Osmo - Front Page Article/Test

Triathlon Forum
1

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/Osmo_Nutrition_Test_3406.html

Can we please poke holes in this? Or do we believe these results?

I’m obviously slightly bias having some help from First Endurance, but the results seem to be a bit of a stretch. Never mind when you compare the profile of equal serving sizes of Osmo and EFS Drink (and Skratch for that matter) they’re nearly the exact same. EFS includes an Amino Acid blend which seems to be the only real difference. Had Greg used EFS Drink as opposed to EFS Liquid Shot (which has much less electrolytes per serving than EFS Drink) I wonder what the result would have been.

2

For as many ‘fueling issues’ that we read about on the forum, I’m surprised there isn’t more talk of the article. I’m game. I think that Greg did a pretty good job raising eyebrows with some of his comments. I’m interested to know the logistics for long course fueling as well.

3.2g CHO per 100ml = ~13cal per 100ml. That’s what, 90-100 calories per large water bottle? I know it says that calories/fluid were normalized for body weight, but would a ‘better’ test be to mix EFS for instance at the same 3.2% concentration of OSMO and use the same semi-solid or solid food as well? Or mix the OSMO drink to the higher concentration and see how it compares. I think that a couple of those questions were raised on the front page as well.

And, the power meter issue is really the heart of the test, and if Greg saw one thing on the mag trainer, how much more noise did that induce in the other riders’ tests as well? I was part of one of the early Accelerade tests and there were a lot of holes in that one as well.

3

For as many ‘fueling issues’ that we read about on the forum, I’m surprised there isn’t more talk of the article.

My exact thought. Maybe it’ll pick up tomorrow morning but this seems like something people would want to talk about.

3.2g CHO per 100ml = ~13cal per 100ml. That’s what, 90-100 calories per large water bottle? I know it says that calories/fluid were normalized for body weight, but would a ‘better’ test be to mix EFS for instance at the same 3.2% concentration of OSMO and use the same semi-solid or solid food as well? Or mix the OSMO drink to the higher concentration and see how it compares. I think that a couple of those questions were raised on the front page as well.

My exact thoughts. And my guess would be that you could substitute Osmo for EFS Drink or Skratch and end up with the same result. Of all the hydration/sports drink/mixes on the market these are clearly the three best designed. Though First Endurance has been doing this much longer than either Osmo or Skratch. I will say that I’m semi interested in the flavors of Osmo and Skratch as I’ve taken down enough Grape and Lemon Lime EFS to hydrate a small army.

And, the power meter issue is really the heart of the test, and if Greg saw one thing on the mag trainer, how much more noise did that induce in the other riders’ tests as well? I was part of one of the early Accelerade tests and there were a lot of holes in that one as well.

Agreed. I feel that part should be completely removed with all of the issues (different powermeters, different trainers, etc). Its misleading.

4

Maybe I’m missing something, but if they are saying that you should be taking in 90-100 cal an hour, what if you took brand X at 200 cal per bottle and cut it in half. Would that kind of be the same thing?

5

I can’t dispute the testing protocol as I don’t know enough about it. But I know if I only consume 90-100 calories per hour during an IM there is no way I would get through the race in a reasonable time.

6

I can’t dispute the testing protocol as I don’t know enough about it. But I know if I only consume 90-100 calories per hour during an IM there is no way I would get through the race in a reasonable time.

the article suggests the rest of the cals should come from solid food.

I don’t quite understand how my stomach knows/cares if I chewed up a power bar then drank a 90 cal solution of liquid

or if I just drank a 200 cal solution of liquid

7

For as many ‘fueling issues’ that we read about on the forum, I’m surprised there isn’t more talk of the article.

My exact thought. Maybe it’ll pick up tomorrow morning but this seems like something people would want to talk about.

3.2g CHO per 100ml = ~13cal per 100ml. That’s what, 90-100 calories per large water bottle? I know it says that calories/fluid were normalized for body weight, but would a ‘better’ test be to mix EFS for instance at the same 3.2% concentration of OSMO and use the same semi-solid or solid food as well? Or mix the OSMO drink to the higher concentration and see how it compares. I think that a couple of those questions were raised on the front page as well.

My exact thoughts. And my guess would be that you could substitute Osmo for EFS Drink or Skratch and end up with the same result. Of all the hydration/sports drink/mixes on the market these are clearly the three best designed. Though First Endurance has been doing this much longer than either Osmo or Skratch. **I will say that I’m semi interested in the flavors of Osmo and Skratch as I’ve taken down enough Grape and Lemon Lime EFS to hydrate a small army. **

And, the power meter issue is really the heart of the test, and if Greg saw one thing on the mag trainer, how much more noise did that induce in the other riders’ tests as well? I was part of one of the early Accelerade tests and there were a lot of holes in that one as well.

Agreed. I feel that part should be completely removed with all of the issues (different powermeters, different trainers, etc). Its misleading.

I have used Grape and Lemon Lime EFS for years. I just switched over to Skratch about 1 month ago. I ran out the other day and had to go back and use EFS. I could not even drink it. The Skratch stuff is awesome. The taste is great and it is very easy on the stomach.

8

I can’t dispute the testing protocol as I don’t know enough about it. But I know if I only consume 90-100 calories per hour during an IM there is no way I would get through the race in a reasonable time.

the article suggests the rest of the cals should come from solid food.

I don’t quite understand how my stomach knows/cares if I chewed up a power bar then drank a 90 cal solution of liquid

or if I just drank a 200 cal solution of liquid

I know for me, my energy levels during training stay higher and more consistent when I eat solid (yet soft foods) (e.g., PB&J, jelly beans, stinger waffles, etc.).
I can do fine on Infinit for a half, but have had serious bonk issues, trying to liquid alone for IMs.

My theory, is that it takes longer to break down solid food in the stomach, thereby allowing for a more even distribution of calories into my system.

9

Still, the question of whether this delicate balancing of solution osmolality matter, if you are churning your solid food into the mix in your stomach remains.

does the osmo just swish past the solid foods and absorb so quickly that the two remain independent in some sense?

10

Still, the question of whether this delicate balancing of solution osmolality matter, if you are churning your solid food into the mix in your stomach remains.

does the osmo just swish past the solid foods and absorb so quickly that the two remain independent in some sense?

Yes, essentially. Like any well designed sports drink does. Not just Osmo.

Lim and Sims write a lot on their respective blogs about this exact question. Might be worth a read.

11

Here is the problem i have with these types of products and tests. It is like diet, you can go out and find folks that eat just about anything and do well with it, yet their diet would kill others. Since we diverged over 10k years ago our bodies have adapted to dozens of different enviorments and food sources. It will not be as pronounced as diet, but this type of product and the space it represents(race and training fueling) is going to be the same.

So we already have about 50 years of endurance fueling history with large groups. We have 35 years just in our sport alone. It has become clear to me that those that excell in longer races of 1/2 and up, are the same ones that can absorbe a good amount of calories under stressful conditions. Now even this changes radically as temps rise, and efforts increase, and the distance gets longer. So even with the same athlete things are going to change a bit as these variables harden up. But if we take hawaii for an example, it is clear that you need to absorbe at least 200 calories an hour, and the best approach 600. I don’t exactly remember jordan’s formula, but i think he was in the 400+ range. Mark Allen used to approach that 600 mark. Now if you give mark’s or jordan’s race nutrition to someone else, they could very easily get plugged up and bloat. Some people eat solid food and do real well, others have to do liquid and gels only. All of this has been tested in the best possible place possible, and under the best conditions, the actual race for 35 years.

I’m pretty sure you will never be a top ironman finisher if you consume only a 100+ calories an hour. OF course you could do the race, i could do it on just water if i went slow enough. There is no magic bullet here folks, take a look at has worked, expirement with some tried and true formulas, and eventually you will find what is best for you. It may be that osmo is what works, but it has to be taken with something else for these longer triathlons. Under normal weather i could get away with very little in calories in a 1/2, and in frigid conditions almost nothing at all. Turn up the heat and it is like i have a different body.

Everyone will have their own needs, some need tons of salt tablets, others need mag to go with it, potassium, and some just need plain water with food. All this study will prove is that these paticular subjects reacted a certain way to the stimilus provided. You can glean from it what it basically says, and maybe it applies to you, maybe not. But one thing for sure, in it form right now they are only talking to sprinters in normal weather, so not really meaningful for most of our group…

12

**On the Concept: **My philosophy here is that so much of the “optimal” absorption of fluids and calories is likely to vary from stomach to stomach, so while this is certainly interesting and informative, like so many things related to fueling, the best strategy is the one that works for you confirmed by experimentation and experience, both during training and race situations since physiologic and neurological variables often differ in those two settings. That said, from my N=1, I have found that in high intensity situations (e.g., HR is in the threshold neighborhood) my ideal fueling strategy indeed follows "Drink from your bottles, eat from your pockets."

To Jack’s point on how your stomach knows, doesn’t it all get mixed together: while I have no scientific explanation, I do remember hearing a podcast with Ben Greenfield and Stacy Sims a while back (I believe before Osmo was even created) where she equated high CHO sports drinks to couch beds: not really a good couch, not really a good bed.

