Can Type 1 Diabetics Master Ultra-Trail Running?
An ultra-trail is a long-distance trail running competition, usually held in natural settings such as forests, plains, or mountains, and typically covers more than 80 km. It is a physically and mentally demanding event, particularly for athletes with insulin-dependent diabetes who must also regulate their blood glucose levels.
Vauthier initially focused on physiological changes and their effects on performance and alertness. As the director of the Trail Scientifique de Clécy in Normandy, France, he and his team monitored 55 non-diabetic athletes using masked continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) over the course of a 156-km ultra-trail (six laps of 26 km, with +6000 m elevation gain). The athletes wore CGMs starting the day before the race and continued wearing them for 10 days thereafter. Building on his earlier physiological research, Vauthier shifted his focus to the subjective experiences of insulin-dependent athletes. In collaboration with the InterPsy Laboratory at the University of Lorraine, he conducted remote interviews with 13 ultra-trail runners to better understand the challenges they face and the psychosocial skills they develop through long-distance competitions.
'As a diabetic myself and an ultra-trail runner, I am considered a peer and have access to social networks dedicated to this practice,' he explained in the preamble. 'This allowed me to approach the runners more easily on the theme: 'Tell me about your last race.''
Each interview lasted an hour and focused on the paradox of living with a chronic illness while pursuing extreme athletic goals.
Qualitative analysis identified recurring themes, including their stories, and revealed several key themes, including how the experience shaped their self-understanding, helped them manage their diabetes, boosted their motivation, built their expertise, and increased their sense of independence.
Digital Communities
'We are seeing communities being created where everyone contributes pieces — like a puzzle — which creates a kind of nebula of collective intelligence. No two do the same thing, but no one copies each other; therefore, everyone benefits. Of course, by 2025, these are essentially digital communities,' said Vauthier.
'It is really a form of peer support,' he explained. 'It is a bit like the model used in addiction recovery, such as Alcoholics Anonymous — except in this case, the groups are not created for therapeutic purposes, but they end up serving that role. They are not activist groups and have no specific agenda, yet they are still incredibly powerful.' He continued.
'What is also quite striking is the almost familial relationships that individuals with T1D have with each other. With the sensors, pumps, and omnipods, they easily recognise each other on the beach, and it is pretty much the only case where athletes accept their role as role models and will say to a child with a sensor, look at me too, I have one, and you see, anything is possible. I participate in marathons with T1D. I do a lot of ultra trails. These communities also offer practical solutions to a wide range of challenges, particularly technical challenges. For example, how to display blood sugar readings on a watch while running, how to interpret an error message on a pump, or how to keep a sensor in place during hot weather or rain.' 'You post a question and get 40 replies in 10 minutes. Patients with T1D are highly responsive. It is truly the art of resourcefulness, elite version,' Vauthier noted.
Building Flexibility
The study also explored psychosocial skills, which play a key role in many educational programs. Researchers have found that trail running has a notably positive impact on individuals with T1D, helping them manage stress, give and receive social support, and improve their problem-solving abilities.
'When you are able to manage when your pump breaks down in the middle of a run in the mountains, if there is no more food at the refreshment point because you had to stop unexpectedly, then you are able to manage your daily worries thanks to a strong approach to empowerment and a great ability to be flexible — a useful quality in everyday life.' Finally, being able to run an ultra-trail when you are diabetic requires you to know your illness perfectly and tame it completely. 'And we feel that it is not the same thing to know your illness to avoid theoretical complications at 20 years old than to prepare for a race that you dream of. The motivations are not the same. Ultimately, they become hyper-experts without any desire — as we might have thought beforehand — to put themselves in danger. This study shows that the patient's experience is extremely important and that it is always interesting to listen to them talk about their illness,' Vauthier said.
The Clinician's Role
Vauthier raised important questions about how healthcare professionals should engage with these highly skilled patient communities: should they act as mentors and join GroupSat at the risk of affecting their spontaneity? 'Are we ready to prescribe WhatsApp groups, especially when there is so much talk about social prescribing these days?' he asked.
He also emphasised that the athletes interviewed were not representative of the general diabetic population. They all came from higher socio-professional backgrounds, with strong technical abilities and high health literacy levels. 'To me, they are a bit like the 'Formula 1' of diabetes,' he said.
Continuing this metaphor, Vauthier questioned whether the lessons learned from these athletes could be applied to the general population. 'Is this a kind of laboratory — or a sign of growing health inequalities between those who have access to strong networks and advanced technologies and those who do not?' The athletes voiced concerns about this gap and admitted that researchers did not yet have a clear answer.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Scientists Find Evidence of Grim Long-Term Effects of Fad Diets
The way Westerners diet — often alternating dubious and restrictive food regimens with binge eating, in a phenomenon known as "yo-yo dieting" — may be messing with their gut flora and their brains. In a new study published in the journal Advanced Science, researchers from France's University of Rennes and Paris-Saclay University found, after conducting a series of studies with mice, that yo-yo diets appeared to result in long-lasting changes to their gut bacteria. Also known as "weight cycling," this form of dieting often involves people taking on restrictive — and often extreme or trendy — plans to lose weight, only to get so hungry from such the vast and unsustainable change in their habits that when they go back to the way they ate before, they end up eating too much, and gaining back all the weight and then some. While it's well known that yo-yo dieting is a bad idea compared to making sustainable choices to eat healthier foods, recent studies have begun to show its links to other detrimental health effects, including increased risk of kidney and heart disease and hormonal changes that can slow down the metabolism. In their new study, the researchers from Rennes and Paris-Saclay simulated human yo-yo dieting by alternately feeding mice a higher-fat and higher-sugar diet reminiscent of those eaten by the modern Westerner and one that was lower fat, over a period of several weeks. When they were switched back onto the richer diet, the mice started showing signs of binge eating. Not only was this effect seen in the mice who were subjected to the yo-yo diets, but also to rodents who had eaten healthier food but were implanted with "altered" gut bacteria from the other mice. Curiously, the French researchers also found that shifts in the rodents' diets appeared to change their relationship to food as well, adding to the body of evidence that fad diets and the yo-yo effect they instill could be considered a form of disordered eating. "By carefully analysing the brain patterns of the mice on the dieting schedule, the researchers could see that they were probably eating for pleasure rather than because they were hungry," a press release about the study notes, "as if the brain's reward mechanism had been rewired." While it's far too soon to tell whether that effect will be replicable in humans, anyone who's experienced the yo-yo dieting effect personally can attest that that first bite of a burger or fries after going weeks without is indeed very, very satisfying. More on mice studies: Scientists Gene Hack Mice So Their Livers Produce Their Own Ozempic-Like Drug Solve the daily Crossword
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Skeptical Intelligence Is Crucial In The Age Of AI
Skeptical Intelligence In boardrooms, strategy offsites, and investor summits, the conversation invariably turns to artificial intelligence. Will it take our jobs, supercharge our growth, or expose hidden risks we've never anticipated? Amid the hype, one truth emerges: in a world awash with machine-generated insights, the uniquely human ability to question, probe, and test assumptions—what we might call Skeptical Intelligence—could be our most indispensable asset. Yet despite billions spent annually on leadership development, few executives can precisely define what it means to think skeptically, let alone how to develop it. To understand why Skeptical Intelligence deserves a seat alongside IQ and Emotional Intelligence, we need to revisit how these earlier concepts reshaped our understanding of human capability—and then explore what a third pillar might entail. The Age of IQ For much of the 20th century, intelligence meant only one thing: IQ. It was the gold standard, the quantifiable metric by which students were sorted, employees were promoted, and national rankings were compared. The concept of general intelligence originated with Charles Spearman in 1904, who observed that individuals who performed well on one type of cognitive test tended to do well on others. This statistical correlation suggested a broad, underlying mental capacity. Alfred Binet in France and later Lewis Terman at Stanford created IQ tests that could numerically represent this capacity, leading to the IQ boom of