What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
Welcome to the Peak Performance forums!
To contribute to the discussions please either register here for free or login.
To access 20 years worth of Peak Performance downloads, articles, workouts as well as the locked members only forum click here to take a trial membership for $1.97
Useful Links: Quick Start Guide, Forum Guidelines, Terms and Conditions,Recent Activity…
11th Oct '05, 3:36pm
Dear PP forumites,
I am a little concerned having read last months Peak Performance news letter. I currently read the articles in PP as 'best-in-field' assessments of whatever subject they describe. For example, having read an article about the importance of strength training for triathletes, i now accept that such strength training is not only proved to have a positive effect, but in fact is to be considered best practice in establishing a training programme. I have read many PP articles and taken them at their word. I now avoid taking NSAIDs unless for specific circumstances of certain type of injury.
However, i now find myself questioning the basic premise of Peak Performance. The reason is the headline article in the last issue - Homeopathic remedies. How can the subscrition newsletter that trumpets itself as the bastion of sports science excellence possibly have an issue encouraging athletes to use homeopathic remedies? Homeopathy is not genuine science. Homeopathic remedies are not genuine remedies. At best they are pyschological catalysts (don't get me wrong, as PP has mentioned before, pyschological factors can have a strong influence, though far more in performance than in recovery); at worst they are con tricks. My honest belief is that most homeopaths place faith in what they do and aren't fraudsters, but that doesn't forgive them for the scientific ignorance their commitment to their 'science' shows.
Rather than attempt to lecture on the illogicality of using a 6C to 30C dilution of anything as a remedy, i'll just point you to the following link which deals with the subject far more eloquently & precisely than I could.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html
If you want proof that PP should be questioning the validity of any article on Homeopathic remedies, please just examine the case of the Oscillococcinum, the alleged flu remedy that works on a 200C dilution level - 200C requires 1 molecule to be diluted by a factor considerably larger than the estimated number of molecules in the universe.
How can I rely on anything else in PP's newsletter, if, at the next moment, PP is telling me that Arnica diluted to a level where it is almost guaranteed to not be present in any form at all in the substance actually sold is going to be more reliable than an anti-inflammatory drug or, more simply, Arnica salve containing genuinely active levels of Arnica?
I have nothing against herbal or natural remedies - in fact I would always turn to them first. Good nutrition is I am convinced the first stop on the path to great performance. But homeopathy relies on illogic and magic as validations of its efficacy [e.g. the 'memory' ability of water molecules to take on the specific properties of the orginal substance]. It is based on 18th-19th century work (some of which had a positive influence on general medicine at that time) that has now been superceded as we have achieved a greater understanding of medecine. There is so much we don't understand and could usefully spend our time trying to understand - yet people want to believe and spend a fortune on this 'magic cure' based on historical flawed science.
Surely PPs role is to actively promote what is cutting edge, best practice and scientifically-proven in sports performance?
So what was going on with including Homeopathic remedies? Readers will look at that article and, relying upon it and the reputation PP has, some may well choose to take non-effectual treatments and therefore hinder their recovery times as a result. Again, surely not what PP wants or is about.
Part of my work is in data analysis and I know how flexible results can be; but so far almost every piece of research that has shown Homeopathy to work has also been shown to be flawed in some way or open to different interpretations. Some have been due to statistical insignificance (i.e. numbers could have been down to chance), some due to flawed process, while others have simply proved the existence of a placebo effect - well, anybody in sports should understand the power of the placebo effect. Isn't it just the same as playing better, cos you wore your lucky pair of underpants?
The power of the mind is worth reporting on for sure and homeopathy would be an interesting digression within that subject, but by elevating Homeopathy to a rehabilitative science PP is demeaning the rest of its considerable sports sceince digest.
I would question any piece of information about any subject that a Creationist tells me, not because of the information itself, but because he/she is willing to believe in Creationism. There is diminishment of credibility by association. This is exactly what has happened to PP by publishing a Headline article advocating homeopathy as having a place in top-level sports performance.
In summary, I still can't believe that a dedicated publication on all aspects of sporting excellence included an article suggesting I use homeopathic remedies for sports injuries. What was PP thinking??
I appreciate the forum's consideration of what I have written.
Cheers
Phil
Phil Martin
PS Can i just add I would have not had a problem with an advocate and non-believer highlighting the issues and debating them - that would have been interesting (not least to see how a Homeopath defends the illogicality of the subject)
PPS I still have faith that strength training will improve my triathlon by the way
PPPS Hope that isn't too long a post for my first on this site
What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
11th Oct '05, 7:06pm
What a long winded post!
Medicine particularly sports medicine is not an exact science, surely!
I thought it was a good article!
Then I question someone who wants to ride a bike in speedos and spends time doing three sports averagely rather than doing one well!
What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
11th Oct '05, 7:27pm
Well, without wanting to focus on that topic specifically...
...evolution isn't an exact science, yet I don't go around giving credence to Creationism.
Homeopathy is voodoo science. Sports science tends to proceed by empiricism. It's not exact, but research and proof governs best practice. People try all sorts of weird things out, but evidence tends to be relied upon before training methods or nutritional programs gain widespread acceptance.
PP sold itself to me as a place where they'd cut through the pseudo-science bull often offered by Sports Company marketing departments and 'experts'.
