Commentary
on the 2007 ACSM Annual Meeting Stephen Seiler Sportscience 11, 37
(sportsci.org/2007/ss.htm) |
Having also made the
trip to •
I have to agree with Will that most of the
posters present nothing new, so vigilance is required to spot the novel
studies. Not sure what the solution is
here. Students need projects and every
project cannot be a groundbreaker. But,
hopefully we as advisors do encourage creative thinking and filter the totally
mundane from the ACSM meeting. •
Nutritional
supplement studies reporting massive improvements in a primary measure like
maximal force or power without offering a serious stab at a physiologically
plausible mechanism are more exasperating than exciting, at least for those
of us who like thinking about physiology more than statistics. •
The use
of time to exhaustion (TTE) at constant load as an outcome measure in supplement
and training studies remains popular, but personally I don’t like the
measure, (a) because the changes in TTE just do not give physiological
meaning without conversion to a primary measure like power, and (b) because
the literature suggests that this measure has lower reliability than a time
trial. In response to (b), •
The fine
lectures by Priscilla Clarkson (Muscle Soreness: Cause, Consequence, and
Cure) and Ron Maughan (Use of Legal
Ergogenic Aids Through the “Gray Zone” onto Doping) both highlighted
the very important issue that normal statistical treatment of group responses
masks the often large individual differences in response/adaptation to a
training or supplement regimen.
Clarkson drove home the point with her case studies of rhabdomyolysis
(massive muscle damage and pain) after eccentric exercise. Hospitalization and even death have
resulted from hard strength-training workouts that would normally just have
an untrained person groaning and walking down stairs backwards for two or
three days. Maughan highlighted the
same issue in terms of responders and non-responders to supplements like
creatine. So, bottom line: performance
studies should always report individual response data. Then we can argue the underlying physiology
and genetics responsible for the variation. •
It sure
would be nice to attend this meeting and see more studies of the long-term
training process itself (and not just the effect of the latest pill, powder,
or pulsating platform) and how the organization of those variables influences
performance. Hard to do I know, but
there would be nothing illegal about training smarter, if only we knew what
that was. •
Finally,
I must take exception with Dr. Hopkins on one point. Published June 2007. |