The actual enjoyable at scientific conferences is within the poster classes. While the massive keynote talks are likely to concentrate on well-established analysis developments, the posters provide an unfiltered glimpse of hunches, works in progress, and wild concepts. As a science journalist, my pre-conference ritual entails poring over the record of poster titles in search of fascinating prospects, then racing across the poster corridor to take a look at the precise posters, the place researchers have laid out their newest findings and analyses, and discovering out which loopy hunches seem to have paid off.
It’s enjoyable, however I’m more and more realizing that it’s additionally problematic. If the one research you hear about are those that produce seemingly optimistic outcomes, you find yourself with a distorted impression of how dependable these outcomes are. At an enormous convention just like the American College of Sports Medicine annual assembly, there are actually a whole bunch of posters investigating potential efficiency boosters. Simple chance dictates that you just’re going to finish up with some false positives amongst them—and people outcomes will appear extra spectacular if you happen to ignore all of the unfavourable outcomes.
So, in that spirit, I dug by way of my notebooks to drag out 5 research I’ve seen at conferences this fall that I believed have been actually cool—however didn’t produce the “right” outcome. I ought to make completely clear that calling them “failed” research within the title is totally tongue in cheek: These research have been designed to check numerous hypotheses, they usually’re equally profitable whether or not they affirm or reject these hypotheses.
It’s additionally vital to notice that, as is typical for poster shows, these are principally small experiments, in some instances meant as pilot or exploratory research. The outcomes might change as extra topics are examined or because the research design is refined primarily based on the pilot outcomes. What’s fascinating to me is the chance to get a way of the concepts researchers are pursuing and the theories they’re contemplating. It’s not in regards to the solutions (at this level, anyway); it’s in regards to the questions.
Do Stronger Ultramarathoners Run Faster?
This was an summary introduced by Michael Rogers of Simon Fraser University on the Sport Innovation Summit in Vancouver in October. He and his colleagues carried out a collection of power exams, together with deadlift, grip power, and vertical leap, on 12 rivals in a 50Ok mountain race. More so than in flat races, climbing up and down mountain trails requires a good quantity of power. So, after controlling for cardio health (as measured in a VO2max check), would the stronger athletes run sooner within the race?
The brief reply, on this explicit cohort, was no. To be sincere, although, the research is simply too small to attract any actual conclusions at this level. This group has been finding out contributors from the identical path race for a lot of years now, so it will likely be fascinating to see what patterns emerge as they accumulate extra knowledge. I don’t assume anybody doubts that cardio health is by far crucial think about ultras, and that you just additionally have to have some cheap minimal quantity of power. But attempting to quantify the relative significance of power and endurance is an fascinating mission.
Does the “Architecture” of Your Muscles Determine Loss of Strength as You Age?
This was an intriguing presentation by Liam Fitzgerald from the University of Massachusetts Amherst on the New England American College of Sports Medicine conference in Providence in October. In current years, there’s been widespread recognition that sarcopenia—the lack of muscle with age—can have a serious impact on high quality (and perhaps quantity) of life. But it has additionally grow to be clear that there’s extra to sarcopenia than merely shedding muscle. With age, we additionally see modifications within the connections between mind and muscle and within the perform of no matter muscle you’ve obtained left.
Fitzgerald investigated the potential position of “muscle architecture,” which encompasses 3 most important components: the thickness of the muscle, the size of the fascicles (bundles of muscle fibers), and the “pennation angle,” which is the angle of the muscle fibers relative to the course they pull in. There’s loads of proof that muscle structure, which you’ll assess with ultrasound, is a key determinant of how a lot drive you get from a given quantity of muscle. But in Fitzgerald’s research of younger and older girls, there was no hyperlink between muscle structure and fatigue in a four-minute power check, suggesting that structure shouldn’t be a hidden key to age-related decline.
Can a Running Power Meter Pick Up Subtle Changes in Running Economy?
The greatest convention I went to this fall was the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) annual assembly in Winnipeg. One the posters I rushed to take a look at was a University of Guelph research, introduced by Rachel Aubry, evaluating a Stryd energy meter to straightforward metabolic measurements in 13 leisure and 11 elite runners. The idea of an influence meter for working stays new and is one thing I’m nonetheless having bother getting my head round. Power is a comparatively easy idea in biking, however I’m not solely positive what it means in working—and Stryd’s secret algorithm doesn’t make it simple to determine.
Aubry’s research concerned having the runners carry out a collection of exams to measure working economic system at numerous speeds on each a treadmill and an out of doors observe. There was a “significant albeit weak” general relationship between measured working economic system and energy. Interestingly, the researchers discovered a big distinction in working economic system between treadmill and observe working—however the energy meter didn’t decide up any variations between the 2 surfaces. There are some caveats to the research, corresponding to the truth that they used the outdated chest-mounted Stryd mannequin quite than the brand new foot pod. Still, the general take is that energy, as measured by this system, doesn’t essentially decide up delicate modifications within the metabolic calls for of working.
Does Hard Running Burn More Protein Than Easy Running?
Endurance athletes run on carbs and fats; protein, in distinction, offers constructing blocks for muscular tissues quite than being burned as gasoline. That’s the final sample, however it’s not the total image. Studies counsel that between 5 and 10 percent of the vitality you burn throughout train can come from protein, notably throughout lengthy classes when your muscular tissues are working low on carbohydrate. But does it matter how onerous you’re working? That’s what one other CSEP poster, introduced by Jenna Gillen of the University of Toronto, sought to find out.
In the research, eight skilled runners ran 10Ok at both 70 or 90 % of most coronary heart fee whereas the presence of labeled amino acids was tracked to estimate general protein burning charges. The outcomes: no detectable distinction in protein use between the simple and onerous runs. It’s potential larger research, or maybe an extended run that induced extra carbohydrate depletion, would have picked up some variations. But the preliminary conclusion is that you just don’t have to make huge changes in protein consumption primarily based in your train depth.
Can Electric Stimulation Quantify How Fatigued Your Legs Really Are?
Should you push onerous in right this moment’s exercise, or must you again off to recuperate from earlier coaching? One of the holy grails of coaching science is determining a way of creating that call objectively quite than counting on athletes’ intestine emotions. Jared Fletcher and Brian MacIntosh of the University of Calgary tried a brand new method to this downside, utilizing electrically triggered muscle contractions to measure the neuromuscular fatigue current within the legs of 14 skilled distance runners throughout a ten-week coaching cycle. Then they in contrast this knowledge to reported coaching and subjective emotions of fatigue.
The outcomes, introduced at CSEP, didn’t reveal any apparent patterns or connections. In truth, neither neuromuscular fatigue nor subjective fatigue modified a lot over the ten-week research. That could also be as a result of they measured fatigue simply as soon as every week, originally of the week, quite than instantly earlier than or after key coaching classes. Or it could be as a result of neuromuscular fatigue merely isn’t an vital issue throughout regular coaching for distance runners. I don’t assume we will draw any agency conclusions about this but, however it’s an fascinating query to think about.
Anyway, that’s a pattern of the sorts of shows that often keep buried in my pocket book. We’ll in all probability hear about a few of them once more in one other yr or 2, when extra full outcomes are revealed someplace. Others will disappear with out a hint. That’s all a part of the scientific course of, and it’s price retaining that in thoughts everytime you hear about new and thrilling outcomes.
Discuss this publish on Twitter or Facebook, join the Sweat Science email newsletter, and take a look at my forthcoming e book, Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance.