#outragedrunner

Last night's run was slightly compromised by the late, late arrival of summer weather to London. It was 26 degrees and very sunny last night when I set off for my runmute home. I decided to take it a bit easy - ran at 9:15-9:30 pace and stopped to walk at the end of each mile. 

This morning, I came across this article in the New York Times' Well blog, suggesting that most products aimed at fitness consumers lack solid scientific research to back their claims. What they discovered was that very little, independent, credible research backs most of what is sold to us.

The researchers examined 615 sports advertisements in magazines. Of these, 54 contained claims that the product enhanced performance, but only three offered references. The 53 Web sites they examined contained 141 references.

They wrote to the companies requesting references to any research they or others had done that was not cited in their advertisements or on their Web sites. Of the 42 companies they contacted, 27 responded and nine provided additional material. Excluding duplicates, books without clinical studies, nonhuman studies, and surveys and articles without data, manufacturers provided 74 studies that could be analyzed for scientific value...

The researchers examined 615 sports advertisements in magazines. Of these, 54 contained claims that the product enhanced performance, but only three offered references. The 53 Web sites they examined contained 141 references.

They wrote to the companies requesting references to any research they or others had done that was not cited in their advertisements or on their Web sites. Of the 42 companies they contacted, 27 responded and nine provided additional material. Excluding duplicates, books without clinical studies, nonhuman studies, and surveys and articles without data, manufacturers provided 74 studies that could be analyzed for scientific value...

The analysis, published online Thursday in the journal BMJ Open, found only three studies offered by the manufacturers that were judged of high quality and at low risk of bias, but none of these tested a particular product as an intervention. Two were studies of the effect of linoleic acid supplementation, and the other was a controlled trial of magnesium citrate in the treatment of leg cramps. All three had negative results.

One manufacturer of protein drinks and pills, the researchers found, supported advertising claims with a comparative study of the effect of different diets on rat metabolism published in 1930. According to Dr. Thompson, Coca-Cola, which manufactures Powerade, delivered 10 studies. One was paid for with an unrestricted grant from Coca-Cola, and another written by the director of the Gatorade Sports Science Institute.

“The drink companies have created a market,” Dr. Thompson said, “by creating a disease called ‘dehydration’ which needs to be treated or prevented with these expensive drinks — expensive not just in cost but in sugar and calorie intake.”

In an e-mail, a Powerade spokeswoman said: “We always rely on sound, evidence-based science to ensure that our products deliver on their promise to consumers. Powerade was developed in collaboration with sports science experts.”

The American Beverage Association, a trade group, said in an e-mail that the study “exhibits a clear bias by overlooking widely accepted research on sports drinks.” It cited no specific examples of that research.

I watched a documentary on BBC (if you are in the UK, you can find that here) that went into the study further, specifically in the case of sports drinks. I was shocked to find out that the now ubiquitous bottles of fluorescent-coloured drink offer no measurable benefits to most of the users that they studied. No improvement in performance, no improvement in recovery and no reduction in the symptoms of dehydration.

Sorry, so why are we being told to drink these things?

I was never a fan of these things in the pre-running days because frankly, I think they taste disgusting. I don’t like sweet drinks and don’t normally drink anything outside of water, diet coke (one a day!), mint tea, coffee or wine. I don’t do regular soda or juice. I think smoothies and shakes are the devil's nectar. 

Since upping mileage, I would only give into a sports drink during a run over 10 miles (drinking no more than half a bottle), in extreme humidity or heat and during races, alternating with water from the stations. I do find that they can make my stomach (a bit funny at the best of times) a bit queasy or unsettled or leave me feeling jittery afterwards.

Apparently, that might be because one bottle has the equivalent of 8 TEASPOONS OF SUGAR. And the sodium factor is no consolation prize either, with researchers finding levels are too low to impact performance for most people, outside of elite athletes (maybe).

I read a lot of curmudgeonly articles, comments etc. from longtime runners who feel the sport has become too commercial for its own good... that races are too big and full of too many slow runners cluttering the course, blah blah blah.

I usually roll my eyes but in this case, I can't help to believe that there is a direct connection between races getting bigger and the increasing involvement of the food industry. As more people sign up, the races require sponsors with deeper pockets to pay for them. Hence, the inclusion of sports drinks at fuelling stations and on race banners at every race I attend. 

Have you ever been to a race where the organizers bragged about handing out tap water?

Anyone else see something wrong in race organizers normalizing this stuff during races if it actually hasn't been proven to improve performance? Are we now not sucking people who are trying to be healthier to give up water for overpriced SUGAR WATER that DOESN'T WORK as well THE WATER it is replacing??