NYT Article on Steroids

December 23, 2007 07:38 PM

I found the article that I wrongly credited to the LA Times. It appeared in the NYT and was written by a Jonathon Cole, professor of sociology at Columbia and by Steven Stigler, professor of statistics at University of Chicago; they are both highly accomplished and esteemed in their fields.

The socially dominant opinion (promoted by sports writers and sports talk radio personnel) is under challenge. Have a look.

The results of the before and after study of hitters said by the Mitchell report to have used steroids? Here they are in brief:

"Hitters didn’t fare much better. For the 48 batters we studied, the average change in home runs per year “before” and “after” was a decrease of 0.246. The average batting average decreased by 0.004. The average slugging percentage increased by 0.019 — only a marginal difference. So while some batters increased their totals, an equal number had falloffs. Most showed no consistent improvement, several showed variable performance and some may have extended the years they played at a high level, although that is a difficult question to answer.

Some players improved and some declined. But the pattern for the individuals’ averages was consistent, and the variability of players (with the exception of home run counts) was low. There is no example of a mediocre player breaking away from the middle of the pack and achieving stardom with the aid of drugs.

Barry Bonds’s career has been the most scrutinized, and in fact his home run production in the years after he supposedly started taking drugs does show significant average gains. But individuals always vary, and choosing specific cases does not yield general conclusions."

Pitchers fare worse. As I said, it was the aging and injured and insecure who make up the bulk of the list of users. It is not surprising that they might over all show a decline in performance relative to the healthy non-users. Selection bias shows up again.

LINK · Sports · Comments (0)

HGH and Baseball

The Sabernomics site has a well-documented analysis of HGH.

HGH promotes acromegly in adults (gigantism) which squeezes the organs into the stomach. HGH is a molecule thought to have evolved from insulin. It is released in fasting and exercise. HGH promotes insulin resistance, but in natural release patterns it is released in pulses, mostly in deep REM sleep where it does no harm to insulin dynamics. [This is why I recommend against ingesting high carbohydrate and protein mixes after a work out; it releases insulin and shuts off HGH. The insulin resistance causes the mix to float in the blood serum delivering the sugar to tissues and setting off free radical reactions. The protein in the mix is easily oxidized and turned into a molecule the body cannot use.]

The evolutionary rationale for insulin and HGH to be antagonistic in their action is simple and compelling; during times of negative caloric balance and starvation, it reduces muscle insulin sensitivity to preserve scarce nutrients, especially glucose, for the brain. Glucose was scarce in ancestral times and the brain lives on glucose. If the muscles soak up the little glucose available, the brain fades and the ancestor becomes an easy prey to a predator or fellow human and a victim to falls and disorientation.

It does nothing for performance as the New England Journal of Medicine article linked and abstracted on Sabernomics (a great site) makes clear.

I would add that the players alleged to be users in the Mitchell Report were trying to heal from injury. An MLB player earns so much that a missed season producing a bad year lowers his value. He must avoid the reputation for being injury-prone in order to prevent erosion of his human capital value. Add that up and you can see that in MLB a controlled experiment would show no gain, according to the results of the NEJM. And the field experiment, using performance of players who use HGH, would likely show a performance drop because the experiment selects injured players as the subjects and non-injured subjects as controls.

Even the media are taking up the proposition that steroids increase performance by tabulating pre- and post-steroid statistics for players said to be users in Mitchell's report to show that decreases in performance are as common as increases (one was an LA Times story whose link I forgot to save). I would say they are really just tracking the variability that is natural to this elite level of performance.

LINK · Sports · Comments (2)

Enough of Steroids

December 19, 2007 03:51 PM

I have about had it on steroids. As many users sought to heal injuries or stave off aging as prime users sought to further their performance. I have seen a lot of pictures of beefed up players where the beef was attributed to steroids. As if that were the only way to beef up. One of these days I will dig out my picture in the LA Times when I signed with the Hollywood Stars. The scout rolled my sleeve up so the picture would show the muscles of my arm. At only 17, it was quite a bit of muscle, but it had nothing to do with steroids.

The best picture to determine steroid use is of the testicles because, as I have shown in previous posts, steroids diminish their volume by reducing follicle stimulating and leutinizing hormones. Hypogonadism would have been quite evident in the shower room of any MLB clubhouse. The "special parts" of a player are subject to much scrutiny and comment in the shower and locker room. A big time user would have been laughed out of the clubhouse. So far, I have heard nothing about this. I doubt that Barry's jock strap is any smaller and wouldn't want to ask him anyway.

LINK · Sports ~ · Uncertainty · Comments (3)

My Final Thoughts on The Mitchell Report

December 18, 2007 02:13 PM

I finished the Mitchell Report. I didn't like it and find that it does not establish its claims objectively. I particularly object to the naming of players.

I fail to see any purpose that is served by naming players who are alleged to have used a performance enhancing drug. It drags the reader through unseemly characters and events that have little real bearing on the issues. Nearly all the players named have NOT tested positive for any of the substances alleged to be performance drugs. It would have been more responsible to have given more objective data by tabulating the number of players on drugs and when they used them and then gone on to develop the evidence that their performances were affected.

The report contains no objective evidence that the so-called 'performance enhancing' drugs actually enhance performance. So, we have some sleazy stories about players and drug dealers, but no evidence that there were any consequences for performance or player health.

So, first, I think the Mitchell Report fails in its first task to demonstrate or quantify drug use in MLB in a objective, measurable way. No scientist can go through the report and gain any data of use.

Second, it does not support its claim that players suffer health problems as a result of drug use. I searched for a table that listed injuries or poor health as a result of drug use and found nothing.

Third, it does not establish or quantify any evidence of enhanced performance. Thus, it does make the case for the oft-repeated mantra that users are cheaters and gain an advantage over 'clean' players, his term for non-users. Where are the data that would be required to measure use in MLB so that one could do the empirical analysis? Where is the evidence for the claims of enhanced performance?

Fourth, it does not note the relative use of the various drugs in a quantifiable manner. How many used steroids and how many used HGH? From my reading, it appears that most of the HGH and possibly the steroid users were injured and trying to speed their recovery. Why shouldn't injured players have access to these drugs? Everyone else does.

If it were primarily injured or aging players that used them, then how could drugs have increased hitting? It would be more likely that steroid use would show a correlation with poor rather than superior performance. This is the selection problem; if the walking wounded are using them more than others, use would be correlated with poor performance.

Read More »

LINK · Sports · Comments (6)

Evolutionary Fitness, Intermittent Fasting, EvoSport and Football

Dan, who is pictured in the photo, has been following EF (Evolutionary Fitness) for quite some time. He plays football at the elite college level and tells this story about finally adding IF (intermittent fasting) to EF. In addition he uses a system I am not yet familiar developed by Jay Schroeder called EvoSport. It seems everyone is getting into the evolutionary way of thinking. Of note is the drop in body fat with no loss of lean body weight when Dan added IF to his program; most of the weight loss was in a drop of waist size of 4 inches. But, he had to drop the 4 or 5 meals a day mentality often held by body builders and athletes.

Dan's characterization of his set up in the picture is excellent: "Notice the athletic position in one picture. Hamstrings pulling into the ground, torse erect, chest separating at the pectorals. These are hallmarks of the efficient athlete." Young athletes should pay close attention and also understand that he has excellent technology at his disposal in EF, IF, and EvoSport.

Here is Dan's description of his methods:

"First off, I've been reading your blog since it's inception (and am now re-reading from the archives because of some free time), but just this past summer began applying IF principles to my lifestyle approach. Despite being a long time reader, I somehow had been reluctant to apply episodic caloric deprivation. I create a demand for calories unlike many others, I had reasoned. This is true, but my physiology still evolved like everyone else. I soon found I would benefit greatly from IF. I dropped approx. 4 inches 4-5 weeks, while maintaining the same weight. I went from 34 to 30 w/ little effort. In pictures that will follow, people always remark about how skinny my waist is. For the past several years I had eaten meats, vegetables, fruits, and nuts as the bulk of my diet but had difficulty shaking popular fitnesses' 4-5 meals a day. In retrospect, how silly. Because of the stressful demands of the football season, I gained a few inches back and my lean mass dropped a bit. Not good. However, I did not diligently apply IF because of concerns about caloric deprivation and the demands of the season. Probably, not well reasoned. "

On EvoSport, he has a brief insight into the theory; it is fight or flight made systematic in my estimation. Pretty sound on those grounds at least.

