Research takes a lot of time and resources to conduct. The research findings are often published in journal articles where peers can review them . However, the popular press can also print the results of a study, albeit in a summarized format. The popular press picks on stories that are likely to attract many readers to their sites, partly as a way of promoting their papers or a way of keeping their readers abreast with emerging stories (Lavelle, 2015). Readers of the popular press must, however, be aware of the fact that such summaries may not contain the details of the original research. Factors such as the limited space, the consideration of what would interest the readers as well as the biases from the editors, among others, can influence how the popular press summarizes the research findings . This paper seeks to analyze the results of a study as contained in a primary research article viz a viz the summarized version of the results as included in the popular press.
Summary of the primary Article
In this analysis, a research article titled “A runners’ high depends on cannabinoid receptors in mice” is used. The study was conducted by Johannes Fuss , Steinle Jorg, Bindila, Laura, et al. , and approved for publication on September 4, 2015. The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal and hence was subjected to thorough scrutiny before the actual publication .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Why the study was performed
The runner’s high is a common feeling among athletes that comes after an athlete has had severe physical exercise. Most athletes have reported having feelings of pleasure and sudden increase in the euphoria immediately after a physical workout . However, science has never been able to explain the biomechanism involved in runner’s high accurately . The study was provoked by a popular belief that associates endorphins with the phenomenon of runners’ high (Lavelle, 2015). Despite the widespread belief in the involvement of endorphins, no previous studies have shown the precise mechanism of action of the endorphins.
The study was provoked by the findings of two previous research findings that associated the runner’s high to two physiological systems: the opioid system and the endocannabinoid system. According to the study, physical activity such as running increases the plasma concentration of the β-endorphin, which is an opiate . Similarly, running or any other form of physical activity increases the plasma level of anandamide, which is an endocannabinoid chemical. The endocannabinoid is the chemical that scientists have linked with pain relieving and happy feelings after an exercise like running.
The idea of the impact of β-endorphin on athletes first surfaced in the 80s when research showed a high level of β-endorphin following a prolonged physical exercise. At the time, the researchers assumed that the same chemicals must also be responsible for the “feel good effect” and euphoric feelings that athletes experience after an exercise (Ramsey, 2017).
Even though the β-endorphin theory is a prevailing theory among scientists, recent studies have cast doubt on its applicability in explaining the concept of runner’s high. In recent studies, it was revealed that the β-endorphin are too large and hence cannot cross the Blood-Brain Barrier. Since the β-endorphin cannot cross into the brain, there is doubt as to whether the molecule is solely responsible for the creation of the runner’s high (Fuss, Steinle, Bindila, et al., 2015).
In this new study, the focus is shifted to another chemical known as anandamide as being responsible for the runner’s high. The anandamide is the chemical that has been associated with psychoactive, feel-good effect of marijuana use. However, unlike the β-endorphin, the anandamide can cross the blood-brain barrier.
The study aimed to demonstrate the biochemical process behind the runner’s high. In the study, which was conducted on mice, a combination of pharmacological, molecular genetics and behavioral studies were carried ou to understand the mechanism of the runner’s high (Fuss, Steinle, Bindila, et al., 2015). The researchers sought to test the hypothesis that anandamide was the active chemical produced during exercise that caused runner’s high.
How the study was performed
The study was conducted by applying a combination of three concepts such as pharmacological, molecular genetics, and behavioral concepts . The research was done using mice and the results interpreted in the context of human beings. The study involved 32 mice which were all subjected to the same conditions initially before the conditions were changed (Ramsey, 2017). The first step of the research included placing all the mice on a running wheel for three days. The idea was to acclimatize the mice to the running wheels in preparation for the research . After two days of acclamatizaon , the mice were divided into half and one half assigned into a running (RUN) group while the other half were assigned non-running (CON). The RUN group of mice was then subjected to one five more hours of running before being subjected to behavioral testing. The mice were then subjected to another one-hour free wheel access following successful behavioral testing . Exactly two days after the behavioral testing , the mice were subjected to another five hours of wheeling before being tested for the concentration of the endocannabinoids in the plasma and the cerebrospinal fluid. The next study was to determine the endocannabinoids and endorphins caused the running-induced anxiolysis and analgesia.
Materials and methods
The study was divided into two separate experiments. Together, a total of 234 male mice were used . The mice were mainly obtained from Charles River at eight weeks of age. The first experiment involved 32 mice. The first experiment aimed to establish the impact of acute running on the anxiety-like behavior of the mice. The second experiment sought to block the observed running-induced response from the first experiment using pharmacological antagonists to endorphins and the endocannabinoids. In the second experiment, 146 mice were used . The opioid antagonist used in the second experiment includes the naloxone, CB2, and CB1 antagonists, all of which were diluted in normal saline.
