Critical thinking

I think that most of us are savvy enough to realise that we shouldn't take stories in the media at face value, but it occasionally strikes me that not enough people critically evaluate the things that they read. In the running world there are many areas where people hold quite fervent views on what is the "best" way to do something; be it relating to diet (e.g. high carb vs. high fat), running style (e.g. forefoot vs. heel striking), shoe choice (barefoot, minimalist, Hokas, et al.), training methods (speed work or not for ultras?), training aids (does compression gear work?), etc. But one of the big problems that I see cropping up time and again, particularly with social media like Facebook and Twitter, are cases of what is termed confirmation bias - the tendency for people to take more notice of evidence that supports a view that they already hold. How often have you seen an advocate of barefoot running Tweet about the latest paper showing that barefoot running is more efficient? But how often do they Tweet about the latest research showing that no difference was found, or even that heel striking was shown to be preferable?

Let me just be clear; I am in no way commenting on the views themselves. I have my own opinions on all of these facets of running that have been borne out of experience (which is limited in terms of time, but extensive in other ways), as well as reading the limited scientific literature that exists. But I in no way claim that these opinions are correct. If I see compelling evidence that convinces me otherwise, I try things out, use what works for me, and change my opinions (as everybody should). To be honest, my view on a lot of these questions in sports science is that there is no right answer. You do what works for you. 

No; what I am commenting on in this post is the use of dodgy evidence to support these views. 

Ultramarathon Running Research Project - Pilot Study

Towards the start of the year, I contacted James Elson (Race Director of Centurion Running) about an idea that I had had. I had recently read a few papers by Martin Hoffman's group from the Western States Research Committee looking at factors that affected a runner's ability to complete the Western States 100 mile race. I had also signed up to the Ultrarunners Longitudinal TRAcking project at Stanford, which aims to follow ultrarunners and track their health over many years. I thought that it might be quite interesting to do some of our own researchr here in this country, and thought that James' series of 100 mile races was a perfect opportunity to do something similar, as they are very well organised, they are quite homogenous in their organisation, and James has a particular interest in delving into the stats behind ultra running.

The plan that I proposed to him was to create a couple of surveys for runners of his events to fill in: one before the race, asking questions relating to the runners themselves (biometrics, professional status, running history, etc.); and another survey after the event asking questions relating to how the race went, what their strategy was for the race, their nutrition, etc. By putting this information together with the split times from the event itself, my hypothesis was that we may be able to see some trends dropping out from the data. Yes, this is the kind of thing that I do for "fun"!

In the short term, this approach would give us a good overview of the race itself, the sorts of people who entered, and which runners took a sensible approach to racing. But my main aim was for the long term, building up a database of survey results and race performances for ultrarunners that, over time, will allow us to look at more specific questions relating to performance: Do certain training choices improve your chances of finishing a 100 mile race? Are certain racing strategies more likely to result in a finish/win? Do people with green eyes run faster than people with blue eyes? These burning questions and more may well be answerable in the future from such a database.

To kick things off, we organised a pilot project for the South Downs Way 100 at the end of June. This went very well, and we found some (I think at least) very interesting things from this that bode very well for the future. James has created a research page on the Centurion Running website where you can download the report that I put together (using my official "Dr" title to make it seem to people that don't know me that I have some air of professionalism about me...). Alternatively, I have replicated the report below so that I have a record of it on my little blog. Hopefully you find it interesting, and any comments will be gratefully received. Hopefully we can get even more people interested in taking part in the full project at next year's races!

Is marathon running bad for your heart? Sigh...

I spotted a news story on the BBC News website this morning which claims that Marathon training 'may pose a heart risk'. This story has since caused a bit of a buzz on the interwebs, cropping up in various tabloids and on various discussion forums and blogs. Being a runner and a scientist, this of course piqued my interest. Is this something that I should be concerned about, or is this another case of sensationalism by the media? Take a guess...

First things first. The study in question is a paper published yesterday (6th December 2011) in the European Heart Journal by a group in Belgium entitled  "Exercise-induced right ventricular dysfunction and structural remodelling in endurance athletes". Unfortunately, it requires a subscription, but you can see the abstract here. Being a scientist myself, I have looked over the paper and thought that I would share my thoughts on the implications.

The study measures various aspects of cardiac function for 40 endurance athletes, each a specialist in one of 4 events which are, in order of duration; marathon, endurance triathlon (possibly Olympic length?), alpine cycling, or ultra-triathlon (Ironman distance). Measurements of cardiac function were taken using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI) and echocardiograms, as well as analysis of biochemical markers of function such as B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and cardiac troponin I (cTnI), both proteins involved with contractions of muscle cells in the heart and hence good predictors of cardiac risk. For each athlete, three measurements were taken; the first was taken as a baseline 2-3 weeks prior to the event, the second was taken within an hour of crossing the finishing line at the event, and the final 'delayed' measurement was taken 6-11 days after the event.

Broadly speaking, they found the following key results: