Essentials of Nutrition for Sports

Length of Study

Was the study done long enough to show the effect, or uncover

side effects? A new diet book may help reader lose weight after 8 weeks, but where are they after 16 weeks? 1 year? Neutral-Party Funding

Biases in research, publication, and promotion related to private-

party funding are notorious and le

gion. This is discussed throughout

this section. For an example, read about Endurox R4 on page

154

.

Power (Sufficient Numbers)

Were there enough study subjects to show an effect? Studies in

athletes are notorious for having a dozen or fewer subjects.

Small studies with discrete outcomes may show results with no

treatment effect. Consider an eight-subject study with just one discrete outcome measure. Suppose the outcome, like tossing a coin, is random.

With just eight athletes, there is often a reasonable chance of an

“unexpected” result by chance.

If you toss a coin eight times, you might expect three, four, or

five heads or tails. Almost a third (29%) of the time, heads or tails will occur more than expected. Real-World, as well as Statistical Significance

Just because something is significant, it does not mean it is

important. A one pound-lighter bicycle (at a cost of an extra $1,000) may reduce the time it takes to climb a six-mile hill by 30 seconds over an hour, or 5 seconds over every 10 minutes it takes to climb a one-mile hill. If you are a recreational rider and never climb for more than 10 continuous minutes, does this have any real-world importance to you?

Junk Science

The Food and Nutrition Science Alliance (FANSA) represents

members of the American Dietetic

Association, American Institute

of Nutrition, American Society for Clinical Nutrition, and Institute of Food Technologists.

Food and nutritional quackery is so common that FANSA has

published 10 warning signs of bad or junk science.

The following are FANSA’s 10 Red Flags of Junk Science:

1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix. 2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen. 3. Claims that sound too good to be true. 4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study. 5. Recommendations based on a single study. 6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific

organizations.

7. Lists of “good” and “bad” foods. 8. Recommendations made to help sell a product. 9. Recommendations based on studies published without review. 10. Recommendations from studies that ignore differences among

individuals or groups.

Supplement Caveats

Supplements are not regulated in the same ways drugs are. Keep

in mind that: •^

Supplements for sale to the public may not produce the same effects and may not be the same

as the special extracts used in

scientific studies.

-^

There is often a lack of quality control.

-^

Studies are usually sponsored by manufacturer.

-^

Studies may be of poor design.

Nutrition for Sports, Essentials of 139