Anatomy of a Lame-Ass Protein Article

I have no problem with protein. I eat it every day. In fact, I had a hearty bowl of goat's milk yogurt for breakfast, but I gotta say, protein-pushers drive me nuts. Long story short, if you're looking to increase mass, massive protein piling just doesn't work. Yes, if you're trying to promote a little ketosis and burn fat, that's one thing, but the notion of 1-1.5 grams of protein per pound of body weight to build muscle? I have yet to read a compelling article or study that proves this.

The correct numbers, according to every piece of scientific evidence I have ever read ever, ever, ever, are .8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight for plebs, 1.5 gram per kilo for athletes. Why did people switch those kilograms to pounds, which would approximately double intake? My theory is that 50% of America just can't grasp the metric system and the other 50% exploits the measurement-impaired first half to sell protein powder.

Case in point, this article from Bodybuilding.com about the importance of nitrogen balance. I'm not going to wade through the whole article here, but I will quote this key point:

A nitrogen balance study of bodybuilders demonstrated an increased protein need relative to controls and estimated the RDA for bodybuilders to be 1.7 g/kg total.

In another study, impressive strength gains of 5% and size of 6% were seen over several months of strength training in world-class weight lifters when they increased their dietary protein from 1.8 to 3.5 g/kg of body weight per day.

Both these studies underscore the greater need among strength athletes, for a higher protein consumption. For the average, non-pro, bodybuilder, it is best to err on the side of caution and consume more than the one-gram-per-pound guideline, to ensure maximal nitrogen retention.

Okay, noted. There's a also a little calculator in the article telling me that at 165 pounds, I should eat 263 grams of protein per day. Lots! Now, let's skip down the article's references:

Fritz, B.(1991). Balance: What Growth is all About. Muscle and Fitness. December, 1991.

Lemon, Peter, "Do athletes need more dietary protein and amino acids?" International Journal of Sports Nutrition, S 39-61, 1995

Tarnopolsky, M, Evaluation of protein requirements for trained strength athletes." Journal of Applied Physiology, VOl 73, No 5, pgs 1986-1995, 1993

The link is mine. While the article offered plenty of links to various amino acids it sells, it did not link to these references. I suppose that's understandable - a lot of commerce sites avoid external links. The problem is, the links are all completely bogus, so not linking to them smacks of misdirection.

And for the record, none of the references above mention the study showing "impressive strength gains" due to heavy protein use. If you're going to mention a study like that, you probably want to include it in the references. Just sayin'.

Wait. I take that back. I'm not 100% sure of that because I couldn't find that article by B. Fritz. I have no idea what it says, but seriously, when you're throwing down heavy science like this, is it really appropriate to mention an article - not even a study - from an obscure, 20-year-old magazine? I have a copy of the July 1992 Australian edition of Field and Stream stating that claims shoving soft-boiled eggs up your butt combats gout.

Do you believe me?

From there it gets better. I wasn't able to find that second reference either. I did, however, track down a hell of a paper trail from its author, Dr. Peter Lemon, who apparently spent the better part of the 90s on a quixotic quest to lance the protein windmill, ending with a 2000 article in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition stating the following:

A variety of factors interact to increase dietary protein needs of individuals who exercise regularly. Although future study will need to determine precise recommendations, current research indicates that as long as energy intake is adequate a daily protein intake of 1.2–1.4 g/d for individuals participating in regular endurance exercise and 1.6–1.8 g/kg for their counterparts involved in strength exercise should be sufficient. To ensure these increased needs are met, care should be taken to consume a diet containing adequate energy and a selection of high quality protein foods, i.e., dairy products, eggs, meat, fish and soy products. Select populations may be at increased risk of not consuming sufficient protein due to increased requirements for a variety of other reasons, i.e., unbalanced diet (vegetarians), inadequate energy intake (dieters or athletes with high energy expenditure, especially women), higher baseline requirements (those who are growing or the elderly) and so on. More study is necessary before all of this can be untangled.

In other words, this is a study from the guy who wrote the phantom study sourced in the Bodybuilding.com article dated five years later stating "1.6–1.8 g/kg for their counterparts involved in strength exercise should be sufficient."

And here's another article from Dr. Lemon in 1992 stating that "during the early stages of intensive bodybuilding training, PRO needs are approximately 100% greater than current recommendations but that PROIN increases from 1.35 to 2.62 g.kg-1.day-1 do not enhance muscle mass/strength gains, at least during the 1st mo of training."

Oops!

Finally, I did find a link to the third reference in the Bodybuilding.com article. Here's the abstract:

Leucine kinetic and nitrogen balance (NBAL) methods were used to determine the dietary protein requirements of strength athletes (SA) compared with sedentary subjects (S). Individual subjects were randomly assigned to one of three protein intakes: low protein (LP) = 0.86 g protein.kg-1.day-1, moderate protein (MP) = 1.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1, or high protein (HP) = 2.40 g protein.kg-1.day-1 for 13 days for each dietary treatment. NBAL was measured and whole body protein synthesis (WBPS) and leucine oxidation were determined from L-[1-13C]leucine turnover. NBAL data were used to determine that the protein intake for zero NBAL for S was 0.69 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.41 g.kg-1.day-1. A suggested recommended intake for S was 0.89 g.kg-1.day-1 and for SA was 1.76 g.kg-1.day-1. For SA, the LP diet did not provide adequate protein and resulted in an accommodated state (decreased WBPS vs. MP and HP), and the MP diet resulted in a state of adaptation [increase in WBPS (vs. LP) and no change in leucine oxidation (vs. LP)]. The HP diet did not result in increased WBPS compared with the MP diet, but leucine oxidation did increase significantly, indicating a nutrient overload. For S the LP diet provided adequate protein, and increasing protein intake did not increase WBPS. On the HP diet leucine oxidation increased for S. These results indicated that the MP and HP diets were nutrient overloads for S. There were no effects of varying protein intake on indexes of lean body mass (creatinine excretion, body density) for either group. In summary, protein requirements for athletes performing strength training are greater than for sedentary individuals and are above current Canadian and US recommended daily protein intake requirements for young healthy males.

As I read it, strength trainers need more protein than sedentary people, but a high-protein diet (2.40 g protein.kg) is too much. Therefore, a moderate protein diet (1.40 g protein.kg) is ideal for weightlifters.

So, to sum up, how on earth are we supposed to take an article seriously when its references are either impossible to find or completely contradict the key points?

It's enough to make the yogurt curdle in my stomach. I'm having carbs for lunch.

The Zen of Cholesterol

Ready to get your namaste on? Keeping in line with this week's enlightenment theme, I gotta study and a Buddhist parable for y'all. First, the story:

"A young widower, who loved his five year old son very much, was away on business when bandits came who burned down the whole village and took his son away. When the man returned, he saw the ruins and panicked. The took the burnt corpse of an infant to be his son and cried uncontrollably. He organised a cremation ceremony, collected the ashes and put them in a beautiful little bag which he always kept with him.

Soon afterwards, his real son escaped from the bandits and found his way home. He arrived at his father's new cottage at midnight and knocked at the door. The father, still grieving asked: "Who is it?" The child answered, it is me papa, open the door!" But in his agitated state of mind, convinced his son was dead, the father thought that some young boy was making fun of him. He shouted: "Go away" and continued to cry. After some time, the child left.

Father and son never saw each other again."

After this story, the Buddha said: "Sometime, somewhere, you take something to be the truth. If you cling to it so much, even when the truth comes in person and knocks on your door, you will not open it."

I know, I know. Not your typical Real Fitness Nerd hilarity. I'm probably killing the party a little bit, but I want to make a point, so stop your belly-achin' and stick with me. Now the study:

Scientists from the University of Warwick have discovered why a newly found form of cholesterol seems to be 'ultra-bad', leading to increased risk of heart disease. The discovery could lead to new treatments to prevent heart disease particularly in people with type 2 diabetes and the elderly.

The research, funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF), found that 'ultra-bad' cholesterol, called MGmin-low-density lipoprotein (LDL), which is more common in people with type 2 diabetes and the elderly, appears to be 'stickier' than normal LDL. This makes it more likely to attach to the walls of arteries. When LDL attaches to artery walls it helps form the dangerous 'fatty' plaques' that cause coronary heart disease (CHD).

