Shoes for perky bums

Some of you will know that I have a bee in my bonnet about fitness shoes. You know the ones I mean. It started with MBTs  that were promoted as an "anti-shoe". Then we had Reebok Re-Tone trainers. You can't have missed the TV advert for Re-Tone. It featured about a hundred hypnotically bouncing perky bums and long legs. You probably didn't even notice the shoes to start with. OK I couldn't resist watching it again on YouTube so here it is. Try to concentrate on the shoes, I dare you.


Next in  line were Fit Flops, a craze that seems to have coincided beautifully with the summer - kudos to the Fit Flops marketing manager. Ladies, it's your dream come true! Now not only can you look cool this summer, your shoes can make you fit! How nice of you to combine two of our most important and all-consuming obsessions.


Finally, Skechers have got onto this bandwagon, with Shape-Ups. 


All these shoes (MBT people, they're still shoes in my book) share broadly the same marketing claim: to improve posture and fitness through working your body a bit harder than normal shoes. What I want to know is whether these claims are backed up by evidence. Unfortunately, my inquiries have been rather fruitless, as you will see. Which is a shame as it's the first time I've ever contacted companies to ask for the evidence behind marketing claims.


First I emailed Reebok to ask about their shoes. My email said:




Dear Sir/Madam
 
I am gathering evidence on toning trainers (including Reebok Retone/Easytone and Fit Flops) for my blog. I am particularly interested in the clinical evidence behind the marketing claims that Easytone/Reetone trainers improve muscle tone/strength and improve fitness. For example the claims in this advert: http://blog.fitnessfootwear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/reetone21.jpg.
 
I was unable to find any references to clinical trials/scientific experiments that support the use of Reetone/Easytone trainers for muscle toning on your website and I would be very grateful if you could send me the original studies. 
 
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
 
Kind regards,
Sabre


I got an auto-reply saying:

Dear Sir or Madam:

We have received materials from you that appear to include an unsolicited idea for our consideration.

While we genuinely appreciate your interest in our company, please be advised that neither Reebok International Ltd (“Reebok”), nor any of its subsidiary or affiliated companies, accepts or reviews unsolicited idea submissions including designs, marketing concepts, or inventions.  In accordance with this policy, none of the materials received from you have been reviewed or evaluated by Reebok.

Please do not send any further unsolicited ideas to Reebok as such submissions will not be reviewed or evaluated.

Sincerely,

Reebok International Ltd

I emailed again but with no further success. Bollocks to you too Reebok!

The Fit Flops people were marginally more helpful. Having emailed them with:

Dear Sir/Madam

I am gathering evidence on toning shoes for my blog which looks at the science behind consumer products. I have looked at the FitFlop website in detail and while I am pleased that there is some explanation of the science behind the products (this is sadly the exception rather than the norm), I would like more information please. I was unable to find references to published clinical research that supports the claims that FitFlops can have health benefits and would appreciate if you could send me the original studies (or full references for them).

In addition it was unclear whether the claims were based on clinical evidence or on consumer testimonials. I would be very grateful if (as well as sending me links to original studies) you could clarify the origins  (clinical evidence or testimonials) for the following claims:
  1.Reduce back stress
2. Reduce joint stress (knees, hip joints and ankles)
3. Increase muscle activation (up to 16% for womens hamstrings, up to 11% for womens lower legs, up to 30% for womens bottoms, up to 16% for mens quadricep muscles, up to 11% for mens calf muscles)

I found the above claims on  http://www.fitflop.com/benefits/. 

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Kind regards,
Sabre

I got a reply, from a real person this time, saying:

Dear Sabre,

Thanks so much for getting in touch and for your interest in our shoes. Have you seen this webpage which details the results and studies that our shoes have undergone? http://www.fitflop.com/benefits/research/  

Kind regards,

Natasha

Sigh. I emailed back reiterating that yes I had seen their website and wanted the original studies. I also emailed the two people, Dr Philip Graham Smith and Richard Jones at Salford University, who are mentioned on their website as having independently tested the technology. No reply at all, and all these emails were sent over a month ago.

All I've managed to establish so far is that the marketing is great but the customer service is woeful. Unable to actually look at the evidence, particularly for Fit Flops (which I want to buy!), I'm going to cobble together some kind of opinion anyway, based on what information I do have.

As I mentioned in my email to the Fit Flops company, my main interest is in the origin of the health claims made. Are they the result of proper controlled trials of some sort or are they based on surveys and customer feedback? This is what prompted my BS-o-meter, (taken from Fit Flops website):

"Please note that on page 10 of the Spring Summer brochure, we would like to clarify that the claim “you can improve your posture” is derived from hundreds of FitFlop wearer testimonials we have received."

