« Antioxidants in Equilibrium | Main | Two Hormones »

Elite Athletic Training and Disease

July 17, 2006 07:02 PM

My grandson Corey and I are off to the US MotoGP races at Laguna Seca early Wednesday morning. In my absence I am posting another one of Mark Sisson's terrific essays. In this, he further elaborates his thesis that elite athletes who are constantly presented to us in the media as super fit, in fact, are not. They pay a terrible price, as do all professional athletes, for their successes.

In my view, they are so specialized and overtrained they have little real fitness for life. Lab experiments on rats often show that those that play and run are more fit than their fellow cage inhabitants. Their running becomes habitual because that is all they have in the sterile environment of the lab cage. Elite athletes, in my view are similar to these caged rats. Their habitual and almost obsessed training puts them in a lab-like environment where they are not free-ranging wild animals. Recall the experiment where wild rats where compared with lab rats in their ability to hang from a wire. The lab rats hung until they dropped. The wild rats pulled up onto the wire and ran off.

I prefer to live like a wild animal, not an overtrained rat living in a cage.

As we have come to expect, Mark nails it. He has the right evolutionary perspective too and writes lucidly. See it below...

Art,

In a prior post, I introduced a notion that training for sports competition at the elite level was the antithesis of a healthy activity. Since many people seem to think that athletes are almost by definition healthy, I thought I might develop that idea a bit further in this post and open it up for discussion.

Please don’t misconstrue what I say here as advocating any sort abstinence from sports or from training. On the contrary, I believe sports of all types can play a huge role in personal development, self-awareness and self-image, and may even help mold long-lost community life-skills like sharing, mutual cooperation and loss acceptance. I will make a case that sports and other non-group recreational exercise activities can contribute greatly to health, longevity and the quality of life. But, as with all things in life, moderation seems to be the key.

I first became aware of the distinction between “fitness” and “health” when I was competing as a marathoner in the 1970s and later as a triathlete for a while in the 80s. From 1975 until 1980 I averaged between 75 and 110 running miles a week in my training. Much of that mileage was done at over 75% of my VO2 Max and a substantial portion at over 90%. During that period, I became extremely “race fit”, as defined solely by the ability to enter a race and run fast. On the other hand, in retrospect, I consider myself to have been very unfit in a true Darwinian (or EF) sense during that time. I would routinely get upper respiratory tract infections, irritable bowel conditions (probably cortisol and ischemia-related), chronic tendonitis in my joints, and I eventually developed osteoarthritis. I spent an average of 5-6 weeks a year sick or injured (running was a year-around sport in those days) yet I was considered extremely fit! My injuries got so bad in 1980 that I could no longer train at the level required to be a top marathoner, so I switched to triathlons for a few years, and raced quite well in that nascent sport. Unfortunately, the same illnesses and injuries continued to plague me and the set-backs piled up.

When I retired beat-up at the ripe old age of 29 in 1982, I decided to write a book on triathlon training and to focus on the idea of “quality” over “quantity” in terms of mileage and training time. I wasn’t the first to really delve into this, and much discussion about maximizing training has gone on since. But I came up with a theory that the human athlete is much like a helicopter. The old saying about helicopters (and it may have since changed) was that according to the laws of physics, they are not supposed to be able to fly. The fact that they can is great, but the wear and tear of overcoming this “natural order of things” requires that they spend an inordinate amount of time being maintained – up to an hour and a half of maintenance for each hour flown. Well, the same holds true for humans. We were not designed to run (or cycle, swim or skate) for hours each day at 90% VO2 Max, or to spend hours each day in the gym lifting heavy weights. The fact that we can and that we are able to derive some short-term performance gain or adaptation to these exercises is great – if your desire is to measure your performance against another human. But we must recognize that in so doing – in going beyond the “natural order of things human” - we need to spend an inordinate amount of time on maintenance, or we will break down just like a poorly maintained helicopter. Our bearings will wear out, our parts will oxidize and corrode and our engine will fail. Literally. Athletic performance may be impressive, but it comes at a huge cost.

Here are some real cases to review – and many of these are people I know: Greg Welch, arguably the greatest all-around triathlete of all times (he won Ironman Hawaii, the ITU Worlds and the world Duathlon Championship) was forced to retire at age 37 due to heart problems. He has had over 10 open heart surgeries and wears a pace-maker. My friend Mark Montgomery, who was a top pro triathlete for many years, had his pace-maker installed at age 46 as a result of V-tach issues. Chris Legh and Julianne White, each an Ironman winner, have each had entire sections of their colon removed immediately after a race due to “ischemic conditions” where the blood supply to the GI tract was rerouted for so long (as the body diverted the blood to its periphery to cool itself) that whole sections of the colon literally died from lack of oxygen and nutrients. John Walker, one of the greatest milers of all-time was diagnosed with Parkinsons at age 46. Bruce Balsh, Steve Scott and Lance Armstrong (all endurance athletes) all got testicular cancer after a few years of competing. Most of the top runners from the 80’s don’t run anymore; many can barely walk due to arthritic conditions. And we haven’t even gone into the hip and knee replacements occurring in the post NFL and NBA guys only in their 40s.

