I may be a bit cynical regarding this but the golden generation of British distance running didn't have compression garments. Simply, there is no substitute for hard work!

Not at all Nick but people should stop hiding behind science and just do the work. It's like a road race compared to a track race....there's no hiding on the track! 

I did compare a road race to a track race but there is no hiding in field events either!

Seriously though there are points on both sides.  Running hasn't really changed since the year dot, that's true BC, and hard work beats everything, but to ignore potential advances in science, training methodology, equipment and the like would surely be folly.  Where would we be without the chemical ice packs for our injuries for instance?  

With most of these "advances" you'll probably find that what works for one won't work for another (hence the disparate findings on compression clothing).  I've been trying out one of the latest crazes (barefoot running) this past 10 months and feel it helps me.  I know that plenty of people wouldn't be able to adapt to it or benefit from it but using it to supplement my running coincides with my most prolonged and consistent spell of training in years.  Coincidence maybe; anecdotal evidence definitely; worth trying though.

Can we be sure sleep is effective for everyone?

Nigel ,

What have you started !

Haven't read the articles , just the following replies.

I'll be expecting you Nigel this weekend wearing your " skins " from head to toe , with all your injuries ( a wetsuit ! )

And as for your Technological Gadgets Tommy : where do you get these devices for loosening your muscles before a race - You know , the thing that resembles a paint roller ;-)

 Evidence to support the claims made by compression clothing manufacturers has been growing over the last few years however one of the crucial requirements to maximise these benefits is the tightness of the garments. Essentially if you can function comfortably (certainly for running) in compression clothing it probably isn't tight enough to be making any difference! It's a bit like the old adage from no less a sage than Professor Ron Maughan regarding supplements "If they work, they probably contain an illegal substance. If they definitely don't contain an illegal substance, save your money because they won't work".*

Having said all that, if you really feel something works for you, whether it be compression socks, fancy trainers,  expensive supplements or odd bits of titanium in a bracelet (!) it probably does have an effect. It's likely that the effect is purely psychological but that can be enough to make you feel more confident. Confidence in your own ability is the most potent non physiological aid to performance.

A similar effect was found from the use of post exercise massage on rugby players. A well known study looked at the perceived effect of post match massage on a number of elite players using fully trained and experienced male massage therapists compared with another group receiving their massage from young female “massage therapists” who had no training or experience and were simply making it up on the spot. Results showed a far better level of perceived recovery amongst the group receiving the “fake” massage simply because they seemed to enjoy it more.

* Caffeine and creatine phosphate are the well documented exceptions (can also include some decongestants which have been proven to improve endurance but tricky ground here as some of these are restricted at certain concentrations or when found in conjunction with other compounds – speak to Graeme Fletcher(!) or check out the 2012 list www.wada-ama.org)

Just to put my twa penny worth in, I have an open mind on the subject, but as a scientist, I will defend scientists who publish in peer reviewed journals, and the 'New Scientist' is internationally recognised as gold standard. That means that it is highly unlikely that any paper appearing for publication in such a universally accredited journal would contain any article that was not rigourously scrutinised for content, scientific method and analysis by similarly qualified peer scientists, and that source of funding (as the first post alludes to) will make absolutely no difference to their decisions as to whether or not to recommend any submitted paper for publication.

Science by definition does not deal in absolutes, but speculates, and balances bodies of evidence. Theories are based on the balance of evidence, but are not facts. So if this research finds a link between compression garments and better athletic performance, and tendency to avoid injury, that does not make it fact, but provides evidence that supports that theory. Other science may present findings that disagree with this conjecture, but unless they are also published in reputable peer reviewed journals, then they represent little more than unsubstantiated opinions. There are plenty of whackos out there on every subject under the sun, conspiracy theorists, flat earthists and half of bible belt America thinks the Earth was created 7000 years ago. So I would take this research at its face value, but as the concluding sentence in most scientific research paraphrases, "more research is needed......."