Reporting on science (pulling the wool over one's eyes)

And what evidence do you have that Endurox works better than , say, chocolate milk?

Edited by the bear 2004-09-24 2:59 PM

you can do a search here and find several threads questioning the the contents found in RW aka Rodale.  I stopped blindly forking my money over to them a long time ago.  Ads posing as articles, dubious tests/results as pointed out by yourself and others, and recycled stories are not what I want to read.  Sad to see American Tri's demise last month.

I know exactly what you mean Dave .....Men's Health is full of articles citing studies on everything and anything

What I'm ranting on is not about the content of the article, chocolate milk, Endurox, Beer, mountain dew, or mineral spirits. I'm kvetching about how it is reported. This article is just an example of the sloppiness of interpretation of reported data. For all I know Jason Karp's conclusions may be correct, but his study is hardly the final word on the subject, hell it's harldy the first word.

My point is that we, as consumers of information, are largely being handed a product that is wanting in quality by the mass media. The conclusions reported are not always as cut and dried as the reporters make them out to be. Additionally, the research behind the conclusions that are drawn is often obscured by the writing of the second-hand articles.I am fortunate to have at my ready disposal the tools that let me find the original research, this is not true of most readers of RW.

Wholeheartedly agree. One of my favorite things to debunk is Endurox's sister product Accelerade's studies on the benefit of their product over other sports drinks.

http://my.webmd.com/content/article/90/100586.htm?z=1728_00000_1000...

In this study it turns out that the athletes that are given their product in fact consume more calories than the athletes in the other group? More calories=more endurance (duh!), but they don't promote that fact. You have to go to the very end of the article for this blurb:

Saunders notes that his small study needs confirmation by further work. And he's quick to point out that the effects seen in his study might be due simply to the extra calories Accelerade provides.

Both are illustrations that we need to consider the source. I admit I didn't look behind the article, or even look that closely AT the article, and cited it in your post in an off-the-cuff manner. But the chocolate milk study is just as valid as the Accelerade research.


Edited by the bear 2004-09-24 3:34 PM

I've also seen people suggest slim fast as the same ratio of carbs-protein.

Bear,

I just wanted to point out (1) segment of the JMU study which you may be overlooking. I agree with you 100% that the calorie consumption should have been equal (not sure why it wasn't as it would have removed any differentiation). With that being said, the total calorie difference between the Accelerade group and the Gatorade group was only 40 calories. If you look closely at the results in actual workload output, the difference is equal to about 340 calories. If the difference was 40, 60, 80, etc... calories, I could see one finding fault, but the difference is 100's of calories worth of workload, so it's not even close.

Just another $.02 worth of info. Have a good weekend!

Brian Shea
www.PersonalBestNutrition.com

Don't know why they'd even mention it if the caloric differences were as slight as you mention. I'll have to defer to your expertise here, as the site won't let me view the full report. But quoting from the abstract:

" Beverages were matched for carbohydrate content, resulting in 20% lower total caloric content per administration of CHO beverage" (vs the CHO+P beverage).

"Conclusion: A carbohydrate beverage with additional protein calories produced significant improvements in time to fatigue and reductions in muscle damage in endurance athletes. Further research is necessary to determine whether these effects were the result of higher total caloric content of the CHO+P beverage or due to specific protein-mediated mechanisms."

http://www.ms-se.com/pt/re/msse/searchplusresults.htm;jsessionid=BU...

Edited by the bear 2004-09-24 4:38 PM

we have subscribed to two rodale publications - organic gardening and backpacker - and i agree that there are a lot of sound bite like articles that don't seem to give the whole story - or even flesh out the story. there used to be a great outdoor magazine for women that rodale bought and promptly flushed. there was the saddest letter from the editor in one of the last issues. we still get backpacker, but i stopped getting og because there just wasn't as much useful information. i enjoy mothering magazine, which also has a habit of citing obscure research. love the magazine, but you have to take it with a big grain of salt.

I used to love Organic Gardening back when they had an editor by the name of Mike McGrath. he was very personable, humorous, and made a relatively dry topic fun.

Rodale also screwed up Runner's World with the last revision, canning some respected and knowledgeable writers and introducing articles on lipstick.

Edited by the bear 2004-09-24 5:39 PM

Did bear use "organic" and "fun" in the same post? What is this world coming to?

I thought the lipstick article in RW was great. I got lots of great ideas on what color and brand I should apply before crossing the finish line in my next race.

Brian,

Despite Bears "debunk accelerade" agenda what is your take on the chocolate milk endurox comparison?

Sean,

There are those who try to make the comparison between chocolate milk and Endurox R4, believing that anything which has a 4:1 ratio of CHO:PRO must deliver the same results.

I have often made the comparison of Endurox R4 vs. chocolate milk to a top of the line Litespeed vs. a Toys 'R' US Huffy - Both are bicycles, but I doubt one would ever confuse them!

Some of the significant differences between chocolate milk and Endurox R4:

1. The chocolate milk does not contain Vitamins E and C which are critical for reducing muscle spindle damage.

2. The protein in milk is casein which is far inferior to whey when it comes to muscle recovery.

3. Milk does not contain glutamine and the level of branch chain amino acids in the chocolate milk would be less than desired.

4. Chocolate milk usually contains fat which is counterproductive in a post-workout recovery formula.

If you added all of the necessary ingredients to the chocolate milk to make it 'become' R4, it would probably be more expensive and would not taste very good.

On another note, there is additional information posted here on the PBN Forum further addressing some of the concerns Bear has regarding the validity of the recent Accelerade/Gatorade study.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Brian Shea
www.PersonalBestNutrition.com

Chocolate milk would seem to help gaseously propel those who are lactose intolerant, thus giving them an unfair (yet surprisingly natural) advantage....

Yeah, giving chocolate milk to the lactose intolerant might just "propel" them right off their bikes! Hey, a secret weapon!

If you're lactose intolerant, I have a great drink for you (**chug, chug, chocolate milk**) see you later, you'll need to recover now, (insert evil laugh here).