Some recent publicity in the media of research published in the next issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise could not show that supplements had a documented greater effect than the intake of protein through a balanced diet.However, the study paper offers up two views of the athletic values of protein, and ultimately does not offer a definitive review of the use of supplements, and did not feature a conclusion in favour of either argument.
Two researchers presented the two opposing views in adjacent columns. At the end of each review of current research, they wrote their response to the points raised by the other author.
Dr Betts from the University of Bath stated that: "The protein is an important part of our diet, but also athletes who train hard will get more than enough protein from the food they eat. "Dr Emma Stevenson of Northumbria University however, preferred to comment: " Although the evidence for and against was 'equivocal', adding protein to carbohydrate drinks was not likely to be detrimental to performance."
As the piece concludes, to reach a consensus it would be necessary to perform a systematic review to critically appraise all studies that have assessed the effects of protein supplementation. These should preferably be randomised controlled trials that compare groups of people who took a protein-supplemented energy drink against those who drank a protein-free energy drink. Such a critical appraisal would need to be systematic, including all relevant studies, regardless of their results.
But these can be costly in terms of duration and money, and seldom media-friendly in these sensational times. In short, it's much easier to opt for headlines over detail, with newspapers such as The Daily Mail & The Independent quoting just the one perspective despite two viewpoints being clearly described.
Not necessarily Bad Science, but more like Badly Reported Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment