We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you.More infoYou can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our cookies policy.
In May 2018, the following tweet was posted from the BJSM twitter account:
'115K views. via brave iconocolast @DrAseemMalhotra. Importantly, no rebuttals. Real food saturated fat does not clog arteries - beware processed food that causes hyperinsulinemia (& hypertension). #Rethink'
Followed by signposting to a linked editorial(1)
Several people responded, including Catherine Collins (https://twitter.com/RD_Catherine/status/1001707243828596737), pointing out that a number of rebuttals to the editorial in question had in fact been made, not least a 2017 PubMed Commons/PubPeer commentary (https://pubpeer.com/publications/8741FBE4D9D7A38A7802515B33302E), which form the precursor of our rebuttal here. In response to Catherine, the BJSM Editor in Chief (EIC) Karim Khan contacted the lead author here indicating he had missed his email a year previous regarding our commentary originally offered to the BJSM as a formal rebuttal [see PubPeer post]. The EIC indicated he would be happy to publish our PubPeer rebuttal in the BJSM. The lead author thanked the EIC and, with co-authors Duane Mellor, Nicola Guess, and Ian Lahart, submitted a revised version in July 2018.
In the interest of fairness and open debate, we made a request to the EIC and BJSM editorial board that our manuscript be made o...
In May 2018, the following tweet was posted from the BJSM twitter account:
'115K views. via brave iconocolast @DrAseemMalhotra. Importantly, no rebuttals. Real food saturated fat does not clog arteries - beware processed food that causes hyperinsulinemia (& hypertension). #Rethink'
Followed by signposting to a linked editorial(1)
Several people responded, including Catherine Collins (https://twitter.com/RD_Catherine/status/1001707243828596737), pointing out that a number of rebuttals to the editorial in question had in fact been made, not least a 2017 PubMed Commons/PubPeer commentary (https://pubpeer.com/publications/8741FBE4D9D7A38A7802515B33302E), which form the precursor of our rebuttal here. In response to Catherine, the BJSM Editor in Chief (EIC) Karim Khan contacted the lead author here indicating he had missed his email a year previous regarding our commentary originally offered to the BJSM as a formal rebuttal [see PubPeer post]. The EIC indicated he would be happy to publish our PubPeer rebuttal in the BJSM. The lead author thanked the EIC and, with co-authors Duane Mellor, Nicola Guess, and Ian Lahart, submitted a revised version in July 2018.
In the interest of fairness and open debate, we made a request to the EIC and BJSM editorial board that our manuscript be made open access in line with the original editorial that was granted open access status by the EIC. The EIC informed us that the board decided to prioritise other articles for open access. We expressed our disappointment at the board’s decision and added a footnote to our article, the subject of which forms the content of this letter. The addition of our footnote was prohibited but we were invited to submit it for discussion as an e-letter in response to our own editorial.
At this point it is important to highlight the BMJ groups editorial process in relation to publishing articles that are free or open access (OA). The main difference between "free" and "open access" is the license the article is published under. For example, an article that is free to access would still require permission to be sought if someone wanted to reuse the content whereas an article that is published under the OA license would not require this.
Articles published under an OA license are indicated by an open padlock symbol and denotes that costs for publication and licensing of the article have been paid for by the authors, their institution(s) and or the funder if relevant. Articles published under the “free” license denote that costs have been waivered. We have been informed by the journal publisher that the EIC has control over decisions to grant articles with a free license.
The EIC can, therefore, choose which articles will be published under the “free” license. This subjectivity clearly presents a risk of bias if not managed appropriately. We feel it has become apparent that bias has entered this process within the BJSM. Here we provide evidence for this observation in relation to a particular narrative, one that finds an unexpected home in a sport and exercise journal, around dietary guidelines, a specific dietary approach, and statins.
The original editorial(1)—to which we provide a rebuttal—received a large amount of attention, both in the press and social media, partly because it was available free via the 'Editors choice' status granted by the EIC. It was and continues to be widely tweeted by the BJSM twitter account which is managed at least in part by the BJSM EIC. Key narratives of the editorial are the denigration of current dietary guidelines and the promotion of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet of which the editorial’s lead author is a well-known advocate.
In the past 3 years, the BJSM has also published 10 articles (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VaPB0Tl9RUrGntkWeaNwIX-CIK4Z6SaJ...) with a similar and related focus including criticism of current (and past) nutritional guidelines and the evidence base around dietary fat, dietary management of type 2 diabetes, physical activity for the management of obesity, and statins. The majority of these articles also promote a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet and of these types of articles, all are authored by known advocates of this dietary approach. Some authors, including the author of the highlighted editorial, have published two or more of the 10 articles.
