ART OFSURVIVAL
Menu

FAST STUDY DEVELOPMENT ROADMAP

One research question. Two coordinated tracks. A smaller first pilot.

This planning roadmap separates the clinical and metabolic question from the functional-performance question, then shows how they can reconnect without forcing every measurement into one oversized opening study.

See the two-track modelSee the reduced Phase 1 pilotReview planning estimates

WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS

A research-development roadmap—not a final protocol or the entire FAST project.

It organizes the study question, the opening feasibility sequence, preliminary cost categories, and the roles different partners could play. The evidence library, detailed performance batteries, outreach operation, documentary production plan, governance records, and any future institution-approved protocol remain separate working materials.

THE TWO-TRACK MODEL

Separate the questions that require different expertise, facilities, and evidence.

The tracks can be developed independently. If an institution later approves an intervention, selected measures can be synchronized on one timeline.

TRACK 01

Clinical and metabolic core

Ask whether a precisely defined essential-amino-acid strategy changes lean-tissue retention, body composition, selected biomarkers, strength, symptoms, adherence, recovery, and other institution-selected endpoints during medically governed severe energy restriction.

Likely collaborators: principal investigator, research physician, registered dietitian, metabolic kitchen or controlled-feeding staff, laboratory core, body-composition core, biostatistician, and independent human-subject review.

TRACK 02

Cognition and practical performance

Ask whether attention, reaction time, learning, recall, decision-making under pressure, repeatable physical tasks, martial-arts proficiency, and selected survival-skill performance remain usable as nutritional conditions change.

Likely collaborators: cognitive-testing specialists, exercise and human-performance laboratories, qualified coaches, martial-arts schools, scenario designers, measurement specialists, and documentary partners.

Why the split improves the proposal

A laboratory may answer the metabolic question without operating a martial-arts program. A dojo may standardize repeatable performance tests without administering a clinical nutrition intervention. Separating ownership makes each request smaller, clearer, and easier to cost.

REDUCED PHASE 1 PILOT

Prove that the measurements and workflow work before attempting the larger intervention.

The first deliverable is not the largest imaginable study. It is a defensible, reviewable feasibility sequence.

  1. Phase 1A: fed-state measurement rehearsal

    While ordinarily nourished, repeat a compact set of body-composition, biomarker, cognitive, strength, task-performance, and recovery measurements. Estimate test-retest variation, learning effects, scheduling burden, equipment needs, scoring reliability, missing-data risk, and documentary workflow.

  2. Phase 1B: investigator-approved intervention feasibility

    Only after institutional scientific and human-subject review, evaluate a small, prespecified set of clinical and functional endpoints under the approved intervention. The institution—not the website—would determine eligibility, formulation, duration, monitoring, stopping criteria, sample size, and analysis.

  3. Phase 2: expanded validation

    If the reduced pilot produces usable procedures and a defensible signal, expand the sample, measurements, partner network, or operational applications through a separately reviewed protocol.

DOCUMENTARY AND PUBLIC EDUCATION

Document the work without allowing production needs to control the science.

Film students, independent filmmakers, partner institutions, coaches, and creators could document the question, measurement process, criticism, revisions, and results. Participating organizations could explain their work and its broader relevance, subject to their approval.

Production remains operationally separate from participant protection, protocol decisions, data access, analysis, and publication.

PRELIMINARY BUDGET FRAMEWORK

Planning estimates—not quotes, commitments, or approved costs.

Every figure below is an early estimate. Actual cost depends on institutional overhead, participant count, duration, assays, staff time, facilities, insurance, travel, data systems, production scope, and contributed services.

Phase 0: scientific development

ESTIMATE: $10,000–$50,000+

Investigator consultation, evidence synthesis, protocol writing, biostatistics, regulatory preparation, budget development, and sponsor materials.

Phase 1A: fed-state rehearsal

ESTIMATE: $25,000–$100,000+

Baseline laboratory work, body composition, cognitive and physical testing, staff time, scoring reliability, data systems, and limited documentation.

Phase 1B: intervention feasibility

ESTIMATE: $75,000–$250,000+

Institution-approved clinical operation, formulation accountability, monitoring, assays, controlled measurements, analysis, insurance, and overhead.

Documentary production

ESTIMATE: $10,000–$250,000+

Ranges from a lean local crew and donated services to multi-camera production, post-production, graphics, music licensing, travel, accessibility, and distribution.

Combined planning scenarios

  • Partner-heavy feasibility path — ESTIMATE: $50,000–$150,000. Significant laboratory, coaching, facility, or production support is contributed in kind.
  • Phase 0 plus Phase 1A — ESTIMATE: $75,000–$225,000. Develop the study and demonstrate that the compact measurement battery is repeatable.
  • Through a small Phase 1B — ESTIMATE: $120,000–$350,000+. Add a tightly bounded institution-approved intervention feasibility study.
  • Broader pilot plus polished documentary — ESTIMATE: $250,000–$750,000+. Larger measurement scope, professional production, and fewer donated capabilities.

FUNDING AND PARTNER ARCHITECTURE

Build a stack of capabilities instead of expecting one organization to supply everything.

Different supporters can underwrite distinct, disclosed pieces without controlling the findings.

Institutional research support

University pilot funds, core-facility credits, investigator time, student research support, military or aerospace research pathways, and later grant applications.

Commercial or philanthropic sponsorship

Unrestricted funding, equipment, assays, production, travel, or facility support—with conflicts disclosed and scientific control retained by the qualified research institution.

Crowdfunding and audience support

Fund clearly bounded public deliverables such as protocol development, documentary production, open educational materials, or a feasibility milestone. State exactly what contributions do and do not purchase.

NEXT DECISIONS

Turn the large idea into a partner-ready first scope.

  1. Secure a qualified investigator willing to critique the two-track structure.
  2. Select the smallest defensible Phase 1A measurement set.
  3. Request real institutional and vendor estimates to replace planning ranges.
  4. Identify which capabilities can be contributed in kind.
  5. Separate scientific, performance, production, and fundraising ownership.
  6. Revise Phase 1B around institutional feasibility and review.

Open the investigator review room See the performance-first view Offer a critique or referral