I was going to respond where do studies originate, not what do they comprise. However, epidemiological studies may develop as you describe. I guess my point is that you seemingly dismiss his one anecdote. I understand why you would because he started his post with "completely false," though he put a caveat in there. However, it's easy enough for me to look at "Corey Duquette" and think, oh, heavy running may result in very high uric acid levels (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00634977?LI=true), with levels going to ~7.5 mg/dl or ~450umol/l as a result of a single 800m (n=11) race (slightly less with 100m or 5000m both n=7). Then I remember, oh, there's an epidemiological study connecting high uric acid levels and increased risk of carotid plaque in men with uric acid levels over 6.8 mg/dl (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19012359 - even with no CV risk factors). There's another that gives a 39% increased risk of death per 1.0 mg/dl increase in uric acid, which would make the 3.0mg/dl increase in the above study kindof alarming.Then I ask, what if he's a high cortisol responder to exercise (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8973981) which may also be associated with high carotid plaque (https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2008-0496)? Don't even want to get into how exercise can be incredibly immunosuppressive and inflammatory. All that being said, I couldn't agree with the OP more, but with caveats.
ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
kanny wrote:Where do studies come from?
Ideally thousands of randomly sampled individuals where the effects of the unusual are seen to be just that.