All 10 articles were published under the “free” license as granted by the EIC. They were also widely tweeted and retweeted by the BJSM twitter account and some have also been accompanied by podcasts and/or blogs with their respective author(s). Of these articles, only one(2) has had any formal rebuttal published in the BJSM in the form of three responses from different groups, including one from our group(3). None of the rebuttals were made available “free” by the editors, were tweeted only once by the BJSM account with no accompanying blog or podcasts. Therefore, there has not been an open and balanced discourse to any of the 10 articles at the time of their publication in the BJSM.
Finally, on the day our editorial was published Online First, there were no linked tweets from the BJSM account. However, there were several in relation to a BJSM podcast with the lead author of 3 of the 10 articles who makes a living from promoting low carb, high fat diets and dismissing any role of saturated fat in heart disease.
The EBM manifesto is a call to arms against to systematic bias, wastage, error, and fraud in research underpinning patient care(4). It points to the pivotal role of journal editors in safeguarding against communication of over-hyped, inaccurate or misinterpreted evidence. To make fair and informed judgements on the value and relevance of evidence, people must have access to it the manifesto stresses. We believe there is sufficient evidence of bias towards a specific narrative within the editorial group at the BJSM that impedes this important goal. The latest rebuttal is another in a familiar line of missed opportunities to redress this and reaffirms the importance of trustworthiness in key gate-keepers tasked with ensuring open and fair scientific, evidence-based discourse on diet and health.
1) Malhotra A, Redberg RF, Meier P. Saturated fat does not clog the arteries: coronary heart disease is a chronic inflammatory condition, the risk of which can be effectively reduced from healthy lifestyle interventions. Br J Sports Med 2017;51:1111-1112. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
2) Malhotra A, Noakes T, Phinney S. It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet.Br J Sports Med 2015;49:967–968. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/15/967
3) Mahtani KR, McManus J, Nunan D. Physical activity and obesity editorial: is exercise pointless or was it a pointless exercise? Br J Sports Med 2015;49:969-970. https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/49/15/969
4) Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Goldacre B, Goldee F, Macdonald H, Jarvies D. Evidence based medicine manifesto for better healthcare. BMJ 2017;357:j2973. https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2973
In this letter the authors observe "a significant difference ..in the rate of offspring malformations between women who dive (6 children affected), and those who did not dive during their pregnancy (none had malformation, p<0.01). A rate of zero malformations in the non-diving population should immediately have alerted the authors to the fact that their survey was biased. In the UK population there is an approximate rate of malformation of 1 in 80 live births and I would think that the rate is similar in France. Instead of using 0 for the malformations the authors should have used the rate observed in the French population. The conclusion of the paper that pregnancy testing should be undertaken before each scuba diving session is not supported by these data.
The last paragraph cites Rolfing when it should be Structural Integration. There are many schools of Structural Integration of which Rolfing Structural Integration is one, Describe the modality as massage if you must, though I would prefer, "a form of manual therapy" or "a form of manual therapy that is often categorized as massage." I am surprised that this error passed through the editors and peer review.
The Ankle Roll Guard (anklerollguard.com) is a patented & independently tested, brace-less ankle support that cushions the ankle from an inversion or “roll”. Unlike conventional ankle braces, it wraps securely around the outside of any shoe type and allows the user to retain full ankle mobility and comfort.
Benefits:
- Patented outside shoe design allows user to retain ankle mobility & comfort while still having ankle protection (no ankle restriction like a brace)
- Provides ankle stability & protection for users with chronic lateral ankle instability
- Clinical, independent testing at Boise State University using a motion analysis system showed equivalent inversion protection plus better range of motion & vertical jump versus a brace or tape
- Weighs only 2.4 ounces so users do not feel it
Independent Testing at Boise State University
White Paper Completed January, 2018:
“Of all the devices (Ankle Roll Guard, Brace, Tape), only the Ankle Roll Guard appears to allow the user normal ankle motion (i.e. typical anatomical joint motion), while preventing excessive ankle inversion”
– Tyler Brown, PhD, CSCS, Director COBR
Conclusion: The Ankle Roll Guard may provide similar prevention of excessive inversion as either the brace or tape, but without the mechanical restriction of the joint that reportedly limits physical performance when wearing ankle prophylactic devices. With the Ankle Roll Guard, p...
The Ankle Roll Guard (anklerollguard.com) is a patented & independently tested, brace-less ankle support that cushions the ankle from an inversion or “roll”. Unlike conventional ankle braces, it wraps securely around the outside of any shoe type and allows the user to retain full ankle mobility and comfort.
