No, the boffin (not Panorama) was making the point that every other species of animal on the planet drinks when it is thirsty and not according to a schedule; this was illustrated with reference to cats and dogs (as species of animals). This conclusion was not based on animal research.
Panorama explained that a benefit had only been demonstrated in prolonged, high-intensity exercise and not in moderate exercise: this is relevant because the majority of consumers only engage in moderate (if any) exercise.
The point was that supplements are unnecessary if your diet is balanced.
The major predictors of injury are factors such as distance and intensity which are unaffected by the shoe. As demonstrated on the program a natural toe-strike style of running is much less stressful than the heel-strike style which modern running shoes protect us from; to put it another way: you don't need better shoes, you need [a] better running [style].
The thrust of the programme's argument (based upon the conclusions of a published and peer reviewed study) was that the majority of the claims made by manufacturers of sporting products are not supported or substantiated by research or science: it wasn't the purpose or intention of the programme to recommend products (although my conclusion would be "none").
Im not really disagreeing with the programme, as much as I felt that for people trying to highlight misleading information in marketing they were a bit to close to doing the exact same thing from the opposite view. I know that a lot of unfit and overweight people are very willing to throw money rather than effort at the situation and buy anything claiming to help.
My point about the Boffin was just that the other animals dont need a schedule, because I dont think anything sweats to the extent humans can, or at least not many animals. Itd be like saying we shouldnt wear hats in the sun because cats and dogs dont or pretty much anything else we'd like to argue
Ive tried to change running style as a very heavy heel striker, high-arched so very minimal natural absorbtion in my foot and I started running at over 20 stone (~19 now) so probably an extreme case. If you run barefoot your central nervous system is meant to keep you off your heels and run on the forefoot to naturally avoid impact, but it feels terrible on my ankles and not much better on my forefoot. In cheap £20 trainers I go straight back to heelstriking and can feel discomfort in my lower part of my lower leg, in rrp £130 Asics cushioning trainers (last seasons are always like half price) it feels allround comfortable. Ive run over 2000km in the last couple of years in just 3 pairs of Asics and not had a single injury which I think given my size is well worth £100 a year given theres next to no other expense
The other detail they skipped over is the quality of cushioning varies, you can see the cracks where a crumple zone forms in trainers as the cushioning is less effective, the £20 Reeboks got this in maybe 100km with my weight mashing them up, but the Asics do stay well cushioned for a lot longer. I do get the point that a lot of the skinny 8 stone gym women running on shock absorbing treadmills probably dont need to be buying £100 trainers especially some of the
Nike ones that arent even very technical.
It was still interesting to watch anyway
