Mountaineering’s Drug Problem

Before Hermann Buhl’s first ascent of Nanga Parbat in 1953, the 26,660-foot peak in the western Himalayas was synonymous with death. Thirty-one climbers had died on summit attempts, including 10 in an infamous 1934 debacle. Many more had been thwarted by impossible conditions. But Buhl, a “small and delicate” (his words) 29-year-old Austrian, did it with a faulty crampon and without supplemental oxygen, Sherpa support, or Gore-Tex gloves. On his descent, he was forced to spend the night standing up in a notch below the summit, hallucinating while drifting in and out of consciousness. Then, at the end of his tether, as he recalls in his memoir, Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage, he remembered his methamphetamine pills, Pervitin: “It was the only chance; its brief renewal of my strength might last long enough for me to get down to the tent.” Pervitin — prescription speed, basically — was well known among German and Austrian climbers then for inducing superhuman energy and focus. It had been distributed during WWII to Nazi infantry, who called it panzerschokolade, or “tank chocolate.” Buhl popped two. Later on, he took some Padutin, a blood-flow agent that wards off frostbite, and eventually three more Pervitin; he had also been drinking tea brewed from coca leaves, the raw material for cocaine. Buhl survived. And as he hints in Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage, without the drugs, he wouldn’t have.

Buhl is widely considered one of the greatest alpinists ever, a shining model of the spirit and élan of high-altitude climbing. None other than Reinhold Messner — a Titan among climbing mortals — has called him “a classic mountaineer without equal.” To date, his Nanga Parbat route has been repeated just once. Yet Buhl was essentially tweaking his nuts off, or was at least well sauced on the alpine version of a speedball. By today’s standards, he’d be cast out from the mountaineering temple, stoned for blasphemy, and crucified on the nearest tree. It’s a given that alpinists now rely on all kinds of state-of-the-art technical assistance to get them through the rough spots — crampons, ice axe, helmet, emergency shelter, wicking base layers, hundreds of feet of dry rope, two-way radio, avalanche transceiver, sunscreen, lip balm, hand warmers, rehydrating juice — half of which Buhl lacked. Only a crackpot would suggest ditching any of it. But prescription drugs? Eh. Everyone knows that’s cheating.

It’s no surprise that 8,000-meter climbs can require a medicinal crutch, and Buhl is just one link in a long chain of doping in climbing that includes some of the most storied alpinists in history. Maurice Herzog and Louis Lachenal, twin spires in the sport, were both zonked on morphine when they broke the 8,000-meter barrier in a harrowing 1950 summit of Annapurna. Stephen Venables’s 1988 ascent of the Kangshung Face, thought to be insane at the time, was accomplished with the help of prescription-strength caffeine pills. I could go on.

“In Hermann Buhl’s day, drugs weren’t constructed as a problem — it was like taking a cup of coffee with you.” – Verner Møller

What’s surprising is the recent hand-wringing in the sport over prescription drugs and stimulants, on which alpinists have long relied. Steroids, amphetamines, erythropoietin (or EPO, Lance Armstrong’s drug of choice), epinephrine and nifedipine, morphine and codeine, what else? Viagra and Cialis, which increase blood flow to the lungs (among other places) and mitigate high-altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE). Lesser painkillers like aspirin and Ibuprofen. Rehydration salts and electrolyte solutions. All have been regularly used, if rarely discussed in mountaineering.

“The climber who doesn’t rely on his own strength and skills, but on apparatus and drugs, deceives himself,” wrote legendary mountaineer Reinhold Messner in his 1999 book Everest: Expedition to the Ultimate. But Messner also had great praise for Hermann Buhl, who used meth to survive a descent on Nanga Parbat in 1953; Messner’s own climbing partner, Peter Habeler, was “heavily drugged” during their legendary 1978 Everest summit, the first done without supplemental oxygen. (Photo: Adidas Archive)

Outdoor Skills Everyone Should Know

Re-waterproof your rain jacket, get more life out of your tent, save your life in a winter snowstorm and more.
Read the Story

For much of the past half-century, when drug use in the mountains has cropped up, elite climbers were quick to vilify it — mostly they were concerned with the use of supplemental oxygen, which many still consider a betrayal of the lofty ethos of high-altitude climbing. The issue of prescription drugs and stimulants was largely ignored. But in 2013, a strange new drug hysteria swept mountaineering after Outside magazine published an article about an Everest climber who almost died after binging on multiple medications, including dexamethasone (dex), an anti-inflammatory steroid that lessens brain-swelling and is used to treat altitude sickness and high-altitude cerebral edema (HACE). Dex is a potential lifeline for alpinists struggling on big ascents like Everest. It has saved dozens of lives over the years — Beck Weathers got a four-milligram injection during the 1996 Into Thin Air disaster — and has been part of every guide’s first-aid kit for decades. But misusing dex, as the Outside piece detailed, carries some risks, and the article foretold of “a dangerous trend in mountaineering: rampant use of performance-enhancing drugs.”

