AusDaz
Total Posts: 3611
|
03-07-21 12:31 AM - Post#908573
This is interesting:
“We noted, among other things, a very low risk of coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes among endurance athletes similar to that noted for hunter- gatherer societies. This finding did not extend to individuals who participated in strength sports, however, who have a different disease risk profile. Athletes who take part in strength sports differ from other athletes not only in their training schedules, but also in their body-build and musculature, which are in part genetically determined and in part training- induced. As such, the associations between physical fitness, physical activity, and disease are also in part genetically determined. For example, genetic factors contribute heavily to the high variability between individuals in the proportion of slow-twitch versus fast-twitch muscle fibres. Strength athletes have a high proportion of fast-twitch (in particular glycolytic type IIb) muscle fibres, whereas endurance athletes have a high proportion of slow-twitch muscle fibres with high oxidative capacity. The proportion of fast-twitch versus slow-twitch fibres is one potential determinant of the type and degree of physical activity a person will participate in, as well as morbidity. A high proportion of slow-twitch (oxidative type I) muscle fibres correlates positively with physical fitness, favourable lipid profile (high HDL-cholesterol and low triglyceride concentrations), and insulin action. Accordingly, men with a natural ability in power sports are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disorders than those with a natural ability in endurance sports, irrespective of the amount of exercise undertaken.”
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/ PIIS0140-6736(05)67853-1.pdf
Maybe it’s not just PEDs that lead to the early demise of so many elite throwers and sprinters.
|
Roger Clarvin
Total Posts: 72
|
03-07-21 01:15 AM - Post#908574
"We grouped the sports that the athletes competed in by degree of average maximum oxygen uptake as follows: endurance sports (highest maximum oxygen uptake—long-distance runners and cross-country skiers), mixed sports (medium maxi- mum oxygen uptake—soccer, ice-hockey, basketball, track and field jumpers, and short-distance runners), and strength sports (lowest maximum oxygen uptake— weightlifters, wrestlers, boxers, and track and field throwers)."
This seems weird to me. Track and field jumpers have higher VO2 max than wrestlers and boxers? Is that right? And wrestling and boxing are "strength sports" in the same category as weightlifting, but jumping and sprinting are not "strength sports" but instead are in there with soccer players? But then I am not an exercise scientologist.
Also, I have read these two sentences below about ten times, and I do not see how the second sentence follows from the first. I sense great violence being done to the word "accordingly."
"A high proportion of slow-twitch (oxidative type I) muscle fibres correlates positively with physical fitness, favourable lipid profile (high HDL-cholesterol and low triglyceride concentrations), and insulin action. Accordingly, men with a natural ability in power sports are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disorders than those with a natural ability in endurance sports, irrespective of the amount of exercise undertaken."
|
Matt_T
Total Posts: 379
|
03-07-21 04:01 AM - Post#908575
"We grouped the sports that the athletes competed in by degree of average maximum oxygen uptake as follows: endurance sports (highest maximum oxygen uptake—long-distance runners and cross-country skiers), mixed sports (medium maxi- mum oxygen uptake—soccer, ice-hockey, basketball, track and field jumpers, and short-distance runners), and strength sports (lowest maximum oxygen uptake— weightlifters, wrestlers, boxers, and track and field throwers)."
This seems weird to me. Track and field jumpers have higher VO2 max than wrestlers and boxers? Is that right? And wrestling and boxing are "strength sports" in the same category as weightlifting, but jumping and sprinting are not "strength sports" but instead are in there with soccer players? But then I am not an exercise scientologist.
Also, I have read these two sentences below about ten times, and I do not see how the second sentence follows from the first. I sense great violence being done to the word "accordingly."
"A high proportion of slow-twitch (oxidative type I) muscle fibres correlates positively with physical fitness, favourable lipid profile (high HDL-cholesterol and low triglyceride concentrations), and insulin action. Accordingly, men with a natural ability in power sports are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disorders than those with a natural ability in endurance sports, irrespective of the amount of exercise undertaken."
My thoughts exactly. The boxing one is particularly weird, look at the fighters iin the lower weight categories if you want to see someone who looks like he lives a hunter gatherer existence.
Suspect many 'strength' athletes eat more to lift more, but then who knows if that's a thing with this study due to the random assignment of athletic disciplines.
|
AusDaz
Total Posts: 3611
|
03-07-21 06:32 AM - Post#908577
Yes, those things do seem odd.
There’s a reference to this line of research in Noakes book Lore of Running, 4th ed, pp16-17. The main authors seem to be Tikkanen and Kujala. Here’s a link to another article I found - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11131233/
But really what do you do with this beyond go and read the thread on health hacks and Dan John’s signature line. Those things are the safest way to play whatever cards any of us are dealt.
|
Old Miler
Total Posts: 1744
|
Sprinters and jumpers do a fair bit of running in their winter training. Not to the level of their distance partners, but to have the stamina to complete a 90-minute training session, and as a by-product of doing lots of high speed drills.
Example: Charlie Francis had his sprinters doing 'extensive tempo' in winter - 20 200m repetitions in one session. That's a whole lot more cardio than you think.
