Learn How to Read Fitness and Health Research
I must be the last person alive who should be writing about training or nutrition research, but because of that, I’ve been collecting resources. My daily work involves typesetting, editing, coding or graphics (actually, it’s mostly email), so the studying I do is of software tech manuals. That makes my excuse for science inadequacy better than yours.
I never trained my brain to stay focused when reading about research. This works for me, but for those of you who work with clients and patients on health, fitness and strength issues, you don’t really get that freedom. These days, if you don’t stay aware of the latest science and can’t explain to your clients why you’re using the exercises you choose or how the news media got the latest research wrong, your clients are likely to trust you less. Unless your personality is the most contagious one in the gym, if you continue to let your eyes glaze over when science comes into play, as a personal trainer or strength coach you’re probably going to need a new retirement plan.
Jonathan Fass is working on a research lecture for us on the movementlectures.com site, and I’m sure the topic will get a mention often in future lectures. In the meantime I have a couple of suggestions for you… even as I sit here at my desk practicing audio editing techniques with no science involved at the level I work with the waveforms.
From PubMed: How to Read Health News:
Your first concern should be the research behind the news article. If an article touts a treatment or some aspect of your lifestyle that is supposed to prevent or cause a disease, but doesn’t give any information about the scientific research behind it, then treat it with a lot of caution. The same applies to research that has yet to be published.
From Bret Contreras: Evidence-Based Coaching:
Some types of articles are better than others. A meta-analysis showing strong results or a review paper citing multiple studies leading to the same conclusion would hold a lot of weight. In contrast, an in vitro study or an animal study might not. A specific study that carefully examines the topic at hand is ideal, but many times specific studies are lacking, causing us to extrapolate or piece information together, which isn’t quite as sound of a practice.
From Tim Huntley’s Scientific Research 101: Bad Science, Common Problems in Research Articles:
This problem typically occurs when the results of a study from a specific sample are extrapolated to what is believed to be a similar group. An example would be research where a new cholesterol drug was tested on females aged 30-50. Can we, or should we make assumptions on what the drug might do for males or 65 year old women? Absolutely not.
From Mark Young’s How to Read Fitness Research:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL9ThuPk3Ro]
Here’s a tutorial on how to get full text articles for PubMed citations, both free and for a fee.
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0NYKFSphKY]
- Bret Contreras and Chris Beardsley’s S&C Research Review
- Alan Aragon’s Nutrition and S&C Review
- James Kreiger’s Journal of Pure Power
Bret explains here:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saPE6ARzIjY]
And, of course, like me you can stick your head in the sand, because as Dr. Ferric Fang discovered, researchers doctor papers. Whatever you do, ignore mainstream headlines and double-check the wording. Oh, and be sure to sort out the quality from the flawed studies.
Late addition—Chris Kresser: How to Read and Understand Scientific Research