Benefits:
- Patented outside shoe design allows user to retain ankle mobility & comfort while still having ankle protection (no ankle restriction like a brace)
- Provides ankle stability & protection for users with chronic lateral ankle instability
- Clinical, independent testing at Boise State University using a motion analysis system showed equivalent inversion protection plus better range of motion & vertical jump versus a brace or tape
- Weighs only 2.4 ounces so users do not feel it
Independent Testing at Boise State University
White Paper Completed January, 2018:
“Of all the devices (Ankle Roll Guard, Brace, Tape), only the Ankle Roll Guard appears to allow the user normal ankle motion (i.e. typical anatomical joint motion), while preventing excessive ankle inversion”
– Tyler Brown, PhD, CSCS, Director COBR
Conclusion: The Ankle Roll Guard may provide similar prevention of excessive inversion as either the brace or tape, but without the mechanical restriction of the joint that reportedly limits physical performance when wearing ankle prophylactic devices. With the Ankle Roll Guard, participants exhibited more natural ankle motions (i.e. plantar flexion) during both the sudden inversion event and vertical jump. This motion allowed the participants to perform better during the vertical jump with the Ankle Roll Guard as compared to the more restrictive brace and tape.
I congratulate the authors for such a well-rounded and informative update of this CPG. I was not surprised to see the conclusion in the text that the evidence is 'unclear' in the use of ice on acute ankle injuries. There simply are not enough well-controlled RCTs can support RICE's efficacy when used alone. Clinically, we always combine ice with other interventions such as exercise. Your recommendation in the text was, "There is no evidence that RICE alone, or cryotherapy, or compression therapy ALONE (emphasis added) has any positive influence on pain, swelling or patient function. Therefore, there is no role for RICE ALONE (emphasis added) in the treatment of acute LAS." Based on the evidence, I would agree with that statement. However, Table 8's "Final Recommendations" for RICE states, "RICE is not advised as treatment modality after a LAS." I would argue that the authors should have inserted the word, "ALONE" in this recommendation; otherwise, they are making a blanket conclusion that ice is NOT effective when in fact, the evidence remains unclear (there may be some benefit when used in conjunction with other treatments) and potential harmful effects were not discussed if that was part of the decision-making. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the meta-analysis data upon which these recommendations against RICE were made, as Supplement 3 did not include any analysis on RICE interventions. While I am not a...
I congratulate the authors for such a well-rounded and informative update of this CPG. I was not surprised to see the conclusion in the text that the evidence is 'unclear' in the use of ice on acute ankle injuries. There simply are not enough well-controlled RCTs can support RICE's efficacy when used alone. Clinically, we always combine ice with other interventions such as exercise. Your recommendation in the text was, "There is no evidence that RICE alone, or cryotherapy, or compression therapy ALONE (emphasis added) has any positive influence on pain, swelling or patient function. Therefore, there is no role for RICE ALONE (emphasis added) in the treatment of acute LAS." Based on the evidence, I would agree with that statement. However, Table 8's "Final Recommendations" for RICE states, "RICE is not advised as treatment modality after a LAS." I would argue that the authors should have inserted the word, "ALONE" in this recommendation; otherwise, they are making a blanket conclusion that ice is NOT effective when in fact, the evidence remains unclear (there may be some benefit when used in conjunction with other treatments) and potential harmful effects were not discussed if that was part of the decision-making. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the meta-analysis data upon which these recommendations against RICE were made, as Supplement 3 did not include any analysis on RICE interventions. While I am not a proponent of quick and repeated prescription of NSAIDS, I was disappointed to see the statement concluded that NSAIDS may "delay the natural healing process," based on a review commentary published 15 years ago in a non-peer reviewed journal, rather than basing this comment on at least one well-controlled study with evidence that NSAIDS do, in fact, delay the healing process (which I have never seen). Furthermore, when I examined the meta-analysis data on oral NSAIDS on Swelling (3 studies), I noticed that 2 out of 3 favored the placebo, and none of the studies had a significant difference as their confidence intervals all included zero. Only grouping oral with topical NSAIDS provided a favorable effect size. You can't have it both ways when it comes to making statements based on the literature by holding the evidence to different standards to support such statements.
This is a case of exertional heat stroke in which a young, experienced woman runner exerts herself and develops heat stroke. There is no effort to describe the patient's state of hydration besides indicating that she drank 250 mL prior to running (in what timeframe?) and that she drank 200mL after/during collapse. We are unaware of her weight and thus cannot even roughly calculate what her fluid deficit range may be after 90 minutes of running. We are unaware of her dress, which could lead to heat retention. Per figure 2, it appears that her blood pressure was approximately 110/70 at the time of collapse, which does not support hypovolemia. Values of BUN and creatinine are not presented that would have supported dehydration as a predisposing condition. Certainly in a road race there were other runners that reached her same level of hydration - why did they not suffer heat stroke?
While this is a classically presented case of exertional heat stroke in a road race, there is insufficient evidence to associate it with dehydration.
