Electrolyte needs and real food

Tom,

I admit to a bit of a logical leap here, but my take on the situation is as follows:

* In general there is unavoidable muscle catabolism, but it is small (5%or so of used calories, max). Protein restoration from a suitable recovery drink and post exercise meal will restore this and more, generally resulting in a net muscle gain. Net-net is that one generally does not need to worry about it as long as post-exercise nutrition is proper.

* Including a small amount of protein in your endurance drink may inhibit some or all of the muscle catabolism (evidence is inconclusive). It may also enhance post-exercise protein recovery (evidence for this is also inconclusive). Since there is no indication it is harmful, you should use an endurance drink that includes a little protein.

* In exceptional cases as much as 15% – 20% of energy can come from muscle catabolism. As I understand it, that occurs when ingested CHO + fatty acid metabolism does not provide enough energy — then muscle (beyond the base level 5%) is catabolized for the remaining required energy.

I'm not sure how available glycogen plays into this. I presume some of it gets used before muscle catabolism, but it cannot all get used because it is also needed for other things. Also, there is a limited supply of glycogen.)

There are a couple of scenarios I am aware of:

(a) Very strenuous activity — basically LT and above for long enough to matter. At that level, little or no fatty acid metabolism takes place, so all energy must come from CHO. There is an upper bound on the amount of ingested CHO the body can process per hour, and if your need exceeds that then muscle catabolism will happen. I do not know about you, but I do not expect to operate at or above LT for long enough for this scenario to happen. A serious endurance racer may need to worry about it, but I doubt that you and I do.

(b) A longer and more stressful than usual day — this can be handled, but you need to be aware of your CHO needs. As an example, let's take Malto's numbers (3.0 mph average, 600 calories per hour) and a 48-mile day. That would be 16 hours and 9600 calories. Let's assume that fat burning is only 60% at that exertion level (it does decline with both higher exertion and longer duration). The CHO 40% would be 3840 calories needed, or 240 per hour for the 16 hours. If one goes along fat, dumb, and happy with his usual 120 calories per hour then one would have muscle catabolism. 240 is within what the body can process though, so if one is aware and ups his normal CHO intake for this trip there would be no problem.

Taking another look at Malto-level exertion, he is being pretty strenuous if he is averaging 3.0 mph including up hills. That means his fat utilization will drop somewhat, probably into the Hammer suggested range of 60%-65%. Hammer is mainly dealing with racers in the 75%-85% VO2max range (above what most backpackers do). I could see a well-conditioned aggressive backpacker being more likely to be in the 70% VO2max range (~75% HRR). So Hammer's 65% figure is probably safely conservative for a backpacker.

Combining all that, you need 390 calories per hour from fat burning and at least 210 calories per hour from CHO. According to my reasoning in the first part of this posting, you are fine as long as you consume at least this much CHO (maybe a little more to have a safety margin). If you do not, then you risk muscle catabolism to get the missing energy.

(I know that your own personal amounts are lower than this, but I would also guess that you are not usually operating above about 60%-65% VO2max, which would mean greater fat burning percentage. At that range, I would think your 75% fat burning estimate probably makes sense.)

Does that all sound about right to you?
–MV

I have seen this kind of statement, most recently here:

Under usual exercise conditions, protein only provides about 6% of energy needs. With high intensity endurance exercise, the production of glucose from amino acids can be significant up to about 10 or 15% of total energy needs.

–MV

"So when I read the statement below my general trail food practice seems to be in the correct direction. Or am I not understanding something?"

It makes eminent sense to me, Richard, to the point where I spent a lot of time reading stuff like McArdle to come to exactly the same conclusion you did intuitively.

Edited: The heat producing effect of protein has been measured at up to 25% of the total caloric content of the meal when an individual was fed an all protein meal, and the effect of a mixed meal varies from 10 to 30% depending on the content of the meal. The effect of protein has the most effect due to the amount of energy to remove the nitrogen and the number of carbon atoms in a typical protein. The example given by McArdle, albumin, contains 72 carbon atoms, which must be oxidized(along with a lot of other atoms) to completely metabolize the molecule.

"I admit to a bit of a logical leap here, but my take on the situation is as follows:"

I don't think it's a leap at all, Bob. From what I have learned, or think I've learned, you have pretty much understood the basic variables and how they interact. My wife is about to kick me off the computer, and I will need some time to compose a response that your post deserves, so I'll have to get back to you this evening. One thing to consider that hasn't been emphasized so far is the impact of training for high VO2 max on the fat:carb ratio. McArdle states that it can go as high as 80:20 in highly trained athletes at exercise intensity levels well below their VO2 max. This offers a whole new line of investigation for an individual, depending on how far they want to go to optimize their carried food. At some point, I'll put it out there for discussion, but it would only muddy the water at this point. To be continued later, unless you or someone else decides to run with it now.

"* In general there is unavoidable muscle catabolism, but it is small (5%or so of used calories, max). Protein restoration from a suitable recovery drink and post exercise meal will restore this and more, generally resulting in a net muscle gain. Net-net is that one generally does not need to worry about it as long as post-exercise nutrition is proper."

Bob-See my second edit of my reply to Bill, above. Protein catabolism plays a larger role in energy production when exercising than previously thought. The 5% figure is for a well nourished person at rest. The percentage is higher when exercising, although still much less than carbs or fat. McArdle recommends protein intake of 1.2-1.8 grams of protein/kg of body weight for individuals in training. This is largely directed to higher levels of performance than a typical backpacker will achieve, but is worth noting and considering, according to the intensity of your backpacking and training for same, IMO.

"* Including a small amount of protein in your endurance drink may inhibit some or all of the muscle catabolism (evidence is inconclusive). It may also enhance post-exercise protein recovery (evidence for this is also inconclusive). Since there is no indication it is harmful, you should use an endurance drink that includes a little protein."

+1

"* In exceptional cases as much as 15% – 20% of energy can come from muscle catabolism. As I understand it, that occurs when ingested CHO + fatty acid metabolism does not provide enough energy — then muscle (beyond the base level 5%) is catabolized for the remaining required energy."

It is apparently a carb deficit that triggers the process first, but yes, when fat, too, is exhausted, the process really kicks into high gear. I had it happen once, as I mentioned above. Never again, if I can help it. In any case, it will go above 5% with any significant increase in activity level.

"I'm not sure how available glycogen plays into this. I presume some of it gets used before muscle catabolism, but it cannot all get used because it is also needed for other things. Also, there is a limited supply of glycogen.)"

Glycogen is disproportionately used in the initial stages of exercise, before fat metabolism begins to predominate, if exercise intensity stays moderate in terms of %VO2 max. Above 65%, carb utilization will predominate, hence the need for dietary carb intake. In all cases, most individuals have at most 2000 calories of stored glycogen, predominantly in the large working muscles. It is best to spare it as much as possible by regulating pace, increasing VO2 max with training, and dietary intake while on the move.

"(a) Very strenuous activity — basically LT and above for long enough to matter. At that level, little or no fatty acid metabolism takes place, so all energy must come from CHO. There is an upper bound on the amount of ingested CHO the body can process per hour, and if your need exceeds that then muscle catabolism will happen. I do not know about you, but I do not expect to operate at or above LT for long enough for this scenario to happen. A serious endurance racer may need to worry about it, but I doubt that you and I do."

A more likely result of exercising at LT and above would be a forced reduction in exercise intensity to allow the lactic acid to revert to pyruvate and allow metabolism to proceed at an aerobic pace. At least temporarily. Protein catabolism proceeds at a much reduced, aerobic pace, due to the complexity of protein molecules and their amino acid components, and the O2 and energy required to convert them into energy. It is more likely to occur in endurance races, as you say, or on really extended backpacking trips like the Arctic1000. I'm not sure if Roman Dial and Jason Gek encountered that problem toward the end, or not, but that is the kind of scenario where it could become a problem if the amount of food and carb/protein/fat ratio were not properly calculated. It also occurred in Cousteau's early diving days, when they found they could not eat enough to make up for the energy lost to diving and heat dissipation due to cold water. I encountered the same problem down in the Caribbean
diving 8 hours/day in 70ish degree water. I went down there weighing around 145 and returned weighing a downright skeletal 125#. It creeps up on you, IME.

"(b) A longer and more stressful than usual day — this can be handled, but you need to be aware of your CHO needs. As an example, let's take Malto's numbers (3.0 mph average, 600 calories per hour) and a 48-mile day. That would be 16 hours and 9600 calories. Let's assume that fat burning is only 60% at that exertion level (it does decline with both higher exertion and longer duration). The CHO 40% would be 3840 calories needed, or 240 per hour for the 16 hours. If one goes along fat, dumb, and happy with his usual 120 calories per hour then one would have muscle catabolism. 240 is within what the body can process though, so if one is aware and ups his normal CHO intake for this trip there would be no problem."

I think he could no doubt get away with it a few times, but I'm betting he wouldn't get caught out like that, aware as he is of what is going on. I'm also betting he is fit enough to be able to burn considerably more than 60% fat at 3 mph. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about his experience in that regard.

"Taking another look at Malto-level exertion, he is being pretty strenuous if he is averaging 3.0 mph including up hills. That means his fat utilization will drop somewhat, probably into the Hammer suggested range of 60%-65%. Hammer is mainly dealing with racers in the 75%-85% VO2max range (above what most backpackers do). I could see a well-conditioned aggressive backpacker being more likely to be in the 70% VO2max range (~75% HRR). So Hammer's 65% figure is probably safely conservative for a backpacker."

+1 on the Hammer part. The way GG trains, I'm betting he's got a pretty high VO2 max
and the ability to metabolize fat that comes with that and endurance training in general. It would be really interesting to see the results if some exercise phys. types got him in a lab and tested him out under controlled conditions.

"Combining all that, you need 390 calories per hour from fat burning and at least 210 calories per hour from CHO. According to my reasoning in the first part of this posting, you are fine as long as you consume at least this much CHO (maybe a little more to have a safety margin). If you do not, then you risk muscle catabolism to get the missing energy."

I'm not sure about your numbers; they seem a bit high for 3 mph, although it depends considerably on your weight, pace, hiking efficiency, and the terrain. But, yes, in the presence of adequate carbs and body fat, protein metabolism will be reduced to a minor role, and if dietary protein intake is adequate, muscle catabolism should be offset by the anabolic process your cited article addressed.

"(I know that your own personal amounts are lower than this, but I would also guess that you are not usually operating above about 60%-65% VO2max, which would mean greater fat burning percentage. At that range, I would think your 75% fat burning estimate probably makes sense.)"

I frankly doubt if I exceed ~40% of VO2 max 95% of the time. I make it a point not to if I can help it by pace control and training. My personal estimate is actually 65%(I hope I didn't misprint again), but looking at post trip results, including food left over, I think it might be closer to 70%. No way to tell, really, in such a loosely controlled setting.

"On the trail it's: who cares what I eat so long as it's mostly carbs in the day and heavy with protein and fats at night–I'm thinking warmth and restoration.

"So when I read the statement below my general trail food practice seems to be in the correct direction. Or am I not understanding something?

"> "Protein coingestion does not further increase muscle protein synthesis rates during continuous endurance type exercise.""

IMO, you're on the right track, and it'll work fine, but a few suggestions, working backwards:

Even though the authors didn't find a statistically significant increase in muscle protein synthesis, it would be premature to conclude that protein doesn't make any difference at all. The experiment was for just two hours on the bike. As the study's lead author points out in a subsequent review, it will be important to look at longer durations to know whether an effect would be seen there. FWIW, I think it's likely they *will* see an effect, though it will still likely be modest.

In terms of what you eat a night, there's no harm in having lots of protein and fat, but there is little, if any, reason to exclude carbs, and it could even conceivably be beneficial nutritionally to include some, or even a good amount, especially if your dinner is also your recovery feed.

In terms of what you eat during the day, I think you can probably do fine with carb-heavy, but it's pretty clear there's no specific advantage to making it just carbs, and there are potential nutritional benefits both to adding some protein and some fat. It also makes life easier if you can eat foods that aren't made up of just one macronutrient.

Cheers,

Bill S.

Thanks for the clarifications on the 5%, Tom. I'm still not certain I'm reading this right, so you'll forgive my double-checking on this – you mean 5% or somewhat higher as a *minimum* proportion of all calories burned (regardless of whether from diet or catabolism)? I emphasize minimum because I'm thinking that additional protein beyond what's needed will get metabolized for energy. Right? (I should get access to McCardle et al later this week, so if it's easier for you just to say "see page x," that's fine!)

IMO, this is an interesting (I might even say key) area for further exploration. Clearly, the numbers can be driven very high under unusual conditions, such as the experiment in which overweight individuals were essentially starved while walking 20 miles/day. My thumbnail calculation suggests they got nearly 30% of their calories from protein. That study (which was about weight loss, and designed as such) has very limited relevance to backpacking. What I'd like to understand better is how much protein would be required under various relevant conditions of exercise duration, intensity, and diet (specifically fat and carbohydrate levels). It'd also be very interesting to know whether the additional protein requirements need to be fulfilled with "high quality" protein, or whether lower quality protein sources would suffice.

Cheers,

Bill S.

I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, but…

"I also operate on the assumption that very little tissue repair takes place while exercising"

Van Loon's data looked pretty clear that protein synthesis was taking place during exercise.

"and also that protein is less efficient as an energy source due to the necessity of removing its nitrogen before feeding it into the Krebs Cycle."

Carbs and protein yield about the same energy per gram. And there are some credible reports that it may actually be the preferred source of intermediary metabolites required for fat-burning under some conditions. (Still digging up the primary sources on this.)

""Would added protein inhibit fat utilization?""

"I don't know."

For those who might wish to push the bounds of efficient fat utilization, it's a key question. I don't know either. At some point, the answer's probably "yes." But even if so, just how much that might be is not at all clear, at least to me.

"high amount of heat produced by metabolizing protein is better put to use warming your sleeping bag/quilt than being flared off during the day and possibly contributing to hyperthermia."

Any refs for that? Is the difference enough to matter?

Cheers,

Bill S.

"One thing to consider that hasn't been emphasized so far is the impact of training for high VO2 max on the fat:carb ratio. McArdle states that it can go as high as 80:20 in highly trained athletes at exercise intensity levels well below their VO2 max. This offers a whole new line of investigation for an individual, depending on how far they want to go to optimize their carried food. At some point, I'll put it out there for discussion, but it would only muddy the water at this point. To be continued later, unless you or someone else decides to run with it now."

I'll look forward to that discussion. I'd be pleased to learn that I could operate on 80% fat calories. From a practical standpoint, since I doubt I'd want to eat a diet with more than about 70% fat, for other reasons, that'd mean no physiological limitation to fat use.

The intensity issue will clearly be key to that future discussion, and I suspect it might be useful to dissect it a bit more fully as part of the current discussion. It's my sense that the various participants may be operating with significantly different starting assumptions wrt intensity, and that there may be some miscommunication, or simply disagreement, about what the relevant intensity ranges are. If people are interested, I'd be game for a side discussion to see where we can get agreement, or understand more clearly why we have disagreement, about intensity ranges.

Cheers,

Bill S.

Thanks Bill and Tom! I highly respect the dedication and thought you put into the subject of nutrition.

I’m not all intuitive… I read Terry Tom’s excellent Martial Arts Nutrition (I’m a fan, not much of a practitioner) and use her general nutrition principles. They fit well with the bits of nutrition science I’ve read. She’s Manny Pacquiao’s nutritionist… so that’s cool!

"and there are potential nutritional benefits both to adding some protein and some fat."

+1 With the caveat that protein metabolism produces urea, and there is a point where it will start to put a strain on the kidneys. Where that point lies depends on protein quantity, hydration status, and fitness level, and probably individual factors. McArdle recommends somewhere between 1.2-1.8 grams of protein/kg of body weight/day. It might be well to take this into consideration when deciding where to allocate your protein among breakfast, dinner, and "on the move" intake.

I have purposely push my limits to try to push out the point where I "hit the wall". My first experience of hitting the wall was on the AT in Georgia. I laid down beside the trail for about an hour then went on my merry way. I swore I would find a solution.

I truly believe you can train your body to both more efficiently process carbs and more efficiently convert fat to energy. The second is more interesting to me lately because I am not doing a multi-month hike where burning fat is not sustainable. I purposely subject myself to a calorie deficit on short duration hikes, 1-5 days. On these hikes I consume about 100 calories per mile which I estimate is half my total requirement. At 3mph that is rough 300 calories per hour. I know that I have "trained" my body to be able to sustain this level of activity out to 57 miles with about 16k in elevation gain. Even at this duration I was going strong at the end, actually an above average pace for the day. I don't think that this would have been possible when I started doing long days.

