Sports drinks are a rapidly expanding business. This story reports on one person’s experience with a new kind of sports drink (that includes protein in addition to the usual electrolytes) and the evidence to support its use in elite athletes. However, this story is flawed in several ways.
The story does a decent job of describing the strength of the available evidence. The story reports on two recent studies and appropriately points out that the studies were funded by the drink manufacturers, had small numbers of subjects, had different outcomes, and contradicted each other.
The story does mention the alternatives: the various sports drinks for athletes and water for the rest of us. However, the story does not adequately quantify the benefits of the sports drink. The story does say that the protein-containing drink provides 15% more hydration than the conventional sports drink and provides the caveat that this is not a crucial difference for most people, but this is not enough information on the benefits. How big were the benefits found in the studies? Although the story states that the protein-containing drink is more expensive than the conventional drink, this is insufficient information on costs. What is the actual cost to consumers?
The story does not mention harms. For example, the story does not mention how many calories are in the drinks and that overconsumption by non-elite athletes could contribute to weight gain. Furthermore, by focusing on the studies in which the subjects are elite atlhetes, the story crosses the line into disease mongering. In the setting of an obesity epidemic, there may be more harm than benefit in the widespread consumption of calorie-rich beverages when, in most situations, water would suffice. The truth is that except at the extremes, our kidneys do a miraculous job of keeping our electrolytes in precise and normal concentrations without a need for commercial concoctions.
Finally, the story does not quote any sources. The story should have provided some perspective from experts who have no stake in the claims being made.
Although the story states that the protein-containing drink is more expensive than the traditional sports drink, this is insufficient information on costs. How much more expensive? What is the actual price?
The story does not adequately quantify the benefits of the sports drink. The story does say that the protein-containing drink provides 15% more hydration than the conventional sports drink and provides the caveat that this is not a crucial difference for most people, but this is not enough information on the benefits. The story fails to explain the magnitude of the effects observed in the source studies.
The story does not mention harms. For example, the story does not mention how many calories are in the drinks and that overconsumption by non-elite athletes could contribute to weight gain.
The story adequately describe two recent studies. The story points out that the studies were funded by the drink manufacturers, had small numbers of subjects and were double-blinded.
There is only a benefit to special rehydration in sustained vigorous exercise, not the usual 15 minutes on the treadmill. The author recommends rehydration with a commercial sports drink for “elite athletes” without defining the term. Most physical exercise does not require special, commercially-marketed products. By focusing on the studies in which the subjects are competitive cyclists perfoming 80 kilometer time-trials, or on subjects losing 2.5% of their weight (equivalent to a 160 pound person losing 4 pounds), the story crosses the line into disease mongering. In the setting of an obesity epidemic, there may be more harm than benefit in the widespread consumption of calorie-rich beverages when, in most situations, water would suffice. The truth is that except at the extremes, our kidneys do a miraculous job of keeping our electrolytes in precise and normal concentrations without a need for commercial concoctions.
The story does not quote any sources. The story should have provided some perspective from experts who have no stake in the claims being made.
The story does mention the different sports drinks for athletes and water for the rest of us.
It’s clear that these drinks are widely available.
The story states that sports drinks are not new.
There is no way to know if the story relied on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.