I was quite surprised to see this piece in a BMJ journal. It is quite odd and doesn't appear to bear much relationship to the data. If any readers are interested I strongly suggest that the read the original peer reviewed lancet PACE trial paper and make up their own minds. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60096-2/abstract
Zorrzi et al. (1) have recently compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Society of Cardiology (2010) and the International (2017) ECG criteria for the diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), concluding that the International criteria have a greater specificity and a slightly lesser sensitivity in making a differential diagnosis from the normal hypertrophy of an endurance athlete's heart.
However, such an analysis presupposes a clear identification of normal from pathological cases, and this appears to be lacking. The sole criterion for the diagnosis of HCM is "the presence of a hypertrophied and non-dilated left ventricle in the absence of other diseases that could produce the same magnitude of hypertrophy," based on an echocardiographic wall thickness equal to or greater than 15 mm in adult index patients and equal or greater to 13 mm in adult relatives.
Given the exclusion of patients with symptoms or evidence with systolic dysfunction, there seems little to exclude the possibility that the individuals identified are not simply exceptionally well-trained endurance athletes, and that what is being examined is simply the ability of the 2 sets of ECG criteria to identify a person who has developed a large heart. It is particularly disturbing that the supposed diagnostic criteria seems to make no allowance for age, body size and sex, all of which undoubtedly influence the range of normal cardiac dimensions.
Zorrzi et al. (1) have recently compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Society of Cardiology (2010) and the International (2017) ECG criteria for the diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), concluding that the International criteria have a greater specificity and a slightly lesser sensitivity in making a differential diagnosis from the normal hypertrophy of an endurance athlete's heart.
However, such an analysis presupposes a clear identification of normal from pathological cases, and this appears to be lacking. The sole criterion for the diagnosis of HCM is "the presence of a hypertrophied and non-dilated left ventricle in the absence of other diseases that could produce the same magnitude of hypertrophy," based on an echocardiographic wall thickness equal to or greater than 15 mm in adult index patients and equal or greater to 13 mm in adult relatives.
Given the exclusion of patients with symptoms or evidence with systolic dysfunction, there seems little to exclude the possibility that the individuals identified are not simply exceptionally well-trained endurance athletes, and that what is being examined is simply the ability of the 2 sets of ECG criteria to identify a person who has developed a large heart. It is particularly disturbing that the supposed diagnostic criteria seems to make no allowance for age, body size and sex, all of which undoubtedly influence the range of normal cardiac dimensions.
REFERENCE
Zorzi A, Calore C, do Vio, R et al. Accuracy of the ECG for differential diagnosis between hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and athlete's heart: comparison between the European Society of Cardiology (2010) and International (2017) criteria. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52: 667-673.
We want to thank Boynton et al. for writing a letter to the editor (LTE) in response to our recent editorial on gender disparities in the sport and exercise medicine (SEM) community [1]. As the title of our editorial indicates [We need to talk about manels: the problem of implicit gender bias in sport and exercise medicine], we were primarily motivated to stimulate a conversation about the issues we raised, and an LTE contributes to this conversation [2].
We were also motivated by a desire to assert that i) the SEM community does indeed manifest many examples of gender disparity; ii) social media has provided a space where this issue is being debated, notably (but not exclusively) under the hashtag #manels; iii) implicit bias is a significant contributor to these disparities, and iv) there exist well-established resources where interested readers might explore their own implicit biases [3].
It is in these goals, then, that we fundamentally disagree with most of the assertions the LTE authors have made about our work and the conclusions they draw.
We noted with interest that the authors of the LTE did not take direct issue with our assertion that there exist substantial gender imbalances within the field of SEM. Rather, they took issue with our assertion that implicit gender bias underpins these imbalances.
We posit in our editorial that implicit bias is a factor contributing to the gender disparities we see in SEM. Discussing implicit bias in t...
We want to thank Boynton et al. for writing a letter to the editor (LTE) in response to our recent editorial on gender disparities in the sport and exercise medicine (SEM) community [1]. As the title of our editorial indicates [We need to talk about manels: the problem of implicit gender bias in sport and exercise medicine], we were primarily motivated to stimulate a conversation about the issues we raised, and an LTE contributes to this conversation [2].
We were also motivated by a desire to assert that i) the SEM community does indeed manifest many examples of gender disparity; ii) social media has provided a space where this issue is being debated, notably (but not exclusively) under the hashtag #manels; iii) implicit bias is a significant contributor to these disparities, and iv) there exist well-established resources where interested readers might explore their own implicit biases [3].
It is in these goals, then, that we fundamentally disagree with most of the assertions the LTE authors have made about our work and the conclusions they draw.
