Science and Running

KielyUnusual

I've noticed running studies and scientific research being mentioned more and more on the forum. I for one am skeptical about most running studies that I read about. In order to run one of these, you have to make a whole lot of assumptions, to the point where the conclusions you make can be quite clouded.

Are there too many variables outside the control of the experimenter to make valid conclusions? You can't control the subject's life outside of the study. People have off running days. People could be sick or fatigued.

Are the very premise of a lot of these studies misguided in the first place i.e. using treadmills to make judgements on running form, studying elite athletes and applying the lessons learned across all athletes?

Is the science of how we metabolise food and use this energy in our running well understood and across all distances (100m to Ultra marathons)?

I know there's a lot of well read people on these forums on these matters so I think it would be a good discussion to have.

I'll see if I can find some of the studies I've read and maybe use them as discussion points.

dna_leri

I think we have to be very careful about drawing conclusions from scientific studies about or other health related issues, because as you say there are many variables that can not be accounted for. However that does not mean we should ignore them.

If you look at the health area, we all "know that smoking is bad for you". However we did not "know" that 50/60 years ago. It is only by repeated studies that this conclusion can be drawn. We also "knew" that a high fat diet was bad for you, but many reputable researchers now promote a high fat (low carb) diet. It will only be by further studies that a consensus is reached.

In most cases researchers do not approach a study with an open mind. They start with a theory and gather data to prove it. Normally their target is to get the research published. In some cases they want to get wider media attention, mainly so they can continue to get funding for further research.

Most studies are "peer reviewed" which means that the science behind them should be solid but that does not mean they are accurate or applicable to all of us. It is always worth reading more than just the headline and if possible the actual study before drawing conclusions. It helps to have a basic knowledge of statistics and a healthy dose of scepticism.

Stuff I try to see is who funded the research e.g. Gatorade and hydration studies =scepticism.
How many people were in the study group (the bigger the better).
What kind of people were studied, elite athletes (rarely), people with sedentary lifestyle (not always applicable to active people). Often the subjects of the study are in the 18-25 age group (i.e. college students that volunteer to be studied).
The duration of the study. We all know that if we do something new in training that we can get an initial boost to fitness but will that last over a longer time period (e.g. High Intensity Interval Training).
What is the variation in the results. Sometimes averages are quoted but that can be misleading. Averages can hide a lot of non-responders v's high responders i.e the theory works well for some people but not at all for others
Use of control groups. A control group should be a similar group of people who are not given the "magic pill" being tested but are given a placebo and still tested in the same way. In a "double-blind" study, neither the subject or the researcher knows who is getting the "magic-pill".
How close the study is to real-life. A good example of that is treadmill v's real-world running. In some cases that can make no difference but in something like running form (e.g. barefoot running) it can be very significant.

There are probably more things to look out for when reading a scientific article about how to get better as a runner but most of us know there are very few shortcuts.

ecoli

Health and Fitness research as dna_leri has mentioned can be a minefield before you ever get down to analyzing the actual figures for a multitude of reasons.

In terms of many papers you can't look at them in isolation as the "science" is pain stakingly slow with progress and is a case of taking 2 steps forward and one step back (in the form of counter arguments or research). Often it is a case where science is playing catch up to coaching whereby things have been done for years in a certain way without fully knowing why yet years later science finally catches up to say that it is right (the greatest example that comes to mind is the "good hard run" mentality of the 70s and 80s which has now become a buzz in the form of AeT runs).

My own personal opinion is science is a secondary tool to inspire confidence that the training approach is well thought out but essentially experience and trial and error are a better determinant to draw training philosophy conclusions.

I know myself from self coaching and coaching others that the training is laid out simply, the science behind it only becomes a factor when methods are questioned as to why something is being done and how it fits in overall.

Science and its application do not always work in tangent when it comes to running.

Murph_D

I agree with a lot of the above - especially about questioning the methods and the motivation behind the research, which applies to all fields, not just sports. I guess one of the good things about sports science is its potential ability to debunk marketing fads (e.g. pronation support shoes, possibly), unsubstantiated conventional wisdom with potentially dangerous effects (e.g. how much water to drink), quackery (e.g. dry needling and other expensive but possibly useless treatments). These can be difficult to research, of course, and every study has its limitations, which must be taken into account. The wisdom of experienced coaches should always be respected, but if something is true for all runners, or some runners, it should be capable of being demonstrated empirically and replicated by others. One of the values of sports or other science is the separation of myth from reliable fact, that some or all of us might benefit.

PVincent

The one area of ' science' that is pretty much immeasurable is the power of a confident and positive mind that inspires people to perform better. Is it the mind or is it the body that makes the difference . Sports phycology really is a fascinating area of science , and an area that more and more teams and individuals spend a huge amount of time and money on. And you know in reality , it's all just common sense stuff . But it has and will continue to make a difference to people in sport.

airurando

It's very difficult to draw conclusions from scientific research in any area unless you've had prior training. Personally I'd be sceptical of anything I'd hear without reading the paper myself (and unless you work at a university or are a student you've to pay a fortune to access them), but I also would doubt my own ability to properly analyse the premise, methods, data treatment, etc., since my background is in the physical sciences.

I could look up some authors or studies if anyone has something specific in mind, but I'd caution against it unless you have a background in the specific subject area.

Kurt Godel

KielyUnusual wrote: »

I've noticed running studies and scientific research being mentioned more and more on the forum. I for one am skeptical about most running studies that I read about. In order to run one of these, you have to make a whole lot of assumptions, to the point where the conclusions you make can be quite clouded.

You're right to be skeptical; there is an awful lot of "sports science" that is nothing of the sort. Any study that makes assumptions, without testing those assumptions, isn't science. It can be debated back and forth, but there can't be any conclusion. Perfect fodder for an opinion-based chatroom forum such as this, and grud knows there's enough of it about. However, there's not much evidence that the forum shows genuine interest in sports science when the study is valid either.

Here's an example of how proper science is treated by many on this forum. Proper scientific studies which conclusively show that "Chronic extreme endurance efforts, like marathons, ultra-marathons, and long-distance triathlons, can cause cardiovascular damage over time". (I use the word "conclusively" with purpose). That doesn't fit in with the multi-marathon focus of this particular forum, so the conclusion gets rubbished. And not rubbished scientifically, but by attacking the premise, offering specific outliers as refutation, using geographic ad hominems... anything but argue the conclusion scientifically.

The posters with a scientific background on that thread know when a study can be discounted, and when it can't, and are in general agreement that its a valid study. That's in marked contrast to the majority on the thread. Nothing hugely wrong with that per se; this is a hobby forum, and any interest in science is largely secondary to the main (self-improvement or athletic) running reasons for being here.

TFBubendorfer

Kurt Godel wrote: »

Here's an example of how proper science is treated by many on this forum. Proper scientific studies which conclusively show that "Chronic extreme endurance efforts, like marathons, ultra-marathons, and long-distance triathlons, can cause cardiovascular damage over time". (I use the word "conclusively" with purpose). That doesn't fit in with the multi-marathon focus of this particular forum, so the conclusion gets rubbished. And not rubbished scientifically, but by attacking the premise, offering specific outliers as refutation, using geographic ad hominems... anything but argue the conclusion scientifically.

That's a really bad example. There are plenty of perfectly rational rebukes of that particular study to be found (e.g. http://www.runnersworld.com/health/study-30-milesweek-may-be-excessive-after-a-heart-attack) [yes I know, RW is not a scientific magazine!]

In the end, that's exactly what science is about. Theories can always be falsified, that's why they are theories. Dialogue and sharing of information is what basically increases our understanding.

By stating that the conclusion of one particular study got rubbished only because it did not fit in with the views of one group you are just making the exact same mistake, just in reverse direction.

Krusty_Clown

Kurt Godel wrote: »

The posters with a scientific background on that thread know when a study can be discounted, and when it can't, and are in general agreement that its a valid study. That's in marked contrast to the majority on the thread. Nothing hugely wrong with that per se; this is a hobby forum, and any interest in science is largely secondary to the main (self-improvement or athletic) running reasons for being here.

My comments were in relation to the presentation/sensationalism of the article, rather than the presentation of the underlying 'sports science'. Admittedly I got a little carried away, on the basis that I felt there were more meaningful subjects that they should be focusing their efforts on, which in hindsight did detract from a discussion on the specific subject-matter. Perhaps I need to spend a little more time time browsing the pearls of scientific wisdom that abound on the tri form. I'll report back when I've learnt something.

dna_leri

Good article here by Matt Fitzgerald on the balance between optimum weight loss and training.

http://running.competitor.com/2014/09/nutrition/runners-weight-loss-good-weight-loss_113316

It is interesting to this topic in that he refers to two studies:
1. Eight competitive mountain bikers were placed on each of two diets for four weeks in random order. One diet was high in fat and low in carbohydrate, consisting of 15 percent carbohydrate, 70 percent fat, and 15 percent protein. The other diet was balanced, consisting of 50 percent carbohydrate, 30 percent fat, and 20 percent protein.
2. Forty-eight endurance athletes, a plurality of them runners, were assigned to four different training groups: a high-volume group that did lots of training at low intensity and none at high intensity, a threshold group that did a balance of work at low and moderate intensities, a high-intensity group that did 57 percent of its training at high intensity and the rest at low intensity, and a “polarized” group that did 68 percent of its training at low intensity and 24 percent at high intensity. All of the athletes completed a battery of performance tests both before and after nine weeks of training.

While he draws a balanced conclusion from the studies, I know which one I would pay the most attention to.