It is intellectually interesting though because on the one hand I wonder how much difference there is between drinking a heavy CHO mix (think Powerbar Perform) versus drinking Nuun (hardly any CHO, significantly less than Osmo) and then immediately following it with an energy gel or shot block…seems like no difference given the “slosh in stomach” effect. BUT, in the field, if my hydration source has significant calories I without fail get bloated, cramped, and sick on the run. Since switching to Nuun + gels and shot blocks, I’ve had no stomach issues, and this is not a self-fulfilling prophecy because I made the switch a year ago prior to all this after just experimenting around…so perhaps something is there? Would love Stacy or Greg to comment on this?** **

**Making it Practical: **While I have yet to race a full IM, in many HIMs it looks like this for me. 24-32 Oz Nuun an hour (about 6g CHO) and either a gel or 3 shot blocks on 20 minute intervals (another 75g CHO an hour). If Stacy is suggesting that semi-solids like gels and shot-blocks are off limits, then I agree, things would get very interesting and I am curious as to what she recommends. Bill and I were talking offline yesterday that it seems like both Sims and Lim come from cycling backgrounds where it is a lot easier to eat real food for many reasons, including different support set-ups in bike races, and also the fact that there isn’t a 13-26 mile run after. It will be great to read the follow-up that was promised on what a long-course triathlon fueling strategy would look like.

**On the Test Itself (This is My Real Question): **To get right to the point, those power numbers are hard to believe!! They were averages across something like 18 riders, and I can’t imagine the protocol was set up so the non-Osmo day was on the Mag Trainer (where it sounds like people may have spun-out) and the Osmo day on the fluid trainer, haha! So, assuming a pretty kosher protocol, I just don’t get it? I feel like if I were to do the protocol in a glycogen depleted state (e.g., first thing in the morning) one day and then with ‘perfect’ nutrition and Osmo the next, my 15 minute TT watt differential wouldn’t be near as high as the reported values. I could see myself going something like 305 day one and perhaps 325 day 2, but they reported something like a 55 watt (18%) difference, which to me seems impossible. I mean let’s be real, we have all done workouts with poor nutritional prep and fueling and while there is clearly some difference, I can’t even see how even the poorest day one (e.g., starved, only water) would see that much less power than the most perfect day two, especially over such a short effort? Anyone have different thoughts?

It would be great to have Greg and/or ideally Stacy enlighten us a bit more. Since tone can get lost via text, while I am skeptical (hard not to be with those numbers) I am by no means being critical or aggressive here. I am genuinely curious; particularly about the role of semi-solids, Jack’s point about everything getting sloshed together, and those 15 minute power differential numbers.

13

All the testing I’ve seen from Osmo and Skratch Labs only involves cycling. I know when I’m riding I can handle a lot of different types of foods, but if I’m racing a triathlon or even just running, solid food it tough. Have you seen anything about testing done outside of just cycling?

14

The idea is that you move from solids to semi solids to all fluid as the race progresses. Meaning, at the start of the bike you take in solids and as the bike progresses and you move into the run, you gradually move to all fluid.

But as Monty echoed above, everyones different. As you mentioned, I find it incredibly difficult to take down solids under effort. Even a Z3/tempo-ish effort.

I’ve never tested a mix of solids and fluids in training but I have gone through lots of trial and error of various amounts of fluids at different CHO/calorie/electrolyte levels per hour and netted out on what works for me. Which is what everyone should be doing. Testing in training.

My issue/qualm/beef with the article is the results of the test and the implication that Osmo is any different/better than Skratch or EFS. We can discuss the best fueling approaches for days but thats ultimately decided by what works for you. Sure, theres more optimal fueling/hydrating guidelines that can be used as a starting point but what works for me very well might not work for you.

15

For as many ‘fueling issues’ that we read about on the forum, I’m surprised there isn’t more talk of the article. I’m game. I think that Greg did a pretty good job raising eyebrows with some of his comments. I’m interested to know the logistics for long course fueling as well.

3.2g CHO per 100ml = ~13cal per 100ml. That’s what, 90-100 calories per large water bottle? I know it says that calories/fluid were normalized for body weight, but would a ‘better’ test be to mix EFS for instance at the same 3.2% concentration of OSMO and use the same semi-solid or solid food as well? Or mix the OSMO drink to the higher concentration and see how it compares. I think that a couple of those questions were raised on the front page as well.

And, the power meter issue is really the heart of the test, and if Greg saw one thing on the mag trainer, how much more noise did that induce in the other riders’ tests as well? I was part of one of the early Accelerade tests and there were a lot of holes in that one as well.