We noted with interest that the authors of the LTE did not take direct issue with our assertion that there exist substantial gender imbalances within the field of SEM. Rather, they took issue with our assertion that implicit gender bias underpins these imbalances.
We posit in our editorial that implicit bias is a factor contributing to the gender disparities we see in SEM. Discussing implicit bias in the context of gender inequity in SEM does not mitigate the role of other factors. We do not suggest that implicit bias is the sole driver of gender inequity, but that it is one that warrants attention.
Boynton et al. note, in the references that they cite arguing against implicit bias, that there may be phenomena such as individual choice that may result in such disparities. This may be true. In addition, we would add that at least one other phenomenon we did not mention is explicit bias. Each of the authors on this editorial can note multiple examples where these explicit biases have played out. The issue of ‘manels’ as a manifestation of gender disparities in SEM is merely the tip of the iceberg. Some of the authors of our editorial have written about other gender issues in different media [4]. Society at large, and the SEM community in particular, is still too disturbingly sexist to escape the conclusion that frank, explicit bias is a major driver of the disparities that concern us [5].
In regards to the issue of implicit bias, the body of literature supporting this concept is deep and underpins several of the resources we mention in our editorial. The LTE authors too easily dismiss this work as ‘ideological.’ We counter that, like any scientific theory, implicit bias is a ‘work in progress,’ and that noting a few references arguing against that theory does not tear down the entire body of evidence.
Gender disparities and contributory biases exist at many levels of our field. This is a problem, which could be seen as big or small depending on the observer. It is, nevertheless, a problem. We assert that it must be addressed.
We do agree, at least in part, with our dissenting colleagues, when challenging those of us interested in these issues to seek a ‘higher degree of evidence.’ While there is no lack of evidence for gender disparity in the SEM community, we applaud deeper investigations into these issues and a higher quality of evidence. Furthermore, we advocate for more research into the phenomena that may underpin these disparities.
For those parties interested in gender issues in sport and SEM, we would encourage them to consider looking more deeply into the problems we describe in our editorial and this response. We would like at the very least to see more documentation of gender (mis)representation among keynote speakers at SEM conferences; within academic divisions and departments; within teams (e.g. head team physicians among elite teams), etc. Moreover, analyses of the decision-making processes that lead to these disparities must also be included in future investigations.
Being of service to ourselves and our SEM community means meeting people where they stand. This is a more effective endeavor when we can be transparent about where we are starting from. To that end, we would encourage readers to consider these courses of action while we all continue this conversation:
i) consider taking the implicit bias test we reference [3]
ii) speak up when seeing significant gender disparities at conferences and other fora
iii) Men: mentor the female SEM trainees with which you work, and help them achieve higher levels in their field if they are motivated. And listen thoughtfully to what your female colleagues are saying about these issues
iv) Women: yes, ‘lean in,’ as the saying goes; but also continue to identify systemic biases and try to challenge them
Submitted by Sheree Bekker and James MacDonald, on behalf of all authors of the original editorial:
Sheree Bekker, Osman H Ahmed, Ummukulthoum Bakare, Tracy A Blake, Alison M Brooks, Todd E Davenport, Luciana De Michelis Mendonça, Lauren V Fortington, Michael Himawan, Joanne L Kemp, Karen Litzy, Roland F Loh, James MacDonald, Carly D McKay, Andrea B Mosler, Margo Mountjoy, Ann Pederson, Melanie I Stefan, Emma Stokes, Amy J Vassallo, Jackie L Whittaker
In their International Olympic Committee consensus statement, Maughan et al. reviewed the evidence for dietary supplements for high-performance athletes [1].
They wrote in regard to zinc that “Cochrane review shows benefit of [using] zinc acetate lozenges (75 mg) to decrease duration of URS [upper respiratory symptoms]” [1, Table 4]. This statement was based on their reading of the Cochrane review (2013) by Singh and Das [2], which was withdrawn in 2015 because of plagiarism [3]. In addition, the same Cochrane review had a large number of other severe problems [4]. In the above statement, Maughan et al. imply that only zinc acetate lozenges are effective; however, a recent meta-analysis showed that, up until 2017 at least, there was no evidence that zinc gluconate lozenges are less effective than zinc acetate lozenges [5].
When discussing treatment effects, the size of the effect and its confidence interval should be considered [6]. Thereby a critically-minded reader can form his or her own opinion about whether the treatment effect is relevant. The data of 7 placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs showed that zinc acetate and zinc gluconate lozenges shortened common cold duration on average by 33% (95% CI 21% to 45%) [5]. Individual-patient data were available for 3 zinc acetate lozenge trials and on the basis of these findings, zinc lozenges shortened the duration of colds by 2.7 days (95% CI 1.8 to 3.3 days) [7], and increased the rate of recovery by RR = 3....
