> but meta-analyses still doesn't show a real performance bump
I wish all of these news articles would discuss the actual studies instead of lazily parroting the claims of the one guy who is trying to sell expensive Xenon-assisted Everest hikes.
These articles are always PR pieces for Lukas Furtenbach’s expensive Everest tours. Every single time I see the words “Xenon” and “Everest” in a headline, his name is in the article as the source.
> I wish all of these news articles would discuss the actual studies
They do, if you read them.
> While some doctors have used the gas in the past to “precondition” patients to low oxygen levels — for example, before major heart surgery — the practice hasn’t really caught on because “it hasn’t been as protective as one would hope,” he said.
> Mike Shattock, a professor of cellular cardiology at King’s College London, said “xenon probably does very little and there is virtually no reputable scientific evidence that it makes any difference.”
> Some research has shown that xenon can quickly acclimatize people to high altitudes, even as some experts say the benefits, if any, are negligible and the side effects of its use remain unclear.
All the quotes you posted basically say the same thing; There is no evidence for the efficacy of xenon. That's scientist speak for: "Xenon doesn't work".
Depends, it can also mean "this hasn't really been studied well" if there just hasn't been much research into it. I just pulled all the times it talked about studies or another expert talking about it being ineffective.
It depends. It might mean that there are no studies that show efficacy or the lack thereof.
A lack of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't work. It depends on what you mean by 'evidence.'
Take one or two reports.
A scientist would say, 'that's an anecdote.'
A lawyer would day, 'I can send you to jail with those two reports.'
> They do, if you read them.
I did read the article, which is how I knew Lukas Furtenbach was involved. Please don’t accuse people of not reading the article when they’re specifically talking about content of the article.
Anyway, my point was that if these articles wanted to be serious about the science, they’d lead with the studies and science.
Instead, they tack on weasel words (literally “some experts say” and “some research” as in your quotes ) in an attempt to make it feel like a both-sides style journalism while leaving Furtenbach’s claims as the headline and the main story.
It's not a scientific publication though... it's the NYTimes. The main story is that the guys managed a summit in 3 days. For all the controversy around Xenon and it's effects as a PED in sport the combo of hypoxia tents and Xenon provably worked at least this time to enable the rapid summit.