Running Mania

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2014 10:15 am**

From Alex Hutchinson in the Jockology column in the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... d/follows/

The title in the print version of the newspaper was actually "The Benefits of Snake Oil"

Spoilers:
Alex talks about an Australian study that looked at the recovery benefits of bath using a special "recovery oil", vs. an traditional ice bath (10 degrees) or a heat bath (35 degrees). Participants did notice more benefit from the "recovery oil" bath-- which was actually just soap and water.

Bottom line-- as many other studies have shown, if you believe something is going to help you in recovery, it is more likely to help. That doesn't mean you should stop doing things that help you.

The power of the mind is huge.

Lately I've been able to recover better using relaxation techniques such as yoga and meditation (if you want to call it that) because I'm convinced that my recovery is hampered by stress.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2014 10:30 am**

while i was reading the article, it would've been helpful to me to have known the outcome measures of the study - "performed just as well as" is pretty ambiguous. here's the abstract, in case anyone else was curious about how they did the study:

AB Purpose: Despite a general lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms, cold-water immersion (CWI) is widely used by athletes for recovery. This study examined the physiological merit of CWI for recovery from high-intensity exercise, by investigating if the placebo effect is responsible for any acute performance or psychological benefits.

Methods: Thirty males (mean +/- SD; age 24 +/- 5 y; V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak 51.1 +/- 7.0 mL[middle dot]kg-1[middle dot]min-1) performed an acute high-intensity interval training (HIT) session, comprised of 4 x 30-s sprints, immediately followed by one of three 15-min recovery conditions; CWI (10.3 +/- 0.2[degrees]C), thermo-neutral water immersion placebo (TWP; 34.7 +/- 0.1[degrees]C) or thermo-neutral water immersion control (TWI; 34.7 +/- 0.1[degrees]C). An intramuscular thermistor was inserted during exercise and recovery to record muscle temperature. Swelling (thigh girth), pain threshold/tolerance, interleukin-6 concentration, and total leukocyte, neutrophil, and lymphocyte count were recorded at baseline, post-exercise, post-recovery, and 1, 24 and 48 h post-exercise. A maximal voluntary isometric contraction (MVC) of the quadriceps was performed at the same time-points, with the exception of post-exercise. Self-assessments of readiness for exercise, fatigue, vigour, sleepiness, pain, and belief of recovery effectiveness were also completed.

Results: Leg strength following the MVC, and ratings of readiness for exercise, pain and vigour, were significantly impaired in TWI compared with CWI and TWP, which were similar to each other.

Conclusion: A recovery placebo administered after an acute HIT session is superior in the recovery of muscle strength over 48 h as compared with TWI, and as effective as CWI. This can be attributed to improved ratings of readiness for exercise, pain and vigour, suggesting that the commonly-hypothesised physiological benefits surrounding CWI are at least partly placebo related. (C) 2014 American College of Sports Medicine

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2014 10:39 am**

Thanks for that-- I don't have access to the medical journals and was wondering about the sample size.

These studies always have such small sample sizes-- its hard to believe that they can count the results and meaningful.

But they are consistent with many other studies on recovery techniques.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2014 10:42 am**

Medical "studies" drive me crazy. I never understand how they draw conclusions from such small sample sizes.

Posted: **Mon May 12, 2014 11:04 am**

Joe Dwarf wrote:Medical "studies" drive me crazy. I never understand how they draw conclusions from such small sample sizes.

i'm not sure if you're really asking how here, but for each statistical analysis that you run, there is a sample size calculation that allows you to know how many participants you would need to ensure that the differences you're seeing aren't the result of random differences (i.e., not attributable to the thing you're actually studying).

i'd give this study a bit of a slack because 1) it's a PhD project, so it's likely a pilot study meant to springboard into a whole career where he can get funding to look at bigger sample sizes, 2) the actual article wasn't as conclusive as the title and abstract make it sound - there were a lot more "may be" statements in the text, and 3) according to the author, this is the first published study to test whether "altered perceptions of fatigue may play a role in recovery". even though it's not a 20-year magnum opus, i think it's worth getting these thoughts out to the scientific community. future research is definitely needed.

Running Mania

The placebo effect, or "The Benefits of Snake Oil"

The placebo effect, or "The Benefits of Snake Oil"

Re: The placebo effect, or "The Benefits of Snake Oil"

Re: The placebo effect, or "The Benefits of Snake Oil"

Re: The placebo effect, or "The Benefits of Snake Oil"

Re: The placebo effect, or "The Benefits of Snake Oil"