scientists were wrong: lactic acid is fuel for muscles

[everything]

turns out that lactic acid is fuel for muscles and not likely to be the cause of doms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/healt ... .html?_r=2

amazing how long it takes to correct bad science because the current hypothesis becomes dogma, even among people who are supposed to have some objectivity.

[Steve James]

Yet, Dr. Brooks said, even though coaches often believed in the myth of the lactic acid threshold, they ended up training athletes in the best way possible to increase their mitochondria. "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't," he said.
Through trial and error, coaches learned that athletic performance improved when athletes worked on endurance, running longer and longer distances, for example.
That, it turns out, increased the mass of their muscle mitochondria, letting them burn more lactic acid and allowing the muscles to work harder and longer.
Just before a race, coaches often tell athletes to train very hard in brief spurts.

Guess what the scientists thought didn't matter, even if it was believed.

[cdobe]

This is an example that the scientific method works very well, rather than the other way around. The theory has been expanded and the earlier findings are seen in a new light. The new research is based on the methods and knowledge of the science that has been done during the last century.

[RobP2]

It also shows how science can create it's own dogma, particularly when, as is so often the case today, it is tied in with vested interests

[Chris Fleming]

I would agree that the scientific method in and of itself works very well, it's just that some "scientists" and the pseudo-academic community at large often has an attitude of "I-understand-how-the-world-works" regarding various issues, which often produces an attitude of arrogance and dismissal. When new information is found that negates previous ideas, the same people, who were wrong for years or more, all of a sudden say, "this is how the scientific methods works, and NOW I understand how the world works".

[everything]

well ok science does work over the very long term, i agree. but it takes years to overcome dogma, which should just be the "null hypothesis" that is viewed objectively. "overwhelming evidence" isn't supposed to be needed to start saying "it seems the null hypothesis should be rejected". it is dogma, plain and simple. that the people are "smart" doesn't change that.

it also shows how practice can be right though the theory hasn't caught up to the practice yet.

[Steve James]

Aw, c'mon ... to make generalizations about the faults of the scientific method based on evidence produced by the scientific method is hypocritical, at least. It's really funny in this case because there were no coaches teaching against the "dogma" of lactic acid --and I'd bet money that everyone arguing against the scientific method here now also accepted that dogma and didn't dream of a counter-explanation. That is, until a "scientist" came up with a new explanation.

This study, if it doesn't prove that the scientific method works, does prove that people believe the results of that method. And, again, in this specific case, the dogma didn't make much difference at all.

[Ian]

let's see how fast we can turn this into a topic about religion.

[Chris McKinley]

From a scientific viewpoint, the article is written in a bit of a simplistic and misleading way. For instance, latent muscle soreness, the kind that occurs approximately 2 days after a strenuous anaerobic workout, was never thought to be the result of lactic acid accumulation. What was is the sensation of "the burn", that momentary soreness that occurs at the end of an anaerobic exercise set that goes to momentary failure.

The so-called "news" of that article isn't exactly news anyway. It's long been known that there are different metabolic pathways that occur with regard to both glycogen and lactic acid. However, as a fuel, lactic acid is rather slow-burning compared to glycogen, and is of more use to the endurance athlete than the strength or short-performance athlete, something the article doesn't really mention. It's also of better use to the ditch digger or wood chopper than to the marathon runner, since with exercise of long enough duration, aerobic pathways become dominant anyway, regardless of mitochondrial ability to metabolize lactic acid.

I think it must have been a bit of a slow news day in the Health & Fitness desk. If this article had come out in, say, the early to mid 80's, it might have actually been news. As it is, ironically, the only people to whom this article is "news" are the non-scientists.

[cdobe]

Last time I checked dogma was as religious term ( @Ian) . Science distinguishes itself from believe systems in that there is no such thing as a unalterable truth. I'ld like the naysayers to name one dogma that science holds on to.

Here is are the reviews on which the article seems to be based on:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15131240
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15308499

CD

@Chris Fleming
It goes both ways

[bailewen]

This sort of points at an issue I often ponder which is that the folks "on the ground" in any field do not necessarily want the latest science.

It's really late and I need to get up early. Lets just compare it to software. If stability and reliable functionality is a priority, you don't want the latest update. Beta versions often have bugs. What you want if you are out there in the field is 6 months to a year out of date. Something where the bugs have already been worked out. I think it's sort of the same with science. Cutting edge is often wrong. I prefer science that has already been "field tested" for a while. But that's just me.

[everything]

Last time I checked dogma was as religious term ( @Ian) . Science distinguishes itself from believe systems in that there is no such thing as a unalterable truth.

well in theory yes. even religion eventually comes around to stop saying things like the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.

the scientific method is great. it's just the humans who have some problem. but what can you do. in a non-cynical light, it does work over a long period.

[ashe]

turns out that lactic acid is fuel for muscles and not likely to be the cause of doms.

they've known that for ages. it's the gym rats who've kept that one going...