We did ask shoe companies. It's detailed in appendix. We Couldn't name check everything in research.
We couldn't see evidence in the literature with certain mixes of proteins and carbs...
Mike- your comment about knee pain is interesting. The research is about prevention (do trainers prevent injury) and not treatment (do trainers help recover post injury). From a science perspective they are two different questions. There is there might have been all sorts of reasons for your knee pain getting better. You'd need to set up a study to adjust for those factors so you'd know if it really was the trainers or something else
That's essentially the conclusion we've come to after looking a literally hundreds of studies- Do what works for you through trial and error. It's just worth bearing in mind that what we do isn't necessarily backed up by sound science
More interesting chat! Seems to be the best forum for it. A few quick points- the reason why the programme didn't focus on what works we really struggled to find good science in any area. We read over 700 studies- and only found 3 good ones that all suggested that the product has no benefit on a particular outcome. In science, that says a lot.
So, for trainers that was injury, sports drinks it was performance etc etc. It's disappointing that these huge companies can't do better. Lucozade, for example, is owned by drug company, GSK. you'd have thought that with their immensely skilled scientists that they could have done better.
No-one said it wasn't fine to drink sports drinks- it is. Glycogen stores get depleted and you need replenishment in what ever form you like to take carbs. But why would sports drinks improve your performance? Do you really need them if you're not running for a long period of time?
Also, the idea that you need electrolyte replenishment isn't always true. You only lose tiny amounts in sweat and you automatically adjust your urine output accordingly. We consume far too much salt in our diets anyway and GSK confirmed to me that the amount of salt in their drink was "trace".
About trainers, there just isn't the evidence on a large scale that wearing stability shoes reduce rates of injury. It just doesn't exist- despite companies trying for many years to show they do.
I guess the point is think about how you run rather than just focus on what's on your feet. People have their own preferences, but I've been into lots of running shops and gone on the treadmills etc, had my gait analysed and been 'prescribed' a shoe. The evidence just isn't there to support this. It's a case of what feels right for you. No one is saying don't do it- just that it's not based on sound science.
Just one quick point- how many different foot shapes and gait styles are there and how much variance is there in the stability shoe?
Tenjiso - good point. According to EFSA there were two claims on caffeine (increased attention and increased alertness) considered "proven" for people in general (not specifically people engaged in sports).
The three claims considered "proven" for people engaged in sports were increased endurance performance, increased endurance capacity, and reduction in the rated perceived exertion/effort during exercise.
However, the European Commission have not sanctioned the latter claim as yet because of the harms of caffeine and the effect on kids.
It's worth pointing out that Oxford would dispute the quality of the science. You can read what they found about caffiene here: