112 minutes | Jun 18, 2020

Betaine, Sodium Bicarbonate, and Evaluating New Research as it Develops

Today’s episode starts off with a Good News segment and some brand new Feats of Strength. After that, Eric discusses his most recent SBS article about Betaine, and addresses some of the feedback that the article has received. This segment opens up into a broader discussion about how to evaluate a new body of research as it’s developing. Topics include conflicts of interest, how much evidence is required to justify experimentation, and when we can confidently conclude that an intervention simply doesn’t work. Some historical examples are discussed along the way, with some background information about how the steroid, creatine, caffeine, and citrulline malate literature developed over time. After that, Greg and Eric share a quick Research Roundup segment, followed by some off-topic questions To Play Them Out. 

If you’d like to submit a question for a future Q&A segment, please go to tiny.cc/sbsqa. 

If you’d like to recommend someone for a future “On the Rise” segment, please go to tiny.cc/creators. 

If you’d like to receive Research Roundup emails, please sign up for our email list at https://www.strongerbyscience.com/newsletter/. 

 

TIME STAMPS

Announcements (0:01:14). 

Good news (0:02:44): 

SBD replacing Metal singlets and DL socks for lifters who bought them in the past year.

Bionic Eye, As Sensitive as The Human Retina, May Give Sight to Millions: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/bionic-eye-sensitive-as-a-human-retina-may-give-sight-to-millions/.  

Simple Injection Could Be the Cure for Wrestlers and Athletes Suffering From ‘Cauliflower Ear’: https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/injection-could-cure-cauliflower-ear/. 

Feats of Strength (0:10:16). 

SBS Article Discussion: Betaine (0:19:58): https://www.strongerbyscience.com/betaine/. 

Broader discussion on research interpretation (0:26:14). Subtopics include:

How much do conflicts of interest matter? Are some conflicts more notable than others? 

When do we have enough evidence to justify trying something that’s unproven? 

When do we have enough evidence to conclude that something definitely doesn’t work? 

Historical perspectives: How did the steroid, creatine, caffeine, and citrulline malate literature develop over time? What would have been some ramifications of forming conclusions too quickly as the initial studies came out? 

Other recent SBS articles (1:01:46): 

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/returning-to-training/ (By Dr. Mike Zourdos and the MASS team). 

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/risks-of-returning/ (By Dr. Jason Eure, DPT). 

Research Roundup (1:05:37): 

To receive research roundup emails, you can sign up at: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/newsletter/. 

Vitamin C and recovery (1:06:16): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32162041/, https://www.strongerbyscience.com/antioxidants/. 

Sodium bicarbonate supplementation and strength/muscular endurance (1:12:00): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32096113/ , https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31533750/

Effect size discussion (1:28:53). 

Power analysis for interactions: http://daniellakens.blogspot.com/2020/03/effect-sizes-and-power-for-interactions.html. 

To play us out: A few off-topic questions (1:37:54). 

Will you guys rescind your statements about liking Rage Against the Machine now that it has come out that they are actually leftists? 

How do you maintain focus while doing work very late at night? 

What’s your favorite method for making coffee? 

Play
Like
Play Next
Mark
Played
Share