One of the most alarming trends in sports these days is the increase in EIA or Exercise Induced Asthma. In some countries, over 25 % of elite endurance athletes eventually develop EIA as a direct result of their superhuman training schedules. In many cases, the diagnosis requires treatment with otherwise “banned substances” such as salbutamol, salmeterol and corticosteroids under a special IOC “therapeutic use exemption.” Another phenomenon that has concerned me for a while is the prevalence of amenorrhea in younger female athletes who train at elite levels, particularly runners and gymnasts. This condition, along with cortisol output, can result in loss of bone density during competitive years and dramatically increase risk for osteoporosis later in life. The list goes on.

Clearly, training and competing at the elite level has huge costs. We weren’t designed to train that hard for that long. We were built to migrate – at low level aerobic pace - across the plains foraging for food, scavenging leftover meat some carnivore had already killed and finished, maybe having to sprint for a few seconds to the safety of a tree. Even later when we became hunter-gatherers, we probably relied more on methodical tracking skills than on trying to outrun our prey. Nothing in my research indicates that earlier humans spent regular long periods of time at a high VO2max output other than in periodic games.

The intense and voluminous training regimens used by elite athletes today and over the past few decades - in an effort to perform ever higher, faster, and farther - have resulted in the accumulation of stresses far greater than the human body was designed to withstand. As a result, the adrenals - the body’s primary stress organs – pump out cortisol and other corticosteroids at a very high rate in an effort to “survive” what the HPA axis perceives as life-threatening events, even though we might think they are healthy stresses. We know that while some cortisol is necessary for life, chronic excess cortisol causes muscle wasting, increases deposition of fat, decreases the uptake of calcium by bone, dramatically suppresses the immune system, shuts down digestion and reproduction and has a deleterious effect on other neuroendocrine functions in general. All of these cortisol effects are exactly what a healthy person tries desperately to avoid, and yet an athlete often lives in a veritable cortisol bath – until the adrenals finally fatigue and a whole host of new problems arise. Moreover, revving up the metabolic rate by a factor of 10-20 times normal for hours at a time results in oxidative fallout (free-radical output) sometimes 100 or more times the normal output and gets to the point where an athlete’s feeble antioxidant systems are simply overwhelmed. Oxidative-based inflammatory processes start occurring not just in joint and muscle tissue, but in the circulatory system and in and around nerve cells. (NB: most models of heart disease now look at inflammation as a critical component). And we could have a whole side discussion on the typical athlete diet too high in simple carbohydrates and its effects on insulin, advanced glycated end-products and epinephrine/norepinephine.

I think we are starting to see the first signs of damage in a generation of athletes who trained too hard for too long without proper maintenance (to go back to my helicopter analogy). And it’s not just among the elites anymore, but also among the millions who tried to emulate their heros’ training regimens - all because they thought more was better or more was healthier. I made a point in a prior article that I thought it was ironic that the Federations and Leagues that established the high level of performance and outrageous pay scales in the first place are the same ones now suggesting that athletes should not use performance-enhancing substances. After researching the physical destruction that elite training can produce at many different levels (see all above), I am left believing we should give elite athletes (and those who train like them) every possible means of avoiding injury, illness or future life-threatening conditions. If that means that we have sports medicine doctors administering high-potency multi-vitamins, antioxidant cocktails, the occasional shot of testosterone, EPO or local cortisone injections, so be it. In the end we eliminate the current untenable hypocrisy and at the same time allow for a healthier generation of athletes to wow us with their latest feats.

As for the recreational athlete who is not competing at any level, my advice is to limit your hard training to less than an hour a day, with complete days off. Vary your exercise and other forms of play as much as possible. My own epiphany came at 40 when I decided I would train to “look fit” rather than “be fit.” Of course, the irony is that I look fitter now than when I was one of the fittest guys on the planet – because I am the healthiest I have ever been. And in the end, health and your total enjoyment of life are all that matter.

Mark Sisson


· Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness

Comments

Hi Mark,

I've enjoyed your posts. I hope you contribute more to Art's blog in the future. Have you written more on these topics, outside of this site, that you might be able to point us to? Thanks again.

Posted by: demecj02 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 9:25 AM

Thanks for the feedback. One thing about Jack that I highly respect is his positive attitude, and encouraging people to get in shape, but to find a workout plan that fits them. "Don't try this at home" is really what Jack has said. He doesn't expect anyone to follow his routine, but he does tell people to take supplements and of course use the juicer. Jack used to have a $10,000 challenge to anyone to that could keep up with him during his workout. The story goes (not sure if it's true or not) that Arnold and some other top bodybuilders gave it a go, but failed. As far as genetics, Jack says his dad died young due to bad diet and lack of exercise, his mother became a vegetarian and lived into her 90's. I think it's interesting that the first Mr Universe John Grimick died at 88, but George Burns and Bob Hope both made it to 100. Jack says he knew Burns personally and says George did exercise,(I found a George Burns workout book complete with George doing the exercises, mostly calisthenics) and felt his positive mental state was a major factor in his longevity. In my own family, my grandmother just turned 94. She has never been to gym, had sedentary jobs most of her life, still bakes and eats cookies, has been diabetic since her 70's, yet has also outlived John Grimick. I'm sure we all know someone who seems to live "breaking the rules" of exercise and diet.

