Read Fitness Studies Carefully, Because Quality Varies and Some Are Plain Fraudulent
Last modified 1 day, 15 hours ago.
“One should never, for example, skim through a study and just look at its abstract and conclusion sections (which, incidentally, is what most people do), because that’s where one can get misled a lot of times.” –Body By Science, by Dr. Doug McGuff and John Little, p. xvi
Beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyrate, or “HMB,” for short, is a molecule used in sports-nutrition supplements designed to support recovery and muscle growth, especially during intense periods of training.
HMB research was part of a search for a supplement that could spur significant muscle growth in advanced lifters. Eventually, a study was published about ten years ago, which presented HMB as the closest thing to a holy grail in sports supplementation.
The study presented HMB as being (almost) as effective as anabolic steroids for producing muscle growth in advanced lifters.
Whoa, what a breakthrough! Just a few grams of HMB per day, and voila, advanced lifters, in the throes of the most intense training of their lives, could realize muscular gains that even new trainees would be envious of.
But the bottom fell out of this supplement’s promising world.
The study was found to be a fraud.
The lead researcher was eventually dismissed from his position, while also losing much credibility and reputation.
Interestingly, despite the dismissal, the study was never pulled from publication.
I spoke to people who were involved in the study–students, participants, researchers, and peer reviewers. They were adamant that the study was fraudulent. It wasn’t explained exactly how the researchers fudged the data, but fudged it was. I spoke to one notable peer reviewer who demonstrated that the biggest sign of fraud was that the statistics were too neat–too perfect.
My takeaway is that it is critical to read a study for ourselves. We should keep a healthy skepticism. There may be parts of a study that we don’t understand, like the statistics. We can seek someone out who can give us perspective on what the numbers really mean–both statistically, as well as in the real world. It’s OK to say, “I don’t know,” too.
Afterwards, I tried to understand the motivations behind fabricating the study’s results. It didn’t seem worth it to me. Why risk your career?
Well, you know me, I’ll give my two cents.
The researcher, as well as many lifters, both tacitly and overtly, believe that “more is better” when it comes to exercise amount. If 10 sets per body part isn’t doing the job, try 15. Just…do…more…damnit!
It’s possible cognitive dissonance was in play. The study was set up to show that if a lifter were willing to push to this freakish level of exercise volume and intensity, that on the the side of that, there would be a boon to muscle growth. All they needed was the will to do it. A will that few people have. And, oh, I almost forgot, just a little boost from an amino-acid supplement to see them through, too.
Sure, the researcher’s reputation was on the line, but so was a philosophy. It was an overriding paradigm that they were highly invested in. If that failed, they would have to go back to the drawing board big time.
Again, that’s my two cents. It’s me sharing not just the information I received in school, but also the education.
Folks, read those studies carefully.
I wish it was just this one study that threw people off. Likely, many fitness studies have exaggerated claims. It happens in pharmaceutical research (Vioxx), and it happens in health (red wine), too. Do reviewers really catch all the errors (intentional or not) that occur? I don't know.
If it seems too good to be true, well . . . you know how that goes.