One might ask why it matters that claims are based on testimonials. After all, if people say it works, where's the problem? The problem with surveys is that:

1. the group of people surveyed have a vested interest in the shoes working for them. After all, they've spent money on these shoes and so they are more likely to give a favourable response

2. we don't know how testimonials were sought or if people were randomly selected for views. Therefore we don't know what kinds of bias are present

3. The improvements are self-reported. No health professional has provided an independent assessment of whether the customer's posture or fitness has actually improved

4. There may be hundreds of people giving positive testimonials, but what is the overall number of customers? If a hundred customers out of a thousand are satisfied, that's only 10%.

5. We don't know if customers see improvements because of a placebo effect. Does posture improve because of the shoes or because after buying them, a customer starts walking a little bit taller and straighter? Expectation of an improvement can actually be the sole cause of improvement.

Without the information to hand, it's difficult to say whether there is evidence for health benefits. I have however found an excellent article that evaluates the pros and cons of Fit Flops and MBTs. I recommend you read it. I would add to the article by pointing out the risk of wearing fitness shoes as a substitute for proper exercise. This is a very real danger for lazy people like me. If they don't work and you give up proper exercise you'll end up less fit, not more.

The bottom line (geddit?) is that if they're comfortable and you like the way they look, buy them. But don't pin your hopes on them making you fit because it's difficult to find the evidence to prove it. I know it's jumping to a conclusion, but I do feel that if the evidence was solid, the Fit Flops people would have been happy to send me full references to published research.

I've just realised I didn't put a picture in this post. So here's something to counter all those female bums (cos bad science should be an equal opportunity activity).

Are feminist skeptics "woo filled idiots"?

My command of the social media site Twitter has grown and over the last month particularly I have come across or engaged in discussions about women and their relationship with science. My ramblings below are prompted by a post on the Blag Hag blog called The more feminists mistrust science, the more women look like fools. This was a response to another article published at I Blame the Patriarchy on a scientific study looking at the effects of porn. (BTW I'm not getting into a porn debate!)

I have also recently become aware of groups of people calling themselves "skeptics" who meet in pubs across the UK and take a critical view on pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo like homeopathy and astrology. I've never been to one of their meetings but they're held all around the country. Recently a group called Ladies Who Do Skepticism formed along a similar vein. Recent discussions on Twitter have focused on why women don't get more involved in skepticism and come to these meetings.

So here are my thoughts.

Science has historically been the preserve of men (as have most professional and academic fields). The situation has improved somewhat but I am aware that the numbers of women in science is still pathetically low, particularly at the top of professions. If there isn't a glass ceiling then women must be very good mimes. The factors involved are numerous, and I won't go into them. However I think that our perceptions of who does science still hasn't changed much. For example, Google search for "scientist" and you usually get something like this or this. Google also suggests the related search "female scientist" which feeds into the assumption that male is the default setting for a scientist (search for nurse and Google suggests "male nurse").  I think that may women who are not scientists don't see science as something that affects them, or at least not as something to get involved with. This is true of non-scientist males too, but the male scientist stereotype is an extra barrier for women.

I've also noticed a certain aggression in some of the skeptical discussions that take place online. While aggression is not an exclusively male trait, I have picked up on an element of machismo and derision towards those who do not agree and I can see how that might be off-putting to women more than men. I haven't been to a skeptics meeting but I'd be interested in seeing for myself whether this is true in real life.

Anyway back to the Blag Hag article, in which the blogger (Jen) basically attacks Jill (from I Blame the Patriarchy) for questioning the validity of a a study on the effects of porn on men. It's interesting because Jen appears to see herself as the voice of scientific reason, defending science from "those feminists who distrust science". And yet a look at Jill's article shows that Jill was simply approaching the subject at hand with a healthy dose of skepticism. The really fascinating part is when  Jen says:

"Every time a feminist treats science like some great big boogeyman, she makes all feminists and women look foolish and ignorant."


I have a big problem with this statement. Do we really have to simply accept any scientific study for fear of looking like "woo filled idiots screaming conspiracy theories"? Why does questioning make us look stupid rather than skeptical? Are male skeptics accused of being foolish and ignorant too?


I actually think the right place is a middle ground and I can find points in both articles to agree and disagree with. Some, but of course not all, scientists and science experiments are misogynistic. But Jen's overreaction to healthy skepticism from a fellow feminist is wrong and serves to discourage women from skepticism. Women are constantly being bombarded by crap science, whether it is surveys on sexual happiness, creams for prolonging youth or all-natural yoghurts to feed the young 'uns. Even if we get it wrong, we shouldn't hold back from questioning the science if we think something's amiss. We should rush to hold those who conduct and benefit from science to account. 


