Interesting study...Diclofenac sodium (Voltaren) reduced exercise-induced injury in human skeletal muscle

I got curious so I read the full study on the journal site (qualifier: pretty briefly).

A couple of things: the mean height and weight of the participants were 5’11” and 174 lbs, respectively. The study classifies the men as athletic but doesn’t quantify or qualify that attribute; based on the mean heights and weights I’d say they were not runners.

The 20 min/day for 12 days of stair-stepping exercise is described as one they were unaccustomed to, and the muscle biopsied was the vastus lateralis. So the study aimed to test soreness/muscle damage somewhat equivalent to that experienced by, say, a road runner suddenly doing heavy hill work.

Subsequent CK values in the diclofenac sodium group were lower than in the placebo group and there was more muscle damage in the placebo group when the muscle was biopsied on day 12 of exercise. But the only biopsies were done after 15 days of the drug before the start of the exercise regimen, and on day 12 of the exercise regimen.

If you read the discussion it’s full of speculation of this may mean. For a runner, I’d basically say it says this: if you’re new to hills and start taking diclofenac sodium 15 days prior to starting hill work (to build up it up at cellular levels), you’ll be less sore than you’d’ve been otherwise because your CK won’t rise as dramatically as it would otherwise. If you’re new to running, period, and start training with the same regimen, you’ll also be less sore. But a single muscle biopsy at day 12 cannot predict the effect on long term regeneration unless — you guessed it — you design a study to test muscle tissue further out.

The study was sponsored by the pharmaceutical company that makes the drug. The skeptic in me says that the longer term tissue regeneration study was either not carried out because it was unlikely to yield desired results, or it was carried out and did not yield the desired results, in which case the company is not legally required to publish it.

Here’s the full text link:

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2000/07000/Diclofenac_sodium__Voltaren__reduced.1.aspx

I was going to read the study until you noted in your summary that it was industry-funded. I won't read an industry-funded study because of publication bias. They invest money into a study and make sure it has a positive outcome...nothing new there. This is a joke that the industry has become so polluted with pharma-funded studies.

OTOH, Diclofenac has an increased risk of cardiovascular disease:

Lets wrote:

will run for beer wrote:

I got curious so I read the full study on the journal site (qualifier: pretty briefly).

(...)

The study was sponsored by the pharmaceutical company that makes the drug. The skeptic in me says that the longer term tissue regeneration study was either not carried out because it was unlikely to yield desired results, or it was carried out and did not yield the desired results, in which case the company is not legally required to publish it.

I was going to read the study until you noted in your summary that it was industry-funded. I won't read an industry-funded study because of publication bias. They invest money into a study and make sure it has a positive outcome...nothing new there. This is a joke that the industry has become so polluted with pharma-funded studies (...)

Yep. The frightening thing is that many phycians (a) read only the abstracts and (b) don’t understand publication bias. In all fairness, if pharmaceutical companies didn’t sponsor drug research there’d be very little of either — drugs or research. Having said that, you can’t judge whether a study had been designed intelligently until you’ve read it. With basic statistics being the only requirement to get into med school, well...

Just because a study maybe biased doesn't mean we throw out the results. It just means we have to have a extra layer of scepticism when it comes to analyzing the studies.

Ezekiel bread wrote:

Just because a study maybe biased doesn't mean we throw out the results. It just means we have to have a extra layer of scepticism when it comes to analyzing the studies.

You could argue all studies are biased by definition since they always aim to further someone’s theory or hypothesis. Publication bias, however, means that studies that refute whatever claim a pharmaceutical company hopes to make don’t get published, period. So whatever your doctor reads before he prescribes you your medication is a drug trial that managed to somehow support its manufacturer’s claim. And thanks to legislation passed under Clinton any failed trials of said drug aren’t out there for you to find. And the “positive” result trials, like this one, may not be all that positive (or just relevant to your condition) once you read past the abstract and review the methodology and the conclusions.

They conveniently leave out that this study was funded by the adult diaper industry.

Aren’t most studied industry-funded? Who else is going to fund a study for random products? They are expensive. It’s not like randoms can just fund them or researchers/unis can pay for them all

Astrid wrote:

Aren’t most studied industry-funded? Who else is going to fund a study for random products? They are expensive. It’s not like randoms can just fund them or researchers/unis can pay for them all

+1

this

Biased study or not, now the stuff must be banned as a PED until proven not to work.

RRR wrote:

Astrid wrote:

Aren’t most studied industry-funded? Who else is going to fund a study for random products? They are expensive. It’s not like randoms can just fund them or researchers/unis can pay for them all

+1

this

If big diaper is involved it's a huge red flag. Their long term goal is to expand their customer base.