Gladys Onambele-Pearson
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

Kostas Tsintzas
University of Nottingham, UK

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.108.22

In March of this year and in our capacity of co-leads for the Human and Exercise (HE) theme for The Physiological Society, we received a request from the Physiology News editor to write an article of current prominent importance to HE Physiologists. Admittedly, there is such a wide range of topics and interests in our HE theme that no consensus on a physiology topic per se could be had. We then settled on a topic we felt could cover the majority of the HE theme interest and decided to write a comment on our perception of, dare we say, the increasing trend for ‘alternative truths’ in the general area of human exercise physiology and nutrition.

Why is HE physiology particularly prone to ‘self-labelled gurus/authorities/dogmas’ in the subject? It may be to do with the widespread use of social media and the rise in the appreciation for an ‘athletic’ looking body and ‘optimal’ eating (to achieve this proclaimed body perfect) becoming less niche and more of a norm. Personal trainers, whatever their background (be it formally trained exercise scientists, or simply exercise and nutrition enthusiasts, including celebrities with little formal training), are establishing themselves as the voice of authority in all matters relating to exercise protocols, enhancing lean body definition, and optimising training regimes to include the type of nutrition perceived as necessary to achieve the desired goal.

Lessons from the ‘exercise guru’

These gurus would tend to highlight the benefits of healthy eating over indulging in a poor diet, and of exercising in a manner that minimises boredom as opposed to relenting to being sedentary. Our observations are that these gurus are very enthusiastic, passionate even, about their message, utilising a wide range of media (Facebook, personal blogs, Twitter, Instagram) to reach their audience and clients. They will speak in terms that are easily assimilated by the majority, they will respond promptly to queries, and will sometimes (not always) use references to the scientific literature to support their claims. Of particular concern is the fact they will often simplify a large body of scientific evidence. A case in point is a quote from a ‘guru’ to the effect that ‘Branched-Chain Amino Acids/BCAAs will improve your physical performance and reduce muscle breakdown, thus enhancing exercise recovery’. This statement is succinct (hence attractive to the general public). It is, however, not an entirely accurate summary of the effects of BCAAs in view of the lack of evidence in the literature on the ergogenic effects of BCAA supplementation before or during exercise (Bishop, 2010), and the inconsistency of their effects on delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and recovery of muscle function following exercise (Jackman et al., 2010; Shimomura et al., 2010). Although it is true that BCAAs affect muscle protein turnover and relevant signalling pathways after acute exercise, there is no compelling evidence coupling events observed at the cellular or molecular level after acute exercise with chronic functional adaptations (ergogenic, enhanced recovery from exercise, hypertrophy) following a prolonged period of physical training.

What is also striking is the maintenance of the rapport with the audience through addressing each member directly by their name, and often following their progress through the ‘body perfect lifestyle’ journey, supporting them with positive comments and encouragements via individual emails. Their reach is wide, indeed many counting their ‘communities’ or subscribers in the tens and even hundreds of thousands, and as such, more than many scientific papers would normally dream of directly reaching in terms of readership. What’s more, the training regimes advocated often cater to one who uses a gym, or prefers outdoors exercise or equipment-free workouts in their own home, thereby, together with regular ‘check-ins’, arguably increasing the lifestyle protocol adherence potential.

