasts, and in fact the fibroblasts continued to grow normally when we added another nutrient.

However, all seven cancer lines showed growth inhibition. And they had differing degrees of growth inhibition when we added the ketone bodies. And we found that the degree of inhibition of the cancer lines was proportional to how much they over-expressed a particular protein called uncoupling protein 2, which actually reduces the efficiency of the cell in producing ATP.

So it turns out that the cancer cells were producing less ATP than they ordinarily would when we added ketone bodies. So the ketone bodies were metabolically inhibiting ATP production, and in proportion to their over expression of this interesting protein.

And the degree of ATP inhibition was exactly proportional to the degree of growth inhibition, which makes a lot of sense. That it requires ATP to grow. So that seemed to be pretty good evidence that we had at that point that it could be metabolic inhibition of cancer cells by these ketone bodies.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]:Yeah, that’s interesting, because, like you said, you’re actually adding something, you didn’t change [anything else]. You’ve got the same amount of glucose, so theoretically, even if cancers couldn’t process the ketone bodies very efficiently, they have the same amount of glucose there. So, in theory they could have been okay. But you’ve actually shown that somehow the ketone bodies are inhibiting that.

Would it be fair to say that the cancer cells are trying? It’s like they’re taking in the glucose and the ketone, and that they’re trying to process that. But because of the inefficiency, they’re not able to. Because it’s kind of interesting that it’s got this inhibitory mechanism there. It’s like they’re trying to, but they’re not very successful at it.

[Gene Fine]: Right, and one of the big questions is, of course, why are the cancer cells expressing uncoupling protein 2. And this has been observed that cancer cells were expressing uncoupling protein 2, for at least 10 or 15 years. There were studies in the early 2000s that I first saw that got me clued into the fact that they were doing this. And I thought well what could uncoupling protein 2 do to a cancer cell, and why would they do that?

The general explanation that I’ve adopted is that cancer cells also overproduce, what are called reactive oxygen species. And reactive oxygen species are chemically active molecules that are produced in all tissues, normal cells as well. But they’re higher in cancer cells than they are in normal cells.

And the thing about reactive oxygen species is that they actually act as sort of a two edged sword. They’re required for normal cell signaling. They’re a signaling molecule that helps cells grow, and develop, and proliferate, and so forth. However, they also are very chemically active and can cause mutations.

And mutations are also somehow the life-blood of cancer cells. Cancer cells become cancerous on the basis of mutations, and in fact they’re sort of evolutionary masterpieces in that they continue to evolve because of mutations. If a particular cancer mutation kills a singular cancer cell, well that’s fine, that cancer cell dies. But if another mutation that happens to be caused in another cancer cell makes that cancer cell even more aggressive, well then the cancer becomes more aggressive.

So, reactive oxygen species when over-expressed in cancer cells actually provide a mechanism for continued growth and continued development as an aggressive cancer. The problem, of course, is much too high reactive oxygen species will kill a cancer cell, as they will kill any cell. In fact, it’s very high levels of reactive oxygen species that are caused by chemotherapy, and are caused by radiation therapy.

So there has to be a limit on how much reactive oxygen species a cancer cell can actually produce. And what I believe, and I can’t say that I’ve proven this at all, is that the increased expression of uncoupling protein 2 — uncoupling protein is in fact, or believed, to limit reactive oxygen species. So it makes sense to me, but without proof, that the reason — quote unquote reason — for the increased production of uncoupling protein 2 is to provide a natural limit. A higher limit than a normal cell, but a limit on the amount of reactive oxygen species that the cancer cells produce.

So that’s my my overall belief. UCP2 is there for a reason. But it happens, it just happens, that that reason, which is important for the cancer cell, may actually be exploitable in terms of diet, because it also reduces the efficiency of production of ATP. I don’t know if that exactly adds up, but that’s what I believe.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, my understanding is — I’m just trying to re-summarize from what I understand and how it fits in — mitochondria create reactive oxygen species, and they tend to do that more with glucose fuel than with ketone fuel at a higher rate. And also when they get damaged they tend to create more reactive oxygen species, so they’re not as efficient. Does that fit in with what you just said?

[Gene Fine]: Yes.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay, great. So, somehow it seems like when the ketone bodies are being used though, in this scenario it’s potentially creating more reactive oxygen species via ketones, because of the protein change there?

[Gene Fine]: I think that’s not really clear. I don’t believe the ketone bodies… Other people who have looked into this a little bit, I think, are somewhat ambiguous about it as well.

I don’t believe that ketone bodies cause increased reactive oxygen species, but I can’t say that I know that for certain. I do believe, from at least the mechanisms that we’ve explored, that ketone bodies provide a complementary way of inhibiting cancer growth metabolically. If they also produce increased reactive oxygen species, and therefore contribute to higher levels of reactive oxygen species that are cell killing, that would be interesting.

But I don’t have direct proof of that. I believe that’s been suggested by others. Possibly Doug Spitz who’s a radiation oncologist, and I don’t know but Colin Champ, who is also a radiation oncologist. He’s written about this, but I’m not sure he’s described increased reactive oxygen species production through ketone bodies. It’s possible.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]:Alright, so great. There are some mechanisms you’ve been looking at there.

And another that’s been interesting about your work is that you’ve been looking at the differences between the different cancers in your studies with PET scans, which is of course your background and your area. Could you talk a little bit about the PET scan and how you use it to assess the cancer?

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, sure.

Most cancers — most aggressive cancers I should say — end up becoming, well first of all they begin to outstrip their blood supply. Their blood supply becomes erratic, and instead of having blood vessels well supplying nutrients to the cancer cells, the cancer cells become relatively hypoxic; they don’t usually have enough oxygen. And hypoxia will interfere with the ability of a cell to use the Krebs cycle as a means of developing energy.

So most cancer cells actually depend on glycolysis, which is anaerobic glucose metabolism, in order to develop their ATP. Now, because they’re using so much glucose and they over express glucose transporters and glycolytic enzymes, because they’re using so much glucose, if you inject a glucose like tracer — a radio tracer — whether it’s carbon-11 glucose, or another one that we liked to use in general nuclear medicine, fluorine 18, fluorodeoxyglucose.

This is a glucose analog, and it gets taken up very avidly by cancer cells that are aggressive. These aggressive hypoxic cancer cells take up FDG very avidly. There’s also something called the Warburg effect, which Otto Warburg, famous biochemist, demonstrated 100 years ago that aggressive cancers, in fact, they may be hypoxic but that even if you expose them to normal oxygen conditions, they still retain this glucose and glycolytic dependence.

In any event, the result is the same that aggressive cancers light up on a PET scan if you inject a patient with FDG, with fluorodeoxyglucose. And a PET scan is basically a nuclear medicine study. These radioactive tracers give off emissions, which allow you to see where the radio tracer goes.

So FDG distributes through the body. Glucose is used by a lot of tissues, so you can also see the heart, you can see the brain because these are often glucose utilizing structures. However, you don’t expect to see FDG in locations where it shouldn’t be. But if you have metastatic disease, which these kinds of hypoxic glucose dependent cancers, FDG will go to those sites as well.

And in fact this one image can be used, or a total body PET scan using FDG can be thought of as a one step metastatic workup, because you can actually see the full distribution of cancer cells throughout the body.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is this the gold standard for assessing the severity of cancer? Could you give us an idea of when you would use this kind of scan?

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, everything in medicine really is very empiric. So if it works, it works. And certain cancers are particularly avid for this kind of tracer, where they do become hypoxic glycolytic cancers. And it’s turned out to be useful in management of cancers in one way or another.

For example, in a solitary pulmonary nodule, you’re trying to determine if this is likely to be a cancer or not or if it’s a benign module. Benign nodules don’t tend to take up glucose that avidly, but the malignant ones do. So an FDG scan can be very useful in just a diagnosis of whether a lung nodule is in fact cancerous.

But PET scans are useful in the management and decision making processes of breast cancers, of uterine cancers, actually a variety of lymphomas, in particular, are usually quite avid and PET scans can be quite helpful. Esophageal cancers, gallbladder cancer, colorectal cancers, PET scans can be quite useful because they light up, and they show you not only where the tumor is, but where the metastases are.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And the other thing, I guess it would simply appear bigger if it’s getting worse? So on your PET scan, if you did one every three months with a cancer patient and it was getting worse, you’d see it getting bigger and potentially spreading to other areas of the body. Is that how it comes back?

[Gene Fine]: Yes, you can definitely see how it spreads.

And nowadays I should actually say that most PET scan devices are actually two devices in one. They’re PET and CT, CAT scans. So you actually can get even better information, because the CT scan is really a computerized three-dimensional x-ray. So you’re actually able to see exactly where in the body.

The PET scan doesn’t have a road map of the anatomy, it’s just where the fluorodeoxyglucose goes. But on the CT scan, it gives you the underlying anatomy, so you get the anatomy as well as the functional arrangement at the same time and in the same locations. So you can identify exactly where you’re seeing it. And that’s very helpful.

I should actually mention that there are certain cancers that PET scans are not useful for. For example, pretty notoriously, prostate cancer is an unusual cancer. It’s unusual in a lot of ways.

Actually 80 percent of prostate cancers are rather slow growing and indolent. And probably for at least that reason, that may be one expression of the reason why they don’t actually take up glucose that avidly. It’s usually the aggressive [cancers] that take up FDG.

But also some other cancers, such as mucinous cancers that are filled with so much mucin that you lose out the effect of what you see on a PET scan. So mucinous cancers of the colon and the of the lung often don’t take up much fluorodeoxyglucose.

Squamous cell carcinomas of the lungs of course are very avid, but these mucinous ones are not. And endocrine tumors, very functional, they’re often not as glycolytic. They often operate on oxygen and they can have a normal Krebs cycle and normal metabolism. So thyroid cancers, unless they’re extremely aggressive, are not this slow growing, and they take up much less FDG. So PET scans with FDG are not as useful for certain kinds of cancers, such as these.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s important because — tell me if this is over simplifying — anything that doesn’t show up in a PET scan, would it be less likely that any type of low carbohydrate diet or inhibition of insulin and up-regulation of ketone is going to have an impact on it, as we’ve been talking before?

[Gene Fine]: Yes, true.

In fact that’s very interesting because — I was mentioning prostate cancer before — prostate cancer actually, it’s not even approved for PET scan use, I should mention. Because they say 80 percent of prostate cancers don’t take up FDG. But in fact prostate cancer is also not associated with obesity. It’s not associated with hyperinsulinemia. It’s not associated with high glucose levels in the blood.

In fact, interestingly, there’s an inverse association of diabetes with prostate cancer. Patients with diabetes — it’s a little bit odd to use the word, because I’m not sure that it’s accurate, it may not be cause and effect, but it’s at least an association — are so called protected with diabetes against prostate cancer.

Now I don’t want to recommend getting Type 2 Diabetes to protect yourself against prostate cancer, but the point is that not all cancers would respond to a low-carb diet either. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the mechanism of that particular kind of cancer.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. The mechanism you described earlier was higher insulin would lead to more aggressive cancers, but in this case you’ve described, Diabetes 2 you’d have higher insulin, but it’s actually reducing the likeliness of getting prostate cancer. Is that correct?

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, it appears to be. As I say, at least epidemiologically, it fits the mechanism of the — I should also mention that 20 percent of prostate cancers are actually very aggressive.

So this is a distinct minority of prostate cancers. I don’t know that anyone has done much study of whether these aggressive prostate cancers, this subvariant, which grow much more rapidly, actually are glucose dependent. They may well be, but I don’t know that they’ve been studied this way. So I can’t comment on those. But they might be FDG avid.

The other thing though is that actually aggressive cancers, very aggressive ones, not uncommonly develop a taste for, not glucose, or not just glucose, but also an abundant amino acid that circulates in the blood called glutamine.

For cancers that are dependent on glutamine more than glucose, they might have even bypassed. They can be aggressive, and they may be glutamine dependent, so they may not show up on a PET scan, and they also may not be responsive to a low carbohydrate diet. So there are other subtleties here that have to be explored before knowing exactly what to do in these kinds of situations.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well I’m guessing potentially restricting glutamine might have a kind of impact there. I guess there’s no studies that have been done on that.

[Gene Fine]: That’s hard. It’s hard to do that, because glutamine is synthesized by the body, and it just comes out of ordinary metabolism.

Glutamine and Glutamate are products of protein metabolism. Glutamine can actually be synthesized, glutamate can be synthesized from alpha ketoglutarate, which is a product of ordinary metabolism. So it can actually be synthesized, and is, and then circulates in the blood steam in high concentrations. And you can’t really restrict glutamine in a diet and expect glutamine to go away; it won’t happen.

I think there are approaches that are trying to figure out how to limit glutamine in the blood, but I’m not sure how successful they are. It seems to be an important metabolite and substrate for a lot of different mechanisms. It’s actually used by the brain, indirectly at least. And so, there really are glutamine restrictions, I think, is something still for the future.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: In summary out of everything you’ve been saying, that the fasting approach or the low carbohydrate approach is, in your view, only applicable to some types of cancers, and typically the most aggressive ones.

[Gene Fine]: Yes, I would agree with that.

The other thing I should mention is that the fact that there are plausible mechanisms where cancers could be inhibited by a low carbohydrate diet, cancers of the types that we’ve been discussing, doesn’t guarantee that it would be inhibited.

And I should also mention about the PET scan, that a PET scan in the way we used it in our clinical pilot study in 2012 with 10 patients was that the PET scan indicates that we can at least identify a cancer that is glucose dependent. We can do that on a PET scan. So those, from the perspective of our hypothesis are carbohydrate, or at least have the potential to be carbohydrate restriction sensitive.

It doesn’t guarantee it, because we don’t actually know which cancers will have the appropriate characteristics and qualities. Maybe not all cancers will express uncoupling protein 2, or whatever other mechanism we were describing earlier. So we can’t guarantee it.

And in fact, if I would describe the hypothesis that I believe, it’s that — I actually have this on a slide in front of me because I like getting the wording exactly right — that large cohorts of individuals with cancer in the developed world do not experience sustained ketosis, or other features common to the insulin inhibited very low prone state. We’d expect many cancers to express a range of plausible vulnerabilities, and accidental adaptations to this unfamiliar metabolic microenvironment.

So, I think that’s the broadest statement that I feel comfortable making, that we can’t guarantee that an individual cancer is going to be responsive to this, even if it has a positive PET scan, because we don’t yet know all of the characteristics that are required. But we do believe that those kinds of cancers are at least eligible for that possibility.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Well so it sounds like at the moment there’s nothing really concrete on this, but we think there’s a higher probability of some types of cancers, so that the most likely cancers to respond to this would be ones which tend to be more glucose dependent.

[Gene Fine]: The ones that show up on PET scans would be the ones that would have eligibility. So, we actually treated in our 10 patient study a range of patients, and there were several with lung cancers, there were several with breast, several with colorectal. There were a couple with esophageal [cancer]. So those were the ones that we actually treated.

This was a very small study, so it’s a little hard to generalize from them. But in addition, as I say, the ones that are associated with hyperinsulinemia and hyperglycemia could also be eligible, I would say; endometrial, uterine cancers, perhaps pancreatic cancers, and others have actually begun studying that as well. Possibly kidney cancers, and maybe gallbladder cancers as well.

So these are the ones that I would consider to be at least potentially eligible for this, depending on what else we learn.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great.

Particularly in those cases, if I have cancer I’d probably want to get a PET scan to see if it lights up.

I don’t know if you have an index there or if it’s just something visual you use. Do you have any kind of index you use with PET scans to understand the severity, like how much is lit up?

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, there are ways of quantitating PET scans, and you can eyeball the uptake, which is often done for purposes of saying whether the cancer has spread to a location or not. If you have a primary.

But if you have a, I like using the solitary pulmonary nodule because so many of them are benign and others are also malignant. And so people have attempted to develop quantitation, and there are a variety of different ways. One of the common ones is called the standardized uptake value.

And you compare the uptake there, essentially, to the average uptake in the whole body. And a value has been assigned by a number of investigators as a cut off that can be useful, and that’s an SUV of 2.5. That’s two and a half times the average value in the body is assigned as being a cutoff for cancers.

Now all these cutoff values have overlaps, and some of them turn out to be benign, but the frequency tends to be much higher. And the higher the SUV the higher the likelihood for cancer.

The reason that there can be uncertainty in this is that the uptake of fluorodeoxyglucose can also be seen in inflammatory tissues, and inflammatory situations, for example even in pneumonia. You can see pneumonias take up FDG. You can see benign granulomas take up FDG, although they usually take up less. But in fact you can get false positives.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Oh, so could this be any type of inflammation in the body? Basically where white blood cells are active?

[Gene Fine]: Yes.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And there’s a lot of inflammatory conditions in the gut these days. Is that something that would potentially influence it?

[Gene Fine]: Yes. You do in fact. With the colon there are also patterns of uptakes, so the thing is inflammatory conditions in the intestines and the colons, for example, usually there are patterns of uptake, and you actually see an outline of the colon with FDG distributing itself throughout the colon and basically showing the shape of the colon.

Whereas cancers usually have a site of origin and they can be somewhat irregular. But they generally have a round or a spherical type of initiation and shape. And come in clumps. So there is usually quite a big difference between what you see intestines and that as well.

But these are non-invasive diagnostic tests, which are absolutely marvelous because things used to be much more invasive. But they do have false positives. Your goal in a non-invasive test is to be able to screen well, and therefore identify those patients who may have this condition.

And if it’s negative it can be extremely helpful because then the patient doesn’t have it. But if you do have it you may still have to, in some cases, go on and do a invasive biopsy in order to determine what’s actually there.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So I guess, just to be practical for anyone at home that might be related to some cancer case or perhaps working with cancer patients. So if it does come up a positive PET scan, it may be worth using a ketogenic diet, a low carbohydrate diet as one of the tools. Could you just confirm more, and tell me that that’s not correct. And then talk a little bit about your recharge trial, where you were actually looking at this.

[Gene Fine]: Sure, okay. I think that it’s hard to generalize. I have spoken, patients have found me on the internet and have called me and discussed their particular cancer situation. And I don’t consider myself explicitly an advocate for this, simply because a 10 patient study — which I’ll talk about in a minute, our recharge trial — is a very small study, and it’s pretty hard to generalize from a study of 10 patients.

But it’s not appropriate to make a scientific conclusion when generally the standard of evidence is that you have to do large, randomized controlled trials. However, that would be the direction I’d like to go to find out more information. And also the fact that it certainly is uncertain whether this works in all patients with PET positive cancers.

But I can talk a little bit about the recharge trial, as preliminary as it is. And what we did was we studied 10 patients with advanced cancers, which is to say they all had PET positive studies and they all had failed several rounds of chemotherapy and were still progressing. So they had had chemotherapy, they were therefore eligible for an experimental trial of the diet, because nothing really was working anyway.

And these patients signed informed consent and they were told that we didn’t know what the outcome was going to be, but we were going to put them on a 28 day trial diet of very low carbohydrate. And so the patients agreed to this, and for 28 days under nutritionist and dietitian guidance they were taught to change their diet.

They had a two to three day trial diet, just to see if they hated it, to make sure. If they didn’t hate it then they could go ahead, but we didn’t want to have people who were clearly not going to be able to complete the diet. We limited it to 28 days because change in diet is hard for anybody. It’s not easy. However, just about anyone can stay on a diet for a month.

So we figured that this would give all the patients a chance to succeed. And principally, the first goal we had to have was safety and feasibility. Was this actually safe? There wasn’t really a lot of reason to believe that it wasn’t safe, but you still have to try that out before you can do anything else.

And it was, there were no unsafe adverse effects. The worst effects that sometimes were reported in this, that we did see were some patients had some reversible constipation — as I say reversible — and reversible fatigue within a couple of weeks. And that’s generally the worst that happened.

So the patients were able to span the diet. Half the patients stopped a little short of 28 days, like 26 or 27 days. We considered that really a successful completion. They didn’t stop because of the diet, they stopped because these were patients with advanced cancers who had planned before they had heard about this trial to go on vacation.

They had bought tickets and thought this might be the last vacation they would be taking. So we weren’t going to interfere with that, and we got the PET scan two days earlier than we had expected and they then left the next day for vacation. So really everyone completed the trial without any adverse effects.

Now, what we did see was that, and we measured ketosis as the standard for how compliant they were. Patients would report their food intake and they would tell us what they ate, and the dietitians would record that. But food recall can be inaccurate.

The most reliable way we could determine whether they were on a ketogenic low-carb diet would be to measure ketone bodies in the blood. And we did find that all of the patients were ketotic. In fact all of them became ketotic — and we measured this weekly for four weeks, a baseline and then four weeks — patients became ketotic really by the end of the first week. So we know that they were ketotic for the period of the four week trial.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Were you measuring blood levels?

[Gene Fine]: Yes, these were blood levels. We felt that that was going to be a more accurate measure because urine levels can be influenced by hydration state. If you’re very hydrated you’ll dilute your urine, if you’re dehydrated you’ll concentrate it. So this is more accurate.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, absolutely. We discussed this with Jimmy Moore, who you know well, in a previous episode.

[Gene Fine]: Oh yeah, that’s right. And he actually interviewed me one time as well. That’s right.

So the goal, as I say, was the 28 day diet. And what we did find was that, one patient we actually had to exclude from analysis because, it took us four years to recruit 10 patients. Most patients are on chemo and they don’t really have this opportunity.

And we also didn’t want patients who were too thin because that would have trouble getting past the investigational review board. These are thought of as weight loss diets and you don’t want a cancer patient to lose too much weight. So we had to restrict our patients to patients who were normal weight or above.

Now finding patients with advanced cancer who had not lost too much weight took a long time to get this group of patients together. It took four years to recruit them, there was a lot of time in that.

So beggars can’t be choosers, and we didn’t notice that one patient had had advanced breast cancer with chest wall invasion, but she’d had it for 14 years. And this was different from all the other nine patients, who had failed multiple chemotherapies. She’d had this for 14 years and had never sought any treatment for it at all. She had no surgery, she had no radiation therapy and she’d had no chemo.

So in retrospect we realized, oh my gosh, this patient clearly has much more indolent disease. Even though it’s advanced, it’s progressing so slowly we would have to exclude this patient from analysis because in one month she wouldn’t show change.

She was stable from that point of view, so we couldn’t show progression of disease in this patient in a one month diet. And it turns out she wasn’t very compliant with the diet anyway, and she showed very little change. So the reality was we had to exclude this patient. So we really only evaluated nine patients.

Anyway, getting to the gist of that, of the nine patients the results on the face of it were really not terribly impressive; five patients showed, well four patients showed stable disease, one patient showed a partial remission on the PET scans. We had a baseline PET scan indicate the patients had glucose dependent cancers, and we had a follow up PET scan to monitor the change in the PET scan as an index of whether these patients responded in some way.

But four patients had continued progressive disease. So on the face of it, this is really not that impressive. However, the interesting thing about the difference between these patients is that the patients who had the stable disease or partial remission had three times the levels of ketosis compared to those who didn’t.

So the fact was that whether this was an issue of compliance or metabolic effect, whatever that was with the level of compliance they achieved, the reality was that the patients who showed the best responses were those who had the most ketosis. So that was also consistent with our hypothesis that the ketone bodies and the effect of low insulin levels, which would include ketosis, would have some varying on the outcome.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So did the same thing show up? The higher the inhibition of insulin the better the result?

[Gene Fine]: Yes,that’s essentially what we’re saying. That the more it was inhibited, it’s effects were best measured by measuring ketone bodies. Insulin itself varies so rapidly that unless you time it exclusively the same way, timing after a meal and so forth, you have to be very careful. So we use ketone bodies as a more robust measure of the effects on insulin inhibition.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is that pretty concrete then? That there will always be an inverse correlation? That that’s been established very well in science?

[Gene Fine]: An inverse correlation between ketone bodies…

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Because as you say, insulin can go up and down very quickly so it’s kind of difficult to know where it is. But in scientific studies it’s been pretty well established that insulin is inverse to ketone bodies, so then it’s okay to assume that.

[Gene Fine]: Right, but they act on different time scales. Insulin spikes very rapidly after a meal, and ketone bodies gradually build up over a period of days after chronic low insulin levels.

So you can go out of ketosis fairly quickly, but not as quickly as you can spike. You can spike an insulin level pretty level and the ketone bodies will decrease over a period of hours, the insulin levels change rapidly over a period of minutes. It’s a little bit different time scales, but yes there is a general inverse relationship for chronic insulin levels and ketosis.

The other thing I wanted to mention about this is that the patients who did show progressive disease also showed evidence of, which we weren’t really looking at, we wanted patients who did haven’t coincident other diseases, particularly diabetes because we didn’t want to be treating two conditions at the same time. So we basically made sure that the patients were not diabetics and were not taking diabetic medications.

However, in retrospect we did notice that the patients who showed progressive disease had evidence of pre-diabetes. That these were patients who were the four heaviest, they actually were the four heaviest of the group of 10 patients. They also had baseline glucose levels 100 and above.

There was more evidence of pre-diabetes in this group than there was in the group that showed a response. And there were lower levels of ketosis. So, overall, we don’t know for a fact that this is the way to screen patients, whether this is actually a biomarker. I would suggest that it makes sense that in patients who have pre-diabetes, pre-diabetes is marked by high insulin levels, and it takes quite some [time].

So that in this group, a low-carb diet didn’t seem to have much benefit. In fact, it didn’t have any benefit at all, they had progressive disease.

Now of course the way you want to treat, at least the way I like to treat patients with pre-diabetes, is put them on a low-carb diet. But I think that that would take several months to improve their insulin insensitivity, and if they already have cancer that’s probably not what you want to do in this particular group. If they have cancer and they have pre-diabetes, you’d probably have to treat the cancer as a separate entity.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, because it’s going to take a longer time to have the metabolic impact that you want.

[Gene Fine]: Right, and you don’t want the cancer to be progressing during that time, so you probably have to make your choices in that case.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, from your study I remember one thing you were doing was in order to assess the better performers was you were looking at the relative ketone change.

[Gene Fine]: That’s right. And we actually, we used relative ketosis, interestingly, rather than absolute. Now, the absolute ketosis was not very different in the two groups. But I actually believe the relative ketosis is more important, mainly because — let’s see if I can describe that succinctly.

When you looked at the baseline ketosis, baseline levels of ketone bodies, absolute values.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]:: So this is before you start the low-carb diet?

[Gene Fine]: Fasting levels, right.

There were some patients who had issues of values, who had like 0.04 millimolar. And then there were others who had 0.4 millimolar. So that’s factor of 10.

Now, the absolute levels of ketosis rose in most patients to about 1.0 millimolar. A patient that only went from 0.4 to 1.0 went up by a factor of just two and a half. A patient that went from 0.04 to 1.0 went up by a factor of 25. So there is a much bigger change in the overall metabolism, and the change of the metabolism in a patient that started at a lower value.

I would propose — and this is what I actually believe — is that the patients who were living with a baseline ketone body level of 0.4 were actually acclimating their cancers to a higher level of ketosis during the period of the cancer’s growth, initiation, and development. And in fact that these cancers may be well acclimated, in other words adapted to, that they grew up in a level in which they were used to these levels.

And so that you can’t expect — well, put it this way. Whereas I do believe that people who live in environments where they eat mostly meat and fat during the year — let’s just say Inuits for example that haven’t been exposed to McDonalds and Laps living in northern Finland and live on reindeer meat all day long — that people who live under those conditions I would suggest, and I don’t know what the evidence is exactly, that they will have lower incidences of cancer.

However, should a person under those circumstances develop cancer, you know you sure as heck would not put them on a low-carb diet, because you know that they developed cancer already on a low-carb diet.

So that’s what I’m basically saying. If you have somebody who already is in a state of higher levels of ketone bodies and cancer develops in a person like that, then you certainly wouldn’t expect that patient to be as responsive to a low-carb diet.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s interesting because there’s a lot of things in biology, like somatic signals, where, like if you think about the treatment of antibiotics, right, you basically have to pulse it. You have to pulse it and do it one go has to be done effectively. If you get chronic antibiotics for a while then it stops having it’s impact, and you don’t get the benefits, and so on.

So it’s interesting that you identified this mechanism where a body could be a lot more beneficial to, let’s say do something. I mean I’m sure you’re aware that Dr. Seyfried recommends a five day fast, which is a more extreme version of what you did in your study, and potentially may be more beneficial because it is more extreme. As you said, and maybe there will be a higher therapeutic value.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, that’s right. And Dr. Seyfried is one, also Valter Longo in California has recommended calorie restriction and fasting as well. And I think that those methods may have some other unique benefits that carb restriction may not have. They also may not be as easy to implement, but I think that they’re all in the ballpark, and there may be values for all of them.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So one thing I did want to bring up is when we were talking to Dr. Seyfried he mentioned he’s using an index now, which is called the glucose ketone index. I don’t know if you’ve spoken to him about that, or come across it.

It’s simply glucose divided by ketones in millimolars. And he’s been using that to look at his approach to metabolic therapy and see if it’s effective. I’m just wondering if you could compare that to the relative ketones. Would that make sense for you, or you haven’t looked at this?

[Gene Fine]: I haven’t done that, so I really don’t feel up enough to comment on it. I didn’t do that. I actually might want to go back and calculate that as well in these patients to see if I can get those numbers and make some correlations. But I haven’t actually done that yet.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, it strikes me it just might be interesting because, as you said, some of the diabetic patients went up, potentially high glucose. So you might see something similar there. Based on it.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, that’s right. I was just thinking about that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great.

There’s a few things I wanted to bring up here in terms of the other tactics people might use. Which I don’t know, you may not have an opinion on these. But there are other things that can change the levels of ketones in our body. You can use MCT oil, or ketone esters, exogenous ketones basically, or a high fat diet.

My personal experience with these, for instance, is I’ve been on a high fat diet for a while and in my fasting insulin tests, my insulin is pretty low compared to the average. And I understand that that’s pretty standard. So I was just wondering what you thought of these kind of approaches. Also, if you’ve seen anything that might say there would be similar impact. Because they’re basically mimicking the effects of a low carbohydrate diet.

[Gene Fine]: Well yeah, I actually don’t know what way a high fat diet is distinguished from a low-carb diet. There are three macro nutrients, and basically a low-carb diet is a high fat diet. I don’t know if a high fat diet necessarily is also a low-carb, but it must be lower in carbs because you don’t really make up the difference in protein.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, you’re right. The question is the protein. That’s the missing…

[Gene Fine]: Right. And as I say, I haven’t tested the protein values. We didn’t restrict protein in our group. I think we could have.

We were dealing with patients who, as I say, had advanced cancers, and we were getting them as through referrals from their oncologists as volunteers, and we really didn’t want to give them something too complicated to do, so we just tried to [simplify it]. But yes, protein, certainly restriction might have had further benefit.

But as far as inducing ketosis with medium chain triglycerides, coconut oils and the like, ketone esters, I think these are interesting approaches. They can certainly, possibly offer more convenience, rather than going through a low-carb diet. And that I think has value.

The other thing to note is that they don’t actually mimic the full effects of a low-carb diet because they don’t inhibit insulin. So, there is that aspect of it. While there may be value, I’m not sure that they’ll produce the full effect.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thanks for the commentary.

Now the other thing I wanted to just bring up was metformin, I don’t know if you’ve looked at all at that.

[Gene Fine]: Well, yeah. I mean, I’m aware that this is being used, at least in trials, as another potential mimicker. And it has it’s own value. I think what it does for me is it illustrates the value of low-carb diets, because what it really does, metformin, is it limits glucose and thereby insulin secretion. So, it’s fine. To me it’s major mechanism is the same mechanism as a low-carb diet.

It has some independent mechanisms. It seems to up-regulate AMP kinase, which happens also to be done by low-carb diets. So metformin may have some advantages. It’s a drug. It’s a very well tolerated drug, but it’s not a universally well tolerated drug.

There are some side effects that have been reported. Not frequently, but some patients develop lactic acidosis, which can be very serious. And some patients develop hypoglycemia. So, I think overall it would be considered a very safe approach, it just has to be tested, like everything else.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Thank you.

I was wondering if you had any opinion on calorie deficit versus high intake of calories. I could be on a high fat diet, or a low carbohydrate diet, and still have a surplus of calories versus a deficit. Do you think that’s anything that could be either affecting your results, or something to look at?

[Gene Fine]: Yes, it is something, definitely, to look at. The calorie restricted approach has been advocated…well, it’s just been advocated. I can’t say exactly whether the mechanism is the same, overlapping, or somewhat different.

But I can just say this, that in our study we actually wanted patients to not lose weight. We encouraged them to overeat. Overeat a low-carb diet, but overeat. So to eat as many calories as they needed to sustain their weight.

So the only comment I can make about this is that all the patients lost weight. We did not intend for them to lose weight, that was not our goal. We encouraged them, we would be weighing them weekly and we’d tell them, “Eat more, eat more. You’re making these shakes, add more cream to it. Add more oil to your foods. Put butter on everything.”

Well anyway, whatever it is that we encouraged them to do, all 10 of them lost weight. They lost on average about four percent of their initial body weight. The interesting thing about that, I just suppose that this is why these diets are effective as weight loss diets.

No one knows exactly why they work, but you certainly can speculate some pretty plausible mechanisms. One is that ketosis may inhibit appetite. Another is that your inhibiting insulin, and insulin, as I say, under the influence of carbohydrate makes you fat and keeps you fat. The absence of insulin does the opposite. It releases lipids from your fat cells, and metabolizes them in the liver. So the fact is that low-carb diets intrinsically may be weight loss diets.

We believed in our study that it’s possibly to defeat this. That there’s such a thing as overfeeding, and maybe if one is particularly conscious about this, one can do this. But the other interesting factor is that seven out of the 10 patients were above a body mass index of 25, which is to say they were overweight. Only three of them were in the normal weight range, between 20 and 25.

And as it happens, the patients who lost the most weight were the heaviest. Frankly they were delighted with their weight loss, even though we were trying to maintain weight just for the principles of our study.

The patients who were in the normal weight range, the two who were the higher two in the normal weight range — I should say, the heaviest patients lost about five to six percent of their body weight. The patients who were in the normal weight range, the two heavier of them — 25 BMI and 23 — lost about three percent of their body weight. And the patient who was 20 lost no body weight at all.

So what this tells us is something we all know also, which is that the closer we approach our ideal body weight, the harder it is to lose weight. I don’t know whether you’ve observed that yourself, whether you have gained, lost or are stable in terms of your body weight, but I believe that high fat diets do not necessarily cause weight loss, particularly in people who are approaching their ideal lean body weight.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I’ve been on this diet for many years, just as an n=1 experiment. I think I lost a bit of weight when it first started, but ever since I’ve been really stable, ever since. And I’ve never paid attention to the number of calories. Sometimes I’m sure I’m eating a lot of calories, and sometime I’m not eating so many, for whatever it’s worth.

[Gene Fine]: I should also mention one other thing, which is that in our study, when we calculated what the calorie intake was on the basis this is of course on the patients self-reports, that all the patients reduced their calorie intake as well. Now, we didn’t want them to, but the measured calorie intake on the basis of their self reports was reduced, in fact by about one third.

The other interesting thing though is that the stable disease effect and partial remission, those patients who showed stable disease or partial remission had three times the ketosis. But the degree of weight loss in the two groups was the same. They both lost about four percent. So although there was weight loss in all the patients, weight loss, or calorie deficit, did not appear to correlate with the effects that we saw.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well that’s a great point then.

I think the other point you illustrated, if we’re talking about your studies, is how difficult it is to set a good cancer study up, given the situation with the patients and you’re trying to control for a lot of things. So, as you say, it took you four years to recruit the patients for the last study. So I think it gives us a much better appreciation of how difficult it is to do these types of studies.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah. I think it is the fact that physicians are trained to treat with drugs and that’s very understandable. Drugs generally work well. And in cancer, it would be naive to start off with the assumption that diet is going to be a successful therapy. It has to be tested.

And so, whereas there was some reluctance, there wasn’t entirely, and many of the oncologists were very helpful and cooperative and referred patients when they were on a chemo holiday, or chemo break. That’s what was needed to get this study done. And also the fact that I didn’t want patients who were too thin and too sick.

But I think going forward, I think that we can count on, perhaps, some additional support. And we are actually aiming for human studies going forward as well. Right now, as I say, we’re also trying to couple diet with drugs in animal studies. So this combination, we hope, will lead us somewhere.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, Great. So is it the first time someone’s been trying to couple chemotherapy with diet? Or are there existing studies that you’re basing your current work on?

[Gene Fine]: Coupling a low carbohydrate diet with other therapies has been done. I know that Colin Champ and Doug Spitz, I believe, have coupled low-carb diets with radiation therapy. As far as coupling with drugs, I’m not actually immediately aware that anyone has done that. I think that we may be the ones who are looking at that right now.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Wrapping up a bit, thanks so much for your time today.

Where could we learn more about this subject? Are there other people you would look to to learn more about this? Perhaps people you’ve worked for who are doing a lot of studies in this area. You mentioned Valter Longo, of course who was mentioned in Dr. Seyfried’s as well. Or are there any books or presentations on the subject that are good?

[Gene Fine]: I’m trying to think, other presentations. I know that there are some other people working in the area that I know have been doing good work.

Dominic D’Agostino in Florida. I think he has a website, and it would be interesting to look at some of the work that he’s done. A somewhat, I hope, accessible discussion of what we’ve talked about.

I have a couple of guest blog posts that I wrote. My colleague Richard Feinman has a generalized biochemistry and metabolism web blog, and he invited me to write some guest blog posts for his web blog. So I wrote two.

One which is on the general hypothesis, which I didn’t even discuss today. I mean, I discussed it in the broadest forms, but I didn’t discuss some of the details. And the other one is more on the clinical trial, on the recharge trial. So it gives more detail on that.

And I think Colin Champ has an interesting website as well, Caveman Doctor. I think I’d look at that. These are other resources. I think I’ve mentioned most of those that I know.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. So, we’ll put links to all of that in the show notes, thank for those.

Well how about you? What are the best ways for people to connect with you? I mean you mentioned the blog posts, which we’ll put in. Is there anything else? Do you have a website, or are you on Twitter? Is there anywhere you are active where people could learn more about what you’re up to?

[Gene Fine]: Let’s see. The website that I have is my website at Albert Einstein. You can also, through the blog posts that I mentioned it gives other links to papers that I’ve written as well as to my website. So I think that probably the most complete portal, you can look me up just at Albert Einstein and find my website there. And that will also link me to the dietary studies and the blog posts and the papers. They all connect to each other.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. We’ll put those on the show notes.

Something we spoke about just before the interview, your perspectives are a little bit different to Dr. Thomas Seyfried that we’ve already had on the show. Could you briefly summarize where you think you might have a different opinion?

[Gene Fine]: Well, I just think that we really are in the same camp. I think that we both believe in metabolic therapy, as do the other people that I’ve mentioned. I think that he believes that when he describes cancer as a metabolic disease, he believes that the fundamental problem is it starts as a metabolic disease in abnormal mitochondria. That may be true.

The only thing that I think that I would differ is that that abnormality in the mitochondria, I believe, is a genetic abnormality, even in the mitochondria. That you still have, what’s happening in the mitochondria is that, to me the fundamental problem in cancer is actually a genetic mutation that leads the cells to increased proliferation and growth and unlimited growth and immortality, and so forth.

The source of these mutations, I believe, could certainly be in the mitochondria, but in fact if it is, and that would make sense to me, it would be increased reactive oxygen species. And increased reactive oxygen species can cause mutations in the genetic portions of the mitochondria, and that would cause abnormal mitochondria. Or it could cause mutations in the DNA of the cell. Certainly hydrogen peroxide, peroxide can migrate over distances and can migrate into the nucleus.

So, I actually believe that the fundamental problem that leads to the cancer may initiate in the mitochondria with reactive oxygen species, but nonetheless results in the fundamental change of cancer is in a mutation. So I think that [in a] certain sense we’re describing the same phenomenon, but we have a different emphasis on which syllable we’re emphasizing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Potentially where it starts and where it finishes, and so on.

[Gene Fine]: Yeah, yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Great, thanks for that clarification.

Before you go, I just wanted to look at a bit of what you do on a personal level with your body data. I was just wondering if you track any metrics at all for your own health, biomarkers, or anything like that on a routine basis. Maybe yearly, or more so?

[Gene Fine]: When I started studying this in, around 2003, and I got interested in it, by the way, from my friend and colleague Richard Feinman. He’s a biochemist, and he’s been interested in this principally from the point of view of the effects on metabolic syndrome, diabetes, lipid disorders, and so forth.

However, I came in from the nuclear medicine background, and PET scanning and Warburg effect, and hypoxic cells. For me it was attractive for the possibility that this may have some effect, low-carb diets in inhibiting glycolosis, and as I mentioned earlier through the uncoupling protein 2 having a unique inhibitory effect on cancers while sparing normal cells.

So in 2003 when I got interested in this, and I decided that — you know, I never really had a weight problem, but I had gradually put on a few pounds over the years. And I have a small frame, so I’m about five foot nine, and 165 pounds. For me that was carrying excess fat.

So I figured well, you know, if I’m going to study this in others I might as well experience what it’s like for myself. And maybe I’ll even have some benefit in terms of overall body composition.

To make a long story short, I’ve been on a low-carb diet of various degrees of strictness over the years. In some cases I’ve been ketogenic, I’ve been very strict. In other cases, I’ve just been low-carb, but not likely ketogenic. I haven’t been under 50 grams a day, I’m not quite sure.

But the short story is that over a period of now, what 2003, really 2004, about 11 to 12 years, I’ve lost 33 pounds. Sometimes it’s been in fits and starts, but I’m very, very happy and comfortable with my weight right now. I like myself at 132. I have a small frame. I feel that for me I am lean and fit, and that’s a good thing.

There’s that aspect of it. In terms of other biomarkers, the numbers that I like to look at, in particular, are those that have risk profiles for, well my glucose and my hemoglobin A1C has dropped. In addition, my fasting blood glucose.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So if you remember, where did they start and where are you at now? And are you happy with the numbers now?

[Gene Fine]: Well yeah. I mean, I think I’ve been stricter lately and more consistent, so I’ve only been monitoring them really. I don’t think I’ve really been taking very close watch of them.

But I think over the past year or two my blood glucose, a couple of years ago had actually been at 100, and my hemoglobin A1C I think at one time was around 5.7. I’m sorry, this was only about one year ago.

The hemoglobin A1C changes slowly, but in two successive measurements, I’m about to come up with a third, it’s dropped to 5.7 to 5.6 now to 5.5, and I’m expecting it will continue to be going down because I’m doing this. And my fasting blood glucose is now about 94. So it’s dropping, and I’m satisfied with that.

I used to eat what was recommended. I used to eat a low fat diet, which of course means a high-carb diet, and I think I suffered the consequences. But little by little that has been reversing.

From the point of view of my lipid profile, the things that I’m most interested in are those that are atherogenic, that contribute to risk of cardiovascular disease. And I think the current thinking, which makes some sense to me, is that it’s not so much LDL which is targeted by the cardiologist, because LDL is a mixed bag.

Low density lipoproteins really consist of two major fractions. One of the light, buoyant LDL, which is really not harmful, and the other is the small dense LDL, which is. And what happens on a low-carb diet is you reverse the ratio. You reduce the amount of small dense LDL.

And the good measure of that, because it’s hard to get that measurement directly. There are only a few labs in the world that actually measure small dense LDL directly. You have to send away to specialized testing for them. However, there’s a good index of it and it’s the ratio of your triglycerides over your HDL.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So there’s a proxy?

[Gene Fine]: There’s a proxy for small dense LDL, yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Oh, great.

[Gene Fine]: And so when I started, I guess when I first measured my triglycerides to small dense LDL when I had been not very compliant at all, my triglycerides at one point were about 150, and my HDL was about 50. So the ratio was about three. And since going on a low-carb diet, my triglycerides fell in half, to 74, and my HDL went from 50 to 75. So basically my ratio is now one.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s pretty high.

[Gene Fine]: So all the things went in the right direction. I’m very pleased that the HDL went up, without any major increase in exercise, just the diet alone. And my triglycerides fell in half. So those are both just exactly what you would expect on a low-carb diet, and what you want.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thanks for those.

They’re very useful, especially the triglyceride HDL ratio. Because it is difficult to get the, I guess you were talking about the NMR, nuclear magnetic resonance. We spoke about that in a previous episode. And then there’s the LDLP to get the number of particles. But as you say, there’s only a few specialized labs, so it’s not as accessible. So it’s great to know that there’s a proxy to use also.

Last question here. What would be your number one recommendation to someone trying to use some kind of data to track, whether it’s biomarkers or something else, to make better decisions about their own health?

[Gene Fine]: Yes, well I mean it depends on what aspect of the health you’re talking about. But I don’t know if ketosis is necessary.

As I mentioned, any change of diet can be difficult to sustain over the long term. I don’t even know what it takes. Willpower is something that, what is it. So, it’s hard to know how to do that.

And by and large the reason I would say it’s hard to change diet is people eat what they like. And you want to eat what you like, and so changing your diet means you’re, by definition, changing it to something that you didn’t prefer. So it seems as though there’s a fundamental issue there.

On the other hand, I think that if you have a weight issue that you’re not happy with, or your doctor reports blood lipid markers or glucose markers that you’re not happy with and evidence of pre-diabetes or diabetes, and you’re on meds, so forth — let’s not consider meds yet. Let’s just talk about without being on meds. Because low-carb diets, if you can actually go on them and you’re also on meds, you have to do that under supervision because you might actually become hypoglycemic, and you have to be careful about that.

But without considering meds if you just want to, say, improve your health in terms of obesity or aspects of metabolic syndrome, lipid disorders, blood glucose levels, pre-diabetes. Without going on a strict low-carb ketogenic diet it’s not as hard, I think anyway, to reduce the quantity of carbohydrates that you eat.

You can have a breakfast where, you can cut out, well cut in half the size of the desserts that you eat. You can cut in half the amount of mashed potatoes that you eat. You can eat one slice of bread instead of two, or you can not eat bread. Although that sometimes is hard for people, but if you eat the bread and don’t eat the mashed potatoes, you’ve reduced the number of carbs that you eat.

So if you just start by reducing certain portions of carbohydrates. And I actually found I still have carbohydrates a little bit now. I have a sort of modified Atkins Plus, I call it, or South Beach Plus. I have a little ice cream at night. It’s my treat.

Overall, I probably eat about 60 grams of carbs a day. But, I treat myself to a little bit of ice cream at night. I’ll find out what that’s done to my lipid profile, by the way. But I don’t think it’s going to have a major effect. I think that overall it’s going to be still pretty good.

So the idea of reducing the overall quantity of carbs, I think, is actually important. I think that with the average American diet, I don’t know if the same is true in UK but probably, that overall consumption of carbs is 300 to 400 grams a day. And that’s really quite a lot. And if that could be cut in half to 150, that would be a big improvement.

So, I think that that would be lower stimulation of insulin secretion. Yeah, I think that that would be my principle recommendation in terms of health.

Now as far as exercise is concerned, exercise is also something that many people do but can’t stick to an exercise regime. And overall, I think that even if you look at the overall impact on insulin sensitivity and improving metabolic profile, there’s no question that exercise helps. But it really comes a distant second to diet in terms of having a dramatic impact on insulin sensitivity and these other biomarkers of lipids and glucose and so forth.

So that, while you’ll never hear me discourage anyone from wanting to do exercise, I think that if you want to have an immediate and more dramatic effect, the thing to do would be to reduce carbohydrates in the diet somehow.

And that’s probably the best I can say at the present time, because as I say, I don’t think anyone has a magic bullet as to how to help someone go on a diet. It’s never easy, but if you can find a way to reduce carbohydrates, you’re off to a start.

And if you feel encouraged by the results that you see, you tend to continue it.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Absolutely. Thank you for bringing that up, because we’re introducing changes here, new habits. And as you say, it’s super difficult.

I feel one of the things that helps people is making it clearer how helpful it can be in different areas of their life. Once you’ve heard it 10, 20 times from different people who are studying these things, like yourself, in different areas. I think it makes it easier for people, just because of the repetition, for the clarity in their heads.

I think part of the problem is the mystery and the misunderstanding, especially in the media and the press. The more times you’ve heard five different stories, the less you feel like taking action against any one of them, because you’re just not sure, you’re hesitant.

So thank you for your time today, because it’s certainly helping with these type of things.

[Gene Fine]: Thank you. I’m glad that you have this program, really, to spread the word through interviewing people who are active in the field.

Leave a Reply

A look at a collection of high impact endurance tools and tactics – and the top biomarkers to watch for optimization. Vetted by an endurance athlete with years of experiments and competitions behind him.

Today’s episode is about endurance training and using high-impact tools to get the most out of it. We look at self-tracking in diet and exercise when aiming to optimize your body to perform at peak capacity.

We discuss factors playing a role in improving endurance through a healthy progression. What self-quantifying strategies are useful for tracking overall performance and health?

This episode features actionable takeaways on dealing with a variety of obstacles commonly experienced by endurance athletes.

How to make use of ketogenic dieting in maximizing fat-burning efficiency during physically demanding exercise? Which biomarkers are important for tracking individual organ-systems functionality in the body? How to maintain a healthy hormonal status?

Overall, we look to beneficial and practical tactics for athletes wishing to upgrade their performance and discuss common pitfalls to avoid in cultivating endurance.

On this full-on ketosis diet… the endurance payoff was huge. The amount of focus that I had for long periods of time. My ability to just hop on a bike and ride for hours with no fuel at all, with just water. It was pretty profound, because you produce all these ketones as a bi-product of fatty acid oxidation, and they’re used as the preferred fuel… while you’re out exercising. And that’s a huge boon to an endurance athlete.
– Ben Greenfield

Today’s guest is Ben Greenfield who is a professional competitor in endurance-demanding events, including triathlon and Ironman races. Ben has 11 years experience coaching athletes and fitness professionals.

Throughout his athletic career, he has researched physiology of upgrading endurance using a quantified approach. He has performed numerous self-experiments targeted towards understanding his performance parameters, and towards optimizing his diet and exercise.

Ben is the author of a New York Time’s best-selling book titled “Beyond Training: Mastering Endurance, Health, and Life”, which was published in 2014. His top-ranked iTunes podcast is called BenGreenFieldFitness.

The episode highlights, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

What You’ll Learn

  • Ben uses his biohacking experience to coach people on living healthy and attempting on-the-edge extreme exercise (4:46).
  • Ben’s interests in endurance training and research developed over time. No big eureka moments, just meaningful experiences (7:12).
  • Important biomarkers in endurance training specifically, and practical reasons for these picks in exercise self-tracking (11:24)
  • Why regulation of sex-hormones and cortisol (the stress hormone) are important to track in endurance training (15:50).
  • Why standard reference ranges for free testosterone are often not applicable to endurance athletes (16:48).
  • Liver enzymes, kidney parameters, Vitamin D, and digestive track inspections are also key biomarkers for healthy endurance training (18:20).
  • The digestive track plays an upstream role in multiple athlete pains and discomforts (21:18).
  • How to fight thyroid system dysfunction in endurance training (24:17).
  • The key lessons Ben learned from his 12 months ketosis dieting experiment (26:10).
  • The biomarkers for detecting adrenal fatigue symptoms (27:22).
  • Biomarkers and tests for autonomic nervous system functionality and distinguishing adrenal fatigue from thyroid system dysfunction (28:03).
  • Incorporating Heart Rate Variability (HRV) tracking in endurance training (31:39).
  • HRV is Ben’s ultimate marker for optimizing endurance training and quantifying overall health (33:23).
  • Success in endurance training requires optimization between high-volume achievements and short-duration precisely aimed tasks (34:29).
  • Dealing with negative effects of endurance exercise and ketogenic dieting (39:01).
  • Maximizing ketogenic dieting benefits and potentially useful supplements (44:34).
  • Breath ketones are an easy way to test for purposeful ketosis (46:20).
  • Tracking important biomarkers and avoiding excessive ketosis (47:20).
  • Why oxaloacetate can be used as a supplement with ketogenic dieting (48:25).
  • Why cold thermogenesis works for athletes’ bodies, for recovery and for overall performance (50:27).
  • The portal outlining Ben’s work and relevant people recommended by Ben (53:17).
  • Ben’s most-important advice on living healthy is being grateful several times per day (54:48).

Thank Ben Greenfield on Twitter for this interview.
Click Here to let him know you enjoyed the show!

Ben Greenfield, Greenfield Fitness Systems

Tools & Tactics

Interventions

  • Cold Thermogenesis: Can be achieved through a variety of cold exposure methods such as cold showers or dipping into cold water streams . In cold thermogenesis hormesis is used to promote positive adaptations in the body as we saw in episode 8. Amongst other improvements it can help to burn fat more efficiently and improve blood vessel functionality in part by promoting development of your Brown Adipose Tissue (BAT). BAT is a type of fat which is active tissue and able to generate heat.

Tech

  • Heart Math Gratitude exercises: The Institute of Heart Math promotes using specific gratitude exercises to optimize the HeartMath Heart Rate Variability (HRV) score. We’ve discussed the HeartMath form of HRV previously in episode 6. This exercise can be done with one of either of their two HRV feedback devices: Inner Balance for iOS or emwave2.

Supplementation

  • Thyro-Gold: Thyroid glandular extract produced by the New Zealand company Natural Thyroid Solutions. This supplement is used as a biohack to correct thyroid-system dysfunction, sometimes caused by ketogenic dieting – especially with very low carbohydrate intake and endurance exercise.
  • AndroGel: Although the use of testosterone hormone-containing products is illegal in professionally-sanctioned sports events, this supplement is sometimes used because free-testosterone levels often drop in a ketosis state.
  • Ketosports KetoForce: KetoForce contains the endogenous ketone body beta-hydroxybutyrate (BHB) in sodium and potassium salt form. The compound BHB can be used as an energy source by the brain when blood glucose is low. Ingesting KetoForce raises the levels of blood ketones for 2.5-3.0 hours after ingestion. (Note: A similar product from same company is Ketosports KetoCaNa).
  • benaGene: This supplement, oxaloacetate, was previously covered in depth in episode 30 in an interview with its creator Alan Cash.
    Greenfield uses this specifically to increase the rate at which his liver synthesizes new glucose molecules, during a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet including exercise. The goal is to take advantage of its ‘glycogen sparing’ effect, since glycogen is less available in ketogenic diets, and thus get more intensity out of workouts.

Diet & Nutrition

  • Ketogenic Diet: A ketogenic diet is low in carbohydrates intake and high in fat intake. As such, it induces a state of ketosis in the body – the condition in which the body burns fats and uses ketones instead of glucose for fuel. Previously, we discussed measuring ketones and ketogenic dieting in Episode 7 with Jimmy Moore.
    To provide scientific support in favor of ketogenic dieting for endurance, Ben suggests the research of a University of Connecticut team investigating athletic training and human performance. For more information, see this recent scientific review authored by them on using fat as fuel for endurance exercise.
  • Cyclic-Ketogenic Diet: In some people, full ketogenic diets can lead to hormonal or organ dysfunction (e.g. thyroid). The cyclic-ketogenic diet is the solution often used to avoid these downsides. This is a low-carbohydrate diet with intermittent periods of high or moderate carbohydrate consumption (e.g. a refeed with carbohydrates every weekend). It is used as a way to maximize fat loss while maintaining the ability to perform intense exercise during a ketosis state.
  • Based on his 12 month ketosis self-experiment, Ben has concluded that eating anti-inflammatory food, as well as increasing intake of food containing medium-chain triglycerides (MTCs) and resistant starches, are all beneficial in reducing the potential negative side effects of ketogenic dieting.

Exercise

  • Polarized Training: Polarized Training is scientific terminology for the concept of easy-hard training. Researchers from the University of Stirling in Scotland have concluded that using an approach which excludes medium-intensity training is more beneficial for building endurance compared to an approach that includes medium-intensity training. The polarized training model (80% low-intensity; 0% medium-intensity; 20% high-intensity training) produces more positive results in endurance athletes, compared to the competitor threshold model (57% low-intensity; 43% medium-intensity; 0% high-intensity training).
  • Murph Workout: “Murph” is a CrossFit workout named after Navy Lieutenant Michael Murphy, who was killed in Afghanistan June 28th, 2005. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor after his death. It first appeared on the CrossFit site 18 August 2005. This workout consists of (in order): 1 mile run, 100 pull-ups, 200 push-ups, 300 squats, and a 1 mile run at the end.

Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Heart Rate Variability (HRV): HRV is the measure of the change in the heart’s rhythm over time based on changes between sympathetic and parasympathetic activation. HRV was previously covered in the context of optimizing training workouts using HRV in Episode 1 with Andrew Flatt and using HRV as a biomarker for longevity in Episode 20 with Dr. Joon Yun.
  • Triglyceride to High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) ratio: Researchers have shown that using the triglyceride to HDL ratio is a better predictor of coronary disease risk factors, compared to tracking total cholesterol (which includes HDL and other lipoprotiens). A ratio of 2 : 1 or less is considered optimal.
  • High-Sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP): CRP is a protein that increases in the blood with inflammation and is used as a marker for cardiovascular health (high levels over 1 mg/l are indicative of higher cardiovascular risk). Both diet choices and overtraining can lead to high levels of hs-CRP (over 1).
  • Ketones: Ketone concentrations can be tested in blood, breath and urine samples to determine if you are in ketosis (burning ketones for fuel) and to what extent. We covered these markers extensively in episode 7 – how to measure ketones.
  • Creatinine and Blood Urea Nitrogen: These two biomarkers are often elevated above normal levels in endurance athletes, without being indicative of a health risk. In endurance training, creatinine levels lower than about 1.1 mg/dl do not pose a health risk. It is also relatively normal to have BUN levels over 20mg/dL.
  • Liver Function Tests: When excessive exercise is present, the blood levels of liver enzymes Alanine Transaminase (ALT), Aspartate Transaminase (AST), and Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) are elevated above normal.
  • The 25-hydroxy Vitamin D Blood Test: The most accurate way to measure how much vitamin D is bioavailable to be used by your body is the 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood test. Optimum vitamin D levels range between 50-70 ng/ml.
  • Salivary cortisol to Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) ratio: An increase in DHEA levels is highly suggestive of adrenal dysfunction because DHEA is produced exclusively by the adrenal glands. Excessive exercise stresses the body to produce very high levels of cortisol, which causes a depletion of endogenous DHEA. This results in an elevated cortisol to DHEA ratio. Testing for this ratio several times per day provides a more complete image of adrenal function, compared to a snapshot provided by simple monitoring of blood cortisol levels. A normal cortisol : DHEA ratio is approximately 5:1 to 6:1.
  • Thyroid Functional Test Panel: A TFT panel typically includes thyroid hormones such as Thyroid Stimulating Hormone as well as the thyroid hormones triiodothyronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4). Excessive exercise can stress the body to produce high-levels of cortisol (the stress hormone) which inhibits the conversion of thyroid hormone from inactive (T4) to biologically active (T3). This can result in lower levels of active thyroid hormone despite normal or up-regulated levels of TSH. Thus, testing for (active) T3 hormone concentrations is more relevant for endurance athletes self-tracking. Optimal reference ranges for TSH are 0.4 – 2.5 milliunits per liter (mU/L). Optimal reference ranges for free (bioavailable) T3 range between 350 – 780 pg/dL.
  • Sex Hormone Binding Globulin (SHBG) and free testosterone: The standard reference ranges for SHBG are 0.2-1.6 mg/dL for non-pregnant adult females and 0.1-0.6 mg/dL for adult males. Changes in SHBG levels affect the amount of free hormone that is available to be used by tissues, including the levels of free testosterone. In case SHBG levels are in abnormal ranges, then free (bioavailable) testosterone should be tested (reference ranges 1.0-8.5 pg/mL for females and 50.2-210.3 pg/mL for males).
  • Tests for detecting adrenal fatigue and thyroid system insufficiency

  • Iris Contraction Test: This test consists of you looking at the pupil of your eye in a mirror while shining a bright light at your eye. The light should cause the pupil (center black spot of your eye) to contract or become more narrow. The contraction should be sustained for longer than 20 seconds before the pupil starts to flicker or dilate. Otherwise, if the pupil starts to flicker immediately upon shining light, this is a good indication that you have adrenal fatigue – mainly because your adrenal gland is functioning properly in managing blood pressure.
  • Dizziness Test: If you lay down or you sit down and you stand up quickly and you get dizzy, then this is a sign of blood pressure mismanagement. Importantly, problems with blood pressure often accompany adrenal fatigue because one of the main functions of the kidneys is to regulate blood pressure via production of hormones in the adrenal gland.
  • Broda Barnes, MD Temperature Test: This test was developed by Dr. Broda Otto Barnes, who was best known for developing novel perspectives on hypothyroidism – a type of thyroid system disease. In essence, you do oral and armpit measurements every morning in bed upon waking up and keep a graph of the results. If your temperature is consistently low, then this is an indication that your thyroid system is dysfunctional even in the absence of a blood thyroid test.

Lab Tests, Devices and Apps

Other People, Books & Resources

People

  • Dr. Terry Wahls: Dr. Terry Wahls is a a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Iowa. Previously, Dr. Wahls was kind to participate in the third episode of our show, where we focused on linking mitochondrial health to autoimmune and chronic disease.
  • Alan Cash: Alan Cash is the CEO of Terra Biological. Previously, he has been a guest on our podcast in Episode 30, where we discussed the potential for using oxaloacetate as an anti-aging supplement.
  • Joe Friel: Joe Friel holds a masters degree in exercise science and is a USA Triathlon and USA Cycling certified elite-level coach. For Joe’s blog click here. For his Twitter click here.
  • Sami Inkinen: Sami Inkinen is a balanced person. He is a successful businessman and a top-age Ironman competitor. For his Twitter click here.
  • Dr. Peter Attia: Dr. Peter Attia is a scientist who is knowledgeable in healthy endurance exercise and self-quantification. For Dr. Attia’s Eating Academy Blog click here. For his Twitter click here.

Books

Other

Full Interview Transcript

Click Here to Read Transcript
[04:46] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Ben, welcome to the podcast.

[Ben Greenfield]: Hey, thanks for having me on man. And I’ve got to ask you, is it Damien, or Damion? Or Dami-something else?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Or Damian? It depends where you come from, I guess.

[Ben Greenfield]: Okay. Just checking. I don’t want to stick my foot in my mouth.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. You can call me Dam. I tell people to call me Dam, just to avoid all those questions.

[Ben Greenfield]: There we go. I want to sound like I’m cursing the entire episode.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. But it even works in Asia, tried and tested.

[Ben Greenfield]: Nice.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I mean you’ve got a three letter name. That works well.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, totally. Ben.

(05:12) [Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, Ben, you’re into triathletes, Ironman, and basically the way I look at you is you go around searching for tactics and tools to give you an edge in these areas that you’re interested in. Is that a fair kind of back story to who you are and what you’re doing?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, I do a lot of that I guess n=1 guinea-piging myself. Going out and doing crazy things like training with the Navy SEALS or doing these Spartan Races or Ironman triathlons, things like that.

But then I also think I learn just as much via a lot of the coaching and consulting that I do, just because people typically come to me for one of two reasons.

They either want to do some crazy feat that’s completely unnatural for the human body to do, like they want to go run 100 miles in the wilderness or something like that, and figure out how to do it without destroying themselves. So my job is to figure out how to do that from a nutrition and a physiology and an exercise standpoint.

Or they come to me because they basically want to live as long as freaking humanly possible, and want me to manage how do you sleep when you want to do something like that, how do you exercise, what do you measure, what do you pay attention to in your blood and your gut. And so there’s that kind of biohackiness that I get into.

And I’ve got to admit, for me personally it’s a little bit of both, really. I certainly do want to live as long as possible. I also want to do as many crazy events as I can during the process, see as much of the world as I can at the fastest pace possible. And so for myself, personally, I’m doing a little bit of both.

But sometimes people come to me and want to do something that I know nothing about, so I’ve got to go and learn it. So part of it is that, too. That, or if it’s not coaching someone it’s writing about that. Because I’ve done a lot of writing recently. This morning [I] published a big article on my website about how to use marijuana to get performance enhancing gains.

And I never really would have delved into that if I hadn’t been asked by so many people, especially here in the US with the growing legality. It’s like, can I use this while I’m exercising? That type of thing. So it’s a little bit of everything.

[07:12] [Damien Blenkinsopp]:Yeah, great. So [what was] the event that started the whole Ben Greenfield fitness podcast, and the blog and everything? How’d you get involved in that? Because you’re obviously very passionate about it.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah. Well there’s, I mean I get that question a lot, and frankly – nothing against you – but it annoys me, because I hate when people go, “When did you decide to do this? When did you decide to do that?” I never make decisions. I don’t have a 10 year business plan. I don’t have some ‘Come to Jesus’ moment where I said, “Oh hey, I want to learn how to exercise.”

It’s just that I live my life. I do things that I’m passionate about, or that other people who I’m helping are passionate about and tend to fall into whatever I might fall into based on that. I’m getting into hunting right now – well specifically bow hunting and hunting competitions – before that obstacle racing, before that Ironman Triathlon, before that water polo, before that body-building, before that I was a collegiate tennis player.

It’s just like life is a series of chapters and moving targets. It’s never just like one commitment to do one thing. But I would say, to give you a rough answer to your question, the very first time I decided to something a little bit more endurance orientated – which I would define as something that has a nutrition rate.

You don’t see people dropping out of baseball or cricket games because of fatigue and heat stroke and lack of nutrition. That’s very rare, but you see it all the time in marathons and Ironman triathlons and things like that. So I would say the first time I started to get into that side of sports would have been my first Ironman Triathlon that I did back in the city of Portalane, Idaho in 2007.

And up until that point I’d been primarily an explosive power athlete. Like body-building and tennis and stuff like that. But my girlfriend, who is now my wife, was a runner. She ran cross-country for University of Idaho. So I kind of had to take up running, to a certain extent, just to be able to woo her.

And she dragged me to a triathlon one day and she actually had me run the running leg of the triathlon, which hurt like hell. I was a body builder; my boobs were bouncing up and down and my lower back was locking up and it was horrible. But it kind of got me interested in this high that you can get from endurance sports.

And so I wound up doing a few triathlons and doing, what I would say, is the biggest mistake for anyone who wants to avoid getting into endurance, that is I went and watched an Ironman Triathlon. And after watching Ironman and watching these intense feats of physical performance and the huge feeling of satisfaction and self-completion that these people were experiencing as they threw up their arms when they crossed the finish line I was like, I want that. I want to experience that.

And so I signed up for an Ironman and began taking everything I had been studying. At that point I had a Master’s Degree in Exercise Physiology and Nutrition and I was able to start applying that stuff to my training, and experimenting with a lot of what I was finding in research and sports science and seeing what worked and what doesn’t.

For example, all laboratory studies, or most of them, done by the white coats in their little labs will tell you that the body can take on about 200 to 250 calories of fuel during exercise. You can oxidize 200, 250 calories of carbohydrates while you are exercising. But for anyone, especially anyone who’s above about 150 pounds who has tried to go out and do an Ironman Triathlon, you completely bonk after about five hours on that number of calories, and you technically need about twice that in order to be able to get by in an Ironman race in most cases.

So, it’s a situation where what they’re saying in the lab and textbooks actually doesn’t work once you get out in real life and you try this stuff in the streets, in the trenches. So, that’s been kind of fun too, figuring out from research what works, and what doesn’t.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Yeah, we often talk on here about n=1 experiments are often going to be different to the research, for a variety of reasons like the ones you brought up, and the use of averages, and other things like that.

[11:24] So, anyway, in terms of endurance training, since we’re there, what kind of biomarkers have you found to be the most useful to track your performance? Or what do you track around your capabilities for endurance training, and see as important?

[Ben Greenfield]: Oh, for endurance specifically?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah.

[Ben Greenfield]: So for endurance specifically, that’s a great question. So one would be your level of HSCRP, which really that’s just for exercise in general. Or high sensitivity C-reative protein, just to make sure that your levels aren’t straying too high above 0.5. And the reason for that…

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So that’s kind of your benchmark? You try to keep them under there? Where do yours tend to hover around?

[Ben Greenfield]: I actually fall below 0.2 now for HSCRP, probably because I eat a very anti-inflammatory diet, very clean. And I won’t insult your listeners’ intelligence by defining what a clean diet or an anti-inflammatory diet is, because it’s pretty easy to go out and figure that out with Dr. Google.

But I eat very clean. I also use a lot of anti-inflammatories. Like I make ginger tea, and I use a ton of turmeric, usually combined with black pepper to increase the efficacy of it, and I use percumin and I consume a lot of very dark and colorful vegetables with very limited amounts of dark and colorful fruits, and wild caught fish, and fats, and things that really help with inflammation.

And I’m also very careful with my training, where I do extremely focused and intense, but short, bouts of training with a specific purpose. I never go out and just pound the pavement for the hell of it, which is a great way to build up a lot of voluminous training based inflammation.

And so I have a very precise, dialed in training program that also includes things that help to mitigate inflammation, like foam rolling, and cold soaking, and these things that can help to remove a lot of these byproducts of metabolism that can create inflammation. So, inflammation is a biggie. Honestly, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you keep your inflammation controlled, it’s a good thing.

So, a few others that I’ll pay attention to for endurance. When we’re talking about labs, as far as blood goes, TSH, preferably a full thyroid panel, is pretty prudent to pay attention to simply because high level endurance training can inhibit conversion of inactive to active thyroid hormone.

And because of the high amounts of cortisol that can potentially be produced through an improper training program can stress the body out enough to where you experience some hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis insufficiencies, particularly high cortisol, creating a feedback loop that reduces the conversion of inactive to active thyroid hormone and thus an increase in thyroid stimulating hormone. So your body turns out a bunch more thyroid stimulating hormone to try and get more T4 present, even though a lot of that T4 isn’’t getting converted into T3.

And by monitoring TSH, if you see a pattern or a rise in TSH many times it’s concomitant with an increase in cortisol and stress, and often also accompanies a not enough eating period. Sometimes not enough carbohydrates is the biggest culprit, but in many cases just not enough damn calories, period. Damn, not referring to your first name but to the curse word. Just so we’re clear.

That’s another one is TSH. Cortisol, I alluded to, but when we’re looking at a hormonal panel, I also like to pay attention to sex hormone binding globulin. Because the body has this interesting mechanism where when it’s stressed out, when it’s in a time of famine, in a time of need, under high amounts of stress, doing a lot of migrating, a lot of moving with low amount of calorie intake, the last thing you want the body to do is produce a bunch of babies at that point.

And so sex hormone binding globulin often rises simultaneous to cortisol to keep total testosterone bound, and keep it from being available as free testosterone. So even if your testes are working just fine, or your pituitary gland is working just fine, –obviously talking about the males more than the females now– and even the leydig cells in your testes are producing testosterone just fine, if sex hormone binding globulin levels are really, really high that’s all for naught. And so that’s another really, really important one to keep an eye on. And that’s typically addressed by addressing cortisol.

[15:50][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So, why would you look at SHBG versus free testosterone, or that marker? The [unclear 15:56]?

[Ben Greenfield]: Well, because if free testosterone is low, but if you look upstream perhaps it’s because total testosterone is low because the leydig cells in your testes are not producing enough hormone because you’ve got low levels of luteinizing hormone. In contrast to that, perhaps your luteinizing hormone production is fine, your leydig cells are producing enough testosterone just fine, your total testosterone is high, but it’s more of a cortisol issue than it is a central nervous system issue or a glandular issue.

So that’s why you test that versus just looking at free testosterone.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So basically, free testosterone could be many, there’s more reasons behind it, but the SHBG is more specific to endurance and specific dynamic.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah. Really, two reasons behind it. Either you aren’t producing enough total testosterone, or you are producing enough total testosterone but it’s not getting converted. So those are really the two main things to look at.

[16:48] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, are you looking at the standard reference ranges for that, or do you look for something a bit more precise?

[Ben Greenfield]: A lot of times you have to look at symptoms synonymous, because standard reference ranges are going to vary widely.

I’ve worked with a lot of endurance athletes who have very high libido levels, show no signs of over-training, have very robust nervous systems, high heart rate variability, low cortisol, and even low sex hormone binding globulin, but their total testosterone is in like the high 300s. Which, for a body builder they would scoff at that and say, oh that’s rock bottom low. Even though a lot of times hypogonadism is levels below 100.

And you’ll get many people who just feel like fricking crap at 300, and some people will be closer to 500, and some people will need levels of 700, 800, or even 1000. So it kind of depends. It varies widely, I suspect based on genetics as a big part of it.

So ultimately it’s really tough to hold things up to reference ranges. I mean, you can ballpark it. You can say well if total testosterone is starting to get below 300, that’s where we would really start to get a little bit concerned. But it really is kind of tough. A lot of times it’s a moving target based off of a cluster of other symptoms.

If someone’s complaining of low libido and low motivation, and lack of energy, etc, and their testosterone is at 400, well that’s a pretty good sign that 400 is not going to be adequate for them. So I know that’s one of those deals where it’s total soft science, but it does really depend. That’s one of those ‘it depends’ answers, but that is definitely a variable that I will look at.

[18:20] Liver enzymes is another one, like alkaline phosphatase, aspartate aminotransferase, the ALT, the AST, some of these liver markers just because a lot of times they can be elevated when excessive exercise is present. And so that’s another one to pay attention to. It doesn’t have to be excessive exercise; sometimes it can be alcohol, pharmaceutical intake, things of that nature. But liver enzymes are the one that I’ll look at.

Kidneys, a lot of people say to look at kidneys, but frankly it’s very rare for me to see an athlete who doesn’t have slightly elevate creatinine and blood urea nitrogen levels, which are two common markers in the kidneys that a physician will get concerned about if they see elevated, but that are very common to see elevated if an athlete is exercising anywhere in the 48 hours leading up to a blood panel.

So, as long as creatinine levels aren’t much higher than about 1.1, and as long as blood urea nitrogen isn’t through the roof and – I apologize, but off the top of my head I don’t remember the lab reference ranges for blood urea nitrogen. The reason being that I do most of my coaching for blood panels with a company called WellnessFX. It’s basically more like a dashboard with graphs, more than it is hard numbers, so occasionally I’m looking at graphs more than I am numbers.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And they just have those red zones.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, exactly. They’ve got red, yellow, green, which actually annoys me some of the time. Because they’ll flag high LDL as red when I purposefully try to get my LDL high. So there’s some issues with the whole red yellow green type of quantification. But anyways, blood urea nitrogen and creatinine, even though a lot of people talk about those, they’re not super duper important in my opinion, because they’re always going to be a little bit elevated.

Vitamin D, that’s another one that I’ll look at just because of it’s importance. As you can suspect, a lot of these aren’t just specific to endurance, they’re specific to exercising period. Just as a hormone and a steroid, vitamin D is another important one that I’ll look at.

And then as far as other things, I typically will have most of the athletes I work with or the people I advise do at least once a year a full gut panel. You know, a comprehensive gut panel that includes parasitology, measurement of pancreatic enzyme production, measurement of yeast and fungus and any type of bacterial overgrowth in the digestive tract because I find that, especially when you’re jogging your body up and down for 10 plus hours while racing, having a really, really good gut and GI system and very efficient digestion is incredibly important.

And so I will look at things like presence of yeast or fungus, like Candida Albicans, or the presence of H pylori, or absence of hydrochloric acid, or absence of pancreatic enzymes, or overgrowth of specific bacteria, or lack of short chain fatty acids in the digestive tract, in the colon, and a lot of those things that tend to influence an athlete’s performance or their feelings of well-being. So that’s another thing I’ll pay attention to.

[21:18][Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. A lot of people wouldn’t think of that as something performance related, more like a chronic issue related.

Have you got any case studies where you saw people, basically not performing but not having any negative symptoms in terms of GI distress or anything that they would have noticed, but when you put through these tests some negative results came?

[Ben Greenfield]: Sure. Now we’re delving a little bit more deeply. And I mean, obviously explosive diarrhea halfway through a marathon can be a good sign of digestive enzyme insufficiency, but so can, for example, vitamin B12 or vitamin D deficiencies, or even if you go more advanced and run like an organic acids profile, or an amino acid profile, severe imbalances of a lot of micro-nutrients.

Well if you’re not digesting your food efficiently, for example, if you’re not producing adequate hydrochloric acid, you’re not activating pepsin to break down proteins, beginning in the stomach an moving on to the small intestine, then you’re going to: a. have undigested protein fragments winding up in the bloodstream causing some auto-immune issues, and that can include fuzzy thinking, which no athlete wants.

But then you also can get amino acid deficiencies, like deficiency in the ability to create neurotransmitters, and also deficiencies in the ability to repair and regenerate skeletal muscle tissue, because you aren’t breaking down the proteins that you’re eating.

And the same could be said for something like inflammation in the digestive tract from wearing down of the microvilli. So perhaps you’re not producing adequate levels of lactase, so you’ve got some lactose issues and bloating and gas. Or you’ve got inflammation that is resulting in malabsorption of fat-soluble vitamins, so vitamins A, D, E, and K aren’t getting absorbed properly, or bacteria aren’t helping you to produce those, and so you experience hormonal deficiencies, or steroid deficiencies.

And so, yeah the gut is incredibly important, and that’s one of the things I’ve been kind of getting on companies like WellnessFX, for example, to do is to not just use the strategy of blood testing but also really pay attention to the gut. I mean, in an ideal scenario, what I would like to see is a done-for-you system.

And for me right now, what I do is just kind of string this together for the athletes who I work with. But a done-for-you system where you get your blood testing, you get your gut testing, and you get your genetic testing so we can look at everything from genetic snips to bacterial imbalances in the gut to all the blood and biomarkers, and have all of that done with either one panel or one service.

That would be really nice, because right now you’ve got to go to typically three different places. You’ve got to go to whatever DNAFit, or 23andMe, and you’ve got to go to DirectLabs, or Metametrix for GI affects, and then you’ve got to go to WellnessFX for whatever else. And then if you want to do food allergy testing, well then you’ve got to throw in a Cyrex panel, or something like that.

So maybe it’s a first world problem to want all this stuff to be available in one central location, but it certainly would be nice.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. It’s so near the early days from that perspective. There’s a lot of specialized, it’s still kind of specialized in terms of the labs. Each is in their little separate box and everything.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah.

[24:17] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, in terms of the kinds of decisions you’ve made, or you’ve advised a client based on some of these values, some of this data that’s come back, what have been the biggest changes that you’ve implemented to optimize training?

[Ben Greenfield]: You mean as far as training?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, say the TSH came up too high, what would you do about that?

[Ben Greenfield]: Oh okay, so for high TSH, obviously it’s never a shotgun approach. It’s never a multivitamin. So for high TSH it may be looking at your carbohydrate intake. That’s the first thing that I’ll look at.

Even before you look at total amount of calories, you just make sure nobody is on some low, like 40 gram per day carbohydrate diet, because frankly a lot of the ‘low carb’ or ‘ketosis’ based diets that are out there were created for sedentary people. Even the bulletproof diet. I love the whole bulletproof philosophy, but it was written by a computer programmer, not by an athlete.

And so the levels of carbohydrate, and even the levels of calories in that diet, have to be adjusted and modified for a hard-charging athlete, especially an endurance athlete. So, otherwise with caloric depletion and carbohydrate depletion, you basically lose a lot of your ability to convert inactive to active thyroid hormone.

And in the case of calories, as you would deduce through common sense, when you send your body a message that calories are insufficient but you’re still requiring it to move a lot, your body down regulates metabolism. And one of the main ways it does that is by down regulating thyroid.

So, I look at carbohydrates, I look at calories, and then I also look at dietary intake of organ meats and fat soluble vitamins, which can also assist with thyroid health. So in my case, because I did an n=1 experiment about a year and a half ago where I did 12 months of ketosis.

Not cyclic ketosis, not cycling carbohydrates in and out throughout the day, but full on eating only 5-10 percent of my total daily intake from carbohydrates. Very low carbohydrate diet. Too low, in my opinion, for most endurance athletes who want to maintain optimal levels of health elsewhere.

[26:10] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Did you see negative effects from that over the 12 months?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, and that’s what I’m getting at with the thyroid. I started taking thyroid glandular extract. I took one called Thryo-Gold, which is made from New Zealand cows, that are like an A2 cattle.

A lot of A1 cattle has proteins in it that cause an immune reaction within the human body, but cattle that are breed via A2 are cattle that contain this A2 genetic profile that is more bio-compatible with the human body. And so I basically took a T1, T2, T3, and T4 combo, and that seemed to turn my thyroid around. But that was after I had already done a number on it.

So for thyroid, that would be an example of what I would do with something like thyroid, would be increase calories, increase carbohydrates, increase intake of organ meats and fat soluble vitamins. And then for a really hard-charging athlete who insists upon doing something like restricting carbohydrates to tap into the performance enhancing effects of ketosis, understand that you’ve got to get on extra help from the thyroid.

Since your body isn’t going to make T3, dump it into the body. And preferably get it from a whole source, like levothyroxine or synthroid. But a source that contains other elements of thyroid in addition to just T3, so you’re not creating an imbalance.

[27:22] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Well, connected with the thyroid issues, I was wondering if you’ve come across adrenal fatigue also. If that’s every come up with you or with anyone else.

[Ben Greenfield]: Absolutely. Adrenal fatigue, gosh. There’s like four chapters of my book on that alone. But adrenal fatigue, well what do you want to know about it?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well first of all, have you looked at some of the tests? I’ve done some of the salivary tests.

[Ben Greenfield]: Oh yeah. Yeah, like an adrenal stress index is kind of gold standard, cortisol DHA. If you look at the cortisol DHA curve, that’s much, much better when you’re addressing something like adrenal fatigue versus a blood cortisol measurement, which is just a snapshot. You want to see a moving target of salivary cortisol levels, preferably matched to salivary DHEA levels, throughout the day.

[28:03][Damien Blenkinsopp]: I was just thinking, based on it’s endurance exercise, and it has this tendency to raise cortisol, that that would be more of an issue and something that you would keep an eye on. Or by monitoring TSH, does that kind of take care of itself? If the TSH is alright then you tend not to have an adrenal issue as well?

[Ben Greenfield]: No, not necessarily.

You can still have adrenal fatigue and have a thyroid that’s managed properly. Because what you would typically see in that case is someone is eating boatloads of calories and taking care of themselves from an energetic standpoint, but simply outputting too much energy. They’re just training way too much. Even though they’re supplying their thyroid with what it needs, there’s just too much training still.

And a lot of times you’ll see inflammation high, but yeah. Cortisol DHEA, and that adrenal stress index can be a good measurement. And there are less quantitative measurements. You could do a pulst test, where you look in a mirror and you shine a bright light at your eyes, and your pupils should stay dilated. But if it stays dilated and then just starts flickering rapidly.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Have you tried that one?

[Ben Greenfield]: I have, yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Because I was just wondering. I did try it and I find it a little bit difficult to judge.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, it’s certainly not as precise as a salivary measurement, but once you’ve done it a few times you can definitely see the pupil, and whether or not it’s actually flickering versus staying dilated. If you look at if for long enough, it’s just going to start flickering period, but if it starts flickering after just a few seconds, that’s typically a sign that your kidneys are not producing enough aldosterone, which is synonymous, or can accompany, adrenal fatigue.

The other one is just the dizziness test. If you lay down or you sit down and you stand up quickly and you get dizzy, that can be a sign of blood pressure mismanagement that often goes hand-in-hand with adrenal fatigue. And again, these are the super cheapo poor man’s methods, but it can give you clues.

And then there’s temperature tests for thyroid, the Broda Barnes Temperature Test, where you do oral and axillary measurements of your temperature in bed every morning, and keep a running graph. And if it’s consistently low, that can be a pretty good indication that even if you haven’t done a blood thyroid test that your thyroid might be having issues.

So, there are a lot of things. One of the best ones I like though is just pure heart-rate variability. Testing the interplay between your sympathetic and your parasympathetic nervous system by using something like a Bluetooth enabled heart rate monitor and one of these heart rate variability apps, and simply paying attention to whether heart rate variability is high or low on any given day.

And if it’s consistently low, and you see consistent suppression of both sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system feedback, then that can be a pretty good sign that you’re on the cusp of adrenal fatigue illness or injury, and so that’s another really good one to pay attention to. And I do that one every day myself.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Do you do it in the morning as soon as you wake up?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yes, that’s gold standard, because that’s where most of the studies have been done on heart rate variability were five minutes resting in the morning.

[30:45] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. I believe you use the HR…what’s the name of the company?

[Ben Greenfield]: SweetBeat?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, SweetBeat.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, but because I want to build up that technology and add some features and stuff like that, I’ve actually white labeled their technology. And so I use the app called NatureBeat now, but it’s the SweetBeat technology.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Yeah, she’s been on the show.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So I was using that for a long time, and then I just recently started using iFleet, because I also talked to the guys at iFleet, and it does have this other thing that they just added recently. You might just want to check out.

It’s kind of interesting. It shows how high your energy levels are on a given day, so it kind of does this matrix thing. So it shows you if your in the bottom right corner, it means something a little bit different. So I’ve been checking it out. I’m still trying to understand what it means each day. But I do find that when I’m at the bottom, low energy, those days tend not to be good. Even if I have a high HRV.

[31:39] So anyway, out of interest, what is your HRV levels? Because you think normally endurance athletes have higher HRV, right?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah. Usually higher HRV, which isn’’t necessarily a good thing if you’ve got what are called HF to LF ratio imbalances.

You want your HF to LF ratio to be pretty close to one. That’s sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system feedback. And if parasympathetic nervous system feedback, which would be your high frequency number, if that’s super duper depressed, and your LF is really high that can be an indication of aerobic based over-training, or vice versa.

So ideally you’ve got high HRV and a pretty close to a 1-1 ration between HF and LF. That’s what you want to go to. And you want both HF and LF to be up in the thousands. That’s a sign of a really robust nervous system.

So, my values tend to be between about 92 and 98, with HF and LF values that vary between about 4,000 to 8,000, around in there. Generally with a 1-1 ratio, depending on what my previous day’s training had looked like.

And I would expect, for example, this Tuesday I’ll do a CrossFit’s Murph and I’ll do that with a 20 pound weighted vest on, and just crush myself. And that will take me about an hour to do, and I guarantee my LF value will be tanked the next day. But I also won’t be doing any sympathetic nervous system training for like 48 hours afterward.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you recover within 48 hours?

[Ben Greenfield]: 48 to 72 hours, depending.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: These scores recover for you pretty quickly?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, but I mean, if I were to do something epic, right? Like, usually something that gets you to the state of glycogen depletion. Or let’s say instead of Murph, I do double Murph, or I do a Murph with a 5k sandwiched on either end rather than just a mile, then it can take me several days to recover, for sure.

[33:23] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: If you had to pick one marker to optimize your endurance training by and make decisions on, which one of the ones we’ve talked about would it be?

[Ben Greenfield]: HRV.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay, great.

[Ben Greenfield]: Just because it’s easy, right? You don’t have to give blood.

And maybe at some point, once we’ve got the lab and chip technology finalized, and I can put a drop of blood onto a little dongle that will plug into my iPhone and I can measure, let’s say, testosterone cortisol ratios, maybe that will become a more valuable metric for me. But at this point, I would have to say something simple and easy to utilize and relatively inexpensive, the HRV would be the one that I’d choose.

If I had to choose an actual blood biomarker, tough to say. Tough to say. I guess I’d probably have to go with HSCRP, again. Just because inflammation is generally going to be high when cortisol is high. It’s generally going to be high when diet is crappy, it’s going to be high when triglycerides are high, it’s going to be high when omega-3 fatty acids are low. So, that’s a pretty good one to measure.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. So it catches a lot of things. Mainly whenever something starts going wrong.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah.

[34:29] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well so you’ve referred to over training quite a bit over this as something that you’d have to change. So HRV would be one of the first places you’d see over training.

Are there any other tell-tale markers, and what do you suggest, more to the point, because you mentioned earlier that you do very – is it short, intense kind of endurance exercises. And I think a lot of people when they’re thinking about endurance, they’re thinking about very high-volume, kind of long duration activity.

So how do you approach it, and avoid over training? What are the top things you’ve taken in over time?

[Ben Greenfield]: First of all, one of the common pitfalls that people fall into with endurance training is doing the long voluminous training every weekend. It’s very stereotypical that you’ll see in a lot of athletes these Saturday long bike rides and then Sunday long run, for example. Or in a marathon, the Saturday long run.

I’ve found that in most cases, you can maintain endurance really, really well. Unless you’re a professional athlete trying to perform at the peak of performance, most people can perform just fine. With doing digging into the well like that, really, really, deep for like a death march, a really long ride or something like that, you typically only need to do that one to two times a month. Not every weekend.

I’m a bigger fan of using shorter, very temporal based intervals. So to give you an example, for the Ironman triathletes that I work with, while their peers are out doing a five hour ride followed by an hour long run, my athletes will be doing two hours of 20 minutes at race pace followed by 5 minutes recovery. So a very focused activity with a specific goal in mind. And then they’ll finish that up with a 15 minute tempo run at a cadence of 90 plus.

So it’s all extremely high quality. And then once a month they’ll go out and do something big, something long, something voluminous that builds the mental tolerance to training, but that doesn’t dig so deep into the well as doing it every week.

And the reason for that is based off of the human body’s natural slow twitch muscle fibers. The human body’s ability to cool because we’re upright and not covered in fur and hair. Our ability to sweat, rather than pant, to reduce heat. And a cluster of other factors.

We’re pretty good at going for long periods of time. And when training for endurance, bigger limiters are things like power, speed, cadence, strength, the integrity of the fascia connective tissue, the intelligence to be able to use nutrients and calories properly.

And really pointing in one direction, and going for long periods of time is not that much of a weakness for the human body, but the problem is that it’s easy. And people take pride in it. They’re like, “Oh I persevered today. I did my three hour run.”

And my question to you is well yea, but what did you accomplish side from being on your feet for long periods of time? Which frankly I could stand up at my standing workstation and write an article for three hours and get the same amount of time on my feet as you just did out pounding the pavement. So it would be better in that case to do something with intervals at race pace for a shorter period of time.

Focus on cadence. Allow enough time before and after for a good warmup. Maybe some meditation and breath work. Some good recovery. And so that’s where the more intense, more quality, lower volume approach nine times out of ten trumps the voluminous approach.

The exception to that fact would be the person who has a lot of time on their hands to train: the professional athlete. Professional athletes, assuming they’re using this 80-20 approach, it’s called polarized training. 80 percent of your training is done aerobically, with about 20 percent done high intensity.

That approach works very well, and it is what a lot of the elite cross-country skiers and marathoners and cyclists etc. will use, but what is important to understand about that approach is it requires many, many hours per day.

That approach can require two to four hours per day of training, and even more than that, on weekends, for example. And the majority of folks simply don’t have the luxury of time available to utilize that approach effectively. That in a nut shell is my approach to training.

I’ve got a couple of athletes who I work with who are more, what I would consider to be on the professional level, who have that luxury of time. And I do train them with that aerobic approach, where they’re out doing long voluminous sets of training at a controlled heart rate aerobically, putting lots of time in the saddle or time on the pavement. But its very few and far between that I’ll recommend an athlete to train like that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great, thanks. That’s a great summary of it.

[39:01] I wanted to move on to, because I know you did this 12 months of ketogenic dieting. Could you talk a little bit about that? Give us an overview. What was your approach to that, what were you actually eating, and was there any specific goals to track over the year?

[Ben Greenfield]: Well yeah, for that specific diet, that was for a study at University of Connecticut that was done on, basically, a group of athletes who followed a high-carb/low-fat diet, versus a group of athletes who followed a high-fat/low-carb diet.

And it was basically a measurement of fat oxidation during exercise. And they also did muscle biopsies before and after exercise to see the rate of glycogen use as well as the rate of glycogen replenishment following the post work out meal to just see if the body does a better job at oxidizing fat, or at sparing glycogen during exercise when you’ve eaten a high-fat diet.

And it did turn out in that study that the athletes who followed the high-fat diet were oxidizing a lot of fat. The textbooks tell you that you can burn about 1.0 grams of fat per minute, and the group of athletes who followed the high-fat diet were burning 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 grams of fat per minute. Literally rewriting the textbooks when it comes to how much fat you can burn during exercise.

I haven’t seen the muscle biopsy data yet to see how much glycogen conservation actually took place, or whether or not the body became more glycogen depleted when using primarily fatty acids as a fuel. But ultimately, what that diet consisted of was really controlling carbohydrates.

Whereas I would normally – and this is what I do now – I would carb-cycle, or I would do cyclic-ketogensis or cyclic-ketosis, where I don’t eat carbohydrates all day long and at the very end of the day, typically in the post-workout scenario, with dinner I’ll eat anywhere from 75 to 200 grams of white rice, red wine, sweet potatoes, sourdough bread. You know, safe starches, not like pizza and ice cream, but good carbohydrates. And then the rest of the day just high fat and moderate protein.

Whereas on this full on ketosis diet, it was pretty much just things like bulletproof coffee, and high fat shakes and lots of coconut milk and coconut oil, and heavy cream and MCT oil and seeds and nuts, and just fats, fat, fats. Bone broth and avocados, and olives, and you name it.

And frankly, in my opinion, it wasn’t that enjoyable to have to not have sweet potato fries, and not have, even coconut ice cream has cane sugar in it. So you have to make your own with chocolate stevia. And so it’s a little bit laborious and a little bit tough, but I mean at the same time the endurance payoff was huge.

The amount of focus that I had for long periods of time. My ability to just hop on a bike and ride for hours with no fuel at all, with just water. It was pretty profound, because you produce all these ketones as a bi-product of fatty acid oxidation, and they’re used as the preferred fuel by the brain, by the heart, by the liver, by the diaphragm while you’re out exercising. And that’s a huge boon to an endurance athlete.

And like I mentioned, there’s some blow-back. Like the TSH could take a hit, the testosterone could take a hit. But ultimately, it’s a cool little bio-hack. If I could go back and do it over again, I would definitely start taking thyroid glandular earlier to stave off some of those thyroid issues.

I would,– it’s not legal – but I would really encourage folks to pay attention to testosterone. And I mean like, you can’t use testosterone in a WADA, or a USADA or like an NCAA sanctioned event, but my testosterone dropped so much during that experiment with ketosis, I would say if you’re not competing, use AndroGel or just some kind of testosterone support because your testosterone is going to fall to pieces.

And then the question becomes well is it really worth it to you if you’re doing this thing and you’re not even competing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. Did you feel different?

[Ben Greenfield]: Oh, yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Because we talk about testosterone with things like anxiety, your drive, your libido, of course. And so did you get any kind of low testosterone symptoms?

[Ben Greenfield]: Oh yeah. Absolutely. I mean even something as simple as only having to shave every four or five days, whereas normally I would just shave every one to two days.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s a benefit.

[Ben Greenfield]: I mean, little things like that, but you notice. Yeah, potentially. You save money on razors.

Yeah, the libido, sex drive, number of times having sex per week, desire to have sex, quality of the erection, all of those kind of things certainly they took a hit during ketosis. They weren’t good. But that was, mind you, ketosis in the presence of high amounts of physical activity. Even doing the ‘low volume approach’ it’s still a massive amount of work, right?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right.

[Ben Greenfield]: You’re still working out 60 to 90 plus minutes every day, and longer than that on the weekends.

And you look at something like Dr. Terry Wahls and her ketosis approach for managing MS. Well sure. I mean, that’s going to work just fine for managing MS. I mean, going on a walk with your dog every morning, and maybe lifting easy weights, three sets of 10 for 20 minutes twice a week.

But once you jump into hard exercise, it’s a whole different type of ketosis.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. Just to be clear, were you getting better times? Did you feel like you were competing better?

[Ben Greenfield]: Oh, I was competing way better. Yeah. Absolutely.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. But it’s just the downsides to your lifestyle, to all the other things, were too great to do this on a constant basis.

[Ben Greenfield]: In my opinion, yes, because I don’t like being cold all the time, I don’t like not having libido. So again, I’m not saying you can’t do it properly, even though it’s way, way tougher once you get into training, but I think that you basically have to use supplementation pretty intensively.

[44:34] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: Did you kind of see the benefits evolve and get much better as the months passed, or is this something someone could do on a month basis, one month on and one month off?

[Ben Greenfield]: For exercise, you barely even see any benefits until you’ve been doing it consistently for about six months, and the real benefits start to manifest after one to two years.

But the other thing to realize is that right about the time I finished up the experiment, companies like KetoForce started coming out with beta hydroxybutyrate salts that could be consumed to elevate your ketone bodies, even in the presence of a lot of carbohydrates or glucose. And so it’s possible that now, since the experiment that I did, you could get the best of both worlds.

And I actually have some bottles of the beta hydroxybutyrate salts and the resistance starches, and a lot of the things that, if I had to go back and do it all over again, I would try to get the best of both worlds. I would eat more carbohydrates, but then I would also hack myself into ketosis by consuming actual ketones bodies.

The question there becomes a matter of long term health and gut health and how that actually manifests in terms of actual symptoms or the way you felt, or even I would definitely pay close attention to blood and biomarkers.

Were I to delve into that type of bio-hack? I potentially may. I could see myself, and obviously I’m at a point in my athletic career where I’ve still got a good eight years of hardcore performance left in my body, and I could see one of those years being spent utilizing a ketonic approach again, but with the incorporation of beta hydroxybutyrate salts, resistance starches, even higher amounts of MCT oils, particularly like the C8s and the C10s. And a little bit more attention paid to ways to get into ketosis that go above and beyond just carbohydrate restriction and exercise.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: This is great Ben, this is a wealth of information.

[46:20] In terms of the biomarkers you would track, you said you would track some biomarkers if you were going to do this again what kinds of ones that we haven’t spoken about already would you look at? Did you track your blood ketones?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah. Breath ketones. I mean, urinary ketones become, many times, absent after a few weeks in ketosis just because you’re utilizing your ketones. Blood ketones are accurate but expensive and invasive to test, and breath ketones are pretty [easy].

There are breath testing monitors like the Ketonix device that, one breath and you know your ketones, and you’re good. So breath testing is a really good way to go as far as measurement of ketones. You look for values anywhere from 1.0 up to 3.0 millimolars. You’ll finish exercise as high as 7.0 millimolars.

You’ll rarely see ketoacidosis, which would be like 10 plus millimolars. It is a non-issue. I have yet to see any athlete I work with go under ketoacidosis, which would be an actual deleterious biological state. Not something you need to worry about unless you are letting yourself become severely hypoglycemic.

[47:20] [Damien Blenkinsopp]: So again, is that something you saw evolve over the months? Like your ketones ratings would get higher.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah. You get to the point where it’s just super duper easy to get into ketosis. Yeah. And your ability to go for long periods of time without eating just goes through the roof.

So ultimately, the biomarker I would say, in addition to what we’ve already talked about, would be breath ketones. And then pay attention to triglycerides too, because they’ve shown that compared to total cholesterol values, a better predictor of your coronary disease risk factors is your triglyceride to HDL ratio, specifically keeping that at one or lower in terms of your number of triglycerides versus HDL.

But I’ve found that some people will switch to a high-fat diet and have such a high intake of vegetable oils, and even an imbalanced high intake of animal based oils, like butter for example, versus olive oil and avocados. Their triglycerides go through the roof.

Pay attention to that HDL ratio. That’s my advice is make sure that that thing isn’t getting much above one, that would be another important thing to pay attention to, especially on a higher fat intake.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Excellent points.

[48:25] So there are a couple of other things I’ve noticed you’ve done in your experiment. I read your book of course. One of the things that we’ve come across before – I spoke to Alan Cash from benaGene –oxaloacetate, and I was wondering what you’ve done with that and if you’ve tracked anything or learned anything about that.

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, obviously if you talked to Alan Cash your listeners can go back and listen to that to learn more about what oxaloacetate is. But in a nutshell, the reason that I used it was because it can increase the turnover rate of lactic acid into pyruvate, and increase the rate at which lactic acid is shuttled back up into the liver to be reconverted into glucose.

And so if you are eating a low-carbohydrate diet anyways, that by nature means you might not be taking as much exogenous glucose in, or might not even have as high a level of glycogen stores, but you can still take the lactic acid that you’re producing as a byproduct of metabolic activity anyways and have that reconverted into usable glucose sources to have a glycogen sparing effect and to get a little bit more intensity. And so the way that would be achieved if you’re going to increase the rate of that cycle, which is called the Cori cycle, would be via the use of oxaloacetate.

And so, I actually did use that. I don’t use it right now. It’s one of those things where it’s just like, I would benefit from it its just one more supplement to remember to take. But I certainly used it through that entire ketotic experiment with the oxaloacetate just to increase the conversion of lactic acid into glucose.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, it sounds like it would help specifically in that ketogenic diet state when you’re exercising.

[Ben Greenfield]: Exactly.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you designed it that way? You decided to take it before, or was it something you came up with afterward to help?

[Ben Greenfield]: I talked to Alan at one of the Bulletproof bio-hacking conferences. We talked about the physiology of oxaloacetate, and then based on that I just kind of had a little light bulb moment, where I realized that if I was restricting carbohydrates anyway, that this was one more way that I could create endogenous glucose more quickly.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great.

[50:27] Cold thermogenesis. Do you still play around with that? Is there anything like, for instance, have you seen your HSCRP any time, potentially when you first started it or did it a bit more intensively, change with that?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yes. I have not done a dedicated experiment with cold water exposure, cold temperature exposure, or the use of ice baths or cold showers to see the direct effects on HSCRP, although reduction of inflammatory cytokines has been observed in literature when it comes to cold thermogenesis and inflammation.

What I use cold thermogenesis for is increased conversion of white adipose tissue to brown adipose tissue. Simply because it’s very difficult to kill fat cells, but you can convert fat cells into energy utilizing and heat producing tissue. And that’s one thing that cold thermogenesis is good for. That would mean cold baths, cold showers, cold soaks, etc.

Also very useful for increased production of endothelial nitric oxide synthase, which can cause your blood vessels to dilate much more readily, which is good for everything from exercise to sex to heating your body when it needs to be heated. And then there’s also increased tolerance to the mammalian dive reflex, which is that activation of our sympathetic fight-or-light nervous system in response to stress.

And when you are able to withstand cold stress without taking that sharp influx of breath, that means that you have become more resilient and more resistant to subconscious activation of that fight-or-flight nervous system. You’re better at controlling stressful events that happen.

And so, what I do is I never take a warm shower. I do a cold shower in the morning, cold shower in the evening. I do once per week a 30 minute cold soak that gets me up to shivering level, typically needing to shiver for one to two hours afterward in order to regain warmth. And those are the ways that I use cold thermogenesis. I also keep my house relatively cold. My office is at about 55 degrees. In my home, typically I’ll sleep at 60 to 65 degrees.

It’s just a really, really good way to make yourself tough, to burn fat, and to increase blood vessel health. And it’s just super simple. And frankly, the other cool thing is when I go hunting or when I have long periods of time outdoors or when I’m at the beach and evening comes and I forgot my coat, I don’t get as bothered, which is just kind of nice. You’re just more tough.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It sounds like the only time it was an issue when you were doing you ketogenic thing. What was the issue there? Were you getting a lot colder, or?

[Ben Greenfield]: Yeah, but that was because of the thyroid. If you have hypothyroidism, cold thermogenesis is going to be very uncomfortable. Heck, even normal temperatures you’re colder during. So I was still doing cold thermogenesis then but it was quite unpleasant. It was hard for the body to get warm again.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay. Right, great.

[53:17] Some quick fly questions that I have just to finish off here.

First of all, if people want to connect with you and learn more about you and what you’re up to, where is the best place? Twitter, your website?

[Ben Greenfield]: Bengreenfieldfitness.com, because if you go there, you’ll find links to my Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, my blog, my podcast, etc. So that’s a good place to go as a portal.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. And who besides yourself would you recommend to learn more about endurance training, or some of the other topics we spoke about today? Ketogenic diets and so on?

[Ben Greenfield]: As far as people who have their head screwed on straight who are paying attention to the research, I’d say three people come to mind.

Number one would be Joe Friel. He’s coached a lot of professional cyclists, but also has just been in the sport a long time and pays attention to the science and the research and has a pretty good unbiased view of things.

Sami Inkinen, who is a top age group for Ironman competitor. He’s a higher fat diet, pays attention to quantified data, and is a smart, well spoken person who performs well.

And then Dr. Peter Attia, who I would not say is on the pointy edge of physical performance, even though he’s in much better shape than the average, general population. He’s not out doing Ironman triathlons or anything. But, as far as the science goes, he probably knows the science better than just about anybody else when it comes to being able to speak to these things, and he also does quite a bit of self-quantification himself.

So, those would be three people that would be good resources for this.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thanks so much for that.

[54:48] Beyond everything, like all the biomarkers we’ve spoken about today, are there any other biomarkers you pay specific attention [to] on a routine basis, I don’t know whether it’s monthly –that you feel are important that we haven’t spoken about?

[Ben Greenfield]: I’ll finish with this because it’s important. And many times in our type of circles it’s not talked about, and it’s not quantifiable to a great degree, as far as I know. And that would be simply paying attention to your levels of gratitude every single day, and multiple times per day.

For me, I guess you could kind of quantify it – at least six times per day I’m grateful. Because I’m journaling, and at the beginning of the day I journal three things I’m grateful for, and at the end of the day I journal three amazing things that happened to me that day. So there’s at least six times per day that I’m being grateful for things.

And then I practice quick coherence technique, which is something you can read about at heartmath.org, which increases heart rate variability and decreases stress. And that’s where you simply think of something that you love or someone you hold dear, and you imagine intense feelings of gratefulness washing over your body and going into your heart after you feel those feelings of gratefulness.

Saying thank you to people, saying I love you to people, randomly calling up people and telling them how much you appreciate them. If you listen to my voicemail, I ask people to end their voice message by telling me one thing that they’re grateful for that day.

It’s certainly something that’s not super duper quantifiable, again, but it is one thing, not a biomarker, but certainly something I pay attention to every day is gratefulness for being alive, for the people in my life, for the experiences that I’ve had, and for simply being able to take one more breath.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Excellent. Thanks for that, that’s not the typical, but definitely something really important. So I can see how that would be useful. I do a meditation gratitude every morning too, and I find that really, really useful.

So Ben, thanks so much for your time today. It’s been really stock full of biomarkers and hacks and everything, so it’s really been a great episode. Thank you for your time.

[Ben Greenfield]: Awesome. Well thanks for having me on, Dam.

Leave a Reply

We strive for the best mental performance but how do you know if your routines (sleep patterns, coffee habits, etc.) are helping or hurting? The Quantified Mind is a web-based project that allows you to quickly check your cognitive function in a few minutes.

In previous episodes, we have discussed and identified ways to improve our mental performance. Most recently, we explored Brain Training with Adrian Owen in episode 27. Many people try to improve their cognitive function with interventions such as caffeine, Nootropics, and different sleep patterns to try and improve clarity of thoughts and performance of the mind.

How do we know that these things are paying off? We could just be misleading ourselves and wasting our time on something which may, at some point, be proven to have little or no benefit. In this episode, we look at a more usable, time efficient tool which could be used to decide whether or not the caffeine in this coffee is helping your mental performance. The Quantified Mind is a way to objectively check the value of our attempts to “boost our brainpower”.

[On using Quantified Mind to Check Mental Performance]
I’d say even just one minute [at a time] and pick one test or maybe two minutes and two tests, and that’s it.
– Yoni Donner

One of the people behind the Quantified Mind project is Yoni Donner. For years he has been interested in life extension and is searching for an answer using science and data. Therefore, he conceived, designed, and currently leads this web-based tool. Yoni and his team (including Nick Winter, developer, and Stephen Kosslyn, Former Professor at both Stanford and Harvard) have created numerous opportunities and experiments through their website which anyone can use to help them analyze their own mental performance and cognitive capabilities in a variety of different ways.
Yoni also works at Google on artificial intelligence and has published a few papers through his work with Stanford University.

The episode highlights, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

What You’ll Learn

  • There are two stages to be used with the Quantified Mind testing: first a control of normal cognitive decline of an individual and then the effects of intervention on cognitive decline (8:01).
  • There is little to no practice effect involved with these cognitive tests (15:00).
  • Yoni Donner compares his tests with other mental performance tests such as Lumosity (16:35).
  • Yoni Donner shares his opinion on brain training (18:13).
  • The Quantified Mind includes tests that look at reaction time, motor speed tests, visual abilities, working memory, learning and executive functions (23:21).
  • Extra care has been taken to make sure the Quantified Mind experiments and tests are scientifically sound (26:24).
  • Yoni Donner explains the growth of the project and number of users who participate in the tests (27:30).
  • Within the tests, time of day cognitive differences and different intervention effects (such as coffee, etc.) can be analyzed while you test yourself (30:17).
  • Yoni Donner suggests that you only need to do one or two minutes of testing at a time (32:00).
  • Yoni Donner talks about his own personal experiments with the Quantified mind testing, including his suggestion to plan the activities of your day around your cognitive ability during different times of day (33:01).
  • Discussion of coffee as an intervention to improve cognitive performance (40:26).
  • Testing should be individualized for each user; many use these tests to track their aging process (46:04).
  • Discussion of Nootropics, especially Modafinil, and self-testing mental performance when using neuro enhancing drugs (49:20).
  • The Quantified Mind has been very active in the scientific community to help provide data and tools for researchers (51:25).
  • How Yoni Donner tracks biomarkers on a routine basis to monitor and improve his health, longevity and performance (54:37).
  • Yoni Donner’s one biggest recommendation on using body data to improve your health, longevity and performance (57:44).

Yoni Donner and the Quantified Mind

Tools & Tactics

Brain Training

Supplementation

  • Nootropics: also called smart drugs and neuro enhancers. These drugs and supplements are used to improve cognitive function and productivity.
    • Modafinil: A currently popular nootropic that is primarily sold under the brand name Provigil. It is a drug which promotes wakefulness and alertness in an individual and is rumored to be the inspiration behind the film Limitless with Bradley Cooper and Robert DeNiro. It requires a prescription, although generic drugs with alternative brand names are also being sold on the Internet.
    • Piracetam: Piracetam has also used to increase cognitive performance and protect the brain in diseases like alzheimers. It is one of nootropics with the longest history of use and the most research on it.

Diet & Nutrition

  • Bulletproof Coffee: Created by Dave Asprey, Bulletproof Coffee is a combination of low mycotoxin coffee beans, grass-fed butter, and MCT oil (or Brain Octane (a concentrated form of MCT) which is said to improve cognitive performance. In 2012, Dave Asprey and the Quantified Mind paired up to conduct a study to test the components of Bulletproof Coffee, as mentioned in this episode. Some information regarding the study can be found here. The outcome seemed to suggest that the butter had no impact, but that taking ‘low mycotoxin coffee’ as compared to standard Starbucks coffee did have performance benefits.

Tracking

Lab Tests, Devices and Apps

  • Quantified Mind: from this home page you can sign up to use these cognitive tests and join experiments that other users are also participating in through the project.
  • CANTAB: these are alternative neuropsychological tests, developed originally by the University of Cambridge, that were mentioned by Damien in the podcast.
  • Stroop Testing: the Stroop effect is used to process attention and processing speed. The Stroop test is a common tool in psychology used to assess reaction time.
  • Cambridge Brain Sciences: This website offers a battery of free mental and cognitive performance tests. These tests are designed to assess your state of cognitive performance at one point of time and to be done infrequently (requires 15 to 30 minutes to complete).

Other People, Books & Resources

People

  • Stephen Kosslyn: A former Harvard and Stanford psychologist, Kosslyn collaborated with Yoni on the creation of Quantified Mind.
  • Christine L. Peterson: Peterson is the co-founder and past president of Foresight Institute. She is an advocate for nanotechnology and life extension technology. She was an instrumental part of the Personalized Life Extension Conference mentioned by Yoni Donner in this episode.
  • Peter Thiel: Peter Thiel is a billionaire investor businessman. He is the co-founder of Paypal and one of the early investors of Facebook. He has recently taken interest in anti-aging solutions and life extension technologies.
  • Roy Baumeister, PhD: A social psychologist who is currently a professor at Florida State University. He was influential with his work on willpower and has been published over 500 times. In the late 90’s he authored a paper commonly referred to as the “cookie and radish” experiment. He was mentioned by Damien after Yoni Donner discussed ego depletion in the podcast.
  • Adrian Owen: Mentioned by Yoni as one of the first study authors on Brain Training. We discussed brain training with Adrian in episode 27.

Organizations

  • The Human Cognition Project (HCP): this is the home page for the Human Cognition Project which is also associated with Lumosity. This project aims to provide researchers with the data necessary to pursue research questions and hypotheses regarding human cognition.

Other

  • The Science page: this page offers a detailed description of the science behind the Quantified Mind project and cognitive testing. For further information, there is a list of references at the end of the page.
  • Lumosity blog: this is the blog hosted by Lumosity that provides up-to-date information about the science behind brain training and general updates about Lumosity itself.
  • HCP peer-reviewed published papers list

Full Interview Transcript

Click Here to Read Transcript

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Hey Yoni, thanks so much for coming on the show.

[Yoni Donner]: Thanks so much for inviting me. It’s a pleasure.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. So, we before we get into it, I wanted to hear a little bit about your first got involved in your interest area. How did the Quantified Mind come about? Was this a mini project? Was it something you were interested in, at first, doing for yourself?

[Yoni Donner]: Yes. It started with a pretty different context. I always wanted to cure aging since I was pretty young.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Nice.

[Yoni Donner]: And I still do.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, I’m there.

[Yoni Donner]: Turned out to be a somewhat more difficult problem. But no, the original thought was that, perhaps, the most accessible part of aging that we can start working on is the aging of the brain. Especially since that sort of leads everything else and there were all of these reports of these things that might be useful.

And since I had lots of friends who were interested in this, and they often annoyed me when they massively consumed blueberries because they thought they would help, I really looking for some scientific backing of all these potential interventions. And it turned out there isn’t actually much. Most of the stuff that goes into newspapers is completely not validated, and we wanted to do it ourselves.

So, I just looked at “what can science tell us about how to measure cognitive performance,” and it turns out that they’ve been very good at measuring the differences between people, but they’ve done almost nothing to measure the inter-individual variation.

So, it’s very hard to compare a person to themselves under many different conditions for several reasons. So, the tests were not built for this purpose at all so I kind of have to adapt them to make them test the person several times. And also they’re very inefficient so sometimes you take a long time to get the data or you need a psychology student to get the data for you.

And it was a disappointing finding that I realized, if I really want it done, I have to build it myself. Especially since I’ve never really enjoyed building websites or anything of that kind. I really just like analyzing data and writing over convoluted algorithms.

But with some help from some friends in the first stages, we got this going, and since then it has actually been mostly used for other purposes. Namely for people to test more acute interventions rather than long term processes. And that’s fine. Whatever is useful is great.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, you’re using it for the long – are you still using it for the aging? You want to maintain, or you want to improve over time, your brain responses?

[Yoni Donner]: There are several stages. The first one is simply to validate that we can accurately track the process of cognitive decline. This would be the control.

Once that is established, we want to start looking at the most promising interventions. So whether they be physical exercise or even jogs. Although I’m not generally a huge fan of jogs, simply because they seem to have more side effects than positive effects. But yeah, so we did make some progress.

Actually, only the last year, I finally managed to get some collaborators to recruit subjects and do a longitudinal study within person aging. So that is all very new now. Now, this is at this stage of trying to get more researchers for a slightly longer pilot study because this was sort of to establish the methods and verify that we get clean data and so on.

What I can say is we definitely have seen, on the data that’s been collected randomly with people who opted in to provide their age, that the classical effects of aging are very, very clearly seen. So, at least in that sense, all of the stuff that we’ve known has been replicated.

But now I mostly rely on working with researchers who can actually do the interventions. So it would be great, for example, to do a caloric restriction study in humans.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, and see if that has an impact. But I’m guessing you’re going to have to do this over five years or something to see anything significant?

[Yoni Donner]: So, that is a great question. So the whole point was to not wait five years. So Quantified Mind was built to be so precise that we could actually see effects given a reasonable sample size with a much shorter amount of time. Because, obviously, no single individual will reliably show decline over two months even if they’re over 70 or over 80 years old.

But it’s an average effect that is quite strong. So there is some effect size that you could say over a month of your life there is an average decline. It’s probably very, very small compared to, for example, random daily variation. That’s why, if you have a sufficiently large number of measurements, you could actually see that.

And I have a lot of data by now about the accuracy of this – how well [unclear 10:06] measures the actual observability. So, the reliability of the test is actually very, very high. And you got almost zero noise in the measurement itself so you’re just fighting against the noise in the actual cognitive function. So really people would vary more day to day more than they would on average over a month. But that’s fine since we average over that eventually with enough data.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Well this is really cool because I didn’t know that this was the original purpose of it, and actually, this is what I’ve been interested in lately. I’ve been interested in mild cognitive impairment and I talk about cognitive decline.

And I’ve actually had some scans showing some nasty structural changes due to something I went through a couple of years ago. So I want to kind of repair that and get it back up to speed. So, it’s one of the reasons I’ve – and when you’re say anti-aging, you really think about the brain.

I’ve also thought, for me, the two areas that seem most important to me are energy and the brain. Brain so that we can carry on thinking and walking around. And if you don’t have energy you can’t really get stuff done either. Because once your productivity is gone you can’t work on any of this stuff.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah, that’s true. Actually, what you said now is almost an exact quote from the first quote I gave in proposing this project in an aging conference four or five years ago.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Oh wow. Cool.

[Yoni Donner]: So yeah, completely agreed on this.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well you’ll have to tell me afterwards about the anti-aging conferences. Are there any good ones that you like or prefer? Because I’m sure the audience is interested in this stuff too.

[Yoni Donner]: I don’t if it’s still going on. I have seen anything about this in a while, but it was called the Personalized Life Extension Conference. It was run by Christine Peterson who now does Foresight though. Maybe she doesn’t even do that anymore.

It was very cool. I got a slot there to just propose this project that was not even close to existing yet. It was just an idea, but I put on a spiel on all of my belief in why we need a new tool and what’s the problem with existing measurements.

And I have to say, at least I got one thing in my life right, that I did build it exactly the way that I proposed it. But it was nice. I got to talk to Peter Thiel about this right after my talk and –

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Oh awesome.

[Yoni Donner]: He set me up with one of his people to actually discuss funding for the project. Of course that never materialized because I’m not a business person. So I never follow up on business talks.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Oh well it’s a great intro to Peter Thiel as that’s quite a big name. Might come in useful to you later maybe with the tool. So I’d like to talk about what future plans that you have for the tool later. But for now, could we take a step back? Because you’ve said that this tool is quite different to a lot of the others out there. And some of the ones, when I contacted you, I was thinking about, is things like the – we had Adrian Owen who developed the Cambridge Brain Sciences set of tests, if you know those. We had him on the podcast a little while ago.

[Yoni Donner]: They got really famous from publishing in [unclear 12:54].

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Publishing, and with the study which showed the brain training wasn’t effective. Was it that one, or something else?

[Yoni Donner]: That may have been that. There was one study that was really famous that I think Adrian Owen was the first author on.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. It might have been that one. Anyway so, and in this CANTAB, which is supposedly the best validated tool, is the reason it’s not relevant to you as CANTAB is because it’s looking at the differences between people rather than a person in time, as you explained earlier?

[Yoni Donner]: Well each of the existing tools has some substandard features and some that are not. So, I should be more clear. There have been mainly three axes of scaling that the Quantified Mind is supposed to provide that have not been existing altogether in existing tools.

So one of them is just something that Lasuis Claviger [check 13:41] cross experiments. It’s very easy for a researcher to just set up a new experiment and get a very validated and standardized set of tests and tools for analysis.

So, part of this is, for example, providing easy access to the entire raw data through APIs, but in doing things like randomizing subjects into groups or very easily controlling how the experiment is applied. And they also provide all kinds of algorithms for making data analysis easier and distinct outliers very reliably. So this helps scale across experiments.

And then there’s the [unclear 14:13] in person component, which simply was optimized to begin with in this test. So, all the tests have been adapted to be very, very efficient and to be completely repeatable. When I say completely, you could even take the test one billion times if you wanted to, and it would still be effective. Not only that, it would be more effective because the practice effects get weaker over time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s something we should highlight for people. A lot of these tests you can get better at them over time. So this is what you call the practice effect or the training effect.

[Yoni Donner]: Right.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And in this case, because you want to see if there’s decline or improvement, you wanted to eliminate that. So you’re saying in these tests there’s not very much of that. As I understand it, after you’ve played it a few times, you’ve done it a few times, there’s not much change in terms of practice or training effect.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah, that’s generally true. I also have more precise on all of the tests of exactly the practice magnitude. In the worst case it takes about five sessions to get it down to manageable levels. By that I mean that it’s smaller than most of the hypothetical effect sizes that we’re interested in measuring. So just time of day variation and so on.

But I do have exactly the compositions of the variance for all the tests. I’ve got all of this data for my thesis. So, a lot of tests don’t even have practice effects at all. For example, reaction time tests are almost zero. And one way is if you can extrapolate the practice effect and eliminate it.

But I think it is generally better not to make any model based assumptions and not to fit additional parameters. So if it’s possible for any experiments to start with just a few practice sessions just to get this out of the way.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Yeah so, in practice someone should do those tests a few times a few days in a row and then they could consider that in their baseline.

[Yoni Donner]: Right. Yeah. So that’s the protocol that we follow on most experiments now. Four for five practice sessions before.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Does it have to be the same day or could you just spread those out over a week or something?

[Yoni Donner]: Generally, I would say spreading them is a little bit better, but it’s kind of insignificant next to just the value of doing them at all. So often with this kind of thing, I think it’s better to make sure that just people do them and not be too strict about rules because that will just result in losing subjects and –

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right.

[Yoni Donner]: Or they wouldn’t do it at all.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Excellent. And then I just wanted to bring up the other tools and see how it compares in your mind. There’s Lumosity and there’s BrainHQ Posit Science. How does your tool compare to those?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So Lumosity, we actually became good friends when I built Quantified Mind and we talked about this a little bit, and we really like each other because we are completely complimentary and non-competing at all because they are focused on brain training and also on user acquisition.

Obviously, the whole thing is a big game and they’re huge and they make something that appeals to everyone. We joked about this the other day. Almost everyone’s mother plays Lumosity.

That is very different. They don’t do a very precise measurement of the instruments, but they do try to make arguments about brain training, and they’re very, very good about the gamification effect and user retention.

Quantified Mind is completely focused on being a precise measurement tool and, even more so, a research instrument. So that’s a very different focus. But I should say, I just published a paper with Lumosity last month that used their data since they still have a lot more of it about human learning dynamic.

So, that was a lot of fun. And mostly I did the whole research and they provided their amazing data. But it was a great experience just collaborating with the VP of R&D there – is a great guy.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. Cool. And I as I understand BrainHQ Posit Science is pretty much the same as Lumosity, but just smaller.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. I think there are subtle differences. Posit does stay more focused on some pathologies or specific kinds of improvement. Lumosity, more appeal to the general public.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. And what’s your opinion on the whole brain training area? Like I said, we had Adrian Owen on and he talked about his study where they tested a lot of people in the UK and they found no effects at all after they’d been doing some training for a while with the Cambridge Brain Sciences test. Do you have an opinion on that?

[Yoni Donner]: I think it’s very hard to just put a binary result or to say for sure brain training does not work at all. But I think if we consider what work should mean to a reasonable person, we can kind of conclude this question anyway.

Because for something to work, it needs to have, not just a nonzero effect size, but also an effect size that’s big enough to be worth the effort. And even if you do something – I do a [unlcear 18:36] every day. And let’s suppose you even improve your working memory in the general transferrable sense, all the results that we have so far – even the most of the domestic ones, even the ones that say it works – show a pretty small effect size.

And it still takes a lot of your time and a lot of your energy. For example, people told me on Quantified Mind there is a single [unclear 18:58] test, which is not even as horribly annoying as to do an the Quantified Mind, and people still said they fight with their significant others after doing this. [Laughter]

So, it drains a lot of willpower, it drains a lot of energy to do those things, and you get a very tiny effect in the end. So, if you are dedicated enough to do something good for your brain, there is nothing in the literature right now that comes even close to physical exercise, and this has been documented so many times.

So I’d say do some effort to clean up your diet. I don’t know, ditch the caffeine addictions. But if you drink it, in small amounts. Sleep well and exercise a lot. It will be much better use of your time than brain training.

Of course brain training is just appealing to people who like playing video games. So it seems like if you like doing these engaging things with your computer, then you just don’t suffer that much. But it’s still very time consuming and the effects are quite small even according to the most optimistic results.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. I went through a phase of using Lumosity and I came to the conclusion that it was just a huge sink of my time and it wasn’t really providing any benefits. But what I did notice was, when I was sick, I would get a huge crash – [Laughter]

[Yoni Donner]: Oh yeah. That’s really true.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: in my data. So that was interesting. But the amount of time to play the games is a lot when you’ve been playing it for a while, the games tend to start taking a long time. Some of them were taking – I felt like it was ten minutes, and that was just too much time at the beginning of the day, I was doing it for this.

So, that’s one of the things that attracted me to Quantified Mind because you said you had a focus on keeping it efficient and minimal. Before we get into that I just wanted to point out something you just said. You were saying the willpower. It drains the willpower. It sounds like we’ve both been thinking about willpower quite a lot and how that impacts. Could you explain what you meant in a bit more detail when you’re saying that doing these kinds of tests could drain willpower and that could have impacts on the rest of your life, right?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. Well so I don’t want to say things that are too conclusive in a field that I’m not an expert in, but I actually did – there was a master student who did his thesis project with Quantified Mind on exactly the thing called ego depletion, which is highly related to willpower.

So ego depletion is, for example, when I give you a stroop test and then you’re more likely to eat a cookie after. Because some hypothesis could be that it drains your willpower. And it definitely looks this way with the Quantified Mind test.

So, we actually did an interesting experiment where we gave people a 20 minute long stroop test, which is really torture. And you can definitely see that people just cannot, even within the test itself – within those 20 minutes – they cannot maintain their ability to answer the difficult trials.

So you can divide the test to easy, moderate, and hard trials to pretty rough division, and you could definitely see that they keep getting the easy ones correct. But there are points where they just collapse and they start messing up the hard ones.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s a matter of endurance – the longer you’ve been doing it?

[Yoni Donner]: So, we didn’t get longitudinal data on this, unfortunately, so we don’t know if the same people got better the second time they did the 20.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I meant in terms of if you’ve been doing the test for ten minutes versus one minute. Was there an endurance effect in terms of willpower potentially?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So that was the main hypothesis. It turned that it’s a bit more complicated like everything in life. So then, in general, yes. You do get less likely over time if you average other people. But there are also times where people seem to sort of get it back together. Actually, towards the end. It seems like they suddenly notice they’re close to the end so they have another bout of energy.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right.

[Yoni Donner]: But yeah, and we also had these results when people just report as qualitatively. They feel drained after doing a long [unclear 22:33] and it’s fine. I do personally believe that there is also a lot of this classical “willpower is not that important if you don’t believe that it is.”

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You think there’s merit to that?

[Yoni Donner]: Well it seems to be partly true and partly there is something that does drain. And it also seems to be trainable to some degree. It’s just one other reason not to spend too long doing things that don’t give you much benefit. But there are many other reasons to not spend too long doing things that don’t give you much benefit.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. The cookie test you brought up – the experiment of, I think it was, Roy Baumeister?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. And actually one of the things really is the stroop test by the way. So this is direct evidence.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I understand. Could you explain what areas of Quantified Mind what areas of the brain are you testing or what cognitive capabilities are you looking at?

[Yoni Donner]: There are some tests that looking at reaction times and speed directly. So there are few reaction time tests and motor speed test. There’s some visual and spatial abilities. Which I’m going with a somewhat thematic order because these things are a little close to reaction times.

There’s a lot of executive function and working memory stuff. So there’s always the argument of whether working memory and shorter memory are the same thing or not. So there are things for both. There are some verbal learning stuff. So more long term learning. This is the main emphasis.

There have been other tests that people have put in who have collaborated with me on studies. Actually emotion regulation and decision-making, but we didn’t ever get a lot of data for those so I didn’t get to analyze their psychometric properties. But yes, so mainly those things. I’d say the most rough division –

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. How do these relate to the people at home? If they’re thinking about working area and the executive function area, how is that going to impact their daily life?

[Yoni Donner]: So these are probably the most important ones. Actually more important than speed. Probably speed would correlate to what you’d think of as alertness or even energy – weakly correlate. And executive functions would more correspond to what people would think of as focus or attention, or really getting things done, or even flow, I would dare say.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Getting into flow. The ability to get into flow. Okay.

[Yoni Donner]: And working memory is the best correlator out of these things to intelligence in general. So to be efficiency of work. But again, these are all very rough generalizations in making things interpretable.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, right. So to connect to the day to day is a little bit difficult. But working memory is basically, roughly how many things you can keep in your mind.

So, I always thought if you’re solving some kind of puzzle or you’re trying to make some kind of decision, if you can have ten variables in your mind – I think it’s seven the amount typical for working memory. But if you can basically play around with those things more in working memory similar to a computer has ram, then it’s easier to make decisions and more complex decisions.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah, exactly. And of course every kind of work in modern life is full of these multiple things that come at you and if you have too many of them. Even writing code, is one of the most obvious things that depend on working memory, right?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well I think pretty much everything I can think of. When you’re problem solving, I think that’s very dependent on working memory. Is that correct?

For most people, if they’re going about their jobs. Most jobs these days, it’s troubleshooting, it’s problem-solving, it’s planning. Would you fit those into the working memory area?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. If we were take into just a generalization and not perfect [unclear 26:05], yeah, totally.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I like that you put the caveat out there. It’s good. [Laughter]

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. Sorry, I just got my PhD so have to be an uberous careful scientific person. [Laughter]

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: No, that’s great. So in terms of the scientific validation between your tests that you’ve put up there, how strong is it?

[Yoni Donner]: It’s quite good. So, to begin with, everything is building on tests that have been very, very extensively used in the literature. That’s how I selected them to begin with.

But I also did many independent types of validation. First of all, reliability is extremely high. It was higher than I ever hope to achieve. The basic result on reliability in this data shows that a one minute test for almost all tests is sufficient to measure almost perfectly the skill which is being measured. Which is great.

And for validation, I looked at internal structure and external structure. So these mean how the tests relate to each other, and that behavior supports completely psychometric theory and psychological theory. So that suggested they are measuring the right thing.

And the external variables also look exactly correct, so the same we’d expect. There are extensive results on this. I am slowly working on a paper that, hopefully, will eventually bring all of these results out. But for now it looks really good.

So everything that we would predict does seem to behave correctly, and then, of course, there are new results that we had no predictions about so this gives us some confidence to believe in them.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, when did this launch and how many users have you had using the system so far?

[Yoni Donner]: This was early 2012, and it grew fairly linearly. I never tried to get users, but it just happened so that’s nice. It grew fairly linearly. We have now over 40,000. I think most people, of course, don’t take many tests.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. They do a few and then disappear.

[Yoni Donner]: There was several jumps in the middle where some event happened and then a ton of people signed up overnight.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Do you know how many tests have been taken to date?

[Yoni Donner]: Yes. It would be something like half a million tests. I think I even computed the number of individual trials and it was something like 660 in a million or –

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow. I’m guessing you look at that. Do you sometimes look at that data to see if there’s anything interesting that comes out on the averages or -?

[Yoni Donner]: So looking at the aggregates, definitely that’s the way to do psychometric analysis. So without looking at who’s doing what and names at experiments, you can still look at relationships between tests and practice effects and complexity effects. These are real interesting things – and even time of day, which is always there.

I don’t just look at people’s data because that’s a big invasion of privacy. But there are cases where researchers are designing experiments that are run on the platform. Then I give them some access rights. Then everyone who signs to that experiment specifically opts in to having the data available only to that researcher, and often we do the data analysis together. So I do get to see a lot of cool stuff.

And yeah, it looks like these results are pretty encouraging. We definitely knew, to begin with, that the effect sizes to be expected with in-person variation would be rather small, but it’s very nice to actually find them.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. That’s cool. One of the things I’d like to make clear about this tool is basically that, in order to do experiments, you’ve added the ability to add variables. And there’s some basic variables you’ve already added in yourself, like “have I had coffee today, have I had chocolate today” that you have tested for. So it enables us to control for different things and see if they’re having an impact on us, on our cognition and at the different test areas.

[Yoni Donner]: Correct.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, do a lot of people make use of that function and you can see the differences between say coffee and no coffee?

And you’re saying also the time of day. Do you track that with location? So, I’m in London right now, for instance.

[Yoni Donner]: Yes. People who are moving around and don’t update it in the time zone, I would lose that data. I do not take into account all the data from people who did not demonstrate that they were aware that a time zone field exists and needed to be updated. So, I only include people who explicitly change their time zone at least once to make sure that at least that part will be roughly –

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, I’m gone.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. There were cool results with the time of day because I think no one has looked at the time of day effects simultaneously across a wide variety of tests, and I’ve done exactly of this. Only a few weeks ago finally got to play around with this. It was cool.

So you can’t actually look at a uniform this time of day because different people have different chronotypes. So there would be owls and larks and all these other names. So instead of uniformly averaging across everyone, I used a nonparametric clustering algorithm to find, automatically from the data, what are the clusters that we can see. It was really cool because you could definitely see that almost all the people are worse at night.

But definitely some people get this afternoon dip and some do not. And some people peak in the late morning where as some others actually slowly improve throughout the day and only collapse late night. It was really cool to see this emerge from the data itself with no prior assumptions.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s interesting because I can make assumptions about those cases. You could probably too. It’s speculation, but a lot of people get slight adrenal fatigue so they could be more tired in the afternoon. I could imagine that it would. It’s said to affect cognitive.

So, it’s funny that your data has pulled out those scenarios, which would be very interesting. So what would be the minimal test? Because we’re talking about efficiency here and we talked about how doing a lot of testing might reduce our willpower and have some impact on our self-control during the day and some other impacts.

So, in terms of someone who wants to do some tests and basically see where they are – track some that are not having cognitive decline or potentially looking at days they drink coffee versus not or some other test – what would be the minimal test you could do once per day to track while experimenting like that?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. I’d say even just one minute and pick one test or maybe two minutes and two tests, and that’s it. So, two back or three back or a good test, cover a wide variety. It’s mostly working memory, but you’d also get a component of speed in that.

So if you do that I’d say you don’t really need to measure speed separately or choice reaction time or something. And it’s also valuable to put stroop or what is called sorting on the Quantified Mind.

But definitely one to two minutes and no more. There’s no need it and it just reduces the likelihood of doing this many, many times, which is far more valuable than adding more tests to a single measurement.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So you could basically do this test once per day, control the variables and it’s basically a minute of your time to get potentially something useful.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. Or multiple times per day if you’re looking at something that changes across the day or the effect of coffee obviously are not constant across the day.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Exactly. I know that you did a lot of tests in the past. I’m not sure if you’re still doing a lot of tests with this on yourself. What kind of discoveries have you made about yourself?

[Yoni Donner]: That’s interesting. So, I definitely agree with what you said before about getting sick. Fortunately – this is famous last words – that did not happen in quite a long time. So I didn’t get that data point. But last time I measured this the effect was huge. It was unbelievable. It was somewhat that I could compare this to, for myself, something like five days of pretty severe sleep deprivation.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Exactly.

[Yoni Donner]: Awful.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Did you see kind of like a crash and then a slow recovery?

[Yoni Donner]: Even when getting better?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, right. Well for me, personally, it took it five days, seven days to get back to baseline after the initial day when you fall sick. Of course it depends on the sickness, so it’s a bit variable.

[Yoni Donner]: I think the recovery was a bit faster, but still we probably had different things going on. But yeah, it was a very strong effect. I actually did a [unclear 33:51]. One of the strangest things I’ve done on myself.

So I like doing things that they also keep me engaged by their own right. So an experiment which is not boring because it gets you to keep doing it. We had this funny discussion about a little odd result in the literature. You may know this one. Glycogen depletion followed by glycogen overcompensation resulted in a significant improvement in cognitive functions.

They did this on rats and this was a long, long time ago. I may not get the details right away. I think they basically let them run to exhaustion until the poor rat just collapsed. And then they fed them a ton of sugar, more than they needed to refill the glycogen. And then killed them and witnessed abnormally huge amount of glycogen in their range.

And then they hypothesized that this would also translate to a behavioral output. So I did this on my poor human self for like several days.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay. So could you explain how you did that to yourself?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So without the killing part. So a lot of exercise. I think that was also a good excuse to get myself back into exercising. So, it was a lot of cardio and then some weight lifting.

I read what you’re supposed to do to do some glycogen depletion. So a lot of many, many, many sets with relatively low weights. That seemed, at least by subjective experience of wanting to diet, seemed to do the job. And then trying to do some calculations of what exactly would be the glycogen overcompensation, and then take cognitive tests about several hours later.

I don’t remember the exact numbers. It was a few years ago. But it was a hypothesis based on a minimal amount of existing data. That seemed to work great. It’s totally not worth it. It’s like brain training. But definitely I got some of the highest scores I’ve ever seen in my life.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Cool. That sounded like a huge effort actually. That sounded like it was a couple of days to do that.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So I only did like five times, but it was pretty significant. This is definitely not something that I want to do in life, and it’s not worth it to get this benefit. But it was just interesting.

Again, this is the kind of thing you want to know or you or you want to test. And if there’s some open question, why not just settle it with science?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. And who knows? If you had a really, really difficult decision to make or some kind of planning session or something, you might to do that as a one off to solve that life decision that you have or –

[Yoni Donner]: It’s true. Or if you have an exam at 3:00 PM or something and you decide to waste your time on doing this crazy stuff instead of studying. You might at least know that you’ll be quite pumped up when you get there.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: What other experiments have you done that have had some significant impact? Are there any you feel you’ve integrated into your life because they’re worthwhile because the time expense for actually doing these things isn’t too much to get some kind of benefit.

[Yoni Donner]: The biggest impact one is time of day and I think that would apply to a lot of people because you don’t really need to do strange manipulations or interventions for this. So just design the activities that you do such as they fit with your natural rhythms.

I’m currently at the point where I’m way more productive in the early part of the day. So, I leave all of the stuff that doesn’t require too much mental power to the later parts of the day. But that’s a very easy one.

And an interesting one that we’ve seen that’s not on me, but an actual study that was done quite recently was that the effects of temperature are not what people would expect. Which is also a little consistent with existing literature, but there’s not that much existing literature on this.

This was a great study where several hundred subjects and everything was perfectly controlled in terms of temperature and humidity. They did all the practice stuff perfectly so the data was very, very clean and very, very good, and it showed that people do not actually predict correctly when they function at their best.

So most people would report being more comfortable at a slightly lower temperature than the temperature which their brains worked the best behaviorally. This seems like a little counterintuitive, but I looked into this and it turns out that this is actually consistent with results that were previously known. But I think we brought a better resolution to this question.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s always interesting when it goes against our own sense of wellbeing. As you’re saying it’s a little less comfortable, a little bit hotter than maybe we feel is comfortable is when we’re working best.

I was also wondering if you think a lot of people might try to guess their rhythm during the day. I’ve always been a morning person and I’ve always told people I’m a morning person. Over time, I think I’ve got some more stamina now so I can work for longer periods. I can work maybe 10 to 12 hours and I don’t feel so bad if I’m not doing it too many times a week.

So basically, people should kind of test this kind of thing with the test. But would you expect them in [unclear 38:36] you mean speaking to people about their time stamp test and does it kind of reflect what they thought?

[Yoni Donner]: That’s interesting. I think most people have a good sense of this, especially who are workaholics because they actually try to use their brain at all times of the day. So they really discover what it’s like.

Of course you mix in all effects. Obviously you get a little tired just by doing mentally exerting work. So it’s not a perfectly controlled study because then you would have to be lazy the whole day and see if you still function not quite as good in the night.

But most people don’t do this and they are accurate. There aren’t that many people who have shared their results or given me access to their data explicitly.

But there’s at least one person who said he actually did change his routine based on these results. Because he used to do a lot of intellectually engaging work for the evening and it turns out his results were very strong biased towards morning strength.

So he moved everything around and moved, for example, his physical workouts to the evening because he found that he didn’t need much willpower to get started. So he would do the workout and didn’t feel that it matters too much if he lifts a little bit less weight because that also changes during the day and it might not be correlated too.

So that was a cool example of changing things accordingly. And that’s really, again, the easiest experiment to do. You don’t need an intervention at all. You just get the data.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. Great. Are there academic studies that you can talk about that have been done with The Quantified Mind? Because I noticed some of them are restricted.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. It’s true. So there are a lot going on. There’s always someone somewhere doing yet another kind of coffee study. Which is funny, but it’s nice because it always works.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Let’s talk about coffee because I think – did you do a bulletproof coffee study? Was that where it was done because -?

[Yoni Donner]: That’s not really academic, but it was a study. Yeah. It had problems. It was definitely not blind and there was a selection effect by the [unclear 40:35] class.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Just for the people at home, that means that the people had opted in big as like they like bulletproof coffee basically.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. They were actually recruited through the Bulletproof Coffee website.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Instead of being randomly given Bulletproof Coffee.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. And this in combination with not being blind means that the placebo effect would be huge. Because you’re exactly telling the people who would believe that this would work on them that they are currently under the condition that would work for them.

Having said that, the results were more interesting than just a pure monotonic improvement. So Bulletproof Coffee has this as a component of the coffee and the butter. So even in our data, butter had zero effect, but coffee had a large effect.

This means coffee, like Bulletproof compared to Starbucks, not Bulletproof compared to no coffee, which would obviously have an effect.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay. And the quality of the coffee basically or something about the coffee that was better. It’s interesting –

[Yoni Donner]: Or the placebo of the coffee, yes.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: The facts that people were using the Bulletproof versus the other. Yeah, that’s cool. Well in coffee, in general, because everyone thinks of course that we’re performing better when we’re on coffee. You certainly feel good.

I’ve had an interesting – because when I started using this tool I thought coffee would make a difference. I’m drinking Bulletproof Coffee in the mornings because I feel like it gives me a ton of energy. So I’ve been doing that for a long time and I’v found that it makes no difference to my score so far.

[Yoni Donner]: Oh interesting. Even when you are slightly sleep deprived?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I really make an effort to sleep well. So I wouldn’t say that I’m – today maybe is the only day in a long time that I didn’t sleep great, and I know why that is. It’s because I took a few things yesterday. But that doesn’t really happen to me that I’m sleep deprived. So is that the one situation where coffee has the biggest impact? You’ve seen that?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. The literature definitely shows this that the effects of coffee are – I think there is still evidence to suggest they exist in non-sleep deprived individuals. But those are actually very rare in modern society.

It’s great that you take care of yourself, and I wish everyone did the same. But definitely the literature shows that the more sleep deprived you are, the more difference coffee would make.

There’s this famous study with Marines or Navy Seals or something where it showed that even the effect of the dose keeps improving after 300 milligrams, which seems like a gigantic dose to me. But that was still better than 200.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow. So, for the people at home, how many coffees is that?

[Yoni Donner]: That’d be like five espressos.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow.

[Yoni Donner]: I’m not a huge coffee expert really, but I think that sounds right. So yeah, this was still better than 200.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay. Yeah.

[Yoni Donner]: So I think it depends. But in general, whenever you use something chemical, even if coffee and it’s safe and it’s not that bad and it feels nice, you’re still playing with stuff that we don’t fully understand. I do firmly believe that, if you can first improve your life by sleeping better, then this is a better approach to do than optimizing coffee intake.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. I think one of the interesting things about this is when you feel good, you do more work. I find personally you tend to take on more bigger tasks and things like that.

And what I would say is I think coffee – I don’t know if I’m an addict – coffee makes me feel good. And so, I think I do more, but that wouldn’t necessarily show up in a cognitive test that I know of. Is that correct?

[Yoni Donner]: It might show in an indirect way if only by showing that you did more tests because this is a big effect when you’re not actually in a controlled study. You could just decide you don’t feel like taking the test now, and that would usually show that you’re a little weak on willpower or something.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You were saying it would show up for sleep deprived people. So, have you seen that coffee makes quite a big impact on people in general for the aggregate later? So, basically then you would be saying like a lot of people are sleep deprived who are taking a test to some degree.

[Yoni Donner]: Well so, first of all, you can never know. You can know if you ask every single person and if you believe all their answers, but that’s definitely not the case in an internet-based testing environment.

Coffee definitely seems to have a real effect in aggregate. It is not huge. I think it is the order of magnitude or time of day variations and then, of course, this is correlation that most people would consume coffee at this specific time of day. So these are confounded.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. A lot of people have it in the morning and, as you were saying, a lot of people, because of the time, that’s when they’re going to be performing better.

[Yoni Donner]: But we are now actually doing – this is happening this last week and this week. There’s a collaborator at Harvard who’s doing an in lab coffee study with Quantified Mind. So we’ve done a million coffee studies, but this is probably the most rigorous one.

So, they actually bring everyone to the lab and they randomize them. They don’t tell them what coffee they are getting, and they did the practice before and they have a crossover design. So hopefully we’ll see something.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. So when these studies are published, you list them on the site or you put references somewhere?

[Yoni Donner]: I would. I don’t think anything has been published in a journal yet because all of this stuff is fairly new in academic publishing takes years and years. There have been things I didn’t list that have been published informally. Like a student did a project and submitted it, and it was approved and they have a PDF somewhere. I guess I should look into putting some more of those.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. So are there other tactics that you seen, whether it’s the number of hours slept or anything else that you’ve seen, that people could think about testing?

If you had a priority list of tests worthwhile doing for people, experiments to see if it helps improve their cognitive capacities a bit, which ones would you list? If you were starting from scratch, which would be the top five you would start with having seen what you’ve seen that might have some potential uplift?

[Yoni Donner]: Right. I think this should be very individualized and people should start with their biggest suspect for, not what might make them better, but rather what might make them worse because these things have a much larger effect in practice. For example, someone who is good and sensitive would see a much stronger decline by consuming fruit than someone who just takes pure [check 46:28] to try to be a little bit better.

So, in general, effects of improving over the healthy well functioning baseline are much smaller than effects of fixing something that’s broken. I guess a lot of people do have somethings that they are sensitive to or that are broken in some weak sense. Like someone who is chronically sleep deprived, you could say that something is broken in their lifestyle.

And of course, this is not a moral judgement, but it just says that they might be able to see a larger improvement by fixing this and if they know that there is something they suspect. If someone suspects all kinds of food sensitivities, or even allergies, pathogens, anything that they feel hurts them, it will be useful to try to test exactly what it is using factorial designs and cognitive testing to fix this.

The other thing, I find it cool that a lot people are using this to really track their aging process. So this takes a lot of discipline to repeatedly take a test once a month, for example, for years and years. But this is admirable when people are doing this and it can maybe give you serious suggestions to when your brain is no longer that of a very young person and you should start taking more care of yourself because when you’re young you can get away with much more. So that seems also useful.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And I think sleep’s one of the ones that most people are guilty of. I’ve been guilty of it for a very long time. Especially driven workaholic type people. We just don’t want to sleep.

Have you seen any number of hours? A lot of those tests as you for the – well the standard ones I’ve been doing ask you for the number of hours you slept the night before. I’ve certainly noticed straight away – for instance, today, because I slept six and a half hours, it was lower. So for me, that’s low. Normally, I’m seven and a half hours.

Have you noticed anything in terms of the number of hours slept that you see some dips and dives or anything?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So again, there is not that much data, and again, I don’t look into people’s data. So this is only people who ask me to look at their data and conversations with that and so on, which filters a lot.

But the most interesting result I can remember is that it seemed we actually did see a skip one day effect where the strongest effect would be with a delta of one day. Which was also interesting because one person also shared their result with me that suggested that it was the same with drug use.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you’re saying there’s a lag effect,so it hits you the day after?

[Yoni Donner]: Yes. It’s a lag effect, yeah. It seems to be and it’s hard to say if it’s exactly two days, but it seems that the effect, when skipping a day, was stronger than the next.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay. Of course I have to ask you about Nootropics because it’s one of the biggest topics right now. You mentioned Piracetam and of course it is many others.

Have you got any anecdotal effects? Anecdotally have you gotten any information from it all about people taking Nootropics and getting any benefits based on the test results?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah, a little bit. So people seem to like Modafinil, which is a strong one.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It is, yeah.

[Yoni Donner]: And you never know. You’ve seen the one where Dave goes on Nightline and talks about Modafinil?

Yeah. That was quite a while ago, right?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So there’s like a minute there when they talk about Quantified Mind and the experiment he was doing. So I trust him when he says he got a strong result. But of course, one should always be careful.

For example, here’s a study design that I don’t like. You take Modafinil. You do cognitive testing, you get your scores. Then you stop taking Modafinal for a week and get back on it and you see that your scores during that week were much worse. This is controlling for practice so that’s fine.

But the problem here is that you might as well just show that you became addicted to Modafinil. You don’t actually know if this performance on Modafinil is better than what you had before you started. You just know that now it hurts you to get off it. So this, I don’t think they built control for.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. The other thing is people talk about Modafinil kind of feels like you’re running high speed gear or something and you get a lot done that day. But I wonder if maybe the days after you could pay for it with slightly lower cognitive capacities as in, when you come off of it, you’re basically trying to catch up or something.

[Yoni Donner]: Right. This is the borrowing from your future self.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Basically, it is that thing you’d have to control for too.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. It would be great to have some other more controlled study or some more centralized resource of good practices when designing those studies. It is definitely something to look into and might be, and I asked before about, points for improvement for the future.

But definitely, self-explanatory limited by the fact that it is complicated and not complicated in an intractable way. But complicated in way which just in practice most people don’t take into account because it takes a lot of experience and thinking about these things.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You mean to set up a proper experiment?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So, for example, the effects you just described are these lag effects and –

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Do you have any future plans to expand the functionality of Quantified Mind? It sounds like there’s quite a few academic projects starting to run with it.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So this is great and I got a count quite recently since I put it on some presentation. It was around 30 that are either being done or have been concluded, and they’re either a stage of planning a follow up or writing up or just kept for internal use or something.

So I definitely want to figure out what gives researchers the most value and how we can improve that and provide that. I do want to also make users who are not researchers happier, but that’s just a slightly lower priority simply because it has a lower impact on the overall progress of science, which sounds pompous.

But I hate saying things like this, but it is in the end about impact and I do think that it will help more in the longer run if we have more general human knowledge about, even individual variations, but the effect of things we just don’t even know right now. And when people just learn something and they are the only ones who gain knowledge, it’s a small impact.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: All right, I understand. If people want to learn more about this, where should someone look first? If they wanted to learn a little bit more about – we’re talking lament terms here. I don’t know if you’d have good references, like presentations or books or anything like that where people could learn more about cognitive, basically, testing and assessment and basically the tests that you have on the Quantified Mind.

[Yoni Donner]: That is a great question. You’re right, in predicting that I don’t often think about how to present information in lament terms. We still have the science page on Quantified Mind, which is kind of readable. Maybe even too readable because people might not get enough information.

This is a little silly, but there is my thesis which has two entire chapters about this and it’s probably also not very readable. It’s also not published yet. So this science page would be a good place to start and for specific questions, everyone’s always encouraged to write to me and it’s always fun to talk about cognitive testing and so on.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. What would be the best ways for people to connect with you? Are you on Twitter – Quantified Mind? Where are you most active?

[Yoni Donner]: The contact page on Quantified Mind is a good way. I’m a not a social media person.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is there anyone besides yourself that you’d recommend to learn more about cognitive testing or running experiments for cognitive testing?

[Yoni Donner]: That is a good question. I know some people who are local and you meet them in all kinds of conferences. I don’t know if there’s one resource. Definitely Lumosity is not bad because, even though the main tool is the commercial game product, they actually have a large group of people who are more into the data analysis and resources.

They publish all the results in a human readable form as well on their blog, which is a good practice. So that’s nice to look at. There’s the Human Cognition Project which is to give more researchers access to this data and to generate more results. And then, of course, all the papers in science and nature also have popular interpretations.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: All right, great. Thank you for those. Now just a little bit about you and what you’re doing these days. Are you tracking any of your metrics or biomarkers, like blood or cognitive tests or anything, on a routine basis?

[Yoni Donner]: Not really. My habits that are I start tracking something when I think there is something to learn. And I insist on not tracking it anymore when I’m not learning anymore. This is nice because sometimes you discover that you can predict.

You just know things that you didn’t know before. You know your heart rate. You don’t need to measure it. I’m sure you’ve experienced this after years of doing this stuff. And so it seems to be true for a lot of measurements.

I wouldn’t say that I can predict cognitive performance because that has that funny property, which is why we need this. As your brain changes, its ability to predict itself also changes accordingly so that’s why you have these wrong conceptions. So this I would still use, but I want an important question to have when doing this.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, yeah. It sounds like you basically do little projects on something you’re interested in and then you kind of move on. You’re just saying that basically builds self-awareness by doing these things with each one so you can kind of tell yourself where you’re at also.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. That’s exactly right. There’s a time cost and there’s an effort cost in tracking anything. So you’ll never track everything so might as well make sure that you track the things that count.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And what are the biggest changes you’ve made in your behavior over the years with experiments if any?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. I probably realized that I’m not actually built for short term rewards. All things that normal people call fun I don’t find them fun, and I don’t find them useful.

And for my longer term happiness, the things that make me the most satisfied are creating value. Being productive, learning, developing. So with time, I guess I put much more of an emphasis on really building my future self and not so much doing satisfying things in the short term.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Because you find that satisfying as well.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. So there are two things.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It sounds like you find – the same way it makes you happy, the same way.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. And data can help you reach that conclusion in two ways. One is when you do this not very precise. But I try to make those subjective measures as precise as possible by just breaking them down to so many individual categories that can be scored and then getting numbers and doing something.

But also just, in the sense that if you are tracking things that matter to you in the short term, and you’re witnessing their anti-correlation with things that are supposed to be short term rewarding as opposed to long term benefits, then this is a good way of actually making change. Because you can’t deny from yourself a change that you can see in the numbers.

This was a very abstract thing so I’ll try to get more concrete. If you are tracking your fitness and you noticed that you are not paying that much attention to your stoop [check 57:15}, it goes down. This hurts.

If you know I lifted this much weights a few months ago and I can’t reach that anymore, it really sucks and this makes you change some things. And to me those health things, those performance related metrics have a huge impact in making me change behavior.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: All right. So last question. What would be your number question – we ask this of everyone – to someone trying to use data to make better decisions to improve any aspect of their health, performance, or longevity? Just something about themselves.

[Yoni Donner]: So there are many aspects of using data. So definitely one of them is make sure that they are collecting the right kind of data, and in a consistent way, which makes for a valid experiment. But also not try to overdo it.

I’ve seen so many people just fail because they’ve tried to do too much and got lost in the details or in the process itself. Focus on the highest value thing at a time and do it properly and win, really win, and then move on.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: All right. With the minimal effort, right?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. Passive tracking is great. Some people do a lot into tracking and getting data, but then don’t do the minimal effort in just learning data analysis. Some people still don’t actually feel that comfortable playing with raw data. I feel it’s worth learning for almost everyone because it’s not that complicated.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Thanks. That’s a great point. And do you got a tip? Where would you start? Would it being using Excel statistical correlation or what would be the first thing someone could try that would add a lot of value?

[Yoni Donner]: I think that is not bad. But if you’re at the point where you get weird files from tools then Excel won’t help you with this and you can’t always load giant data into Excel.

So, I would suggest try to learn Python OR. These are not so complicated, and they’re extremely powerful. And of course, this day, there are so many tutorials. All of this stuff is very easy with some reasonable effort. But people who can learn to play guitar can also learn to us Python.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. It seems really, really complicated when you look at programming languages. But I’ve done a bit of programming in my time and I’m not a programmer at all. I’m a business guy. But yeah, it looks much worse than it is. That’s what you’re saying, right?

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. And also, trying to answer a very concrete question about your data is very different than building Gmail or something. You’re not building it. It’s not programming in the sense of building giant tools.

It’s really doing something very, very specific. There would be 50 lines of code maybe, if it’s complicated and involves reading files. But you just want to generate your graphs the way you like them.

And then throw out some bad data points and maybe combine data sources. It’s very hard to use some general tools that shield you away from programming. And often you get to a level of complexity, which is akin to actual scripting.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well Yoni, thank you so much for your time today. Really enjoyed talking to you about all of these and setting some of the science straight on what we can’t really look at and decide that it’s going to work or not. So thanks for your time.

[Yoni Donner]: Yeah. Thank you! This was great and I admire what you’re doing. So good luck with all of that.

Leave a Reply

Oxaloacetate is an important metabolic intermediate in the energy pathway of the mitochondria. Recent case studies support the use of oxaloacetate as a nutritional supplement to help regulate blood glucose levels, potentially support longevity and protect the brain.

Can you get similar beneficial results from a nutritional supplement as you can from a water fast (previously discussed in episode 16 and episode 28)? Oxaloacetate supplements (also discussed in this episode with Bob Troia) are currently being studied for their use in improving blood sugar regulation and potential anti-aging properties.

…through the clinical trial that was done. We know that 100mg [of oxaloacetate] was effective in reducing fasting glucose levels in diabetics.
– Alan Cash

Alan Cash is a physicist who has spent years researching the effects of oxaloacetate. Through his efforts and travels he has seen great success for terminally ill patients and more who use oxaloacetate to supplement their health. Cash helped stabilize the molecule so that it could be used as a nutritional supplement and continues to advocate and study its use so that more research and clinical trials can continue to support its use.

In this interview we get into the nuts and bolts of how oxaloacetate works, the current studies underway, and some different ways you can use it depending on what benefits you are seeking.

The episode highlights, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

What You’ll Learn

  • The implementation of a calorie restriction diet may work to consistently increase your lifespan and reduce any age related diseases (6:19).
  • Calorie restriction seems to affect the energy pathway of the cell (9:20).
  • We can essentially “bio-hack” our systems by tricking the cells into thinking that the NAD to NADH ratio is high so that fat production is reduced (12:50).
  • Human trials have shown that calorie restriction reduces fasting glucose levels and atherosclerosis (13:46).
  • Reducing age related diseases will increase the average lifespan and increase the maximum lifespan for every cell in the body (14:32).
  • Oxaloacetate is an important metabolite involved in one of the energy pathways in the mitochondria, the power house of a cell (16:20).
  • Oxaloacetate is used in the Kreb’s cycle to oxidize NADH to NAD (17:09).
  • A human clinical trial in the 60’s demonstrated that the use of oxaloacetate as a nutritional supplement reduced Type 2 Diabetes symptoms (20:00).
  • As the dosage increases from the minimum 100 mg other system processes occur, such as the reduction of high glutamate levels, which is one of the damaging factors for closed head injury/stroke victims (22:33).
  • A medical food called CRONaxal contains a large dose of oxaloacetate which, when used in conjunction with chemotherapy, can reduce tumor size and sometimes stop tumor growth completely in patients with brain cancer (26:07).
  • Fasting/a calorie restricted diet is another technique that has been shown to slow brain tumor growth (27:53).
  • Some cancer patients have already seen results with oxaloacetate supplementation and calorie restriction diets, however these are just individual cases and not clinical trials (28:46).
  • Recently, clinical trials have begun to study oxaloacetate as a treatment for different conditions such as mitochondrial dysfunction, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease (30:13).
  • Oxaloacetate may also work well to reduce inflammation and increase neurogenesis in the brain (32:30).
  • Oxaloacetate may also become an important supplement for athletes who encounter severe head injuries during their sport (34:30).
  • Long term potentiation, the restoration of the ability to learn, may improve for patients after a stroke or closed head injury if oxaloacetate is used in combination with acetyl-l-carnitine (36:18).
  • Alan Cash spent years proving to the FDA that there do not seem to be any negative effects found with taking large doses of oxaloacetate (38:35).
  • So overall, oxaloacetate has an immediate pharmacological effect on the glutamate in the brain and a long term genomic effect on the mitochondria (46:30).
  • When trying your own experiment, take a daily fasting glucose level for a couple weeks to see the normal variability and then follow with oxaloacetate supplementation along with daily reading of your glucose levels (48:06).
  • The biomarkers Alan Cash tracks on a routine basis to monitor and improve his health, longevity and performance (55:29)
  • Alan Cash’s one biggest recommendation on using body data to improve your health, longevity and performance (58:49).

Alan Cash

  • Terra Biological: Alan Cash’s company which produces the stable form of oxaloacetate.
  • Oxaloacetate supplementation increases lifespan of C. elegans: The original study published by Alan Cash on PubMed.
  • : you can contact Alan Cash with questions using this email address.

Tools & Tactics

Supplements & Drugs

Oxaloacetate is available in a few versions in the market today – all of these come from Alan Cash’s company since he developed the proprietary method to thermally stabilize it and as such make it usable. A number of studies on Oxaloacetate were mentioned in this interview – see the complete PubMed list here.

  • benaGene Oxaloacetate: The nutritional supplement (100mg) version of Oxaloacetate to promote longevity and glucose regulation.
  • CRONaxal Oxaloacetate: This version of oxaloacetate is a medical food (containing oxaloacetate) which, when used with other treatments such as chemotherapy, has been shown to significantly improve outcomes and quality of life for cancer patients.
  • Aging Formula Oxaloacetate: Dave Asprey’s supplement is the same as the benaGene version of Oxaloacetate.
  • Acetyl-l-Carnitine: Mentioned with respect to a study where a combination of oxaloacetate and acetyl-l-carnitine reduced long term potentiation impairment in rats.
  • Metformin: A drug which is used to improve blood sugar regulation in diabetes. Researchers are looking at its wider applications as a knock on effect from improving blood sugar regulation to cancer and aging.

Diet & Nutrition

  • Calorie restriction: this dietary regimen involves a significant decrease in daily calorie intake and has been shown to slow the aging process as described in this review article. You can learn more about the potential benefits and the arguments against the anti-aging benefits of calorie restriction in episode 14 with Aubrey De Grey.
  • Fasting: The fasts referred to in this episode were complete water fasts that were also being used in combination with oxaloacetate in order to attempt to “stack” the effects and get better outcomes. The examples given were case studies of cancer patients (no clinical trials have been completed as yet). For more information on fasting as a possible cancer treatment see episode 16, and episode 28 on our water fasting self-experiment.
  • Calorie Restricted Ketogenic Diets: In a similar light to above, the anecdotal cases discussed for cancer were patients use of ketogenic diets (that put you into ketone metabolism, by restricting carbs and protein, and emphasizing fat) which were also calorie restricted. This involves stacking two nutritional strategies: ketogenic diets have been shown to be therapeutic for some conditions like alzheimers and blood sugar regulation related problems as has calorie restriction in general. Then some of these cases were also combining the use of oxaloacetate, again to try to stack the effects from these three tactics to further improve outcomes. See episode 7 for complete details on using ketogenic diets as a tactic to improve health.

Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Blood Glucose Levels (mg/dL): A measure of the level of glucose in the blood at one point in time. Fasting blood glucose levels are specifically taken when you have not eaten for at least 8 hours and optimally would be between 75 and 85 mg/dL. Health concerns with blood sugar regulation such as diabetes risk start to rise over 92 mg/dL. After taking oxaloacetate for many weeks Alan Cash suggests that your fasting blood glucose should vary less when compared with any control levels. These levels can be measured at home using a glucose monitor and glucose testing strips (an explanation for the use of glucose monitors can be found in this episode).

Other People, Books & Resources

People

  • Hans Adolf Krebs: Krebs is best known for his discovery of the citric acid cycle, or Kreb’s cycle, which is the main energy pathway of a cell.
  • Dominic D’Agostino: Well known for his work with ketogenic diets and performance.

Organizations

  • Calorie Restriction Society: This organization is dedicated to the understanding of the calorie restriction diet by researching, advocating, and promoting the diet through regular conferences, research studies, and forums.

Other

  • Kreb’s Cycle: oxaloacetate is one of the components involved in this energy pathway in the mitochondria of a cell.
  • NAD/NADH: the effects of oxaloacetate in the Kreb’s cycle changes the ratio of NAD and NADH in the mitochondria which in turn affects the energy available to the cell.
  • Orphan Drug Act: This law passed in the US in 1983 has provided more opportunities for researchers and physicians to pursue drug development for rare, or “orphan”, disorders.
  • Calorie restriction PubMed results

Full Interview Transcript

Click Here to Read Transcript

[Damien Blenkinsopp]:Alan, thank you so much for joining the show today.

[Alan Cash]: Oh, thanks. It’s always a thrill to talk about oxaloacetate.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: First of all, I’d just like to get a bit of background story as to why you got interested in this at first. What’s the story, basically, behind how you got interested in oxaloacetate, and started getting involved with it?

[Alan Cash]: That’s a pretty weird story.

It turns out I had a brain condition where nerves sometimes grow very close to arteries. I had an artery that wrapped around my nerve. Every time my heart beat it acted like a little saw and eventually cut in through the myelin sheath that surrounds the nerve and protects the nerve, and went directly into a nerve bundle that was a major nerve bundle in my neck. And the result was instantaneous pain.

I found out that I was very lucky; I was able to get it corrected. They just went into the back of my head and followed the nerve until they could find where it crossed over, and they untangled it and put in a piece of Teflon. So now I don’t stick, but the pain is 100% gone, which is really nice. A miracle of modern science, because it was pretty terrible.

In looking up this condition, I found that it was really a condition of aging. As we grow older, your arteries get about 10 to 15 percent longer, even though we’re not getting 10 to 15 percent longer. So they have to fold over, go someplace, and it was just bad luck that it folded over next to this nerve.

As a physicist I thought I’d look into aging and see, whats the current state of what we can do about aging. And thankfully at that time there was a lot going on with the basic fundamentals of aging and trying to understand this, and looking at all the data that’s out there. That’s what physicists do; we take a huge amount of data and see where the kernels of truth are. We try to think of E=MC2, or F=MA, how much that describes about the universe.

And looking at the aging literature, the thing that stood out the most is almost nothing works, which is disappointing. The one thing we did find that worked consistently throughout the animal kingdom was calorie restriction. That was discovered back in 1934 in Cornell University.

It’s not just the diet. It’s essentially establishing a baseline of what you’d eat if you had all the food available, and then backing off that baseline anywhere from 25 to 40 percent. And when you do that consistently over a long period of time, we see several things. One, we see an increase in lifespan. Not just average lifespan of the group, but the maximal lifespan is also increased.

For small animals that live short times, that could be anywhere from 25 to 50 percent increases. In primates, we’ve seen an increase in lifespan of about 10 to 18 percent, depending upon the test. So we’re thinking in humans, we’ll probably see something in that range if you calorie restrict your whole life.

The other things we see though are a reduction in age related diseases, such as cancer. Our animal models indicate that incidence of cancer is 55 percent less in animals that calorie restrict. And that’s one of the most effective methods we have of preventing cancer, that we know of.

Incidence of neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s are either reduced or greatly delayed. Incidences of any kind of autoimmune type issue, or inflammation issues. So it’s very, very powerful this concept of calorie restriction, and it wasn’t until just recently that we figured out molecular pathways of why it’s working.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, in terms of the actual mechanisms for what’s going on in the body when we calorie restrict, what happens? What is it that creates these benefits and these changes in our biology, versus disease, and longevity in general?

[Alan Cash]: We’ve been looking at that for a long time as a question, and some of the things that we looked at were does it matter if it’s the calorie restriction with fats, or does it matter if it’s just carbohydrates or proteins. And what we’ve seen is it’s pretty much across the board ‘calories’.

There are various diets out there – there’s a new diet every week it seems like – that looks at restricting one form or another of calories, or fats, or proteins, or even specific components of proteins. But what we’ve seen in general in calorie restriction is it’s the number of calories.

So, based on that it seems like it’s an energy proposition, and looking at the energy pathways there’s been focus on the ratio of two compounds that are pretty much the same. Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD, and it’s reduced version NADH. So that ratio, which is also known as the redox of the cell, is looking at the energy of the cell. And when we have a very high NAD to NADH ratio, we see effects very similar to calorie restriction.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So in terms of what that’s actually doing, do we understand why the changes in NADH create this change in our biology?

[Alan Cash]: You know we’ve been able to trace this, and what we see is increasing the NAD to NADH ratio – and you can do that through a variety of ways – but that increase is measured by a protein called AMP protein-activated kinase, or AMPK. What AMPK does is it monitors, essentially, the NAD and NADH ratio, or the redox of the cell.

Think of it as a see-saw, so with AMPK as the fulcrum of the see-saw and NAD on one side and NADH on the other side. When the see-saw is in one position, AMPK will then act with other proteins that translate to the nucleus and turn on genes. When the see-saw is in a different position, AMPK will work with other proteins that translate to the nucleus and turn on different genes.

So let me give you a specific example. If you’ve had a lot to eat, your NAD to NADH ratio will be low. And AMPK will turn on genes that help with fat storage and production, because you’ve got all this extra energy, so hey let’s store some of it. So it will actually start producing proteins that deal with fat storage and synthesis.

On the other hand, if the see-saw is in the different position, if you haven’t had a lot to eat, there’s no point in storing fat. And so your genes will not be making these proteins that assist in making fat production. So how can we use that information?

For instance, when we trick the cells into thinking that the NAD to NADH ratio is high – or that the animal hasn’t had a lot to eat even if it has – we can slow down the rate of fat production, which could be interesting for people on diets. What we see is that you still gain some fat, but you just don’t gain it as fast.

So, biochemically, there are reasons why when you go on a diet and you lose all that weight, and you stop the diet and you rebound back very quickly. We can slow down the rate of rebound if we can keep the NAD to NADH ratio up high, because then the genes that are produced that create and store fat aren’t being produced. So there’s some really neat tricks that we can use to bio-hack into our systems that are existing systems.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, yeah. There are quite a few potential benefits to calorie restriction. We’ve come across some of these before. We’ve spoken with Dr. Thomas Seyfried about purposefully doing fasting for this kind of work as well.

What are kind of list the main big areas which people have seen this impact, like diabetes. What have you seen in your area, areas where people are meaningfully impacting this area with calorific restriction?

[Alan Cash]: We’ve actually done human trials in calorie restriction, and what we see is a reduction in fasting glucose levels. We also see a reduction in atherosclerosis, which, considering heart disease is the number one killer in America, if we can reduce that you’re going to have people living longer. That alone is huge.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So that just begs the question, when people are doing these estimates of longevity, is it because you’re reducing the risk of many of the kind of diseases that kill us – like cancer and neurological disorders, and heart disease – that people are living longer, and therefore you’re getting a higher longevity score? Or are they kind of separate topics?

[Alan Cash]: It’s both, actually.

Reducing these diseases is going to bring up the average increase in survival. So that would give you your average increase in lifespan. But there are certain people who don’t get these diseases, and they live a long time. But calorie restriction has been able to increase the maximal amount of lifespan. So that’s making every cell in your body live longer.

And we see that in our animal tests. For instance we started off working with these little worms called C elegans, which are used a lot in research because we understand, somewhat, the genetics of them. And one of the interesting things about these worms is once they go into adulthood, they don’t produce any more cells. That’s it.

They only live for about 30 days, but they live with the cells that they have. So if we can extend their lifespan, it means that we’re allowing each of their cells to live longer, and to be functional for longer. And when we increase the NAD to NADH ratio in C elegens, we see up to a 50 percent increase in lifespan.

So, as I said, it’s both. It’s eliminating a lot of these diseases that are associated with aging. I mean, think of all the diseases that you get when your old that you don’t get when you’re seven years old.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, I’m sure you’re aware of Aubrey de Grey? We had him on the podcast previously talking about his seven areas of aging, which are basically diseases of aging. So he’s looking at it from that perspective. So, in terms of oxaloacetate, which is the mechanism you were using to generate that, where does it actually come from? What is it?

[Alan Cash]: Well, it’s a human metabolite. It’s in something called the Krebs cycle, which is what gives us power in our little mitochondria. So, mitochondria can be thought of like a little power plant. Glucose is the fuel for the power plant.

So the more mitochondria you have, the more power plants you have, but you have to also have the fuel, the glucose, to up-regulate that. So oxaloacetate is one of those critical components within the mitochondria. So it’s in every cell of your body already.

Now, when we give it to animals, the reason we started looking at oxaloacetate is in looking at our energy pathways, oxaloacetate can break down into malate, which is another metabolite. It’s found in excess in apples. And as part of that reaction, it takes NADH and turns it into NAD.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So it takes it from reduced into the oxidized form?

[Alan Cash]: Yes, and so in doing that, because you’re taking something from the denominator and putting it in the numerator, it changes the ratio very rapidly. The first person who measured this ratio change was Krebs himself, back in the 60’s. He added oxaloacetate to the cells and he saw a 900 percent increase in the NAD to NADH ratio in two minutes. So, huge changes with this human metabolite oxaloacetate.

Now, oxaloacetate has got some problems. It’s not very stable, it’s highly energetic. Commercially it’s available through chemical suppliers, but you have to store it at -20 degrees Celsius. If you want to make popsicles out of it, you could probably do that. But putting it into a usable supplement has been very difficult, and that’s why you don’t see it very often.

We came up with a method to thermally stabilize it so that it can be stored at room temperature for a period of up to two years without degrading. And that’s how we were able to introduce this into the market.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. So, in terms of where it comes from, in my understanding it’s also something that is part of foods. So there are foods which have oxaloacetate in it, so it’s basically a nutrient that’s found in the environment?

[Alan Cash]: Yes. Absolutely. Although it’s only found in very, very small amounts. There are some foods that have higher amounts of oxaloacetate, and these are foods that typically have higher amounts of mitochondria.

So, for example, pigeon breast has a lot of oxaloacetate in it because you need tremendous amounts of mitochondria to power flight. That’s what one of the most energy intensive things out there, is flying around. But you need about 18 to 20 pigeons breast to get the amount of oxaloacetate that we see as the minimum for seeing some of the gene expression changes we want to accomplish. So it takes a lot of pigeons.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you’ve determined the minimum effective dose, which is around how much?

[Alan Cash]: So far – and this is from a human clinical trial – one of the side effects of calorie restriction in primates is it eliminates Type 2 diabetes, which is a good thing. And it turns out they, in trying to mimic calorie restriction – which is what we’re trying to do is turn on the same molecular pathways – we looked at oxaloacetate, and there was a clinical trial that was done back in the 60’s in Japan.

This was published, and it showed that oxaloacetate reduced fasting glucose levels in diabetics. So, we knew that this is one of the side effects of the calorie restricted metabolic state, and we could look at, in humans, what is the most effective dose.

And what we found is they did a range in this clinical trial of 100mg to 1000mg. There were no side effects in the 45 day trial. 100 percent of the people saw a reduction in their fasting glucose levels, which was good because they were all diabetics. We couldn’t understand why this wasn’t commercialized back in the 60’s.

So I actually flew to Japan to interview the department that was responsible for this clinical trial. The conversation went something like this, “Hi. I’m Alan Cash, your department produced this paper on oxaloacetate working in diabetics to reduce fasting glucose levels. Where’s the follow-on work?”

They said, “Well there is no follow-on work.” And I said, “Well why not?” They said, “Well because it’s a natural ingredient.” And I said, “Yeah it’s not only natural, it’s a human ingredient. So toxicity is extremely low.” And they said, “Yes, but we can’t get a patent on it.” And that was pretty much the end of the conversation.

So, as far as knowing the dosing and what’s effective, we already have a clinical trial showing where the minimum effect is, which is 100mg, which is where we set our sights to put out a nutritional supplement.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah.

So, was there any advantage for the people, if we take the most extreme example, the people taking 1000mg in that study, was there any advantage to it? Did it impact blood sugar regulation differently?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, well actually, as the dosage increases, we start looking at other reactions that oxaloacetate are involved in. And one of the main other reactions is the combination of oxaloacetate with glutamate. So, oxaloacetate and glutamate link together and that reduces glutamate levels in the brain.

Now that can be important for certain people. For instance, in a closed head injury, 20 percent of the damage to your brain is caused by the actual strike to the head, the damage to the tissue. 80 percent of the damage is caused by the aftereffects. And those after effects are in your brain it releases something called a glutamate storm.

Glutamate is one of those essential brain chemicals that you need to function properly, but if you get too much of it it excites the neurons to the point where they die. So this glutamate storm is responsible for about 80 percent of the damage.

And what they’ve been able to show now with oxaloacetate is primarily in tests over in Europe – the Weizmann institute out of Israel is doing a lot of this work, and there’s also some people in Hungary and Spain that are doing quite a bit of work with oxaloacetate. But they’re able to show that oxaloacetate, if you can get it to a stroke victim or a closed head injury victim within two hours, 80 percent of the damage is eliminated.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow. What, do they just take a small dose, or what does it have to be?

[Alan Cash]: No, you’ve got to take a lot, because you have to get it into your bloodstream, and if you take, let’s say, two 100mg capsules of oxaloacetate we’ve seen the data in the bloodsteam, only about five percent gets through. The rest of it is used up in the liver and intestines. That’s not a bad thing, because you want to keep those things healthy. But to get it so that it starts reducing glutamate levels in the brain you want to increase it’s supply in the bloodstream, and so you’ve got to take a lot.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, basically after that is it always five percent? If I take 1000mg, is it just going to be 15mg?

[Alan Cash]: We don’t know. There may be a point where you start overloading the liver and more passes through. I can tell you that we have a medical food that is directed towards people with brain cancer, because if we can reduce the glutamate levels in the brain we see better results.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Because people, just to get back to it, is it that people with brain cancer tend to die from glutamate toxicity? Is that one of the main mechanism for their death? Or is it acting on other dimensions?

[Alan Cash]: Well, one of the main predictors of survival is the amount of glutamate that’s produced because what the tumor does is it produces tremendous amounts of glutamate, and it kills the surrounding tissues so that the tumor can grow into that area. So, if you can stop that, you don’t kill the tumor, you just stop it growing.

And this is essentially what we’re seeing with the product called CRONaxal, which is a medical food [that] is a high, high dosage oxaloacetate. So you may take the equivalent of 30 to 60 capsules of the nutritional supplement per day, and we’re seeing in animal tests a 237 percent increase in survival.

So FDA gave us an Orphan Drug designation for oxaloacetate for brain cancer. In the actual human work, we’re just doing case studies right now, but in the 17 case studies that we have MRI data on, the oxaloacetate was in conjunction with chemotherapy. So you use them together, it was able to stop tumor growth, or reduce tumor size, in 88 percent of those patients.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow, so that’s pretty great statistics there.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, considering some of these people with glioblastoma, their tumors were growing at a rate of 80 percent per month. You can do the math there, it’s not a great equation.

And we were able to bring that growth rate to, in one guy’s case – he was 42 years old, two kids, a nice guy – we were able to bring that growth rate to zero for eight months. That’s very significant when chemotherapy alone only increases survival by a month and a half.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow, right. So, you were also saying earlier, we were just discussing you looking at combining oxaloacetate with fasting. We spoke to Dr. Thomas Seyfried about this recently, and you may be seeing potentially better results with that? Or it might be–

[Alan Cash]: Well what we’ve seen so far, fasting is one of the techniques used in brain cancer to slow or retard the growth of the tumor. It’s one of the few things that has been shown to work, especially a calorie restricted ketogenic diet, where you eat more fats.

And the thinking behind that is that you reduce glucose levels tremendously with the ketogenic diet, and glucose is one of the things that feed the tumor. Now, the other thing that feeds the tumor, according to Dr. Seyfried, could be glutamate. And so if we can reduce glutamate levels also with oxaloacetate, we may see some impressive results.

And we’re already starting to see that in anecdotal cases in patients. We had one young man who had a slow growing brain tumor that’s been able to stop it’s growth with a combination of calorie restriction and oxaloacetate supplementation with our CRONaxal product for a period of two years now.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow. And so is he taking around 6000…

[Alan Cash]: No, his tumor is slower growing, so he’s taking about the equivalent of 10 capsules a day.

We’ve also had recently a woman with Stage 4 breast cancer. Her latest report from her PET scan and her MRI data, they can no longer find the tumor, or tumors; she had like four of them. And all she was doing was calorie restriction and about 10 capsules of oxaloacetate.

There’s some real promise here, but it’s very early on. We don’t have the clinical trial data that supports this in a statistically significant manner, we just have individual cases. Although those individual cases are stunning, it would not be prudent to rely upon those cases.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Well, have you got any plans to have any clinical trials? Was that something that might be occurring soon in that area?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, well we’re actually in clinical trial for a variety of conditions. One is mitochondrial dysfunction. There are certain people that are born with genetic defects that affect the mitochondria.

We have one infant that’s been on oxaloacetate now for nine months that is showing normal development, whereas normally with this type of defect we would expect the infant to have passed away six months ago. So that’s pretty interesting.

We’re also in clinical trial for Parkinson’s disease because anecdotally we’ve seen some interesting cases where the oxaloacetate has reduced the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. And lastly, we’re in clinical trial for Alzheimer’s disease, so we’ll see how those all play out.

We’re getting ready to start some clinical trial work in pediatric brain cancer, because if we can get away from doing chemotherapy, it’s just a whole better quality of life.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It sounds like one of the main mechanisms. So if you’re looking at Alzheimer’s disease, they also use ketogenic diets, and so it’s obvious that the glutamate is helping, but do you think it’s also the aspect of improving blood sugar regulation is potentially helping in all these diseases as well? Is that one of the factors?

[Alan Cash]: It certainly could be a factor. We just published a paper in human molecular genetics that showed that oxaloacetate increased the amount of glucose that the cells could uptake in the brain, it increased the number of mitochondria in the brain. So we not only built more power plants, but we’re now having a way to fuel those power plants.

The interesting thing is that oxaloacetate is also a ketone. So you don’t necessarily need glucose to fire off all those neurons in the brain, you can actually use oxaloacetate as a power source. So, the other things we’ve seen with oxaloacetate in the brain in animal models is a reduction in inflammation, and probably most exciting is we’ve seen a doubling of the number of new neurons that are produced.

Ten years ago we used to think that the number of brain cells you have is static, that those brain cells that you lost in college are forever gone by imbibing in too much alcohol, but now what we’re seeing is that there’s an area of the brain called the hippocampus which continues to produce new neurons. And as we age, this function decreases. So our ability to repair our brains decreases.

Well oxaloacetate in animal models doubled that rate of production, and not only did it double the rate of new neurons, but the length of the connections between the neurons was also doubled. So, if you think about, well if a neuron can connect to a neuron that’s further away you get more interesting connections, more interesting abilities to have different variables.

It makes your brain more plastic, is what we say. And oxaloacetate has been able to show both that increase in neurons and the length of the neurons. So it’s pretty exciting work.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, so brain injuries – you were talking about brain injuries before – I guess a lot of us think about brain injuries as a big thing, like maybe a car crash or something, you have a big serious brain injury. But now they are also looking at athletes, for instance in football where they’ve been heading the ball and areas like that, and they’re seeing there’s a lot of damage.

So could this potentially be a tool for sports? If you’re playing in football, would it make sense to be taking this stuff whenever you’re going to a match, or something like that, to reduce the kind of damage you’re getting each time you’re heading the ball, and so on?

[Alan Cash]: I think so. I mean, my daughters play volleyball at a very high level – one’s at Pepperdine, and the other is going to be at Hofstra next year – and occasionally they get hit in the head with a volleyball. They’re middle blockers, they go up, and they just get slammed in the face. So I always have a bottle of oxaloacetate in their gym bag, and if they get hit in the head they’re told to take 10 capsules right away and to continue taking 10 capsules for the next week or so.

I don’t want to suggest that you should use oxaloacetate for any kind of disease. Mostly it’s a nutritional supplement, there is the medical food also that’s specific for brain cancer. And I just want to make that clarification that the work really hasn’t been done in clinical trial.

Now, over in Europe they are working on that. They’ve done a lot of animal studies, and the interesting thing they’ve found is that if they can get oxaloacetate into these animals that have been hit on the head with a hammer within two hours, it reduces the amount of brain damage they experience by 80 percent. They’re looking at a lot of things in Europe, and it’s very, very exciting work.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, it seems like this is a really interesting molecule, because it seems to be having an impact in a lot of different things. Of course, it’s all early stages of research, like you say, but it seems to have quite a lot of potential.

I saw another study where they had combined oxaloacetate with acetyl-l-carnitine and they were looking at that. Could you talk a little bit about that? I believe it was long-term potentiation it was impacting.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, long-term potentiation is a measure of how plastic your brain is, how well you can still learn. And when they go into the brain of animal models and give them a stroke, an artificial stroke, and then measure long term potentiation, the levels drop significantly.

When they use oxaloacetate or a combination of oxaloacetate and acetyl-l-carnitine, they saw 100 percent restoration of the brain’s ability to learn again, in very short order. And this could be very important for people with stroke, closed head injuries, that type of thing.

But again, this is early work, it’s been done in animals, it’s been very successful in animals. And both oxaloacetate and acetyl-l-carnitine have very low toxicity profiles, so the risks are low there, but we still need to do this in clinical trial and make sure that there are no unexpected results in humans.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Yeah, so ALCAR or acetyl-l-carnitine, a lot of people I know have been taking it for a very long time. So in terms of toxicity for oxaloacetate, as you said there was the trials where you had 1000mg per day. Has anything above that been tested? Because it sounds like with some people you’re actually giving 10,000 or more in specific cases.

So, in terms of toxicity, is there any evidence to say that it could be harmful in any way if someone overdoses, or potentially someone in a specific situation?

One thing I was just thinking about while you were talking was in terms of glutamate, you say it helps to deactivate glutamate. In some people who are normal and have normal levels of glutamate, could that impact them in any way in terms of their brain performance, memory, things like that?

[Alan Cash]: That was a multiple question, and let me address them one at a time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I’m sorry.

[Alan Cash]: As far as toxicity, in order to bring the supplement into the United States we had to prove to the FDA safety because this is considered a new dietary ingredient, even though it’s in just about every food we eat but not at the levels that we’re giving it to people at. So we had to prove safety, and we spent quite a bit of money and three years of my life proving safety to the FDA.

One of the things we had to do is feed animals as much oxaloacetate as we could stuff into them to see at what point in time 50 percent of the animals would die. And what we found out is we got up to about 5000mg per kilogram of body weight in animals, and we still couldn’t get any of them to die.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Did you get any negative reaction at all?

[Alan Cash]: We couldn’t find one. Now, what we are seeing in humans, especially in some of these people with brain cancer that are taking the equivalent of about 60 capsules a day, we do see an increase in burping.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s interesting. It’s kind of random.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, well it relaxes the upper sphincter muscle in the stomach, and we see an increase in burping in some of the people.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s interesting.

[Alan Cash]: But that’s about all we’ve seen so far. So, from a toxicity standpoint, this appears to be a very safe molecule.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well, that’s great. Do you remember the multi-part question, or shall I repeat it?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, the second part was what if you take a lot of this and you’re just a normal person, what would you expect to see? Some of the things we’ve seen are really interesting.

We have an R&D project where we’ve developed an oxaloacetate tablet that goes under your tongue. And so we deliver a lot more oxaloacetate to the bloodstream, which preferentially reacts with glutamate. And what we see with that tablet is an increase in the ability to [unclear 40:04] because if you can turn down glutamate levels a little bit in your brain, you don’t have some of that repetitive cycling of questions, you’re able to focus more, you’re able to pay attention better.

It’s kind of like, the way I can explain it, it’s like you’ve been meditating for a half an hour, so you have this incredible focus but it’s not jittery. Like if you have 10 cups of coffee you can also have more attention, but your whole body is shaky. This is more, you’re very relaxed, and you just have that increased ability to focus. It’s pretty cool.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It sounds like you’ve been testing it yourself.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah I test it always on myself, because if I’m ever going to give it to somebody else you’ve got to feel confident enough in it’s effects to try it on yourself first.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. You know, it would be nice to hear, how do you use oxaloacetate yourself? Do you have some kind of routine, or what do you do with it?

[Alan Cash]: Yes, I use it primarily for anti-aging, because I’m after that [00:41:11 – 00:41:14:17 audio error repeated “we see an increase in burping in some of the people.”] I take like three caps a day, which is a little bit more than our recommended one cap a day, but I get it for free, so what the heck, right.

I’ve also started working with this sublingual dose whenever I’m tired. Like if I have to drive somewhere and it’s late I take one and immediately I’m awake and my focus is there. Or if I’m in a conference and its 4 o’clock on the third day of the conference I find that it helps quite a bit. So that’s how I use it.

A lot of athletes are using this now because we’ve been able to measure a decrease in fatigue and an increase in endurance. We don’t see an increase in strength, just an increase in endurance. So a lot of endurance sport people take one to two capsules about 15 minutes before competition, with about 100 to 200 calories.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So it sounds very quick acting, in terms of you’ve take it in and within a very short period it’s going to have that impact. Are you talking about it feeding the mitochondria, basically?

I mean, you spoke earlier about it basically being like a ketone. Do you think that’s the mechanism there, or is it because it’s stimulating the mitochondria somehow?

[Alan Cash]: Well there’s been some work out of UCSD showing that oxaloacetate activates pyruvate decarboxylase and allows the citric acid cycle to process faster. So you get more ATP production, which would tie with the endurance effect.

We’ve been able to measure the endurance effect almost immediately, and we published that in the Journal of Sports Medicine. We saw about a 10 percent increase in endurance. And you think, you know, 10 percent is not all that much, but in a lot of athletic competitions 10 percent is huge.

So that’s the short term effect, and that actually only lasts about two hours. And then if you want it again, you have to reapply.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. So a marathon runner would be dosing every couple of hours?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, about every two hours.

The second effect though is longer term. We’ve seen that oxaloacetate supplementation increases the number of mitochondria, or the mitochondrial density in the cell. So it produces more of the power plants so that when you feed it more glucose, you can turn it into fuel faster.

But that takes typically, you know, anywhere from two to six weeks to see the effect on that. And you have to take it daily. What we’re doing is we’re increasing that NAD to NADH ratio, which then activates AMPK, and chronic AMPK activation has been shown to start the process of mitochondrial biogenesis, or producing more mitochondria.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is there any reason we want that activated? Anything you know of like in the research, where it says like chronic activation of AMPK could lead to any downsides?

I have another question, just to kind of give you a bit of context to that. Is it worth cycling oxaloacetate? So having a month on, or a couple of months on, a couple of months off, or anything like that?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, a lot of supplements that deal with stressing your cells in order to get an effect they work better if you cycle them. For instance, echinacea. Echinacea works because it’s an irritant. So you turn on your stress response and get a response, but if you take it all the time, your body gets used to it.

Oxaloacetate doesn’t work as a stresser, it works to turn on genes and turn on the development of more mitochondria. So no you want to take it all the time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, and so we were discussing earlier, I was just asking you about potentially doing a lot of experiments with oxaloacetate, and you were saying that for most of the effects it’s really this aggregated, this cumulative effect.

We want to be using it for between two and six weeks before we see the effects. And then, if we stop it’s probably going to take that amount of time before those effects disappear. But they will disappear, so it’s something that you really kind of have to take on an on-going basis.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, yeah. Because it’s, well there are two effects. One is a pharmacological effect, like for instance the reduction of glutamate in the brain. That happens almost immediately, so some people when they take this they get that feeling of peace because they’re just reducing their excitatory chemical in their brain.

But the other effect is a genomic effect, and while your genes start producing these proteins right away it takes a while for the proteins to be enough in number that we see measurable effects. We can see those effects in typically four to six weeks.

For instance, blood glucose levels would be one that we’ve been able to trace that down to activating AMPK, which is the same thing that the diabetic drug Metformin does but through a different pathway, and the up-regulation of a gene called FOXO3A, which deals with glucose stability. But that takes time, it takes usually four to six weeks.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, for the people at home, if they were going to design their own little experiment, it would be basically measuring blood glucose stability, is that the main, is it the variant which is reduced, or is it actually lowered in general?

[Alan Cash]: One experiment that they could try is start off with a baseline. Go to the drugstore, get a glucose meter and some little paper strips, and take your fasting glucose levels for maybe a couple of weeks. You see the variability, because even in fasting glucose levels, you’re going to see the levels bounce all over the place.

And then start oxaloacetate supplementation, one or two capsules a day for a month, and take your daily glucose levels. You won’t see much change for about three weeks, and then what we typically see is a slight reduction – in non-diabetics – in fasting glucose levels.

And more importantly, a reduction in the swing. So you don’t see as high a high, and as low a low. And that reduction is typically on the order of 50 to 60 percent, so you have better glucose regulation. And in normal people, that’s not a bad thing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Just if we’re talking in terms of performance, just throughout the day I think people’s performance goes up and down. Some of the reasons people try new diets such as Paleo and Ketogenic and so on is to try and even out their blood sugar a bit more so they don’t have these typical dips people get after lunch when they need another shot of caffeine to get through the afternoon.

So I’m sure probably you can see how that could impact their performance in that way. That would be interesting.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah. Absolutely.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So how would you recommend someone takes oxaloacetate? Would it just be 100mg one capsule? Would it be in the morning, once daily?

What would be the recommended way to try this out, for someone who is just normal and healthy, and they’re just more interested in the long term benefits, and so on.

[Alan Cash]: For the long term benefits, we looked at the minimum amount that you could take – I believe in small measures for big effects – the minimum amount over time, and we know that through the clinical trial that was done. We know that 100mg was effective in reducing fasting glucose levels in diabetics. We’re turning on those genes that we want to turn on.

So, one capsule a day. It doesn’t matter if you take it in the morning or the evening, what does matter is that you take it every day, because we’re trying to increase that NAD to NADH ratio and keep it pretty steady, so that we continuously activate AMPK. And that continual activation is what turns on the genes and gives us the gene expression that we want to see to see extended lifespans.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great, thank you. Are there any situations where you would recommended people – because you’re taking 300mg yourself, and obviously you don’t have the costs that other people would have – but are there other situations where you would think it would be interesting for people to take a slightly larger dose?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, but I really can’t recommend that, as I’m not a physician, I’m a physicist.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. We’re getting outside of the nutritional realm again.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, and that [can] be a dangerous thing for us to do.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Absolutely.

[Alan Cash]: Definitely our CRONaxal medical food for [treating] cancer, they would take a lot more oxaloacetate.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. If someone wanted to learn more about the topic of caloric restriction and oxaloacetate, where would you say, are there any books or presentations or is there any other resources people could look up that would help them to learn more about this?

[Alan Cash]: Absolutely. There’s quite a bit in PubMed, so they could go to www.pubmed.com, or .gov, and just type in ‘oxaloacetate’ and ‘calorie restriction’. We’ve got some papers in there that we’ve published.

And they can also look at oxaloacetate and other things like Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, cancer, you know, if they’re interested in that, and see what animal data there is out there right now. There’s not a lot of human clinical work done yet.

We’re in the middle of some of that ourselves. They can also email me. My email address is acash@benagene.org. I typically get back to people in a couple of days with questions.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, and I can attest to that, because we’ve been in contact before and I know you make yourself very much available, and that’s really appreciated.

Are there other ways that people could connect with you? I don’t know if you are on Twitter. You have a website, of course, which is benagene.com?

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, we have a website benagene.com. There’s not a lot of information on that because the FDA discourages that. For instance, we can’t legally put any animal data on our site, even though I consider humans animals. I think it’s relevant, but the FDA does not.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. Of course. So, is there anyone besides yourself that you’d recommend to learn about this topic? I don’t know, calorie restriction, longevity. Is there any interesting stuff you’ve read over the years, or have you referred people’s work?

[Alan Cash]: There’s tremendous amounts of data on calorie restriction. And there’s a society, the Calorie Restriction Society, where these people have been restricting their own calories for years, seeing tremendous results, especially in reducing atherosclerosis. In human clinical trial we’ve seen a major drop in atherosclerosis and blood pressure.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Do you know if that’s reflected by the CRP? The C-reactive Protein biomarker? Because you spoke about inflammation earlier, I wasn’t sure if that was that marker or another one.

[Alan Cash]: I’ve seen a decrease in inflammation in our studies really through the M4 pathway. I don’t know if C-reactive protein levels are down. We did have a case where due to a genetic dysfunction an 11 year old girl, she was in critical care, her CRP levels were up around 20,000.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, yeah. She was…

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s insane.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah. Yeah. She was eating herself alive, essentially. And she was in critical care. They tried just about everything. And this was work done out of University of California San Diego Mitochondria Dysfunction Department. They’re doing some breakthrough work there.

They ended up giving her some oxaloacetate and in two days her CRP levels dropped to zero, and she was released from the hospital and went home. Once again, that’s a case of one person and specific genetic anomaly.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, yeah. Interesting. That’s pretty impressive.

In terms of your own personal approach to data and body data – because we’re always talking about data on this show in terms of our biologies and so on – do you track any metrics or biomarkers for your own body on a routine basis?

[Alan Cash]: Glucose levels. And for a guy, I’m 57 years old, my blood glucose levels are typically in the low 80s, which is pretty good. That’s about the only thing I track regularly. I mean I track my weight, which is very stable. I don’t count the number of hours I exercise or anything like that. I should.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I guess. Have you tracked your blood sugar over time? Before you started taking oxaloacetate, or is it since, so you probably wouldn’t see the effects? I’m just wondering if it would be a cumulative effect from you having taking it, I assume, for years now.

[Alan Cash]: I have been taking it since about 2007, which is when we introduced it into the Canadian market. Basically it just dropped. Initially I was up in the upper 80s to low 90s, and over time I’m just pretty much consistently in the low 80s now.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you have seen some kind of steady decline, or did it decline when the genes turned on and then it stayed there?

[Alan Cash]: It pretty much declined when the genes turned on and stayed there, yeah.

Now there’s ways to lower it even further if I went to a ketogenic diet. I know some people who have been doing this, like Dominic D’Agostino. I think his blood glucose levels are down in the 40s.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Wow.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah. But he does a very strict ketogenic diet, and he’s feeding his cells with ketones instead of glucose.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, so I was interested – just before we started the interview – also in just cancer prevention, so we had Thomas Seyfried on here and he recommended a five day water fast twice a year.

So it would be interesting to combine that with the oxaloacetate. It might have a potentially beneficial upside, you know, combining those two rather than doing them separately.

[Alan Cash]: Yeah, we’re seeing that in patients now. Hopefully we’ll be able to get some funding for some clinical trials to combine calorie restriction with oxaloacetate in some of these patients. To take the science from our animal data, which is very promising, but it’s not human data. And so hopefully we can continue our research and help some people here.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. I’m guessing it takes quite a while to get these clinical trials going. Would you expect this to be done over the next 10 years? Is there anything that could help you with that, in terms of getting funders, or what could help to push that along faster?

[Alan Cash]: We’ve taken the unusual step in brain cancer of making oxaloacetate available for a disease through the Orphan Drug Act in the US. So this allows for various medical conditions that have scientific basis to be used for a specific disease. In this case, we’re using it for brain cancer, which is an orphan disease.

So that’s helping get the word out, get some anecdotal cases, which I’ve discussed with you a little bit, and increase the interest in getting a clinical trial out there. We’ll see how that all evolves.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thank you. Well, one last question Alan. What would be your number one recommendation to someone trying to use data, in some way, to make better decisions about their health and performance, or their longevity?

[Alan Cash]: I think that’s a great place to start. You know the benefits of calorie restriction, and so just counting calories and reducing calories where you can would be one strategy of using data to improve your health. If you keep track of that information.

Keeping track of blood glucose levels, because having lower glucose levels rather than higher glucose levels is going to positively affect your health. The amount of time you exercise.

One of the ways we’ve seen to increase the NAD to NADH ratio is chronic exercise. So calorie restriction is one way, chronic exercise is another way. A drug such as Metformin can increase your NAD to NADH ratio, or activating AMPK anyway.

And oxaloacetate as a nutritional supplement over the long term. So there are quite a few ways that you can use data and monitor your data to positively affect your health.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Alan, thank you so much for your time today. It’s been really amazing having you on the show with all of these interesting stories about these case studies about the work that you’ve been doing.

[Alan Cash]: Yes, and just as, again, as a disclaimer, we don’t want to recommend this nutritional supplement, which we manufacture, called Benagene, which you can get at www.benagene.com, for any disease.

Not to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease. It’s primarily, we developed this to keep healthy people healthy.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. And I take it myself too, so I’m kind of following in your footsteps there.

Well Alan thanks again for your time today, and I look forward to talking to you again soon.

[Alan Cash]: Alright, thank you very much.

Leave a Reply

A walk-through of the 5-day water fast with the tracked results (ketones, glucose, weight) and the practical do’s and don’ts to make the most of the experience.

I’m not a fan of cancer. The only people I’ve lost in memory – my grandfather and other close family – it was cancer that took them. NOT putting an end to the fun of life because of cancer has been a part of my plan since my early 20s.

So after my discussion with Dr. Thomas Seyfried in episode 16 I was looking forward to put his 5 day water fast “cancer insurance policy” to work.

As I read into the details to start planning my prolonged fast what I found convinced me even more this was something I had to do soon.

Maybe what I discovered would inspire you to try a 5 day fast soon too?

Fasting for Reasons Beyond Cancer

Since getting bitten by a tick in Phuket, Thailand a few years ago I’ve been fighting some chronic health issues.

I discovered that it’s probable that these are at least in some part due to lyme disease and babesiosis infections I only got documented earlier this year (and thus had never been treated for). It bears mentioning, since there’s a fair amount of non-rigorous and dubious material on the internet on the subject of lyme disease in particular, that this was documented via the IgM/ IgG labs, and met CDC criteria.

What does this have to do with fasting?

It comes down to this: Having a stronger immune system gives you a better chance of eliminating lyme. Since in cases like mine where it was not treated in the early stages it seems to be relatively tricky and long-winded to get rid of. I’ve made it a rule to collect and put into practice anything that improves the odds of a quicker recovery.

And… fasting is a potential new tool to speed up recovery.

Valter Longo, Director of the USC Longevity Institute, has published a large number of studies on fasting and caloric restriction and their application to treat disease and enhance aging and longevity. Some of his recent work showed that prolonged fasts (e.g. 3 to 5 days, of a similar format recommended by Seyfried) can regenerate up to 30% of the immune system.

Or in other words, a fast can eliminate old tired (and most probably damaged and dysfunctional) white blood cells and replace them with more effective shining new ones.

I’ll admit this got me excited. It was definitely something I wanted to add into the “war plan” my integrative doctor and I had put in place against lyme and babesiosis.

(Note: Before planning this fast I ran it and Longo’s research papers by my doctor to get it signed off by him. If you have any chronic health issue and are undergoing any treatments you should do the same.)

As you’ll see below, the 5 day water fast (and other prolonged fasting configurations) has many potential upsides.

After having gone through the experience and seeing the quantified results, I can say it’s something I will use as a tool frequently going forward. Most likely once per month, or once per quarter.

The Upside: Reasons to Do a 5 Day Water Fast

Beyond the potential health and longevity upsides there were also a couple of others I was particularly interested in.

    First, the health benefits:

  1. Reduce future cancer risk or as a tool for those with cancer to combat it (details in this episode with Dr. Seyfried)
  2. Promote longevity and slow aging (via similar mechanisms to caloric restriction)
  3. Multi-system regeneration providing potential improvements in the immune system and mental performance (Valter Longo’s work – this 2015 paper has some highlights)
  4. Reduce diabetes risk and cardiovascular disease risk and improve blood sugar regulation
  5. The non-health benefits are perhaps more personal to me:

  6. Building greater mental resilience through the process of overcoming the challenge of a fast? The stoics used hard life experiences to learn to deal with the mental ups and downs of life more easily.

    As an entrepreneur, where ups and downs are pretty much routine, I’ve grown to value this ability immensely. Exposing yourself to more extreme hard challenges numbs you to the emotional pain and you find you become more indifferent to life’s ups and downs (read less reactive). You can read up on this in the book The Obstacle is the Way by Ryan Holiday (which I must have listened to 8+ times), or articles on the philosophy of stoicism on Tim Ferriss’ blog.

    A 5 day fast struck me as exactly the type of “safe but challenging experience” that builds mental resilience more generally. Once the fast is done, you realize it’s absolutely not a big deal. And other life challenges also seem to dim in their intensity and importance.

  7. A new life experience: What would it feel like to fast for 5 days? How would it effect my body? physically? mentally? We should all experience the extremes of the human experience provided they are within the limits of safety and healthy. It’s an important tool to learn about ourselves, our limitations, strengths and weakneesses – self awareness is a skill that can be learned. Going to the extremes to get a real feel for the breadth of life is part of living a life well lived.

itunes quantified body

The 5 Day Water Fast Results

Big Metabolic Changes Kick Start on Day 3

My metabolism switched from glucose to ketones (and fatty acids) by the end of the 3rd day, which fits with what is generally expected based on the standard biochemistry literature.

On typical non-fasting days I’ll hit between 1 and 2 mmol/L ketones (see my baseline data in appendix here) because I eat a reasonably high fat diet. It wasn’t till day 3 till I broke the 2 mmol/L threshold and went beyond, eventually peaking at nearly 7 mmol/L blood ketones. At the same time my blood glucose hit a stable low of just under 60mg/dL.