But Homeopathy relies on 'magic' & mumbo-jumbo to convince people of its efficacy.
I just don't think it justifies its place as 'sports science', and certainly not as accepted sports science in the PP newsletter.
Nice to see a generously critical comment to start your reply too - like that sense of friendly debate
What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
12th Oct '05, 2:40pm
Hi
Thanks for your comments, which are very interesting. I'll make sure they're passed on to the editor and publisher.
Best
Mark E
PP Online Team
What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
30th Jan '06, 11:18am
Not wishing to get embroiled in a slagging match about homeopathy, but I find your views to be ignorant about homeopthy.
Have you studied the subject or are you basing it on the views of the drug comanies that would lose out if it was proven to be benificial.
My mother (who is/was a doctor) studied homeopathy and has been praciting it for the last 11 years and has helped patients when normal medicines didn't. I don't view that as quakery or faith healing.
S C A M OR F A C T ?
28th Feb '06, 6:47pm
If it works why knock it? o
Regards,
Max. wink
P.S. How do you explain the fact that many vets (the animal physicians not over 35's) successfully use homeopathy on their charges?
P.P.S. The same was said about Vit. C many years ago but it keeps me clear of colds so I use it.
Re: What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
28th Mar '06, 5:36pm
I agree with pwrmartin,
I have to say aswell, (all be it a bit long) but the article was well writen and illustrated the application of an open mind highlighting an opinion after research. Reread the following passage if your are not sure...
I have nothing against herbal or natural remedies - in fact I would always turn to them first. Good nutrition is I am convinced the first stop on the path to great performance. But homeopathy relies on illogic and magic as validations of its efficacy [e.g. the 'memory' ability of water molecules to take on the specific properties of the orginal substance]. It is based on 18th-19th century work (some of which had a positive influence on general medicine at that time) that has now been superceded as we have achieved a greater understanding of medecine.
I also would agree with the statement...
Surely PPs role is to actively promote what is cutting edge, best practice and scientifically-proven in sports performance?
I am also not a stranger to research and have yet to read a thorough, reliable piece of research promoting homeopathy. To the best of my knoweldge there has also never been research with testers blind to which test tubes contained homeopathic and which test tubes contained placebo's, that yeilded successfull results.
I appreciate that in the editors letter PP always puts a discliamer - however disclaimers are rarely worth the paper they are writen on, and considering that PP's position of "making sports science research available and understandable" I would expect more care to be taken on the style of portrayal.
What was Homeopathy doing in a PP newsletter?
28th Mar '06, 7:07pm
I agree and disagree with some of the comments made. I have not read the article so I cannot make comment on that.
I agree that homeopathy is not an exact science and has not had enough reliable research into the effect of such rememdies. I also agree that a lot of the stuff you get over the counter is a washed down isolated compound with little or no effect. But I do remember attending a seminar from a guy based at Middlesex University (I think) working for a organisation (Funded totally by donations much to the disgust of major drug companies-the guys words not mine) looking at the effects of natural biochemical compounds found in flora on conditions commonly found in humans. The guy spoke about these natural remedies in their pure form (not the stuff you see in health food shops) where the potency and the biochemical interaction with the other compounds within the flora had extremely positive effects on such conditions as tumours on test rats etc. What was also interesting was that many major drug companies make synthetic biochemical compounds from these flora sources which we overuse daily with toxic bioaccumulation with the body after long bouts of use.
Where did aspirin come from - a compound called salicin in willow plants which gave you the pain relief. Was this not a homeopathic remedy for pain? The list of remedies originating from flora and known to have a positive effects is not isolated to aspirin.
As for research and data analysis, we all know how author biased 'peered' reviewed articles are and how some 'peer' reviewers are sympathetic to the authors conclusions. This cannot be solely representative of research on homeopathic remedies but all research. You manipulate the data to fit - if one statistical test does not signify the data set enough, there are others that will. Plus data is interpreted differently. Two researchers can come up with two conclusions from the same data set.
If you are looking for total research driven articles, then subscribe to pubmed or sports discus. PP is bridging gaps from research to practical application. Also within sports training, how often do you complete something that you know is not proven to work through peered reviewed articles but you continue to do it because you have seen the positive effects of it. Take the accelerated hamstring rehab programme. Physios etc were doing it for years with many different variations before any peered reviewed literature was produced. And yet, there are still variations which do not conform to the research but are effective. We limit progress by waiting for research science (within sports science) to prove or disprove a topic.
What I believe PP to be conveying to their audiance (someone correct me if I am wrong), is to offer information about varied and diverse subjects that the audiance maybe interested in. I know with some articles I flick past them if I am not interested in it. While you may believe there is no place for these types of articles in the newsletter, others will. Its called choice. As for reading the articles and 'taking them at word,' then I believe you are missing the point. The articles should be thought provoking. They should stimulate you to find further information about the topic in question and drawing your own conclusion. I dont agree with every article but it provokes me to further investigate an area of interest. As a coach/student/athlete, PP is not the only resource out there and should not be the only resource referred to.
I guess it's not too long,
14th Aug '08, 8:44pm
I guess it's not too long, but if you are new here, I can ask you, what do you think about boot camp workouts? Are they necessary and do they have good results? I think they do. Please let me know what you think.
hello
1st Dec '08, 7:24am
thank you for ur information.
Be Healthy-http://www.boomeryearbook.com