"Consider this, Jay has found ways to eliminate the normal symptoms of overtraining by working the body at high load, high velocity, and high volume. More specifically, this is done by training the body's reflexive systems. Think fight or flight! He accomplishes this w/ iso-extremes, rebounds, and altitude drops amongst other methodics. These inhibit the GTO, inhibiting the bodys protective mechanisms, thus allowing elite performance. I could write about it hours, but it is a little food for thought. The body's reflexive system can be trained to elicit the same performance over and over and over. It's quite remarkable. Much of it in line to what you already know to be true..."

I include a couple more pictures below. Did you ever see a leaner, more balanced and graceful looking athlete? His physical goals are impressive: "My goal at the Northwestern combine... weigh in at shredded 210 (only to impress scouts, weight is really irrelevant) and a 4.3 40 yard dash and 35 plus vert. jump. Only accomplished w/ the help of the two best technologies avaialble, EF, IF, and Evo-Sport. I am taking a cue from you here and perhaps creating some incentives (everything is economics) for myself to adhere the best I can to these goals and the demands of living the proper lifestyle. "

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (12)

Halfway through the Mitchell report on steroids in basball

December 13, 2007 05:07 PM

So far the report is a bore. No science save the usual references to the harm associated with steroids and protecting "our kids" the mantra of the new social engineer/prudes/and semi-fascists who want to make us do things their way.

It is a sleazy document so far, and thus gets much press coverage for the naming of names and locker room gossip. One section actually is devoted to sports writer comments on baseball and steroids, just about the least credible group on anything. All they want to do is to be noticed and to sell their story, an admission made by the sports writer who castigated Ted Williams, one of the greatest and most ethical of baseball players.

If I find some statistics that purport to document the surge in hitting, I will take a good look at them. So far there is nothing but an allegation that hitting surged in 1996 with no specifics.

Mitchell was not my favorite senator when he was senate majority leader and he is not winning any more admiration with this, so-far, sleazy report. Some of the usual antagonists to steroids also appear in the report, as they do in the Senate hearings. The same crew of witnesses keeps recycling, making the same statements.

Steroids are not that dangerous. They don't kill people. The people who overuse them already have significant problems. Most of the effects are reverseable, though not always for women. Steroids, as the research I have discussed, are only moderately effective.

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Everything ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (1)

Death by Exercise

December 8, 2007 11:25 AM

Thanks to an alert reader of the blog in Toronto we have a well-researched article on exercise-related deaths from Men's Heatlh.

It adds new statistics and explanations for the benefits and risks of exercise. As with nearly everything in human physiology, there is an increasing, but concave, benefits curve; the benefits of exercise rise, reach a peak, and then decline. There is an optimum or a range of optima; to be below or above the optimum range is harmful. Exercise beyond the optimal region is destructive and dangerous. 6 METS is a good upper limit for continuing activity. One can hit 8 or even 12 METS briefly in weight training. The hormesis concept tells us that these very brief stresses make us more able to tolerate the real stresses that life brings.

Weight lifting shines for its benefits and low risk. Running can be truly dangeous. Other aerobic endurance activities share the risks of excessive running.

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports ~ · Uncertainty · Comments (2)

The Horror

December 6, 2007 01:36 PM

This pile of boxes was outside the gym after they had restocked the "health food" section. They picked it up later (it is a very clean place), but I caught the horrifying sight on my iPhone before they cleared it out. How much sugar or high glycemic fructose did those boxes contain? Too much, but "heh" they are protein bars aren't they.

Don't eat anything that comes in a box.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Meals ~ · Sports · Comments (6)

Steroids, Gains and Costs

December 5, 2007 01:16 PM

From the New England Journal of Medicine comes this authoritative assessment of the benefits and costs of steroid use. Previous studies have had a number of faults in failing to control for caloric intake, dissimilar subjects, and so on. This study controls for the most important of these factors. I just want to highlight the quantitative measures of improvement in this table.

The subjects were about 28 years old and were experienced in weight training. They were around 5 feet 8 inches tall and had a body mass index of 24 to 26.

First note hormone profiles of the subjects under the four treatments: no exercise with placebo and testosterone, and exercise with placebo and with testosterone. With no treatment, their testosterone is in the mid to upper range around 500. The first finding is the drop in testosterone among the placebo group who did not exercise. Given that they were experienced lifters, the lack of exercise caused their testosterone to fall. Their free testosterone did not fall, though their SHBG did. This is not suppossed to happen according to the conventional free versus total T theory. But, we know that is flawed.

The exercise/no T group had an increase in T and an increase in Luteinizing hormone. The real news is the rise in T in the exercise with T injections group and the scary fall in Follicle Stimulating and Luteinizing hormones. The testicals of these guys are shutting down and their sex drive is plummeting. The sex hormone binding globulin falls substantially in both the groups of men who received T injections, another sign of emasculation.

Read More »

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (4)

Steroids and Athletic Performance

December 3, 2007 02:56 PM

I got a call from Reuters today about steroids and home runs. The call is in anticipation of the release of the Mitchell Commission report on steroids in baseball. This got me to thinking again about the issue.

It seems many people argue that if steroids increase lean muscle mass, with exercise, in normal men, then athletic performance should also improve. We do know that lean muscle mass or body composition is a determinant of performance in college and high school wrestlers. I have posted on this subject before. That is to say, two wrestlers in the same weight class will differ in their performance if one has a larger lean body mass than the other. The other wrestler in this case must carry more body fat and thus have a body that has less muscle and must also carry more dead weight. The elite wrestlers are in better shape and are a bit stronger. So, they should do better. That says nothing about steroids, but this argument seems to lead people to say that steroids would make a home run hitter better. That is a large leap that has no evidence to support it. A further leap is that those who make this argument think that a change in performance must be caused by drug use. Bad statistics because there is no norm against to measure home run hitting. It is an elite performance that has no norm and variation is a large part of the performance.

This 2001 article in the Journal of Endocinology reviews a good deal of the research and finds that there is no evidence that steroids improve athletic performance. No one argues that steroids do not increase muscle synthesis and strength, though the strength gains are not much compared to the gains on a similar exercise program.

Here is the quote on athletic performance:

"There is agreement that testosterone supplementation increases maximal voluntary strength, but that it does not improve specific tension. Therefore, testosterone would be expected to improve performance in weight-lifting events, because performance in these events is critically dependent upon maximal voluntary strength. It is not surprising that the abuse of androgenic steroids is most prevalent among power lifters. The effects of testosterone on other measures of muscle performance such as fatiguability and power [my emphasis] (the rate of force generation) are unknown. Previous studies have failed to demonstrate any improvements in performance in endurance events (Casaburi et al. 1996b). The physiologic basis of the abuse of androgenic steroids by sprint runners or swimmers is not clear. It is possible that testosterone might improve athletic performance in sprint events by decreasing reaction time, as testosterone has been shown to regulate neuromuscular transmission (Leslie et al. 1991, Blanco et al. 1997). Others have proposed that testosterone use might enhance recovery from exercise, thus allowing the athletes to train harder. It is also conceivable that testosterone might improve explosive power, an important determinant of performance in sprint and short distance swimming events. This speculation has not been tested. It is fair to state that unequivocal improvements in measures of athletic performance have not been demonstrated in any study." Reference: Journal of Endocrinology (2001) 170, 27-38. The link for the article is Hormones and Sport

I should add that it has been shown that body builders and power lifters (incorrectly named as they are strength lifters, not power lifters, because they do not generate force at a high rate of speed) have lengthened contraction and relaxation times relative to power athletes.

LINK · Sports · Comments (3)

walking Running Jogging

November 16, 2007 11:07 AM

Two researchers at Princeton have modeled human energy expenditure over a wide range of movements. It turns out that the most efficient form of locomotion is walking, followed by running, followed by a slow plodding run that resembles a very tired jogger.