Overall, I felt less mentally sharp and found the fast hardest between the end of day 1 till around beginning of day 3. Is this ‘harder part’ of the fast a rough period of adaptation to using ketone and fatty acids as the main fuel source? Perhaps. In my case the switch in the blood results follows closely the ease of the experience for me – once blood ketones and glucose inverted the experience was easier.

fast-glucose-ketones

Seyfried recommends the use of a Glucose-Ketone Index for monitoring the therapeutic value of the fast against cancer. The goal is to have your value of this index below 1 which is considered the ‘therapeutic zone’.

67 hours into the fast my index dove below 1, and it bottomed out around 90 hours, from then on hovering between 0.5 to 0.6. So I was in the therapeutic zone for all of days 4 and 5.

fast-gki

Exactly on plan: My blood glucose, ketone and GKIC markers settled into the expected ranges Seyfried outlines in his book for the fast. That’s between 50 to 60mg/dL for blood glucose, and between 6 and 7 mmol/L for ketones.

Lagging Metabolism Adjustment at End of Fast

When I hit the 120 hour (end of 5 day) mark I dug into a couple of big bowls of bone broth. Quickly full and satisfied seemingly as if the fast had never taken place.

The next day I had a higher carb than usual breakfast. We’re not talking crazy, just some blueberries and yacon syrup (for the gut, will talk about this soon in another episode) with bulletproof coffee (ghee, MCT oil and coffee). Despite this my ketones stayed high and actually hit their peak of the whole experiment (6.8 mmol/L) nearly 24 hours after the fast had ended.

This makes sense. It’s normal to see a lag of response of the blood readings the first 3 days of the fast while you adapt to ketones/ fatty acid metabolism. So it follows that there would be a lag in the switch back to primarily glucose metabolism.

Was Weight Loss Permanent? or Just Momentary?

Interested in the fast to lose weight also?

Cycling into 5 day fasts say once per month, could be quite effect based on my data (~loss of 1 lb per day in terms of permanent weight loss, not just momentary during the fast).

If weight loss isn’t desirable, which is my case, you’ll need to compensate to regain lost muscle weight post fast.

Within a few days I had recovered one third (3 lbs) of the 9 lbs I’d lost during the fast. I consciously made an effort to eat as per usual to see if it the weight would naturally come back on. Two weeks later after the end of the fast (day 19) it’s still stabilized at 6 lbs down. Actively compensating for this in between future fasts will require consciously eating to gain weight.

fast-weight

HRV, Muse Calm and Mental Performance

I also tracked my HRV with the ithlete app, my daily meditation sessions with the Muse Calm and my mental performance via reaction tests at Quantifed Mind.

These weren’t my main focus for this fast, so the data isn’t extensive enough to make any big conclusions. However, looking at what I collected, I plan to take a closer look at mental performance and HRV in future fasts.

First thing in the morning HRV dipped at the start of the fast (day 1 and 2) and go back to my normal range from then on. This is a pretty good fit with how I felt during the fast. The first two days were a little rough as I had a headache, but from then on I felt more ‘euphoric’ and productive than usual.

This time round I haven’t seen any noticeable increase in HRV post-fast (potentially a bit more of the opposite) whereas intermittent fasting typically raises HRV. Something to keep an eye on for future fasts especially as I have to deal with my own personal variable – adrenal fatigue.

Adrenal Fatigue Confounder? I have documented adrenal fatigue currently (low cortisol output as a knock on effect of the chronic stress from lyme disease and babesiosis infections). I suspect the adrenal fatigue would be the cause of any negative HRV impact, and would be personal to me (if you’ve tracked HRV during a fast let me know your experience in the comments).

This may have been behind or contributed to my less consistent sleep and shorter duration sleep as noted before.

It is very common (even fashionable) to fast on meditation retreats. The idea the retreats promote is that fasting helps to calm the mind.

Although I got my best Muse Calm score to date on one morning (80% calm), I didn’t notice any real difference between fasting and my normal scores.

The 5-Day Fast Experience

Two of my fellow entrepreneur buddies (Patrick Stiles and Patrick Kelly (@pjkmedia)) recently also did the 5 day water fast so we caught up to share notes on our experiences. Our experiences turned out to be pretty different in some areas. You can listen to our full note swapping discussion in this episode.

Here’s the brief highlights of my experience from the discussion:

  • Day 1 and day 2 were a little challenging in terms of hunger but not that noticeably (I put this down to my previous experience with intermittent fasting and ketogenic diets)
  • A headache from the end of day 1 to the beginning of day 3 (potentially linked to the switch in brain from glucose to ketone use)
  • On day 4 and 5 the physical weakness was a lot more noticeable and there was some slight dizzyness when standing up at times.
  • Undercover bad breath: I wasn’t actually aware of this during the fast. My sister mentioned afterwards that she feared for her 1 year old son’s wellbeing when I was playing up close with him towards the end of the fast. Given the high ketone levels, this would mostly be due to high acetone levels in the breath.
  • Rash of spots on chest: I believe this is very much personal to me and my current situation. Fasting tends to lead to detoxification, and potentially stress your detoxification system, as you break down body fat including accumulated fat-soluble toxins and process them. While dealing with lyme these have occurred from time to time (added lyme biotoxin burden causing overload), so it’s unsurprising that adding broken down fat-soluble toxins would lead to this currently. I took activated charcoal daily to help bind and clear any toxins from my system.
  • After a couple of nights of good sleep at beginning of the fast it got progressively less deep as the fast went on whereby I was sleeping between 4 and 6 hours compared to a normal 6.5 to 7.5.

What’s Next? Fasting as a Routine Tool.

The experience during and after the fast has been so positive that I’m planning to do this on a once per month or once per quarter basis. Which one I go with will depend on how my body responds.

As more research comes out on the specifics of Fast Mimicking Diets (FMDs) I’ll also want to test that out, to see if the same benefits can be achieved (or better) with less discomfort.

Immune System Reboot – Any Evidence?

It’s only 2 weeks since the end of the fast so it’s early to tell just through tracking symptoms of my chronic infections (lyme, babesiosis). Nonetheless it’s looking positive from that anecdotal basis. After a first rough work post-fast, it’s been up and up. Meaning more exercise, more activity and generally feeling better with less symptoms.

I’m cautiously positive because lyme and babesiosis are both cyclical in symptoms presentation. I’ll update this section at a later date. The real solution to understand the immune reboot potential or impact of course is more data…

What I’ll Track Next Time

I’ve already begun contacting labs and working out how to dig deeper into the fast on a few levels:

  • Further validating the immune system reboot side by tracking IGF-1 which is one of the main markers used in Longo’s paper.
  • Is this sustainable for me? Is it beneficial as a monthly routine or would that have some negative blowback? I’m looking into tracking Cortisol vis-a-vis monitoring my adrenal fatigue status, and will track weight with future fasts.
  • What’s the downside in terms of productivity for the 5 days fasted? While I didn’t feel like there was much negative impact this time (it felt more positive) it’s something that I’d like to confirm with some short mental performance tests done during next fasting round.

In Practice: How to Do this at Home

For my tracking I took readings 4 times per day for my blood glucose and ketones.

However, I recommend to reduce cost (ketone strips are expensive) and to make it more convenient, you can simply track your blood ketones and glucose once per day in the morning. This will give you meaningful results, and tell you if you’re hitting the same milestones based on Seyfried’s work like I did.

Tracking this way, for a ten day tracking (5 days as control, 5 days of fast) you’ll be looking at a budget of around $80 to $100 all in (versus the ~$500 I spent).

Step 1: Get Your Tracking Gear

  • Combined glucose/ ketone monitor: Abbott is behind the best value for money units, the Precision Xtra Blood Glucose and Ketone Monitoring System in the U.S. and the Freestyle Optium Neo Glucose & Ketone meter in the UK (the one I used).
  • Glucose strips: the latest format that work with Precision Xtra and Freestyle Optium devices.
  • Ketone strips: Purple colored strips for measuring blood ketones (Beta-hydroxybutyrate). These work with both Precision Xtra and Freestyle Optium (Ketone Strips – Note: These are ~$4.50/ unit, I managed to get these at a lower cost per unit in the UK of $1.97. If you know where to source these cheaper let us know in the comments)
  • Lancets: It’s good practice to use a new lancet each day to prick your finger with. These Lancets are the latest format and work with Precision Xtra and Freestyle Optium devices, but are cheaper.

Note: Make sure to buy adequate strip and lancet supplies. I ran out of ketone strips the day after my fast otherwise I would’ve tracked more post-fast data. You lose some strips unavoidably in my experience through a bad reading on the device where for instance you didn’t provide insufficient blood. Make sure to have a buffer of 10% or so to account for this.

Step 2: Track Some Control Data & Learn to Take Readings

This is one of those situations where a video walkthrough is better than 1000s of words. This walkthrough is with the Freestyle Optium Neo, which is identical in use to the Precision Xtra).

I used my control data week (charts in appendix here) to work through any slip ups in taking readings.

You’ll want to get some control days where you take some baseline data eating your standard diet so that you can compare it to your fast. Blood sugar and ketosis metabolism are very personal aspects of our biology as we learned from Jimmy Moore in episode 7.

So the relative change in your measurements (normal diet, fasted states) could be as insightful as the absolute numbers.

Step 3: Schedule in Your Fast

The experience of a fast is highly variable depending on your personal situation as you’ll have noticed from the discussion in this episode with the two Patricks.

There is a risk that you’ll feel pretty rough and weak, and may be a danger to yourself and others (e.g. no driving or other similar ‘responsible’ activities please).

So I recommend you plan ahead and schedule it in for a time when you can quietly do some mental type work, study or rest at home. If you’re able to do more, so much the better, but plan for not being able to do anything.

Step 4: The Fast

Pretty straightforward. Stop eating at your scheduled time (after an evening meal is when most people do it) and start taking readings as set time intervals.

I used a standard iPhone timer alarm to notify me to take readings every 4 hours while awake. If you’re just taking one reading per day, it’s simple enough to make it part of your first thing in the morning routine.

It’s also useful to keep a diary of anything interesting or unusual you notice during the fast. Items I found useful to note down were hours sleep and sleep quality, physical weakness, any fatigue, mood, and other symptoms like headaches or dizzyness. This way you can relate them back to the data afterwards for more insights.

Step 5: Finishing the Fast Points

Boom, you’re done! You’ll be feeling great if it was anything like my fast. There are a few things you may want to keep in mind at this point.

I was advised by friends, and some long term ‘fasting experimenters’ to reintroduce food slowly. The idea behind this is that your body needs a little time to restart enzyme and stomach acid production. Some people experience gut symptoms or/ and bouts of ‘disaster pants’ if they jump straight back into their usual diet (or a ravenous version of this).

In my case, I prepared a bone broth ahead of time so that my first meal was mostly liquid and ate as normal from the next meal onwards. No discomfort or adverse gut symptoms. Straight back to business as usual as if the fast had never happened.

In future I’ll be tracking data for a few days post-fast since this experiment showed that my metabolism took a while to return to normal despite refeeding with a vengence!

Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Blood Ketones (Beta-Hydroxybutyrate / β-hydroxybutyrate): Blood ketones are the gold standard for measuring your state of ketosis. During the fast, ketones are expected to peak in the range of between 6 and 7 mmol/L based on Seyfried’s work and experience. In episode 7 Jimmy Moore notes that values over 1.0 on your blood ketone monitor give you the benefits of ketosis, and there is no need to go over 2.0. Tim Ferriss also prefers this range, noting that his best mental performance is typically with values between 1.1 and 1.7 mmol/L.
  • Blood Glucose (mg/dl): A measure of the level of glucose in the blood at one point in time. Dr. Seyfried’s therapies target reduction of blood glucose levels to limit cancer cell growth, and according to his theories high blood glucose is a biomarker of increased cancer risk. For the fast he notes values between 50mg/dL to 60mg/dL are standard. Non-fasting values should be below 80mg/dL ideally, and at least 92mg/dL.
  • Glucose-Ketone Index (GKI): The ratio between the concentration of glucose in the blood to ketone bodies in the blood. The calculation is Glucose (mmol)/ Ketone (mmol). Dr. Seyfried created the index as a better way to assess metabolic status. Therapeutic efficacy is considered best with index values approaching 1.0 or below. Patients with chronic disease like cancer have consistent index values of 50 or more.
  • Weight (lbs): Standard scales measurement of weight in morning without clothes (to avoid biases).

Lab Tests, Devices and Apps

  • Blood Ketone/ Glucose Monitors: The Precision Xtra in the U.S. or Freestyle Optium Neo in the UK are the current recommended monitors. You’ll need lancets, ketone strips and glucose strips also.
  • Damien’s Routine Tracking Devices : Some of Damien’s daily use apps featured in this experiment including the Muse Calm for meditation, the iThlete Pro app for HRV, and Quantified Mind for mental performance.
  • Healbe GoBe: Damien mentioned that he’s been testing this device, and that the tracking of hours slept works quite well – but that other functions of the device make it hard to use consistently.
  • uBiome: Damien mentioned as a side note on another experiment he’s working on to shift his whole biome to a more positive balance of bacteria.
  • Functional Adrenal Stress Profile (BioHealth): Mentioned by Damien in relation to testing for adrenal fatigue.

Tools & Tactics

Interventions

  • 3 to 5 day Water Fast: The fast featured in this episode. Recommended by Dr. Seyfried as a potential tactic against cancer (reduce risk, or fight cancer disease). More details in Seyfried’s interview. Also used to promote stem cell regeneration of the immune system as per Valter Longo’s work. These fasts are often referred to as Prolonged Fasts in the literature.
  • Ketogenic Diet: The term given to low carb-high fat diets that put your metabolism into a state of ketosis (using ketones for fuel). Damien’s day to day diet shown in the baseline results is at times ketogenic.
  • Fast Mimicking Diet (FMD): FMDs have been covered increasingly in the research and there are two papers covering human clinical trials expected to be published on them in 2015 by Valter Longo’s group. With the FMD you fast 5 days each month by restricting certain proteins and keeping calories below a specific range each day. The goal is to reduce fasting discomfort and downsides while accessing the same upsides as the fast.
  • Intermittent Fasting: A form of fasting where you fast for part of or full days. The most popular formats are using eating windows of 4 to 8 hours each day. Bob Troia discussed his results from intermittent fasting in episode 22.
  • Slow Carb Diet: Patrick 1 mentioned that he’s primarily on this diet from Ferriss’ The 4-Hour Body.

Supplements

  • Activated Charcoal: The only thing I did beyond restricting myself to filtered water and black coffee (total of 3 cups in whole fast), was to take activated charcoal once a day to aid in clearing toxins from my system. I took a handful, around 8 to 10 capsules per day.
  • Brain Octane: Damien takes brain octane every morning in coffee to help raise his ketones.

Other People, Books & Resources

People

Books

  • The 4-Hour Body: Contains a once per week intermittent fasting format that got Damien started with fasting in 2010.

Additional Charts and Data

Click Here for Additional Charts

Pre-Fast Control Data Eating My Standard Diet

Blood Glucose & Ketone Levels at Different Times of Day

control-glucose-ketones

Glucose-Ketone Index at Different Times of Day

Control-GKI

Leave a Reply

Have you been using Dual-N-Back or other braining tools? A look at failed brain training experiments and how to assess real mental performance improvement with Dr. Adrian Owen.

In today’s fast paced, technologically advanced world strong mental performance is of utmost importance. From our abilities in the work place to our interactions in social situations we are expected, and constantly asked, to be able to perform with the highest level of mental function. Therefore, it is important that we both protect and improve our minds in order to get the most out of life and increase our overall satisfaction.

In the last few years, brain training apps, such as Lumosity and Dual-N-Back, have become increasingly popular as a way to improve cognitive performance and working memory abilities over time.

However, there is a bit of controversy surrounding the use of these apps:

Does brain training improve mental performance?

This episode addresses this question and more as we discuss some of the research that has been conducted to try and assess our mental performance. Whether it is brain training, diet changes or just sleeping better, these tools might help us decide if we are actually getting the bang for our buck so we can make a positive impact on our lives and mental performance.

Just because a lot of people believe in it and are sure that it is true, if it hasn’t been scientifically proven, then it’s very likely not the case…I think that the commercial brain training is a very good example of that
– Dr. Adrian Owen

Today’s guest is Dr. Adrian Owen who has looked specifically at the effectiveness of brain training on a broad population to see if it is actually having an impact on our mental capabilities. Currently, he works as the Canada Excellence Research Chair in cognitive neuroscience and imaging at the Brain and Mind Institute, University of Western Ontario, Canada. Previously, he worked at the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge, UK and has published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over time.

The episode highlights, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

What You’ll Learn

  • The Cambridge Brain Sciences was set up to research and assess brain training tools (06:59).
  • Previously, brain function was researched by testing brain damaged participants (10:30).
  • In the 1990’s brain imaging techniques (PET scans and fMRIs) became important tools for brain assessment (11:40).
  • Dr. Owen explains further the definitions of fluid intelligence and crystalised intelligence (17:56).
  • Research using these brain training tasks, games, exercises, etc. usually focuses on fluid intelligence (20:22).
  • Dr. Owen describes further the brain-based tests used by Cambridge Brain Sciences (20:52).
  • Damien and Dr. Owen discuss the use of these cognitive tests to assess your own brain performance on a regular basis (22:43).
  • Cambridge Brain Sciences is hoping to encourage people to use their tools to assess whether brain training and interventions (such as coffee, etc.) can affect their own cognitive performance (25:12).
  • If you are going to run your own “experiments” to test the training or interventions, be your own scientist and carefully employ “good” research techniques (26:16).
  • Remember, what works for you may not always work for another (27:24).
  • Dr. Owen begins discussing “transfer” of training: to improve upon many aspects, not just the one (29:06).
  • The Cambridge Brain Sciences study also compared the lifestyles of the participants as related to their performance on the different tests analyzed in the study (36:18).
  • Damien and Dr. Owen discuss the damage that occurs to the brain from aging, injury, etc. and the fact that these cognitive declines are specific to each individual person (41:07).
  • Neuroplasticity is defined and discussed as a “change in the brain” following the learning process (45:04).
  • Dr. Owen discusses the use of EEG, a cheaper alternative, to analyze aspects such as consciousness that have previously been assessed with an fMRI, a more expensive machine (51:51).
  • Dr. Owen shares his thoughts for the future of cognitive performance including brain training and a short description of neuroenhancers, often called “smart drugs” (55:00).
  • Dr. Adrian Owen’s one biggest recommendation on using body data to improve your health, longevity and performance (1:00:10).

Thank Dr. Adrian Owen on Twitter for this interview.
Click Here to let him know you enjoyed the show!

Dr. Adrian Owen

Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Electrical activity: is assessed by electroencephalogram (EEG). When enough concurrent electrical activity is generated by neurons firing, simple periodic waveforms are distinguishable. Rhythms generated by electrical activity are measured by their frequency and amplitude. Frequency is expressed in the unit Hertz (Hz) while amplitude is recorded in microvolts (μV).

Labs and Tests

Tools & Tactics

Interventions

  • Brain Training: This episode is all about evaluating the effects of brain training, and more specifically the daily effects that may occur after the use of cognitive games. There is an incredible variety of these types of exercises available, produced by a number of companies and organizations.

Other People, Books & Resources

People

  • Jessica Richman: Dr. Richman studies citizen science and crowd sourcing. She did a podcast about the microbiome and crowd science with The Quantified Body which can be found here.
  • Aubrey de Grey: A scientist, author, and activist who was featured on a recent episode on The Quantified Body where he discussed longevity and anti-aging techniques.
  • Randy Engle: A research scientist known for his work with brain training.
  • Barbara Sahakian: Dr. Sahakian is a researcher who studies “smart drugs” and neuroenhancers.

Other

Full Interview Transcript

Click Here to Read Transcript

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Adrian, thanks so much for joining us on the show.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Thanks for having me.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Excellent. How did you yourself get into this whole of area cognitive science—assessing performance, Brain Training and all these areas? What was the thing that first stimulated you to get interested in this area?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Actually I’ve been interested in cognitive assessments since my PhD. Back in the late 80’s, I was working on assessing frontal lobe function. In those days, it was pre-brain imaging; we just used to test patients who’d had part of their brain removed and then designed cognitive tests to try and work out what it is that they couldn’t do, so I’ve been in the area of assessing cognition for 25 years now.

The move into Brain Training actually came much more recently, in about 2009, I got very interested in the amount of attention that was being paid by the general public to whether Brain Training could make you smarter and I got in involved with a study with the BBC to test that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well, give us a quick overview of that so that everyone can hear about it because it was quite a big project at the time.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: It was. It started because the BBC came to me and said, “Well we want to do a programme, we’d like to do a huge study to promote public understanding of science. Could we get a lot of people involved in this, and obviously Brain Training works, right?” I stuttered, “Well hold on, stop. What do you mean ‘Obviously Brain Training works’? Let’s talk about that,” and they said, “Well, this company or that company have sold a 100,000,000 units this year, the whole world is training their brains,” and I said, “Well, is the whole world getting smarter?” I was very intrigued by this idea because I thought it’s funny, out there in the world we’ve got perhaps one of the largest public science experiments running right now—at the time I was living in London, England, and there were people sitting on trains with their handheld devices all training their brains and I thought, “Well, I haven’t seen any evidence that any of them are getting any smarter,” and certainly looking around among my friends, it wasn’t the case that those who were super smart would say, “Well, it’s because I’ve been using this device.” So I thought, “Well there is something interesting in there that a lot of people believe it and trusted in it and it would be a fun thing to try and test.”

So we set up a BBC programme called Bang Goes the Theory. We advertised this as a way of assessing whether Brain Training worked. We got people to log into a specific website that we’d set up; the website had a lot of training games on it.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is this the current website that is up today or is it different to the Cambridge Brain Sciences website?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: That is actually entirely different but did feature in that study. What we use Cambridge Brain Sciences for, was to assess whether the training had worked because we wanted something truly independent to look at pre-imposed testing scores. Cambridge Brain Sciences is not a training site; it’s a cognitive assessment site that I’ve set up with one of my colleagues out of Hampshire. We got everybody to log into Cambridge Brain Sciences to get a sense of their cognitive performance before they started training and then everybody would log into one of the BBC sites.

I split them into three groups, basically. There was a group who trained specifically on reasoning tests, things to improve your ability to reason and think through the solutions to problems. Another group, a second group, which were randomly assigned obviously, would log in and do memory tests and attention tasks, things that emphasised other aspects of cognition that weren’t necessarily problem solving and reasoning. The third group, basically, just had to do a simple exercise that involved using a computer for about the same amount of time. They would look up the answers to complicated questions on the web and that was just to make sure that the control group used the computer for the same period of time over the six-week training period. We had people log in several times a week for at least ten minutes per session for six weeks, and a lot of people took the challenge. We had tens of thousands of people logged in; only about eleven and a half thousand people survived, did the distance, did the pre-testing and the six weeks of training and the post-testing, but nevertheless, twelve thousand was a fantastic result and an enormous uptake.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So we have discussed a bit previously on this show about crowd sourcing of science, like crowd science and citizen science, so this is basically like an early example of you leveraging the crowd to get some science done and some validation.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: It was great. Actually it was a lot easier than I thought it would be. We’ve used the same method subsequently to connect a number of scientific studies. The secret I think really is if you can engage people in something that they are actually interested in, and clearly there was a lot of public interest in Brain Training and whether it worked. Having the BBC, obviously, was enormously helpful because it was a popular science programme and they used it as a vehicle to promote this, but I think it’s great if you get people interested and they feel like they are part of something and they’re helping to answer a question.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: We had Jessica Richman—I don’t know if you know her work? She is really into citizen science and crowd sourcing of science. She gets up in presentations and talks about that. A new biomes project looking at the microbiome: they are getting lots of data from lots of different people around the world and feeding into that to try and start understanding the microbiome.

We discussed it and seems like it’s going to be an exciting time for crowd science. It’s already started; it’s the internet; it’s also that people, as you said, are interested in these things now—whether it comes to cognitive performance, which is a big thing when it comes to everything in our lives; if you think about it, it’s your work, your relationships, everything.

Just to take a step back, how would you look at our brains and what areas would you split it into in terms of performance? It’s also been a little while since you did that study, what do you see as the important aspects of performance for us cognitively in our lives?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think that’s a really great question and actually, it speaks to a much bigger question about how psychology and brain science have evolved over the last fifty years. When I started working in this area, doing my PhD, 25 years ago, we didn’t have any direct ways of accessing brain function. We would basically assess behaviour, and as a consequence, we had many so-called cognitive models that were based on things that we all think we can do. We know that we can remember stuff, so we would have memory models; we know that we can attend to different things and some of us can attend to multiple things at the same time, so we would have models of attention. The only way we had of actually testing these models in terms of the brain, was to assess patients who had damage to one or more of the modules that were assumed to be involved in these models. So we would test brain damaged subjects, participants who had had tumours removed from their brains, for example, and a bit of healthy tissue had gone at the same time and we could try and work out whether the model really worked. Looking back, it’s a rather awkward way of investigating brain function because you are continually looking at people who are impaired in order to try and work out how the rest of us actually work.

In the late 1990’s, brain imaging really took off. In the beginning it was a technique known as positron emission tomography, or PET, and that soon gave way to FMRI or Functional Magnetic Resonance Imagining, which has absolutely exploded and is really the tool of choice for many now-called cognitive neuroscientists. Many psychologists now think of themselves as being what we call cognitive neuroscientists because they take brain-based models on board as well as cognitive models.

Brain imagining has allowed us to access the brain in a different type of way, which is principally to look at the brains of healthy participants. So now, instead of trying to work out how healthy brains work based on how unhealthy brains work, we can actually look at healthy brains doing their thing, and what this has done has changed, in many ways, how we think about behaviour and how we think about cognitive functions. Certainly, in my lab, a guiding rule has really been, “Well, let’s only really start to stress about this or fret about this if this is biologically plausible.” Even if there are things that we feel that we have in life and we can achieve in life, if it’s not something that by looking at the brain you could see how that could be accomplished, then my first guess is usually that we are barking up the wrong tree.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Could you give an example just to clarify that? It seems like something a little bit harder to visualise.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Well, unfortunately most of the examples I would give you would be things that I don’t work on and I don’t work on them because they are good examples of this. I suppose an illustration of the sorts of thing I’m talking about is that there are many things that people have attempted to look at with brain imaging that I think probably are not easily explained in terms of networks within the brain, like how we fall in love or why we trust each other or where do we get a sense of justice from, these big, squishy, emotional things that are not easily reduced down into measurable components within the brain. Whereas memory, how is it that we lay down memories for words or how is it that we acquire language, or how is that that I can attend to two things at the same time, these are things that are much more easily thought about in terms of what we know about the structure of the brain and networks within the brain. Not everybody agrees with me: there are certainly a lot of people out there that think we are going to solve the riddles of love by using brain imaging, but that’s not the way I work.

So, this is a very long-winded answer to your original question, but it’s just to really tell you about how we tend to think about cognition now, and it’s almost a bottom-up approach, we use the brain: we use the brain; we look at the brain and we say, “Let’s look at different areas within the brain and try and work out what they are doing,” rather than trying to explain what it is we are able to do in the world in terms of areas of the brain. That is an interesting approach because it turns out that the brain isn’t really organised how we imagined it would be organised. There isn’t a bit of the brain that lays down your memories, so spending a lot of time looking for that area of the brain isn’t a very rewarding thing to do. There are certainly many areas of the brain that are involved in laying down memories, and they work together as a network, and they play really quite different roles and some of those roles are overlapping. As you have probably guessed, it’s really complicated.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s a lot more complicated than some of the jargon we have learnt. When we think about cognitive performance and the standardised testing and also some of the apps like Dual N-Back, which was the brain training app that we’ll come back to which was supposed to increase working memory and so on. So we have things like working memory, fluid intelligence versus crystalised intelligence; for you, do those things still exist today? Are they still effective ways of explaining our performance in the real world—Whether it’s work or whether it’s problem solving?

This world is getting more and more complex and faster and faster and, obviously, some people are pushing the edge, some people are taking new tropics or they are trying to do all sorts of things to stay on top of where they are in performance, in their jobs, and everything. Are these still terms that we can think about or is it moving away from that? Because we’ve taken the lid off the brain and we realise that it is much more complex that we thought and we can’t really reduce it to these ideas anymore.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: The answer is yes and no. To take your question backwards, we definitely can’t reduce the brain in terms of those ideas anymore. I don’t think that thinking about the brain in terms of fluid intelligence is a very sensible way to go about it.

We actually had our most recent large-scale study, which we published in a journal called Neuron at the end of 2012, that involved 44,000 members of the public, and there we specifically addressed this question. We got everybody to do a fairly large number of cognitive tests online and then we tried to look at whether we could estimate people’s fluid intelligence, or IQ as it’s often referred to, using these different, specific cognitive tests. It turns out that you cannot explain the variance; you cannot actually explain everybody’s performance in terms of a single factor. Whichever way we cut up the data, there was no way of explaining or reducing people’s data to a single factor, say an IQ factor or fluid intelligence factor. It turns out that there are at least three different components in performance, I’m sure it’s not just three but there are at least three.

That paper was really designed to take a swipe at the community who are still looking for evidence of fluid intelligence or IQ in the brain, because we accompanied it with a brain imaging study that produced exactly the same results. It said that if there is something like IQ, there is a way of comparing one person to another person in terms of a single measure then we should be able to find evidence of it in the brain somewhere, but actually we weren’t able to do that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So it’s really the dynamic relationship between different parts of the brain, so just focusing on developing and aspect—if we can actually do that—is potentially erroneous.

I just wanted to make sure that people at home understood the difference between fluid intelligence, IQ and crystallized intelligence and how it relates to their lives. Can you just give a quick overview of what that means when people are talking about that?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I’m certainly not an IQ expert and I think maybe the best way to think about this is that these are measures that are out there in the world that clearly measure something, but they measure something in the same way as having a driving test measures something: you take a driving test and you pass or you fail, but you probably get a score on it as well. That score means something but it doesn’t tell you everything about somebody’s ability to drive. If I got a 94 and you got a 96, how much would that really tell us about the likelihood of you causing a collision on the road or me causing a collision? That doesn’t mean it’s useless having a driving test; it’s a measure that we have constructed to measure something out there in the world that, an aspect of people’s abilities, and we use it for a purpose, which is to determine whether people should be allowed out on the road in a dangerous vehicle or not. IQ is a little bit like that. It is a measure that has been around for many years. It’s often divided into two components: crystallized intelligence and fluid intelligence. Crystallized is really the stuff that you’ve learnt, the stuff that you have acquired since your childhood, stuff you know.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is it that the harder you studied the more you tend to have?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Well, that may be true; it may be that the more of it you had to start with the harder you study, I don’t know. But fluid intelligence is more related to problem solving, reasoning, our ability to work through problems, plan for the future; that is assumed to be something that is not necessarily as related to what we have learnt and the knowledge that we have acquired over time, but it’s—I’m going to choose my words very carefully here—something that many people think of being an innate ability that some people have a very high fluid intelligence, an ability to reason their way out of problems, and other people have a rather lower fluid intelligence.

The whole concept of IQ is often divided into those two things. I think for obvious reasons, most people are more interested in fluid intelligence than they are in crystallized intelligence because fluid intelligence gets wrapped up in arguments about genetics and whether one person is better than another person. It’s not just because they have had more education, it’s because they’re somehow inherently smarter. All these arguments about brain training and smartness and how intelligent you are, are actually usually referring to some measure of fluid intelligence, rather than crystallized intelligence.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That is the thing people tend to work on. These brain training aspects are trying to change that because we already know that crystallized intelligence can be changed.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Exactly, you can learn more stuff.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yes, exactly. So to look at what you did at Cambridge Brain Sciences, what were you actually looking at in terms of assessing people there? Was it relating to these concepts we have been talking about?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: You mean the study with the 44,000 people?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yes, what is the assessment that Cambridge Brain Sciences does when you take that test or when they did it?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think what’s interesting about Cambridge Brain Sciences, and is perhaps a little bit different to many other online testing studies, is that, basically, it’s brain based. These are all tests that we’ve either devised or have been based on tests that other neuroscientists have devised to assess specific brain functions; these aren’t tests that are set up to assess a cognitive ability. We don’t have a memory suite thats designed to test your memory; we have essentially groups of tests that are assigned to assess specific brain functions. Most of these tests now have a 25-year history of being used in my lab and in other labs around the world. A lot of them were based on patient studies that we did in the late 80s and early 90s, or on non-human studies that other neuroscientists have conducted to look at how the brains of monkeys perhaps compare with the brains of humans. So all of these tests have been used in many neuroscientific studies, so they are genuine scientific tools, if you like. We’ve dressed them up slightly to make them a little bit more appealing to the person in the street, but basically, what they are testing is something that addresses a specific scientific question about the role of particular brain regions’ in cognition. In that context, I think they are very useful for trying to understand how different people’s brains function compared to one another.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Before we spoke—I took the test about a year ago—so I just wanted to revise it and I took it again today, and was horribly disappointed to see that one of the areas had declined quite specifically.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Well, you are obviously getting a bit older, you are just going to have to deal with this.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Does that actually mean that my cognitive… sometimes will it be an off day? Let’s talk about practice first; what would you suggest people use these for? From my own perspective, if I’m hoping, as you just brought up, not to have an aged brain, you know a brain that’s aging too rapidly, I might want to do it once a quarter, once every six months, just to check where things are. Is that a reasonable use of that?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: It’s perfectly reasonable use of it. I think it’s a very good way of assessing your current cognitive performance based on using the same tools that cognitive neuroscientists are using these days. I think you have to be very careful, there obviously is variance. We try and take account of practice effects by making sure that novel problems are served up each time. So in all of those tests, you won’t have seen exactly the same things that you saw a year ago, they’ll be different and there are algorithms built into that to make it infinite; you could test yourself as many times as you want and you won’t encounter the same problems. But saying that, there is obviously an initial practice effect. The first time you sit down and do them, the entire concept is novel. You’re sitting and doing an online test you’ve never seen before, you’re trying to work out where the instructions are, so there is going to be a difference between your very first time and your second time. We generally suggest that people have a go once and then start testing themselves once they are familiar with the environment.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I think I’ll just put my bad score today down to that then.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think that would be entirely reasonable; that’s something that we can deal with. But people also need to be careful about the circumstances in which they test themselves: if you didn’t get any sleep last night, then the chances are that your cognition is going to take a hit. You’re going to be less attentive, less able to focus, your memory might be slightly impaired. In some senses, the downside of having people test themselves at home is that they could be intoxicated, they could have had a few beers beforehand, there are all sorts of things that might have affected.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Or you could be a bit under the weather, as you said not having slept. I actually experienced that with another tool, Lumosity; I don’t know how similar it is to Cambridge Brain Sciences, or if you are up-to-date on that, but it is a brain training tool that is quite widely used.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: It is. Lumosity is actually very different to Cambridge Brain Sciences, in that they have gone much further in trying to turn things into games and entertainment, and of course their focus is on training. Although you can use Cambridge Brain Sciences to train, we’ve never made any claims about training, we are not encouraging people to try and train their brains using Cambridge Brain Sciences; we are trying to encourage people to use it to assess whether training works or assess whether any form of intervention works. If somebody wants to know whether a cup of coffee in the morning makes an effect, take Cambridge Brain Sciences twice, once before your coffee and once after and see if there has been a change.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you think it could be useful for those small interventions? A lot of people are taking nootropics or coffee—you’ve heard of bulletproof coffee, where you put butter in it? All sorts of people are trying different things at the moment, including myself. If we have a standardised tool to assess ourselves and you think it can make the difference between one… could we test ourselves once each day at the same time? Are there are a lot of things we have to control for if we were going to run our own little experiments, in terms of getting realistic information out?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think it’s the perfect tool for doing those sorts of things; it’s extremely sensitive, by that I mean it will pick up small changes. Because of the way that we measure performance in these various tests, it’s designed to pick relatively small changes. I would encourage people to try their own experiments at home with it but, of course, you should try and do it scientifically. Try and do it the way that we would do it in the lab, which is control as much as you can except the variable that you are looking at. So, try and do it at approximately the same time of day, try and make sure there are no huge confounding factors like you haven’t had any sleep for one test and you did for the other; keep as much as you can the same and then vary what it is you are interested in, whether it is in drinking coffee or taking your regular sleeping pill or whatever it is that you are particularly interested in, then do it.

Repetition is the corner stone of scientific enquiry. I don’t think that one single participant performing one manipulation pre-imposed coffee does not make a Nature or a Science paper, I can tell you that. If you are interested in it and see that you have promising early results, then try to repeat it, maybe try it on somebody else to make sure it works on multiple people. But these are all basic principals in science really.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I think there is an interesting aspect here when it comes to an n=1 experiment, is that we have personal biologies which are different: caffeine is metabolised differently, for instance. Some things, which in the world of science, because we are not aware of them, they won’t work; when we test ten people, we get a variance of results because we aren’t aware of a specific aspect of biology which varies in people quite differently. But when we’re doing an n=1 experiment, if we do control it well and we do it at the same time of the day, and we try to control for these things, we can see some repetitive thing that happens in us, and maybe it’s not going to happen in our friends, but we have that ability to see, “I wanted to improve my brain performance; this apparently does. I don’t know why it doesn’t work for other people but there you go.”

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: That is a very interesting point. The problem is when people then make claims based upon things like that. This is the problem with the whole brain training literature really is that people are making extremely broad claims, and I think that if you really boil it down, what the person in the street is hearing or is interested in is brain training—whatever that is—makes me smarter—whatever that is—and actually, the devil is in the detail, because brain training obviously works in a sense that if I teach myself to ride a bicycle, I have trained my brain. My brain is now able to operate all my limbs to ride a bicycle when it wasn’t able to do that before, so in that sense, brain training works; but that’s not news. If I practice long division, I’m going to get better at long division; again that’s not news, that’s learning. But in a sense, it’s brain training.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You’ve touched on basically the aspect of why everyone focuses on brain training. The point is not to get better at one thing; it’s to improve your ability to deal with new things.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: It is and actually, that’s where the science gets really complicated and controversial because a lot of people, and I don’t think it’s uncontroversial to say that a lot of people with commercial interest, would like to claim strongly that there is so-called transfer: if you practice this one test, you are going to get better at all of these other things. Scientifically, that’s actually been something that is extremely difficult to demonstrate unequivocally that you really do get better at all those other things, because often all of those other things are quite closely related to the thing you’ve been training on, which is a bit like learning to ride a bike and then suddenly finding out that you are also better at spin class; it is not that surprising.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: The biggest example that I can think of, I don’t know if you know other ones, is the Dual N-Back, or even the N-Back applications, which you will find on iPhones. I think a lot of people have come into contact with them these days. I played around with it for a while until I started reading some of the conflicting research and I thought I’m not sure this is such a great use of my time. The idea there is that you play this game and then it increases your working memory and your ability to solve problems and, basically, we are talking about the fluid intelligence that we mentioned before, which everyone wants to be able to do. What is your viewpoint on the effectiveness of these types of things and what kind of brain training did you test when you were looking at this?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I’ll answer the second part of your question first, so we actually used various types of brain training tests and some of them were similar to the N-Back tasks, they certainly involved a lot of working memory and, as you know, we didn’t find any significant transfer effects. Even when people had trained for six weeks for ten minutes several times a day, they clearly got better at everything they trained at, every single test that was trained people got better at, but they didn’t transfer to other tests, and actually in our hands, they didn’t transfer to other tests that were quite similar.

So for example, we had what’s called a spatial span task, where you simply remember the locations of various boxes on a computer screen, and in many ways that is very similar to a commonly used psychological test known as digit span, where you just remember a series of digits, in the sense that these are very discreet things that you have to remember one after the other and you repeat them in the order that they were presented—one of them are blobs in different places on the screen and the other one are numbers.

I think it would be reasonable to hypothesise that if you got better at one of those things, you might be improving your performance at the other one because there is quite a lot of overlap between them. Lots of brain processes are likely to be the same in both, but actually that wasn’t the case. We found that even with tests that were reasonably closely related to one other, like that, working hard at one didn’t actually improve your performance at the other. But again, that is one study; that’s the study that we conducted, that’s the results that we reported; other people have certainly reported other results and have suggested that training on working memory is beneficial.

I think one of the really big problems here is working out what is working memory, and what tasks do and don’t involve working memory. It’s very easy to say, “Well, this is a working memory task that has been designed by cognitive neuroscientists to assess working memory. We’re going to assess the effects of training on this other task, which is not called a working memory task; it’s called a fluid intelligence task. That must mean that if there’s an effect, there’s transfer,” but what people need to understand is these are just names that we assign to things. For a very simple example, working memory is involved in absolutely every single aspect of our life. You and I having this conversation, a working memory is absolutely essential to have this conversation because you are listening to what I’m saying and you are trying to accommodate what I’m saying in order to generate your next question, and I’m doing the opposite to you, and all the time we are remembering what each of us is saying and that’s how we are having a conversation.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s a bit like a computer ram. Everyone’s got computers; they need ram to have things working. It’s like working cash flow, working ram and it’s actually being used versus the stuff we have stored in long-term.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Exactly, that’s a perfect analogy. But would we, based on that comment I’ve just made, conclude that language involves working memory. Most people who work on language—psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists—don’t think of working memory as being a component of language, but they recognise that in the process of using language, and us talking to one another or even just generating speech, we need to use our working memory system. So, that is just an example where you need to look very carefully at the test because just because it’s called a fluid intelligence test doesn’t mean that it doesn’t involve working memory, and certainly it does; any cognitive test involves working memory because you have to remember the instructions of how to do it. You have to implement those instructions, you typically have to remember where you are in the test—Am I half way through? Am I near the end? It doesn’t matter what the test is about. I can’t easily think of a cognitive test that wouldn’t require working memory. That’s not a complete answer to the question, it’s not a complete explanation to why it is that training on working memory appears to improve fluid intelligence, but it’s just one example I think of the problems that arise when people try and make claims about transfer from one thing to another without really exploring the components of the individual test and saying, “Have I just trained up something that’s helping this person to do this other test?”

There is a lot of discussion/argument in the cognitive literature about exactly that. That’s why we’ve taken the Cambridge Brain Sciences’ approach, which is to not just rely on one test, but to have a whole array of assessment tools. Now, I guess our position on brain training would be that if brain training works, then you should be able to train on this one test, whatever it is, this magic brain training task and, in general, your performance on this whole slew of other tests, which brain sciences should get better. I honestly think that is what most members of the public would expect and are expecting from what they read about brain training. It’s not that if I train on my working memory, my performance on this one test of fluid intelligence is going to improve; they are thinking, apparently, if I train on working memory I’m going to get smarter. The best way we have of measuring am I smarter is to do an entire battery of different cognitive tests that assess planning and memory and attention and all these different aspects, so I think you do have to look at the big picture and when you look at the big picture, the data are really far from equivocal. It’s not clear that training on any one test or even any one battery of tests will generally improve you on most aspects of cognition.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is that to say that every time say I’m doing the Cambridge Brain Science test, or you are, you’d expect to get roughly the same scores, unless you’ve had some injury, something negative, you would expect some age decline as you referred to earlier, but you wouldn’t expect there to be jumps? Even if beyond brain training we’d been exposed to new environments perhaps, a new job, perhaps we’ve taken on a new course, we’d taken on some new studies, a PhD, whatever it is, I’m assuming that you wouldn’t really expect those measures to change much?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Actually, in the study we published in Neuron in 2012, we looked at a lot of these different components. Because we had 44,000 people logged in, we also asked them a lot of questions about their lifestyle. That obviously doesn’t directly address your question in that people weren’t assessed at different time points, but we had an awful lot of people that had an awful lot of different lifestyle and behavioural characteristics. We had young people, we had old people, we had smokers and non-smokers, drinkers and non-drinkers, gamblers and non-gamblers, brain trainers and non-brain trainers. We could do some of these comparisons and try and look at what difference things make, and it’s actually surprising. A lot of things that I wouldn’t have thought would necessarily affect performance really did make a difference: your general level of anxiety, for example, affected performance, but it didn’t affect the performance across the entire battery; it had selective performance on a subset of tests. Similarly smoking, whether you were a smoker or not I should say, didn’t affect cognitive performance across everything; it had specific effects on clusters, on known groups of tests. I think that’s more likely what people are going to see if they repeatedly test themselves, perhaps pre and post to brain injury or using one of these interesting manipulations we discussed earlier, like whether you had a cup of coffee or whether you’ve lost a night’s sleep. They won’t see a global deterioration of cognition; they’ll see specific problems in various areas. Perhaps your memory would be affected or your ability to attend or problem solve would be affected.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: One of the main things I’m interested in looking at is a lot of the things are hyped. A lot of the things that we consider spending time in, so some of the big things at the moment are mindfulness meditation. You’ll see most executives today doing some form of mindfulness or transcendental meditation, basically repeating a syllable versus just focusing on being mindful. Me myself, I try these things and my friends were all trying these things to increase our performance because we are all entrepreneurs and we are just trying to do better at life and get more out of life and so that’s what everyone wants these days.

But the question is, really, could we potentially test what you just said about anxiety because I’ve always of anxiety as like a distraction. If I’m trying to problem solve on a test or problem solve at work, I know for a fact that if I’m distracted I feel more anxiety and it feels like it’s harder work because I’m not really focused. It is like half of my working memory is taken up by whatever the distracting mechanism is. Meditation, yoga, things like this are supposed to improve that, so it would be interesting for people to do interventions at home and for people to do scientific studies on this to see if this has far more impact than brain training if you want to enhance your cognitive performance.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I come from very much the same philosophy that you do. I am always intrigued by what the current trend is; what is it that people are doing and believing. I would strongly encourage people to go out and try these things.

I think the problem is the best tool that we have for assessing anything is science and we have a scientific process, and we have a very well worked out system for what is acceptable science and what is not acceptable science and what scientists have to do to make sure that their peers agree with this, and these sorts of thing. People do need to be slightly careful I think on relying too much on just running their own experiments and finding out about stuff and assuming that it’s the whole story. But I think as long as people try and remain scientifically rigorous and go out and test these things, I think they are all perfectly plausible things to investigate.

A rule of thumb I always have is just because a lot of people believe in it and are sure that it is true, if it hasn’t been scientifically proven, then it’s very likely not the case, for whatever reason. I think that the commercial brain training is a very good example of that, where tens of millions of people clearly believe in this because the large manufacturers of these things sell tens of millions of units of these things, so there are a lot of people who think it might work, but the scientific evidence doesn’t support it and most people should be able to see that by looking around them in the street. Talk to your smartest friends and find out why they think they are smarter, I bet you can’t find somebody who says, “Oh, it’s because I’ve been using this brain training system for six months.” It’s not that all of our smart friends are brain trainers and all of our less smart friends are not brain trainers. The evidence is out there in society that brain training in a commercial big sense clearly doesn’t work, that all the smart people aren’t the brain trainers and the less smart people the non-brain trainers. Again, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing in there and no type of brain training could have any effect, it just means that the sorts that most people are buying into at the moment, it isn’t doing what they believe it’s doing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: We don’t have any concrete scientific studies saying, without conflicting studies coming up a couple of years later, “Well, actually this isn’t repeatable.”

An aspect I wanted to relate back to is, because I hear this a lot, I hear about the brain aging and how we have got to protect ourselves. A lot of people are concerned about Alzheimer’s of course, it’s is one of the biggest fears of people, and losing our brain is something that obviously we care about a lot. When we are talking about aging of the brain, what does that actually mean? What’s going on there?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Again, it really depends on who you are; if you are dementing, by that I mean you have something like Alzheimer’s disease, then your brain is generating abnormal clusters or groups of cells within the brain that are seriously detrimental to performance and are affecting your memory and your attention, your ability on many tasks. If you have Parkinson’s disease then basically you have a reduction in a particular neurotransmitter known as dopamine, which we know is important for many tasks and for the normal functioning of many parts of the brain, and that again will have really rather specific effects. For the rest of us, maybe a lot of us have had small strokes during our life that we are not aware of. We are all very familiar with people who have had a major stroke that may have affected a large portion of their ability to move a part of their body, but there is a school of thought that over the course of our life, many of us have small strokes that don’t have measurable effects, but by the time you get to your 70s and 80s, that stuff is all adding up, you’re starting to see impairments.

Head injuries; I spend a lot of my time working with very severe head injuries, but of cause concussion is very much in the news these days. Over the course of most of our lives, most of us sustain a fair number of bangs on the head. It may not have resulted in a clinical concussion, but the brain, in spite of the fact that it is well protected by the skull, is an extremely vulnerable organ. We know that a blow to the head can have a serious effect. So I think all of these things, along with what most of us assume as aging, this non-specific atrophy of the brain, brain cells just shutting down or dying; all of these things can add up to the aging process and this is why aging is such a mystery because of course it’s all so different in each and every one of us, because we’ve all had different experiences and been exposed to different things in life.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: What you’re saying is that it is very complex. Aging is this name we give to lots of biological changes, like damage accumulation. We’ve recently had Aubrey de Grey on, and he talks about aging and he splits it into seven different areas, so it’s quite interesting for him to break it down and say well, actually, it’s because you have cellular garbage building up and to actually break it down and describe it. So it’s interesting to talk and clarify a bit because everyone talks about brain aging, and as you say, it can be different for different people. If we are trying to prevent this, since you brought up the injuries, have you been able to improve the situation of people with injuries beyond just kind of assessing what stage they are at? Are you able to at least get them to recover somewhat, so it kind of gives up some hope for the aging process as well?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: There is obviously a big difference between mild brain injury and severe brain injury. Some of the work we are trying to do now is to look at concussion, and again we are using Cambridge Brain Science; we are assessing concussion in people like American football players, who often suffer many serious concussions within the course of one season, and looking at whether by carefully measuring their cognition pre-imposed concussion and we’re coupling that in some cases with brain imaging studies to see what the actual impact of the brain is. We are trying to look at ways in which that sort of damage can be mitigated.

For very, very serious brain injury, I do a lot of work in patients who are in coma or a vegetative state, and there the damage is often so severe that it is very hard to work out where to start as far as rehabilitating people is concerned, or getting them back to a normal life. That doesn’t mean that there won’t ever be any answers or that there aren’t any potential answers on the table, but it’s a much harder problem to solve.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So when people talk about neuroplasticity, because that’s one of the things that gave people a bit more hope there, what does that refer to?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: It’s a very broad term which has slightly been taken out of context. Two ways in which it is used often is in studies of healthy participants who are taught to do something that they couldn’t do previously. There was a very well publicized study a few years ago about people being taught to juggle. They were non-jugglers to start with, they were scanned at various points during the learning process, they were expert jugglers at the end, and there were changes in their brain that had occurred as a result of them learning to juggle; those changes were, I suppose, why they were able to juggle. Neuroplasticity had occurred in the brain and they had acquired a new skill. It’s a great study; it’s very well carried out and they use some beautiful new technical methods, but in a way, the result isn’t surprising because of course the brain has to change to do stuff and to learn stuff and that is how we retain these abilities to do things for many years. Once you have learnt to juggle you can usually do it for years and years after, even if you don’t continue to practice. So there is that kind of neuroplasticity, which I think, again, some people have taken out of context and said, “Okay, so the brain is totally plastic. We can all just move things around and learn to do new things,” and it’s not quite as simple as that.

The other way is, again, very good studies that have looked at the results of things like strokes, patients who have had a stroke and have learnt to do things that they lost as a result of the stroke. Perhaps they couldn’t move an arm, and through a process of continued rehabilitation, they regain the ability to move that arm. In some cases it’s been shown that it’s not that the bit of the brain that was damaged has been fixed, it’s that a different part of the brain has taken over the role that was carried out by the damaged part of the brain. Things have shifted around and, again, it is another example of neuroplasticity. There is no doubt that this happens; I don’t think anybody is questioning that this is something that the brain is able to do, the question is how widely can it be applied? It doesn’t mean that any of us can just reallocate resources within our brain, because we happen to have a large frontal lobe, let’s shove it all up the font and do it with our frontal lobe; things aren’t quite as easy as that, but neuroplasticity is an interesting idea and it is, as you, say something that is gaining a lot of attention.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It sounds like it’s potentially a zero sum game, the reallocation of what you have rather than being able to re-build capacity that was lost for whatever reason.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think so, certainly in the case where there has been a specific type of brain damage. It is very rarely the case that part of the brain that has been seriously damaged can be repaired. I can’t think of examples where that part of the brain has been made to work again. It is usually about reallocation of existing resources, but there’s a lot of truth in the old saying about how much of our brain we are using at any given time. We have quite a lot of brain and it is an extremely complex organ that is very, very well interconnected, so I think most of us do have a lot of potential for neuroplasticity, as long as the damage that you’ve received is not too severe. So although it’s a zero sum game, I think there’s plenty of potential there.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I just did want to bring up one study that I saw recently, which was a bit more optimistic. You might have heard of it, I’m not sure, it was a reversal of cognitive decline. A novel therapeutic programme, it was in September 2014, and it was basically a multidisciplinerary approach. They had ten people do ten different things at the same time, so it wasn’t one of these controlled experiments where you’ve just got one thing going on. They just wanted to see if we throw everything at these people, can we help them? And it seemed like it was pretty positive: nine out of ten had some objective and subjective improvement and six out of six who had stopped working, went back to work. I don’t know if you saw that study, it was on Alzheimer’s and other patients; it was published in the Journal of Aging.

It’s with things like that you wonder, potentially, there are way to improve our situation. Maybe it’s not regrowing capacity, but there are ways of allowing our brain to work better in the conditions that it is in and continue to live the life or improve our performance as per whatever we are looking to do.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think that is a really great example of where the point is to just not move too far away from the data. So I don’t doubt for a minute the results of the study, but what’s important is that you stick to that result and you say, “Okay, so when people of that kind, patients in this case, perform multiple tasks at the same time, their lives improve and they go on and live better lives than they did before,” and that’s the important message; that’s what that paper measured, that’s what it set out to measure, that was the result that it demonstrated and that’s what you should take away from it. Rather than say thinking, “Ah, so brain training works then!” which is, as we have been discussing, it is just a much bigger issue and, actually, that study doesn’t show that brain training works; it shows that a specific group of tests in a specific type of patients can improve their lives in specific ways. So that suggests that some aspects of brain training work, but one shouldn’t take away from that that if, “Okay, I go and buy this product to make me smarter, it’s going to make me smarter.”

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Maybe I should have been clearer here. It wasn’t brain training; it was ten different interventions in terms of exercise, meditation and yoga to de-stress, basically doing everything you can think of that people say we should do to live healthily. So that’s what I meant when they threw everything at them, they were just like, “Have a programme and you have to do everything that we are supposed to do to be healthy. Now, is this going to make any impact in terms of your brain cognitive performance?” Again, I guess the same point remains: are you an Alzheimer’s patient? But it might be an interesting test to do yourself, if you are willing to do ten little interventions and then to use something like Cambridge Brain Sciences test to see if it has had any difference after a month or something.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think so. I think you would get a pretty good pre-intervention assessment and a post intervention assessment with something like Cambridge Brain Science, it would be a perfect way to test that. As you say, it could be different in healthy participants. We know a lot about the difference between patients and healthy participants. Patients, in a sense, have much more to gain. There is an argument that those of us who can claim to be healthy are already doing as good as we can, we’re working at our cognitive optimum levels and maybe we can’t get any better, whereas somebody who is already declined 20% from their best, has that opportunity to climb back up to the top again. These are all important factors that may produce differences in the so-called healthy population versus any kind of patient.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great, thanks for that. Just to bring up, it is interesting that you have been looking at EEG and the use of that. We spoke about functional MRI technology, which of course is extremely expensive and limited to research studies primarily because there is not so many of them. So you have been doing some work with EEG, which is interesting because it means that potentially some of those applications could be used broader because EEG is more accessible. So could you give us an overview of how you used it and where it could be applied potentially, this kind of approach?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Again, just to sort of qualify something that you have said, although EEG is much cheaper than FMRI, there’s EEG and there’s EEG. The EEG systems that we use actually cost more than 100,000 pounds each, so these are not things that you are going to be able to go and buy down at Radio Shack or Best Buy; these are extremely sophisticated, expensive pieces of scientific technology. But of course, the potential of EEG is that if we get it right with these expensive tools, we can make it cheaper; one could reduce the number of electrodes—instead of the 128 that we use, perhaps you can answer that question with just five or six. Those are all scientific and technical questions that we are trying to solve. FMRI, for various technical reasons, is not going to get a lot cheaper at any time soon. We’re not going to be having portable MRI scanners that we can all take home with us very soon, so there isn’t the potential for things getting much cheaper or more portable with MRI in the way that there is with the EEG.

What we have been trying to do is to use the EEG systems to achieve many of the same things that we have done with the MRI, mostly this is with the very serious brain damaged patients, it’s trying to determine whether some patients who appear to be in a vegetative state might actually be conscious but locked inside their head. We’ve had quite a lot of success with that over the last ten years using FMRI, and we are now pretty good at detecting something like one in five patients who appear to be entirely vegetative, and sometimes have been that way for many years, when we put them in the scanner we can detect that they are actually there, they are conscious, they are aware of what is going on around them, they are laying down memories and if they could, they would probably express opinions about the situation that they’re in. That is something that we have been trying to replicate with the EEG, and technically, it’s much harder, it’s proved to be much harder with the EEG. We’ve done it, we’re about at the same stage with the EEG that we were with the FMRI. But even though it’s simpler, it’s a portable technology, you can take it to the patient in their hospital, scientifically in terms of what you are measuring in the brain, it’s a little bit harder to actually analyse the data and interpret the data, so it’s had it’s own difficulties, but we are continuing to work in that area to try and improve things.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I wish you success there, it sounds like a very useful application that is going to help a lot of people.

So to round off the interview, what are you expecting in the next five or ten years in terms of our ability to assess cognitive performance or cognitive abilities? Are you expecting any big exciting changes or interesting things that might be helpful in this area?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I’ll tell you what I’m not expecting, I don’t think that we are going to suddenly get a brain training magic bullet. I really don’t think we are suddenly going to find that doing a particular task three times a day, six times a week is suddenly going to improve cognitive performance. The reason for that is you just have to look out there in the world and we would have worked this out by now if that was going to be the case. If there was some reasonable thing that one could do to boost one’s cognitive performance in terms of practice or brain training, then I think we would know about it by now. So that’s not what is going to happen.

We are learning an awful lot of information about things like the effects of drugs on the brain, how drugs affect different brain regions; there’s a whole area that we haven’t touched on here about so-called neuroenhancers, drugs that one can take to up your performance, to improve your cognitive abilities, and we are starting to learn much more about how those drugs work, the neurochemical systems that they work on in the brain, and I think it is entirely plausible that new drugs, so-called smart drugs, will be developed that will have specific and perhaps reasonably large effects on cognition.

I think the other thing is that people are waking up to the importance of trying to keep your brain healthy, trying to preserve what cognitive function you have, and we are seeing changes in society. Society is generally getting healthier, people are stopping doing a lot of things that are now pretty clear weren’t good for us and are affecting our brain in various ways, so I think that will also feed into public knowledge about ways of preserving function during aging for example. I’m not anticipating any huge revolutionary changes except, potentially, in the smart drug area.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thanks. That’s good to hear. Is there anyone besides yourself you would recommend to talk about these subjects, like cognitive assessment or potentially, the brain training area, that they have looked at it in detail and assessed the potential of it?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Randy Engle in Georgia has published a lot on the so-called brain training, and he is an extremely smart and approachable individual who has a lot of very intelligent things to say about some of the statistics that have been used, some of the controls that have been used. His is a largely negative view, I would say, about the effects of brain training. You won’t have to go very far to find somebody who would be happy to talk to you about the positive aspects of brain training, so I won’t promote that by dropping any names in.

As far as smart drugs are concerned, somebody like my former PhD adviser, Barbara Sahakian in Cambridge, UK, is doing a lot of work on smart drugs and the effects of cognitive enhancement. She is certainly very knowledgeable in that area and I’m sure she’d be happy to talk to you.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thank you very much.

Just to round off, I’d like to get a view into your personal life and if you are using any type of data. Are you tracking any type of data in a routine manner or looking at anything in your life from time to time, maybe once every six months, or anything to assess your health, your performance or your longevity?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I’m just afraid to do that. I do, of course, log into Cambridge Brain Sciences every so often just to check how I’m going.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Out of interest, did you get a decline similar to me?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Well, when you get to 48 years old, it is inevitable that some things are just not working quite as well as they used to. Sometimes I’m surprised that I’m as cognitively preserved as I am, but I’m not the sort of person that monitors my performance on a regular basis. I, of course, get to scan my brain very often, and I guess that’s one answer to your question. Because of the context of my brain imaging research, I get to go inside the MRI scanner to test out various new things we are trying and to test new sequences in the scanner, etc., so I do get the opportunity to see my brain really quite frequently. I’m always on the look out for anything that looks a little bit abnormal, any sort of accelerated atrophy or lumps and bumbs here and there. It is impossible not to be intrigued by these things if you are a neuroscientist.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, especially if it’s your brain you’re looking at. I guess it is like the whole medicine thing, when you start googling stuff, you get the whole placebo effect of, “That sounds like something I have.” We’ll call it the anti-placebo effect, you should never start googling if you have some little random symptom because you’ll end up that probably google will say you have cancer or something.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: Google always says you have cancer.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: One last thing; we have spoken a lot about data today and controls, what would be your one big recommendation to people that are using data in their lives—they are trying to make some sort of decision, use data to improve their lives on any dimension, whether it’s longevity, performance or health—what would be your one recommendation in terms of what they do with data or how they use it?

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I think there’s a scientist in everybody. We are all interested in questions about the world, about our lifestyle, about the effects of our lifestyle on our brains or on our ability to think. I think my one recommendation would be for people to try and stick to the scientific method. We’ve homed this idea over hundreds and hundreds of years now, we know how to conduct rigorous scientific experiments; you don’t have to be an expert in statistics, you just basically have to follow a few simple principles. Make sure when you test something, you are controlling as much as you can about other factors, try and make sure that the effect is reproducible, try and make sure that it’s reliable. There are many fairly basic scientific principals that one can apply to everyday life. Don’t just google something or read about something in a newspaper and assume it’s true. Go out and test it, but when you do that, test it using as many basic scientific principals as you can and I think you won’t go far wrong if you do that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s a great bit of advice. I don’t know if you know if there’s a book or something that would give someone a basic introduction to the scientific method? I don’t know if that exists.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: I’m sure it does exist, but off the top of my head I can’t think what would be a good place to point people, but I can send you something that you can accompany this podcast with.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That would be great, I’d really appreciate that, that would be very helpful.

Adrian, thank you so much for your time today and all the questions and answers you’ve been giving us. It’s been really interesting.

[Dr. Adrian Owen]: That’s my pleasure. It was a lot of fun. Thanks very much.

Leave a Reply

Is some aspect of mitochondrial damage behind cancer? If so, can this theory help us take control of cancer via tactics such as yearly or more frequent “7 day water fasts”.

When we think about death, cancer is often what we think of first. If you’re like me, most, if not all, of the deaths affecting you personally in your life may have been due to cancer.

Part of what makes a cancer diagnosis so devastating is that it’s mechanisms – how it works, where it comes from, how we can treat it effectively, how we can track it’s development, assess our risk and avoid it – continue to allude us. That makes us feel powerless against it.

Today’s episode is about the theory that mitochondrial damage is behind cancer, and how this theory may let us take control of cancer. We also hear our guest discuss the power of “water fasts” as a potential tactic to beat cancer.

If that’s true then tools that we have today such as ketogenic diets, fasting, lipid replacement therapy and other approaches to mitochondrial repair may help reduce or eliminate the risk of cancer, and even treat it when we have it.

We’ve already seen how important our mitochondria, and keeping them healthy, is in previous episodes, looking at longevity and aging with Aubrey de Grey, and autoimmune diseases with Terry Wahls. Today we add to that list the role they may be playing in the cancer diseases process.

“All cancers can be linked to impaired mitochondrial function and energy metabolism. It’s not a nuclear genetic disease. It’s a mitochondrial metabolic disease… therapeutic ketosis can enhance mitochondrial function for some conditions, and can kill tumor cells.”
– Dr. Thomas Seyfried

Today’s guest, Dr. Thomas Seyfried, is Professor of Biology at Boston College, where he leads a research program focused on the mechanisms by which metabolic therapies such as ketogenic diets and fasting can manage chronic disease and cancer. He sits on the editorial boards of four research journals, and has over 60 published papers on cancer and metabolism.

He is the author of the review paper Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, appearing in the Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism in 2010, and of the textbook in 2012 entitled Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of Cancer.

He’s a frequent lecturer and speaker at conferences on the topic of cancer, impaired mitochondrial function, and using ketogenic diets and fasting tactics as therapy to treat and avoid cancer.

This was personally an important episode for me. I hope you feel more in control of your cancer risk after listening to it, as I do having followed Dr. Seyfried’s work.

The show notes, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

Show Notes

  • How the idea that a change in mitochondrial function is behind cancer started in the 1920s (4:10).
  • The ancient energy mechanism through which cancer cells can bypass the mitochondria through fermentation instead of normal mitochondrial respiration (7:20).
  • The part of mitochondrial function that seems to be compromised in cancer – oxidative phosphorylation (8:15).
  • Different types of cancer cells and tumors have varying damage to their mitochondria. The worst and most aggressive cancers have the least mitochondrial function (9:00).
  • The oncogenic paradox (9:00).
  • Lipids such as Cardiolipins in the inner membrane of mitochondria are the part responsible for respiration (15:10).
  • How Dr. Seyfried pooled research from over 50 years together to develop his conclusions on cancer and the mitochondria (18:00).
  • Therapeutic ketosis and fasting can enhance mitochondria (23:00).
  • Ketone bodies produce cleaner energy, with less oxidative stress (ROS) than glucose molecules, when used for fuel in the mitochondria (27:00).
  • Nuclear genetic mutations prevent cancer cells from adapting to use ketone bodies as their energy source (29:30).
  • Which biomarkers could be indicative of cancer risk? (33:10).
  • Using therapeutic fasting of several days to improve your metabolism (36:00).
  • Using combined blood glucose – ketone meters to take readings and using Dr. Seyfried’s calculator to calculate Glucose – Ketone Indices (38:00).
  • It requires 3 to 4 days of fasting to get into the therapeutic glucose – ketone index zone (42:00).
  • “Autolytic cannibalism” to improve overall mitochondrial function – the mitochondria can either be rescued, enhanced or consumed (47:30).
  • The difficulties with directly measuring mitochondrial respiration vs. anaerobic fermentation and lactic acid to assess cancer status (49:50).
  • Weight loss can come in two types, pathological and therapeutic. The weight loss via fasting is therapeutic and healthy (52:00).
  • Cancer patients do better with chemotherapy, with less symptoms, when they are in a fasted state (52:00).
  • Cancer centers currently do not offer mitochondrial based therapies, only chemo or immuno therapies (57:40).
  • The biomarkers Dr. Thomas Seyfried tracks on a routine basis and his use of the ‘fasting’ tool (101:40).
  • What Dr. Seyfried would do if he had cancer (102:30)
  • Should you remove organs if you discover you have a high genetic risk for cancer? (E.g. BRCA1 as with Angelina Jolie) (103:30)

Dr. Thomas Seyfried

The Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Blood Glucose: A measure of the level of glucose in the blood at one point in time. Dr. Seyfried’s therapies target reduction of blood glucose levels to limit cancer cell growth, and according to his theories high blood glucose is a biomarker of increased cancer risk.
  • Glucose – Ketone Index (GKI): The ratio between the concentration of glucose in the blood to ketone bodies in the blood. The calculation is Glucose (mmol)/ Ketone (mmol). Dr. Seyfried created the index as a better way to assess metabolic status. Therapeutic efficacy is considered best with index values approaching 1.0 or below. Patients with chronic disease like cancer have index values of 50 or more. Thomas’ paper on the use of GKI for cancer patients has just been accepted for publishing: The Glucose Ketone Index Calculator: A Simple Tool to Monitor Therapeutic Efficacy for Metabolic Management of Brain Cancer. It is on Nutrition & Metabolism journal here and you can download an excel sheet to calculate the Glucose Ketone index here.
    Glucose Ketone Index - Thomas Seyfried

    Glucose Ketone Index Tracking of a Water Fast as Therapy for Brain Tumors Trial – Thomas Seyfried

Lab Tests, Devices and Apps

The Tactics

Treatments

  • 3 – 5 Day Water Only Fasts: A water-only fast of at least 3 days and preferably 5 days is recommended by Dr. Seyfried as a tool to reduce cancer risk and to lower your glucose – ketone index to 1.0. He recommends doing this twice yearly. For cancer patients he recommends much more intensive use of the water fast.
  • Ketogenic Diets: The ketogenic diet is a low carb diet which also raises the level of ketone bodies in the blood. We discussed this in depth, as well as the Ketone biomarkers and devices in episode 7 with Jimmy Moore on Ketosis.
  • Intermittent Fasting: An approach to fasting where you fast for part of the day or certain days per week. There are many approaches to this, however in Dr. Seyfried’s research he has found this doesn’t have a significant enough impact on raising ketone bodies to be therapeutic. He has only seen this via the water-fast.
  • Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy (HBOT): Another therapy Dr. Seyfried believes may be beneficial to fight cancer but is relatively non-toxic in comparison to current treatment modalities (chemo and immunotherapies), and would like to trial in conjunction with fasting protocols.

Supplements

  • Oxaloacetate: A support for the mitochondria, also dubbed as an anti-aging supplement as it has caloric restriction mimicking effects. It is sold by Dave Asprey in his “Upgraded Aging” formula.
  • 3-Bromopyruvate (3BP): Dr. Seyfried would like to incorporate this non-toxic molecule in combination with fasting therapies to treat cancer patients.
  • PQQ (Pyrroloquinoline Quinone): Mentioned by Damien as a potential tool for mitochondrial biogenesis.

Other People, Resources and Books

People

  • Otto Warburg: A well known scientist who worked on cancer in the 1920s and 30s and discovered that cancer cells have different metabolism to normal cells.
  • Albert Szent-Györgyi: The oncogenic paradox was first coined by this nobel prize winner for his work with vitamin C and energy metabolism.
  • Valter Longo PhD.: Dr. Seyfried referred to Valter Longo’s work at the University of Southern California on the impacts of fasting on patients undergoing chemotherapy.
  • Angelina Jolie: The actress recently had her breast’s removed when she discovered she has the BRCA1 genetic mutation, that predisposes women to breast cancer.

Organizations

Books

Full Interview Transcript

Transcript - Click Here to Read

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Thomas, thank you so much for joining us today.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Thank you.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I’d like to start off with basically kind of an overview, because you are putting for a different theory of cancer compared to that that’s been the reigning theory for a very, very long time now. Could you describe the differences between the two theories, and what is the basis for your new theory?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, it’s not that my theory is new. The theory was initiated in the early part of the last century, in the 1920’s through the 30s and 40s, by Otto Warburg, the distinguished German scientists and biochemist. It was Warburg who found that all tumor cells continue to ferment glucose in the presence of oxygen. Put it this way, lactic acid fermentation.

This is a very unusual condition that usually happens only when oxygen is not present. But to ferment in the presence of oxygen is a very, very unusual biochemical condition. Warburg said, with his extensive amounts of data, that the reason why tumor cells do this is because their respiration is defective. So, in our normal bodies, most of our cells generate energy through respiration, which is oxidative phosphorylation. And we generate ATP this way.

But cancer cells, of all types of tumors and all cells within tumors, generally have a much higher level of fermentation than the normal cells. And this then became the signature biochemical defect in tumor cells. And Warburg wrote extensively on this phenomenon, and presented massive amounts of data – he and a number of other investigators.

But what happened after Watson and Crick’s discovery of the structure of DNA, and the findings that genetic mutations and DNA damage were in tumor cells, and the enormous implications of understanding DNA as the genetic material, this just sent the whole field off into a quest to understand the genetic damage in tumor cells. And it gradually became clear to many people that cancer was a genetic disease, rather than a mitochondrial metabolic disease as Warburg had originally showed.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, so when you were talking about the energy and respiration of the cells, just a minute ago, that was actually in fact the mitochondrial respiration, and energy generation from mitochondria within cells.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: That’s correct. That’s correct, it’s mitochondrial. It’s an organelle within all of our cells, the majority of our cells – erythrocytes have no mitochondria, so they ferment. But the mitochondria are the organelle that dictates cellular homeostasis and functionality, and provides health and vitality to cells in our organisms, and ultimately our entire body.

And when these organelles become damaged, defective, or insufficient in some way, cells will normally die. But if the damage or insufficiency is a gradual chronic problem, the cells will resort to a primitive form of energy metabolism, which is fermentation. Which is the type of energy that all cells had, all organisms had before oxygen came onto the planet, which was like a billion years ago.

So what these cells are doing then is essentially going back to a very primitive state of energy metabolism, which was linked to rapid proliferation. Cells would divide rapidly and grow widely before oxygen came onto the planet. So what these cancer cells are doing is just falling back on the type of energy metabolism that existed for all organisms before oxygen came on the planet.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Does that type of fermentation type of respiration, metabolic activity, is that originating from the mitochondria, or from the cell itself?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: No, there was no mitochondria before oxygen came on the planet. So this was purely a reductive activity within cells. It doesn’t require mitochondria, it’s a purely cytoplasmic form of energy. Glucose is taken in, and rapidly metabolized to pyruvate through cytoplasmic in the cytoplasm, and then the pyruvate is reduced to lactic acid or lactide, which is called lactic acid fermentation.

And this then could drive energy metabolism, and the processes that can emerge from this type of energy metabolism. But it’s a very inefficient form of energy generation, and it’s often associated with rapid proliferation.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, thank you very much. So, in very simple terms it seems like, basically what you’re saying is, as the mitochondria get damaged they stop functioning, and then the cell goes back to the original form of energy generation, and it’s as if the mitochondria weren’t there any more.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well it’s not that they’re not there. They are there, and they can also participate in certain kinds of amino acid fermentations. They still play a role in generating energy and nutrients for the cell, but it’s not through the sophisticated aspect of energy generation through oxidative phosphoryation. That part of their function seems to be compromised, but other parts of their function can take place. But they’re not generating energy through what most cells would generate energy through, which is respiration or oxidative phosphorylation.

And I also want to point out, it’s not a complete shut down of oxidative phosphorylation. Tumor cells, depending on the grade, and how fast they grow, and how aggressive the tumor is. It is true that some very, very aggressive tumors have very few, if any, mitochondria. So these cells are primarily massive fermenters.

But some tumor cells still have some residual function of their respiration, and they grow much more slowly than those tumor cells that have no function, or very little function, of their respiration. So it’s a graded effect, but the bottom line is the cells continue to grow, but they’re dysregulated. Because the mitochondria do more than just provide efficient energy. They are the regulators of the differentiated state of the cell. They control the entire fiber network in the cell. They control the homeostatic state of that cell.

So these organelles play such an important role in maintaining energy efficiency. And when they become defective, the nuclear genome turns on these oncogenes, that are basically transcription factors that drive fermentation pathways. So the cells are able to survive, but they’re dysregulated.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, which becomes cancer.

So, in what ways are the mitochondria getting damaged. What is the context for this kind of damage that takes place today? Is this a modern phenomenon, because, obviously cancer has become a bigger and bigger target of medicine over the years, and, potentially, it’s been growing. I’d like to hear your view on that.

Is cancer something that’s always been around, or is it something that affects us more today, and how is it that the mitochondria are getting damaged?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, what you said there is referred to as the Oncogenic Paradox, which has been discussed by Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who received a Novel Prize for his work on Vitamin C and energy metabolism and these things, and John Cohn from England. These people had referred to this phenomenon as the called the Onogenic Paradox. How is it possible that so many disparate events in the environment could cause cancer through a common mechanism?

And when we think of what causes cancer, we think of carcinogens. And these are chemical compounds in the environment that are known to be linked to the formation of cancer. So there’s a whole array of these kinds of chemicals that we call carcinogens. Then there’s radiation can cause cancer. Hypoxia, the blocking of oxygen into cells, can be linked to the formation of cancer.

A common phenomenon and finding is inflammation. Chronic inflammation that leads to wounds that don’t heal. This is another provocative agent for the initiation of cancer. Rare germline mutations, such as the mutations in the BRCA1 gene that a lot of people hear about because of Angelina Jolie bringing attention to that area. Viruses, Hepatitis virus, papillomaviruses. And there’s a variety of viruses that can be linked to cancer. Age. The older people get, the greater the risk of cancer.

All these provocative agents all damage respiration. Their common link to the origin of cancer is damage to the mitochondria, and damage to the respiratory capacity of the cell. So the paradox is solved once people realize that these disparate, provocative agents work all through a common mechanism, which is basically damage to the cellular respiration.

Now, but people say, “Well what about all the genome mutations? What about all these mutations?” Which is a major focus in the field right now, is that cancer is a nuclear genetic disease. Now what happens is the integrity of the nucleus and the genetic stability of the nucleus becomes unstable once energy from respiration becomes defective.

Now it’s very interesting. All of the so-called provocative agents that are known to cause cancer through damage to respiration release these toxic reactive oxygen species, which then cause nuclear genetic mutations. And this is what most people are focusing on. The nuclear genetic mutations in the tumor cells are the targets and focal point of the majority of the cancer industry. Now, when you look at the disease as a mitochondrial metabolic disease, the nuclear genetic mutations arise as secondary downstream epiphenomena of damage to the respiration. So what most people are focusing on is the downstream effect, rather than the cause of the disease.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You’re saying that because mitochondria are damaged and energy output is damaged, that causes the cell to lose it’s integrity?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Lose the genomic integrity.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Ah, genomic integrity.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah. Most people you talk to about this, they say “Oh, cancer’s a genetic disease. We’re trying to talk all these genetic mutations. Every kind of tumor has all kinds of mutations. We need personalized therapies because the mutations are different in all the different cells, and the different types of cancer.” And that’s true, but all of that is a downstream effect of the damage to the respiration.

So, people are focusing on red-herrings. They’re not focusing on the core issue of the problem, which is stabilized energy metabolism. And this underlies the reason for why we’re making so little progress in managing the disease.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, I don’t know if you can break it down into a bit more detail. The mitochondria are made up of several parts: the outer membrane, the inner membrane, and so on. Is it certain parts, or is it any part of the mitochondria that’s getting damaged?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, it’s very interesting. It seems to be we’ve defined the lipid abnormalities, the lipid components of the inner membrane of the mitochondria. So there’s certain types of lipids that are enriched primarily in the inner membrane of the mitochondria. This lipid called cardiolipin. It’s an ancient lipid that’s present in bacteria and in mitochondria, but it plays a very important role in maintaining the integrity of the inner membrane, which is ultimately the origin of our respiratory energy, which is that inner membrane.

And many of the proteins that participate in the electron transport chain depend, or are dependent under interaction in the lipid environment in which they sit. So, lipids can be changed dramatically from the environment, which then alter the function of the proteins of the electron transport chain, effecting the ability of that organelle now to generate energy.

This is a real issue, and that inner membrane can be effected by all these carcinogens, radiation, hypoxia, viruses. The viruses themselves, or the products of the virus, will enter into the mitochondria and take up residence, thereby altering the energy efficiency of the infected cell.

And most of the cells die. When you interfere with respiration, most cells die. But in some cells of our body that have the capacity to up-regulate fermentation, these primitive energy pathways, they survive, and they go on to become the cells of the tumor.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, thank you for that. So, this is a very different theory to that which most people have come across, which, of course, you just outlined with the DNA mutations. Which bits of research have you pulled together in your book, and in your presentations, that you feel like present this view of the world the most strongly. Are there key research elements, researchers that have gone on, and maybe it comes down to four pieces that you feel strongly support this versus the other argument?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: I think that’s an extremely important point. What is the strongest evidence to support what I’ve just said? And what I did in my book in evaluating the therapeutic benefits that we’ve seen in managing cancer by targeting fermentation energy. How is it possible that we overlooked this information? It’s very interesting.

Over the last 50 years, various sporadic reports had been published in the literature showing that if the nucleus of the tumor cell is placed in a new cytoplasm, a cytoplasm that has normal mitochondria – and this is cytoplasm either from a newly fertilized egg, or an embryonic stem cell. Because now we have this technology where we can do these kinds of nuclear transplantations. And this ultimately was what lead to the cloning of Dolly the sheep, and these kinds of experiments. These had been done many, many years earlier in frogs, and in mice, before we moved on to the larger mammals and things like this.

But it became clear that when the nucleus of the tumor cell was placed into the normal cytoplasm, sometimes normal cells would form, and sometimes you could clone a frog, or a mouse, from the nucleus of the tumor cell. Now this was quite astonishing. Because people were thinking you would get cancer cells, because the mutations in the nucleus, if the hypothesis is correct that this is a nuclear genetic disease and the gene drivers are in the nucleus, then how is it possible that you could generate normal tissues without abnormal proliferation. In other words, normal, differentiated tissues from the nucleus of a tumor cell.

I was able to pull together a variety of these reports that had been sporadic in the literature over 50 years. And when these reports came out, it was considered kind of an oddball report that didn’t support the gene theory, but most people discounted it, because it was one singular report. But every four or five years, another report. Eight years would go by, another kind of report. And some of these studies were done by the leaders of the field, the key developmental biologists, the best there were. These people were heavy-weights in the field.

And they were coming to the same conclusions. That we were not getting tumors from transplanting the cancer nucleus into a normal cytoplasm. We were cloning mice, we were cloning frogs. We were seeing normal regulated cell grow. Now how can this happen, if the nucleus is supposed to be driving the disease?

So what I did was, I put all these reports together in a singular group. And I distilled it down to what the ultimate results showed. And then when you look at the whole group of papers, together for the first time, and the conclusions are consistent from one study to the other, using totally different organisms, totally different experimental systems, the results are all the same. The nuclear mutations are not driving the cancer disease.

And then if you take the normal nucleus and put it into a tumor cytoplasm, you either get tumor cells or dead cells. You never get normal cells. So this was clear. It became very clear to me, and when people look at these kinds of observations in their group and their totality, it’s a devastating statement on the nature of the disease. It’s not a nuclear genetic disease, it’s a mitochondrial metabolic disease. And the field has not yet come to grips with this new reality.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Just on that point, quickly, if you were to predict the future, do you think that this view of cancer metabolism is going to get traction in the near future? Say the next five years, next ten years, and what will it take to make that happen?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, it’s already gaining a lot of traction. People are now coming to realize that metabolism is a major aspect of cancer. But, unfortunately, what the field has done, there’s still links to the gene theory. So, the top papers come out and they say, “Oh, the abnormal metabolism in cancer cells is due to the nuclear gene mutations. Therefore, we still must be on the quest to find out what these mutations do.”

They have not evaluated in the depth of the information that I’ve presented. It becomes clear that this is not a nuclear genetic disease. So the mutations are not driving the disease, they’re the effects of the abnormal metabolism.

Now, there’s a groundswell of new interests in this. Now this opens up a totally different way to approach cancer. Once you realize it’s not a nuclear genetic disease, but it’s a mitochondrial metabolic disease, you have to then target those fuels that the tumor cell is using to stay alive. These amino acids and glucose, which can be fermented. Those molecules that can be fermented through these primitive pathways now become the focal point of stopping the disease.

So it becomes a much, much more manageable and approachable disease once you realize that if you take the fuel away from these tumor cells, they don’t survive. They become very indolent, they stop growing, they die. And now this gives you an opportunity to come in and target and destroy these cells, using more natural, non-toxic approaches.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. If you could reinforce that a little bit, because as I understand it, the current approach, which is pushed the most, is to target all of the different nuclear genetic mutations – and there’s many, many thousands of them, you can’t really count how many there are, because it’s constantly developing – versus, with mitochondria, as I understand it, mitochondria are all the same. So it’s a completely different problem when you look at it from that respective. Am I summarizing it correctly?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yes, I think you’re absolutely right. I mean, it’s a completely different problem. It now becomes a problem of energy metabolism. And the nucleus becomes a secondary peripheral issue.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. And the fact becomes much simpler, because you’re targeting the same problem versus thousands of different problems.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Absolutely.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And then therapy is… Today we’re developing thousands of hundreds of different drugs to target different types of cancer.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, it makes no sense. And the issue is every single cell in the tumor suffers from the same metabolic problem. But every single cell in the tumor has a totally different genetic entity. And we’re focusing on the very different aspects of every cell, rather than the common aspects of every cell.

The problem becomes a much more solvable problem once you target the commonality. The common defect expressed in all cells, rather than the defects that are expressed in only a few of the cells. You would not do that until you came to the realization, and saw the data, that this is a disease of energy metabolism, not nuclear genetic defects. It’s a totally different way of viewing the disease.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Thank you.

This may be kind of off subject for you, let me know if it is. But, I understand it, there’s also, more and more people are starting to link other types of diseases – say multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, and some of the other chronic diseases that we have and are not very solvable today – to mitochondrial disease. So I’m wondering if in any way you link that to the same origin of cancer, here. That we’re discussing.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, those diseases, that’s true. There are mitochondrial abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and Type 2 diabetes. I mean, you can go right down the list and find a mitochondrial connection to a lot of these different diseases. But the mitochondria can be damaged, and insufficient, and influenced in many different kinds of ways. So, only cells that can up-regulate, significantly up-regulate fermentation, can go on to form tumor cells.

But many of our cells are not killed outright, and they struggle. For example, the brain. We rarely get tumors of the neurons in the brain, because if you damage the respiration of the neuron, the neuron will die.

Many of the tumors in the brain come from the glial cells. These are supportive cells of the brain, they play an extremely important role in the homeostasis of brain function. But those cells have a greater capacity to ferment than do the neurons. So when mitochondria are damaged in neurons, the neurons usually die. You can never get a tumor cell from a dead cell.

Now Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease, these are situations where populations of neurons die from reactive oxygen species. So these reactive oxygen species, which are produced by inefficient mitochondria, kill the cell. And the cells never form tumors, they just die. So you have populations of cells in the Substantia nigra in Parkinson’s disease, or in the hippocampus in Alzheimer’s disease, where the neurons are dying. And they’re dying from mitochondrial energy inefficiencies.

And the idea then, is can we enhance neuronal function by using therapies that will strengthen mitochondrial function. And the answer is, yes. And this is why these ketogenic diets are showing therapeutic benefit for a variety of different ailments, a very broad range of ailments. But the diets and these approaches – what we can therapeutic ketosis – can enhance mitochondrial function for some conditions, and can kill tumor cells in other conditions.

So one now has to appreciate a new approach to managing a variety of diseases that may have a linkage through inefficient mitochondrial metabolism.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Could you talk about – we’re coming into treatment here a little bit now, based on your theory. There’s the difference between ketone, or like, fat versus glucose metabolism in the mitochondria. And you were just talking about efficiencies. Could you go over that? What is the difference there? Why is it that glucose metabolism is different that of fats and the production of ketones?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, well the body is very flexible. It can burn energy from carbohydrates, which is glucose, or it can burn energy from fatty acids. Or it can burn energy from ketones. And we evolved as a species to survive for considerable periods of time without food. It’s amazing how people don’t understand this. They think if they don’t eat food in a week or less, they’re going to drop dead. This is nonsense.

We evolved as a species to function for long periods of time. As long as we have adequate fluids, water, the human body can sustain functionality for extended periods of time without eating. Now, you say to yourself, well where are we getting our energy. We evolved to store energy in the form of triglycerides, which are fat. And many of our organs store fats to various degree, and we have fat cells that store fat.

Now, when we stop eating, the fats are mobilized out of these storage vacuoles in the cells. And the fats go to the liver, and our liver breaks these fats down, like a wood chipper, to these small little ketone bodies, which now circulate through the bloodstream, and they can serve as an alternative fuel to glucose. So we can sustain, because the brain has a huge demand for glucose, but the human brain can transition to these fat breakdown products called ketone bodies.

So this all comes from storage fat, and our brains can get tremendous energy from these ketones. The energy in food comes from hydrogen carbon bonds that were produced during the production of the food. Ultimately from planets and the sunlight. But the energy in the bonds is ultimately derived from the energy of the sun. Now, our bodies break down these bonds, and recapture that energy. What we’re doing then is just recapturing this energy.

Now ketone bodies, when they’re burned in cells, they have a higher number of carbon oxygen bonds. They produce more intrinsic energy than does a glucose molecule, which is broken down to pyruvate, which is a glucose breakdown product. And when ketones are metabolized, they produce fewer of these reactive oxygen species. They work on the coenzyme Q couple within the mitochondria to produce clean energy, energy without breakdown products. It’s a very efficient form of energy.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I like that analogy there, because people could relate to how we had lead gas before, and we cleaned it up a bit, and now we’ve got less waste products in the environment.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah!

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s a little bit similar.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: It’s the same thing. I mean, our bodies are so super energy efficient when we begin to force them into a situation. In the past, this was done all the time, because in the past the humans almost were extinct a number of geological epochs, for the ice ages, lacks of food and all. And I mean, we have a very energy efficient machine in our bodies that can generate this energy from within. Clean, powerful, efficient energy that allows us to sustain our mental and physiological functions for extended periods of time.

And this comes from the genome. Our genome has a remembrance and a knowledge to do this. It evolved over millions of years to do this. The problem today is that this capability is suppressed by the large amounts of high energy foods that are in our environment. And what happens, this then creates inflammation and the kinds of conditions that allow inefficiencies, and eventually inflammation and the onset of cancer.

So, returning to the more primitive states allows our bodies to reheal themselves. And, as I said, here’s the issue. The nuclear genetic mutations that collect in these cancer cells prevent those cells from making the adaptations to these food restrictive conditions. So, because the mutations are there, the cells are no longer flexible. They can’t move from one energy state to the other, like the normal cells can, which have integrated genomes.

So, the mutations can be used to kill these tumor cells, but by forcing the body into these different energy states in a non-toxic way. It’s not necessary to have to poison people, nuke people, surgically mutilate people to make them healthy. There’s natural ways we can do this, if we understand the differences in metabolism between normal cells and cancer cells.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, from your perspective, anything that would help to repair mitochondria, would that be helpful against cancer?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. You’re not going to get cancer in cells that have very healthy mitochondria. If mitochondrial damage is the origin of cancer, and the cells have very high efficient mitochondria, it’s very unlikely. The risk of developing cancer in those situations is remarkably low.

There are groups of people that we have in the United States, the Calorie Restriction Society of America. It exists in other areas throughout the world. These people have a very low incidence of cancer. They’re in a constant state of ketosis, and the incidence of cancer in these people is very, very low.

Now, I have to admit. This is not an easy lifestyle. People don’t want to be restricting themselves all the time, and doing this stuff. This is the issue. We live in an industrialized society that has come a long way to create an environment that is free of the massive kinds of starvations, and these things that existed in the past. So it’s hard to take your body and go back into these primitive states to do this kind of thing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So, there’s [unclear 31:58] a really big focus on what you’ve been saying on reactive oxygen species, which is kind of like the mini explosion that takes place inside a car when it’s running. And I think people can relate to the fact that all engines are causing damage while they’re running, because they’re producing heat, and so on.

So, with the mitochondria, it’s basically the same. And you’re saying that when we’re on a ketogenic diet, or where we’re fasting and we’re producing this more efficient type of fuel, it reduces our assets [unclear 32:23] causing less damage. And it’s an important type of the damage that is caused to mitochondria.

And this is why eventually it helps with the status of the mitochondria, to heal them and repair them, or to limit the additional damage that goes on which would help to promote the cancer. Is that a good summary, or have I got some things wrong?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: It’s a very close analogy. I would say this is exactly what it is. We damage our body by the kinds of foods we eat, the kinds of environments we’re exposed to. And the mitochondria in certain cells just get damaged, and these cells then revert back to a more primitive form of energy, which is fermentation, which then leads to a total dysregulation of the growth of the cell. Collects these mutations that come as a secondary downstream epiphenomena of this.

And the thing of it is is, how do you target and eliminate those kinds of cells. And cancer, people must realize, this is systemic disease, rather than a focal disease. People say, “Oh, what does he study? He’s a liver cancer, breast cancer.”

These cancers are all the same. They’re metabolically all the same. You need to treat cancer in a singular global systemic way, and this then will marginalize and reduce the growth of these cells. And you have to be able to do it non-toxically.

And these ketogenic diets, or therapeutic ketosis, is just one way to enhance the overall health and well-being of the body while targeting and eliminating these inefficient cells. And this can be done if people do it the right away.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thank you very much.

So, based on this theory, what kind of biomarkers would give us insights into someone’s potential to develop cancer? Because today we look at 23andMe data, for example, genetics to kind of asses our risks of future cancer. For instance, on mine it says my highest potential cancer is lung cancer. And that’s pretty much the only markers that we’re given. Are there markers related to mitochondrial function, or damage, that you would feel that would be relevant to estimating a future potential risk of cancer?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, well I think one of the risks of cancer is high blood sugar, blood glucose levels. I mean this creates systemic inflammation, which underlies a lot of the so-called chronic diseases that we have, including heart disease, and Type 2 diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease, and cancer. These are just the predominant number of chronic diseases that we’re confronted with.

So, if we know that high blood sugar is a provocative agent that increases the risk for cancer, then making sure your blood sugar levels are low. And the other thing too is elevation of ketones. So we developed what they call a glucose-keton index that can be used for people to prevent cancer, as well as managing the disease.

So if the glucose-ketone index, which we have defined as the ratio between the concentration of glucose in the blood to the concentration of ketone bodies in the blood. If this index can be maintained as close to 1.0 or below, the body is in a very high state of therapeutic energy efficiency. Which is then going to reduce the risk for all of these different kinds of chronic diseases. So, and if you look at most people with chronic disease, their index is about 50 or 100, rather than 1 or below 1.

We’ve just developed this, and we’re working on a paper. It’s called the Glucose-Ketone Index. It was designed basically for managing cancer, because patients who have cancer, if they want to know what these therapies are doing, how they’re working, you look at your index.

Now, people who don’t have cancer, who would like to do something to reduce their risk, they would do the same thing. And people would say, “What’s your index today?” “My index is 1.2.” You’re in a very good state of health.

And if most people – I can guarantee – people who eat regular foods, their indexes are about 60 or 70, not 1.2 below. Because what you do is when you have a lot of carbohydrate in your bloodstream, the ketones are very, very low. They’re like 0.2, 0.1. And you’re blood sugar is like 4 or 5 millimolar, and your blood ketones are 0.1 millimolar. Well what do you think your index is going to be? It’s going to be huge.

But then if you increase your ketones, if you can bring the ketones bodies up to the same level as glucose, then I have a 1.0.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is this sensitive enough to manage potential? You made a very clear scenario of 60, where that’s a very dangerous situation to be in.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Oh no, no. I don’t want to say it’s dangerous. I want to say it’s the norm.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Oh, okay. Great.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: It’s not dangerous. When you take somebody who has Type 2 diabetes, and his blood sugar is like 300 milligrams per deciliter – and you have to divide that by the number 18 to bring it down to millimolar – and his ketones, you can’t even measure them. I mean, these guys are inflamed. Their bodies are in an inflamed state. And inflammation will cause all kinds of effects.

So, you want to bring people down. How do you get these low numbers? Well, you can either go on these calorie restrictive ketogenic diets, or you can do therapeutic fasting, which is water only fasting, for several days. You’ll bring those numbers right down. You’ll get into an extremely healthy state. Because the ketones go up naturally when you don’t eat, and blood sugar goes down naturally when you don’t eat.

So then you enter into these states, it’s called therapeutic ketosis. The problem is it’s very, very difficult for most people in our society to do this, because our brains are addicted to glucose. If you take somebody who stopped eating for 24, 36 hours, this guy thinks he’s going to go crazy. It’s almost like trying to break the addictions to cigarettes, alcohol, drugs. It’s not easy. It’s very, very difficult to break the glucose addiction.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Absolutely. It takes a little bit of time to change your metabolism.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So we spoke to Jimmy Moore before. I don’t know if you connected with him before, and his book…

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, I know Jimmy.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. So we spoke about some of the different ways to measure ketones. We had the blood test, the blood-prick test with the precision, which is a little bit expensive today. And you have the breath test, the Ketonics, which has just come out. With that index, are you using the blood-prick test, or are you using maybe blood labs, or something a bit more complicated?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: There’s a couple of companies that use the blood test, the most accurate. It’s more accurate than the breath, blowing into a ketosis meter. Or you do urine sticks. So the most important measure, of course, is blood. So you have to take a blood stick. There’s only a few meters that can do both ketones and glucose, using the same meter.

You have to use different sticks. There’s a ketone stick, and a glucose stick. So from the same drop of blood, you can get your blood sugar, and then you can put a new stick into the machine, which is a ketone stick, and then you can take the same drop of blood and get your ketones.

Now what we did was we developed a calculator so that all the person would have to do is to push the button on the meter, and it would calculate already your glucose-ketone index. This would give you a singular number from a drop of blood.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you’ve developed your own device, you’re saying, which does that calculation?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: We developed the calculation. It’s called the Ketone Index Calculator. And because you have to convert everything back to millimolar. Because many of the ketone meters give you blood sugar in milligrams per deciliter, and ketones in millimolar. So we have to convert. You can do all this by hand, you just have to do the divisions and all of this stuff.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you’ve got an online calculator where people can put their values in and it will give them the index?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, we don’t have that yet. What we did was develop the calculator that could be incorporated into these meters.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I see.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: This is the thing. So people, regardless of whether you’re a cancer patient and you want to manage your disease, or you’re a person who wants to prevent cancer, or you’re an athlete who wants to know what his physiological status is, or you’re someone who wants to lose weight. All of these issues, you can get a sense, a good solid biomarker sense, by looking at your glucose-ketone index.

And everybody can do that from these meters that are capable. But the meters right now are not designed to give you glucose-ketone indexes. And this is what we’re saying; it’s the index that will tell you your overall status, your health status.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So I imagine, right now, you’re approaching the providers of these tools to see if they can incorporate this calculation into their devices?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yes. Exactly. They don’t have it yet. They’re not even aware yet of the potential market, or interests, among the general population. Not only for people that are afflicted with various diseases, but people who are healthy and don’t want to get those diseases.

So this is a very simple tool. The only drawback from it is you have to stick your finger with a little prick to get a little bit of a drop of blood. The people with Type 1 diabetes do this regularly. This is not an issue. But for those people who are into this, and they want to do it the right way, and they want to get accurate biomarker measurements, then they would do this. For those people who are interested in this.

This is invasive in the sense that you have to prick your finger to get a drop of blood, but it’s not invasive in the sense that you have to take tissue samples, or any of this kind of thing.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And so this is something that people could do on an on-going basis? So I’m guessing for someone with cancer – I don’t know if this would be something you would say – they’d probably want to look at daily, or every few days, or something like that. And someone else, maybe it’s just something they need to do a lot less intensive routine, in terms to just monitor the levels of their general ketogenesis.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yes. You’re absolutely right about this. People who are trying to manage their diseases thoroughly might want to do this maybe once or twice a day. Just like someone who might have Type 1 diabetes. They measure their blood sugar several times a day.

The issue right now is the glucose strips are relatively cheap – they’re like 50 cents a piece – but the ketone strips are much more expensive. They can range from anywhere from $2 to $5 a stick.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Do you know if that’s due to economies of scale? Or if it’s simply because not enough people are using them yet?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yes, it’s an economy of scale, absolutely. Because very few people measure their ketone levels. But now, linking those ketones to your overall general health, a lot of people would be interested in this.

And people in general like numbers. They want to know, and especially a singular number that would dictate your state of health. If you can say to somebody, “Listen. My index is between 1.1 and 0.9,” people would automatically know this guy is in a tremendous state of health.

People like to know that. You say, “Where is your number?” And people like to keep log books. They like to record these numbers. And they also link this to a greater sense of well-being. People who have their numbers down in these ranges, they tell me – and I’ve done it. Some people get into a state of euphoria. It’s like unbelievable.

When your body starts burning these ketones, it’s like you enter a new physiological state. And athletes are doing this sometimes. So it’s a whole new realm of how to monitor your own health with accurate biomarkers that give you an indication of your health status.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So do you follow a similar prescription to Jimmy Moore? I believe you understand his approach, where he’s eating a high fat diet, or sometimes he’s fasting. Kind of like intermittent fasting, which has become pretty popular these days.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well intermittent fasting is, from what we’ve seen in our work, you don’t get the health benefits, the power of the health benefit, until you’ve gone three to four days without any food. Just drinking water. And then those who can go a week, like a seven day period, this is really when you start to see your blood sugars going down and your ketones going up.

But once you can get into this zone – we call it the zone of therapeutic management – where now you know your in the zone, this is where the health really comes in. And when you say periodic fasting, now there’s a lot of people that I know – numbers of people – who have a rather restrictive diet for the week, and then one day a week they’ll not eat anything. So, it’s one day off on food, like a 24 hour period where they’ll just have maybe a green tea, no calories, or just pure water.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Some of the intermittent fasting regimes propose that approach, a 24 hour fast every two days.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, but then you’ve got to know, okay what did that do to my index? How effective was the 24 hour fast on my index? And you look down, you say, “Well, I didn’t get my ketones up very far. They went from 0.1 to say, 0.5.” Okay, but if I go four or five days, it goes from 0.1 to 3.0. Oh wow, this is the magnitude difference.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. So have you looked at different people, because when we were talking to Jimmy, he was saying that different people have different responses. It’s based on their current state of metabolism. They’ll have to be more extreme in their approach to get the same level of ketones, and the same impact on an index, depending on, potentially, how damaged their mitochondria are. I don’t know how you look at it.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, no, that’s a really important point. It’s certain people. It’s also certain sexes. Women can get into these ketone states much easier than men. And young people can get into these zones much, much easier than can older people.

So it’s an age issue, it’s a gender issue. We’ve seen some of our students get down their blood sugars down into the low 30s, which people would say would be a crisis situation, you’d have to go to the hospital. But their ketones are elevated, and when the ketones are elevated, you have no crisis situation. It’s only when you lower blood sugar and don’t elevate ketones that you have this situation.

Males have a lot more muscle, they tend to burn protein, which can be converted to glucose. So their blood glucose doesn’t go down as sharply as women, the blood glucose of females goes down. Females can get their blood sugars down and their ketones elevated – from all the data that we’ve seen for several years on different gender – and this is what we see.

And older people are simply locked into a much longer lifestyle of high glucose. And for them to get their blood sugar down, it’s a real struggle. And also their muscle mass over the age. They have a lot of other issues that play into this whole thing.

And you’re absolutely right, it’s an individual thing. Some people can’t tolerate this. They get really sick, they get light-headed. Where other people make the adaptations much more quickly. So again, people have to know their own physiology.