The reason I'm particularly interested in this study is two-fold. First, I love the Darth Vader-esque ring of "ultra-bad cholesterol" and look forward to watching Today Show "medical experts" abuse the term. Second, these scientists figured out that this stuff is created by a process called glycation, in which excess sugar attaches to normal LDL and makes it stickier. They think this is the reason why a diabetes 2 drug called metformin tends to also lower the risk of heart disease. In other words, too much sugar can cause heart issues.

So now I'm going to put the parable and the study together. Some of you may know what I like to have sport with the Sat Fat Set - those pro-lipid enthusiasts who claim there's nothing wrong with dietary cholesterol and the only true evil in the nutritional world is refined sugar. While I'm no fan of added sugar, I find myself polarizing every time someone insists that coconut milk will save the universe or that the obesity epidemic is 100% due to high fructose corn syrup.

But, as of late, I've been trying not to cling to my "truths." I'm in the middle of Gary Taubes' book, Why We Get Fat, which argues that it's malnutrition, not over-nutrition that makes people obese. I'm reading slowly and trying to accept it and, I gotta say, the man makes a few good points. And today's study just reenforces his points. Maybe I need to rethink things.

Don't worry, I'm the same cynical bastard I've always been and I still plan to call bullshit when bullshit needs calling. For example, so far in the book, Taubes has taken several pokes at Michael Pollan's motto "Eat Food. Not Too Much. Mostly Plants" when, in truth, their two theories can co-exist happily. You're being a douchbag, Gary. Knock it off. It just waters down your point.

The thing is, while our bodies aren't changing that much, what we know about them and what we put into them is changing rapidly, so I think it's important to check in sometimes with my convictions. What should I hold onto as truth and what's my bag of ashes?

Question of the Week: Sweet Enlightenment

Wow. You guys ask a lot of questions. I don't know whether to be honored that you're looking to me for answers, or really disturbed that you're looking to me for answers. Either way, I've committed myself to this, so pull down your pants, turn your head, and cough, as I get on with it.

I think I'll start with The Grumpy Buddha's question. Frankly, I could use the karma boost, so if you could put in a good word with the Cosmic Oneness, GB, I'd appreciate it. I'd rather not come back next life as a goat, which is what a recent ex-girlfriend strongly suggested might happen, but only after I rotted in hell for 5 million years. (I didn't question her co-mingling of afterlife beliefs given she was holding a golf club at the time.)

Dear Mr. Real Fitness Nerd -

Most anti/pro-sugar wars I see look like this:

Atkinsy Health Nut: Sugar is bad!
Not-Atkinsy Health Nut: Not really! Just the processed crap!
Atkinsy Health Nut: I dunno, I still think sugar is bad!
Non-Atkinsy Health Nut: Just ignore the processed crap. Fruits and veggies are fine. They have fiber, so the sugar is absorbed slowly and stuff! I mean, it's FRUIT. How could it be bad?
Atkinsy Health Nut: Whatever! Sugar Is Bad! You should just eat seal fat, like all our ancestors did.
Non-Atkinsy Health Nut: Seriously, if fruit is bad for you, then WTF?

Sadly, I have yet to see the conversion continue in this way:

Slacker Junk Food Addict Pseudo-Health Nut: Eeeexcellent, so, Non-Atkinsy-Health-Nut, I can have a few Little Debbie snack cakes, and as long as I down some All-Bran with it, I should be fine, right?

What say ye?

- Favoring Fudge and Fiber Fusion in Fiji

That all ya got, GB? Easy! First off, no, a bowl of All-Bran will not offset that snack cake, not that it wouldn't be delicious. Sadly, the fiber in the All-Bran is busy slowing the absorption of the carbs in the cereal itself. A confectionery blast would overwhelm it. However, theoretically, yes, you could lace the treat with psyllium husk, ostensibly reverse engineering the world's first whole grain Little Debbie snack cake, but it would be really nutrient-poor, so while they might be slow-absorbing calories, they'd be slow-absorbing empty calories.

Which brings me to why I think people who shun fruit are mostly dumb-asses. Sure, some fruit can be slightly off re: the fiber/sugar ratio, but they're so nutrient-rich that it doesn't really matter. For example, everyone's favorite low-carb whipping boy, the banana. A large one is 121 calories, 31g carbs, 17g sugar, and 4g fiber - which isn't all that bad and therefore kind of moots my point before I make it - but pretending it is an unhealthy blast of sugar, it's also loaded with electrolytes and vitamins, so it's worth it. Furthermore, it's really filling, so you'll eat less. A King-Sized Snickers is 537 calories. I could totally eat a King-Size Snickers, but could I eat the 4.43 large bananas I'd need to meet that calorie count? Gross.

