The evidence underpinning sports performance products: a systematic assessment

also related

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4737

and …

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4848

And…………. more ;-)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293

The study, or should I say, "survey" was hardly rigorous, even by their own admission. While it does point out the patently obvious chasm between product hype and quality studies to back up those claims, the articles don't tell us where the solid work has been done. In very broad strokes covering every aspect of sports products, from kinesiology tape and wrist bands to electrolyte caps and shoes, everything falls in their dumpster.

Even lacking double-blind, sample bias corrected rigour, many studies show valid evidence of product efficacy. I agree that added rigour is welcome, but not necessary for a company to begin sales. Once a product is shipping, a company may not want a more rigourous inquiry that may expose weakness in their hype. That's the job of the independent researchers.

An example of unnecessary censorship is in the BBC article describing urine color's use as an indicator of hydration. They poo-poo the technique because of the lack of quality studies and the individual variances that make it unreliable. Tell me, is your urine lighter when you drink a lot?

Which brings up an interesting point about what research gets funded and who pays for it. In his book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Kuhn makes the case that scientific inquiry is directed towards what the money will fund and will pass over what doesn't get funded. A case in point is global warming. It would be very difficult to fund a study to test a hypothesis that suggests man's CO2 production is not to blame. (Not my view, just showing an example)

What I really would like is an independent, comprehensive survey of what claims can be relied on, particularly with respect to nutrition and supplements, rather than an assessment that focuses on the garbage out there.

Well said Nathan

That shows the falacy of the idea that "the free market" will solve all problems

Another case in point is it's hard to get a study that shows a cheap generic drug is just as effective as expensive brand name. Easy to get study to show that an expensive brand name drug is infintesimally more effective so we waste lots of money using expensive brand name ineffective drugs.

Personally I believe it is incumbent on the producer to be able to justify their claims about a product before they foist it on an unsuspecting public. This is not something that should be left to independent researchers to do with their own funding, some time after the products market debut (Thalidomide ring a bell).

Publishing word limits mean that even if the researchers wanted to, they may not be able to list their data. I expect that if they did a manufacturer would want to sue them for any adverse findings.

The value of the paper is to expose widespread disregard for truth and evidence. It also shows what to look for when reading any supporting material before buying a product. I do agree however that times there can be too rigorous application of "scientific method" to these issues – insisting on huge samples and double blind tests, but this depends on the risks the product may create.

"Personally I believe it is incumbent on the producer to be able to justify their claims about a product before they foist it on an unsuspecting public. This is not something that should be left to independent researchers to do with their own funding, some time after the products market debut"

Amen. It always amazes me that companies are allowed to market stuff that has not passed any scientific scrutiny. Then again, it always amazes me how easily a fool and his money can be parted. That may be a fault of the education systems, or just the human nature that wants quick fixes and is not willing to do their own research into a product.

"Then again, it always amazes me how easily a fool and his money can be parted."

Which bings to mind something like……caveat emptor?