Human Movement

Of these, I much prefer the first two and, remarkably, they are a bit more efficient. And a whole lot more fun.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (0)

Running to Death

November 5, 2007 09:16 AM

Several people sent links to the running death of Ryan Shay. Mark Sisson sent it and so did PaleoGal. Mark also sent a link on Alberto Salazar, a premiere runner who has run himself close to death several times. He had at one time been described as "a man who once heard testers declare his cardio output to be the greatest they had ever measured." Note also the severe loss of muscle mass associated with marathon training, one that Salazar tries to avoid in his trainees. No wonder they look like ghosts. When I saw some of the participants of our recent Huntsman Senior Games Marathon in St. George, they looked like the walking injured and near dead. If I can be a bit whimsical about it all, remember my Top 10 Reasons Not to Run Marathons. One of my most important (and criticized) posts. It may be sinking in. The evidence is close to overwhelming.

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (4)

A 12 Year Old Boy on Evolutionary Fitness

October 13, 2007 09:47 AM

A father who is dedicated to his son's health and fitness contacted me. His son is a talented athlete and trains hard to be the best football player he can be. The father knows a lot about training (and reads the blog regularly) and uses the best techniques to help his son train. When the boy hit 12, he began to gain weight and slow down. His foot speed dropped and his weight increased. They were both a bit frustrated and asked me what they should do. From what they told me I could see that they were over training. The boy was also going through a growth spurt and needed more rest and variety. He wasn't eating right either.

Because he was over training, his nervous system was dulled or perhaps even exhausted. The fall off in his speed was as much from nervous system fatigue as from the weight gain. And the weight gain almost certainly was from the insulin resistance fostered by the high level of stress hormones induced by over training. He was snacking on chips and eating too late at night as well.

I advised them to drop most of the sprinting and plyometrics and do one hard down hill run a week. The overspeed training would stimulate the nervous system to maximize muscle recruitment and would train the FT fibers to fire more completely. It would also increase his stride frequency, the most important part of speed. More rest would regenerate his neural responsiveness. I also suggested some strength training, which they do using bands that are easy on the joints and promote nerve firing through isometric contraction.

On the diet side, I suggested pure Evolutionary Fitness eating. They stopped his late eating and he eats nothing after 8pm. The chips and potatoes are gone and he mostly eats meat, fruit, vegetables and nuts.

In about 5 weeks or so he went from 139 pounds to 127. His waist dropped from 31 to 27. His speed has improved significantly. He is starting to show "cuts" in his musculature. He is more energetic and has even taken up tennis in addition to his football.

I often tell people that over training is the route to becoming fat and slow. It may seem hard to believe, but only because people seem to subscribe to the "body as machine" theory of fitness. Over training is so easy to do, most people don't even know they are doing it. And modern fitness advice promotes over training. It is the primary cause of injury and resignation to a life of poor health and fitness after the injuries pile up. More is not better and routine training is joyless and lifeless.

The last group of marathoners and triathletes who came here for the Huntsman Senior Games looked haggard and injured. I was in the crowd when I registered for softball and I did not feel as though I was in a group of athletes at all. They just looked like a bunch of old people.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (2)

Comments on Comments

October 1, 2007 10:25 AM

It really is fun to see these intelligent and interesting comments on the last two posts. I should be doing something else right now, but will take a moment to go over them.

Home runs. The real straw man is the unfalsifiable hypothesis that Bonds and others "must have done or taken something" to do what they did. There is no amount of evidence that will make it false. I have looked and fail to find any evidence that steroids will prevent the end of season fatigue that the comment rightly points to as a possible factor. If there is some, I would like to see it. On the other hand, prolonged steroid use carries so many side effects that they might create their own problems. One, seldom pointed to, is the loss of mental discipline. This would be highly unproductive for a hitter. Bonds has never shown a loss of his remarkable plate discipline. My main point is that the statistics are so wild that no one has or is likely to find convincing evidence that the performance of Bonds, McGwire, Sosa and others is beyond the variation that is always there in the elite world of exeptional home run hitting. There is no norm as is posited by those who make the argument that they must have done something.

Walter's interesting comment prompted others pointing out he may be getting too few calories and that adaptation takes a couple of weeks. I also think that one huge meal a day is counterproductive; the surge of protein and carbohydrate, along with fat, is a shock to metabolism and kills insulin receptors by the score. Better to eat every other day, spread over several meals than to do this. And, be careful what kind of fruit you eat; most modern fruits are excessively sweet. I prefer melons of all kinds with splashes of other fruits only for variety and color, not as a main element of the meal.

The bonus was Chris H's posting of this link Ketogenic Diets and Physical Performance from Nutrition and Metabolism. Its creative commons license permits me to post the link and gives you access. The Innuit diet it discusses is not for me, but the controlled studies do show that the modern high carb diet for endurance athletes is over rated (and other evidence shows that it is harmful) and the low carb diet works just fine for real world endurance.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (14)

Home Runs and Steroids Yet Again

September 30, 2007 08:15 PM

An article by a physicist, Tobin, has been making the rounds in the media. Here is an example from Rueters

I asked Professor Tobin to let me see his article and he was kind enough to send me a pre-print of it. I sent my comments on his paper, largely disagreeing with his argument and pointing to the evidence that is contrary to his conclusions.

My first objection is to the unkind treatment of one of the greatest living athletes, Barry Bonds, in the title. The title is "On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball". This is a supersilious and almost insulting title and should alert any reader to what follows below the title. There is zero possibility of a chemical Bonds. There is no amount of chemicals, steroids, GH, insulin or whatever that could transform anyone into a Barry Bonds. He is unique in the annals of baseball or sport. Shakespeare faced the same sort of ex post criticism on the grounds that no one may could have done what he did. A genius of this magnitude just does not seem possible, judged by what others have done. It was even suggested that Bacon wrote some of Shakespeare's plays. Other geniuses faced similar criticisms or suspicions. They seem to do "too much" by ordinary standards. But, there are no standards for genius. You could not take an ordinary playwright and chemically turn him into Shakespeare (it is a good thing steroids were not known in his time or he would have been suspected of using them or some other form of alchemy).

Read More »

LINK · Sports · Comments (1)

A Picture of 70

August 30, 2007 02:57 PM

I am doing this to memorialize my 70th birthday. It is my first picture with my shirt off. Actually, I take my shirt off often, but I don't like people staring at me, which they often do. If you saw me in my clothes you would not guess how much muscle I carry beneath them. This is at 196 pounds, just about a perfect weight for me now.

I had no one to take it as I spent my birthday alone and I did not have my camera. So, I shot my reflection with my iPhone in the gym at Punta Esmeralda, where my place here in Puerto Vallarta is located.

It is all a bit strange, but I felt it was important to note how I look on my 70th and this was the only way to do it. For me, 70 is a nice age; I can do whatever I want and feel wonderful. And I have learned a bit over the years.

The picture follows...

Read More »

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (9)

De Vany's Law of Home Runs

August 16, 2007 10:50 AM

I decided to make my home run paper easier to locate by putting a link in the right margin where it can be downloaded. It has been downloaded quite a bit and I keep getting emails inquiring where it can be found on the site. This is a prepublication version of the paper quite close to the version that will appear in Economic Inquiry, a journal I once co-edited. It is now edited by Preston McAfee who has just taken it over from Tom Saving and Dennis Jantzen.

LINK · Sports · Comments (2)

Barry Bonds Leads in Pitches Taken

Barry Bonds leads both leagues in what you might think of as an obscure statistic: percentage of pitches taken. He takes almost 70% of the pitches thrown to him. There are two reasons for this: he is one of the most disciplined hitters, and he gets more bad pitches than most hitters.

Remember all the claims about "roid rage" from steroids? There is only a little credibility to them; heavy steroid users do have less mental control. This would be a seldom mentioned downside of steroid use by hitters. We know Barry is not taking steroids now since he has not tested positively for steroids and never has. His unbroken discipline at the plate, even when he was pushing this year for the career record favors the hypothesis that he did not take steriods.

LINK · Sports · Comments (5)

Tennis Players with Tummies

August 13, 2007 11:26 AM

I have begun my quest to become a good tennis player. I haven't played in years, so I think as a soon-to-be 70 year old it is time to try to take up tennis. I like to take up a new sport now and then. WW likes it too and we can play for years together.