We would argue that research physiologists in academia tend not to engage directly with the public in this way. When researching healthy eating, we are aware of and would present the pros, the cons, and the limitations of any recommendation that our published data highlights. Where we disseminate publically our findings, it will primarily be through scientific journals in a language that would tend to automatically alienate a large segment of the population through its academia-specific terminology. Where we do disseminate to lay audiences, our message is always tempered, as we are (rightly) unwilling to make conclusions appear definitive, which then has the counter-productive result of leaving the layperson unsure of what actions to take from our message. To date, there is only a minority of researchers engaging fully with social media, though the general trend is for increased recognition of the need to engage in this way to make more people (scientists and lay public alike) aware of our findings. Indeed, although an increasing number of scientists are using Twitter to disseminate their publications and build their network of colleagues, this engagement, however, is still tentative as there are no academic institutions that (yet) reward their scientists for the number of Twitter or Instagram followers, or indeed hits on their Facebook page or online Blog. On the other hand, an increasing number of journals are active on Twitter and collect relevant statistics, and some even require their authors to submit tweetable abstracts. However, there is a weak correlation between tweets and eventual citations (Haustein et al., 2014), potentially explaining the social media dis-engagement of researchers. In the end, we, as research physiologists in academia, put our energies in those activities that demonstrate the type of external esteem likely to have an impact on our career development. However, we envisage a substantial number of scientists as active users of social media outlets in the near future, which will proliferate the dissemination of evidence-based messages on healthy eating and ‘efficient’ exercise regimes to lay audiences. It is of critical importance though that scientists develop specific communication skills to enable them to convey their messages in a way that can be easily assimilated by the majority and then applied to everyday life.

Where the ‘exercise guru’ may be undermining what human & exercise physiology research shows

In looking at a number of ‘guru’s social media postings’, our other thoughts were: how do they check on the veracity of their statements? Are they happy to use anecdotal reports as evidence enough? What formal qualifications do they have to enable them to formulate these exercise programs and nutrition/supplementation protocols or is life experience adequate enough in this context? Indeed, if we are looking at the average member of the public who exercises little if at all, what good is it to them to understand the difference between training at longer muscle length versus shorter muscle length (McMahon et al., 2013) when the first thing they should consider is the need to exercise on a regular basis particularly when starting from a baseline of high habitual sedentary behaviour? If another member of the public eats a poorly balanced diet, what good is it for them to distinguish between the benefits (or otherwise) of correctly timing their intake of various micronutrients when they should first understand how their habitual diet can be realistically tweaked to be more conducive to good health? These latter thoughts would probably explain why the apparent simplistic approach of the ‘exercise guru’ appeals to the lay audience.

Nevertheless, without wishing to vilify the ‘exercise guru’, here are 10 typical, arguably repressible, behaviours that we have gathered from a small sample of four ‘exercise gurus’.

1. Some of the gurus could have laudable credentials. Our case studies include one with a ‘Masters and Bachelors in Exercise & Nutrition Science, and over a decade of experience in physique transformation’; a ‘certified exercise instructor’; a ‘certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist’. Other credentials may not be justifiable for such a position of influence including being a ‘fitness model’, or a ‘bikini model’.
2. Outlandish claims are not off-limits. One claims to help female clients ‘manipulate their menopausal symptoms or their menstrual cycle to help you get rapid and long-lasting results (in a matter of 60-90 days) with their body image goal or dream beach body’. The program pertains to
   ‘provide key principles on how to attack body fat…using science’.
3. Listing and directly providing links to ‘the best nutrition supplements’ is almost synonymous with the territory. Demonstrating the clear proof of the definitive advantage of supplementation in the first place and, further, of the chosen supplement over any other supplement brand, does not appear to be a consideration.
4. Gurus are adept at gaining the confidence of the public through not only and with almost no exception presenting with
   the ‘goal physique themselves’, but also reassuring that any financial investment in their program (through subscriptions/purchase) would be ‘completely refunded’.
5. Proving that a program works is normally through self-reports of previous clients (though the evidence is not checked), and where the program has not worked, the prospective client is told that this would only be the case where they have not in fact followed the plan to the letter.
6. Strong, definitive statements are made: ‘protect your hormones’; ‘carb cycling to boost your metabolism and protect your thyroid’; ‘Carb cycling … keeps the body in a fat burning state’; ‘we will teach you how to make changes, what supplements you should take’; ‘supplement x is specifically designed according tothe macronutrient and micronutrient requirements of the female body’; ‘One of the worst enemies for men and women is high levels of oestrogen’; ‘we want to be in great shape … and eliminate fat’;‘not taking fish oil makes you overweight and lazy’; ‘I only recommend supplements that truly optimize your life’; ‘Fish oils make you leaner’; ‘Start supplementing with ~1,000mg of fish oil 3x per day. In fact, I sometimes recommend much higher’; etc. You probably see where we are getting at, with many of the claims, the statements are at best partially true and may sometimes only apply to persons with pre-existing conditions.
7. Calls to revolt against the establishment (read mainstream scientific reports) in favour of listening to the ‘good guys’ (read ‘the guru’ him/herself) are made in ‘live Facebook feedback streams’ by impassioned ‘gurus’ commanding a large audience.
8. Claims of endorsement are listed with no evidence: ‘this program is used by Hollywood celebrities, professional athletes, 1000s of people’.
9. The research that is referred to (if any) in the blogs from our case studies is only that which agrees with/supports the stance of the blogger. One such example is that used by a blogger who advocates the use of high levels of fish oil and quotes a single paper in which the effects were, to say the least, statistically weak. For example, reduction in fat mass (-0.5 ± 1.3 kg in treated versus+ 0.2 ± 1.2 kg in the placebo group, p= 0.04), and a tendency for a decrease in body fat percentage (-0.4 ± 1.3%body fat in treated versus +0.3 ± 1.5%body fat in the placebo group, p = 0.08). Furthermore the link between fish oils and increased lean mass is often seen in clinical (usually cancer) populations exhibiting sarcopenia/cachexia but not necessarily in young/healthy populations (McDonald et al., 2013). Similarly with the recommendations linked to high doses of fish oils, the balance between omega 3 and 6 is the key factor for safety here, as well as the presence of any pre-existing conditions (Ergas et al., 2002).

A need to recognise the value of, and reward engagement in, social media interaction for HE physiologists?

It may be that, and we would propose, there is an inverted snobbery against social media for physiology researchers and the tide may be for the turning. In an era of ‘alternative facts’, is it not our responsibility that the true (scientifically evidenced) message is made public rather than allowing rampant myths to be propagated and not challenged by those with access to the wider public, who are, in the end, our target audience? We would propose that we are in a privileged position whereby a lot of our research can and does have direct application pipelines and as such should reach the end-user directly from us, as we (supposedly) understand it better than any intermediate party does. To do so, we will need to acquire the communication skills necessary for the creation of ‘true science’ blogs, with the type of enthusiasm, responsiveness, and application of ‘results’ promoted by the ‘exercise gurus’, which will then give the public what it deserves: nuanced recommendations based on systematic and reviewed evidence. For instance, teaching that where supplements are concerned they should be exactly that: supplements and not substitutes for other food stuff.

Is the correlation between tweets and citations around the corner? In an era where celebrities become self-styled ‘exercise gurus’, is it appropriate for scientists to become celebrities themselves as Brian Cox has recently proclaimed? First things first: a workload model that accounts for social media interactions anyone?

References

Bishop D (2010). Dietary supplements and team-sport performance. Sports Med 40, 995–1017.

Ergas D et al. (2002). n-3 fatty acids and the immune system in autoimmunity. Isr Med Assoc J 4, 34–38.

Eugene McMahon G et al. (2013). Impact of range of motion during ecologically valid resistance training protocols on muscle size, subcutaneous fat and strength. J Strength Cond Res. 28 (1), 245-55’

Haustein S et al. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: an analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 65, 656–669.

Jackman SR et al. (2010). Branched-chain amino acid ingestion can ameliorate soreness from eccentric exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42, 962–970.

McDonald C et al. (2013). Omega-3 fatty acids and changes in LBM: alone or in synergy for better muscle health? Can J Physiol Pharmacol 91, 459–468.

Shimomura Y et al. (2010). Branched-chain amino acid supplementation before squat exercise and delayed-onset muscle soreness. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 20, 236–244.