“I’m surprised there isn’t more talk of the article.”

Heh. Some folks seem to think that ONLY the forum exists. I’ve had an article at the very top of the front page answering everything you could want to know about X… meanwhile someone asks in the forum, “What is X?” All the time.

Regarding your second point - comparing apples to apples with concentration, that was not the point of the test (which I think makes sense). EFS is recommended to be mixed at 8%, not 3.2%. It’s like the Mavic wind tunnel test we did last year - bring any wheel and tire you want, and we’ll put it up against our CXR80. BUT - whenever possible, we are going to follow the manufacturers’ recommendations (i.e. if Zipp says that their tire/wheel system is the fastest - let’s test their tire/wheel system against our tire/wheel system). Would it have been nice to have the same tire on every wheel? Yup. But they can structure it however they want. And in the end, we’re limited on time to do the test every which way.

The trainer issue was - an issue. This test was an initial trial - I believe with the intention of getting a real, large-sample study funded. I made some suggestions to Stacy on how to make the power side of it much more bullet proof.

I’ll have more detail in the second article. I really focused on osmolality, since that’s the product name, and a big part of the story. But, I think Stacy focused just as much on sugar type/ratio, sodium type, etc. She has a beef with maltodextrin, which I’ll cover. I’m also going to do a bunch of N=1 testing this year with this and other products. To date, my best Ironman was on a super-concentrate Liquid Shot bottle. By the end of it, I absolutely hated the taste, but it got the job done. At least so far, Osmo has been fantastic in training; the challenge is long-course racing. Her approach is (from where I sit), slightly different from Allen Lim. Again, more to come.

16

“Agreed. I feel that part should be completely removed with all of the issues (different powermeters, different trainers, etc). Its misleading.”

I left it in for completeness. I wasn’t the only journalist there, and at least one other story mentioned power. I didn’t want to act as though it never happened - I wanted to explain what happened, what the intent was, and why I think it was flawed.

17

"They were averages across something like 18 riders, and I can’t imagine the protocol was set up so the non-Osmo day was on the Mag Trainer (where it sounds like people may have spun-out) and the Osmo day on the fluid trainer, haha! So, assuming a pretty kosher protocol, I just don’t get it? I feel like if I were to do the protocol in a glycogen depleted state (e.g., first thing in the morning) one day and then with ‘perfect’ nutrition and Osmo the next, my 15 minute TT watt differential wouldn’t be near as high as the reported values. I could see myself going something like 305 day one and perhaps 325 day 2, but they reported something like a 55 watt (18%) difference, which to me seems impossible. I mean let’s be real, we have all done workouts with poor nutritional prep and fueling and while there is clearly some difference, I can’t even see how even the poorest day one (e.g., starved, only water) would see that much less power than the most perfect day two, especially over such a short effort? Anyone have different thoughts? "

-The two other riders I saw rode the Fluid. Whichever trainer you rode the first day, you had to ride the second day. I didn’t see all of the tests, but my understanding is that many of them only had one person at a time (I happened to schedule at the same time as Neal from Velonews). Order of testing (Osmo vs other) was randomized. Food intake for the 4-day period was tightly controlled - per the testing protocol listed. I’m not defending anyone/anything here - just stating what we did. I agree that the numbers - at first glance - do look suspicious. Unfortunately, with the Mag trainer data in there, it really skews things. If I was the only guy who rode it, then I should just be thrown out of the bulk data.

It would be great to have Greg and/or ideally Stacy enlighten us a bit more.

-As I mention in the article, there will be a part 2.

18

-As I mention in the article, there will be a part 2.

How long do we have to wait for that? I’m incredibly interested in her strategy for ironman fueling/hydration using her proposed approach.

19

-As I mention in the article, there will be a part 2.

How long do we have to wait for that? I’m incredibly interested in her strategy for ironman fueling/hydration using her proposed approach.

Until I get it done! :wink: Hopefully not longer than a week, but I have a ton of stuff going right now.

20

Sims’ research stood up to peer review, a little different than making unsubstantiated claims. It’s also less publicized that she created the original formula for what became Scratch Lab Secret Drink Mix (which Lim more or less took and claimed as his own). Someone might have already linked to his article that delves into her methodology and philosophy but here it is again.

I agree that not every nutrition plan works for every person. For example, I have Celiac and a really janky stomach. I have to be extra cautious with what and when I eat around racing, where others can literally eat a stick of fried butter and be fine. Nonetheless, that doesn’t mean the core science of fueling is wrong.