Naturally, I have several books on tennis by now and have subscribed to the tennisplayer.net site. My top spin forehand is beginning to work. It is fun to watch the ball drop as it goes over the net. And I can hit it almost as hard as I would like to, well not quite yet but getting there.

The tennisplayer.net site has a wealth of technical information and great film clips of tennis strokes. Of course, I love this technical stuff. Watching the Tennis Channel and going to the site brought me to a suprising conjecture or tentative conclusion: most tennis players have a bit of a tummie. They may be a bit too fat to play at the highest level of which they may be capable. They are unquestionably fit and highly skilled. The best modern players aer beyond the best of the past, or so I think. This is because of new tennis technology, particularly racket and shoe design.

But, when Federer or even Roddick hits a forehand and the shirt flies up you see a tummie that ought not to be there on an elite athlete. And their skin is a bit smooth, showing less than optimal definition, implying a bit of subcutaneous fat. Djokovic, number 3 in ATP rankings, took his shirt off after a match to throw it to the crowd and there was that same slightly soft tummie.

So, why is this so? Am I just wrong and is this slight tummie a sign of optimal body compostion for a tennis player? I recall that when Ivan Lendl was a top player, but still below his eventual dominance his advisors consulted Michael Colgan of the Colgan Institute (his Institute was the one that rated my biological age at 32 quite some years ago now). Dr. Colgan told Lendl to lose 5 pounds of body fat. He did, and the rest is history. Lendl moved to Number One for a period of time until Sampras pushed everybody aside.

What did Cogan have in mind? It is body composition and its effect on power to weight ratio. This is a topic I discussed before and it is well established for elite college wrestlers that the power to weight ratio of the best wrestlers is superior to lesser ranked wrestlers. I also documented Lance Armstrong's progress in power output and power to weight ratio. Some other numbers for Lance: His maximum aerobic power (MA) divided by fat mass was 49.5 in 1999, up from 42.74 in 1997. This was a consequence of going from a body weight of 79.5 kg to 79.7 while dropping 1.6 kg of fat. Put another way, his lean body mass went from 67.9 kg to 69.6 kg. So he gained 2 kg of lean mass while he lost 1.6 kg of fat. He continued progress in this direction through the later part of his career and improved MAP as well.

A more dramatic improvement was shown by Gary Holmes whose fat mass dropped from 29.7 kg to 11.7 kg. This alone increased his max power to weight ratio from 4.09 to 4.81 watts per kg. Similar improvements would be likely for pro tennis players.

Given the nature of tennis, a rest-burst primarily FT activity, why do the players have that little tummie? Have you seen what they eat? I don't know their diets, but you can see them drinking various sugar-laden (maybe polymers, but still high glycemic) drinks and eating bananas and such during a match. Beyond that I can't say because I have not read anything of their diets. It seems likely though, that they are into the same kind of poor eating of starches and high glycemic foods and drinks as runners and cyclists because that is what the "fitness" industry, coaches, and consultants recommends.

I doubt that this is right for tennis and it surely has an adverse effect on body composition and thus power to weight ratio. The time between points, sets, games, and matches is ample time for FT energy sources to be regenerated. The source for the regeneration is fat. Each player carries thousands of calories in fat, easily enough to play a 5 hour match. Trying to pick up quick energy during a match with foods that raise insulin adversely affects the blood sugar supply to the brain and alters body composition unfavorably. I don't think it is a good idea.

LINK · Sports · Comments (5)

Comparing Aaron, Bonds, and Everyone Else

August 10, 2007 02:21 PM

I used lifetime hitting statistics to look at all players who played MLB from 1871 to 2004 to see how Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, and all other players stacked up.

The statement sum g ab h hr hrhit hrab yrs startyr endyr is a Stata command that summarizes, in order, games, at bats, hits, home runs, home runs per hit, home runs per at bat, years played, the starting year and ending year of the player's career or 2004, whichever occurs first.

. sum g ab h hr hrhit hrab yrs startyr endyr

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
g | 16208 271.6803 451.0802 1 3562
ab | 16208 777.2142 1592.251 0 14053
h | 16208 203.7318 448.6123 0 4256
hr | 16208 14.22378 47.41726 0 755
hrhit | 12747 .0389471 .0706693 0 1
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
hrab | 14733 .0079549 .0163393 0 .5
yrs | 16208 4.627962 5.025919 0 35
startyr | 16208 1946.452 38.18067 1871 2004
endyr | 16208 1951.08 38.8478 1871 2004

. sum g ab h hr hrhit hrab yrs startyr endyr if namelast=="Aaron" & namefirst=="Han
> k"

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
g | 1 3298 . 3298 3298
ab | 1 12364 . 12364 12364
h | 1 3771 . 3771 3771
hr | 1 755 . 755 755
hrhit | 1 .2002122 . .2002122 .2002122
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
hrab | 1 .0610644 . .0610644 .0610644
yrs | 1 22 . 22 22
startyr | 1 1954 . 1954 1954
endyr | 1 1976 . 1976 1976

. sum g ab h hr hrhit hrab yrs startyr endyr if namelast=="Bonds" & namefirst=="Bar
> ry"

Variable | Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
g | 1 2716 . 2716 2716
ab | 1 9098 . 9098 9098
h | 1 2730 . 2730 2730
hr | 1 703 . 703 703
hrhit | 1 .2575092 . .2575092 .2575092
-------------+--------------------------------------------------------
hrab | 1 .0772697 . .0772697 .0772697
yrs | 1 18 . 18 18
startyr | 1 1986 . 1986 1986
endyr | 1 2004 . 2004 2004

The average number of games played is 271 for all players. Aaron played 3298 and Bonds 2714 (through 2004). Both are far above the MLB average. They are 4 or 5 standard deviations above the mean (nothing is normal with exceptional talent).

Aaron played 22 years, Bonds was in MLB 18 years in 2004 and will have played 21 years at the end of this season. The average for all players is just 4.6. Again, Aaron and Bonds are way above the average, in fact they are so far above that they are 6 to 7 standard deviations above the mean. But, you should know by now that nothing is normal here (the normal distribution would say this is an impossible feat).

The average player (there is no such player, this is just a phrase that leads to poor thinking) had 777 at bats, Aaron had 12364 and Bonds 9098, somewhat behind Aaron and both are far beyond the mean.

Hits, home runs, and the other statistics can be read from the tables. Aaron had about 1000 more hit than Bonds. They are both 9 or more standard deviations above the mean for all players. Nothing Normal once again.

14 career home runs is average, but Hammerin' Hank got his famous 755 and Bonds had 703 in 2004 and has since gone to 756 last I heard.( I have been out riding and have not kept up.) This means Aaron is 15.75 standard deviations above the mean of all players. Bonds is 14.65 std above the mean at 703 and 15.78 std above the mean at his record 756. They are both so far above the mean that their achievements would not be matched in millions of years of baseball if home run hitting were a normal feat. They are impossible, but they exist. So, get over any thinking about norms of home run hitting.

Bonds' home runs per at bat are only a little higher than Aaron's being 0.077 versus 0.061. The mean for all players is 0.0079. Barry is almost 10 times more likely to hit a home run in an at bat as the average for all players. Hank is almost 8 times.

Home runs per hit is a good measure of power: Barry hits 0.257 home runs per hit. Hank hits 0.200. The mean for all players is 0.039. On average a player hits 4 home runs in every 100 hits. Hank hits 20 and Barry hits 26. In his record year, McGwire hit 52 home runs in every 100 hits. Many others have exceeded Barry's career stats for home runs per hit in individual seasons. In his record year, Barry hit 46.7 home runs per 100 hits. Kilibrew, Maris, Mantle, Kingman, Schmidt, Jackson, Stargell, Fielder, Buhner and Williams all exceeded 30 home runs per 100 hits. If you compare that to the MLB average of 4 home runs per 100 hits you see how different the leading home run hitters are.

It is also intriguing to look at how small positive variations, say an increase in home runs per hit or just more hits with the same power combined with more at bats, can drive a player's performance to new highs. The variability of all these measures is so high, that slumps and outstanding years are largely due to chance.

I have to conclude that anyone who posits some kind of norm for home run hitting, whether in a year or a career, doesn't know what he is talking about. In truth, all these results follow from De Vany's Law of Home Runs. Season home runs follows an infinite variance stable distribution. Career home runs is so variable that it does not even have a mean (technically the probabiiities are so diffuse and heavy far out on the upper tail that the first moment of the distribution does not converge -- its value is infinite which is to say that the mean does not exist).

LINK · Sports · Comments (4)

Home Runs and At Batss

August 8, 2007 08:39 AM

To hit a lot of home runs, you have to have a lot of chances. The best measure of chances is probably at bats. At bats do not include walks, even though there may be a strike thrown during that particular time at the plate.

Bonds hits a lot of home runs, even though he is walked often. The same thing is true of all the big time home run hitters. Take a look at this graph of home runs against at bats over the past 25 years in MLB. It shows clearly that you have to have a lot of at bats to hit a lot of home runs. But, it also shows that most hitters just do not hit a lot of home runs, no matter how many times they are up to the plate.

What is particularly revealing is how far above the crowd a few hitters are. They are rare, but so exceptional they stand out. This is true for all levels of at bats, but clearly the high points at pretty far out on the at bats. As I said in my paper, if Bonds had Sosa's at bats he might have hit 80 or more home runs. The guy is exceptional in every wayk.

LINK · Sports · Comments (1)

Training and Aging

July 29, 2007 09:05 AM

Mark Sisson has an excellent post Training and Health summarizing well all the arguments we have come to know about over doing endurance training. He really ties it all together. Though his article is addressed to an audience of over-trainers, it has lessons for all of us. As we also have come to know, his article received a lot of negative comments from the committed over-trainers.

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (0)

Golf Swing

June 20, 2007 04:09 PM

I found this rather long comment about the golf swing among unpublished comments that I found interesting. Non-golf nuts can skip this, though what I shall add applies to many sports.

As to the torso generating a lower power than the shoulders and wrists, if the torso is just spun, yes agreed. However, as mentioned by another posted comment, a real key to he shoulders having this power is from the shoulders first resisting and the torso/hips turning some to add more torqe. Then the shoulders release (with CONNECTED arms to the torso) the power is released. Think of a spring. Backswing is a coil with hips steady as much as possible. Then torque the spring more by lower torso coil. Then shoulders/arms connected spring releases. Proper hip torquing is the key. not spinning the hips, but staying in balance with weight (sitting on bar stool position) and keep back foot on the ground!!! - A lateral move of the hip with the back foot on the ground torques the hip proper. Just keep the arms connected to the body (triangle)and let the coil release by itself!! Arms rotation and wrist release is very imprortant for power. However, this happens by itself due to proper ball position and proper grip. The left shoulder is not pulling the left arm. That would be like pulling a coil sprng!

The proper hip torqing mentioned is slight. If over done, the hips out race
the upper torso and never allows the coil to release until too late, which
results in a pull hook.

If I knew all the answers, I might consider teaching or playing golf. I cannot disagree with this description of developing torque in the swing. It is by winding the spine over a relatively still pelvis that potential torque is generated. Then the release of that energy is triggered by slightly increasing the torque at the bottom of the spine through a movement of the pelvis. Some shift the pelvis latterally, though I think this introduces a potential change in the geometry of the swing that can affect the swing plane and the solidness of contact by altering the swing path. Others turn the hips a bit to the left (for a right hander) to begin the unwinding of the spine. There is a potential for this move to alter the geometry of the swing too as the turning hips rotate the spine and alter the shoulder plane in such a way that brings the shoulders around a different axis. This brings the swing "over the top" and results in a pull hook or the dreaded slice if the face is not closed.

I think there is, on the whole, far too much movement in most swings that I see on the fairways out my back yard. I see people jumping onto their toes, bending and straightening their legs, or stepping back or sideways as they swing. They wind up with their legs crumpling and their spine changing flex and angle. There is no consistent geometry to the swing, the swing center shifts and moves up and down, and the shoulders rotate through all sorts of planes. It is impossible to attain solid contact and swing path that will send the ball in the intended direction.

So, above all, I think swing geometry should be the first consideration of a solid golf swing. You must have solid sharp angles to your address, with a straight spine (lordotic, not ruler straight), slightly flexed knees, and with your head set at the angle of your spine. Then you just take the club back on a rotating swing plane, maintaining an almost fixed swing point at about the base of your neck (the third cervical vertebra). As you shift weight to the right foot, the fixed point must drift just a little back in order to keep your balance and transfer weight to the back foot. But, the spine is remaining at the same angle. The slight rightward drift of the swing center is only apparent because as you turn with a constant spine angle the chest and neck rotate a bit and the swing center moves with it. When you turn back through the hit, the swing center returns to its address position through no effort other than the turning back of the shoulders.

There are too many problems and alteration of swing geometry with this hip turning model in my opinion. The spine muscles are for the most part slow twitch muscles and there is little speed generated by the torquing and untorquing of the spine. Driving with the legs is not so good either as it moves the swing center. I see all kinds of leg action in the bad swings below my patio with nothing but mishits to show for it. Quiet legs and hips are essential to good geometry and solid contact. Some of the best long drivers have very quiet legs and hips, The Beast Fister comes to mind. And my buddy Gerry James too.

The speed in the club head comes from the tightening of the swing radius as the club is pulled along the swing path by the turning spine and the arms. The radius opens again as the club head whips through the swing path and as the right arm straightens. So, I think it is preferable to pull the club down with both arms along the swing path and extend the right arm with the tricep, which is a fast twitch muscle capable of generating speed. The arms have to come back to swing center at contact and this requires an extension of the right arm as the swing radius expands through the point of contact.

I think the best geometry is maintained by fixing the spine angle at address, tilted slightly to the right, and taking the club along the swing path with the hips and legs flexible but fixed. Turning your shoulders behind the ball with this fixed spine angle and quiet hips and legs generates torque and maintains swing path. Then you just pull the club back and let the swing radius expand. Extending the tricep puts the club right back to the ball.

The wrists have to work as a hinge for all this to function. The club just rotates around the swing center and the wrists. You can't "throw" the club head through the hitting area without taking it off plane and throwing decelerates the forward movement of the hands and arms by generating an opposite torque.

So, geometry is the thing. The mental image is different for everyone, but I try to see the movement of the club along a swing path. I try to swing like Iron Byron with a human body.

LINK · Sports · Comments (2)

Steroid Amnesty

June 15, 2007 09:30 AM

A brief article that came my way via the UCI press office takes up the question of amnesty for baseball players who used sterods (Note especially that this sensible journalist cites the 10% range of variation, which is something you never see in the media about anything, home runs, climate, stock variation, you name it. Let me also note that there is no "normal" variation to any of these processes for in each case the variance is infinite even though the sample standard deviation is finite, but wildy variable. This reporter in a small-town paper makes more sense than anything I have seen on the subject, just by citing the variation. Now, if the press just began to give the variation before they make their claim that something is up or down, most of their scare stories would go away.)

Amnesty? As though they are criminals. If they did use steroids they may have violated some league policy, but what is the basis for this policy in the first place?

It cannot be over health issues, for that is completely a private concern and one that is overstated in the press coverage that made Lyle Alzedo a poster boy for steroid abuse. This is disrespectful and cruel treatment of Lyle and harmful to his family. There is zero evidence that steroid use contributes to brain cancer. And most other health concerns are overstated and carry only slight weight because of prodigious over-use by a few body builders.

Nor can it be for the good of the sport for professional sports participants are exposed to stresses that are unreasonable, but they are compensated adequately if they approach the stresses intelligently. Steroid use may be a reasonable policy for over-stressed professional athletes, with medical supervision. Inflammation is a serious problem for baseball players who suffer repeat injury stress and steroids are powerful anti-inflammatories. You or I could get a steroid injection into an inflammed tendon, but a pro baseball player cannot. Because it will show up in the test.

There is no evidence that steoids increase home run production, as my paper under the Research link makes clear.

LINK · Sports · Comments (1)

Running Fast

April 12, 2007 07:09 AM

A further issue about sprinting and attaining maximal speed is to consider stride frequency and stride length. Numerous studies show that animals run at the stride frequency that minimizes energy expenditure. Whether they are running slow or fast, they tend to run at that stride frequency. They vary speed by lengthening or shortening the length of the stride.

The stride frequency that mins energy expenditure balances the shock absorbing in the muscle (the eccentric phase) with energy recovery (the concentric spring phase).

To max speed you want to find your energy minimizing stride frequency and then find the longest stride length you can attain while maintaining that frequency. This applies to the phase of the run after you have reached max speed. During the acceleration phase there is less elastic recovery in the muscle and stride frequency is lower and stride length less.

You can get a good estimate of your stride frequency by hopping on one or two legs at the rate that is most comfortable. For full speed, hop with nearly fully extended legs. For acceleration, hop with bent legs. Once you find the optimal frequency, then work to lengthen the stride, but never going below your best frequency.

This model suggests that plyometrics have to be done at the right frequency to obtain maximal benefits. Most plyometric moves are done at too low a frequency for the best results. They are still beneficial, but one should do higher frequency hops, close to the optimal stride frequency, and try to max the length of the hop at that frequency. Pretty tough. Sounds like a nice, high intensity drill.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (2)

195

April 3, 2007 04:38 PM

I sometimes wonder if dropping to 195 pounds from a long time at 208 was a good thing. I still wear all the same clothes, but could drop to a 33 pant if I could find them and they had enough room in the thighs. And, I do think I look better and feel absolutely great. I don't get quite as hot at night either. So, all in all, I think it has been a real improvement.

Why did I carry 208 for so long? I really don't know to be truthful. I felt very strong at that weight, but still have more than enough strength to do what I want. It probably was the same sort of male mentality that expresses itself in the gym or any comparative environment: something like I am the best or strongest or... whatever. After reading Steven Pinker's History of Violence (see earlier post on Things are Getting Better), it does seem natural that a male would want to feel sufficiently dominant or dangerous that would-be rivals would want to think twice about attacking. Many days would be a fight for life in the evolutionary context and it is natural to carry over attitudes and appearances that would warn off others against an attack.

But, this can go awry easily and damage appearance and health. Far too many young guys in the gym go for way too much mass and end up thick and fat. Bigger is only better if muscle and body composition go with it. It is the power to weight ratio that determines sport performance. My power to weight ratio is better than at nearly any time in my life.

With the beginning of our evening softball league any doubts I had about dropping my weight to 195 quickly vanished. I am a bit quicker no doubt. And throw better. As to power, I hit one so far out that it hit high up on the protective fence at the playground 20 feet beyond the stadium fence (no andro, no steroids, just a smooth swing and great contact on the sweet spot). The ump said she had never seen anyone hit it out of that park (but I know a guy who did with a favoring wind of which I had none). No 70 year old does that she said.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (14)

Andro

April 1, 2007 01:05 PM

With MLB starting back up the topic of Mark McGwire and andro's contribution to his home run output comes up again. And, the investigations into steroid use continue and the trashing of Barry Bonds continues. It may become relentless this season as he approaches Hank Aaron's record of 714 home runs.

We can't definitively reject steroids as contributors to Bonds' past records and his approach to the life time record because the research is impossible to do. My paper on home runs raises hard questions and casts doubt on the role of steroids in home run performance. Really, it puts most of the discussion to rest because it shows that nothing has changed in home run hitting, once the number of games, at bats, and larger players is taken into account.

We can look at andro though because it is still possible to do the research and I came across a study, not yet published, done at East Tennessee State University in their Andro project that sheds light on the issue.

In a nutshell, andro does nothing for strength and power. The pituitary adapts to the increased testosterone from andro ingestion and begins to shut down production of luetinizing hormones that direct the testes to produce testosterone. At the end of the 12 week study, during which subjects took 200 mg of androstenediol or androstenendione, testosterone rose then declined and went right back to the baseline level at which they entered the study. The control subjects, who did the same weight training as the others, but did not take andro in either form, gained the same strength and power as those who took andro. And, they had slightly higher testosterone because of the stress of the work outs.

But, wait, it gets worse. Not only did they gain nothing, the andro users ended up feminizing their bodies. Their estrone and estradiol levels went up 47 to 92%. And their levels of HDL declined, producing an elevated cardiac risk profile.

They did not have the subjects try to hit home runs, but given that the strength gains of all three groups, including those who trained but without taking andro, were identical, there would be no gains there either.

In short, andro users gained nothing in strength and power (their pituitary learned to live on higher exogenous testosterone and shut down its own production) and they feminized themselves and raised their cardiac risk. Remember, it is all non-linear; what goes in isn't what comes out. Here it was the opposite: more male testosterone precursors produces a more feminine you.

Are you still reading those body builder mags and their ads?

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (6)

A New Workout

February 27, 2007 08:43 PM

I have been doing something rather new in the gym lately. Just getting into it so I am not sure how it will work, but it is a take off on my old idea of Alactic Workouts, which I also called One Fives in my Essay.

If you recall that part of the Essay, I described alactic workouts as workouts that did not produce the abundance of lactic acid that my Hierarchical sets were intended to do. After a warm up on the particular exercise to lube the joints and get the muscles ready, I do 5 one reps separated by a 5 second pause. That means I lift a heavy weight one time, put it down, rest 5 seconds, and then do another rep. I continue until I have done 5-1 reps in all. Then I move to the next exercise.

When you first begin working out this way you may need 15 or 20 seconds to recover before you do another rep. Be sure you are ready for this. Nothing very heavy to begin. Practice excellent form.

I have lately seen this protocol mentioned elsewhere, though I forget where. It is an old idea if you know Evolutionary Fitness, but it now seems to be catching on a bit.

The theory and science behind this is to avoid the fatigue that comes with the build up of lactic acid in the muscle so that each rep is performed with little or no fatigue. This permits perfect form, quick movements, and the handling of heavy weight in a very safe manner. In my view, there is little meaning to the counting of reps. It is the quality of the movement and the execution of perfect form without fatigue that counts. And the challenge of recovering quickly from a strong exertion. If I want to lean out, then I use the hierarchical sets (15, 8, and 4 reps of the same exercise at progressively higher weight to release lactic acid and HGH). I am so lean now that I want muscle quality and power. So, I am doing 5-1 reps on all my exercises, followed by a negative for certain muscles.

This kind of workout is over in very little time and I find it to be immensely productive. It is a bit advanced, so you should introduce 5-1s gradually into your workouts.

Here is roughly what I am doing now (it always varies). As always, do this only if you feel you can do so safely and feel you are ready to handle it. In truth, this method is far safer than going to failure or forcing reps when your muscles are fatigued with lactic acid build up.

Read More »

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (5)

Music

February 26, 2007 10:09 AM

I have music on most of the time in my home and in my car. Usually, it is jazz or a bit of country, with Sinatra and classical music mixed in. I am not sure why, but have often speculated that I am working my motor systems by practicing movements even when still. I surely do this when I simulate a baseball or golf swing in my mind or see a curve I follow on a motorcycle.

New research shows that when listening to music the motor areas of the brain are indeed active. Have a look at one of my favorite sites SfN.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (2)

Fatigue

January 31, 2007 11:49 AM

A reader, T. J., was kind enough to send me this summary of an article on fatigue, see below.

The tired, fatigued, exhausted continuum seems to me to be a useful one. They also have an emotional component, noted by Dr. Olson; when I am tired I am usually happy because I have done something challenging and fun and enjoyed the process, even if the result didn't turn out as I had intended (there is no failure, only feedback). If I am fatigued, a rare event, I known that I am probably fighting off a "bug" or doing something I do not enjoy (and probably do not have to do). So, I stop right there.

Exhaustion must be a terrible thing to deal with; it is a total loss of adaptive capacity and dangerous.

The idea that there is just so much energy in the body is certainly wrong; an exhausted person may have thousands of calories of energy stored in body fat and muscle. I don't like these mystical appeals to energy sources, energy pathways, and floating fields that the quacks and gurus of self help nonsense promote.

These states are not physical states, they are states of the nervous system in the advanced stages of fatigue and exhaustion. The nervous system is increasingly isolating the person from the external world.

Read More »

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (3)

Baseball and Football with MIchael Lewis

January 27, 2007 03:23 PM

Russell Roberts, a terrific economist and commentator, interviews Michael Lewis, the author of Moneyball and a new book on professional football on his www.econlib.org site.