Today’s professional climbers consider preemptive use of dex, or of any “performance-enhancing drug” for that matter, to be cheating, though there’s been scant public reflection on what “performance-enhancing” and “drug” might mean, and no regulatory agency exists in climbing to define it. Mild painkillers and stimulants like coffee and tea typically get a pass, and are even considered part and parcel of a climber’s gear, while prescription drugs and acclimatization meds like dex don’t; the use of supplemental oxygen falls somewhere in between. The upshot is a general state of confusion in the sport about what kinds of pick-me-ups are permissible at extreme altitude. Many climbers are reluctant to discuss the topic; in some quarters a veil of secrecy prevails.

“Climbers are definitely using performance-enhancing drugs and hiding it,” says Cory Richards, who recently summited Everest without the help of supplemental oxygen. “There’s no governing body in climbing, so there’s no rule against drugs, and the logic is, why disclose it?”

“Sucking Os is definitely doping. And it is clearly cheating. Not one ascent made with Os counts in my book.” – Steve House

Richards is mostly referring to dex when it’s used not as a recovery aid but as a failsafe measure to increase a climber’s chances of summiting. These days you can buy it on the street in Nepal for about a dollar. Some outfitters and guides are said to encourage its use on summit day. Dr. Luanne Freer, the founder of the Everest ER at base camp, has taken care of several climbers suffering from side-effects of dex and other prescription drugs, including one who took large doses of dex on his ascent and died of HACE near the summit. “Using dex on summit day as a performance-enhancer is dangerous,” she says. “It makes it less likely that it’ll work in a rescue situation. I would liken it to pulling the cord on the parachute too early. When you really need it, you’ve lost your rescue. For this climber, there were no drugs left to get him moving for descent.”

According to Dr. Peter Hackett of the Institute for Alpine Medicine, however, the misuse of dex is exceptionally rare. “In the Outside piece, the guy took dexamethasone every day for two months, which is really stupid. It was totally inappropriate use of a drug. If you use any drug that way, you can get into trouble…I think [the article] was more hype than reality, a big to-do about nothing.”

Another potential lifeline for climbers is acetazolamide, also called Diamox, which speeds up acclimatization and helps prevent altitude sickness. It, too, has been a part of high-altitude climbing since at least the 1970s. Unlike dex, however, Diamox’s side effects are fairly innocuous: it’s a diuretic, so it makes you pee a lot. While technically not a performance enhancer — Diamox actually inhibits your ability to exercise — climbers have been known to take it early on summit mornings to prevent altitude sickness. To purists, that still counts as cheating.

In 2013, a drug hysteria swept mountaineering after Outside magazine published an article about an Everest climber who almost died after binging on multiple medications, including dexamethasone (dex), an anti-inflammatory steroid that lessens brain-swelling and is used to treat altitude sickness and high-altitude cerebral edema (HACE). Another potential lifeline for climbers is acetazolamide, also called Diamox, which speeds-up acclimatization and helps prevent altitude sickness. To purists, that still counts as cheating.

Both dexamethasone and acetazolamide are banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which has helped monitor doping in the Tour de France and the Olympics. (It should be noted that the original Olympic athletes, in first-century Greece, had few qualms about doping; they ate sheep testicles, coca plants, hallucinogenic fungi and cacti, and drank seed extracts that contained pharmacological agents, “magic” wine potions and strychnine, in the hopes of gaining a performance edge. If caught, however, they were banned from the games for life.) WADA prohibits substances that fulfill two of three criteria: (1) they’re performance enhancing; (2) they’re harmful to your health; or (3) they run counter to the spirit of the sport. But WADA has no regulatory say in mountaineering, which is entirely self-governed. The only semi-official oversight in the sport comes from the International Mountaineering and Climbing Federation (UIAA), but it has little enforcement power either and concerns itself instead with preserving the ideological “spirit and traditions” of alpinism.