Fast forward to today. My hiking miles are way down this year thanks to a major kitchen renovation that keeps my very understanding wife happy. But I have done four 50+ mile days this year which is a record for me. In spite of not hiking for several months between a couple of these I have still have maintained energy levels out beyond the 16 hour range. I believe the "energy training" has to be the explanation for being able to do these distances so irregularly.

But here is the million dollar question that still remains unanswered. I meter in carbs all day long, maximizing my body's ability to process carbs. If I were to eat say 100 calories of fat per hour in addition, would there be an increase in available energy or would it just offset the amount of fat that my body would provide for energy. I know of no good way to test this.

"McArdle recommends somewhere between 1.2-1.8 grams of protein/kg of body weight/day. It might be well to take this into consideration when deciding where to allocate your protein among breakfast, dinner, and "on the move" intake."

Tom, I said in an earlier post that for endurance athletes, 0.8 grams per pound of bodyweight has been shown to be beneficial. Strangely, that works out to be 1.7 grams per kilogram of bodyweight.

; )

"Thanks for the clarifications on the 5%, Tom. I'm still not certain I'm reading this right, so you'll forgive my double-checking on this – you mean 5% or somewhat higher as a *minimum* proportion of all calories burned (regardless of whether from diet or catabolism)? I emphasize minimum because I'm thinking that additional protein beyond what's needed will get metabolized for energy. Right? (I should get access to McCardle et al later this week, so if it's easier for you just to say "see page x," that's fine!)"

Bill-Just to be sure it doesn't fall thru the cracks, I edited my original reply to you after I dug deeper in McArdle this afternoon. what I found was that the 5% figure, actually 2-5%, is for a well nourished person at rest. The protein contribution to energy production can go considerably higher as exercise intensity
increases. What was overlooked until relatively recently is that nitrogen is not lost only thru urine, and that was the only place they were checking. Come to find out, it is also excreted in sweat, and they were measuring only nitrogen(urea) in urine. This led to an underestimation in the amount of protein used to produce energy. It is still a minor player, but not as minor as was once assumed. You'll find that explained in chapter 1 under the heading "protein dynamics in exercise and training", just to remove a potentially page reference that may vary with the edition being referenced.

"IMO, this is an interesting (I might even say key) area for further exploration. Clearly, the numbers can be driven very high under unusual conditions, such as the experiment in which overweight individuals were essentially starved while walking 20 miles/day. My thumbnail calculation suggests they got nearly 30% of their calories from protein. That study (which was about weight loss, and designed as such) has very limited relevance to backpacking. What I'd like to understand better is how much protein would be required under various relevant conditions of exercise duration, intensity, and diet (specifically fat and carbohydrate levels). It'd also be very interesting to know whether the additional protein requirements need to be fulfilled with "high quality" protein, or whether lower quality protein sources would suffice."

I couldn't agree more. This is going to be a very interesting winter. Sure beats the hell out of CHAFF. ;0))

Let me know when you get your copy of McArdle, and which edition, and we'll dig a little deeper.

Best,

Tom

Cheers,

Bill S.

Bingo! I was going to be a smarta$$ and suggest you're making a good argument for conversion to the metric system, but the data is all that really matters. ;0))

Glad you followed up.

" I believe the "energy training" has to be the explanation for being able to do these distances so irregularly."

Almost certainly. You are certainly very well trained for endurance activity, which bring with it an enhanced ability to metabolize fat, and protein for that matter.

"But here is the million dollar question that still remains unanswered. I meter in carbs all day long, maximizing my body's ability to process carbs. If I were to eat say 100 calories of fat per hour in addition, would there be an increase in available energy or would it just offset the amount of fat that my body would provide for energy. I know of no good way to test this."

It takes time for ingested fat to make its way to the muscle cells, so if you have body fat already available, it will be used first, at least until the ingested fat arrives. Basically, it should be an offset.

Have you ever considered getting a VO2 max test. That would tell you a lot about what is going on when you do those long hikes. You might be able to go to a performance lab and have them do not only that, but a Respiratory Quotient test, which would tell you the ratio of carbs to fat you are burning. I'm not sure if they only test for it at VO2 max, or at points along the continuum of the test leading up to VO2 max, for example at 40%, 50%, 60%. You'd probably be on a treadmill, or even better a step mill(climber), so they could also correlate the data with your pace. The answer to your question, or something close to it, would come out of that kind of test. The only remaining question would be the protein component of your energy supply, and they could probably estimate that fairly closely based on accumulated experience with guys as fit as you.

