Right, testing on yourself is everything for individual performance. That's why I ordered the DNA test, so I establish the basic parameters of testing on myself.

But studies like this are still invaluable. How could I possibly know what about myself to study if someone hadn't attempted it, and established statistical significance.

Hello trail and All,

Thanks for your good efforts (and noting them to us) .... you are moving much faster than me ......

I am still contacting Ancestry to get my previous DNA information (from a year or so ago) to see if that is adequate for the caffeine information ... if that doesn't work I will buy a new test.

If you get any further insights please let us know and when I get my information I will do the same .... kind of fun.

Way to go!!

MIT lists 10 Breakthrough Technologies 2018:

https://www.technologyreview.com/...1b-943e-78590dbcbe42



Genetic Fortune-Telling
Excerpt:

"One day, babies will get DNA report cards at birth. These reports will offer predictions about their chances of suffering a heart attack or cancer, of getting hooked on tobacco, and of being smarter than average.

Genetic Fortune Telling

• BreakthroughScientists can now use your genome to predict your chances of getting heart disease or breast cancer, and even your IQ.
• Why It MattersDNA-based predictions could be the next great public health advance, but they will increase the risks of genetic discrimination.
• Key PlayersHelix; 23andMe; Myriad Genetics; UK Biobank; Broad Institute
• AvailabilityNow

The science making these report cards possible has suddenly arrived, thanks to huge genetic studies—some involving more than a million people.

It turns out that most common diseases and many behaviors and traits, including intelligence, are a result of not one or a few genes but many acting in concert. Using the data from large ongoing genetic studies, scientists are creating what they call “polygenic risk scores.”

Though the new DNA tests offer probabilities, not diagnoses, they could greatly benefit medicine. For example, if women at high risk for breast cancer got more mammograms and those at low risk got fewer, those exams might catch more real cancers and set off fewer false alarms."

https://www.technologyreview.com/...a-lot-more-accurate/

Excerpt:

"When Amit Khera explains how he predicts disease, the young cardiologist’s hands touch the air, arranging imaginary columns of people: 30,000 who have suffered heart attacks here, 100,000 healthy controls there.

There’s never been data available on as many people’s genes as there is today. And that wealth of information is allowing researchers to guess at any person’s chance of getting common diseases like diabetes, arthritis, clogged arteries, and depression.

Doctors already test for rare, deadly mutations in individual genes. Think of the BRCA breast cancer gene. Or the one-letter mutation that causes sickle-cell anemia. But such one-to-one connections between a mutation and a disease—“the gene for X”—aren’t seen in most common ailments. Instead, these have complex causes, which until recently have remained elusive.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

It's somewhat fascinating that substances with known addictive properties like caffeine are not regulated the way others are and that we have permitted businesses to build empires around them. I do like my morning coffee, however!

I got my "MyFitnessGenes" results back. Pretty interesting. I'm AC for CYP1A2, so avoided the worst-case for caffeine (according to the article in this thread). Phew. I can keep drinking coffee.

I haven't fully digested the rest of them, but my testosterone-associated genes were interesting. I scored "low circulating testosterone risk" on all 3 of them. Which explains why my measured T results (from my InsideTracker experiment) were all way low. That was actually kind of encouraging. I'd thought that the clinical tests on T indicated there might be something wrong with me, or that I'm chronically overtrained. But it sounds like maybe it's just who I am.

On the plus side I scored "high" on nearly every aerobic capacity-related gene. Overall the results kind of present me as exactly who I think I am. Tall, skinny endurance dude. Go figure.

I wonder if it has to do anything with red bull becoming the biggest sponsor in sports. A company that sells a banned substance can't be a sponsor.

Just got my 23andme data back, I am also CC. On one level, not surprising in that I've never actually found that much benefit in my training from caffeine, I just always have taken it because it's supposed to help! On a different level, I suffer no ill consequences from caffeine consumption that I'm aware. I guess I'll start cutting back and see what happens.

Edit: I did just go back and look at the blurb from the pubmed article that was linked in the OP. They had 100 cyclists, which isn't a small number, but the number of cyclists that have the CC variant, which is relatively uncommon, and took 4mg caffeine must have been quite small and the performance result seen for CC could have easily been caused by one bombed performance.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

ok - yes the small sample of CC makes sense. What confuses me a bit is that I definitely (without a doubt) see a performance increase from caffeine. It would be interesting to know what length of time they left between ingestion of the caffeine and the cycling test. For me to see a benefit, I'd need to take it about 90 mins before the test.

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |