Pseudo-science

[Spawn of e]

Re: Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

last year there were two TV programs (one french, one from the BBC) where the effects of EPO were investigated.
ironic, innit, journalists doing the work that sports scientists should be doing.

Do you have a link? What was the basis, and results? Also, I am not talking about just EPO, what about roids?

But, perhaps there is some ethical thing I am not up on, like I implied in my previous posts.

To do such a study with viability, PEDs would need to be administered outside of their intended use by a doctor.

 

[sniper]

shouldn't it be time for sports scientists to start addressing the impact of doping on performance?
i still see too few articles on that topic, though i'd love to gather some links in this thread.

meanwhile we get tons of sports physiological pieces about the impact of nutrition, certain training schemes, and god knows what on performance, where the possible role of doping by the subjects is completeley, and i mean COMPLETELY, ignored.
To me that's the real pseudo-science going on right now, disconnected from the reality of doping in topsport.
Physiological data that seems to become totally meaningless in the face of that reality.

Science of cycling (or athletic) performance that doesn't look at the impacts of doping is still science.

well yes, but pseudoscience, as we can't rely the results.

That's because in general it seeks to identify and isolate what if any impacts certain interventions have, and sometimes if one is able, to also explain why such interventions have the impact they do.

The fact that a study that e.g. investigates the impact of say heat on performance doesn't consider doping, does not make it pseudoscience.

The sad thing is that most such studies don't even provide the necessary methodological caveat. That's lazy, misleading science. Pseudoscience (whatever you wanna call it) in my opinon.

That's because doping in many cases isn't a relevant variable.

well right now we can only guess can't we. So time to start looking at that a bit more seriously. Until then the results of physiological testing on (top)athletes remain unreliable.

To study the impact of doping on performance, one needs to have reliable data. If your data is fuzzy on the details of exactly what doping if any a test subject does, then how on earth can you expect scientists to do any real science on it?
Do you really think a scientist starting with a survey of pro riders is going to get precise details of what if any doping regime they use and all their performance data and conduct physiological testing to make statistically significant conclusions able to isolate the doping variable from all the other performance impact variables? That's the problem since performance is an integral of many many variables.

I get your point, of course. But tbh it's not my problem. That's something for the sports scientists to address (see my previous post). Focus on PED detection and PED influence on performance.
And again, sadly, currently we don't even see sports scientists making the necessary methodological caveat.
The fact that they can't control the variable of doping/PED-abuse doesn't dismiss them of the duty to mention and discuss that variable.
The discipline should strive towards being able to control that variable.
The alternative is what we have right now: pseudoscience with pseudoresults.

As to the question of performing actual science wrt to impact of doping, I did a quick pubmed search query and found about 40 links on the topic, and they appeared to be 4 broad categories:
- attitudinal studies,
- prevalence assessment/commentary,
- testing of the impact of specific substances (performance, health, other), and
- effectiveness of detection techniques.

That quick search would not by any stretch be comprehensive.

cheers, appreciate it. Interesting.
That's the way forward. People like Swart should take note.

I think the use of the term pseudoscience is incorrect in this context. I think that it's more an examination of the logical fallacies employed by those engaging in the discussions, either knowingly or otherwise. Many people are unaware they use or resort to logical fallacy in their arguments.

Not taking into account the reality of PEDs and their impact on performance is the biggest logical fallacy of all.

Unless sports scientists have tested athletes clean (very difficult) and know the gains the PEDs the athletes has taken give they can never be sure that results of any tests are legit.

it really is that simple.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Science of cycling (or athletic) performance that doesn't look at the impacts of doping is still science. That's because in general it seeks to identify and isolate what if any impacts certain interventions have, and sometimes if one is able, to also explain why such interventions have the impact they do.

The fact that a study that e.g. investigates the impact of say heat on performance doesn't consider doping, does not make it pseudoscience. A study that investigates e.g. the reliability of testing methodologies or measurement equipment or techniques that doesn't consider doping does not make it pseudo-science. That's because doping in many cases isn't a relevant variable.

To study the impact of doping on performance, one needs to have reliable data. If your data is fuzzy on the details of exactly what doping if any a test subject does, then how on earth can you expect scientists to do any real science on it?

Do you really think a scientist starting with a survey of pro riders is going to get precise details of what if any doping regime they use and all their performance data and conduct physiological testing to make statistically significant conclusions able to isolate the doping variable from all the other performance impact variables? That's the problem since performance is an integral of many many variables.

Pseudoscience is defined as

a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method

Whether or not doping is a topic of or a consideration in science research isn't relevant to the application of the scientific method.

As to the question of performing actual science wrt to impact of doping, I did a quick pubmed search query and found about 40 links on the topic, and they appeared to be 4 broad categories:
- attitudinal studies,
- prevalence assessment/commentary,
- testing of the impact of specific substances (performance, health, other), and
- effectiveness of detection techniques.

That quick search would not by any stretch be comprehensive.

I think the use of the term pseudoscience is incorrect in this context. I think that it's more an examination of the logical fallacies employed by those engaging in the discussions, either knowingly or otherwise. Many people are unaware they use or resort to logical fallacy in their arguments.

I doubt anybody could make a more eloquent post on this issue.

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all. It strikes me that doping can be theorized to tilt the playing field so that genetic factors that would normally let the cream rise to the top are no longer able to do so. I am curious if the OP would consider Ross and his co-authors to not have a clue about doping (or not to care about doping, or both)?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23666980

 

[sniper]

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all.

the "paper", is that the review itself, or the text they reviewed?

regardless who wrote it, it's another excellent case in point. I agree with your wording, there's an elephant in the room there. I havent read that review though, and it's just that, a review. Or did they themselves do any testing?

I am curious if the OP would consider Ross and his co-authors to not have a clue about doping (or not to care about doping, or both)?

Swart did the testing o Froome, not Ross.
It's telling you don't scrutinize Swart in a similar way, even though it was Swart who did the testing on Froome, not Ross. Any detailed scrutiny in this and other Froome threads should concentrate on Swart.

That said, I'll address your question: of course he has a clue about doping and of course he cares about it. He proves that on a daily basis.
I think what you meant to ask is "could he have done better in that review?"
to answer that:
1. we don't know how much of the review was Ross'.
2. Assuming he had a considerable part in it, then i think indeed he sh/could've done better there in that review.
3. Again, though, no need to make this about Ross. Let's address the topic at hand (which you did by providing a nice case in point).

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

last year there were two TV programs (one french, one from the BBC) where the effects of EPO were investigated.
ironic, innit, journalists doing the work that sports scientists should be doing.

Seems like it's usually the journalist types doing this stuff. This guy tried all kinds of things:
http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test

Unfortunately these stories don't include actual before-and-after lab testing to compile data. I think we have to look to the helpers, like the soigneurs or ex-riders who test drive materials for the doping docs. Those results are probably going to stay secret. Might be useful if some organization would actually do testing with some of the confessed doper ex-athletes though. Administer drugs and test progress, side effects, glow time, etc. Probably need a decent-sized sample pool though, assuming these things affect different individuals in different ways.

 

[djpbaltimore]

A 'review' is a publication written to summarize a specific scientific topic by examining existing primary research papers. Often the authors of the review are experts in that particular area and will often cite many of their own research publications. In this case, Tucker cites himself once, but it is another review, not a primary research article. Reviews allow more big picture commentary and leeway in terms of analysis, so would be more amenable to including doping as a topic.

I hold all scientists to the same standard. I was asking the question from a devil's advocate position to see if you would create a double standard. To your credit, you did not. It should've been obvious that I was not criticizing the review article. Without strong evidence of pervasive doping, you can't publish something stating that it is pervasive even if you think it is pervasive. What Tucker and company wrote was appropriate IMO. Ross was the corresponding author and first author listed. That usually means he is the big kahuna.

FWIW, as a scientist, I would not want to work with elite level athletes because doping is a variable that you cannot control, but there is a good chance that it might influence your findings. That would make data interpretation a nightmare. But I think populations of fit humans like used in Dr. Swart's paper are safer because the cohort is fundamentally different in regards to doping than professional athletes that have financial incentive to dope.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

last year there were two TV programs (one french, one from the BBC) where the effects of EPO were investigated.
ironic, innit, journalists doing the work that sports scientists should be doing.

Not ironic in the least. Scientists are constrained in legal and ethical ways that even the most ethical journalists are not. Scientists also don't have the same resources, profit motive, and goals that, e.g., the BBC does. To suggest that this is the sort of thing that sports scientists should be doing is naïve at best.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

Yes. Here is one of the earliest I could find about EPO. Getting studies like this approved would involve a remarkable amount of red tape. The problem with journalists doing this type of thing is the lack of placebo group and a small sample size.

Twenty healthy, well-trained male athletes from cycling, orienteering, running, triathlon, swimming, and cross-country skiing volunteered for the study. Inclusion criteria were: normal hematological parameters, including hematocrit between 38 and 45%....The study was also approved by the Norwegian Olympic Committee and Confederation of Sports and the subjects did not participate in national competition for the duration of the study (i.e., for the duration of the rhEPO administration period and until at least 4 wk after the receiving the last injection). None of the subjects participated in international competition for 3 months after the study. No subjects became ill requiring medication during the study.

The results were that Crits went from 42.7 to 50.8. Their VO2 max increased 7%. The performance part only was a fraction of the actual study. It was also looking at biomarker analysis to detect EPO. The latter is most likely how one would frame asking for grant money to do that kind of research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10912888

 

[acoggan]

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all.

Which, as I am sure you realize, is not surprising in the least. Scientific papers are not the place to speculate on things about which you have no data, and hence no special insight. If an/or when somebody tries, a good peer reviewer will generally knock it back as "out of bounds."

 

[djpbaltimore]

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all.

Which, as I am sure you realize, is not surprising in the least. Scientific papers are not the place to speculate on things about which you have no data, and hence no special insight. If an/or when somebody tries, a good peer reviewer will generally knock it back as "out of bounds."

Yes, agree 100% with you.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That would depend on the country, the drug in question, etc.

As an example: for decades the only scientific data on the efficacy of anabolic steroids indicated that they weren't beneficial, because ethical constraints prevented anyone from administering the sorts of doses abused by athletes. Only once steroid abuse became so common (and/or commonly known) was it considered an important enough question that conducting such a study was worth the risk.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

Has any study been done with athletes actually administered PEDs? Would that be legal from a medical POV, IOW administering drugs to subjects outside of their intended use?

That way you could compare to their allegedly clean data set and see the affect PEDs have on performance. This doesn't even have to be professional athletes to give a sense of the impact. All we have now are times up mountains and conjecture on % increase in performance.

http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/13278/

 

[sniper]

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all.

Which, as I am sure you realize, is not surprising in the least. Scientific papers are not the place to speculate on things about which you have no data, and hence no special insight. If an/or when somebody tries, a good peer reviewer will generally knock it back as "out of bounds."

exactly. and i see little or no desire in the field to start and try and obtain such data.
imo a paradigm change is needed, otherwise sports science will spin around in useless circles producing disposable results.

Coyle 2005 is still an excellent illustration of my point.
You'll no doubt see the irony in the fact that JAP only considered retracting coyle's article after Lance was full and well exposed. And I'm not even speaking about the feigned post-USADA anger of sports scientists like Mark Burnley. Talking about naive (or simply disingenuous? you tell me)
Think about the hypothetical case that WADA and the ADAs would actually be doing their jobs and catch the majority of dopers... how many more articles would have to be retracted?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

There is quite a large misunderstanding being displayed in this thread about how science is funded (doping research is hardly going to be of interest to the for profit sector, so it comes down to allocating public money), what science is funded (priorities and processes), who calls the shots (I'm sure those that have been around the grant application process for years will know better than I ever will), and what science can and cannot research (e.g. ethical considerations).

Calling science pseudoscience when a particular irrelevant variable is not commented on is a logical fallacy.

Calling science pseudoscience simply because it does not have a large focus on a topic you are personally interested in is a fallacy.

And calling science pseudoscience because it does not speculate on a variable for which it does not and likely cannot have reliable data on which to draw conclusions is also a large logical fallacy. Indeed should any science be published that did so, it would be delving into pseudoscience. The likelihood though is that most quality scientists wouldn't even bother to publish such speculation, and if anyone tried it would probably get filtered out well before publication, in quality journals at least.

Don't blame science - it's the wrong target.

Science is a process of discovery and understanding. But it has limits and one of those is what is deemed worthy to research and how it is funded. Another is having enough people capable of performing good science.

If you are going to blame anyone, blame politicians and via them the general public for wanting their research spent on other priorities such medical, technical, environmental, and many other vital fields of research as well as the basic sciences, instead of the world's #1 research priority doping research.

Consider the minuscule resources applied to anti-doping worldwide, and now carve off that the portion of resources allocated to funding doping / anti-dopingresearch.

That doesn't mean no research is being conducted, viz my earlier cursory look at what I could briefly see with a Pubmed search, but it might just surprise some clinicians it's not the #1 topic of science today.

 

[sniper]

Re:

good post.
but...

Calling science pseudoscience when a particular irrelevant variable is not commented on is a logical fallacy.

if doping is an irrelevant variable, why did JAP consider retracting coyle's article?

also, while you make some good points about funding, that still doesnt account for the fact that doping seems not to be mentioned at all, not even in footnotes, in many sports scientific publications.
entire books are written with authors making references to topathletes as a means of supporting/underpinning the value of certain diets, training schemes, etc., and the word doping is never mentioned.
it's pseudoscience.

btw, for the record, i'm not saying doping research should be a priority in science at large.
just talking sports science. Why not make doping research a priority?
you prefer more coyle articles?
reality is that doping is the main variable in deciding who's on the podium and who's not.
ignoring/denying that reality is what makes current-day sports science pseudoscience.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all.

Which, as I am sure you realize, is not surprising in the least. Scientific papers are not the place to speculate on things about which you have no data, and hence no special insight. If an/or when somebody tries, a good peer reviewer will generally knock it back as "out of bounds."

Didn't stop Coyle.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Why don't you submit a grant application to WADA and see how you go?
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/research

Just who else is going to fund such research? Nike? lol

As for retractions, or follow up science that seeks to replicate previous studies, peer review, and so on - that is the process of science. When new information or data or evidence becomes available that calls into question previous work, the the process of science is not sentimental about it. Work is reviewed and additional context is built up such that historical work can be assessed in light of the new. It takes time to build up a body of evidence.

Again, do a Pubmed search on the topic, and I think you'll find plenty of examples of where it's mentioned.

Heck there even a journal on the topic - the Journal of Sports Medicine & Doping Studies:
http://www.omicsonline.org/sports-medicine-doping-studies.php

There have been plenty of books devoted to the topic, e.g.:

Doping in Sports:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=R-hIC-caIn8C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=sports+science+publications+doping&source=bl&ots=39ACOWPre7&sig=rsQ2du0hsCiEc6sWQymvoKevq88&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjtOlnenJAhUS02MKHVAsCpMQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=sports%20science%20publications%20doping&f=false

Psychology of Doping in Sport:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=SActCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=sports+science+publications+doping&source=bl&ots=16aIHqvU_7&sig=JeaXOyTbbYo1TjA5qnJ46uXuP9M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjtOlnenJAhUS02MKHVAsCpMQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=sports%20science%20publications%20doping&f=false

Several titles here:
http://www.sportmedab.ca/doping-and-sports

and on it goes:
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781441970138
http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Engines-Science-Performance-Dehumanization/dp/1930665377
https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415484664
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-5101-9

There are other books that discuss topics of athletic performance that do discuss doping as well, e.g blood doping is discussed in this book, The Sports Gene:
http://newbooksinbrief.com/2013/08/21/41-a-summary-of-the-sports-gene-inside-the-science-of-extraordinary-athletic-performance-by-david-epstein/

Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat: The science behind drugs in sport
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Run-Swim-Throw-Cheat-science/dp/0199678782

and it goes on and on, there are literally scores of publications, many with research, historical analyses and so on.

Your statement that publications reporting on sports science ignore doping is completely unfounded. A little effort to do some cursory research would have demonstrated this.

As for other sport science books that don't mention doping, well that's a publisher's call as to what is best for them to include in their books, articles or chapters. Not all books is doping actually content that's necessary. A discussion of dietary science looking into the studies of that topic does not need to consider the doping variable. It does not factor into it, unless you think that study subjects themselves are doping.

If I wrote a book about cycling aerodynamics, why would I waste a chapter on doping? It's just not relevant to the topic at hand.

Again this choice of what's published in books is not the fault of science. You are directing your frustrations at the wrong target.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

Why don't you submit a grant application to WADA and see how you go?
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/research

Just who else is going to fund such research? Nike? lol

As for retractions, or follow up science that seeks to replicate previous studies, peer review, and so on - that is the process of science. When new information or data or evidence becomes available that calls into question previous work, the the process of science is not sentimental about it. Work is reviewed and additional context is built up such that historical work can be assessed in light of the new. It takes time to build up a body of evidence.

Again, do a Pubmed search on the topic, and I think you'll find plenty of examples of where it's mentioned.

Heck there even a journal on the topic - the Journal of Sports Medicine & Doping Studies:
http://www.omicsonline.org/sports-medicine-doping-studies.php

There have been plenty of books devoted to the topic, e.g.:

Doping in Sports:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=R-hIC-caIn8C&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=sports+science+publications+doping&source=bl&ots=39ACOWPre7&sig=rsQ2du0hsCiEc6sWQymvoKevq88&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjtOlnenJAhUS02MKHVAsCpMQ6AEIPzAG#v=onepage&q=sports%20science%20publications%20doping&f=false

Psychology of Doping in Sport:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=SActCgAAQBAJ&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=sports+science+publications+doping&source=bl&ots=16aIHqvU_7&sig=JeaXOyTbbYo1TjA5qnJ46uXuP9M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibjtOlnenJAhUS02MKHVAsCpMQ6AEIRjAI#v=onepage&q=sports%20science%20publications%20doping&f=false

Several titles here:
http://www.sportmedab.ca/doping-and-sports

and on it goes:
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9781441970138
http://www.amazon.com/Mortal-Engines-Science-Performance-Dehumanization/dp/1930665377
https://www.routledge.com/products/9780415484664
http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-94-007-5101-9

There are other books that discuss topics of athletic performance that do discuss doping as well, e.g blood doping is discussed in this book, The Sports Gene:
http://newbooksinbrief.com/2013/08/21/41-a-summary-of-the-sports-gene-inside-the-science-of-extraordinary-athletic-performance-by-david-epstein/

Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat: The science behind drugs in sport
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Run-Swim-Throw-Cheat-science/dp/0199678782

and it goes on and on, there are literally scores of publications, many with research, historical analyses and so on.

Your statement that publications reporting on sports science ignore doping is completely unfounded. A little effort to do some cursory research would have demonstrated this.

As for other sport science books that don't mention doping, well that's a publisher's call as to what is best for them to include in their books, articles or chapters. Not all books is doping actually content that's necessary. A discussion of dietary science looking into the studies of that topic does not need to consider the doping variable. It does not factor into it, unless you think that study subjects themselves are doping.

If I wrote a book about cycling aerodynamics, why would I waste a chapter on doping? It's just not relevant to the topic at hand.

Again this choice of what's published in books is not the fault of science. You are directing your frustrations at the wrong target.

The OP is more describing the hyped effectiveness of different interventions, not science on doping itself. And, the extension into journalism. The issue being that mundane sports science and sports science journalism doesn't address doping.

For example,I went to the training section on bicycling.com and grabbed the first research-grounded article. It is an article about the effect of strength training on size and amount of mitochondria. Here is the original study.

If I understand the thread, the issue is that neither the scientists nor the journalist consider that effects could be interfered with doping.

But for these kinds of studies, typically, study subjects are only considered if they meet criteria, normal health, non-diabetic, not a growing child ect. I imagine they try to screen out subjects using PEDs as well. ("Are you currently using any steroids, stimulants, or hormones? Y/N"). Similarly, the journalists don't bring it up.

The problem is studies on elite athletes (or anyone really), who may lie. Armstrong and Coyle is the obvious choice, where the finding could be explained by doping, but was mis attributed to whatever intervention they were testing.

For example,

a study on long term

elite-level endurance work and the risk factor for atrial fibrillation (came up when I searched "elite endurance athletes"). The study looked at players hearts, assuming that whatever happened to their hearts was due to endurance exercise. But what if measured effects are just side effects of drugs? What if the researchers tried to screen out dopers with a questionnaire, but the players lied, or didn't know some of the medications they were on? Or maybe the researchers didn't consider it at all? We don't get the full text, but the assumption is that there was no discussion of these limitations.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Cherry picking the odd example is no rationale to tarnish the whole field of a particular science, let alone use the term pseudoscience in a logically fallacious manner as an attempt to discredit real and credible scientific research.

If you want to read the science, then go and read the published science at its source (not just abstracts), and not what version of such science the popular media report. I do sympathise with those that bother to read the science but struggle to make sense of it all - being able to understand scientific papers is difficult at times and requires training and experience that is for the most part gained by being involved on a regular basis in the scientific process.

Media are terrible at reporting of science, partly because they are often scientifically illiterate but primarily because their need is for generating catching headline click bait, and hence the tendency to hyperbolise what the science actually says, or what scientists say or write, rather than stick to reporting the often relatively mundane actual findings.

So again, this is attacking the wrong target - in this case the poor reporting of science rather than the science itself.

If there are legitimate criticisms of a particular scientific study or approach, by all means discuss, because science itself is a pretty robust process and this is in fact part of it - but to do so requires one be well armed with scientifically credible, logically sound arguments.

To begin with, I recommend people become familiar with at least the most common logical fallacies, because dozens of threads on this forum are chock a block full of 'em.

 

[Arrowfarm]

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

 

[sniper]

Re:

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

well said. this is what it is.
and i think Alex Simmons is close to admitting it, additionally suggesting that part of the bad science is down to a (lack of) funding, which I think is a very fair suggestion. I said so much myself earlier on: don't bite the hand that feeds. But whatever the reasons (lack of funding, lack of independence, lack of quality, whatever), fact remains that it's bad science.

to get back to Ross Tucker, while he may or may not sufficiently address the topic of doping in his peerreviewed output, the great thing about him (imo) is that in his public appearances he takes the topic by the horns, taking it out of the taboo zone into the spotlights.
Any paradigm change in (pro-sport-related) sports science will have to start by de-tabooing the topic of PED-abuse and their effects on performance.

If that doesn't happen, large segments of sports science will continue producing disposable results on a daily basis, with tons of Coyle-2005-like articles circulating and in production.

btw: i'm not tarnishing a whole field. In the OP I spoke of 'large segments', which might not even be half of the field. It's just that, large segments. More precisely, it concerns the segments that deal with professional sports, and it's obviously those segments that are of interest to us here in the Clinic.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

excellent post, MStR.
It seems (correct me if wrong) that Alex Simmons took your post to suggest that the bad science is found only in 'popular' forms of sports science, which clearly isn't the case.

The OP is more describing the hyped effectiveness of different interventions, not science on doping itself. And, the extension into journalism. The issue being that mundane sports science and sports science journalism doesn't address doping.

For example,I went to the training section on bicycling.com and grabbed the first research-grounded article. It is an article about the effect of strength training on size and amount of mitochondria. Here is the original study.

that's a great case in point.
And to be sure, the original study is neither journalism nor 'popular science'. It's creme de la creme of sports science. Yet it's bad science to the extent that it ignores the possible effects of doping.
Similarly, I hope Alex Simmons will not claim that the peerreviewed output of people like Asker Jeukendrup and Jeroen Swart falls in the category of journalism or 'popular science'.
These people are considered the creme-de-la-creme of sports physiology science (according to Moore at least).
Yet the topic of doping is considerably underrepresented in their peerreviewed output.

Here's one from Jeukendrup from 2003.
http://hansonscoachingservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/HRmonitorarticle.pdf
There are a couple of pages in there on the "changes in heart rate variability associated with overtraining".
Yet there is nothing in there on the possible "changes in heart rate variability associated with doping".

 

[sniper]

Re:

thanks for the links in your previous post, Alex, very interesting stuff there.

Cherry picking the odd example is no rationale to tarnish the whole field of a particular science, let alone use the term pseudoscience in a logically fallacious manner as an attempt to discredit real and credible scientific research.

There are tons of Coyle-like articles floating around in peer-reviewed journals. It's not 'the odd example'.
I definitely agree that not the whole field is at fault of lazy research.
It's just segments of the field, particularly those segments dealing with topsport.
Publications by Burnley, Jeukendrup, Swart, etc.
Typically it concerns publications by people who, one way or the other, and beit directly or indirectly, have financial gains by pretending doping does not exist or at least trivializing its impact on performance.
So typically it concerns people like Coyle, Swart, Jeukendrup, etc.

If you want to read the science, then go and read the published science at its source (not just abstracts), and not what version of such science the popular media report. I do sympathise with those that bother to read the science but struggle to make sense of it all - being able to understand scientific papers is difficult at times and requires training and experience that is for the most part gained by being involved on a regular basis in the scientific process.

Media are terrible at reporting of science, partly because they are often scientifically illiterate but primarily because their need is for generating catching headline click bait, and hence the tendency to hyperbolise what the science actually says, or what scientists say or write, rather than stick to reporting the often relatively mundane actual findings.

So again, this is attacking the wrong target - in this case the poor reporting of science rather than the science itself.

As i noticed above, it seems to me that you are mistaking MRtS's post to suggest it's only the 'popular' forms of sports science that are at fault here. Clearly that's not the case. It's and and.

To begin with, I recommend people become familiar with at least the most common logical fallacies, because dozens of threads on this forum are chock a block full of 'em.

Yet the biggest fallacy of them all is to trivialize both the pervasiveness of doping and its effects on performance in topsport.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data. They do a test and attain the results. You are only in a position to report the blood lactate response or VO2max or efficiency or whatever it is that you are testing.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

and i think Alex Simmons is close to admitting it, additionally suggesting that part of the bad science is down to a (lack of) funding, which I think is a very fair suggestion.

Not sure what it is I'm supposedly admitting?

In any case, performing science that does not deal with an irrelevant variable does not make it bad science.
Science that does not discuss a topic just because you think it's important does not make it bad science.
Science that does not include commentary on something for which there is no data does not make it bad science.

Bas science is that which does not adequately uphold scientific standards.

e.g., speculating on things that are not measurable or for which data does not exist would be bad science. It would instead be opinion. Nothing wrong with opinion, but opinion is not science.