"I'm not all intuitive… I read Terry Tom's excellent Martial Arts Nutrition (I'm a fan, not much of a practitioner) and use her general nutrition principles. They fit well with the bits of nutrition science I've read. She's Manny Pacquiao's nutritionist… so that's cool!"

Way cool. All roads lead to Rome. ;)

"Any refs for that? Is the difference enough to matter?"

McArdle "Diet Induced Thermogenesis" Somewhere around 25% of protein energy content is lost to the thermic effect.

Respiratory Quotient Test –

Fat Burner or Sugar Burner?

"I'll look forward to that discussion. I'd be pleased to learn that I could operate on 80% fat calories. From a practical standpoint, since I doubt I'd want to eat a diet with more than about 70% fat, for other reasons, that'd mean no physiological limitation to fat use."

Me, too. The fat burned would be body fat, which can come from dietary fat, carbs, or protein in excess of current needs. In my case, it would be accumulated before a trip. For thru hikers, it could be on resupply binges or carried food.

Lot of interesting things on the docket.

As a Canadian, Tom, I really have no choice!

It seems to me that there are two different questions about protein:

1) How much protein should be in your endurance drink? Is Hammer's 8:1 ratio the best? Is some other manufacturer's ratio better? Is it something that depends on the activity and level that you need to calculate for yourself?

2) How much total protein do you need for the day, including whatever is in the endurance drink? That is what the 0.8gm/lb body weight is. That protein is for two purposes — rebuilding muscle damaged while exercising, and building new muscle. I have no idea how much is for each purpose, and I would like to. The other obvious question is whether the 0.8 figure is the optimum amount for normal backpacking? For strenuous backpacking?

–MV

"As a Canadian, Tom, I really have no choice!"

As an American, neither do I, but every once in a while I hold my nose and go metric when I'm trying to appear learned. ;0)

"How much protein should be in your endurance drink? Is Hammer's 8:1 ratio the best? Is some other manufacturer's ratio better? Is it something that depends on the activity and level that you need to calculate for yourself?"

There has to be some correlation with the activity and level of intensity, because those are two determinants of protein catabolism. I am currently operating on the assumption that Hammer has calibrated the dosage with the high end of the spectrum in mind, triathletes, competitive cyclists and ultra runners, etc, so I duplicate their ratio in my homemade version. There may be something better out there, but I haven't run across any literature on it in casual reading. Based on reading I have done, including McArdle, I am leery of getting too much protein in my diet, especially when I am highly active, for fear of damaging my kidneys. Once they get damaged, you're in for a miserable life. If all the protein in a drink is used for repair, kidney damage should not be an issue, but I have no way of knowing how much is used for that purpose, and how much is metabolized for energy, so I'm playing it conservative.

"How much total protein do you need for the day, including whatever is in the endurance drink? That is what the 0.8gm/lb body weight is. That protein is for two purposes — rebuilding muscle damaged while exercising, and building new muscle. I have no idea how much is for each purpose, and I would like to. The other obvious question is whether the 0.8 figure is the optimum amount for normal backpacking? For strenuous backpacking?"

I think those questions require input from someone with serious expertise. We have a BPL'er, Shawn Bearden, with a PhD in exercise physiology who teaches at a university up in Idaho, can't recall which one off the top of my head. You might consider PM'ing him. I did once, and he was very forthcoming with some solid advice/information.

Hope all enjoyed the last few days with a suitable combination of macronutrients, such as might be provided by turkey, stuffing and gravy. :)

This morning, I stumbled across an interesting review at http://www.jissn.com/content/10/1/42. The review is about recovery nutrition, but as far as I can tell, the same caveats apply to carb/protein ratios for drinks consumed during exercise, and maybe even more so. Given that it's not been all that easy to show a reproducible ergogenic or muscle synthesis effect of protein addition to exercise drinks at all, and that there is likely to be enormous variability based on individual variation (both intrinsic and conditioning-related), exercise intensity, availability of stores from body fat and meals, etc., it strains the imagination to think it would even be possible to detect meaningful differences between various ratios.

If the right study exists, though, I'd love to see it.

Cheers,

Bill S.