As for refined sugar, yes, it's bad for you, but don't be a freak about it and you'll be okay. A good rule of thumb is 80% of your diet should be rock-solid so that we can all pretend we didn't see you eat the other 20%. This rule works out nicely for sports supplementation as well. For example, if you're lifting weights and you want to supplement creatine, the best way to transport it to your muscles with straight sugar. Technically, this should be just fine because if your protocol is right, your hard workout should tap your blood sugar and glycogen so the rush of sugar carrying the creatine should just recharge your stores. But if you want to get all Gary Taubes about it and fret that refined sugar gives you everything from cancer to ingrown toenails, I still think it's okay if the rest of your diet is top-notch. Like I said, 80/20.

Of course you could swear off sugar completely and it wouldn't be a bad thing. It would be super healthy in fact, but, well, like that's going to happen. As I always say, moderation, Buddha Boy, is the key.

Ask the Real Fitness Nerd

I'm getting a little tired of bitching and moaning about questionable studies all the time, so I might try something new here at the Real Fitness Nerd. If you Nerd Herders want to ask me questions, I'll pick some out and incorporate them into the blog with sarcastic and vaguely accurate answers.

You can either post questions in the comments after my posts, or you can ask them on my Facebook page.

Throw me some fun stuff. If you give yourself a good name (Constipated in Cincinnati, Protein Packin' Pete, etc), you'll just make me want to answer you all the more. And, yes, I'll link back to your blog. Many of you know me through my work at Beachbody, so I ask that you steer your questions regarding those products to the TeamBeachbody Message Boards, where I tend to tone it down and be a little less... what's the word for it? Oh yes! Fabulous.

What ya got for me?

Cardio may save you from zombies, but not necessarily a heart attack

Apparently, it's "Bothered by Science" Week here at The Real Fitness Nerd, cuz I have another study to whinge about. Here are the facts, hot off the press release:

In one recent study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, researchers analyzed the heart disease risk of 45-, 55- and 65-year-old men based on their fitness level and traditional risk factors, such as age, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, total cholesterol and smoking habits. The scientists found that low levels of midlife fitness are associated with marked differences in the lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease.

For example, a 55-year-old man who needs 15 minutes to run a mile has a 30 percent lifetime risk of developing heart disease. In contrast, a 55-year-old who can run a mile in eight minutes has a lifetime risk of less than 10 percent.

In my mind, this is just another overly-simplistic test that produces highly-contestable results. Here's why: I hate running.

That is to say, I don't mind it when you run. Run all you want. I'll be here when you get back. What bothers me is when I run. Maybe it's the fact that my scar-tissue-laden shoulders and cartilage-deficient knees start complaining before I can even get my heart rate up. Maybe it was too many laps mockingly assigned to me, the fat kid, by Mr. Mann in P.E. class. (Yes, my gym teacher's name was Mr. Mann. Maybe that's funny for you. For me, it's a painful memory that makes me want to comfort eat Pop Tarts, so laugh it up.) Either way, I have a Grinch-esque dislike for running and therefore, I'm lousy at it.

If this test were for a mile swimming or biking or paddling, I'd probably do quite well, but my systems just aren't trained for running. Honestly, I don't know if I could do a mile in 8 minutes, but I doubt it - and I know my heart is infine shape. Sure, if I were being chased by zombies, I could probably blow through that mile once the adrenaline kicked in (of course I'm referring to 28 Day Later fast zombies, as opposed to your conventional Night of the Living Dead slow zombies), but last I checked, these scientists did not factor escaping the undead into their experiments.

So if you can't crank out an 8-minute-mile, don't freak out. If you're truly out of shape, you don't need a track to figure it out. Go to the doctor and get some blood work done. Then if you feel you need to run to fix things, get yourself a new pair of jogging shoes, but don't expect to see me out there pounding the streets with you. Unless, of course, this Saturday's pending apocalypse turns out to be of the zombie variety.

photo: The Zombie Research Society

Switching your genes won't help you fit in your jeans.

