UKC

Nice short medical paper on benefits of climbing-
http://journals.lww.com/cjsportsmed/Abstract/publishahead/Climbing_Has_a_Po...

In reply to Mike Lates:

I can't read the full article at the moment because virgin media are sh!t and I'm reading this on my phone but, I'd be interested to see what the control group was: it isn't clear in the abstract.

In reply to gethin_allen:
30 patients

move on, nothing to see here.

In reply to neuromancer:

Not unusual...

In reply to ianstevens:
Unless you have access to the site through your overpaid library subscription, I mean university fees, I always thought 30 people (so 15 in the control) would be pretty statistically insignificant. Maybe I'm wrong?

As someone with a history of chronic back pain, I'd say you could probably say the same about any exercise. As gethin says, probably useful to see what the control did. If it's yoga, I'm interested, if it's sitting on the couch, then LDO (Like duh, obviously).

In reply to neuromancer:



Couldn't tell you what they did, remember I go to a university that cares more about the VC's tennis court and "student experience" than access to literature. However, I was under the impression that sports science studies typically have very small sample sizes. With regards to statistical significance, any sample over 10 is generally fine for most stats tests based upon variance (and it's various flavours) which this study would use. Whether that sample represents the population as a whole is another question... and probably the one you're trying to ask.

I'd *guess* that any activity that means you are a) strengthening muscles and b) putting them in a position different to the classic "office chair" pose is probably good for the back.

In reply to neuromancer:


Depends on the size of the effect. The bigger and more uniform the effect, the smaller the number you need. There's no magic number.

I haven't read the paper.

In reply to Mike Lates:




In other news.....


excercise is good for you!

In reply to timjones:

okay okay, take it on the chin. posted more as something to help to drag your moaning couch potato mates out than a serious eureka moment.

In reply to Mike Lates:

I had loads of lower back pain before I started climbing, despite doing athletics, horse riding, tennis, golf and cycling. Climbing sorted it out like nothing else. So it seems nor all exercise is created equal, as some of the sniffier responses above would suggest. I know I'm a sample of one, but I'm loathe to ignore my experience, even though I would appear more intelligent if I did...

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Make that a sample of two, I had severe lower back pain in my early/mid thirties that (touch wood) has almost entirely evaporated, I'm now mid forties. This cessation coincided with me taking up regular climbing - I had previously been relatively fit and active (football, hillwalking, swimming, cycling, rowing).
I certainly think the way that climbing requires you to frequently reach above your head and hang a good proportion of your weight from your extended arms is not often needed in other Sports and in my non-scientific analysis this has some beneficial effect on the lower back.
P.S. The tone of several replies to this innocent thread is quite dispiriting, for my part I'd like to say thanks for posting - it's not irrefutable evidence, but it is an interesting study.

In reply to neuromancer:

probably useful to see what the control did. If it's yoga, I'm interested, if it's sitting on the couch, then LDO (Like duh, obviously).

Exactly. As far as sample size I'm not sure, are the tests performed to assess the conditions amenable to clear statistical analysis? If it was a simple treated/untreated measure the difference in size or weight then the sample size is plenty big enough, but I suspect the testing is more subjective, along the lines of "on a scale of 1-10 how much does this hurt?"

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


Speaking as a sample of one, it was taking up sheep shearing at the age of 40 that finally sorted my back out

In reply to gethin_allen:


+1 for this, I can show any effect on my experimental group using a clever choice of control.
Most people typically look at the experimental sample first, and are satisfied when they read that the effect was absent from the control. However, as I try to teach my students, the control sample is where everyone hides their dirty little secrets!

CB

In reply to cb294:
Typical academics gettin all picky; nae wonder I failed exams so often with you lot keen on being all bogged down in details

In reply to Mike Lates:

Climbing, and previously karate, which involve a lot of twisting of the spine have always increased lower back pain for me.

In reply to Mike Lates:

I started to get lower back pain when I stopped climbing as much. When I started climbing more it went away.
I don't care about sample sizes.

In reply to Mike Lates:

Nice find, as others have put it already it would be interesting to know what the control group was doing to put some perspective on the active group's results. A follow up equivalence study with other sports could qualify climbing effectiveness in its own right.

Regarding the statistical power, it's difficult in this situation as its obvious to all who is on what treatment, a better design would have been a cross over study in which the two groups do both sets of exercises, alternating halfway.

In reply to Mike Lates:

I had backache from my late teens onwards - doubtless due to reading too many academic articles sitting in a university library. I took up climbing 5 years ago and backache pretty much doesn't happen. I reckon it's the stretching.

In reply to Mike Lates:

Hasn't helped me at all! I was fine before I started bouldering. Considering Pilates. I've heard Yoga can be bad as the stretches compress the discs.

In reply to Mike Lates:

I need to do more than just climbing to keep lower back pain away. I hang from rock rings (but that's to prevent golfers' elbow), do some pull-ups and then some press-ups. That cures it (all stretching really).

In reply to The Ivanator:


Agreed. There also seems to be a wider diversity of movement than in most other sports. Every move is unique. Plus, certainly on steeper routes one develops core strength too. But the key thing suggested by the study was that people may keep it up more than doing a boring load of exercises each day.


Yeah sadly they often are. It's helpful to remind oneself that smartarses put others down in order to feel better about themselves.

In reply to stp:


Or because science works by questioning work that's been done, ensuring that all claims made are legit. If you want your ego inflated science is not the field for it.

In reply to neuromancer:


A quick google reveals a previous study.

http://www.kai-engbert-sportpsychologie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Publi...

In reply to ianstevens:

Plenty of ego boosting in science.

As we're looking at sample sizes, let me up it. When climbing, excrutiating back pain. Now I run more and climb rarely, hardly any back pain. Isn't anecdotal evidence brilliant?

In reply to XXXX:

There's nothing wrong with anecdotal evidence so long as you keep it in perspective. Pretty much everything said about climbing training is anecdotally based since there are almost no studies done. But this doesn't mean its all worthless.

Your particular anecdote is most definitely worthwhile. It suggests that climbing for lower back pain may not be helpful for everyone. This raises more questions. Which people does it help? What percentage are helped, what percentage make no improvement and what find it makes their back pain worse. And why? etc. Good questions are what lead science forward.

In reply to XXXX:


Not so much in my field...

In reply to stp:

I think it's a mix of usual UKC opportunist put downs and the OCD scientific type who can't see past the figures. Sadly climbing seems to attract both types in disproportianate numbers and forums exaggerate this further. Now I am sorry to the OCD brigade but I don't have any research or results to back this up but if you look up profiles and other comments made a pattern invariably emerges. If you recognise yourself here and take offence try looking back on your past 50 comments and take stock of the impression the rest of us get.
Thanks to those who liked the sentiment of the post, my faith in there stll being some climbers I'd like to share a beer with, climb with etc remains intact.

In reply to Mike Lates:

Seems strange to me, what else but scientific comments would you expect on a thread that starts with linking to a scientific paper?

Anyway, the scepticism voiced here was rather mild. Most natural scientists are extremely cynical about medical publications, because they are often pointing out the bleeding obvious or reveal an allergy of the authors towards maths and the hard sciences.

My favourite is this one from the Journal of Diabetes Care, 1994:

Mary M Tai, MS, EDD : A Mathematical Model for the Determination of Total Area Under Glucose Tolerance and Other Metabolic Curves

OBJECTIVE To develop a mathematical model for the determination of total areas under curves from various metabolic studies.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In Tai's Model, the total area under a curve is computed by dividing the area under the curve between two designated values on the X-axis (abscissas) into small segments (rectangles and triangles) whose areas can be accurately calculated from their respective geometrical formulas. The total sum of these individual areas thus represents the total area under the curve. Validity of the model is established by comparing total areas obtained from this model to these same areas obtained from graphic method Gess than ±0.4%). Other formulas widely applied by researchers under- or overestimated total area under a metabolic curve by a great margin.
RESULTS Tai's model proves to be able to 1) determine total area under a curve with precision; 2) calculate area with varied shapes that may or may not intercept on one or both X/Y axes; 3) estimate total area under a curve plotted against varied time intervals (abscissas), whereas other formulas only allow the same time interval; and 4) compare total areas of metabolic curves produced by different studies.
CONCLUSIONS The Tai model allows flexibility in experimental conditions, which means, in the case of the glucose-response curve, samples can be taken with differing time intervals and total area under the curve can still be determined with precision.

Embarassing enough that this thing made it through the review process, even worse that it has been cited several hundreds of times!

UKC is also a great community for sharing papers quickly (rather than ordering them via your library if you don´t have immediate access).

When looking up whether I could download a paper someone was looking for, I recently came across the following gem:

Gerold, KB, Cranial gunshot wounds best managed in specialized trauma centers, The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, May 1991, Vol. 91, 425.

Cheers,

CB

In reply to cb294:


With probably not enough due respect, I rest my case.

In reply to Mike Lates:

Hi,

my reply wasn´t meant as a scientific in joke. Rather, I tried to give a couple of admittedly rather extreme examples that illustrate why natural scientist are typically wary of medical papers, which may explain the critical responses to the OP.

The first example was a medic reinventing calculus after 300 years, with a couple hundred other medics using "Tai's method" to determine the area under a graph over the next few years. Would have thought that this idiocy was obvious to anyone who had maths in school, but maybe I am wrong.

The other one of being better off in a hospital than at our GP when shot in the head almost looks like a pisstake, but is apparently also meant as a proper publication.

Anyway, I do appreciate that we scientist can often become preachy about our pet subjects, even in situations where this may not be called for, but I still don´t see what other response you would expect on a thread linking to a scientific paper?

Cheers,

CB

In reply to cb294:

Those are brilliant I must bookmark them.

Grumpy people of ukc with no scientific background: imagine that this link is a daily mail diatribe about foreigners. Imagine how you might disagree or be skeptical? Now just trying adding a bit of empathy and imagining you understand proper scientific process.

Nobody is telling you off for posting a paper, but it is normal to question spurious claims and if you disagree you are wrong.

In reply to cb294:


I assume that you can point to some peer reviewed research that backs up this claim, together with exactly what statistical measure is being used to define "most".

In reply to planetmarshall:

Of course not, when arguing our own points we are allowed special pleading!

(insert smiley here...)

CB

In reply to neuromancer:

This implies that the people who made the paper don't understand the 'scientific process' either then. It also implies that people without a scientific background don't have the intelligence to understand scientific reasoning. (This itself is an example of poor or fallacious reasoning, the argument by authority.)

To me scepticism is a good thing, its what science thrives on. But being disrespectful, arrogant even, trying to display one's cleverness is something entirely different.

In reply to stp:
No it doesn't. Neither of those follow. That's a straw man. It argues that the people who have been attacking the skeptics in this thread, taking the scepticism as a personal insult and returning with their own (to include accusing them of personality disorders for disagreeing) might just not understand scientific process.

I thought that the daily mail might be something they might empathise with questioning.

Good try though, shame you had to resort to name-calling as well.

In reply to planetmarshall:
Which concludes no statistically significant difference between climbing and an organised strength and flexibility regime, in percieved and reported response to pain (not, for example, inflammation markers, mobility test scores etc).

Which I suppose is to be expected I guess.