In their International Olympic Committee consensus statement, Maughan et al. reviewed the evidence for dietary supplements for high-performance athletes [1].
They wrote in regard to zinc that “Cochrane review shows benefit of [using] zinc acetate lozenges (75 mg) to decrease duration of URS [upper respiratory symptoms]” [1, Table 4]. This statement was based on their reading of the Cochrane review (2013) by Singh and Das [2], which was withdrawn in 2015 because of plagiarism [3]. In addition, the same Cochrane review had a large number of other severe problems [4]. In the above statement, Maughan et al. imply that only zinc acetate lozenges are effective; however, a recent meta-analysis showed that, up until 2017 at least, there was no evidence that zinc gluconate lozenges are less effective than zinc acetate lozenges [5].
When discussing treatment effects, the size of the effect and its confidence interval should be considered [6]. Thereby a critically-minded reader can form his or her own opinion about whether the treatment effect is relevant. The data of 7 placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs showed that zinc acetate and zinc gluconate lozenges shortened common cold duration on average by 33% (95% CI 21% to 45%) [5]. Individual-patient data were available for 3 zinc acetate lozenge trials and on the basis of these findings, zinc lozenges shortened the duration of colds by 2.7 days (95% CI 1.8 to 3.3 days) [7], and increased the rate of recovery by RR = 3.1 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.7) [8]. So far, there is no published evidence to assume that the effects of zinc lozenges are less in athletes compared with the general population.
Maugham et al. wrote that many published studies had low quality, “specifically, small samples, poor controls and unclear procedures for randomization and blinding were commonplace” [1, p. 443]. To support this statement, they cited the above-mentioned Cochrane review [2] that was withdrawn in 2015 [3]. However, that Cochrane review [2] did not point out any relevant methodological problems in the 7 placebo-controlled double-blind zinc lozenge RCTs mentioned above in which colds were shortened by 33% [5].
Furthermore, Maugham et al. did not mention at all the effect of vitamin C on exercise-induced bronchoconstriction [EIB]. Three double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over RCTs found that vitamin C decreased exercise-induced FEV1 decline by 48% (95% CI 33% to 64%) [9,10]. Only some athletes suffer from EIB, yet for them it may be worthwhile to test on an individual basis whether vitamin C has efficacy.
In our Cochrane review, we pooled 5 placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs on marathon runners, skiers and soldiers on subarctic exercises, and found that vitamin C reduced the risk of colds by 52% (95% CI 36% to 65%) [11]. Maugham et al. opined that there is only “moderate support for preventing URS”. Given that the 5 RCTs conducted by 4 different research groups over 3 different decades found highly consistent results with I-square = 0% [11], it is quite puzzling as to what kind of evidence Maugham et al. would require to conclude strong support over and above any moderate support. Evidently, more research is needed. However, vitamin C is a cheap and safe essential nutrient, thus those athletes who often have upper respiratory symptoms associated with exercise may test whether the vitamin might be beneficial for them personally.
Maugham et al. further wrote that for vitamin C, “immune measures [are] no different from placebo” [1, Table 4]. This statement is misleading for readers. A search of the PubMed for reviews on vitamin C and immunity identifies dozens of reports. Reviews have shown that there is a large number of studies indicating that vitamin C does have effects on the immune system, three of which I cite here [12-14]. The published effects on the immune system do not indicate whether vitamin C has practical relevance, but it is misleading to claim that the effects of vitamin C on immune measures are no different from placebo [1].
Finally, Maugham et al. wrote that “Cochrane reviews show no benefit of initiating vitamin C supplementation (>200 mg/day) after onset of URS” and they cited refs 100,101 in their review [1, Table 4]. First, Maugham’s reference 101 is not a Cochrane review. Second, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [15].
In our Cochrane review (ref. 100 in Maugham’s paper), we wrote that from a methodological perspective, therapeutic trials are much more complicated than regular supplementation trials [11]. We gave examples of factors that may influence the efficacy of vitamin C, such as the timing of supplementation initiation, the duration of supplementation, and the dosage. Inappropriate selection of any of these factors might give rise to false negative findings in a therapeutic trial. We should therefore be cautious in the interpretation of the published therapeutic trials. Furthermore, we pointed out that “The larger effect observed using 8 g [of vitamin C] compared with 4 g as a single dose in the Anderson 1974f trial and the dose dependency in the Karlowski 1975a trial suggest that future therapeutic trials with adults should use doses of at least 8 g/day” [11]; see also [16].
It thus misleads readers to claim that our Cochrane review (ref. 100 in Maugham’s paper) “show[s] no benefit of initiating vitamin C supplementation after [the] onset of URS” [1]. In contrast, we conclude in our abstract that “given the consistent effect of vitamin C on the duration and severity of colds in the regular supplementation studies, and the low cost and safety, it may be worthwhile for common cold patients to test on an individual basis whether therapeutic vitamin C is beneficial for them. Further therapeutic RCTs are warranted” [11].