But they have to have the biomarkers that let them know. They need to see these numbers, and once they see these numbers they’ll know that they’re on the right path, and they probably can do this if they persist a little bit longer. Rather than throwing their hands up, not knowing what’s going on, being very frustrated. And as I said, once you have this information and knowledge, that these kinds of things become much easier.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. It definitely helps with your confidence in something if you can see that, maybe you don’t feel better, or you don’t feel a difference yet, but if you see the numbers starting to move then it gives you that sense of accountability, and motivation also. I think that’s one of the very helpful aspects of these kind of indexes that you’re talking about.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Absolutely. This is a very important point, you’re absolutely right about this. Because when you see that you’re killing yourself, and nothing’s happening, or you don’t feel anything, but when you see numbers starting to change in the direction you know your hard work is starting to pay off. And then you get motivated, and you want to see then how far you can push these numbers.

Now this is not going to hurt anybody. You’re just lowering blood sugar and elevating ketones, and your body gets into a new state of health. And people feel it, believe me. You can feel this stuff happening. But there’s a rocky road going from the high glucose state to the high ketone state. And that rocky road can be more rocky for some than others.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Absolutely. So there are other aspects to mitochondrial health that certain people are looking at at the moment. I don’t know if you’ve come across any of these, but I thought I’d just throw them out in case you had some comments on them.

Some people are talking about mitochondrial repair, in terms of repairing the membranes with specific lipids, by providing those lipids to help reinforce the mitochondria. Other people talk about things like PQQ to help stimulate biogenesis of new mitochondria. I don’t know if you’ve heard about these things, or have any ideas or opinions on them.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, in my book I called it autolytic cannibalism. And this is basically, the mitochondria can either be rescued, enhanced, or consumed through an autophagy mechanism. And when you stop eating, now every cell in the body must operate at its maximal energy efficiency. That means that the mitochondria in those cells must be operational at their highest level of energetic efficiency. Otherwise the cell will die, and the molecules of that cell will be consumed, and redistributed to the rest of the body.

Now, in cells that have some mitochondria effective, or more efficient than other mitochondria within the same cell, the inefficient mitochondria can be incorporated into the lysosome. The parts of that mitochondria can then be redistributed to the healthy mitochondria within the cell. And this way you eliminate internal energy inefficiencies, but without having to kill the cell, because the cell is able to repair itself.

Whereas those cells that can’t repair themselves die, and their molecules are then consumed by macrophages, excreted back into the blood stream, and the nutrients now are used to support the health and vitality of those cells in the body that have this higher energy efficiency. It’s a remarkable state of efficiency. So it works both with individual cells, and throughout the whole entire physiological system.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thank you. I’m just thinking, you’ve spoken about fermentation versus respiration. Is there any way to measure that, that you know of? Is that being done in studies? So are the studies coming out are comparing the state of fermentation versus respiration taking place in people’s bodies, and correlating that to cancers, or anything like that?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, that’s kind of hard to do, because we all have lactate in our bloodstream, and the lactate comes from erythrocytes, our blood cells. The blood cells have a shorter half-life than many of the other cells in our body, and those cells have no mitochondria. They have no nucleus. So they’re little cytoplasms that primarily ferment.

But they don’t use a lot of energy, because the role of that cell is simply to exchange gases. So it floats around in our tissues, it deposits it’s oxygen and picks up CO2, as more or less a little mailman running around, picking up this and dropping that off. And they have a shorter half-life. But they have lactate.

Now if you have a tumor, or if you’re under hypoxic stress, lactic acid will go up in your bloodstream. But it’s hard to know if a tumor will do that. Sometimes what tumors will do, they have a phenomena called cachexia. This is where the tumor cells will send out molecules that will digest proteins, or dissolve proteins in our muscles and other proteins. And these proteins then go to the liver, and are broken down into amino acids, and the amino acids are conjugated into glucose.

So the glucose goes now into the tumor cell, and some of the proteins and the amino acids go to the tumor cell after being broken down. So the tumor is essentially causing our body to starve to death. We might be eating, but it looks like we’re not gaining any weight, and we’re becoming moribund and looking like we’re starving to death. This is an effect of the tumor,.

Sometimes you don’t see that. Sometimes lactic acid will go up, and sometimes it won’t. So there’s a lot of ambiguity of looking at a good biomarker to assess the state of what level of tumor growth you might have, other than the fact that you’re losing weight even though you’re eating. Which is the cachexic state; you’re kind of wasting from within. This is the whole thing.

And this is one of the fears that the medical profession has with cancer patients, because they say these poor people are losing weight through this cachexic mechanism, and then you come along with a metabolic therapy, and they say, “Oh, this can’t work.” But the issue, of course, is that there’s two types of weight loss. One is a pathological weight loss, and the other is therapeutic weight loss.

Pathological weight loss is cachexia, and of course if you treat it with toxic chemicals and radiation, you get so sick with fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting. I mean, this is pathological weight loss. Therapeutic weight loss is you’re losing weight, but your body is getting extremely healthy, and killing cancer cells at the same time.

So weight loss can come in two different varieties: pathological and therapeutic. And people have a tremendous difficulty in understanding the differences between these kinds of weight loss.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I think we’ve mentioned on a podcast before that when people are fasting in this state, they actually feel better, even if they have, for instance, chemotherapy. They tend to do better in chemotherapy when they have been fasting.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yes, because it reduces inflammation. We published a number of papers showing how therapeutic fasting reduces systemic inflammation. Systemic inflammation contributes to a pathological state, and facilitates tumor growth.

So therapeutic fasting, while at the same time you’re taking a toxic drug, it’s like what are you doing here. But it does take the sting out of that toxic drug. People feel better when they’re therapeutically fasting. I think Longo’s group down at University of Southern California has clearly shown that some of these cancer patients can do a lot better, and feel better, when they’re fasting while they’re taking chemotherapy.

But you’re absolutely right about that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Thank you so much for this interview[unclear 53:08] Thomas. I want to ask you just a few more questions to round off now.

What do you think will happen in the next five or 10 years, or hope? What are your visions for this area, in terms of biomarkers, like testing devices, or change in the way we approach this? Do you think there’s specific opportunities ahead, are there specific questions you’re looking at at the moment to resolve, in research, or so on?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, well I think the people themselves are demanding a change. The issue is that they haven’t been shown other alternatives, other than the standards of care, which are conducted by the major medical schools: Dana Farber Cancer Center, MD Anderson, John Hopkins, Yale Cancer Centers, Sloan Kettering, UCSF. The major industries of cancer and academics are closely aligned in how to do this.

And it’s not working. We’re having about 1,600 people a day are dying from cancer in this country. And the statistics in other countries in Europe, and China, and Japan, are not far off of this. And if we had Ebola outbreak in this country, where 1,600 people were dying a day, this would be of the greatest catastrophe that people can imagine.

But for cancer, it seems to be okay. This is the norm. Well it doesn’t have to be this way. It doesn’t have to be this way. And the issue here is that the people see that we have more, and more survivors, and people doing pretty well on these metabolic therapies. Why are we not doing this as more of a general treatment as opposed to these toxic approaches to manage the disease?

So I think the change will come from the grassroots. I don’t see it coming from the top medical schools, because these people are not trained. They’re medical education doesn’t give them the training to identify these approaches to therapy. It’s not part of the medical training.

There are a number of physicians that are recognizing this now, and they want to become part of this new approach to cancer management. Now, you have to realize that we’re just beginning. This is just a new field, it’s a beginning field. Even though the science is well, well established, the implementation of this science for patient health is just at the beginning. It can be refined, it can be modified.

A lot of this now we’re talking about, the potential for managing cancer in a non-toxic way with greater therapeutic efficacy, is just beginning. So, I think that we need more trained people. We have to have people that understand this. Eventually, these kinds of approaches will be more and more recognized, and more and more implemented in the overall society.

The problem is people have not yet found a way to make a large profit on this kind of an approach as you can with certain drugs, and immunotherapies, and these kinds of things. But that will probably come in time, once people understand what the best approaches and techniques are.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Another aspect I wanted is there’s more research being undertaken on mitochondria over time. Do you think that will help, in any way?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, I think it will help a lot, like you said, with the lipids. And we’re looking into this ourselves. I think there’s ways that we can enhance mitochondrial energy efficiency through various diets and supplements, and things like this.

And there will be a real quantitative measures that can assess this, for people to recognize what works and what doesn’t. So I think it’s just that it’s an area that has been not well appreciated, and not well recognized.

And as long as people think that cancer is a nuclear genetic disease, the focus on the mitochondria hasn’t been there. People have known the importance of mitochondria, and it’s been a very major area of scientific research. But it’s not recognized as the solution to the problem. It’s kind of a side effect.

What we’re looking at is understanding mitochondrial functions, and it’s interaction with the nucleus and other parts of the cell to maintain a healthy cell – a healthy society of cells – and a healthy overall physiology. All linked to the mitochondrial energy metabolism. This is going to be a very exciting new development.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, I agree. There’s not a day that goes past that I don’t think about mitochondria these days. And hear someone talk about it. It happens a lot on this show, also.

If someone wants to learn more about your work, and this theory of cancer, and the index you were talking about, where should they go?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, I wrote the book On Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: On the Origin, Management, and Prevention of the Disease. That’s published by John Wiley Press. Unfortunately, it’s a science book and it’s not cheap, like you’d find most of the Amazon books, but it gives you the literature, it gives you the science. It gives you the hard evidence to support everything that I’ve said.

Another book that’s just appeared is Tripping Over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer, by Travis Christofferson, who’s written a book for the layperson, where he actually read my book and went back to test all the things that I was saying, and actually talking and visiting and interviewing those scientists who work in the gene theory, and work in the metabolic theory, and get the word directly from them. It reads like a novel, and it’s much less scientifically intimidating than what I wrote.

I wrote this book to convince my peers, and people in the cancer and scientific field, the evidence that supports what I’m saying. This sometimes can be intimidating to the layperson. Whereas Travis went out and actually interviewed those scientists, and asked them the specific questions. And now it becomes a very intriguing story; I mean, how did this cancer thing get so far out of whack with what we know about it. People like to see this, and read it.

So that is another book that’s generating… If you go on Amazon, you’ll see the reviews. They’re all quite outstanding for Travis’ book. And I’ve been privy to a number of other books that will be coming out over the next year, which are harping on the same general theme, that cancer is a metabolic disease, and it can be beaten by metabolic solutions. Totally different than what’s been going on in the main focus.

And this is kind of shocking, because you go to the top cancer centers, and they don’t speak anything about this. They’re still talking about the standards of care as they have been done, or they’re talking about immunotherapies, which is the new buzzword for the cancer field, where you’re going to identify all the mutations, and then make anti-bodies to the defective proteins, and then treat people. And they show a few survivors on the cover of the Wall Street Journal saying how wonderful this works. But they don’t show you the other evidence showing how many people are dying from this.

All this will change, because the people in this society, the public, is going to be fed up with the lack of progress, and what we have is a new way to approach this problem based on solid scientific fact. It’s just that these facts are not well understood or recognized at this point.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Thank you very much, and we’ll put all of this in the show notes, so people will find these links easy. Also the index you spoke about, I’m guessing there’s nothing really published about that. If people go to your website in the future, will you have something on there which will talk about that in more detail?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah. We have a paper that’s under review right now, where we’ve submitted a paper for the index, and we’re in the process of making some revisions on the index. And the index was, in this paper, was mostly focused on managing brain cancer, but we also noted that this index could have a broad applicability to a whole range of different diseases.

And in the Journal of Lipid Research, which is the top journal in the field of lipid biochemistry, I edited one of the issues that was entitled Ketone Strong: Emerging Evidence for the Role of Ketones and Calorie Restriction for the Management of a Broad Range of Diseases. So, more and more scientists are getting involved in this, and more and more information will be coming out. Both in the professional scientific journals as well as in the public interests articles in journals, and magazines, and radio shows.

More and more people will be coming to know this, and I think the field is going to have to deal with it. And I think in the long run, we’ll emerge into a new way to manage these chronic diseases with a lot less toxicity, and greater efficacy.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Thank you. Now, just two more questions, personal questions for you.

What data metrics do you track for your own body on a routine basis, if any?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Well, basically I try to get on a scale and see how much I weigh. Obviously, if you can keep your body weight at a stable level for a period of time, this is certainly one way to maintain homeostasis.

I’ve done the three day fast, but as I said, when you’re older like myself, it’s very uncomfortable, but it’s certainly doable. It’s like training exercise. You’d have to do it probably a couple of times a year to get into the state. I think every time you do this, you become more confident in your ability to do it again.

There is a state of uncertainty and discomfort, like, “Oh my god, I’m not eating any food. How can I go, and I feel uncomfortable, and a little light-headed.” And you try to drink water to say, “Maybe I can fill my stomach up with water and I won’t feel as hungry.” And then you start getting water intoxication. And eventually you realize that you really don’t need to drink a lot of water, and you just have to bite the bullet.

But as I said, as we begin to do this, we realize that it’s not so life-threatening as everybody would think it would be. So I think I try to do that. But as I said to a lot of people, they said, “Oh, you must do this all the time.” No, I don’t do it all the time. But if I had cancer, I’d know exactly what I would do.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: What would you do? Just to speak it out clearly.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: I would stop eating.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Completely?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: I’d get my index down below 1, that’s for sure. And then I would transition off to these high-fat, nutritious kinds of diets, ketogenic diets, and maintain my index. And then of course, we’re investigating – it’s very hard to get funds to do this kind of stuff too, because it’s not considered sexy science – what is the best combinatorial therapy that would work with therapeutic fasting and ketogenic diets, that would put the greatest amount of pressure.

And most of it has to do with what kind of non-toxic drugs would you dovetail in with therapeutic fasting and ketogenic diets? And like hypobaric oxygen therapy, 2-deoxyglucose, 3-bromopyruvate, oxaloacetate. I mean, we can go down these lists. Most of these are non-patentable drugs, but they have tremendous power when used together with these other therapies. And most of this stuff is just trying to figure out the dosages, the timing.

These kinds of issues, it’s just like perfecting the engine. How did the car engine become so efficient today from the way it was in 1900?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So the things you just mentioned either stress the cancer cells specifically, like hypobaric oxygen, or they support the mitochondria, oxaloacetate, right?

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yes! Exactly. What you’re doing is you’re enhancing mitochondrial function in normal cells, and you’re putting maximal metabolic stress on the tumor cells. For the first time, we’re using our normal cells to directly combat and battle the cancer cells, while enhancing their health and efficiency.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So for someone who has, say we do a 23andMe test – like a lot of people on this podcast do their 23andMe test – and it comes out with some DNA, and it says, maybe you have a pretty high chance of cancer in your lifetime – and it could be lung cancer or whatever. Lung cancer’s not a good one, because often it’s smoking. So, one of the other more general ones, like breast cancer.

What would you basically say that they should be fasting once per month for three days, or twice per year for seven days, and maybe looking at those therapies you just outlined.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah. People who have Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which is an inherited germline mutation in the gene for P53 which encodes a protein in the electron transport train, or BRCA1. Product of the BRCA1 gene has been found in mitochondria. We look at a number of these so-called inherited genes that increase your risk for cancer. But as I told you, everything passes through the mitochondria The mitochondria are the origin of the disease.

So, the inherited mutations simply make that organelle slightly less efficient in certain cells of our body. Not all cells, but only certain cells, like the breast, the uterine, or these kinds of things. And we know that there are people, like if you inherit the BRCA1 mutation, your risk of cancer goes up significantly. But not everybody who has BRCA1 mutation develops cancer.

So clearly the environment can play a huge role in determining whether that gene will be expressed or not. You can do prophylactic removal of organs, and things like this, to reduce your risk. But it would be just as effective in my mind to transition the body to a metabolic state that would minimize the problem of that gene influencing the mitochondrial function. It seems a lot less draconian than doing these massive surgical mutilations.

Or you can do both. The idea is some of these inherited mutations, they might have a preferred organ – like a breast, or a uterus, or ovary – but you’re not going to remove all your organs. You’re not going to remove brain. You’re at a higher risk, so what can you do to lower your risk? As I said, if you keep your mitochondria healthy, the risk is going to be significantly reduced.

People need to know this so they can make choices that would be best suitable for them.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Thank you so much for the information today. This is really an information packed episode. It’s got this great new take on cancer, which I think is very positive, because it’s talking about something which people can have more control about. So it’s not just that this is a new approach, and the older approach has been struggling for quite a while, it’s become very expensive, and so on, with not so much success, but also that this is an approach which is within people’s own manners, sphere of management.

A lot easier to start having an impact on their own lives. So it’s very positive from that perspective also.

[Dr. Thomas Seyfried]: Yeah, I agree. Absolutely.

Leave a Reply

Today we’re looking at HRV- endurance training, adrenal fatigue, and future app developments.

If you didn’t listen to it, in Episode 1 we primarily looked at resistance training, or weight training.

Today we also look at some scenarios where the HRV metric can be confounded where an increase in it is not good, how it can be used to identify possible adrenal fatigue and how to improve its accuracy by combining it with Resting Heart Rate and qualitative measures.

Today’s guest is Simon Wegerif who founded ithlete, the first HRV app company, which appeared 5 years ago in 2009. In comparison to Andrew Flatt, whose focus was resistance training, Simon has a background in primarily endurance training and it was for this he originally became interested in HRV.

Since 2009, through working with its client base including a range of pro and amateur athletes and everyday gym goers, and now universities in connection with studies, ithlete has evolved its app to cater for specific scenarios like adrenal fatigue and understanding how individual factors are impacting training. Simon has been diligent in staying up to date with the research and adapting the ithlete app to take advantage of it as it evolves.

The show notes, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

Show Notes

  • The status of research on Heart Rate Variability and some of the issues to overcome such as standardisation.
  • HRV as a predictor of endurance performance – now as effective as running times?
  • Using “Active Recovery” to recover quicker from endurance and resistance training.
  • True overtraining vs. non-functional overreaching – how to improve training results by understanding how HRV indicates these two .
  • How to diagnose potential adrenal fatigue with a combination of HRV and RHR (resting heart rate) metrics.
  • The one situation where you don’t want your parasympathetic to become dominant (or your HRV to be high).
  • The need for HRV benchmarks to be established in order to compare your “health future” to others and as a proxy for aging.
  • The Palo Alto Prize spurring on new investment in research to improving longevity based on using HRV as a feedback mechanism for experiments.
  • Using yoga breathing (Pranayama) to increase Heart Rate Variability by up to 5 points within a few days.
  • The biomarkers Simon tracks on a routine basis to monitor and improve his health, longevity and performance.
  • Simon’s one biggest recommendation on using body data to improve your health, longevity and performance.

Give some love to Simon on Twitter to thank him for this interview.
Click Here to let him know you enjoyed the show!

The Tracking

Biomarkers

  • Heart Rate Variability (HRV): Measures how your heart rate varies over time. Research studies link HRV to recovery status, stress and other aspects of human physiology.
  • Resting Heart Rate (RHR): Measure of your heart rate at rest (typically measured upon waking).
  • Calories: We discussed the merits of measuring calories in and out, the current hype cycle around ‘calorie counting’ apps and devices, and its relationship with weightloss.

Apps and Devices

  • ithlete HRV App: The app Simon developed which includes some of the RHR and adrenal fatigue functionality discussed during this episode.
  • Polar H7 Bluetooth Smart Heart Rate Sensor: A chest strap heart rate sensor that works with the ithlete and other HRV apps (Damien uses this one).

Simon Wegerif and ithlete

  • ithlete: Simon’s company and the HRV app with the same name.
  • You can also connect with Simon on twitter @SimonWegerif.

Other People, Books and Resources

Resources

People


Full Interview Transcript

Transcript - Click Here to Read
[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Hi, Simon. Thank you very much for making time today to come on the show.

[Simon Wegerif]: No problem, Damien. Really good to talk to you.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: What I thought we would first do is quickly, where does ithlete fit in with the world of HRV apps and development, from your perspective?

[Simon Wegerif]: Okay, well, ithlete was the first HRV app available, and when I first started getting really interested in HRV, which was early 2009, I decided it was so interesting to me as an engineer by background, but also a keen recreational endurance athlete, trying to make the most of my own somewhat limited abilities, that the iPhone was just being launched early in 2009, and talking to a couple of people, I was looking for ways to realize my hopeful invention of a convenient, simple-to-use, but accurate HRV measuring device. And people said, you know, why don’t you do it as an app in the iPhone? So I started thinking about that, and I made that my target during 2009, and got the prototypes all done on an iPod Touch, and at that time, I think it was IOS version 2 was just coming out, so we were easily the first to bring even accurate heart rate measurement onto the iPhone, let alone HRV. So we’ve been doing this for a little while now, and the product, I think the current version of the app is relatively mature because of that.

It’s also — being the first gives you some advantages in the early — doctors in research started looking at it quite early on, and we’ve now got some good quality validation studies that have been done that show, in fact, the ithlete measurement to have an almost perfect correlation with the gold standard of ECG, which we’re very happy about. The ithlete finger sensor has also been validated.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great. Well, you have three sensors. You’re using the finger sensor, the Bluetooth heart rate chest straps, and isn’t there another one?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, the other one was actually the original one, Damien, so in the early days of the iPhone, there wasn’t any convenient and reliable way of getting a heart rate signal into the phone, so I designed a little adapter, a plug-in adapter which would go into the headset socket, which I still think was a good choice, because headset sockets are available, you know, on pretty much every phone, and the way they’re connected has remained standard, now, for three or four years. So it’s a little device which users can take from one phone to the next, be that iPhone, Android, or even Windows phones, if we do an app version for that. And that little receiver picks up the signal from the Polar type of chest strap, and, of course, that Polar transmission system has been around since the early 1980s, so there’s an awful lot of products in the market that support that.

In fact, although Bluetooth [Smarties 00:05:56] is, in many ways, the state of the art, and the finger sensor is the most convenient, we still sell a lot of the — what we call the little ECG receivers because of the massive installed base of Polar type straps and systems.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay, great. So I know you stay up-to-date with the research, and you’ve been following this since 2009 or before, so could you give us a bit of an overview, from your perspective, of the research? How much is there related to HRV? Where are the strongest areas, and, you know, how you look at it?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, I think if you were to put heart rate variability into PubMed, which is the — you know, the recognized research database of peer-reviewed papers, I think you’d probably get about 14,000 hits. So there’s an awful lot of peer-reviewed research which has been done on HRV.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Do you mean 14,000 papers, separate papers?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, 14,000 separate papers, yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great.

[Simon Wegerif]: Which is quite a high volume. A lot of that is focused on disease state, so looking at autonomic dysfunction, for instance, in diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and a lot of other disease states like that, but there is a fair body of research studies on sports performance and health as well. During my preparation for designing the ithlete app, I read about 500 papers during 2009, and I’ve now got about 1,000 in the collection, my collection that I’ve read.

Some of the papers have got some strikingly good methodologies and breakthroughs, and others are a bit weaker. I think one of areas where heart rate variability research has not done itself any favors is not standardizing in units or protocols. For instance, things like the duration of the measurement, the units that are going to be used, the position of the subjects, whether they’re lying down, walking around, standing, sitting, what are they doing. There hasn’t been much standardization there, I think partly because a standards document was never adopted in the industry.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So one thing I noticed about your ithlete app when I was playing around with it was that when you’re taking the reading, it’s got the breathing timer. It’s got this circle that moves up, in and out, with your breathing, which I thought was great to try and standardize that aspect a bit better in terms of how you’re breathing and just keep more rhythmic and controlled every time you’re doing it, instead of different. Is that why you put it in there, or?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes. Breathing has a very important impact on heart rate variability, so when we talk about HRV, particularly in sports performance and everyday health use, we nearly always mean parasympathetic HRV, and parasympathetic HRV is primarily dependent on breathing. In fact, the HRV is caused as part of the breathing feedback loop with the brain. So as you breathe in, your heart rate gets faster; as you breathe out, your heart rate gets slower. And it always seemed to me, as an engineer, that unless you’re controlling your breathing in some way, that your HRV measurement process is going to be somewhat unpredictable, if you’re just relying on a breathing pattern which is uncontrolled. So controlling that breathing, but without creating stress, hopefully, in the user is the objective here, because everyone who knows much about HRV will know that stress lowers your HRV. So we don’t want to stress the person during the measurement, but we do want them to have a constant breathing pattern, and hopefully the ithlete breathing pattern is something that’s evolved over three generations of the app now, and we hope that people find it peaceful and relaxing to use.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, it’s kind of like this pulsing heart thing. I found it relaxing, and it’s just nice to have an indicator. Because I’ve used other apps, and, you know, they don’t have that. So every time you’re probably breathing a little bit differently, but you don’t notice it. So I thought it was a nice touch. Thanks for that overview.

So, you’ve done a lot of work in the endurance and aerobic areas. We haven’t looked at that yet on the show, so that’s what I’d like to explore a bit more with you. Any idiosyncrasies or differences compared to weight training, which we’ve looked at quite a lot with Andrew Flatt in the past. How would you say that it differs from weight training in the way HRV relates to endurance?

[Simon Wegerif]: Well, one thing, as a segue or a link from the body of research on HRV, Damien, is that a lot of the studies in the sports performance area have actually been done with endurance sports. So they’ve been done with running, cycling, rowing, cross country skiing, because, of course, Finland and the Nordic area has been one that has done a lot of adoption and research into HRV. So there is — the body of research in endurance sports is strong. It’s also something that I’ve been personally interested in, because one of the reasons I created the app originally was to improve my own performance, originally, in triathlon, but lately in long distance cycling.

And so HRV, interestingly, has been something which is really quite well proven and quite well applied to endurance sports. And one of the things about some of the research that’s come out in the past couple of years has been the very good correlations between changes in HRV and changes in performance. So there have been studies done at the national level on French swimmers where they measured their HRV before doing a weekly 400-meter pool time trial, and they found the correlation was so good between the individual’s change in HRV and their variation in performance on the Thursday time trial, that they said one or the other is good enough here. So if we measure their HRV, they don’t need to do the weekly time trial to assess performance improvement.

And a key researcher in this field also, Martin Buchheit, also found when club runners were training to improve their performance in 10K races, that only the runners that improved their HRV during — I think it was an 8-week training program. Only the ones that improved their HRV, improved their running times. The ones whose HRV didn’t improve, their running times didn’t improve, either.

So there’s been some very clear findings in the endurance area. And I think training guided by HRV is becoming more and more practical for endurance sports as a way of maximizing performance with the training time that’s available, but without risking overtraining.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. I know with respect to endurance, we’ve touched on this a bit with Andrew Flatt, he was talking about basically how he would be doing weight training, and his HRV would go down, but if he did a bit of aerobic as well, he would limit how far his HRV would drop the next day. How do you explain that? What’s going on there?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, there’s been a pretty important study that came out, I think it was late last year from a couple of researchers in the University of Queensland in Australia, and again with Martin Buchheit involved, that built on work done by researcher Stephen Seiler, who’s been looking at the way, for instance, marathon, long distance runners have trained in Kenya for many years. And what he observed there is that they tend to follow a polarized approach to training. So the majority of their volume, say 80% of their training time, is conducted at what appears, to many athletes and coaches, to be really quite moderate paces, fully aerobic work. And in fact precisely defined, it’s a level of aerobic work below the first lactate threshold.

So essentially the lactate level in the blood is close to the athlete’s ordinary baseline. And recovery from that kind of aerobic work, although athletes can do habitually quite high volumes of that, you know, many hours a week, is very quick. And that’s reflected in HRV. But when you go above that threshold, then recovery takes much longer to achieve.

So in Andrew’s case, I think what he’s really enforcing is the fact that aerobic exercise really allows rapid recovery, and the fact that the metabolism is accelerated is helping to process the byproducts from the high intensity sessions and perform, essentially, what we call active recovery. Active recovery actually gets you back to baseline more quickly.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Does that reduce the stress, the stimulus to improve your body in any way? We’ve also spoken to, like, Doug McGuff of Body By Science. He talks about inroads, so, you know, one of the things about heavy weight training is you want to create a large enough stimulus to improve strength. So is this in any way — it sounds like it’s reducing, in a way, the stressor. Is that a correct way to look at it? I’m just wondering if that has an impact on how your body tries to compensate.

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, it does seem to be having that effect by stimulating the parasympathetic nervous system. And the parasympathetic nervous system is good for reducing inflammation, for rebuilding energy stores, glycogen in the liver, for ensuring that oxidative stress is reduced. And the really useful thing about long slow distance or aerobic training in endurance athletes is that it provides a good level of stimulus for mitochondria to adapt. So one of the things you want as an endurance athlete is an efficient metabolism with lots of mitochondria in the muscles, which are able to process fuels and turn those into energy. And what you also want is a metabolism that’s able to use fats as fuels. You know, your store of fats in any body, even thin people, is many, many thousands of calories, and fat is a very efficient way to store fuel. You know, it’s 9 calories per gram. Whereas, carbohydrate is 4.2 calories per gram, and carbohydrate is usually associated with quite a lot of water retained in the body as well. So if you can use fats as fuels, that’s a big advantage.

If you’re running a marathon, then you’ve only got enough glycogen for about — you’ve probably got about 800 grams. You know, you’ve probably got — your total body store is about 3,000 calories, of which your body will probably only allow you to use a couple of thousand, so your ability to supplement that glycogen fuel with fat stores is something that your body learns to do and learns to adapt to when you spend time training aerobically.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, we discussed this with Jimmy Moore. He’s done a lot of work with other people in keto diets and so on involved with training. So, yeah, it’s good for you to make that connection and bring that up in this context.

Okay, so kind of round off the impact — so you’re saying it helps recovery — it helps accelerate recovery by stimulating the parasympathetic system.

[Simon Wegerif]: That’s right, as well as building — building the cardiovascular system and energy stores and energy system to make you — make you efficient, really, and be able to go for a long time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Are there any cases where we shouldn’t be doing this? If we’re just focused on HRV, it’s like, oh, well, it leads to a higher HRV, so — if we’re always just aiming to increase the HRV, which is part of the discussion I wanted to have today, so should we always be doing that? So if we’re weight training and we can do a little bit of aerobic to increase our HRV, so everyone be doing this?

[Simon Wegerif]: I think everybody should be doing a certain amount of it, but it’s not going to lead to good race pace performance unless it’s also complimented by some high intensity stuff. And the general adaptation syndrome of Selye, which was, you know, written a very long time ago, basically talks about stressing the system and then allowing time for it to recover, and when it recovers, it supercompensates, so the body is stronger than it was before. And high intensity work is a very good way of stressing the body sufficiently that it is stimulated to adapt and supercompensate compared to where it was before. And that’s a necessary component of high performance athletics.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay, okay. So it sounds like everyone — although it’s not going to lead to a higher baseline, by the sounds of it. If we think of we’re trying to increase our HRV over time in terms of kind of aggregate, rather than the ups and down adjustment cycle of just trying to time our training properly, doing a little bit of aerobic with our strength training probably isn’t going to increase the baseline. It just may help us to get back to another workout sooner than later in terms of recovering quicker. Is that a fair assumption?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Or would that be, actually, kind of biasing the result, and it would be better to — I guess this area isn’t 100% clear as yet.

[Simon Wegerif]: It isn’t 100% clear. I’m trying to recall my own experience of doing a lot — because I’ve prepared for a pretty long cycling event across the Alps this summer, and I did a lot of hours of fully aerobic training, so I was very careful to keep my heart rate and intensity level below the first lactate threshold, and I accumulated a lot of hours, basically, about 15, 17 hours a week for about four or five weeks of this. I didn’t actually see my HRV baseline rise much. What I did notice was my resting heart rate went down during that period, though, and that was a very clear trend.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay, so let’s talk about that, because I know that’s something very important to ithlete. You track the HR, the resting heart rate, as well, and you use that in your assessment. And you see it as an important part. So what is the HR for you? What is it doing in terms of tracking and helping you to understand performance and recovery and so on?

[Simon Wegerif]: Well, resting heart rate, most people who do training and even people who know about health would recognize that a lower heart rate — a lower resting heart rate is very often a good thing. And most of the time, that it true, because it’s actually the ratio of your maximum heart rate to your resting heart rate that determines your VO2 max. So there is, for instance, a ready reckoner for VO2 max, which is your maximum heart rate divided by your resting heart rate times 15. So, you know, as your resting heart rate decreases, provided your maximum heart rate stays the same or only decreases a very little bit, then your VO2 max will increase.

Now, there are also situations, which can be due to either non-functional overreaching, so some states of overtraining, or even —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: When we say non-functional overreaching, what does that mean?

[Simon Wegerif]: Well, non-functional overreaching is basically what you might think of as the third stage in progression of training load and recovery imbalance. So the first stage is shock, also known as the alarm stage, which is the body’s healthy response to a new stressor. And during that stage — so you do something intensive, your body is temporarily stressed. It reacts with an increased sympathetic tone, increased output of central stress hormones, increased adrenaline, norepinephrine, cortisol, and if you then allow time for the body to recover, then it supercompensates, and you actually end up you are a little bit fitter than you were before the stressor had been applied.

Now, overreaching is a deliberate imbalance of training and recovery, usually over a short period of time within a periodized block. So a lot of endurance training programs are periodized into a month or a 5-week block whereby you have a progressive overload, then, you know, ending up with a taper or a recovery week. And that is called functional overreaching, because you deliberately continue to stress the body, and then in the last week, you taper, and you supercompensate, and, you know, the benefits of training are imbedded in your system.

If the balance of training and recovery is such that, you know, your body really — it can’t cope with the amount of load that’s being applied, and that can include environmental conditions as well, so that can include bad diet, lack of sleep, all these other things which are, in fact, stressors to your body as well as training, then if, you know, after a short taper period you don’t recover and supercompensate, but you stay in the hole, as it were, then that’s non-functional overreach.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Uh-huh, okay.

[Simon Wegerif]: But people do even go beyond that. It is — yes, it is really — the way I would define non-functional overreaching is that when you take the training load away, you don’t see recovery or supercompensation within a few days or a week.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And does it take much longer, or would you have potentially basically lowered your baseline by overstressing the body?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, and it can take weeks to recover from non-functional overreaching. And non-functional overreaching is still not as bad as true overtraining. True overtraining is really quite a serious condition, and it’s not that common, but it can takes months or even years to recover from. It can —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: How would you differentiate the two?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, true overtraining, again, is an extension of the states of overreaching, whereby you take away the training altogether, and the individual really remains in a chronically stressed state. I think it is quite rare, although certainly we’ve been contacted on a number of occasions by athletes and coaches who know that they are overtrained. And this is also known as the exhaustion phase in the General Adaptation Syndrome. And the body is basically continually failing to adapt to the chronic stress. And the chronic stress also starts to burn out the adrenal system, so the central nervous system starts to shut down production of central stress hormones. The adrenal glands themselves desensitize.

A sympathetic response is normally quite healthy.You know, when a person needs to have a fight or flight response, they want to be able to turn it on and turn it off again quickly. When somebody’s overtrained, that response is pretty much absent, to be honest.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. We talk a lot about the importance of parasympathetic. In one of our previous interviews, we talked about the fact that most people are sympathetic dominant, mostly because of lifestyle reasons today, and so on. So in the HRV Sense app, for instance, Ronda Collier, she noted that most people have a very high sympathetic in their LF, and their HF tends to be much lower. And over time, they can, you know, look at that for stress and so on. But now we’re talking about also that overdominance of parasympathetic can be a problem? Is that associated with adrenal fatigue?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, indeed. Once the body gets itself into this state whereby the sympathetic response is essentially impaired, then — it’s interesting. I mean, that’s a pretty bad state, right? I mean, that’s also a state where protein synthesis becomes impaired, so, you know, muscle damage becomes much more likely. Decreased testosterone and other anabolic markers, increased baseline cortisol, so basically, you know, the body is in quite a stressed state, although it’s sensitivity to the adrenal family of hormones has been reduced. And then, you know, parasympathetic becomes essentially dominant. You swing to a high HRV, which if you weren’t looking at heart rate, you might say that that’s a good state, right?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right, right. So let’s be clear. What would the heart rate be doing that’s different to show that this is a negative HRV despite the fact that it’s high?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, so what actually happens is that the resting heart rate decreases pretty significantly compared to your normal range. So all of the ithlete measures are based on solid statistics and smallest worthwhile change and things like that, so we’re always tracking rolling means and rolling standard deviations. We can look at the heart rate and see if that all of a sudden — you know, if that over a short period of time goes much lower than it should do normally, and coupled together with an unusually high HRV, then that is quite characteristic of parasympathetic dominant sympathetic burn out state.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. Have you come across many cases of this?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, I’ve certainly see it in myself. We first came across it, because it’s not that well documented, so most of the textbook stuff on overtraining tends to talk about sympathetic dominance, and indeed that is the case through functional and non-functional overreaching. But then, you know, when people keep going, and there are some very motivated type A individuals that keep on going, and they get themselves further into this — into this truly overtrained state, the first time we —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. So would it be correct to say that your HRV would go down for a while, and if you ignore that, then you might get to this situation?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, absolutely. That is exactly what we see.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right.

[Simon Wegerif]: The first time we noticed this, in fact, was in the beta testing of the original ithlete app in 2009, when we gave it to a national standard runner and triathlete, and he did a three-day running event in Southern England over the South Downs, and he said, ‘Hey, you know what, guys? My HRV was really high this morning, and I’m completely knackered. You know, what’s going on?’ And we started to look into it and talking to some researchers and developed this test, basically, out of that.

And we certainly have seen it a few — you know, a few times. I’ve seen it a couple of times myself. In fact, the day after I finished the Haute Route Alps, which was 1,000 kilometers in seven days across the Alps, I was six hours a day on the bike working quite hard, the day after that, the Sunday, my HRV all of a sudden swung from low, which had been progressively decreasing during the week, and it swung very high, associated with a much lower than normal resting heart rate, and ithlete went — gave me a straight red.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right.

[Simon Wegerif]: So ithlete doesn’t mess about in that situation. It gives your a red card straight away.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s nice that it does that, ‘cause, you know, often I imagine most of the apps don’t pick that up, that scenario. So in terms of a swing of HRV, do you remember your — just to give people an idea, where did it kind of start from baseline, and it lowered steadily to what, and then it jumped up one day?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, I can’t remember the numbers right now. I did do a blog post about it, in fact, so it’s on — yeah, myithlete.com/blog, I did a blog post about my HRV before, during and after this actual event. I think you can go look at that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s good. So we’ll put a link in the show notes to help people. Okay, so this final thing on adrenal fatigue, is adrenal fatigue is a widely discussed topic today, because a lot of people, not just people who are training, but often it’s the weekend warriors, the people who are working during the week, and they got out and have pretty stressful jobs, and then they’re training at the weekends, or they’re doing triathletics and all these other things at the weekends. And there’s this question of when they start getting more and more tired is the adrenal fatigue. Doctors and clinicians argue about this and how to test for it. And many of the tests are considered not ideally accurate, there is saliva test, there is blood tests, and there’s a bit of discussion there. So I’m just wondering whether you think this would be a relevant biomarker, and if you’ve seen anyone try to compare it to some of those other adrenal fatigue tests?

[Simon Wegerif]: I haven’t. A practical test I could recommend for people, though, is if you suspect you might be starting to get adrenal fatigue, then the likelihood is that you won’t be able to manage high intensity exercise. You know, you simply — you hear comments like, ‘I was unable to get my heart rate or my power up into the right zone.’ You will notice that. And it is literally impossible. You just cannot manage the effort levels, no matter how hard you try. So your perceived exertion would go right up, but your metabolism and your body wouldn’t respond to the workload and energy levels that are required.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, yeah. So I noticed, also, that when you were talking about how to notice this, you know, you spoke about an athlete who came to you and said, ‘Look, my HRV’s really high, but I’m feeling terrible. I’m feeling really tired.’ So in ithlete, you have a bunch of indicators that you track whenever you track your HRV for training, in the morning you have sleep, fatigue, muscle, and stress, and mood, and diet. Do these filter into some kind of algorithm, or how are you using these to help people make decisions?

[Simon Wegerif]: They are going to. I mean, at the moment, these are quite widely used subjective metrics, and they are quite useful for tracking overall health and wellness, as well. So at the moment, it’s great for people to record those every morning, and on the ithlete, if they rotate the dashboard around to the landscape chart, they can visually for themselves see correlations between any one of those variables and their HRV, and in my case, I’m really not very good, if I’m lacking sleep, quality or quantity. So, you know, my HRV normally shows quite a good relationship with my sleep score. Other people —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. Is that the same for everyone, or do people have different weaknesses? You know, the high leverage weakness you’ve got to kind of avoid. So yours is sleep. Mine is probably sleep, too.

[Simon Wegerif]: No, I think people absolutely do have individual characteristics there. It could be stress for some people, or it could be diet in others, if they have particular dietary sensitivities. But what we are just starting to do, right now, in fact, is a cooperation with a UK university on some advanced statistical algorithms which will look for relationships between those individual subjective variables and the HRV over a period of time. So what we hope to be able to do within the next six to eight months or so is to be able to give users feedback and insight into their own data.

I — you know, for me, HRV has always been a journey of personal discovery. I’ve found out things about myself, what my body and my brain likes as assessed by HRV, and, you know, I’ve been able to keep my HRV sort of steadily trending upwards over the five years that I’ve been doing this; whereas, normally it would decline with age. But, yeah, what we want — what we aim to be able to do is to give users insights, exactly as you say, Damien, telling people, you know, over the past month, sleep was the most important factor for you, perhaps again, and diet was the second, and it seems like you’ve been having a lot of stress recently, and that’s been affecting you as well.

So I think there’s potential for this to go quite a long way, including things like, perhaps, looking at all the relationships between everything people are capturing, and then saying with some statistical confidence all of this stuff that you’re capturing isn’t explaining all the variation we’re seeing in your HRV, is there something else? Is there, for instance, travel?

You know, one of our — one of the members of our team just noticed that driving for periods above three hours was causing a big drop in his HRV the next day. So potentially we can also alert people to things that they’re not capturing or not trying to understand right now, but which nonetheless are affecting their health.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, yeah. So, yeah, just to be clear, because I didn’t bring this up before, but these ratings you enter into your app are basically from, you say sleep quality, and you just give a rating from weak — it’s kind of like 0 to 10, right?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Or you can put very strong, and that’s for each of them. So they’re qualitative measures, but as you say, you’re finding correlations with them, and you’re going to be looking into more of that.

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah. We turn the position of the slider into a number, like you say, between 1 to 10, and I think that’s a technique — I think that’s called a visual analogue scale or something like that, and the statistics will be using those numbers to determine relations and give people feedback.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, great. Well, [00:35:23] we’ve explore a bunch of new topics and interesting scenarios that we hadn’t come up with before, because you’ve got this user base which is using ithlete. I think what would be interesting is, like, what do you see people mostly using this for, and what are the kind of biggest use cases, and most useful things people are using it for?

[Simon Wegerif]: We’ve got a wide variety of users. We’ve got well over 10,000 users now on the ithlete app, and they really vary. They do vary from weekend warriors to — all the way through to top professional athletes, both in team sports, endurance sports, things like boxing as well, through to health and wellness practitioners. So we certainly get quite a few bulk orders from chiropractors and holistic wellness practitioners and people like that. And I think it’s used for all kinds of things. It’s used by health conscious people who just think HRV is a good metric to track every day, and, of course, it is. It’s a sort of holistic measure of adaptation reserves or overall well being. So it’s a great thing for people to track.

I think in the more serious side of sports, people are looking in their training not to have dug themselves into too much of a hole, and they fairly quickly start to take the tool seriously when they get amber and red warnings, and they still go training on those days. They fairly quickly work out that that’s a bad idea, and they start to trust the tool more. We give them feedback on a day-to-day basis.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Is there any scenario where you wouldn’t trust it? I mean, we’ve highlighted one that you’ve identified and you’ve integrated now into ithlete, with that one HRV going up. Is there anything else you’ve kind of got on the horizon? Maybe there’s a couple of other scenarios that need to be looked into?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, definitely. One of those is taking readings at an unusual time. So the ithlete algorithms are based on you doing things at the same time every day. Ideally, it should be first thing in the morning, because then you haven’t got additional variables of drinking a coffee or not, or having something to eat, or looking at — opening emails, having an argument, anything like that. Those variabilities all eliminate it. And, of course, another advantage of doing it first thing in the morning is that you can plan the day ahead. So, you know, darn, I got an amber instead of a green, but it’s not too late, I can modify my training or something else that I was going to do today.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, that’s interesting, because in a future episode, I want to have someone talk about willpower, because I’ve read a fair amount about the correlation between HRV and willpower, and, you know, basically motivation and drive. So if I have a low HRV one day, I’m, like, okay, I’m going to take on less and less business tasks today. I’m going to focus maybe on one instead of trying to get five done. I kind of factor in like that. I mean, obviously you’re feeling like that as well, but I’m also kind of aware that maybe I need a recovery day in terms of just taking on work stressors and mental stressors and things like that, in order to be able to take on bigger stuff the next day and so on.

[Simon Wegerif]: Absolutely, or there might be some intervention which will help you a bit. So if I get an amber in the mornings, then I often, you know, I will change my training to an hour aerobic bike ride around a particular route in the local forest that I really enjoy, that, you know, is visually stimulating. And I know that will help me make the best of my current physiological state.

But back to the question you were asking about when would you not trust ithlete, or in fact any HRV product that compares to baseline, and that is if you get up significantly earlier or later than your normal time. So one of the things about the waking measurement is that you are taking it after you’ve had the cortisol awakening response, so basically when light starts to fall on the back of your eyes, even through your eyelids, it kicks off the cortisol awakening response, which basically gets your body ready to get up and start being active again. So it banishes the melatonin, and it starts the sympathetic nervous system to a certain extent, enough to get you out of bed and get moving in the morning.

Let’s say you normally do that at 7 a.m., and then one morning you have to get up at 4:30 in order to catch a plane or something like that. This is something that I noticed quite early on, that my HRV would, in that situation, be much higher than normal.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Ah, because parasympathetic is higher.

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, basically. Because my body was still in sleep mode, so the parasympathetic was dominant at that time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, basically, the circadian cycle is very important to control for.

[Simon Wegerif]: It is important to control for, and some people — I think everybody, once they realize that, that really your morning measurement should be +/- 45 minutes, something like that —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So I’m thinking jet lag is — because I just came from Europe to the U.S. a few weeks ago, and my HRV has been a little — I think I was surprised to see how high it was, given how tired I was feeling. So maybe that had some of the impact there.

[Simon Wegerif]: It could do. It could do.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Or do you think you adjust pretty quickly in terms of that cycle?

[Simon Wegerif]: I don’t think you do adjust that quickly. We’ve had so many stories reported back to us over the past few years. An Australian coach has said, ‘I never realized what an impact jet lag had on my body,’ and that was by doing HRV measurements, and he was flying backwards and forwards between Australia, Europe and America. And those are long haul flights. I think one rule of thumb is something like your body needs a day to adapt its circadian rhythm to each hour of time zone change. So if you’re doing all that trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific travel, you’re going to have a really hard time getting adjusted, and your HRV is going to give you feedback on that.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah. So the only other confounder is basically the issues is controlling for circadian rhythm and other things you’re introducing, like caffeine or those things. But in terms of actual scenarios, the only other one you’ve seen is where you continue to overtrain and eventually get to this adrenal fatigue situation, without introducing — and then the other scenarios are where you’ve introduced either a circadian or some other confounder in terms of stimulant or activity which is influencing your HRV?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, I would say so. Water has some interesting effects on HRV. Hydration level is something that — you know, some of the professional teams that are using ithlete, they want to control hydration level.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So are you saying dehydrated would lower your HRV, potentially?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, because it stresses the system, so, yes, that will tend to make you more sympathetic dominant. But, of course, that’s something that’s quickly fixable, right? You drink water, and within 15 minutes that HRV will have been restored, because your body absorbs water so quickly. So that will give you a false low.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right.

[Simon Wegerif]: So if you woke up dehydrated and you were normally fully hydrated, you will get a falsely low — I mean, it is a low HRV at that point in time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s relevant, yeah.

[Simon Wegerif]: But you have to take it — it’s relevant; it’s important, but you don’t have to take it easy the whole day —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yes.

[Simon Wegerif]: — because recovery from that particular situation can be very rapid. You just drink large glasses of water and you’re right as rain.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That’s a good point. It’s a momentary HRV lapse, a decline. Are there any other scenarios where there are HRV’s you can quickly addressed? I’m thinking training scenarios. I mean, obviously, there’s, maybe a stress scenario, caffeine and things like that.

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, mental stress is important.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So people can account for those kind of things by — hopefully, if they’ve identified it, then they can retake their reading in an hour or so and see if it’s readapted to their usual baseline.

[Simon Wegerif]: Yes, they certainly could do that, yup.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay. Well, so you’ve talked about some of the things you’re going to be doing in the future with the algorithm and the correlation. Is there any other future developments and things that you — like, if you’re looking at the whole HRV app space, is there other things you’re looking forward to or that you see could be possible in the future, 5 or 10 years? Where do you see it all going?

[Simon Wegerif]: Well, what I personally hope for is that HRV, it is starting to get credibility now in sports training and sports performance. You know, it’s becoming, thanks to some of the really quality research that’s being done, it’s becoming more and more trusted. I’d like to see HRV trusted as a precursor to Western chronic disease, and in particular I mean conditions like high blood pressure. High blood pressure is an autonomic imbalance disease, and basically high blood pressure can certainly be caused by chronic stress over a period of time, and the blood pressure regulatory mechanism starts to go adrift. But you will see, in the case of not only high blood pressure, but type 2 diabetes as well, that HRV will go out of what ought to be considered acceptable normal ranges months or even years before those diseases take hold.

So what I’d like to see is HRV used as an ongoing wellness barometer, if you’d like. So I’d like to see normality of standards create for HRV measures, and for those actually to be something that people do, perhaps on their own initiative, but something that primary care physicians, general practitioners, etc., are happy to discuss.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, because — I mean, today we take our — if we go to the doctor for a standard checkup, we have our blood pressure and we have our heart rate, standard heart rate taken. What you’re suggesting is potentially HRV could be a better measure, and it should be included in those, if we could be more standardized and stuff, because you’d see it decline steadily over time if there were some chronic issues building.

[Simon Wegerif]: You would, and you would see it declining outside of a normal range. We exhibited — we launched the finger sensor in V3 of the Apple Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January. We probably did 200 demos during whatever it is, the three days that CES is on, and we had people who illustrated HRV values which, by looking at them, some of them were predictable, and in some cases, people really needed to pay attention. So we had a very large gentleman who came to see us, who said he got diabetes and he hadn’t been exercising recently, and he got 35 on the ithlete scale. And that shocked even him, because that is a very low number. I mean, that’s an extreme case, but —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Was that lying down or standing?

[Simon Wegerif]: No, that was sitting. So we did — all of these demos were done with people basically sitting at a table. But I would like to see some normative ranges exist for people. And also by tracking over weeks and months, that they’re able to do what I’ve seemed to been able to do, which is to basically find ways to keep my HRV increasing over the long term as opposed to declining with age. HRV is a very good forward looking indicator, and that’s why I sometimes call it a barometer. You know, it’s telling you about the weather to come, rather than the weather as it is right now. I would like to see it accepted and accredited.

And I think there’s been a useful start made in that area recently. There’s been this announcement about the Palo Alto prize, and that basically is, I think, either a half million or even $1 million award to researchers who can show initially in laboratory animals that they’ve developed techniques which would cause animals’ HRV not to decline over a period of time. The idea is that that will be applied to human studies later on, once the techniques are proven. So HRV is starting to become recognized now as a longevity indicator.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, right. You wouldn’t have seen it yet, but we also interviewed a guy named Todd Becker who’s very interested in hormesis and aging and longevity, and you might have read his stuff.