Posted by: Audley [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 8:17 AM

What is the general opinion of CrossFit? Those guys are obviously in phenomenal shape, but I can't help thinking that their 3 days on, 1 day off, near-limit training has to do damage to their long-term health.

- Josh

Posted by: Wild Pegasus [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 5:42 PM

Mark, it is a great message you are putting out, keep up the good work! Training and sports performance have become pathological in their intensity. How ironic that what was intended to be a source of health and contribute to the quality of life is doing the exact opposite.

Audley, I am inclined to agree with you that Jack is a genetic wonder. In his late 80's he lamented that he could no longer maintain his THREE HOURS A DAY workouts. I don't think there was/is anything about his diet/exercise routine that was truly unique and could account for his super-human performance and longevity, with his longevity being the most convincing argument for genetics, especially given the huge volume of work he put out over the years. In fact, he is the antithesis of Mark's message. It is as if he should be addressing today's elite athletes telling them "I am a highly trained professional, kids, don't try this at home." ;)

Posted by: Yuneek [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 5:13 PM

Mark might i say i felt that to be a super-duper post.

ref Jack the Juicer..having lived in the US for 3 years and now Can-Ardour know who he is.
He might be 91 but he strikes me vis his demeanour as someone who is exactly how i wouldn't want to be if i get to that hallowed age.
He comes off as tight as a gnats chuff and about as emotionally savvy.. and i adore insects !

Anyways Mark that was such, again, a great post..truly.
I sent it to a pal of mine who co-owns a pro-cycling team and of course he'll blithely ignore/forget it..til he's lyaing on the table waiting for a heart op !

Many thanks your time in writing it.

Sinc,

Simon (Fellows)

Posted by: simonfellows [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 4:12 PM

It's true that I speak mostly of and for endurance athletes. That's still a big group when you include runners, cyclists, swimmers, triathletes, rowers, cross-sountry skiers, etc. As for the NBA and NFL analysis, I have less experience with those groups. I agree that NBA players are generally among the fittest athletes mostly just due to the nature of their specifc movements on the court and a practical amount of time spent in the weight-rooms. As for the football players, my take on their training is that it is probably also more in line with EvFit principles, but it's just so damn ballistic in certain drills and games that guys can't help but do damage. Ironically, the reason some of these guys last as long as they do is through the use of the very banned substances I discuss. For decades every manner of anabolic steroid has found its way into NFL locker rooms helping speed up the healing process and adding even more muscle.

Regarding Jack LaLanne: he may have had some help from his genes, but I am much more of a "nurture" guy than a "nature" guy. He chose behaviors early on that encompassed a healthy lifestyle all-around. He stretched a lot, did mostly calisthenics, mixed his activities up, rotated workouts and then did some impressive athletic feat on each birthday. And he stayed consistent. His reliance on supplements can not be overstated. I am a huge believer in the use of a broad spectrum of high-potency antioxidants to help overcome the damage we incur from training, bad diets (even when we try our hardest) and general stress. A good diet and supplements can help extend any athletic career by years and Jack is proof. Finally, his almost saintly positive attitude may in fact be his most potent anti-aging weapon.

Posted by: mdsisson [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 3:57 PM

I do agree overtraining can be deadly. There are many stories and evidence supporting that statement, however, one person still baffles me, the apparently immortal Jack LaLanne. Jack is 91, still weight trains everyday for an hour or so, and swims 2 or 3 times per week. Jack insists that his food choices, a daily diet of supplements and changing his workouts every 2 to 3 weeks has kept him going. I have read that he does 20 sets per bodypart, a 2 way split routine, with no more than 10 to 15 seconds between sets. He will do heavy weights, low reps for 2-3 weeks, then light weights, high reps, then superslow, then superfast. You get the idea, the variations repeat in cycles. And his "crazy" birthday stunts are legendary. Jack was in a car accident several years ago, and has had both knees replaced, yet he continues to train. Jack says now that he is in his 90's, he has proved his system works. My own opinion is that he is a genetic wonder, not human like the rest of us. Any thoughts?

Posted by: Audley [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 2:00 PM

Excellent post. But except for a passing note regarding knee and hip replacements in NBA and NFL players, it seems to mostly reference endurance sports. Do the same arguments apply to field sports where power and explosiveness are required? Clearly one can train for these sports in an unhealthy (and ineffective) manner (hours of aerobic work), but it's also possible to get excellent results with shorter, anaerobic training methods (in my non-elite experience). Thoughts?

I vaguely recall NBA players being lauded on this blog as paragons of fitness. Am I remembering incorrectly? ...

Oh, I see, it was in the Ev. Fitness essay, "NBA basketball is an example of power law variation..."

Posted by: Jim Biancolo [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 17, 2006 9:03 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?