Another: I know many, many jumpers who just happened to be quite useful on the cross country team in winter in college. Of course they focus later, but they are skinny, bouncy and have no excess fat and they hang around with people who run and do circuits.
Postscript: just watched the European Indoors womens 60m finals. Just 7 seconds of the most intense activity possible. 3 minutes later, the medallists are on the track posing for photos...and still visibly panting. So, they elevate their heart rates for a lot longer than the event itself might suggest....
Edited by Old Miler on 03-07-21 05:25 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Dan John
Total Posts: 12292
|
03-07-21 06:46 PM - Post#908592
In one of my old Track Techniques, there is a javelin thrower who did 6-7 miles of running a day, yoga and the javelin.
Born better than all of us, too...that helps.
Daniel John
Just handing down what I was handed down...
Make a Difference.
Live. Love. Laugh.
Balance work, rest, play and pray (enjoy beauty and solitude)
Sleep soundly. Drink Water. Eat veggies and protein. Walk.
Wear your seat belt. Don’t smoke. Floss your teeth.
Put weights overhead. Pick weights off the floor. Carry weights.
Reread great books. Say thank you |
|
Kyle Aaron
Total Posts: 1911
|
This seems weird to me. Track and field jumpers have higher VO2 max than wrestlers and boxers? Is that right?
Bodyweight. Jumpers aren't heavy.
VO2max is expressed in terms of the volume of oxygen got into the body each minute, per kilogram of bodyweight. So if your bodyweight is 100kg and you have a VO2max of 30, and you become 70kg, your VO2max will rise to 43 - even if you never went for a single walk. People think of VO2max as like the size of the engine, but really it's more like the horsepower to weight ratio - put the same engine in a smaller chassis and it'll have better fuel efficiency and go faster. Long jumpers tend to have smaller chassis than wrestlers and boxers.
Mike Powell, WR long jump holder, was 1.88m and 79kg - a BMI of 22.3. By contrast Mike Tyson was 1.78m and 109kg, a BMI of 34.4. Given the same heart and lungs, Tyson would have a VO2max 28% lower. I suppose they could be talking about flyweights but I strongly doubt it.
men with a natural ability in power sports are at a higher risk of developing cardiovascular disorders than those with a natural ability in endurance sports, irrespective of the amount of exercise undertaken.
They're muddling correlation with causation. Guys who do strength sports tend have a lot of fast-twitch muscle fibres, yes - but they also tend to eat a lot of meat and dairy, which means high saturated fats, and they often use anabolic steroids - and they tend to be bigger rather than smaller. Diet, drugs, being big. Those three things contribute to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.
Barbells are not going to give you heart disease. Becoming HYUGE may.
Edited by Kyle Aaron on 03-08-21 01:30 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
iPood
Total Posts: 2360
|
What about those of us who are FAT-twitch dominant? 
"I think we often spend too much time focusing on max fitness
and not nearly enough on maintaining our minimums.
It seems we need to think sustainable rather than obtainable.
Meaning whatever we do today, we can do it again tomorrow.
Never taking so much from ourselves that we can't."
Dan Martin |
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
What about those of us who are FAT-twitch dominant?
We die sassy and happy.
|
Jordan D
Total Posts: 771
|
They're muddling correlation with causation.
Come on, if we didn’t allow them to muddle correlation and causation, exercise science wouldn’t exist.
|
DanMartin
Total Posts: 20705
|
They're muddling correlation with causation.
Come on, if we didn’t allow them to muddle correlation and causation, exercise science wouldn’t exist.
Bro Science doesn't count.
|
Andy Mitchell
Total Posts: 5269
|
Studies suggest 10 out of 10 trainees die
But someone said; cheer up things could get worse!
So I did and sure enough things got worse
Nice legs-shame about the face
|
Edited by Andy Mitchell on 03-08-21 09:05 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Andy Mitchell
Total Posts: 5269
|
They're muddling correlation with causation.
Come on, if we didn’t allow them to muddle correlation and causation, exercise science wouldn’t exist.
Bro Science doesn't count.
That’s one of the three certain things in life...
Nice legs-shame about the face
|
|
Roger Clarvin
Total Posts: 72
|
03-08-21 10:45 PM - Post#908630
Old Miler and Kyle, thanks for the informative responses.
|
Dan Christensen
Total Posts: 122
|
03-09-21 03:54 AM - Post#908636
The essay buries the lead.
"The results of the cohort study of Finish former elite athletes show that, compared with controls, in later life athletes had less disability, better self-rated health, and were less in need of hospital care. The disease risk reduction was highest in athletes who had participated in endurance sports."
So yeah, being an international athlete is good for health and longevity. Being an international cardio athlete is better.
My library access is frozen or I would have gone to look at the original articles, but like everyone else, I've got misgivings about how to interpret the differences between different sorts of athletes. If it's not a massive effect size, in an observational study spanning 40 years, I'd say the appropriate interpretation is no interpretation at all.
Side-note: The essay is from 2005 and it cites much older research. I imagine today you could probably run their DNA through a super-computer over a long weekend, which (if you also had matched controls) might say a bit more about the effects of the predisposition for muscle fibre type and later health.
|
|
