More on the theme of crossovers between elite athletics - and the opportunity for research synergy in M.E. I would so love to see our Silicon Valley, Harvard (Systrom et al), and WorkWell researchers connect with these guys at Silicon Valley Exercise Analytics, that just published an article in Nature on the tradeoff between V02Max and metabolic efficiency. If the way athletes train is critical to their performance, I think we might learn a LOT more about the nuanced details of HOW the lesser affected M.E. patients might be able to selectively train to reduce the devastation of PENE - within the constraints of M.E. (See disclaimer below). This might also help point to targeted pharma treatments.
My interest was first piqued by a fascinating Boxing Day article in OutsideOnline.com entitled, "Why a Higher V02Max isn't Always Better". https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt-always-better It's one of their Sweat Science features, written by Alex Hutchinson, who recently wrote a book (intro by Malcolm Gladwell), entitled, Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance. IMO this thinking fits beautifully with what leaders in M.E. research like the WorkWell team, are saying - that training our aerobic systems can be fraught with peril in M.E., and that - if we are lucky enough to be able to do so - we must train with exquisite care and precision, and with a focus on anaerobic performance in the case of M.E. Can we learn from what these Swedish researchers are saying about V02Max vs efficiency?
Hutchinson cites the work of Swedish researchers and Silicon Valley Exercise Analytics (Svexa), specifically their Chief Scientific Officer, Filip Larsen, which was summarized in this blog: "Why Increasing your Aerobic Power Makes You Less Efficinent".
https://www.svexa.com/post/why-increasing-your-aerobic-power-makes-you-less-efficient
This, in turn, is based on what I think might be mandatory reading for metabolic junkies in M.E. research: a November 2019 article in Nature Communications : "Complex I is Bypassed During High Intensity Exercise", https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12934-8 on which the above blog entry was based.
After all, CPET data supports that mere activities of daily living while living with M.E. are akin to high-intensity exertion. My own V02 Max results from Workwell support that.
What Larsen and his team propose is that, while the Anaerobic Threshold is important in training athletes, the metabolic "switch" that occurs at Complex I might offer a new metric to gauge exercise efficiency. They call this "Complex I Max". Are our M.E. researchers following this, and might this offer an important new metric for M.E.?
Suffice it to say, if you are able, do take a look at this work. I find it fascinating - and hopeful for our understanding of M.E. We know that GET is dangerous for M.E., and that any type of exertion is especially devastating for our severe patients. But we also know that some M.E. patients find incremental improvement with anaerobic exercise, as per Klimas & WorkWell recommendations. Elite athletes are constantly pushing the boundaries of HOW they train to optimize performance in their particular discipline. But they're getting smarter and more precise about how and when they train. I think this nuanced approach could help us understand our own physiological breaking points., and perhaps how to bypass them (at least for efficiency) - and why.
Disclaimer right off the bat - having been pretty much bedbound for the better part of 4 years (23+hours/day) in the past, & mostly housebound/bedbound in the past decade and a half, I am acutely aware that the elite athletics/M.E. crossovers and nuanced training insights may be painfully irrelevant for our severe patients. But I do believe that the metabolic science underpinning this work could be deeply relevant for diagnostics and management (if not ultimate pharma treatment) of M.E.. It kinda excites me.
Would love to write more - this is all my tank allows for now.
My interest was first piqued by a fascinating Boxing Day article in OutsideOnline.com entitled, "Why a Higher V02Max isn't Always Better". https://www.outsideonline.com/2407295/why-higher-vo2max-isnt-always-better It's one of their Sweat Science features, written by Alex Hutchinson, who recently wrote a book (intro by Malcolm Gladwell), entitled, Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance. IMO this thinking fits beautifully with what leaders in M.E. research like the WorkWell team, are saying - that training our aerobic systems can be fraught with peril in M.E., and that - if we are lucky enough to be able to do so - we must train with exquisite care and precision, and with a focus on anaerobic performance in the case of M.E. Can we learn from what these Swedish researchers are saying about V02Max vs efficiency?
Hutchinson cites the work of Swedish researchers and Silicon Valley Exercise Analytics (Svexa), specifically their Chief Scientific Officer, Filip Larsen, which was summarized in this blog: "Why Increasing your Aerobic Power Makes You Less Efficinent".
https://www.svexa.com/post/why-increasing-your-aerobic-power-makes-you-less-efficient
This, in turn, is based on what I think might be mandatory reading for metabolic junkies in M.E. research: a November 2019 article in Nature Communications : "Complex I is Bypassed During High Intensity Exercise", https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12934-8 on which the above blog entry was based.
After all, CPET data supports that mere activities of daily living while living with M.E. are akin to high-intensity exertion. My own V02 Max results from Workwell support that.
What Larsen and his team propose is that, while the Anaerobic Threshold is important in training athletes, the metabolic "switch" that occurs at Complex I might offer a new metric to gauge exercise efficiency. They call this "Complex I Max". Are our M.E. researchers following this, and might this offer an important new metric for M.E.?
Suffice it to say, if you are able, do take a look at this work. I find it fascinating - and hopeful for our understanding of M.E. We know that GET is dangerous for M.E., and that any type of exertion is especially devastating for our severe patients. But we also know that some M.E. patients find incremental improvement with anaerobic exercise, as per Klimas & WorkWell recommendations. Elite athletes are constantly pushing the boundaries of HOW they train to optimize performance in their particular discipline. But they're getting smarter and more precise about how and when they train. I think this nuanced approach could help us understand our own physiological breaking points., and perhaps how to bypass them (at least for efficiency) - and why.
Disclaimer right off the bat - having been pretty much bedbound for the better part of 4 years (23+hours/day) in the past, & mostly housebound/bedbound in the past decade and a half, I am acutely aware that the elite athletics/M.E. crossovers and nuanced training insights may be painfully irrelevant for our severe patients. But I do believe that the metabolic science underpinning this work could be deeply relevant for diagnostics and management (if not ultimate pharma treatment) of M.E.. It kinda excites me.
Would love to write more - this is all my tank allows for now.