It is an excellent interview and reminds me of what our media might be like if informed and intelligent people were given the time to explore issues in a calm and rational manner.

Russell sent me the link and I have heard about half of the interview, which is long and thorough Michael Lewis interview.

LINK · Sports · Comments (5)

Speaking of Softball

January 24, 2007 11:22 AM

I was pleased to see how fit some of the 70 plus players were in the tournament I played in last weekend. Unfortunately, they were not on my team. We have only one or two fit players, besides me. We lost every game.

They took my bat away because it was not approved by the sanctioning body, though it is by the other body. (This competition between sanctioning bodies may be useful to them, because it encourages concessions or sponsorship from bat manufacturers.) I struggled a bit with my hitting, partly because of that and partly because I tried a bit too hard to hit it out. The fences were short, only 240, but the ball was very soft, only a .40 COR. When you swing too hard, you come over the top and the bat goes off-plane. And you hit top spin grounders. Not good. The hands have to stay inside the swing path and take the bat down the line on plane, like Pujols or McGwire or the mature Bonds.

In the last game I relaxed into my easy swing and hit three out, one with the bases loaded. And, I hit a hard single. I went 4 for 4 with 9 or 10 RBIs, but we still lost.

Maybe it is time to take up Long Drive.

LINK · Sports · Comments (0)

Muscle Breakdown in an Elite Runner

November 30, 2006 09:27 AM

From Tom, a reader in New Jersey, this story.

rhabdomyolysis

This is one of the mechanisms that diminishes muscle mass in runners. This case was more severe. The breakdown is a continuous process during a long exertion in any sport. But, it takes a large effort to go this far. There may also have been other elements, as noted in the story.

Of course, elite runners ask too much of themselves. But, so do many of us in other endeavors. I have learned to play and enjoy what I do, not push limits.

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (1)

Kettleballs and a Dumb Exercise

November 29, 2006 11:32 AM

Back from a trip.

For those of you who are interested in Kettleball training, here is a new source of equipment and routines Kettleballs

Not to be overly critical here, but here is a dumb exercise from the same source. So, be skeptical of what you read even from sources that claim to be "scientific" in their recommendations.

Do this exercise at your peril. I would never do it.

Dr. McGill's research shows that this exercise puts a load on your spine that is above any of the loads his lab calculated, and the highest of these were almost surely damaging.

This is the exercise that hurt Wonder Woman. Look at the long levers sending their loads directly into the spine. Add the weight of the ball and wonder why anyone thinks this is good for you. As McGill says, most exercises that are done to protect the spine damage it.

I do have some concerns about the spinal loads of some of the loaded reaching movements used by Kettleballers. Remember, the spine must compress to keep the stack of disks from slipping. Compression combined with flexion is the surest mechanism McGill found for producing disk herniation.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (10)

Hitting Technique

November 21, 2006 12:37 PM

One of the ignored contributors to home run hitting (and batting average) is technique. I happened across this older article from Sporting News that discussed the evolution of Mark McGwire's hitting technique and plate discipline.

Of course the top hand release works. Manny Ramirez, ARod, and Bonds use it. So do nearly all the premiere home run hitters. I use it in slow pitch softball and it seems to work well. I am hitting the ball farther than ever and top the ball far less now as well.

LINK · Sports · Comments (0)

The Physics of "Splash Entry"

October 22, 2006 10:21 AM

From Paul Robinson, a physics teacher at San Mateo High School, this article in the SF Chronicle on Bonds' prowess for hitting it into the Bay. Why can't more teachers be this way? What a pleasure it must be for students to have such a passionate teacher.

Paul has this to add to the story: " I agree with you--hitters like Barry Bonds are not good home run hitters because of steroids. He is an extremely talented hitter. We study the physics of home runs (and so-called "Splash Hits") in my physics classes. Although controversial now, I bet time and history will prove us both right."

Bonds does pull the ball more than most hitters. Adair (The Physics of Baseball) showed that the pull hit right down the line will travel farthest. I think the shorter bat he uses, 33 inches I think, and maple wood, and the smaller diameter contribute to the distance he gets. The smaller bat diameter puts more bite on the ball at contact and imparts more backspin. The shorter bat can reach more acceleration through the hitting area than a longer bat.

As he goes through the hitting area, the bat is is extending through the zone rather than rotating off it. His wrists are more on line with the plane of the bat and he strikes the ball with a wrist movement more like you would use if you were driving a stake with a sledge hammer. That is to say, his wrists are in line with his right forearm and break well after contact. He throws the bat head through the contact zone with his left hand and his wrists do not break until after the ball strike. He releases the bat with his left hand and then the right hand turns over which takes the bat to his high follow through as the bat comes off the hitting plane (this spares the rotator cuff). This is the swing Charlie Lau taught and his son Charlie Lau Jr. continues to teach. Lau Jr. also tutored ARod's swing.

LINK · Sports · Comments (3)

Fight Science

September 4, 2006 07:22 PM

National Geographic Channel has a show this evening on Fight Science. They compare the force of strikes made by a boxer, a karate expert, a Thai boxer, and a Ninja. The strikes are modeled physiologically through a 3D model of the body and force sensors are used to record force.

It is a pretty amazing show. I saw only part of it one evening. It is a taxonomy of blows that the body can take and not survive and the way the blows are delivered.

This is not to my taste but for the dynamics of force production and the spectacular modeling. I don't do any of these sports. I don't even like to think how I might kill someone.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (6)

Sports Advertising Ironies: Estrogen on and in a Bun

August 27, 2006 07:05 PM

One of the many ironies I see in television advertising is this: they are selling products that feminize males. Eventually they will lose their audience. Nearly all the foods and drinks that are sold on TV during sports events turn males into females.

While a number of health web sites and environmental activists have blamed the declining testosterone and sperm counts of American males on water-borne chemicals and various plastics, they are probably wrong. They may be minor issues, surely not major ones. Just look at television sports advertising and you will see a major cause of declining T, rising estrogen, and increasing feminine style obesity in American males.

What are the feminizing substances? Well, plant-derived estrogen. Lack of Vitamin A. Obesity.

The young male woofing down a What-Ever-Burger in the commercial is doing two bad things, probably more. One, he is eating estrogen in the hamburger and in the bun. The sauce has sugar and plenty of it. The sweet soft drink is loaded with things that destroy insulin sensitivity.

Add up the effects. Increased estrogen from an exogenous source (the food-like substances) and increased estrogen and decreased testoterone from an internal source, his own body at least while he is still a he. The exogenous, or external, source is in the plant source of estrogen and the hormones in the meat. Better to just eat the patty. The french fries add another hit of plant estrogen and simple, fat-building carbohydrate. Then, the sugar in the sauce and soft drink that destroys insulin sensitivity. How does a male make estrogen? When he gets fat. His fat turns his testosterone into estrogen. And lacking Vitamin A and other nutrients, there is nothing to block or limit this conversion.

A male drinking beer and eating pizza will become less of a male soon. No longer the young, lean guys they use on the commercials after a few years of this. It is the same process; external sources of estrogen in the beer and pizza and internal sources from excess body fat and poor nutritional status.

What about sports drinks? You have to be kidding if you think you need this stuff at all. Too much sugar, too much salt. You will retain water, like a female does after she loses her metabolic control and you will add still more sugar to the sugar overload that the commercials and fast food and prepared foods promote.

Cookies, pasta, bread? Be prepared to find your soft, feminine side if you eat this stuff. You will have more estrogen than many females if you eat the way modern sports advertising promotes.

The self-limiting aspect of all this is that there will be fewer real males if males do what the commercials suggest. They may still watch sports because the commercials tell them that is what makes them a male. But, they may begin to find that the sports are a little too violent or that the coach yells too much or doesn't really care about their feelings. It will be the end of sports as we know them.

Males: in all seriousness, do not feminize your sons with this kind of food and drink. Athletes, and the commercials they do, are not role models. Let your boys grow up to be men. The Cookie Monster IS a monster who promotes carb addiction and excess feminization of the American male. We need them now.

LINK · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (8)

A Vegan Swimmer Dies

August 21, 2006 07:56 PM

This on a death from a reader. The topic has been up one day and we have a death and a cancer diagnosis to report to those of you who may think extreme endurance training is healthy.