I want to comment also on intuition. Whether it is skepticism, experience or simply (my favourite) an internal bullshit-o-meter, we all need something to prompt us to start questioning where a problem may not be obvious. All of these things make up what I like to think of as intuition, and therefore I don't know why intuition is seen as such a dirty "emotional" thing. What's important is that intuition leads to rational scrutiny. I want to add that I don't think emotion and science are mutually exclusive. Scientists are passionate, they are defensive, they get excited, they are competitive and their work can be biased by emotions and beliefs. So let's not act like science is always cold and rational, because often it isn't. 

To sum up (because I could ramble on forever), I'd say the following are reasons why women aren't more involved in skepticism (questioning bad science).

1. Science isn't by female non-scientists seen as "for us" because of pervasive stereotypes and male domination
2. There is a lot of bad science targetted specifically at women out there. This may have the effect of women building up some kind of immunity and an ability (or need) to simply ignore it all
3. Questioning what appears to be science may draw negative reactions from others and accusations of being anti-science
4. The idea that science is cold and logical combined with the message that logic is for men and emotion is for women
5. Most importantly,  there aren't enough women doing science. This is by far the biggest problem. You don't need to be a scientist to be a science sceptic but it helps, not least with having the confidence to question.

Hey it's not all doom and gloom. Have a look at some drawings by schoolchildren of scientists before and after visiting labs and talking to scientists. If this doesn't cheer you up and inspire hope, nothing will.

L'Oreal Youth Code

Alright, I said I wasn't going to go for the low hanging fruit with this blog and I am trying to steer away from talking about anti-wrinkle products, I really am. But that doesn't stop me becoming infuriated, as I was this week when I saw an advert for L'Oreal Youth Code. Not only was the pseudoscientific tripe in front of me, it was in an ad break for Genius of Britain, a historical look at some of Britain's past scientific genius. The juxtaposition made it seem extra insulting. There really is no safe place!

The headline is "inspired by the science of genes". L'Oreal's website has an explanation of the science here. Gene expression is described as occurring when skin genes are activated following stress. In young skin this happens more quickly than in older skin, indicating that it takes longer to respond the stressor. Having "discovered" this wonderful science, L'Oreal developed the Youth Code Range, which is:

"Enriched with patented Pro-Gen (TM) Technology.

Applied daily, the moisturising formula helps improve the skin's ability to behave more youthfully" (ref)

Ah Pro-Gen Technology, where have you been all my life? And more importantly, what the heck are you? Further digging reveals that Pro-Gen Technology is supposed to speed up the rate of gene expression and contains biolysate. The "code" part of Youth Code refers to the claim that this cream will help your skin reset its genetic code.

Here comes the science bit.

Genes contain information. Gene expression is what happens when that information is used to make a product, usually a protein. Proteins then go away and do get things done in body cells. This whole process is fundamental to all life, it makes the body work. Gene expression happens almost everywhere in the body and so I'm OK with the idea that external stress can lead to gene expression occurring, because so many things can require proteins to be made. The genetic code refers to the sequence of animo acids that make the gene; the blueprint.

The link between this science and what L'Oreal have put into Youth Code is not explained anywhere, and yet that's the crucial part of how this cream should work. That in itself suggests something fishy. I couldn't figure out what Pro-Gen Technology is, but I did find this handy list of ingredients and what they're used for. It's interesting to see that ascorbyl glucoside is whitening, but that's another can of worms!

Taking a historical view of skincare products and science, it seems that products are always peddled to consumers based on the trendy science of the day, be it radioactivity, chemicals, hormones or genetics. Today's trend is of course genetics and it appears that L'Oreal have caught the public fascination and are cashing in. Simple as that. There is no evidence that a cream can tinker with gene expression to produce more youthful skin, and if a cream could affect my genetic code I'd be highly concerned because that would be tinkering with my very DNA and causing genetic mutations. No thanks.

But wait, there are proven results! Oops, it's a consumer test not real scientific evidence.
 
"PROVEN RESULTS



Proven and confirmed by women:
- Skin looks rejuvenated: 78% agree*
- Wrinkles appear reduced: 69% agree*
- Features appear rested: 71% agree*

*Consumer test, 229 women"

At least L'Oreal are careful never to claim that their products reduce wrinkles, just that they appear to. Skin isn't actually rejuvenated, it just looks like it. The "features appear rested" made me laugh because I have no idea what that even means.

Oh L'Oreal. Ever since I went to the Science Museum lates event you sponsored you've really been getting under my skin.