It is said that there are 'lies, damn lies and statistics'. I believe that statement is a little tough on the hard working statisticians, scientists and analysts out there compiling information. A more accurate statement may be that there are: 'Lies, damn lies and marketing campaigns by health and fitness companies'.
I now realise that it is difficult as a rookie marathon runner to make sense of the fog of information that is available from the web, running magazines, TV programmes and friends. How is the trainee marathon runner expected to understand what approach may work or what is nonsense, or as Freddie Mercury may have said in the classic song 'Bohemian Rhapsody': 'Is this the real life approach to improving my running form and reducing the possibility of injury, or is this just fantasy and nonsense'?
The approaches that I am taking I have to offer thanks to my GCSE and A-Level Maths and Physics teachers at Longdean School in Hemel Hempstead: Mrs. Golabek, Mr. Craggs, Mr. Parker and Mrs. Baldwin. Some of these approaches are common sense, and where common sense fails one may apply basic tools such as evidence searching to help understand whether a claim is realistic or whether it is likely to be just fantasy. You don' t need to bury your head in textbooks, 5 minutes with google is all you need. I do not pretend to be a strong user of these tools, but its all I have to make sense of the fog of noise. With these tools I can discard what may be nonsense from what might just work for me.
Just look at the following group of claims from advertisers in Runner's World UK' for February 2012:
Confused? You should be! What does all this crap mean?
Well, a reasonable place to start may be with the claims themselves, you might start by asking a few questions:
Trion Z
Let's start with applying these techniques to Nick Dunn's claim that Trion Z makes him feel 'more alert, energised and active'.
Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence?
If you go to the website www.trionz.co.uk there is nothing there that suggests that these product claims are backed up with any evidence derived through the scientific method. There's lots of nice pseudoscience diagrams of magnets that when worn 'remove toxins'. Looks like this advert has failed at stage 1. My limited tools of reasoning have deduced this product is nonsense. Is this product's health benefits real or are they fantasy, it's up to you!
If you are going to build a business and spend money on marketing, you may also as well make some tests and search for evidence. Or then maybe you don't want to do that as there may be no evidence for your product promoting any health benefits aside from placebo affects. Let's not let science get in the way of cash and that big house in the country!
SCOTT Shoes
How about SCOTT running shoes and their 'biomechanical advantage'?
Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence?
Its not clear on the SCOTT website whether these shoes are barefoot or minimalist shoes. Having read 'Born to Run' I assume that they are. There is (inconclusive) scientific evidence for barefoot running shoes.
What tests were used, were these reasonable?
This is a huge area, and I can't do this justice here. As ever, wikipedia is a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_running
It's reasonable to assume at the moment the scientific evidence is inconclusive. One test found that the more expensive the running shoe, the more likely injuries were to be found. Brilliant! (claim made in Christopher MacDougall's Born to Run).
Are the claims reasonable based on the evidence found?
Well, it may be assumed that as the evidence is inconclusive, making wild claims on improving energy transfer and biomechanical advantage are most likely unwarranted.
But, look - they are a nice blue colour! ok I'm off to get a pair.
High5
ok, one more. How about High5's claim that you can: 'Burn 41% more fat with every training mile' with their product?
Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence? yes, there is even a brief statement on the advert - I like it!
What tests were used, were these reasonable? They sound complicated, perhaps they were. A sample size of 22 looks small though to make such a claim, and how do you account for differences in metabolism and body shape?
Are the claims reasonable based on the evidence found? Maybe, but I would like to see more studies completed.
Perhaps I am being harsh here, at least HIGH5 have made an effort.
Don't get me started on EAT NAKEDs claims. There isn't any evidence on their website supporting their '5 a day' claims. I love chocolate and oranges, if I want a chocolate I might try their stuff, if I am trying to be healthy I will give it a miss. If you have a claim, show the evidence?
It may be easy here to draw the conclusion that these companies are being dishonest. Well, that's fine, its up to you whether you are fooled or not. Next time you see such claims, ask a few questions. After all you are trying to get fit, trying to lose weight or maybe just trying to be healthier. Don't believe the marketing people all of the time!
I now realise that it is difficult as a rookie marathon runner to make sense of the fog of information that is available from the web, running magazines, TV programmes and friends. How is the trainee marathon runner expected to understand what approach may work or what is nonsense, or as Freddie Mercury may have said in the classic song 'Bohemian Rhapsody': 'Is this the real life approach to improving my running form and reducing the possibility of injury, or is this just fantasy and nonsense'?
The approaches that I am taking I have to offer thanks to my GCSE and A-Level Maths and Physics teachers at Longdean School in Hemel Hempstead: Mrs. Golabek, Mr. Craggs, Mr. Parker and Mrs. Baldwin. Some of these approaches are common sense, and where common sense fails one may apply basic tools such as evidence searching to help understand whether a claim is realistic or whether it is likely to be just fantasy. You don' t need to bury your head in textbooks, 5 minutes with google is all you need. I do not pretend to be a strong user of these tools, but its all I have to make sense of the fog of noise. With these tools I can discard what may be nonsense from what might just work for me.
Just look at the following group of claims from advertisers in Runner's World UK' for February 2012:
- Nick Dunn (Triathelete) says: 'Trion Z makes me feel more alert, energised and active' (statement made in an advert for Troin Z)
- High5 sports nutrition suggests you can: 'Burn 41% more fat with every training mile' with their product
- SCOTT running shoes promise 'Improved energy transfer providing a biomechanical advantage'
- Motorola state that their MOTOACTIV running watch pushes you, learns you and crushes quit (not sure I understand the English language used by Motorola here - Dickens will be turning in his grave)
- How about this group of buzzwords from Adidas: 'The sequence 4 has anatomical GEOFIT (TM) construction, the sequence 4 protects your joints with impact absorbant adiPRENE (Trademark reserved) cushioning support.'
- EAT NAKED suggest that their chocolate bar is '1 of your 5 a day fruits and vegetables'
Confused? You should be! What does all this crap mean?
Well, a reasonable place to start may be with the claims themselves, you might start by asking a few questions:
- Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence?
- What tests were used, were these reasonable?
- Are the claims reasonable based on the evidence found?
Trion Z
Let's start with applying these techniques to Nick Dunn's claim that Trion Z makes him feel 'more alert, energised and active'.
Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence?
If you go to the website www.trionz.co.uk there is nothing there that suggests that these product claims are backed up with any evidence derived through the scientific method. There's lots of nice pseudoscience diagrams of magnets that when worn 'remove toxins'. Looks like this advert has failed at stage 1. My limited tools of reasoning have deduced this product is nonsense. Is this product's health benefits real or are they fantasy, it's up to you!
If you are going to build a business and spend money on marketing, you may also as well make some tests and search for evidence. Or then maybe you don't want to do that as there may be no evidence for your product promoting any health benefits aside from placebo affects. Let's not let science get in the way of cash and that big house in the country!
SCOTT Shoes
How about SCOTT running shoes and their 'biomechanical advantage'?
Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence?
Its not clear on the SCOTT website whether these shoes are barefoot or minimalist shoes. Having read 'Born to Run' I assume that they are. There is (inconclusive) scientific evidence for barefoot running shoes.
What tests were used, were these reasonable?
This is a huge area, and I can't do this justice here. As ever, wikipedia is a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barefoot_running
It's reasonable to assume at the moment the scientific evidence is inconclusive. One test found that the more expensive the running shoe, the more likely injuries were to be found. Brilliant! (claim made in Christopher MacDougall's Born to Run).
Are the claims reasonable based on the evidence found?
Well, it may be assumed that as the evidence is inconclusive, making wild claims on improving energy transfer and biomechanical advantage are most likely unwarranted.
But, look - they are a nice blue colour! ok I'm off to get a pair.
High5
ok, one more. How about High5's claim that you can: 'Burn 41% more fat with every training mile' with their product?
Are these claims backed up by scientific evidence? yes, there is even a brief statement on the advert - I like it!
What tests were used, were these reasonable? They sound complicated, perhaps they were. A sample size of 22 looks small though to make such a claim, and how do you account for differences in metabolism and body shape?
Are the claims reasonable based on the evidence found? Maybe, but I would like to see more studies completed.
Perhaps I am being harsh here, at least HIGH5 have made an effort.
Don't get me started on EAT NAKEDs claims. There isn't any evidence on their website supporting their '5 a day' claims. I love chocolate and oranges, if I want a chocolate I might try their stuff, if I am trying to be healthy I will give it a miss. If you have a claim, show the evidence?
It may be easy here to draw the conclusion that these companies are being dishonest. Well, that's fine, its up to you whether you are fooled or not. Next time you see such claims, ask a few questions. After all you are trying to get fit, trying to lose weight or maybe just trying to be healthier. Don't believe the marketing people all of the time!
No comments:
Post a Comment