Comments on: Podcast Episode #62: Is Ben Greenfield Actually Healthy? The Blood, Urine and Saliva Results Are In!

By: Fun With Blood, Saliva, and Ben Greenfield. | venlawartz

Fun With Blood, Saliva, and Ben Greenfield. | venlawartz — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:13:51 +0000

[...] Podcast Episode #62: Is Ben Greenfield Actually Healthy? The Blood, Urine and Saliva Results Are In! Click here for the full written transcript of this podcast… [...]

By: Episode #62 Full Transcript | Ben Greenfield Fitness

Episode #62 Full Transcript | Ben Greenfield Fitness — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 03:38:46 +0000

[...] Episode #62 Full Transcript September 30th, 2009 Podcast from #62 http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/2009/09/podcast-episode-62-is-ben-greenfield-actually-healthy-th... [...]

By: Ben Greenfield

Ben Greenfield — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:05:03 +0000

I think it has more longetivity, because now I can “fix” where I know I’m prone to be low, and follow Dr. Cohen’s general rec’s on 1K-2K IU Vit D in the Summer, bumping up to 4-6K IU Vit D in the winter, boosting testosterone year round, etc.

Obviously in an ideal world I could just re-test every 12 weeks. But I’d start to feel like the Russian robot fighter from Rocky IV, or is it V?

By: Todd Houston

Todd Houston — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:52:48 +0000

Thanks Ben! (that’s what I thought you’d say…) But, here’s a follow-up. After training for a few years, I feel like I have my zones dialed-in (the highly scientific term) and of course, do regular testing to see how these HR numbers change. My reason for shying away from Performance Testing is exactly that – these numbers change as fitness and training changes. So with this type of testing, do you think it would have more or less ‘longevity’ than Performance testing? In the podcast, you talked about how these numbers (i.e. Vit. D) could have been different in the off-season when out of the sun more. So would you have to complete the Bioletics testing several times per year to get an accurate picture, or is once a year enough?

By: Ben Greenfield

Ben Greenfield — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:11:51 +0000

I do have some of Peter Gillham’s “Natural Vitality” oral magnesium powder which can be mixed in a glass of water. I’ve been talking with their company about the quality of their formulations and doing a bit of research on it, but I may end up supplementing my transdermal magnesium therapy with a glass of powdered magnesium in the morning. I’ll be in touch on the podcast about what I find.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:41:05 +0000

Ben,
How dose the test result effect your over all usage of transdermal magnesium application. Will you increase the spraying to 30 times. I wonder what your score would be if you have tested with but using the pills instead of transdermal application.

was this a shock.

Thanks again for your effort and i greatly appreciate you being the test subject.

Alex.

By: Ben Greenfield

Ben Greenfield — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:38:57 +0000

Man, that is a very tough call. It’s kinda like saying if you had to choose between eating healthy and exercising, which would you choose? I would say that since you could TECHNICALLY approximate your lactate threshold by hard you breathe, whether your legs burn, etc., you would want to prioritize the Bioletics testing, since it’s stuff you can’t just “guess” at…make sense? I’ll talk about this in more detail in a future podcast.

By: Todd Houston

Todd Houston — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:06:07 +0000

Ben, I listened to this podcast (and #53), and have to say I was blown away. I had no idea that the typical non-pro athlete had access to this level of nutritional analysis. Thanks for being the guinea pig, and sharing your results.

My question is that if you had to choose between Performance Testing (i.e. Blood lactate threshold testing, VO2MAX, etc.) or this type of testing from Bioletics, which one would provide more/better insight to your optimal performance? I think I already know the answer, but was curious to hear your take on this.