In May 2018, the following tweet was posted from the BJSM twitter account:
'115K views. via brave iconocolast @DrAseemMalhotra. Importantly, no rebuttals. Real food saturated fat does not clog arteries - beware processed food that causes hyperinsulinemia (& hypertension). #Rethink'
Followed by signposting to a linked editorial(1)
Several people responded, including Catherine Collins (https://twitter.com/RD_Catherine/status/1001707243828596737), pointing out that a number of rebuttals to the editorial in question had in fact been made, not least a 2017 PubMed Commons/PubPeer commentary (https://pubpeer.com/publications/8741FBE4D9D7A38A7802515B33302E), which form the precursor of our rebuttal here. In response to Catherine, the BJSM Editor in Chief (EIC) Karim Khan contacted the lead author here indicating he had missed his email a year previous regarding our commentary originally offered to the BJSM as a formal rebuttal [see PubPeer post]. The EIC indicated he would be happy to publish our PubPeer rebuttal in the BJSM. The lead author thanked the EIC and, with co-authors Duane Mellor, Nicola Guess, and Ian Lahart, submitted a revised version in July 2018.
In the interest of fairness and open debate, we made a request to the EIC and BJSM editorial board that our manuscript be made o...
Show MoreIn this letter the authors observe "a significant difference ..in the rate of offspring malformations between women who dive (6 children affected), and those who did not dive during their pregnancy (none had malformation, p<0.01). A rate of zero malformations in the non-diving population should immediately have alerted the authors to the fact that their survey was biased. In the UK population there is an approximate rate of malformation of 1 in 80 live births and I would think that the rate is similar in France. Instead of using 0 for the malformations the authors should have used the rate observed in the French population. The conclusion of the paper that pregnancy testing should be undertaken before each scuba diving session is not supported by these data.
The last paragraph cites Rolfing when it should be Structural Integration. There are many schools of Structural Integration of which Rolfing Structural Integration is one, Describe the modality as massage if you must, though I would prefer, "a form of manual therapy" or "a form of manual therapy that is often categorized as massage." I am surprised that this error passed through the editors and peer review.
The Ankle Roll Guard (anklerollguard.com) is a patented & independently tested, brace-less ankle support that cushions the ankle from an inversion or “roll”. Unlike conventional ankle braces, it wraps securely around the outside of any shoe type and allows the user to retain full ankle mobility and comfort.
Benefits:
- Patented outside shoe design allows user to retain ankle mobility & comfort while still having ankle protection (no ankle restriction like a brace)
- Provides ankle stability & protection for users with chronic lateral ankle instability
- Clinical, independent testing at Boise State University using a motion analysis system showed equivalent inversion protection plus better range of motion & vertical jump versus a brace or tape
- Weighs only 2.4 ounces so users do not feel it
Independent Testing at Boise State University
Show MoreWhite Paper Completed January, 2018:
“Of all the devices (Ankle Roll Guard, Brace, Tape), only the Ankle Roll Guard appears to allow the user normal ankle motion (i.e. typical anatomical joint motion), while preventing excessive ankle inversion”
– Tyler Brown, PhD, CSCS, Director COBR
Conclusion: The Ankle Roll Guard may provide similar prevention of excessive inversion as either the brace or tape, but without the mechanical restriction of the joint that reportedly limits physical performance when wearing ankle prophylactic devices. With the Ankle Roll Guard, p...
I congratulate the authors for such a well-rounded and informative update of this CPG. I was not surprised to see the conclusion in the text that the evidence is 'unclear' in the use of ice on acute ankle injuries. There simply are not enough well-controlled RCTs can support RICE's efficacy when used alone. Clinically, we always combine ice with other interventions such as exercise. Your recommendation in the text was, "There is no evidence that RICE alone, or cryotherapy, or compression therapy ALONE (emphasis added) has any positive influence on pain, swelling or patient function. Therefore, there is no role for RICE ALONE (emphasis added) in the treatment of acute LAS." Based on the evidence, I would agree with that statement. However, Table 8's "Final Recommendations" for RICE states, "RICE is not advised as treatment modality after a LAS." I would argue that the authors should have inserted the word, "ALONE" in this recommendation; otherwise, they are making a blanket conclusion that ice is NOT effective when in fact, the evidence remains unclear (there may be some benefit when used in conjunction with other treatments) and potential harmful effects were not discussed if that was part of the decision-making. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the meta-analysis data upon which these recommendations against RICE were made, as Supplement 3 did not include any analysis on RICE interventions. While I am not a...
Show MoreThis is a case of exertional heat stroke in which a young, experienced woman runner exerts herself and develops heat stroke. There is no effort to describe the patient's state of hydration besides indicating that she drank 250 mL prior to running (in what timeframe?) and that she drank 200mL after/during collapse. We are unaware of her weight and thus cannot even roughly calculate what her fluid deficit range may be after 90 minutes of running. We are unaware of her dress, which could lead to heat retention. Per figure 2, it appears that her blood pressure was approximately 110/70 at the time of collapse, which does not support hypovolemia. Values of BUN and creatinine are not presented that would have supported dehydration as a predisposing condition. Certainly in a road race there were other runners that reached her same level of hydration - why did they not suffer heat stroke?
While this is a classically presented case of exertional heat stroke in a road race, there is insufficient evidence to associate it with dehydration.
I was quite surprised to see this piece in a BMJ journal. It is quite odd and doesn't appear to bear much relationship to the data. If any readers are interested I strongly suggest that the read the original peer reviewed lancet PACE trial paper and make up their own minds.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60096-2/abstract
Zorrzi et al. (1) have recently compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Society of Cardiology (2010) and the International (2017) ECG criteria for the diagnosis of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), concluding that the International criteria have a greater specificity and a slightly lesser sensitivity in making a differential diagnosis from the normal hypertrophy of an endurance athlete's heart.
However, such an analysis presupposes a clear identification of normal from pathological cases, and this appears to be lacking. The sole criterion for the diagnosis of HCM is "the presence of a hypertrophied and non-dilated left ventricle in the absence of other diseases that could produce the same magnitude of hypertrophy," based on an echocardiographic wall thickness equal to or greater than 15 mm in adult index patients and equal or greater to 13 mm in adult relatives.
Given the exclusion of patients with symptoms or evidence with systolic dysfunction, there seems little to exclude the possibility that the individuals identified are not simply exceptionally well-trained endurance athletes, and that what is being examined is simply the ability of the 2 sets of ECG criteria to identify a person who has developed a large heart. It is particularly disturbing that the supposed diagnostic criteria seems to make no allowance for age, body size and sex, all of which undoubtedly influence the range of normal cardiac dimensions.
REF...
Show MoreWe want to thank Boynton et al. for writing a letter to the editor (LTE) in response to our recent editorial on gender disparities in the sport and exercise medicine (SEM) community [1]. As the title of our editorial indicates [We need to talk about manels: the problem of implicit gender bias in sport and exercise medicine], we were primarily motivated to stimulate a conversation about the issues we raised, and an LTE contributes to this conversation [2].
We were also motivated by a desire to assert that i) the SEM community does indeed manifest many examples of gender disparity; ii) social media has provided a space where this issue is being debated, notably (but not exclusively) under the hashtag #manels; iii) implicit bias is a significant contributor to these disparities, and iv) there exist well-established resources where interested readers might explore their own implicit biases [3].
It is in these goals, then, that we fundamentally disagree with most of the assertions the LTE authors have made about our work and the conclusions they draw.
We noted with interest that the authors of the LTE did not take direct issue with our assertion that there exist substantial gender imbalances within the field of SEM. Rather, they took issue with our assertion that implicit gender bias underpins these imbalances.
We posit in our editorial that implicit bias is a factor contributing to the gender disparities we see in SEM. Discussing implicit bias in t...
Show MoreIn their International Olympic Committee consensus statement, Maughan et al. reviewed the evidence for dietary supplements for high-performance athletes [1].
They wrote in regard to zinc that “Cochrane review shows benefit of [using] zinc acetate lozenges (75 mg) to decrease duration of URS [upper respiratory symptoms]” [1, Table 4]. This statement was based on their reading of the Cochrane review (2013) by Singh and Das [2], which was withdrawn in 2015 because of plagiarism [3]. In addition, the same Cochrane review had a large number of other severe problems [4]. In the above statement, Maughan et al. imply that only zinc acetate lozenges are effective; however, a recent meta-analysis showed that, up until 2017 at least, there was no evidence that zinc gluconate lozenges are less effective than zinc acetate lozenges [5].
When discussing treatment effects, the size of the effect and its confidence interval should be considered [6]. Thereby a critically-minded reader can form his or her own opinion about whether the treatment effect is relevant. The data of 7 placebo-controlled double-blind RCTs showed that zinc acetate and zinc gluconate lozenges shortened common cold duration on average by 33% (95% CI 21% to 45%) [5]. Individual-patient data were available for 3 zinc acetate lozenge trials and on the basis of these findings, zinc lozenges shortened the duration of colds by 2.7 days (95% CI 1.8 to 3.3 days) [7], and increased the rate of recovery by RR = 3....
Show MorePages