Lmao. Get a grip of yourself
1 Like
I have thanks. Guess my bandwith is limited atm.
And I respect your opinions, your contributions are generally useful.
What is wrong with deleting an app that I didnt find useful?
I’m glad my topic on extensive intervals could provide a vehicle such a fine grained discussion!
2 Likes
We go where the science takes us 
This one’s long, so here’s a TLDR first, which was written after the lengthy post:
TLDR:
-
Sorry for hijacking. @AJS914
-
Dr. Coggan (@The_Cog), I didn’t know you were on TR’s forum. I think you could be nicer, and that it would benefit the world because you are a truly great and innovative thinker.
-
We agree a lot, but maybe disagree a little still.
-
Come be a scientific advisor for Saturday and use your keen critical thinking to improve the way the world thinks about fueling.
-
Also consider a graduate student studying software-guided nutrition in endurance sports.
-
I did not proofread. Tried my best to play nice! I may still offend.
Much longer version, whenever folks are ready for some sit-down reading…
@AJS914, I am really sorry to have hijacked your thread, and hope we can get back to your concerns, shortly. @mcneese.chad perhaps a thread split, if @AJS914 is in favor.
Also… folks, we are in the presence of greatness. I had no idea @The_Cog was Dr. Andrew (Andy) Coggan. Dr. Coggan, it’s a pleasure to meet you electronically. All aforesaid statements about respect had nothing to do with who you were specifically as I had no idea you were on this forum. I’d have tread much more respectfully and carefully, if I’d known who I was engaging with. 
To be purely, ruthlessly, and literally research-based is to not offer the world the best practice or the greatest thinking available. I think you must agree on that idea, lest much of the information you have provided the endurance world fall prey to literalism and claims of not being research based as merely a a discretization and argumentation tactic, rather than merit-based or utility-based assessment alongside literature alignment assessment.
I recognize the marketing, and hence argumentative, power of adhering purely to ‘evidence-based’ or ‘research-based,’ so I will not fault you for claiming that all your work ever has been purely that. In my review (yes, I’ve studied your work extensively both in the literature and outside of it) some of your most valuable work has not been pure in that way. And I am truly glad that it has not. You are a great thinker and creator of useful scalable ideas that have impacted the world of sport positively.
Your citation post showed up with the rationale as follows:
So, I’ll let your claim of allusion slide by allowing myself to believe that you are not only a titan of research and practice (dare I say “practitioner”) but a master of literary allusion on internet forums. (I’ve read a majority of what you’ve written on slowtwitch since ca. 2000)
Me too. By careful analysis of how the data show what it shows. As I’m sure you demand of your students.
You of all people and much better than better than I do, understand that the meaningfulness of the data in the literature, determined in large part by the way it was collected, can differ from the statistical conclusions or the count of studies in favor vs. neutral.
I said “gut training works. It’s not equivocal.” Equivocal == ambiguous, doubtful, or questionable. In other cases it can mean “uncertain” but usually with the colloquial understanding that very little is known and it’s a bit akin to “your guess is as good as mine.”
What I should have said was “Gut training very likely works to some meaningful degree. It’s not equivocal.” Because neither is it equivocal, nor is it completely certain. But we’re past the point of “we dunno.” Monosaccharide transporter receptor increases are well documented, IIRC. And we should move the goalposts of the gut training discussion to “to what degree does it do X Y and Z, and in what scenarios is that important, what are the time courses of those adaptations, and what are the time course and magnitude of the health tradeoffs of causing these adaptations through gut training protocol that are being used today?”
These are the questions we invite you to help us answer as a scientific advisor of Saturday.
@oldandfast, please see:
The average Saturday user is consuming between 70-80g/hr as a maximum amount of carbs consumed for any activity, with a per-activity average of closer to 40-50g/hr. Yes many folks do more. But most the time, much less. It just takes the guesswork out of when to do what.
The max carb slider and satiety management setting are the primary factors but there are dozens of other things that lead a person to be recommended lower carbohydrates.
Quite frankly, now knowing that THE Dr. Andrew Coggan knows that Saturday exists… I’m flattered. Blushing even. Would be honored to have your harshest criticism Dr. Coggan. In fact, please see the invitation at the bottom of this comment.
You mentioned:
Is it the carb per hour ranges (which range between ±30 and ±75 g/hr that seems too fine-grained. I’m thinking maybe not, since your own recommended ranges are 45-90 and 90+, which seem similar.
Or is that the time constraints are too fine grained? (30 minutes to 3-hour ranges)
May I presume it’s the latter? If it is the time windows that are too fine-grained and the specifics presented for each of those time windows, and not necessarily the carb ranges themselves that are too fine-grained to be considered research-based, then I can jump onboard and 100% agree with you.
We agree. You will not find time windows so narrowed down in any literature. The table is an attempt to relay meaning from the literature and there are no studies that support exactly those time windows, although the very broad carb recommendation ranges in the table do tend to align fairly well with what you’re saying, if not slightly higher at their maximums.
I think where we may actually disagree more, is that your window of carbohydrate rate of intake for such broad time windows should be should actually be wider. When using wide time windows, an even wider berth of carb needs might be necessary.
Call me a snowflake (promise I’m not) but it sure feels a lot like you’re trying to repeatedly downplay my ability to read and assess research.
Calling me a practitioner comes off as some very shrouded ad hominem. I’m not saying that the word practitioner is an insult in a literal sense. But “practitioner” is widely colloquially used in our field as a differentiator between a PhD-level researcher and someone less oriented towards research, and usually of a lower critical thinking or intellectual ability, who spends the vast majority of their time not in the body of literature or in the lab. It’s like the difference between the presenter at a conference and a newer attendee attending the conference hoping to gain expertise by listening to the presenter. If not ad hominem, it’s fallacious appeal to authority with the potential to insult a more sensitive reader.
Of course, in your adherence to ruthless literalism, you are able to claim that you meant it only in the most literal sense, in that I practice in the field, more than I am in a lab, and nothing more.
But I think we both know that’s not entirely what you intended. I greatly respect your ability to engage and with great tact and skill, slightly diminish (if only accidentally) the position of others in the art of internet debate. I’ve read your contributions to internet forums over the last 20 years and have enjoyed your sharp mind and fearless engagement with other people around debated ideas. Your willingness to engage forcefully and critically has made for some of the most informative threads available in the history of the internet.
I understand that as you have amassed literally my lifetime’s worth of work in the fields you are in, it can be hard not to place yourself as more superior to a reader, but I do feel like it could be done in a way that doesn’t land as quite as reductive of the recipient, and instead factual about who you are. (which carries enough weight to speak for itself, and would allow more adherence to a combination of literature and practical knowledge, rather than attending to who the other person is, or their status of some kind. In my experience the readers will assess for themselves very quickly who the people are, so long as there is some awareness made available.
I posit that we could make the internet forums a slightly better place, a more useful place, and more open to more (and valuable) contributing voices if we could show people, by example, that they wouldn’t be subtly belittled, even by accident, by underhanded ad hominem and appeal to authority, if their ideas differed from the opposing party. I absolutely fail at this so I find no fault in any shortcomings of your postings here.
Would you consider screening your comments for things that might cause someone to feel like you are attempting to position yourself above them, or worse, them to a lower status or position in conversation? I can only speak for me personally, but I’d genuinely love to be met with “Hi, Alex, Dr. Coggan here. You can find my research bio here if you want to dig into my background a bit,” if your concern is that a person might not be giving credit to the level of thought with which you are presenting your ideas. (which I was not, because I had no idea who I was chatting with.) Shoot, TBH, your name carries enough weight in industry that you pretty much don’t need to give anything but “Dr. Coggan here” or change your username or bio to reflect who you are.