“Why should you only be allowed to use a drug in the event that you become sick or die, if you can prevent it beforehand?” – Verner Møller

In climbing, then, climbers make the rules. The professional take was captured by Reinhold Messner in his 1999 book Everest: Expedition to the Ultimate: “The climber who doesn’t rely on his own strength and skills, but on apparatus and drugs, deceives himself.” (One sentence later he decries the use of supplemental oxygen: “The face mask is like a barrier between Man and Nature.” More on that in a moment). In a later interview, he suggested drug-testing Everest climbers. “I am curious if anyone is willing to give a urine sample,” he said. Messner must’ve blanked on Buhl’s meth use, not to mention that of his climbing partner Peter Habeler, who was “heavily drugged” during their legendary 1978 Everest summit, the first done without supplemental oxygen. The implication seems to be that, for Messner, certain climbers and certain kinds of drugs — speed, painkillers — are acceptable, while the newer wave of bucket-list Everest summiters and the acclimatization meds they sometimes rely on aren’t.

Verner Møller, author of The Ethics of Doping and Anti-Doping: Redeeming the Soul of Sport? and professor of public health at Aarhus University in Denmark, thinks the moral censure on drugs in alpine climbing is at best an argumentative rabbit hole, at worst an obfuscating con intended to distance big-mountain climbers from the average schmo.

“The ‘purity’ of alpinism is a ridiculous concept,” he says. “It’s a narrative that elite mountaineers decided to write. But some of them, they’re sitting around drinking coffee at base camp and nobody questions it. A day may come when someone says, ‘You know, coffee has caffeine, which is a performance-enhancing drug, so you’re destroying the ideal of alpinism if you’re drinking coffee.’ And that would be a new narrative.”

Caffeine, it’s easy to forget, is the most widely consumed stimulant in the U.S., one that can have profound physiological effects: a sharp decrease in fatigue and the artificially stimulated release of fatty acids into the blood, allowing the body to conserve glycogen and increase physical output. It was only removed from WADA’s list of prohibited substances in 2004.

For Møller, there’s been a widespread “abdication of logic” with regards to drug use, a rigidity in our thinking that deserves serious reconsideration both on the mountain and off.

“The ‘purity’ of alpinism is a ridiculous concept,” said Verner Møller, author of The Ethics of Doping and Anti-Doping: Redeeming the Soul of Sport? and professor of public health at Aarhus University in Denmark. “It’s a narrative that elite mountaineers decided to write.” (Photo: Morten Flarup/Polfoto)

“In Hermann Buhl’s day, drugs weren’t constructed as a problem — it was like taking a cup of coffee with you,” he says. “Today, they are constructed as a problem. But back then, we didn’t have all of these remedies we have now. We didn’t have the boots. We didn’t have the quality of crampons. The ropes that are in place on Everest now weren’t there when Hillary was trying to climb it. The more technical advances we’ve seen, more and more people have had a chance at summiting Everest, something that was previously reserved for the select few. So it’s very convenient to suddenly declare ‘performance-enhancing drugs’ off-limits.”

According to Møller, the recent international cycling scandals and pervasive doping in the Russian Olympic team are to blame for some short-sightedness with regard to drug use in high-altitude climbing. When it comes to mountaineering, in which participants risk far more than medals and endorsement deals, he says, a broad cultural prohibition on doping in sports is obsolete.

“Why should you only be allowed to use a drug in the event that you become sick or die, if you can prevent it beforehand?” says Møller, asking us to imagine being held to such unremitting strictures in other aspects of our lives. “There’s this thinking that drugs are a crutch [in the mountains], which is one way to interpret it. You could also interpret it as climbers putting on their safety belts. If you’re driving a car, nobody complains about you putting on your seat belt before you hit the ignition.”

When you really get down to it, Møller says, drugs and stimulants — everything from Pervitin to caffeine to dexamethasone — are “just another technology, just another piece of equipment” on a continuum from Edmund Hillary’s Shetland wool jumper to today’s FlashDry base layers. “What’s the logic in saying, ‘You’re allowed to use these various forms of fancy gear, crampons, ropes, etc.,’ and in the same breath saying, ‘Wait! You’re also popping a pill? You’re a disgrace to the alpinist idea!’ Often these are the same people who’re saying you shouldn’t be allowed to use supplemental oxygen either.”

