I generally
tend to trust the results and conclusions drawn from most studies in the
exercise science field (especially if it supports my various theories
*wink*). But there are times when I’ll
read an exercise science study and it will be interesting and provoke some
thought but will ultimately not say anything that pertains to me or my
profession.
The
scientific method and the results we draw from it is the best tool we have come
up with to date to investigate and learn about the world we inhabit. From the invention of the wheel to the apple
falling on Newton’s head to Los Alamos science and its method have made this
world a better place for each successive generation. We use applied math to get physics, applied
physics to get chemistry, applied chemistry to get biology (anatomy and
physiology), and then applied biology to get kinesiology and exercise
science. Those last two are anything but
straightforward.
Extrapolation
This is
probably the biggest problem area when it comes to drawing conclusions. Most studies are done on a specific
population or done in a way that extremely isolates the variable being
studied. Studies need to be done this
way otherwise the results are not terribly valid since there will be too many
confounding.
I came
across a recent study done in Japan that showed that when cardio was performed
after strength training there was a higher instance on the biomarkers of muscle
synthesis (muscle building)… in middle-aged, untrained men. Oh.
Most, if not all, exercise science studies are very specific. They are specific to population and
method. An increase in muscle protein
synthesis is great for my middle-aged, untrained, male clients but
extrapolating that out to every other client (trained, young, female, etc.) is
something that I cannot do. I can say
that there may be a correlation for all other populations based on this one
study but that advice should be taken with a grain of salt.
Then there
is the whole getting the same results with different methods thing. In the study the participants performed
either 8x8 leg extensions at 70% of their 1-RM, 40 minutes of cycling at 55% of
peak VO2 output, or both. It is suspect
at best to say that you’ll get an increase in muscle synthesis when you perform
an upper body dominant workout followed by running even if you are an
untrained, middle-aged male. Leg
extensions and cycling are both relatively quad dominant exercises which may
have had something to do with the results.
Correlation vs. Causation
There is not
one shred of evidence that says smoking causes cancer. Oh, there is a very high correlation, but
causality has never been proven. I’ll
let you unexploded your head and put down that shotgun before I explain. Lots of people who smoke get cancer right? Yep.
Well so do a lot of people who don’t smoke. And a lot of people who do smoke don’t get cancer. If smoking caused cancer, then 100% of smokers would get cancer. But they don’t. A lot of smokers die healthy as a horse.
My whole
point is that causality is an extremely difficult thing to prove when it comes
to the inner workings of the human body (I used this to win an argument against
a kid that goes to MIT. It may have been
my proudest moment ever.). I would never say that there are no harmful
side effects to smoking. But there
is no way to prove that all the smokers who have gotten cancer wouldn’t have
gotten it anyway if they hadn’t smoked.
But seriously, don’t smoke.
This brings
me to a literal cash cow in the research field.
The Current State of Obesity Research
As the
collective American waistline has exploded so has obesity research. It seems that just about every other week
there is a new study that shows that some compound, either exogenous (coming
from outside the body) or endogenous (coming from within), leads to weight loss
or lowers blood pressure or yadda yadda yadda.
In the coming years I feel the biggest implications will be for those who
are at risk for developing type II diabetes.
Obesity and
all of the diseases that are highly correlated with it- cancer, diabetes, heart
disease, metabolic syndrome,etc.- is a condition that is primarily brought on
by lifestyle. Yes there are people who
have legitimate hormonal claims for their excess weight, but they are few and
far between. The rest of us it seems
would rather live a life of excess and take umpteen pills per day instead of
eat healthfully and exercise.
Then there
are those who fall victim to all of the marketing companies that disguise themselves
as supplement companies. Whenever you
see a claim that looks like this, “Scorch 57% more fat with Raspberry Ketones
(or any weight loss supplement)! Clinically
proven to melt stubborn belly fat!” I
just shake my head. I first ask myself, “57%
of what?” More often than not it’s 57%
of three pounds or so. This means the
compound helped you lose about 1.5 more pounds however long the study was,
usually 12-16 weeks. That may sound like
a boon town until you realize that proper eating habits and consistent exercise
can help you do that in a week instead of four months and at no extra
cost. You take your pick.
A big topic
of discussion these days on obesity research is now dealing with the hyper-palatability
of food. It seems our brains are not
wired to be able to handle the high amounts of sugar, salt, and fat that are
present in most foods, especially processed foods. In a nutshell, all the fatty, sugar-filled,
processed food desensitizes our brain’s pleasure centers and leads us to seek
more of the food that gives us the happy happy good time feelings that we
crave. In other words, we become
addicted to it.
While it is
somewhat fascinating learning what is going on in our heads when we start on
the second pound of Doritos for the night I can’t help but think, “So eat
something else.” It is a conundrum that
people will devour food that is of horrible quality and not much better tasting
when they have much better tasting options readily available to them. I would much rather eat six dollars’ worth of
steak that I bought from the grocery store than six dollars’ worth of Taco
Bell. Yet that’s what most people do.
And right now
pharmaceutical companies are hard at work to develop medication that reverses
this process in the brain and all the other damage done by diabetes, heart
disease, and metabolic syndrome. You know
what else works for all of those things?
Yep, eating healthfully and exercising regularly (especially strength
training). But big pharmaceutical
companies don’t want you to know that.
They have bottom lines to protect.
Methods to the Madness
When looking
at exercise related studies it is important to note the methods of the study. The methods section is where you find out
exactly how the study was carried out.
It will tell you specifics of the population(s) and specifics of what
exactly they did to get the results the researchers got, and what exactly the
researchers measured to get the results that they came up with. This section is also where studies usually
fall apart.
A recent
study was performed to test whether kettle bell exercises or barbell exercises
were superior to increase athletic performance, i.e. jumping and
sprinting. The kettle bell group
performed their exercises with a fixed weight of 35 pounds whereas the barbell
group performed their exercises at a given percentage of their 1 rep
maximum. Right there the study is deeply
flawed. For the most part there should
only be one variable changed between the groups, kettle bells vs.
barbells. But now you’ve got differing
loading parameters. Any results after
that is uncovered should be taken with a grain of salt at best and thrown out
at worst.
And that’s
just one example. As unfortunate as it
is many times researches will be pressured from the people that are funding the
study to get results that are consistent with the funder’s interests. It’s hard to circumvent this as most research
is privately funded by groups that are not giving away money for the pure love
of scientific research. They want a
return on their investment. If you want
a certain answer, chances are there is a way to find it.
Reductionism
Reductionism
is the process of controlling for all variables except for the one being
experimented on. If you’ve ever gone
through a human biology class or even thought about all the things your body
does without you even thinking about it you realize reductionism is not how the
body works.
Many
kinesiological studies are done with EKG which measures muscle activity in one
or more muscles. The problem with this
is that the body is much more coordinated than many think. The other problem is that different people
have different compensations. Which
means that in a study measuring gluteus maximus activity in a certain exercise
could have widely varying degrees of muscle activity due to differences in how
people’s bodies coordinate muscle activity.
It’s not the movement that is different; it’s how people’s bodies
complete the task.
The same
goes for physiological (hormones, body fluids, metabolism, etc.) studies. There are so many different hormones and
compounds at work when a person eats and digests a simple compound, like
glucose, the simplest sugar for instance, that to control and study any one of
them is exceedingly difficult at best.
These studies can give us a good idea of what is going on but will never
tell the whole story.
This brings
me to the subject of the GI and GL (glycemic index and glycemic load) of
foods. Foods with a higher GI tend to
have a greater impact on insulin and blood sugar levels and produce a big
glycemic load. Foods with a low GI will
not have a big impact on insulin, blood sugar levels, and glycemic load. Those numbers were derived from test subjects
eating a certain amount (I think it was 100 grams) of only that food and then
having blood sugar and insulin tested.
Rarely is that done in the real world.
People eat meals of different foods.
A food that has a high GI when eaten alone will have a totally different
GI when eaten with protein, fat, or even another food with a lower GI.
GI and GL
are good reference points for food choices, but they should not be the only
consideration.
Finally, The Good
There is a difference
to these studies and the ones that I’ve been talking about. These studies are not anthropometric (easily
measurable results such as strength increases, reduction of body fat/weight,
muscle gain, etc.) whereas most of the studies that are a little off base are. The biggest factor is time. I can’t look at a woman and say, “Yep, that strength
training protocol really increased your bone density.” X-ray vision would be cool but for now I’ll
rely on scientists.
In Conclusion or, What the Hell Are
We Looking At?
In the end
studies only provide you a very myopic view on training. I would much rather trust anecdotal evidence
that has been proven true time and time again in training halls and training
dungeons alike than a new study done in the sterile conditions of a lab. Studies can show us increases in protein
kinase or increased phosphorylation rates or an upregulation of mRNA but it
doesn’t mean anything if it doesn’t produce tangible results.
We aren’t
after the biomarkers of hypertrophy, strength, and fat loss. We want the results. Anecdotal evidence and experience should drive the choices we make regarding training and
nutrition. Did something work for you
and not someone else, or vice versa? If
you’ve been exercising and experimenting with it for any period of time you
know that that’s how it goes. Studies
should merely serve as a means of confirmation.
If I find something that helps me improve
strength and hypertrophy and fat loss that bucks scientific literature I really
don’t care, and neither should you.
Fitness is a journey, not an end point.
Keep learning and reading but never stop experimenting.