Findings of the study
The first experiment indicated that the runner's group of mice had significantly reduced thermal pain sensitivity. Similarly, the results of the study indicated that runners displayed less anxiety compared to the control group that did not run. According to Fuss et al. (2015), long-distance running in reduces anxiety and pain in mice. The three features such as anxiolysis, analgesia, and sedation were observed in the experimental mice. Further tests showed that the plasma levels of endocannabinoids were significantly elevated while the levels of endocannabinoids in the cerebral spinal fluid (CFS) remained unchanged (Fuss, Steinle, Bindila, et al., 2015). The results further indicated that the level of endocannabinoids in the brain tissues remained unchanged even after long-distance running. The results are contrary to the findings of a recent study which found that wheel running can increase the levels of anandamide in the Hippocampus region of rodents. The argument is that the lipophilic nature of the endocannabinoids can affect the accurate detection of the chemicals in specific brain regions.
In the second experiment, it was revealed that the blockage of the cannabinoid actions through the use of antagonists inhibited the running-induced anxiolytic behavior. The running-induced reduction in thermal pain sensitivity was significantly reduced following the injection of antagonism to the cannabinoid blockers.
Importance of the study
The study sought to understand the biomechanical process involved in the runner’s high. In this experiment, Russ et al. (2015) tried to use behavioral, pharmacological and molecular genetics to understand the relationship between endorphins and the phenomenon of runner’s high. The findings of the research confirm that long-term running can reduce the anxiety-like behaviors while inducing analgesic feelings sedation in the subject mice. According to Russ et al. (2015), the acute effects of running coupled with the feeling of euphoria have been responsible for runner’s high feeling in humans. Through the experiment, Russ et al. (2015) can demonstrate that the decline in the anxiety-like behaviors following long-distance running depends on the cannabinoid receptors (CB1 and CB2) located on the forebrain of the GABAergic neurons. The study concludes that the runner’s high phenomena in mice can only occur when the mice have an intact endocannabinoid systems .
Popular Press Reporting of the Study
In an article posted on the New York Times under the title “Homing in on the Source of Runner’s High,” Gretchen Raynold tried to explain the concept of runner’s high, using the findings from a scientific study. In this article, Gretchen argues that endorphin has been getting unnecessary credit for the runner’s high when in fact; something else is responsible for the phenomenon. In an accurate of the findings by Russ et al. (2015), Gretchen makes it clear to the readers that a new substance known as endocannabinoid is responsible for the euphoric feelings associated with athletes. According to Gretchen, the endocannabinoid chemical acts like marijuana to produce the “feel-good” effect that athlete experience after long hours of physical exercise (Gretchen, 2015). The endorphin, according to Gretchen, is the chemical that is responsible for lightening the mood of the athletes.
Gretchen emphasizes the fact that previous research that linked endorphin to the feeling of happiness after a period of exercise was justified. In his argument, the fact that endorphin levels in the blood rose after an exercise could justifiably be associated with pain-relieving properties, in much the same way as morphine. However, research has refuted the claim by pointing out that endorphin cannot pass through the blood-brain barrier . Hence it cannot be responsible for the runner’s high. In other words, the endorphin may reduce pain in the muscles of athletes, but the chemicals cannot directly affect the brain.
The article by Gretchen summarizes the findings by Fuss et al. (2015) in a much simpler way. The article aims to break the complex findings found in the original article into easier to comprehend format. Gretchen must have written the article knowing very well that the readers of the column may not have a sophist icated understanding of the workings of biological systems. The article gives a clear and concise summary of the primary research in a manner that laymen and laywomen would find very easy to understand.
Even though the article by Gretchen was meant to be a summary of the primary material , it gives a detailed analysis of the study from the beginning to the end. The summary does not lose any of the details of the research, and hence readers are not likely to miss out on anything contained in the primary research .
The article by Gretchen is written with objectivity without any bias. It is clear that Gretchen’s main objective in writing the article was to inform the readers about the new findings concerning the phenomenon of runner’s high (Gretchen, 2015). The article remains true to the primary findings, and hence the readers are not likely to be misled in any way.
References
Fuss, J., Steinle, J., Bindila, L., et al. (2015). A runner’s high depends on cannabinoid receptors in mice. Cross Mark
Gretchen, R. (2015). Homing In on the Source of Runner’s High. The New York Times-Well.
Lavelle, J. (2015). New Brain Effect Behind Runner’s High. Scientific American
Ramsey, L. (2017). The real reason you get a 'runner’s high' from a long run. Pulse Live.