Of the 4,000 or so climbers who’ve summited Everest, only about 200 have managed it without bottled oxygen. For the vast majority, the trophy-hunter climbers paying $65,000 for the privilege, supplemental O₂ is an indispensable part of their equipment. Without it, most wouldn’t make it to Camp I at 19,900 feet.

“Oxygen is the ultimate drug,” says Conrad Anker, the iconic mountaineer who has summited Everest three times, with and without supplemental oxygen. “It drops the elevation of Everest by 7,000 feet or more, depending on where you’re at with it.” Dr. Hackett of the Institute for Alpine Medicine agrees: “Supplemental oxygen is the only drug that has been shown to be absolutely performance-enhancing at high altitude. Most people couldn’t climb Everest without it.” Ditto Cory Richards: “With the new regulators, lighter bottles and more efficient masks, you’re getting a medicinal amount of oxygen, which it makes it much easier.” Pro guide Adrian Ballinger: “It takes doping to a whole other level.”

Writing on the Patagonia website, famed alpinist Steve House took the hardest line: “Sucking Os is definitely doping. And it is clearly cheating. Not one ascent made with Os counts in my book.”

“It’s no longer just a question of cheating. There’s a deeper moral implication, because by using Sherpas you’re putting their lives at risk for your benefit.” – Conrad Anker

Anker has a more charitable view. “Climbing Everest without supplemental oxygen, there’s only a few people who have the skills to do it, because it’s so physically debilitating,” he says. The debate over its use bleeds into other ethical facets of the sport. In 2007, Anker free-climbed the Second Step on Everest’s north side (free-climbing means ascending without pre-fixed hooks, ladders, ropes, etc.; in mountaineering, if you free-climb something, it becomes the new standard). “It was my choice, and I felt I had the strength within me to do it,” Anker says. “But would I now take the two ladders that are up there and throw them off the mountain and say to everyone, ‘You have to do this by my standard?’ It’s a little harsh trying to foist your accomplishments onto everyone else.”

Conrad Anker, another climbing and mountaineering legend, says the reliance on Sherpa support in the mountains is a bigger ethical question than drugs and supplemental oxygen use. (Photo: Sung Han)

A bigger question, Anker says, is the reliance on Sherpa support in the mountains. “Sherpas do more to make a climb easier than supplemental oxygen,” he says. “To climb Everest by fair means would really mean doing it with no Sherpa support.” Around 95 percent of Himalaya climbers rely on Sherpas to carry gear, set ropes and establish routes. On Everest, it’s the Sherpas who take many of the risks — for instance, crossing and recrossing the dangerous Khumbu Icefall. Between 125 and 130 have died while working for Westerners and bucket-list climbers, including 16 in the 2014 earthquake.

“It’s no longer just a question of cheating,” says Anker, whose Alex Lowe Charitable Foundation aids Sherpa communities in Nepal. “There’s a deeper moral implication because by using Sherpas you’re putting their lives at risk for your benefit. You have to come to terms with the moral fallout of that.”

The sin, then, isn’t in trying to do what you suspect you’re not quite up to except on the best of days, but is much more complicated and profane, because it suggests that intense experience can be bought and sold, and that feats of courage and ability in the mountains are in a sense transactional. The most obvious remedial gesture is to take a moral stand.

“We get into climbing because it’s basic freedom,” Anker says, “a way to exist without the temporal constraints of time and space and without all of the rules and human constructs that we impose on every other sport. Climbing is simple. You go to the top, you have a good time, and you don’t harm other people in the process.”

Perhaps this should comprise alpine climbing’s guidelines and nothing more. Perhaps we should conclude what Buhl did 60 years ago near the summit of Nanga Parbat, when he was out of food and water, and with blood and spittle pouring from his mouth, when time was running out: maybe, sometimes, meth is the answer.

Everything You Need to Know About James Bond’s Watches

There’s a bit of dialogue in Casino Royale, the 2006 reboot of the James Bond movie franchise, when Vesper Lynd thinks she has Bond figured out, right down to his watch:

“Rolex?” she asks.
“Omega,” Bond replies.
“Beautiful,” Lynd assesses.

Those three words sum up 50 years of Bond and his wristwatches. They also have either made Rolex and Bond purists shake their heads and mutter, “product placement,” or Omega devotees cheer wildly and clink their Planet Oceans in a sort of watch-nerd toast. The history of James Bond and his timepiece choice can really be divided up into these two eras, despite the fact that the Bonds of Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton donned digital Seikos and a TAG Heuer in between.

The Mystery of the Original Bond Watch

In the beginning, there was Rolex. James Bond’s creator, Ian Fleming, gave his secret agent hero a “heavy Rolex Oyster Perpetual on an expanding bracelet,” a watch Bond put to use as a knuckle duster while punching out a henchman in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. There is no mention of the exact Rolex Fleming intended. Despite many theories, including that it was an Explorer (ref. 1016), no one will ever really know. The fact remains, though, that Rolex still has a model called the “Oyster Perpetual” in its lineup. It is a simple, time-only watch with the legendary Rolex self-winding “Perpetual” movement and the 100-meter (at least) water-resistant Oyster case, a direct descendant of the watch Rolex sent to Mount Everest with the successful British expedition in 1953. It certainly could have been one of these tough but understated watches that Fleming intended for his character. But we’re talking about the James Bond movies — where the silver screen would make 007’s timepieces iconic.

The Rolex Submariner Years

The Rolex ref. 6538 Submariner was the first (and some say best) Bond watch.

In 1962’s Dr. No, we first catch a glimpse of Bond’s watch: a Rolex Submariner, reference 6538, on the wrist of Sean Connery. Though Fleming made no mention of a diving watch in his books, the Submariner is a fitting choice for 007’s screen debut. Diving had reached a high point in popularity in the early ’60s and was seen as an activity for the bold and adventurous — making dive watches lifestyle symbols, just like Bond. Connery wore the Submariner throughout his tenure as 007 and the watch became so linked with his Bond that collectors today call the reference 6538 and similar “big crown” versions, “James Bond Submariners.”

In addition, the strap he wore the Submariner on has also achieved a cult status. Though Bond wore the Submariner on a leather strap in Dr. No, by Goldfinger, the third Bond film, the same watch is seen on a one-piece striped nylon strap. The Internet contains endless debate and speculation about this strap.

First of all, it is obviously undersized for the watch. The distance between the lugs of the Submariner is 20mm, yet the strap we see on Connery’s watch was clearly made for a smaller timepiece, most likely with a 16mm lug width. Why? Some say it was a hurried addition to a watch that was chosen at the last minute, and easier fix than sizing a riveted steel bracelet. Again, a mystery for the ages.

The second point of debate about this strap is in regard to its stripes. On grainy videocassette, the strap looked like it had alternating stripes of black and “Admiralty gray.” Many strap makers sold reproductions of this pattern in the NATO style. But the advent of high-definition DVD told the real story of this most mythical of watch straps. Countless watch nerds paused their Blu-ray editions of Goldfinger as Bond raises his wrist and lights a cigarette to check on the status of the bomb he’s planted. The strap is not gray-and-black striped, but in fact appears to have a subtler pattern, with some red, a green-gray and black. Or is that Navy blue? Strap makers scrambled and a new, more authentic version is now found on thousands of Submariners worldwide.

Rolex was perfect for Connery’s Bond — the first dive watch on the first 007, rugged and authentic, in an era before Bond went commercial and Rolex became a status symbol.

Bond Embraces the Quartz & Digital Movement

When Connery handed over the reins of Bond to Roger Moore, the quartz (and first “smart” watch era) had dawned and the world went digital. Bond kept up with the times and the digital watches that spit out typed messages from HQ seemed perfectly fitting for a high-tech hero. The Seiko M354 Memory-Bank Calendar shown in came in handy thanks to a built-in Plastique explosive detonator. Unfortunately, the detonator cord had to be wired directly into the charge and was shorter than Oddjob.

Octopussy featured two advanced tickers highlighting the pinnacle of technology in the ’80s. The Seiko G757 5020 Sports 100 was equipped with a GPS tracking device for locating a lost Faberge Egg (yawn). The flashier Seiko Liquid Crystal TV Watch featured a digital screen with traditional timekeeping functions, as well as a then- state-of-the-art LCD television screen that could receive UHF and VHF channels (as well as FM radio signals). Like a modern smartwatch, the TV Watch would eat through its batteries, consuming two AAs after watching five hours of television.The watch that’s shown in the movie just didn’t include the clunky receiver the real device needed to pull off such feats. Bond is shown using it to take satellite video calls from Margaret Thatcher as well as creepily “spying” on bond girls.

Bond’s Seiko 0674’s Ticker Tape shown in The Spy Who Loved Me was a pre-texting solution for staying in touch with HQ. It also made for a damn good label maker.

But just like the safari suit with its wide lapels, what seemed like a good idea at the time started to look too dated for a classic character.

Omega Takes Over

Ever since Goldeneye, Bond’s been an Omega man. It started with the “Bond Seamaster”.

Fast forward to the 1990s. After the cartoonish Moore years and the dour Dalton films, Pierce Brosnan strutted out as a perfect Bond for his — glib and handsome, he had cut his pearly white teeth as a TV star. The costume designer at the time, Lindy Hemming, considered everything from cufflinks to socks and when it came to his watch, she passed over Rolex for Omega. The Rolex Submariner was by then the most ubiquitous luxury watch around. Omega had a long history with the British military, with its Seamaster having been the choice for Royal Navy divers in the 1960s. So, to the chagrin of Rolex (and Bond purists), Brosnan strapped on a Seamaster Professional and Omega has been “Bond’s choice” ever since.

To an entire generation of Bond fans, Omega is the watch of James Bond. What started out as a costume choice became a marketing bonanza, with Omega making full use of the movies to sell a lot of Seamasters. The timepiece that Brosnan wore for all of his films was a blue-dialed Seamaster with a blue rotating bezel, on a steel bracelet that had alternating polished and brushed links. As the Rolex 6538 was dubbed the Bond Submariner, so too the blue Seamaster was dubbed the “Bond Seamaster.” Omega featured the model on its website, with Brosnan’s photo and produced limited edition (if 10,007 can be considered limited) 007 versions that had gun-barrel case backs and “007” marked dials.

The Bond Watch in the Daniel Craig Era

The current James Bond, Daniel Craig, also wore Omega, but in Casino Royale, his screen debut, he introduced a new watch to the mix: the Seamaster Planet Ocean. For a more serious, more physical Bond, the Planet Ocean was a perfect choice. It is bigger, burlier and less “pretty” than the dandy blue polished Seamaster of Brosnan’s days. Bond also wore it on a rubber strap, better suited for parkour chases through third-world construction sites. Later in the movie, when he slips into a dinner jacket for some high-stakes gambling, Craig swaps out the Planet Ocean for the old blue Brosnan Bond Seamaster. It’s the last time we see that watch on James Bond. In the gritty sequel Quantum of Solace, 007 only wears the Planet Ocean, now on its steel bracelet, and it gets ample screen time.

In Skyfall, James Bond was again in Omega, again the Planet Ocean, but also a blue-dialed Seamaster Aqua Terra for a few scenes. The Aqua Terra was a fine choice for Bond, subtler than the chunky dive watches, but still rugged enough to withstand 150 meters of water pressure. Though Connery’s Bond would never think to be traveling with a second watch, and the Aqua Terra on a bracelet is a far cry from the old Rolex on an ill-fitting nylon strap, Omega is a perfect choice for the modern James Bond. It is well made with classic styling and the right mix of rugged and refined. Omega also retains the pedigree of a storied brand, and one with a credible link to England’s military, but without the contemporary Rolex baggage.

With the release of Spectre, Bond took a decidedly backward step with his timepiece choice, but in a good way. When the movie opens, Bond is sporting a dressy Aqua Terra, but once the action heats up, Q Branch issues him a dive watch on a striped nylon strap, an obvious nod to the Connery era. But instead of the old Rolex, Craig’s Bond sticks with Omega, wearing a special edition of the Seamaster 300 Master Co-Axial (shown at the top), a watch fittingly inspired by the 1960s-era Omega diver that was issued to Britain’s Royal Navy. Despite its retro design, this one sported an all-new anti-magnetic movement and swapped the usual elapsed time bezel for one that can be used to track a second-time zone, fitting for a globetrotting super-spy.

The latest Bond watch is the first version designed with input from Bond himself.

Bond’s upcoming watch for newest movie installment of the series, No Time to Die, is an original creation with a neo-vintage look. Worn in the movie on a mesh Milanese bracelet but also available on a special dark brown, grey and beige NATO strap, the new piece is a 42mm Seamaster Diver 300M manufactured in full titanium. With a rugged, military feel, it features “old radium”-style lume, a “black tropical” dial with a brown tone, a broad arrow marking on the dial and case back (used to indicate Crown property), and, best of all, it’s non-limited release, marking the first time a James Bond Omega product has seen full serial production.

Excitingly and in a first for the Bond franchise, Bond actor Daniel Craig worked personally with Omega for the past two years to help design the Seamaster. You can read more about that process in our full breakdown of the new Omega Seamaster Diver 300M 007 James Bond Watch.