I recognize that I am calling for change of approach publicly, in a way that may be read as disrespectful, understandably, and simultaneously, I’ll add it is your sharpness of mind and willingness to engage in debate that brings value in some settings, specifically in moving closer to optimal solutions and truth. Thusly…
Dear Dr. Coggan,
We (Saturday) cordially invite you to two things.
First, to become a scientific advisor of Saturday, alongside Dr. Tim Podlogar, and further affect the course of nutrition history in sport, as you have done since I believe before I was born (1987). Your recent work in relaying the history of nutrition and how we got to where we are today is in very strong alignment with our mission. That is, to convey truth in a scalable and easy to use and implement way, in the field of sport nutrition.
Second, open the door to one of your students do a study implementing the use of Saturday and testing it against any alternative (sham, placebo, education, coaching, etc) and see where it lands. Bonus points if the study includes more women than men. We’ll provide lifetime free app usage to all study participants and all research assistants and authors, if desired. I understand that such a study is a mountain of work needing serious funding, so I won’t be offended if the answer is just a laugh. We are not Pepsi’s Gatorade, after all.
alex@saturdaymorning.fit
PS. I’d also like more info here if you’ve got it handy.
Specifically the increased translocation. Additionally, the LPS bit. You talking about lipopolysaccharide?
4 Likes
I am happy to try and sort this into a separate thread but I need some clear guidance.
-
I have not followed this topic (it’s over my head), so I don’t know which posts to pull out into a separate topic vs those that belong here.
-
If someone gets me links and/or comment numbers that they feel belong in a separate topic, I can split those out.
You may now recognize who I am, but you apparently don’t know what I do for a living.
Whether I agree or not is beside the point. I stated that fine-grained recommendations for carbohydrate supplementation are not really research-based, as that is a fact worth knowing. If you are offended by the sharing of such facts, so be it.
Look further up the thread (to where I said “those who have reviewed the literature”).
Sorry, but I have never been an applied sports scientist, and have no desire to become one now. Even if I did, however, I don’t see how volunteering my efforts for a not-yet-profitable commercial entity would benefit me in any way.
The latter.
(snip)
Again, you apparently don’t understand what it is I do.
Something I learned during my years working in a burns hospital. Here’s a reference to get you started:
Just joking. I got my answers way up there so feel free to hijack away.
1 Like
2 Likes
How are you doing meanwhile, did you figure something out?
I know the feeling you are describing. Not from threshold specific intervals but from going over my current limits intensity or volume wise in general.
The suggestion from @The_Cog regarding your gut getting leaky was interesting, first time I heard that this could be an effect from indoor trainer riding. But you stated that you do a good job of cooling.
I also heard about another theory in one of the episodes of the fast talk podcast.
Check from 8:35min:
Here is the study he discusses
So basically our immune system goes wild. Just not from external microbes, but exercise induced inflammation. The feeling thats generates is the same.
If thats true in your case than the logical conclusion I think would simply be that you are increasing training stress too much too fast.
Something I am also way to good at 
I finished that threshold block and I don’t think I got much in the way of gains out of it. I can do the watts - like 4x15 is not a problem at all. After that I rested and then I did some anaerobic capacity workouts and I got a 10 point bump in FTP.
One thing I think I have figured out recently is that carbing up helps. I don’t mean sugar on the bike: I mean healthy carbs in the diet. I’ve been trying to cut calories and eat a high fiber diet so I’ve been eating bowls of brown rice, unsweetened steel cut oats, and home made beans. Despite the calorie deficit, I feel like I’m recoverying faster from workouts. I’m eating between 250-350 grams of carb per day - healthy carb - very little sugar.
I’m wondering if threshold workouts don’t do much for me. My FTP is at 85% of VO2max which is the top of the range. That would suggest that I need to raise the roof. At 57 years old though, there may not be much roof to raise.