In one of the more subtly surreal news stories I've read in recent months, Reuters reported yesterday that researchers have uncovered a "master gene" in body fat that regulates other genes associated with obesity-related issues such as diabetes and cholesterol.

In a study published in the journal Nature Genetics, the British researchers said that since fat plays an important role in peoples' susceptibility to metabolic diseases like obesity, heart disease and diabetes, the regulating gene could be target for drugs to treat such illnesses.

"This is the first major study that shows how small changes in one master regulator gene can cause a cascade of other metabolic effects in other genes," said Tim Spector of King's College London, who led the study.

This all makes for cool science and all, but one thing struck me as odd. Other than a passing mention that type 2 diabetes "is often linked to poor diet and lack of exercise," at no point in the article did the reporter feel compelled to point out that obesity is also linked to poor diet and lack of exercise. The whole perspective felt very much as though it's just an accepted fact that we're a massively overweight society, so instead fixing it, lets just work within that paradigm. "Hey, you're gonna be fat no matter what, so let's stop trying to fix that. Here, have some pills so that you can be fat and live longer!"

I agree that this research is important. I have overweight friends who I would very much like to benefit from it, but I'll also be the first to tell them that a pill to switch off their diabetes should be plan B.

Sure, weight-loss is a zillion dollar industry, but it doesn't hold a candle to Big Pharma, who are more than happy to let the world plump-up. That way, they can eagerly applaud scientists who discover how to better flip our gene switches, so that they can develop drugs that work around a problem that could actually be solved by a daily walk and a daily apple.

But no one profits when you go for a walk - except you.

The Nordic Diet: Beware of Vikings bearing Cabbage

When I was a kid, Mother used to say, "Never trust a Viking." Ever since, I've always made a point of being wary of fair, bearded, seafaring men bearing axes or large hammers.

Until today. I just read a new study out of Denmark showing that people who follow a traditional Nordic diet tend to live longer. Yes, it's entirely possible that one of the researchers has a brother Sven who owns a large cabbage farm in Northern Jutland, thus causing a conflict of interest, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt anyway. From the study:

A healthy Nordic food index, consisting of traditional Nordic food items with expected health-promoting effects (fish, cabbages, rye bread, oatmeal, apples and pears, and root vegetables), was extracted and associated with mortality by Cox proportional hazard models. Mortality rate ratios (MRR) with 95% CI were used to associate the index to mortality. In an adjusted model, a 1-point higher index score was associated with a significantly lower MRR for both men [0.96 (0.92-0.99)] and women [0.96 (0.92-1.00)] (P = 0.03). When the index components were evaluated separately, whole grain rye bread intake was the factor most consistently associated with lower mortality in men.

While I admire the Danes for timing the release of this study to coincide with the new Marvel movie Thor in hopes of causing some sort of Nordic pop culture groundswell, I don't think it's going to work. The problem is, for all the lust and swagger that was the Vikings, it appears that they ate the world's most boring food. Cabbage and rye bread could make us live to be 124-years-old, but health-conscious Americans still wouldn't eat it on a regular basis. "I'll have a Reuben sandwich please, hold all the good parts." Fat chance of that.

In order for us to accept a superfood in this culture, it needs to follow the Rule of the Three E's: exotic, expensive, and easy to exploit. Case in point, this article on CBS.com touting "Six new superfoods," including sykr, teff, cupuaçu, black garlic, chia, and mullberries.

Wait, after reviewing that list, make that the Rule of the Four E's:. exotic, expensive, easy to exploit, and have a name that J.R.R. Tolkien would have given to an elf. "Walk safely into Mordor, Frodo Baggins, for Sykr and Black Garlic shalt guard thine path."

If you haven't figured it out, I'm being a little snarky. In truth, I agree that it's fun to explore new foods. I do it all the time. Once Sykr gets back from casting the Ring into Mount Doom, I fully intend to try a bowl of his namesake yogurt. But I don't think it's going to be some magic cure-all that'll cure my arthritis and give me a six-pack. This Nordic study shows us that there are tons of great, cheap, universally-accessible foods to try. So tomorrow, take a break for the $5 acai berry smoothie and try a bowl of oatmeal with some apples in it. If you just don't have a Viking palate, throw a little cinnamon and honey in there. It'll be our secret.