If you are new to this site, understand this: I am not making light of these tragic deaths. I respect the choices each of these individuals made. Nor is it necessarily true that their form of extreme exercise was the cause. But, it is almost surely a contributing factor and no one should promote these extreme forms of exercise as healthy. Nor is vegetarianism healthy, as the widow states in this news artice. To the contrary, the evidence is there for anyone to see. Extreme endurance training and veganism are not good choices for a long and healthy life. Or even for a life filled with energy.

Gary Eaton who swam with the Georgia Masters program since 1993 (for both Dynamo and the Killer Whales), died during a swim workout on Monday. Gary was one of those persons you know you're going to like the first time you meet and you treasure their friendship. And he was an incredible swimmer..... I've reprinted his obit published in the AJC today. =========================================================================== ATLANTA Gary Eaton, 49, swimmer, dog lover

By HOLLY CRENSHAW
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/04/06
Sunday was a glorious day for Gary Eaton. He was a health enthusiast who was crazy about animals, and the Atlanta Dog Jog in Piedmont Park was made-to-order fun.
Running wasn't his thing, but years of competitive swimming helped him sprint to an easy finish with one of his rescue dogs, Loretta Mae.

"He actually came in second in the large dog category that day," said his wife, Laura Eaton of Atlanta, who cheered him from the sidelines with their 20-month-old daughter, Callie.
"He was just in the greatest shape. He ate very healthy and had the most incredible body."
Gary Lee Eaton, 49, of Atlanta died of heart failure at Piedmont Hospital on Monday after suddenly collapsing during his morning swim routine. The body was cremated. The memorial service is 10 a.m. today at St. Martin in the Fields Episcopal Church. H. M. Patterson & Son, Oglethorpe Hill is in charge of arrangements.
Mr. Eaton could not have been more fit, his wife said. He set his alarm clock for 4:45 a.m. Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays to join his master's swim team for an early morning workout.
On Tuesdays and Thursdays, he slept in an extra hour, then headed to the gym before work.
His swimming took him beyond Atlanta's chlorinated pools to open-water swims in Lake Tahoe and to St. Croix, where in 2002 he finished ninth in the men's division.
The Kentucky native attended the University of Kentucky on a swimming scholarship and earned a bachelor's degree in business in 1979.
"Gary swam four years in college at the Division I level, and shockingly, he was swimming better in his 40s than he was a 22," said his friend Rick Pannell of Lexington.
Mr. Eaton started his banking career in Charleston. He moved to Atlanta in the late 1980s, where he worked as a loan officer, most recently at Quantum National Bank in Suwanee.
He never lost his love of Kentucky, both the state and the university's sports teams. He read several newspapers a day but always started with Lexington's.
His wife said she was banished when he was watching UK basketball, for fear she might speak mid-game.
Mr. Eaton's friends called him "Magnum P.I." because his fashion sense was stuck in the '80s.
"He had the sweetest personality, and what attracted me to him was that he was such a calming force," his wife said. "He gave the best advice. He really should have been a therapist."
Every time he cranked his car, Mr. Eaton made sure he had dog biscuits in his glove compartment. He stayed on the lookout for stray dogs, then lured them with treats and found them homes with his friends. He had a soft spot for Second Chances Animal Rescue, where he adopted two dogs.
Jojo, a hound-lab mix, still bears a one-inch-thick scar where previous owners let a rope grow into her skin, Mrs. Eaton said.
Loretta Mae, the spotted Treeing Walker coonhound that ran with him Sunday, had lost 35 pounds after she was abandoned in the woods.
Mr. Eaton was a vegetarian, partly for health reasons but mainly because he loved animals so much, his wife said.
"He thought there was enough pain in the world without causing any more."

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (3)

A Marathon Cancer

This from a reader. Our first of what I think will be many postings to this topic.

Sadly, former marathon world record holder and 9-time winner of the NYC Marathon Grete Weitz has cancer.

Grete Waitz

It might not be the marathoning, but it probably is. A sad diagnosis, but one I have come to expect of marathoners. Grete Waitz has cancer. She won the Gold Medal at the 1983 Olympics.

She is in some form of denial, but denial is good I think in cases like this. It is likely brain cancer, just as Lebow, the founder of the running group to which she belongs died of. See my post on how extreme running promotes brain cancer.

Ironically, she stills believes that running is healthly and is actively involved in promoting running as a healthy lifeway. You decide what you think, but the answers are piling up. It isn't.

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Evolutionary Fitness ~ · Sports · Comments (1)

A New Archive

August 19, 2006 09:27 AM

After much thought, I have decided to add another archive called Endurance Training Deaths. When I see or a reader sees and sends me a news item about a death related to a running, cycling, triathlon or related death from an endurance event I will post it. There must be a close connection between the activity and the death, though this may be too stringent as some deaths or ill-health are related to the more chronic toll that over-training takes on the immune system or related from the metabolic problems that result from the high carbohydrate diet favored by endurance athletes. This is not about putting down these sports or making light of the deaths; it is simply an antidote to the favorable and misleading opinion about the relationship between endurance training and health. A bit is just fine, but too much is deadly. Ischemia, reperfusion injury, and inflammation are some of the pathways through which heavy aerobic training endangers the heart.

Do send me any verifiable news you find on this growing and much under-reported problem. I will gradually go back over the archives to label some of the earlier posts on this sad topic.

Here is the first, a small part of an article by Wes Phillips of Stereophile Magazine (one of my favorites) sent to me by a reader. It is a sadly ironic piece because the cycling that contributed to his death was intended to contribute to this person's health:

Read More »

LINK · Endurance Training: Death, Injury, and Risk ~ · Sports · Comments (3)

Fight or Flight: Working out like your life depends on it

A common question from a reader, Beefheadboy:

First off, briefly, excellent site mate. A beacon of light in the pile of mud that is common health knowledge.

Right, to the point, I've been living quite happily on steaks, fish, pork, veg, fruit, chicken, eggs, nuts and seeds. I love eating this way and it has done wonders for my bodyfat levels (although unmeasured I can see all my abs now!) and it feels so natural too. Here lies my problem, I have lost lots of bodyfat but I'm finding it difficult to put any bulk on. My waist is about size 30 from 34 odd a couple of months ago. I workout about 3 times a week for about 45 minutes max each time doing compound movements (weighted dips, deadlifts, weighted chins etc.). I try and do high intensity too, but I seem to remain slender. I go hungry a few times a week and try to keep a mindset of an evolutionary male.

I am going to use this as a way to reveal a small secret about how I keep or add muscle mass that I will explain in the book. This is what I do, more or less, but I caution that it is your decision if you do it.

I exploit the evolutionary male idea, but I add the environmental challenge that such a male wold face. He has to fight for his life or escape in flight about once a week. Do that and you will have muscle and the right body composition. You could do this like the most muscular person I ever saw; a New Guinea hunter-gatherer who climbed trees to hunt sloth and large birds. Not all that safe and a long way to go for a work out. Or the other most-muscular guy I saw was someone I worked with one summer in a flour warehouse. He unloaded a box car of 100 pound flour sacks once a week (I have an earlier post on this).

The secret is: Do less, but do it like your life depends on it. Work out once a week but make it a work out that is a struggle for your life. Do it safely though. Make it fun. Build up to it in increments. Keep it very short and intense.

1. Keep it safe. It must be brief, most struggles for your life are over in a flash. Either the predator got you or didn't. Or, you killed the game or not.

2. It must be no more than once a week; you cannot recover adequately if you do it more often and it is too taxing. Pick a random day. Don't do it on the same day always.

3. Make it fun but a little bit scary.

4. You must protect your heart. Do not grip things too hard, stay loose so the blood flow is not constricted by clenched hands and teeth. Don't hold your breath, exhale as you push or pull the weight.

5. Protect your back. Do the abdominal brace, contracting the erectors of the back and pushing the abdominals out a bit and contracting them. Feel as though you have a band of muscle contracted around your waist. Load only one limb at a time to lighten the load on your spine on leg presses and rows. Maintain the curvature of your spine and pivot from the hips rather than bending the spine.

6. This should be over in 15 minutes, max.

7. No rest between sets or exercises.

Read More »