While watch aficionados like to debate whether Omega or Rolex is the true “Bond watch,” both are well suited for the eras in which Bond wore them. There’s certainly room in the watch box for a vintage Rolex Submariner and a modern Seamaster. And who’s to say that when Bond goes home to his London flat after another difficult, bruising mission, he doesn’t slip his Omega onto his watch winder and pull out his old Sub and think about the past. We just hope he’s got a better-fitting strap on it by now.

This post has been updated from it’s original version with additional contributions from Ben Bowers and Oren Hartov.

The 5 Best Protein Powders Available — and How to Use Them

Protein is one of the many building blocks of life — you need it to bulk up, lose weight and maintain weight. It’s what keeps you fuller for longer, and helps prime your body for repair. It enables you to recover after a hard workout and optimize your training routine. While bodybuilders and gym rats have long taken protein powders, they’re still pretty polarizing. Either you use them, or you don’t. People don’t really dabble in protein powders. What you might not realize is that getting enough protein can be tricky, and protein supplements and powders are an easy way to up the amount of protein you’re getting without having to increase your total consumption levels.

What’s in Protein Powder?

When dipping your toes in the protein powder water, you should know what you’re consuming and how to consume it. “We understand one of the essential amino acids, leucine, is critical as a signal to promote muscle protein synthesis, which is tissue growth and repair,” Dr. Sue Kleiner, a registered dietician, a fellow of the International Society of Sports Nutrition and author of The New Power Eating, says. Whether you want to build muscle or slim down, protein is essential in your diet. Dr. Kleiner recommends eating protein four to five times a day, as the research shows eating multiple times throughout the day help an average person get the amount they need. If you’re looking to build muscle or bulk up, you should aim for five times a day.

What If I Eat a Lot of Meat?

While aiming to get all of the protein you need from whole foods is best, you can’t always get as much as you need from food alone. Sometimes our bodies just can’t handle eating all that protein. “Everyone can’t necessarily sit down to that kind of meal, or even have the appetite for that, so that’s where using a protein supplement as a snack [comes in].” Ideally, you’re mixing it with some fruit or in a smoothie, but the main draw to protein powder is that it’s more portable and easy to consume.

How Much Protein Should I Aim For?

With each meal or snack, you should aim for 25 to 35 grams of protein at a minimum to sustain your body during hard workouts. “It takes at least 20 grams of whey protein, which has the highest leucine composition, or 25 to 30 grams of whole protein whether you’re eating animal product or plant protein,” Dr. Kleiner says. Most protein powders come with a pre-measured scoop, which likely has at least 20 grams of protein.

Does It Matter When Picking between Whey, Plant and Animal-Based Protein?

When comparing proteins, you can get your necessary 25 grams from one, two or a mix of all three. The catch with plant protein is that “the quality of [plant] protein is lower than animal protein in supporting health, so you need 10 percent more,” Dr. Kleiner says. If you’re a vegetarian or vegan, consuming all-plant protein is sufficient, just be sure to add that extra amount.

What to Look for in a Label

Look for at least two grams of leucine per serving, but you need to be careful when purchasing supplements. “There is a lot of contamination, particularly in the supplement industry channels that focus on bodybuilding, that can be laced with drugs,” Dr. Kleiner warns. “I am adamant about using third-party certified lab products.” Look for NSF for Sport, or BSCG, which is a banned substances control group, or Informed Sport. All of those check for banned substances in supplements.

One of the reasons protein powders can be so polarizing is because there’s no one-size-fits-all. “Your nutrition needs, including how much protein you need, is dependent on many factors: age, gender, weight, activity level, the presence of an injury or a disease, as well as nutrition or fitness goals,” Megan Ostler, MS, RDN of iFit, says. It’s all very individualized.

Buying Guide

We spoke with top nutritionists and sports dieticians to hear what protein powders they recommend. McKel Hill, MS, RDN, LDN and founder of Nutrition Stripped swears by the first three picks on this list. Ostler recommends the iFit Nourish program, a questionnaire that creates the perfect protein mix for you — whether you’re a runner, CrossFitter or yogi.

Thriving Protein by Nutra Organics $50

Pea Protein by Now Sports $17

Nourish by iFit $82/30 days

Organic Protein by Tone It Up $41

MySmart Shake Plant Protein Base by USANA $70