Not so bad, huh? This Viking thing might take off after all. I hear their latest study involves pillaging small coastal villages as a method of stress-relief. I can't wait to try that one. I'm already sourcing horned helmets on eBay! Who's got a longship I can borrow?

No need to avoid fish post-Fukushima, but continue to be vigilant re: 20-story, fire-breathing lizards

Dear Real Fitness Nerd - Am I going to die of Japanese radiation poisoning because I eat fish? Love, A Nerd Herder

I've gotten this question from about a dozen people now. It may seem a little off-topic for this blog (and a little late - sorry), but I'm going to answer it anyway.

Most of the askers were people who know that seafood has long been a passion of mine - not eating it as much understanding the sociology, biology, and ethics of it. In fact, whether to call this blog the Real Fitness Nerd or the Real Fish Nerd was a flip of the coin. It has a lot to do with my love of the ocean, but I also think it's because I'm a pescatarian. It took a lot of soul searching to walk away from vegetarianism, so now I'd like to know as much as I can about that which I kill and eat.

Having put that in writing, it sounds a little sociopathic, but I'm going to run with it.

Anyway, nuclear seafood: I don't think you need to worry about it and here's why. First off, I had my friends at the New England School of Medicine write up a little report on the health effects of nuclear power plant accidents. Thanks, guys! Here are a few excerpts I'll use to make my point:

Reactor accidents can release a variety of radioisotopes into the environment. Table 1 lists the radioisotopes that were released during the Chernobyl accident. The health threat from each radioisotope depends on an assortment of factors. Radioisotopes with a very short half-life (e.g., 67 hours for molybdenum-99) or a very long half-life (e.g., 24,400 years for plutonium-239), those that are gaseous (e.g., xenon-133), and those that are not released in substantial quantities (e.g., plutonium-238) do not cause substantial internal or external contamination in reactor accidents. In contrast, iodine-131 can be an important source of morbidity because of its prevalence in reactor discharges and its tendency to settle on the ground. When iodine-131 is released, it can be inhaled or consumed after it enters the food chain, primarily through contaminated fruits, vegetables, milk, and groundwater. Once it enters the body, iodine-131 rapidly accumulates in the thyroid gland, where it can be a source of substantial doses of beta radiation.

The release of radioactive water into the sea at the Fukushima plant has resulted in an additional route whereby the food chain may be affected, through contaminated seafood. Although the radioactivity in seawater close to the plant may be transiently higher than usual by several orders of magnitude, it diffuses rapidly with distance and decays over time, according to half-life, both before and after ingestion by marine life.

and...

In accidents in which iodine-131 is released, persons in affected areas should attempt to minimize their consumption of locally grown produce and groundwater. However, since the half-life of iodine-131 is only 8 days, these local resources should not contain substantial amounts of iodine-131 after 2 to 3 months. On the advice of public health officials, area residents may take potassium iodide to block the uptake of iodine-131 in the thyroid. To be most effective, prophylactic administration of potassium iodide should occur before or within a few hours after iodine-131 exposure.

I'm not a doctor - I just play one on TV - so correct me if I'm wrong, but iodine 131 is the thing we need to worry about. But it has a half-live of 8 days and it diffuses super fast in the ocean, so unless you were eating sushi Fedexed from Japan, I don't think you need to worry. Not that I trust the FDA, but they don't seem to concerned either. Even if some radiation does work itself into the food chain, add up the various nuclear, environmental, and fishing watchdog groups keeping an eye on this and you've got yourself one nasty pack of pitbulls. If three-eyed mackerel starts showing up on dinner plates, we're gonna hear about it.

Between lefty bloggers hungry for content and "holistic" supplement sellers trying to overdose West Coasters on potassium iodide, I find the way this paranoia has been fed a little sad. We're supposed to be the fringe. Our paranoid ramblings are meant to expose deeper truths, not garner clicks and sell pills.

Thanks to Steph for pointing out this article. You never read my blog, so this thanks is wasted, but I'm still doing the right thing.

Putting the Up in Up Dog

Today we lighten up here at the Real Fitness Nerd. Literally.



Anti-gravity yoga. This looks absurdly fun. I can't wait to try it.