[Simon Wegerif]: Yup.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: He plays around with that to increase HRV.

[Simon Wegerif]: I did read it. His article on HRV was excellent, really, really good.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, so he has some interesting points on that. Look out for the interview when it goes up, because it has some relation with this discussion.

So in terms of places where people could go to learn more about this, are there any people or particular journals where you think are good sources of information about HRV?

[Simon Wegerif]: One of my observations about HRV, there’s this massive body of research out there, but unfortunately it’s largely untapped, and I think that’s partly due to the impenetrable nature of medical research language. What we have tried to do is also to summarize a number of what we regard as some of the most important articles. So on the ithlete blog, we have done a number of research summaries where we’ve tried to take — captured the essence of what we regard to be some of the most important papers and put it up there for people to look at.

Also, we’re doing a new website where we’ll be putting more resources in there. I think Todd Becker’s article is an excellent introduction to HRV with a really good — a really good, if you like, approach to experimenting with different interventions on himself to see what made a difference. I think Andrew Flatt is doing some very good work at HRVtraining.com. There are a few sites around. And even Men’s Health carried an article or two on HRV over the past year.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Was that a good quality article, or was it just good that it’s getting the word out there?

[Simon Wegerif]: It’s good that it’s getting the word out there. I think reasonably brief at the moment. But HRV is getting more mentions in the mainstream press, which I think is important.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. Okay, so I’d like to round off with a couple of personal questions. I always like to get some information about how people like you, who’ve obviously spent a lot of time thinking about data on biology and working with it, actually make use of it. So what kind of data metrics do you track for your own body on a routine basis? HRV, I guess, obviously. But beyond HRV, or in the specific context of HRV?

[Simon Wegerif]: I’m always wrestling with how to quantify my training. So training load is something that’s interesting to me. And I don’t think that any of the existing measures are really adequate.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is that — are you talking about cycling or — you’re talking about volume?

[Simon Wegerif]: Yeah, that is the point. So training load metrics, there are many of them. So how do you quantify any kind of workout? If it’s cycling, is it miles? Is that a good — is that a good indicator? Is it average heart rate? Is it something about zones, the amount of weighted addition of all the zones you are doing? In team sports, they use RPE a lot, which is rating of perceived exertion. They also do translations from GPS data using group statistics for acceleration levels and running speeds and things like that.

But all of this training load stuff, what are we trying to achieve exactly with respect to — you know, training is all about stimulus and adaptation. From what I can see in endurance sports, there’s two completely different kinds of stimulus that we provide to the body, both of which seem to be necessary, and both of which are very helpful. One is this aerobic stimulus, which some people call the long, slow distance, and the other one appears to be the high intensity stuff. So how should we quantify each of those, other than by observing Kenyan runners who win all the long distances races and seeing what they do? I’m really interested in the science and the biology and the physiology behind that.

There’s all the stuff about calories. How do we measure calories? Why do we measure calories? What exactly are we going to do with that information? That stuff is of interest to me. Calories was of interest, before I did this trans-Alpine cycling, because I wanted to lose weight, but I wanted to do it in a controlled way, and in a safe way as well. So I didn’t actually damage either my health or my sports performance, but I wanted to lose 7 kg, just a stone, a reasonable amount of weight, and I wanted to do it very safely.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you focused on calories to do that?

[Simon Wegerif]: I ended up actually focusing on food types. So what I actually did as advised by my good friend, Dr. Mike T. Nelson, was actually just to deliberately introduce a lot more protein into my diet, and basically diet — there’s an easy way and a hard way to diet, and I think the hard way is to think about all the things that you can’t do. And I think the easy way is to introduce good stuff, and that will necessarily push out some of the other things.

And what I mean by that is — Mike’s advice, specifically, was to increase my protein intake dramatically. And one of the ways I chose to do that was by having a big omelet after training in the mornings every day. And that actually makes you much less hungry during the day for snack foods, biscuits, carbohydrates, things like that. I also asked my wife not to buy biscuits and not to put biscuits in the — or cookies in the cookie jar, so that those were just sort of taken out. I was also — with chocolate, I just said I’m only going to have two squares of 70% chocolate a day, and that’s okay. Because 70% cocoa chocolate is so strong that you don’t want lots of it anyway, but it does sort of just satisfy that need.

So by deliberately eating lots of protein, I basically pushed out quite a bit of carbohydrate, and that combined with the volume of training actually tailed my weight down quite nicely.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. You make an interesting point in calories, because there’s a lot of devices coming out to measure calories. One of the areas of investment. And obviously that’s been a huge focus for the last 30, 40 years in diet books and so on. However, there’s a fair amount of research now to say that calories are not necessarily the whole thing, input and output, and that it’s a bit more complex than that.

In our discussion with Jimmy Moore a couple of weeks back about focusing on fat. You focused on protein. He focuses on fat intake, and it has the same impact. It satiates you and you tend to lose weight, and you’re not counting calories.

Yeah, so this is arguing whether it is useful to count calories, and these are the kinds of discussions I love to bring up, because especially when the marketing and everything that is out there is saying, ‘Let’s count calories; it’s going to change our behaviors; it’s going to have an impact on our lives.’ But is it really as beneficial as it’s portrayed to be, or are there better methods, like we’re doing — we looked at using the ketonics, which measures your state of ketosis, and as long as you’re staying in a state of ketosis, you’re going to be losing weight. So there’s other approaches to it that may be more useful, depending on what you’re doing.

And the training load thing, I think, is also interesting, and difficult, as you said. There’s not really any measures. We talked to Doug McGuff from Body By Science. He has a very specific protocol which kind of allows to do that, but you have to use that exact training protocol; whereas, I think what we kind of really need to get to is like you were talking about, is we have the metabolic and the strength, or as you call it, the aerobic and the —

[Simon Wegerif]: The high intensity HIT.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: The high intensity stimulus, and how do we quantify those? Is there any way to quantify those so that we can see what stressor we’re getting, and then we can see, oh, we got a decline in our HRV because it was that stressor. Right? And currently you’re trying to do this with qualitative measures, which is pretty much the best I’ve seen that exist today as well. I don’t know — so you haven’t seen anything? It seems you haven’t — on your journey looking for that, you haven’t yet found anything that might be better than a qualitative measure?

[Simon Wegerif]: No. I’m always looking for things which are practical, which people will actually do every day. So anything which is too complex to calculate, people might do it a few times out of interest, but then it’s not going to imbed itself as a habit.

One thing I will say about calories, though. This whole motto of ‘What gets measured gets done.’ So giving people some kind of feedback that they can relate to which motivates them is always important, and whether that’s steps or whether that’s calories, I personally don’t mind, so long as it motivates them to imbed good habits and to reach for smart targets and goals.

What I think the particular problem I have with calories is that, yes, perhaps you can measure calories out, calories expended. Calories coming in is pretty difficult, though, unless you’re really going to spend a lot of time not only looking at the back of food packets and weighing things out exactly, which can be done, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t seem to work out that well, either. I mean —

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: It’s very impractical. It’s very time consuming.

[Simon Wegerif]: It’s very impractical, and it doesn’t actually work out that well. So people who’ve tried to do this very exactly, like Nigel Mitchell, who is the consultant nutritionist for Team Sky and is a very well recognized and respected nutritionist, says that if you do this exercise exactly — so on professional cyclists, they use power meters. You can measure the exact number of joules that they have expended. They can also measure the efficiency of the cyclist in terms of oxygen consumption, they can work out very accurately how many calories in those guys should need, and even if you do do all the food weighing stuff and measuring and everything else like that, the weight balance doesn’t seem to come out exactly as you would have hoped. There’s some quite large inaccuracies in there, one of which I believe is potentially the fact that the calorie numbers on the back of the food packets are achieved by burning the product in pure oxygen and seeing how much heat it gives off, but to what extent does that really represent the way our digestive systems work? And do they always do the same thing with two forkfuls of pasta? Does it matter, you know, what else you’ve got in your stomach at the same time?

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And your microbiome, which is another interview with recently did. Like, your microbiome can impact how you metabolize the food. So I think it is more than calories, and it seems like the research is steadily going towards that, but it actually seems pretty complex. You know, microbiome, the types of macro and micro nutrients that you’re consuming. But, as you say, if you’re counting calories, you’re potentially looking at helping yourself to behave better, so it potentially could help.

Just, I think there is a device and a crowd sourcing project which is tracking calorie input, so in a more convenient method, I think it’s still in crowd sourcing. I’ll put the link in the show notes, because I can’t remember the name of it, but it would be interesting to see if that one works out. Because, yeah, like noting down everything you eat is not something that I can see people doing for a very long time.

What has been the biggest insight about your own biology that you have drawn to date from any data or anything you’ve tracked?

[Simon Wegerif]: I will tell you, I haven’t mentioned before in this discussion, but it is actually HRV — so HRV biofeedback, which is another — another topic in its own right and may be one that you will cover in a future podcast, but one of the things in my journey to steadily increase my HRV was — I do tend to be quite a driven person. I do tend to get moderately stressed, and my wife is much calmer. She’s been doing yoga for a number of years, and she’s always told me, ‘Simon, you should try yoga breathing.’ And I must admit, I did poo-poo it a bit, until I actually had a chance to meet up with an old friend who was a yoga instructor, and he told me about breathing. And I started to relate that to HRV, and I built myself a little biofeedback app prototype, and that, over a period of just a few days, made a big change upwards in my baseline for about 5 or 6 ithlete points.

And that was a really — that was a really big insight for me, that I could increase my HRV and feel much better quickly by using basically guided, deep diaphragmatic breathing. And there are good reasons as to why that should work.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: You were tracking — you were doing this for, like, what 10 minutes a day or something like this? And you were using an HRV device to see if you were raising it? Or were you just using the HRV for training every day, and just watching it? So it was like an experiment?

[Simon Wegerif]: It was like an experiment. I did my ithlete reading every morning, and then, I mean, you couldn’t help but notice how much it had swung upwards when I started doing this breathing practice. And what I found even more surprising was that when I experimented again by not doing it for a few days, my HRV remained elevated. So it seems to have a chronic effect on upwards HRV. And I think this is a technique that’s got a lot of potential for the future as well.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, very interesting. Great, great point. Okay, last question. What would be your number one recommendation to someone trying to use some form of data to make better decisions about their body’s health or performance?

[Simon Wegerif]: I think it would be do it consistently. Do it consistently. Preferably, you know, every day or several times a week, and do it for a period of time. And when you’re trying to — if it’s a measure that you’re trying to improve, like HRV, try to change just one thing at a time to see if that thing does make a difference. So just be a little bit scientific in what you do and how you do it. Because otherwise, you know, there’s so much data around now that actually deriving information from that data is in some ways getting harder, because there’s more and more data, more and more variation in it.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great, great point. And yeah, the information overload is going to get worse as time goes on, because there’s so many devices and things coming out. I know I already have too many devices, and I’m trying to decide which ones I focus on. And HRV happens to be one I very consistently do, because it is very rewarding, and I notice the changes.

So Simon, thank you very much for your time today. It’s been a great discussion, and I can’t wait to put this out on the podcast.

Leave a Reply

A different philosophy: Leverage highly time efficient workouts to increase strength, build lean mass, promote cardiovascular performance and provide longevity benefits.

In 2009 I found my time getting swallowed up by the demands of my career job while starting my own business on the side and trying to keep to my crossfit workout program (which I dearly loved).

I barely had any time or energy to socialize or get anything else done. More worryingly my performance in my workouts was going down – not up. I found myself getting more and more tired during and after workouts, having to hold off on some exercises due to persistent muscle soreness and back and shoulder muscle injuries.

I finally stopped ignoring that my exercise program wasn’t helping.

Something was going to have to give – but I needed exercise for stress relief as well as to stay healthy. Right? I needed to find time-efficient workouts and how to optimize workouts for strength and size gains

Today’s interview is about how I fixed all of these problems, re-found greater health, higher energy levels and saved a crap load of time so I could work even harder on my startup. And discovered the joys of tracking workout results, and watching them improve… every single workout.

Enter the Time-Efficient Workout

The solution found me in a bookstore. The book’s title popped out at me as the answer to my problems (and seeming far too good to be true). “Body by Science: A Research Based Program to Get the Results You Want in 12 Minutes a Week“.

Today’s guest is Doug McGuff, co-author of the book, and an emergency doctor, gym owner and weight lifter.

His book describes how to perform, track accurately and optimize High Intensity Training workouts, and the many well researched benefits to doing this type of workout.

Doug himself has been practicing high intensity training since age 15 – that’s 37 years, and been training clients with it since 1997 (that’s 17 years!). As you’ll see in the interview Doug has a very solid grip on the research and science behind his workouts.

The show notes, biomarkers, and links to the apps, devices and labs and everything else mentioned are below. Enjoy the show and let me know what you think in the comments!

itunes quantified body

Show Notes

  • Where high intensity training came from and its use in the world’s of athletics and rehabilitation.
  • How to reduce the volume (amount) of exercise you do and how different body types can benefit from different exercise volumes.
  • The neural development and psychological benefits of strength training and how you see them in terms of increased performance in the gym.
  • Using time tracking to optimize each workout and exercise by measuring by ‘muscular failure’.
  • Finding the right ‘load’ to use in training for each exercise based on a specific time measurement taken for each workout.
  • The speed bumps that each exercise (exercise movement) have – and how to surpass these and increase strength despite this barrier.
  • Why weight training, done the Body by Science way, trains your cardiovascular system – or in other words trains your metabolism and energy production (as effectively, or more than, traditional aerobic exercise like jogging).
  • Creating the largest stimulus for growth via ‘peak intensity’, in terms of strength per exercise and in terms of metabolism for the workout as a whole.
  • How approaching weight training with the slow protocol makes it one of the safest exercises and has translated to Doug McGuff never having seen a training related injury at his gym.
  • The unique calibration used in Body by Science workouts to optimize training stimulus vs recovery time so that you get the most growth and development out of your body and avoid overtraining.

Give some love to Doug on Twitter to thank him for this interview.
Click Here to let him know you enjoyed the show!

Biomarkers in this Episode

  • Time Under Load: The time in seconds your muscles are loaded with weights for a particular exercise. Typical times aimed for are 80 seconds (1 minute 20 seconds). Doug McGuff specified that when you have stabilized at 80 seconds for an exercise (i.e. can’t increase the time under load) for a couple of weeks you will increase the weight for your next workout. Increasing your time under load for an exercise indicates that your performance is improving (your time should not go down unless you increase the weight lifted).

Other Resources Mentioned in this Episode

    Doug McGuff, Body by Science and Ultimate Exercise

  • Body by Science: The original book describing how to do these workouts and explaining the science behind them in detail. Doug also mentioned his second book covering the workouts in more depth, named Body by Science Question & Answer book
  • You can also connect with Doug at his personal site, on the Body by Science website and on twitter @DougMcGuff.
  • Other People, Resources and Books Mentioned

  • Arthur Jones Inventor of the weight machines we see in all gyms today via his brand, which is still a leader in the field, Nautilus.
  • Tim Ferriss’ Geek to Freak blog post and his book, “The 4-Hour Body” including his “Occam’s Protocol” for efficiently gaining muscle mass. Both of these describe “Body by Science” style workouts.
  • Cross Fit workouts and gyms have becoming increasingly popular the last decade and advocate a high exercise volume approach to fitness.
  • Renaissance Exercise, founded by long time advocate of high intensity training, Ken Hutchins, mentioned by Doug for their equipment and perspective on training.
  • Mark’s Daily Apple/ Mark Sisson: Doug mentioned that he has submitted a book for publishing with Mark Sisson’s publishing company on how healthcare got to the state it is in today.

Full Interview Transcript

Transcript - Click Here to Read

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Doug, thank you so much for coming on the show today. As I mentioned, I have been using your workout since 2009 and they really change the way I approach everything and really help me in various areas of my life beyond working out. So I think this is a fantastic, interesting topic and of course it has got loads of quantifying areas too, so thank you for coming up.

[Doug McGuff]: Thank you, Damien, It is a pleasure to be here.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Just to give people a little bit of background, you published your book, Body By Science, in 2009. Could you give us a brief background of where these workouts and this approach came from and a bit of the history and what led to you publishing that book?

[Doug McGuff]: Sure. It has been a lifelong interest of mine, probably since I was about 14 or 15 years old. I started working out around that time and I was doing it to improve performance as a BMX racer, which is a type of sprint bicycle racing, and it worked so astoundingly well that I was immediately hooked. And that was back in the late 1970s, and it just so happened at that time the nautilus training concept was exploding. That was invented by Arthur Jones to introduce the idea of high- intensity training, that by making the intensity level of the exercise higher, that the exercise could be more effective and more time-efficient. I traded my janitorial services for a membership at a Nautilus gym and while cleaning up in the office I found a copy of The Nautilus Training Principles Bulletin written by Arthur Jones. And the owner let me take a copy of it and I read it cover to cover in one sitting and have been interested ever since.

Over time, that concept of high-intensity training has been refined more and more over the years. The idea of a high-intensity training is that the intensity and the amount of training are inversely proportional out of necessity. And as more and more refinements were made to produce higher and higher levels of intensity, what was found was that for the body to recover and produce a good adaptive change that ratio, that inverse ratio, was actually quite disproportionate. For any incremental increase in intensity you are able to achieve through modifications in protocol or equipment, that the amount and frequency in training had to go down disproportionately.

Probably the first time that was really driven home was in the 1980s when Nautilus was researching the use of high-intensity strength training for the treatment of osteoporosis. And they created what led into the super slow exercise protocol, lifting and lower the weight very slowly in order to protect these elderly, frail women that they were training. And what they found was two things – one is very little went a long way. It was very easy to overtrain people. And two, a rate of progress that was much more dramatic than they had seen in the past. And they thought perhaps that was attributable to the fact that these were elderly and deconditioned subjects, but when they took the protocol and applied it to more normal athletic populations, they found a similar sort of response. And over the years from that point forward into time, that sort of protocol has been refined more and more by the inventor of the protocol, Kim Hutchins, as well as other people that have made different tweaks to that protocol along the way, both in terms of protocol and equipment, and that is kind of where we have arrived today, where we have really refined things so that it can very hard and very brief.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, and to give someone a kind of rough idea of what this requires, with the people you are training how often do they work out?

[Doug McGuff]: When you look at the population in general, how well you recover from exercise is kind of distributed on a bell curve. On the extreme left tail of that bell curve you have people with very good recovery ability that can recover from this kind of workout in 48 hours, but they are quite rare. On the opposite end of the curve you may find some people that need 14 days and sometimes longer to completely recover between workouts and in the middle you are going to find the average recovery time is going to float somewhere between four and nine days, with seven being roughly average.

So that is where most of our clients tend to fall out. We have a handful that train twice a week and do well at it and we have others that either because of their lifestyle, they are full-time shift workers, night shift workers, have small children, they will end up falling out to about an every 12th day frequency. So it is variable but the average is about every 7th day.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And how long does a training session last, typically?

[Doug McGuff]: Most of our training sessions will last somewhere between eight and 15 minutes with there being a certainty that any given client will do not one second more than that. The workouts that tend to run a little bit longer are actually in the less robust subjects. And small, petite females that are not so strong or our senior clients that are older and perhaps a little bit frailer, they require a little bit more time between machines and they can tolerate a higher volume of work because they are not bringing so much punishment to themselves, as is the case with a much stronger person.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So in that case you have to do more types of exercises, individual exercises, to get the more volume?

[Doug McGuff]: Yes, they can actually tolerate a higher volume of exercise and sometimes in order to deliver an adequate stimulus to them we actually have to do a little bit more than we do with someone that is able to train at a higher level. The clients with workouts that last a little bit longer is it can be either because they have some sort of limitation that makes us have to be more gradual about working our way up to muscular failure or just their tolerance for high-intensity exertion as such that we kind of have got to take an incremental workup to actually reaching the level of fatigue necessary to trigger the stimulus, whereas someone that is more aggressive and stronger can, for lack of a better term, do themselves in at a faster rate because they can tolerate a higher level of fatigue accumulated more quickly.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, so for the people at home I just want to make sure that they get all the concepts we are talking about. So when it comes to volume you are talking about – how would you explain that in kind of layman terms?

[Doug McGuff]: Well, we do typically anywhere between three to six, and typically about five movements. And each movement is done in only one set and the set is carried out in a way where the muscle is under continuous load and there is no escape and we typically use super slow reps, which is on the equipment we have an excursion in the lifting phase of around 8 to 12 phase, and the same in the lowering phase.

So the movement is quite slow, and that is to deprive the clients of using any momentum to get out from under the load, so the muscle is being continuously loaded and fatigued. And that results in reaching a point where they can no longer move that load, typically in about one minute, 20 seconds, to two minutes, the will typically bite the dust in that time frame. And then we move quickly from one exercise to the next.

So you go through those five movements very quickly, so you have got two minutes reaching failure on each machine and very little rest in between the two.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So in your case volume is really equating to time that you were actually doing exercise. If you add that up it is like the total volume.

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, and the reason we did that was the way that we know whether a client is appropriately recovered between workouts is simply by the record keeping. We know the resistance that they used last time, what their recorded time to reaching muscular failure was, and on a subsequent workout if they are not performing in that realm or we see a drop off in performance, we know that recovery may have been inadequate and is a cause for that. So that gives us some sort of feedback on adjusting their volume and recovery so that they are showing improvement on a workout by workout basis.

What we found initially is that when we are using a very slow rep cadence, where you are going ten seconds out and ten seconds back, each repetition lasts 20 seconds. So simply counting repetitions provided too gross of a measure of performance for us. Because someone could do four repetitions and that could be the full 80 seconds or they could have stopped somewhere around 72 seconds and if you just recorded four you never would have seen the difference between the two.

So we started running a stopwatch on it just to get more of a fine-tuned dial so the drop off in performance when you are using such slow reps would then become evident to us.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, and simply put if you are lifting the same way as you said resistance, then you get a longer time, and then you are getting stronger?

[Doug McGuff]: Technically, yes, although you really have to be careful with that because the process we are trying to trigger is very intrinsic. The stimulus that is causing the adaptation we are looking for is called inroad. And inroad is the momentary fatiguing of muscle. If you start out with 100 units of strength at the beginning of the set, at the end of the set you end up with only 40 units of leftover strength, and how quickly and aggressively we can go from 100 down to 40 determines the quality of the stimulus.

So what you have to be careful of is that both instructor and client are focused on that intrinsic goal. It is possible to focus on the extrinsic goal, making the weight go up and down for longer. And if you focus on that goal extrinsically then what you can do is you can sandbag during the easy parts of the range of motion. You can squiggle and worm and do anything to milk out extra time to show apparent progress on paper. So the process only works if the subject and hopefully the instructor are blinded to the actual recording process.

So the client, we don’t show them their weights, we don’t let them know a goal time, we just have them – and literally sometimes what we are shooting for is actually a shorter time under load. We want them to police their form in such a way that they bite the dust sooner rather than later. Because it is possible to be coming very close to failure and then heave and jab and do some sort of form discrepancy which actually compromises the stimulus but gives you an extra rep. And that is what we very strictly want to de-emphasize and keep them blinded to their performance so that they are just focusing on that and performance occurs organically. And in a blinded fashion so that we can use that data in a meaningful way.

And our instructors, when they are running the stopwatch, they are not sitting there watching the stopwatch and comparing it to the prior performance because then you start to coax the wrong behavior out of the subject. The stopwatch is either hanging on the machine or held behind the back so that however it turns out is really just serendipitous to the process.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, so this is very interesting. You are basically trying to do it in a controlled manner so that the data isn’t biased, as you say squiggling and kind of cheating just because you want to hit the same mark. I remember when I was doing this that I have to admit that sometimes I wanted to get the same time or greater than the week before.

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, it is a very strong human tendency to do that sort of thing when in fact if you are really becoming more refined and applying the stimulus to yourself. You may go from one workout to the next and all of a sudden you are reaching failure ten seconds sooner than you did previously, but for a good reason. So you kind of have to have some insight into that to be able to milk the most out of the protocol. But one thing that became evident as we did this in a blinded fashion is that when you have selected a proper weight, and there is a pretty wide range of what this proper weight can be, what happens is you end up recruiting the targeted musculature, the motor units in that in a sequential fashion.

You fatigue one set of motor units that are slow twitch and as soon as they drop out then you jump to the next set of motor units that are higher order intermediate twitch and if you fatigue those quickly enough you will jump next to your highest order motor units that are the strongest, but the fastest fatiguing. But when you do the set correctly, you are recruiting those in boxcar-like fashion one right after the other. And what the time under load ends up representing, and at least this is my theory, is a signature of what your fiber type and mix is. And what you will see is once you get up to a meaningful resistance, then on a workout by workout basis and in a blinded fashion the client starts to fail almost to the second. We first saw this when we had a client that would bail on the overhead, press at one minute 21 seconds, every time.

So once you have found that, you are now at a meaningful resistance. And meaningful resistance has a fairly broad range. If you want to progress the weight or the resistance, once you have found that recurring time under load or that signature time under load, that is a period in which you can jump the resistance on a workout by workout basis fairly aggressively. Now, eventually that falls off and there is a range of meaningful weight for that particular time under load. Eventually you get heavy enough where some imperfection in the machine strength curve or friction or something is going to make you have a sudden drop down in your time under load. But there is a broad range of weight where you are almost going to reach failure, to the second.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So when you say ‘reaching failure to the second,’ what does that actually mean? That means that you have reached a time that is going to be the same every workout?

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, okay, so the instructor loads you in the machine and says to very gradually start the movement, get it moving, keep it barely moving, they reinforce what you are doing, not resting at a lockout, smooth turnarounds. But the moment you started the stopwatch is behind their back and they pushed start. And they police very good form and you lift and lower the weight until your fatigue reaches a point where you can no longer make the weight move because your forced output has dropped below the selected resistance. At that point they will have you try to attempt to produce movement even though it is impossible for several more seconds. And then that will reach a point of failure where you can no longer sustain the effort and then he presses the stop button on the stopwatch, again behind his back.

This workout it says one minute 21 seconds, he records that on that chart. You come back next week and we increase the resistance by four foot-pounds, repeat the process. You reach failure, the stopwatch is behind his back, he pulls it out, and it says one minute and 21 seconds.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you are progressing in weight and the time is remaining still, which means you are getting stronger.

[Doug McGuff]: Correct, or it means that you are at least aggressively recruiting all of the musculature that you have available. Because what you will find is as people become very advanced, the limitations of this quantified approach are not the subject and his body, although that is somewhat of a contributor. The bigger contributor is the limitations of the equipment and the mechanics involved. Every movement has a sticking point, which is sort of like a little speed bump where the resistance is higher than it should be for your strength output and your leverage at any given point in the range of motion.

So you have this movement that has got a speed bump. But when you first start out and you are not very strong and you are not using a lot of weight it is like pushing a Yugo over a speedbump. But by the time you become very strong and you are using a higher resistance, that sticking point becomes much more meaningful. Now it is like pushing a mack truck over a speedbump.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So by speedbump do you mean certain muscle fibers are kind of like the weakest link?

[Doug McGuff]: No, I mean that there is something about the movement itself where there is a mismatch between the resistance the machine is delivering and the forced output of your muscles. So if anyone has ever done a chest press or a bench press type movement you will know that the hardest point in the range of motion is when you shoulders and your elbows reached 90 degrees, because the involved levers and moment arm of those levers have a lowest forced output at that point. And there is no real way to construct into the machine enough of a dropoff to account for that. So there will always be this sticking point as you come out of the bottom and your elbows reach 90 degrees. And that becomes a weight limiting factor after a certain amount of weight, where you will always fail at that point in the range of motion for purely mechanical reasons.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, okay, understood.

[Doug McGuff]: But that is not so important as by the time you reach that being a problem you have already progressed quite a bit and become much, much stronger. And then you are into a realm of the exercise that becomes more difficult to quantify, but is actually even more productive. Because what you come to understand then is you have progressed through this well enough to understand the internal process going on and you have become much more adept at simply using the resistance as a tool, the resistance as something to contract your musculature against because the continuous contraction against a meaningful load that produces a deep level of fatigue is the stimulus.

Eventually, increasing load over time is not just the load going up over time that produces the adaptation. It is your ability to contract against the meaningful load and produce a deep level of fatigue that is the stimulus. So you don’t have to forever progress the weight in order for there to be results. So what appears on paper does not necessarily always reflect what is going on internally, and that is because of the mechanical limitations of how we apply the resistance to the body.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Okay, honestly. So to take your example, I am sure you have been doing this for a very long time now. You are going to do this and you are going to get stronger week by week and eventually you are going to hit a peak genetic point, for a better word, where you have kind of built as much musculature and strength as you are genetically susceptible to do. How long does that take and what does that mean for the workouts afterwards?

[Doug McGuff]: Well, it is variable for different people. Some people ramp up to a full expression of genetic potential within a matter of 12 weeks. For other people it seems to draw out over many, many years with a quick rise up to where the curve becomes [inaudible 00:24:45] but then there are very gradual improvements over long, long spans of time. And those gradual improvements are eeked out by becoming more and more masterful in the application of the stimulus to your own body.

And that is where the really neat aspects of this kind of training come in, you get not only the physical adaptation but all of those sort of [inaudible 00:25:11], zen-like mind-body connection benefits that come along with that. And to some extent the science is starting to bear out how quickly you approach that [acentonic 00:25:23] curve and has a lot to do with your own genetic makeup.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I’m sorry, could you clarify – what does [acentonic 00:25:30] curve mean?

[Doug McGuff]: Well, if you picture a sigmoidal curve where you start off with a gradual rise in slope and then it becomes very steep almost straight up, but then the slope becomes more gradual. So it is like an S-curve, yes. So acentonic is when you get to the top of the S and you start to bump up against your potential.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, it starts. So you are getting less benefits per workout at that stage.

[Doug McGuff]: Correct. It is sort of a diminishing marginal utility, but it is because you are reaching the limits of your own adaptability and genetic potential.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, I think there is a lot of – I just wanted to bring up that since you popularized this method Tim [Ferris 00:26:09] also has popularized it with his 12-week Occam’s protocol and his posts about Geek to Freak, I am sure you are aware, has created a lot of controversy because people don’t believe that it is possible to gain that type of mass. But I just wanted to bring up that basically his is exactly the same method as your method. And that is why.

[Doug McGuff]: Yes, he actually consulted with me when he was writing the Four Hour Body. It was supposed to be a two-hour Skype consult, and I think he was in the Dominican Republic at the time or – but the electricity grid there was just very, very sharky so the two hours ended up happening over about a three month period. We finally got it all together where he gathered the information from me that he needed it anyway. It was a fun time.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, great, great. I am sure that people of aware of that also, just to make the connection that it is actually the same method and everything. One thing you just brought up is the mental aspect of this. And one thing that I have seen in myself and in other people using this protocol is that the first workout they will get to a certain level and then the second workout they tend to go a lot further. And i put that down to either psychology in terms of getting used to pushing themselves harder. or actual neural development of the links between the muscle, the muscle fibers, and in the neural connections, so they basically have more bandwidth to tell their muscles to contract. How do you look at that? Have you seen that kind of evolution?

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, absolutely. And I think the answer to that is all of the above. What we are coming to find out about muscle is that it is more than just tissue that contracts and produces movement, it is actually turning out that it is the largest by mass endocrine organ in the body. It secretes all sorts of chemical messengers, cytockines that have been termed myokines. One of which is brain-derived neurotropic factor, which causes neurons to reach out to each other and make new connections, and that is kind of part of improving your neuromotor efficiency and your ability to aggressively recruit muscle.

Part of it is becoming tougher, simply. It is not that you are becoming limitless, but you are learning where your limits actually are and that they are in fact further out than you ever imagined them to be. And that is one of the benefits of this kind of training that goes beyond any objective, physical results that you can produce. It is just the psychological benefit that comes from doing hard things.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, it is like learning to overcome a challenge, which is really hard. The first time that people do this workout they find it very, very hard. And then they realize that just by trying harder mentally they can go a lot further. And that applies of course to other areas of their life. It kind of transfers and they can see that they can overcome hard goals and challenges like that.

[Doug McGuff]: Yes, and it is amazing that until you do this sort of thing you don’t realize the extent to which your body has almost like preinstalled software that sets up a panic reaction when you face muscular fatigue. When the window between what you are struggling against and what your capability is starts to close and narrow down, there is a panic point where you just try to escape that experience by any means possible. And it takes an understanding that this there and a deliberate mental focus to overcome it. And as you do that, your ability to overcome that panic and push through it reveals that where you’re actual endgame is much further down the road than you thought. And whether it is simply metaphor or if it is just a manifestation of the fact that this exists in many different areas of your life, I am not certain. But what I am certain of is that as you become more adept at doing this you become much more panic-resistant in almost any situation.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: That is very interesting, and of course beneficial. So I think there is so much in these workouts that I am trying not to miss important details. One of the unique things about it is that you put all of the exercises very close together. So that is why we are getting down to this 12-minute window because you are starting with a chest press, you are going straight to a leg press and then a shoulder press. And literally you line up your machines, so if you are using machines to do your presses and then you are kind of ready to go with the right weights and you move from one to the other pretty much as fast as you can, is that the way that you run it?

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, and you can go overboard with that concept where the metabolic effect of the workout can be a right limiting factor. And it is a little bit of a tweak or an art form to get the most out of it without causing it to be an unnecessary burden to the rest of the workout. So for most of our clients we do move them briskly between machines and it can be anywhere between five and 45 seconds between the movements, depending on their metabolic condition at any given point in time.

Your ability to deal with the waste products of high-intensity exertion is a trainable factor. So over time two things are happening and you have kind of got to juggle these a little bit. One is as you get stronger you are doing a much larger amount of both mechanical and metabolic work. So as you get stronger you are producing a lot more metabolic byproducts and fatigue, lactic acid and such. And your body’s ability to metabolically deal with that is trainable.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So is that, when we are talking about metabolism, would you put that down to the generation of ATP in the mitochondria and efficiency of your energy output?

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, there is a lot to it though. I mean, it is more than just how quickly you can produce ATP. The experience at a cellular level is that the anaerobic portion of metabolism, turning glucose into pyruvate outside the mitochondria, doesn’t produce a whole lot of energy per cycle. But you can turn that cycle really, really fast, such that you can deliver pyruvate, the end product of that cycle, to the mitochondria at a rate faster than which it can use it. Now, once the mitochondria picks up pyruvate it can make 36 ATP per cycle, but that cycle can only turn so fast.

So when you are delivering pyruvate to the mitochondria faster than it can use it, pyruvate stacks up in the cell. When it does that gets shuttled through lactate dehydrogenase and you make lactic acid. That begins to drop the pH within the cell and as your pH goes from 7.4 down to 7.0 and beyond, the metabolic machinery and all the enzymatic processes within the cell start to fail and fall apart.

The way your body deals with that is, number one, your mitochondria adapt and learn how to handle pyruvate more quickly. Number two, your body finds other destinations for the lactate. The lactate that is circulating in your blood can be brought back to your liver and the enzymes that do this can up regulate. You can take lactate which is circulating in your bloodstream, bring it back to the liver, and that can go through a process of gluconeogenesis to make more glucose. And that is a process called the Cori cycle.

Your body learns to generate buffers to offset the acidosis. Your body makes a chemical called [2-3-diphosphoglycerate 00:34:01] that makes your hemoglobin molecule offload oxygen to the tissues much easier. And that enzyme exists in higher levels that lives in altitude, like Colorado Springs or high in the mountains, because you have to be more efficient at offloading oxygen. Well, you do this kind of training and you upregulate that enzyme. So there are multiple different things that make you more metabolically capable of high level of exertion and dealing with the byproducts of that high level of exertion.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, and well this metabolic aspect is traditionally a lot of people, say aerobics, when they are referring to these kinds of adaptations.

[Doug McGuff]: They do, but that is incorrect. Aerobics is a term that just took on a life of its own. Aerobic refers to that portion of metabolism that occurs within the mitochondria. But aerobic became synonymous with any metabolic work or any cardiovascular conditioning. As if somehow magically just the mitochondria could be hooked up to the heart and blood vessels. But that is not true. The entire cell is serviced by the cardiovascular system. And number two is the aerobic system cannot even run unless it is delivered substrate by the anaerobic system in the first place.

so, exercise of any type only occurs when we start to rise the intensity above a resting level and start to deliver pyruvate more rapidly to the mitochondria. And the type of training that we are talking about today is just taking that delivery mechanism to its ultimate expression by taking it as aggressively as we can.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, so what I wanted to make clear for people at home is instead of talking about cardio or aerobic here, we are talking about metabolic, which seems like a better term for it because it is more about energy production.

[Doug McGuff]: Right, and the book goes into that in great detail. Me and John LIttle, my coauthor, wanted to make a big, big deal in making this metabolic distinction, because not only do you not want it, and it is not really possible just to isolate a segment of metabolism and focus on it, what you really ought to be focused on in terms of having a level of fitness that is complete and actually confers survival benefit in extreme situations, is you want global metabolic conditioning. And that is what this delivers.

You can get more aerobic-type metabolic conditioning than out of most traditional protocols because you are actually causing the aerobic cycle to run as fast as it possibly can.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So it is like the HIT, the high-intensity training which people associate with cardio work as well?

[Doug McGuff]: Right, the spring interval type training. And it does a very similar thing. As you move from one machine to the next what you are doing is in a steer step fashion you are stacking these metabolic byproducts and you are incrementally forcing themitochondria to work harder and harder by delivering substrate to them faster than they can handle.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So you are trying to hit peaks of intensity in terms of metabolic output so that your body is like oh, we are going to have to be better at this next time because we have got to deal with these peaks.

[Doug McGuff]: Right, the advantage that doing it with controlled cadence weight training as opposed to an aerobic piece gives you is safety. In order to produce a level of meaningful intensity on any aerobic piece, you have to exercise in such a way that you risk injury because the forces have to go up exponentially, along with the intensity. But with appropriately done weight training, with a slow cadence, the forces – as the intensity goes up, the force is actually diminishing because you are becoming weaker and weaker but you are doing it through a controlled lifting and lowering of a fixed amount of weight.

So force is mass times acceleration. The weight you are using is a given mass, but the movement protocol is such that almost all acceleration is taken away.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right. I think people can relate to that because when they are lifting the weight it gets harder every time. So when you are saying they are getting weaker, it is getting harder to lift the same weight.

[Doug McGuff]: Right, but the force that your body is seeing is actually staying stable or in fact going down because the force your body is going to see is never greater than mass times the acceleration and we have done everything we can to eliminate acceleration out of the movement so that your muscles are continually loaded. As opposed to being on an [inaudible 00:38:44] or a treadmill where you have to turn the speed up really high and everything is flailing around and you are pounding the surface harder and your joints are seeing more force. All the while you are becoming fatigued and the force is going up and your risk for injury is going up. As opposed to when you are doing a controlled movement leg press. When you hit failure it is because you are producing less force than the mass you are trying to lift. So at the peak of intensity it is actually getting safer, which is a very unique twist.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, so there are less injuries. I think one thing that we kind of skipped over is the major difference between this and traditional weight training, that with traditional weight training you have reps and rest in between each rep. So it is like one, rest, two, when you have got the barbel. With this method it is a constant load, you don’t stop in between, and there is no rest when you take the strain off completely. It is just a constant movement.

[Doug McGuff]: Correct, and depending on the type of movement we are using, we are enforcing a specific performance behavior to ensure that. So if you are doing a compound movement, a multi-joint movement, for instance – a pushing movement like a chest press, traditionally as you get out to the top of a chest press, if you wanted to you could lock your elbows and create a bone-on-bone power and give yourself a little bit of rest. And what we do in our training regimen is as you approach that lockout, we never go to complete lockout. We never go to complete lockout.

We stop our joints this short of lockout and we do what is called a turnaround technique, which is basically a change in direction like you are going over a loop, or cresting the top of a roller coaster, so that you change direction from positive to negative in this very slow, continuous loop that occurs prior to joint lockout so that your muscles never get any escape from the load that they are facing. As opposed to a single joint movement. Let’s say you are doing movement like a barbell curl or an arm-cross chest block. In that, when you reach the point where the weight is completely lifted and you are in full contraction, you are actually under a much heavier load and there is no rest from the weight in a single joint movement.

So in that we will actually, after the second or third repetition, induce what is called a squeeze technique, where the person actually contracts harder against the weight and their congested muscle tissue to make the load that the muscle is seeing actually increase. So there are specific behaviors that occur during different given movements that basically are carried out just to make it as hard as possible.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So, to give the listeners an idea, at the end of this workout you are really breathing hard. You are puffing as if you have been running. People are typically used to that kind of experience when they are sprinting, not so much when they are lifting weights, because there is this rest in between. So the metabolic aspect isn’t really pushed because it is like one, rest, two, rest. And there is that metabolic rest in between. But with yours, like, what is the experience at the end of the 12-minute workout?

[Doug McGuff]: It is dramatic. Your ears will be roaring, your awareness will constrict down to like you are looking through a paper towel tube. Your heart is racing, you’re breathing very hard and very fast as a means of your body is blowing off carbon dioxide and as a means of trying to normalize your blood pH from the severe lactic acidosis that has accumulated during the workout. So it would be very similar to the kind of metabolic experience if you ran an all out 440 meter dash. At its minimum it would be like that. I mean, it is a very profound and demanding metabolic experience.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, so we are basically saying that this workout can do everything for you – like, typically people will do weights and cardio because they want the balance. But in terms of this workout, because it has this metabolic emphasis as well as the strength emphasis, it is basically and all conditioning system?

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, it does give you total conditioning. Now, if there is a specific metabolic oriented sporting event that you want to participate in, you will have to do some participation rehearsal of that kind of activity in order to turn your dial up or down for that specific combination of metabolic elements. But the workout will make you capable of doing that across a broad continuum. So if you want to go out and run a 10K, you will be in good condition where you can start off training for the 10K and then refine that without having to start from scratch.

By the same token, if you want to be a sprinter you are well-suited for that as well. But you do have to do some rehearsal of a specific metabolic activity in order to optimize your performance at it.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: So what you are saying is adaptations are specific, so if you want to win a 10K run, you have got to do a 10K, yeah, exactly. Okay, so have you looked at other markers? I think a lot of people at home are not going to be like well, this cannot be the same as cardio. Have you looked at other biomarkers which illustrate the improvement in metabolic activities? Like [inaudible 00:44:10] or potentially mitochondria markers or anything like that?

[Doug McGuff]: Well, the book is replete with studies that kind of demonstrate that. So that is available in the bibliography of the book and if anyone just wants to plug into PubMed and explore that kind of thing you can see good evidence for that. Serendipitously we are not doing it deliberately as part of running the protocol in the business, but we do gets lot of reports from clients of improvements in all sorts of metrics. We have had plenty of type two diabetics that were essentially cured that were on oral hypoglycemics and started to have spells of hypoglycemia because they essentially no longer needed the medication and went off those meds.

We have had lots of clients go off of statins because all those numbers had normalized for them. Women who have had their DEXA scan done every year that have shown reversal of bone mineral loss and no longer carrying a diagnosis of osteoporosis. We have seen hemoglobin A1cs drop very significantly. We have seen people that keep track of that or their C-reactive proteins and other things, so very significant improvement. But that is all just anecdotal evidence that is by the reporting of our clients. That is not science, that is anecdotal evidence with a strong reporting bias built in, but it is still there.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right it is kind of like N=1 experiments, each person just recording their own thing.

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, I wouldn’t take any of that to the literature. But there is certainly plenty of anecdotal evidence through the facility. But that is not something that we are actively studying or seeking either.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: I continue my own experience, just to add another anecdotal one. I was suffering from chronic fatigue and I was trying to battle it, just pushing it, so I was doing crossfit, and I was trying to eat Paleo and making various changes like this. And I was exhausted still and having difficulty working and things like this. And then I discovered your work and I started taking this basically very limited approach to stimulus, which is once per week. Or actually I actually got to the point where I think I was working out – one set of body parts we haven’t really spoken about, but one set with the legs once every 12 days or something. So I was really taking the long recovery approach.

And I found myself getting more energy, slowly having more energy days, less low energy days. And it got better for me over time. Where as crossfit seemed to push me the other, which is a very high-volume kind of program.

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, and it will work but when you are faced with that kind of issue what you really have to understand is that this is not something that can be overcome with a warrior mentally or a Navy SEAL buzz training mentality. Because what you have to understand is that those sort of indoctrination versions of exercise are not done as a stimulus, response thing. They are not putting people through that in order to get them physically conditioned. They are putting people through that to weed people out to find out who are the most resilient intrinsically.

So that kind of Johnny Quest mentality to exercise can backfire on you because of this whole mindset of don’t force it, get a bigger hammer, really does not work because first you have to have the capacity and that capacity has to be brought out through intelligent programming that respects your body’s need for intensity and recovery.

Once you have done that, what you will find is once you have given someone the metabolic capability and the muscular strength to function at a higher level, then their activity levels will spontaneously rise. And then that starts to happen then you have people that are conditioned in such a way that they find themselves going to do crossfit activities as recreation but clearly I think that people that have chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, I really do believe that is just a metabolic illness that involves mitochondrial down regulation, the ability to generate citrate through the mitochondria is just down regulated over time because of dietary and activity issues. And that can be cured with an intelligent application of exercise, but it cannot be fixed by saying okay, I am just going to man up and bring a sledgehammer to this process. Because that will just backfire on you.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yeah, right, and there is a lot of controversy about that chronic fatigue or communities and so on where the approach has been psychological, like you are talking about. The psychological light, let’s push for it that kind of thing, versus your approach which is actually trying to define the exact stimulus you are capable of using at this moment in time. And then trying to identify the exact amount of recovery you need before you provide another stimulus.

[Doug McGuff]: Right, and the other focus is that by using a protocol that uses 100% of the mechanical work that is going on to try to use the highest percentage of that mechanical work for producing the largest amount of the internal process that is actually the stimulus. And a lot of people, the people that originated super slow that are now known as renaissance exercisers, they have a specific term for this.

Inroading is the internal process of producing rapid and deep fatigue. But they have this concept of inroading versus outroading. And outroading is just like moving furniture. It is doing a lot of mechanical work, but it is doing it with such a level of form that very little of that mechanical work is directed internally at producing rapid and deep fatigue, which is actually the stimulus. So you can have someone sling a sledgehammer at a tractor tire and do a shit ton of mechanical work but very little of that work will be brought inward to the body, producing a very specific focus of fatigue to produce a desired adaptation. So you can pound a tractor tire all you want, but not necessarily have spent all that mechanical work on producing much that is productive.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, exactly. One of the points that I think is really essential to this whole method is the recovery. And you talk about this extensively and we haven’t really touched on that. But how do you know when you need to recover more? This is the essential part which most people ignore and don’t focus on enough. And we have spoken about this in previous podcasts, the importance of recovery in any training program or, you know, in life in general. And obviously today we run around like stressed individuals and we push ourselves and we try to do exercise, we try to work and we try to sleep less. So there is a lot less emphasis on recovery. So how do you define, in this program, how much recovery is required before you train out again? And how do we know that we have to wait an extra few days? As i explained eventually I was doing the workout, so a kind of partial workout once every 12 days. So how do you get to that point in understanding because at first it starts at 7 days a week. How do you understand exactly how much recovery you should be putting into it?

[Doug McGuff]: This is probably one of the most important concepts of the book. And i will probably make this a final comment, since we are running out of time. But there are several ways of approaching this. One is when you have not appropriately recovered, when a client has not appropriately recovered, we can see that both on paper – there usually is a fairly marked drop off in performance, but also their behavior as they are administering the stimulus to themselves, tends to fall apart sooner, that panic that we spoke about earlier that they had mastered now expresses itself prematurely during the work set. So that is one evidence.

From a more qualitative standpoint in a given individual, you will feel it. You will feel it in terms of the day after a workout you will feel like you have been run over by a truck. You will have that whole flu-like syndrome going on. On a more protracted basis, what I always tell people is that the workout the next day, you should feel a little fatigued and maybe a little below baseline, but overall you should feel invigorated and have a sense of well being. And for certain, over the course of a week you ought to feel above baseline more days that you feel at baseline or below baseline. And that is a gross, qualitative measure that you can use for that. But certainly your performance record will reveal it to you. But you have to really pay attention to how you are feeling, both the day after a workout and over the course of the week between workouts. You should definitely be feeling above baseline more days that below.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Right, and before you go to your next workout you should basically be feeling great. If you are feeling in any way tired or anything it is a signal that you are not actually ready.

[Doug McGuff]: Right, and when I work out a schedule and you go into it feeling just kind of meh, that is not good. You want to go in raring to go. You want to feel like you can push a truck over, that kind of sensation.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: And I would like to say that is one of the things I liked about this. It is like each – because you are only doing it once every week or once every ten days or whatever, you are actually really excited to go to the gym. And you have only got 12 minutes to make the most of it. So I found that it is a great, efficient exercise and motivation tool. Because you are like, ‘I am going to put as much in it, because I have only got this one chance in ten days to make the most of this.’

[Doug McGuff]: And the other thing that really drives that process is once you have an intellectual understanding of exactly what the stimulus is and how your body responds to it, then you really know that you want to apply that in the most effective way possible and that is very motivating. The link to my blog, through Dr. McGuff, DrMcGuff.com – if you go through there, there was a blog that I put in there that was called rock, hammer, nailgun. And it describes the difference between different types of workouts and using equipment and technology and mental understanding of the process to refine that and what you really want out of it is nail gun.

So having an intellectual understanding of exactly what you are trying to accomplish makes you much more effective at doing a really hard, brief, and effective workout.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: The last point on the recovery was like in terms of the performance charts they are tracking the time, coming back to the time. I guess the biggest indicator that you need to recover more is if you are using the same weight and your time starts declining?

[Doug McGuff]: Yes, not necessarily that it starts declining because you can have a few seconds drop off as a result of refining your effort and doing yourself in sooner, but when you have not recovered adequately you will have a drop off in time that is significant. And that will be combined with a bewildering feeling of what in the hell is wrong here. Because you will reach failure suddenly, you will have that sense of panic come on way too soon. You will know that things aren’t right.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Great. I am conscious that time is running out. Thank you for so much information and detail. It has been great. Are you working on anything currently? Anything that you can update us on? I will put links, of course, to your blogs and everything but is there anything interesting that you are currently working on that you would like to bring up?

[Doug McGuff]: Right now we are just turning in a manuscript to Mark Sissen, Mark’s Daily Apple. He has a publishing company but this one is actually being done by me and a coauthor named Dr. Robert Murphy, who is an economist. And it is an expose and deconstruction on how the American healthcare system got where it is today. So that manuscript is being turned at this time and hopefully that book will be out in the near future. But right now we I just post my workout every week with a little subject on high-intensity training, some of the recent scientific literature is always on the blog. And I can always be reached for consultation and/or questions through DrMcGuff.com. I have got all the social links with Facebook and Twitter and post pictures from workouts on Instagram every week, so there is always something going on.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Yup, and I would add that your book Body By Science is extremely detailed. And we kind of jumped over many, many topics because it is so deep today. And it is so different, so really I would highly recommend that people get that.

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, and actually if you go on Amazon for the book, the book has a companion with a question and answer book. When we originally wrote the book we turned in 840 pages of manuscript that had to be pared down to 209 pages. The question and answer book has everything else that was in there done in a question and answer format, and it is pretty informative as well.

[Damien Blenkinsopp]: Well great, Doug. Thank you so much for your time today. It has been a pleasure.

[Doug McGuff]: Yeah, Damien, it was my pleasure. I really appreciate it.

Leave a Reply