the 20th century. IQ proved remarkably good at predicting certain kinds of success: academic performance, logical problem-solving, and even long-term earnings. But by the 1980s, cracks began to appear. Why did some top scorers flounder in the real world while others with merely average IQs thrived? The Rise of Emotional Intelligence The first serious challenge came from Howard Gardner, whose 1983 book Frames of Mind introduced the theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner argued that musical, spatial, kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal intelligences were just as real and valuable as linguistic or logical-mathematical skills. This pluralistic view was controversial but set the stage for even more focused alternatives. In 1990, two psychologists, Peter Salovey and John Mayer, proposed the concept of Emotional Intelligence. They defined it as the ability to perceive, understand, manage, and use emotions effectively. In their view, emotions were not a distraction from rational thinking but a vital component of it. But it was Daniel Goleman who truly ignited the global conversation. His 1995 bestseller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ argued that self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills often trump raw cognitive horsepower in leadership and life. Goleman's work popularized the idea that a high EQ could distinguish great leaders from merely smart ones. Corporations embraced the concept eagerly. Emotional intelligence trainings became standard fare in leadership programs at GE, IBM, and Goldman Sachs. Consulting firms created entire practices around measuring and developing EQ. And yet even with these advances, the dominant paradigm still focused on how well we feel and connect—not necessarily how well we question. Enter Skeptical Intelligence In the last few years, a new concern has emerged. As machine learning systems become capable of astonishing feats—drafting legal briefs, diagnosing diseases, predicting consumer churn—our natural tendency is to trust them. Algorithms, after all, seem less biased, less emotional, more data-driven than we are. But recent high-profile failures—facial recognition systems that couldn't recognize dark-skinned faces, loan algorithms that penalized women, language models that hallucinate references—have underscored that AI can be deeply flawed. And these flaws are often subtle, buried inside complex statistical models that even their creators struggle to fully interpret. The result? The need for a new kind of human intelligence: the capacity to critically interrogate the outputs of sophisticated systems. This is where Skeptical Intelligence comes in. Skeptical Intelligence is not the same as mere contrarianism or reflexive doubt. It is a disciplined approach to questioning that combines curiosity, critical thinking, epistemic humility (knowing what you don't know), and a toolkit for evaluating evidence. If IQ is about solving well-defined problems and EQ is about navigating social and emotional landscapes, Skeptical Intelligence is about resisting easy answers and probing beneath the surface—especially when powerful technologies tempt us to outsource our judgment. We can draw on decades of research in critical thinking and cognitive psychology to sketch out its potential components. Scholars like Robert Ennis, Richard Paul, Rita McGrath, Eric Reis, and Linda Elder have long studied what it means to think critically. Their frameworks emphasize abilities such as: In this sense, Skeptical Intelligence can be thought of as a disposition for critical thinking applied rigorously to the modern data and AI landscape. Why We Need Skeptical Intelligence Now Paradoxically, the better AI gets, the more tempting it is to disengage our skeptical faculties. Machine learning models often produce outputs accompanied by confidence scores or impressive-looking graphs, which can lull decision-makers into a false sense of certainty. A 2022 study by Harvard Business School found that managers were significantly more likely to accept flawed AI recommendations if they were presented with visually compelling dashboards—even when inconsistencies were apparent. This is not merely a theoretical risk. Consider the 2020 incident when a widely used recruiting algorithm at a Fortune 500 company was found to downgrade resumes from women because the training data contained historical biases favoring male candidates. Or the series of fintech apps that misclassified minority borrowers as high-risk based on opaque clustering techniques. These failures happened not because executives were malicious or incompetent, but because they lacked sufficient Skeptical Intelligence to interrogate the models. Warren Buffett famously said, 'It's good to learn from your mistakes. It's better to learn from other people's mistakes.' In the AI era, it's best to preempt mistakes altogether by cultivating a culture of healthy skepticism. This does not mean ignoring AI insights. Rather, it means creating systems of 'trust but verify'. Leaders