product reviews - vague, irrelevant space fillers..??

softlad

you might think so - for example...

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... r-10-37563

and

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/cate ... s-10-37564

Both appear to be by a fella called Phil Mosley - who I suspect has simply opened these products while at his desk and just necked them during his lunch hour without actually testing them for their stated purpose.

Can you tell me what is the point of testing recovery drinks unless you try to establish if they actually help you recover..??

Carry on like this and nobody will be taking you seriously at all...

softlad

well, it's great to see that BR is really getting to grips with this issue.....

not....

Jeff Jones

Softlad,

Unfortunately it's difficult for us to measure 'recovery' without doing muscle biopsies. So we need to operate under some assumptions.

We've included the following in the recovery drink reviews:

Recovery drinks containing a mix of carbohydrate and protein have proven, and well publicised, recovery benefits.

We're not going to replicate that information here – what we want to know is how practical and usable different drinks are, and whether they're good value for money.

softlad

Jeff - I'm not expecting surgical lab tests, but frankly anything is better than the nonsense that is written up there at the moment.

Nobody is asking for 'biopsies' for heaven's sake - but how about a bit of journalistic opinion volunteered as a result of someone actually testing the product in a real world training/recovery situation.

Surely it's not unreasonable to expect a recovery drink to be tested against its claims of recovery - and not "ooh, tastes nice, not very filling though...."

But if none of your writers actually ride bikes, then send a bottle to me and I'll test it. At least I know it will be done properly then.....

Incidentally, how do you establish a recovery drink's 'value for money' unless you actually test its recovery properties..?

Andy

So basically you were hoping to get freebies by criticising the reviews?

softlad

Andy wrote:

So basically you were hoping to get freebies by criticising the reviews?

thanks for that input. If I need patronising further, I'll be sure to let you know.....

Andy

I'm impressed you know what patronising means! Good lad!

softlad

Andy wrote:

I'm impressed you know what patronising means! Good lad!

so are you here for a reason, or are you just trolling...?

Jeff Jones

softlad wrote:

Jeff - I'm not expecting surgical lab tests, but frankly anything is better than the nonsense that is written up there at the moment.

Nobody is asking for 'biopsies' for heaven's sake - but how about a bit of journalistic opinion volunteered as a result of someone actually testing the product in a real world training/recovery situation.

Surely it's not unreasonable to expect a recovery drink to be tested against its claims of recovery - and not "ooh, tastes nice, not very filling though...."

But if none of your writers actually ride bikes, then send a bottle to me and I'll test it. At least I know it will be done properly then.....

Incidentally, how do you establish a recovery drink's 'value for money' unless you actually test its recovery properties..?

The problem in testing nutritional products solely by feel is that there are too many other important influencing factors. What training you've done, sleep, what else you're eating. If you're trying to measure a small effect, these things make it well nigh impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions. But there's still a value in informing people what's out there, and some aspects of what it's like.

I wouldn't rule out doing a more thorough test in future, provided we have the budget. And willing volunteers...

FYI, Phil rides a bike, and he's pretty handy.

softlad

Jeff Jones wrote:

FYI, Phil rides a bike, and he's pretty handy.

I'm glad to hear it. If only his reviews were as 'handy'.....

Of course in the absense of muscle biopsies and bearded scientists then all of this will be subjective - a bit like a bike review, I guess - and there are plenty of those on here.

The point being that bike reviews are inescapably subjective, but at least they are reviewed on the strength of someone actually putting them to their intended purpose.

Passing judgement on (and giving a review rating to) a recovery drink on the strength of its taste does you no favours.

I'm actually not particularly interested in recovery drinks as such, but I do read a lot of the reviews on here as they appear - as I'm sure a lot of people do - and both of these struck me as being particularly poor and irritatingly vague. My only suggestion would be that if you are not going to review something properly, then simply don't do it at all.

Jeff Jones

All reviews are subjective, not that there's anything wrong with that. What the reviewer has is experience with lots of other products in order to make an informed judgement.

But they also need to stick to what they know, and that's what they've done in this case. As I said above, there is still value in it.

It's actually a lot easier to review bikes than recovery products, because of the lack of influencing factors.

softlad

Jeff Jones wrote:

All reviews are subjective, not that there's anything wrong with that. What the reviewer has is experience with lots of other products in order to make an informed judgement.

You don't need experience of 50 other recovery products to establish if the one in question has an effect or not - perceived, clinical or otherwise. Any more than you need to have ridden 50 other aluminium-frame road bikes to tell if you like the CAAD9 or not.

If you accept that all reviews are subjective, then surely you must accept the contention that reviewing a recovery product simply by 'tasting' it is completely inadequate..??

Jeff Jones

softlad wrote:

Jeff Jones wrote:

All reviews are subjective, not that there's anything wrong with that. What the reviewer has is experience with lots of other products in order to make an informed judgement.

You don't need experience of 50 other recovery products to establish if the one in question has an effect or not - perceived, clinical or otherwise. Any more than you need to have ridden 50 other aluminium-frame road bikes to tell if you like the CAAD9 or not.

You left out: "But they also need to stick to what they know, and that's what they've done in this case."

If you accept that all reviews are subjective, then surely you must accept the contention that reviewing a recovery product simply by 'tasting' it is completely inadequate..??

Not at all, for the reasons stated above.

softlad

Jeff Jones wrote:

You left out: "But they also need to stick to what they know, and that's what they've done in this case."

You don't need to be a biochemist to know if a recovery drink provides you with any benefit (apparent or otherwise) when you wake up the next day, surely..?

If 'sticking to what you know' means not bothering to investigate the claims made by the recovery drink manufacturer, then exactly how is that providing a service to your readership..??

Jeff Jones

Please refer to my previous comments where I have explained exactly that.

softlad

Jeff - if you had explained it that well, then I would not still be asking.

Anyway, let's simplify it:

Are you happy that the two 'reviews' linked in my original post represent a fair, reasonable and informed assessment of the two products in question..??

A 'yes' or 'no' answer is all that is needed.

ride_whenever

Why not review recovery drinks WRT something like friij chocolate milk?

The important things with these drinks is, the base (milk or water) consistency, then the protein and carb weights for a bottle.

The thing is these products don't really need reviewing per se, sling them to a largish group of people and look for side effects, some have some fairly common ones, often they'll make people gassy, nocte can give you really intense dreams, creatine causes retention of water in muscles etc.

These will give people the relevant information needed if you intend to use them. Otherwise you'd be better off just providing a list of all the available products and links to the manufacturers websites.

Jeff Jones

softlad wrote:

Anyway, let's simplify it:

Are you happy that the two 'reviews' linked in my original post represent a fair, reasonable and informed assessment of the two products in question..??

A 'yes' or 'no' answer is all that is needed.

Yes, under the constraints previously outlined. And yes, they could be done in more depth too.