For the exercise science nerds- lactic acid/cooldown question

[miaou]

If you think something needs to be peer reviewed to be scientifically valid then you don't know what you are talking about at all. If you have any doubts, a quick Google will reveal what crap peer review has turned into. Regardless, it's never been a requisite for the validity of any particular science.

The weaknesses of the peer-review system have nothing to do with this.

When it comes to basic science, per the subject at hand, scientific consensus is formed by assessing all the available scientific evidence on a specific subject. This is done by scientific reviews and meta-analyses (which are published in scientific journals, and thus become available to the entire academic field).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.

https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/scientific-consensus/

Another good source of information is systematic reviews of the literature. This is a mechanism that experts use to develop their consensus, in fact. If multiple independent reviews all come to the same conclusion, that is a good indication of the consensus.

If the reviews existing on a specific subject all reach the same conclusion, you can safely assume that conclusion to be the consensus view of the field (if the level of evidence for that consensus view is sufficient to assume a good degree of confidence, then it starts to enter into science textbooks).

If someone tells you "science says X", you cannot safely assume that to be the case (case in point: this thread).

 

[ocean size]

So, after some Googling around, I learned that modern exercise science says that lactic acid (now called lactate) is not what causes muscle soreness, and is not inherently bad. The 'old' view (that I subscribed to) was that lactic acid directly lead to soreness, but apparently science has moved on from that..... The 'new' view is that soreness is caused by inflammation and microtrauma to the affected muscle groups. OK.

So, I'm typically subject to extreme, ridiculous soreness for days and days after squatting. I've obviously been trying to alleviate that, and this week after squats I did a cooldown that included lighter post-work sets, a bunch of air squats with no weight, and jogging for 5 minutes on the treadmill. (And stretching, but I had always done that post-workout). It was like a night and day difference in how sore I got- the next day, I almost felt like I hadn't worked out at all prior. I had very little soreness and discomfort, and am thinking about upping my training volume & intensity seeing how much better my body feels. The difference is just dramatic. (Strangely, deadlifts never got me anywhere near as sore, even in my lower back).

My question for exercise science nerds is- if lactic acid didn't cause my DOMS, why would an extensive cooldown make me feel so much dramatically better? If it's all caused by inflammation and microtrauma- like, how would a cooldown help microtrauma? You either broke down the muscles or you didn't.....

I want to be pro-science, but my symptoms match the 'old' view of lactic acid and DOMS more than the new one. Just curious what people smarter & more educated than myself think

Maybe it wasn't the cool down and just the fact you've had enough sessions on this program you are getting over DOMS

When I start linear progression I get three day soreness the first season, two days the second session three days later, and just a little bit the third seasons and nothing beyond that. The second session seems to only help the first etc

 

[LatFlare]

All of the above is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

You used the expression "exercise science says that...". The expression "science says", means there is some sort of scientific consensus on a particular claim. On the other hand, if there isn't, nor was, any consensus on a specific claim, then "exercise science" never "said it".

If there are no reviews published in reputable science journals arguing for that specific claim, then there was never any scientific consensus. It was never something "science said". And science never "said" lactic acid causes DOMS.



I know a shitload of coaches thought that (some probably still do). And I am sure some school teacher here and there also parroted that claim. Maybe even a shitty college professor or two. Pretty much all of those people where scientifically uneducated or badly educated.



Case in point, here is what a 25+ year-old review had to say on the subject:

link - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640419208729932

From a very brief search I found there are reviews from at least the early 80's saying lactic acid has nothing to do with DOMS.
link - https://www.jospt.org/doi/pdf/10.2519/jospt.1983.5.1.10




TL;DR: Re-read my first post.

Perfect.

Ok so tell me then, where/how did you come up with the criteria that if the source of any given piece of information is not a scientific study then it can't be considered part of science? That's ridiculous. What about lectures given by respected professors? What about college text books? You're telling me the information gained from those sources can't be considered part of science? I just think that's ridiculous. Should the information gained from the results of a poorly designed, poorly executed, scientific study be considered part of science? And who gets to decide which studies be disregarded and which ones dictate the direction of that scientific field of study. Please, tell me.

lol.

 

[NurseKnuckles]

It only becomes science when a science meme is created about it and it is peer-shared.

 

[Badger67]

Yes, id like to science!

 

[NurseKnuckles]

I science on the reg, bruh! sciencing is easier when people don't pick on what you science. Like way easier.

 

[rmongler]

Peer-review is a meme; real science only happened when the royal society gave status and awards to people doing cool shit.