high in Skeptical Intelligence know how to ask pointed questions of data scientists and to challenge assumptions without falling into endless analysis paralysis. The Practice of Skeptical Intelligence Imagine a CFO reviewing an AI-driven forecast that predicts a 12% uptick in demand for a new product line. Instead of simply applauding or rubber-stamping the recommendation, the CFO trained in Skeptical Intelligence would ask: Or picture a marketing VP using a generative AI tool to craft campaign messages. Someone with strong Skeptical Intelligence wouldn't just check grammar—they'd probe for embedded stereotypes, test multiple prompts for consistency, and cross-check factual assertions. Skeptical Intelligence also means knowing when to consult outside experts, when to run pilot tests before full-scale rollouts, and when to keep a human in the loop for judgment calls that have ethical or reputational stakes. Building Skeptical Intelligence in organizations How can today's companies cultivate this emerging form of intelligence? Skeptical Intelligence as a Superpower When historians look back at the early decades of the AI revolution, they may marvel at how readily humans deferred to machines—sometimes with spectacular results, sometimes with catastrophic consequences. The leaders who thrive will be those who balanced innovation with interrogation, speed with scrutiny. IQ and EQ remain foundational. But Skeptical Intelligence—the disciplined, curious, humility-infused ability to question even the smartest systems—may prove to be the crown jewel of human capability in the algorithmic age.
2 days ago
'Fossil' object dubbed 'Ammonite' discovered on the outskirts of the solar system
Astronomers have discovered a "fossil" body residing on the outskirts of the solar system, according to new research. The object – which goes by the formal designation 2023 KQ14 but is nicknamed 'Ammonite," in an apparent nod to the widely found, ancient fossilized mollusk – was detected by the Subaru Telescope in Hawaii, according to a paper published Tuesday in Nature Astronomy. Ammonite was discovered at its perihelion, which is the point in a celestial body's orbit at which it is closest to the sun, according to the paper. It lies beyond Pluto at a distance of 71 AU, or astronomical units – putting it 71 times the average distance between the sun and Earth, according to the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAOJ), whose astronomers made the discovery. The object was found in a region so far on the solar system's outskirts that gravity from Neptune, the planet farthest away from the sun in our solar system, has little influence on it, Fumi Yoshida, a planetary scientist at the NAOJ and co-author of the paper, said in a statement. Such objects are technically known as sednoids. Ammonite is only the fourth-ever sednoid to be discovered, the researchers said. "The presence of objects with elongated orbits and large perihelion distances in this area implies that something extraordinary occurred during the ancient era when 2023 KQ14 formed," Yoshida said. "Understanding the orbital evolution and physical properties of these unique, distant objects is crucial for comprehending the full history of the solar system." Astronomers first noticed the object several times in 2023 and confirmed its existence with follow-up observations in 2024 by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope in Hawaii, according to NAOJ. Astronomers were also able to track the object's orbit over 19 years by studying old data from other observatories. Ammonite has maintained a stable orbit for at least 4.5 billion years but its current orbit differs from those of the other known sednoids, according to the paper. The discovery indicates that the outer solar system is more diverse and complex than previously thought, according to NAOJ. In addition, the existence of Ammonite again calls into question the existence of a possible Planet Nine, a long-hypothesized ninth planet in the solar system that some say could explain the orbits of other distant objects through its gravitational influence, should it exist. "The fact that 2023 KQ14's current orbit does not align with those of the other three sednoids lowers the likelihood of the Planet Nine hypothesis," said Yukun Huang, an astronomer at the NAOJ and co-author of the paper. "It is possible that a planet once existed in the solar system but was later ejected, causing the unusual orbits we see today." Ammonite was found as part of the FOSSIL survey project, which stands for the Formation of the Outer Solar System: An Icy Legacy, according to NAOJ. A more classical name will be assigned to the object by the International Astronomical Union at a later date, the researchers said. The Subaru Telescope is among the few telescopes on Earth capable of making such a discovery, according to the researchers. "I would be happy if the FOSSIL team could make many more discoveries like this one and help draw a complete picture of the history of the Solar System," Yoshida said.
