Applied Sports Science newsletter – July 1, 2016

… “She’s the greatest athlete in the world today by far,” said Michael J. Joyner, an anesthesiologist and researcher for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., specializing in human performance and physiology. “She’s dominating by the widest margin in international sport, winning by 1 or 2 percent. If [a runner] won the 10,000 meters by that wide a margin, they’d win by 100 meters. One or 2 percent in the Tour de France, over about 80 hours of racing, would be 30 or 40 minutes. It’s just absolutely remarkable.”

The people who coach her, train with her and race against her are quietly bracing for another monster summer from Ledecky, with the question not a matter of wins and losses but how much faster she can possibly go.

Purpose: The present study examined whether a period of additional speed endurance training would improve intense intermittent exercise performance in highly trained soccer players during the season and whether the training changed aerobic metabolism and the level of oxidative enzymes in type I and type II muscle fibers.

Methods: During the last 9 wk of the season, 13 semiprofessional soccer players performed additional speed endurance training sessions consisting of two to three sets of 8–10 repetitions of 30-m sprints with 10 s of passive recovery (SET). Before and after SET, subjects completed a double-step exercise protocol that included transitions from standing to moderate-intensity running (~75% HRmax), followed by transitions from moderate- to high-intensity running (~90% HRmax) in which pulmonary oxygen uptake (V?O2) was determined. In addition, the yo-yo intermittent recovery test level 1 was performed, and a muscle biopsy was obtained at rest.

Results: The yo-yo intermittent recovery test level 1 performance was 11.6% ± 6.4% (mean ± SD) better (2803 ± 330 vs 3127 ± 383 m, P < 0.05) after SET compared with before SET. In the transition from standing to moderate-intensity running, phase II pulmonary V?O2 kinetics was 11.4% ± 16.5% faster (P < 0.05), and the running economy at this intensity was 2.3% ± 3.0% better (P < 0.05). These improvements were apparent despite the content of muscle proteins regulating oxidative metabolism (3-hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase, COX IV, and OXPHOS), and capillarization was reduced (P < 0.05). The content of 3-hydroxyacyl CoA dehydrogenase and citrate synthase in type I and type II fibers did not change.

Conclusion: In highly trained soccer players, additional speed endurance training is associated with an improved ability to perform repeated high-intensity work. To what extent the training-induced changes in V?O2 kinetics and mechanical efficiency in type I fibers caused the improvement in performance warrants further investigation.

The last few years have seen studies showing that the muscles don’t react uniformly to an exercise. In other words, every part of the muscle doesn’t experience an exercise the same way. Different exercises will hypertrophy different aspects of a muscle (for example, some may focus more on the proximal aspect, some on the distal, etc.). It would also make sense that this would extend to how the muscles are recruited by the central nervous system to perform the exercise.

When I first started training for marathons a little over ten years ago, my coach told me something I’ve never forgotten: that I would need to learn how to be comfortable with being uncomfortable. I didn’t know it at the time, but that skill, cultivated through running, would help me as much, if not more, off the road as it would on it.

It’s not just me, and it’s not just running. Ask anyone whose day regularly includes a hard bike ride, sprints in the pool, a complex problem on the climbing wall, or a progressive powerlifting circuit, and they’ll likely tell you the same: A difficult conversation just doesn’t seem so difficult anymore. A tight deadline not so intimidating. Relationship problems not so problematic.

Here are nine facts to help you understand metabolism, and how to think about it in the context of weight gain and weight loss.

1) Your metabolism is in every cell in your body

If you spend time playing mentally taxing games on your smartphone or computer, will it make you more intelligent? A billion dollar “brain training” industry is premised on the idea that it will. Academic psychologists are divided – the majority view is that by playing brain training games you will only improve at those games, you won’t become smarter. But there are scholars who believe in the wider benefits of computer-based brain training and some reviews support their position, such as the 2015 meta-analysis that combined findings from 20 prior studies to conclude “short-term cognitive training on the order of weeks can result in beneficial effects in important cognitive functions”.

But what if those prior studies supporting brain training were fundamentally flawed by the presence of a powerful placebo effect? That’s the implication of a new study in PNAS that suggests the advertising used to recruit participants into brain training research fosters expectations of mental benefits.

A road bike race is about just one thing: energy. Pro and elite amateur riders obsess about their personal power data extracted from sensors on bikes, but total energy—power multiplied by time—is what really counts. The team that reaches the finish line in first place is the one that figures out how best to create, conserve, and expend that energy.

Take stage 3 of the 2016 AMGEN Tour of California on May 17, for example. The route opened with a 96.7 mile ride up the coast from Thousand Oaks to Santa Barbara, interspersed with a couple of short climbs, and ended with a 7.4 mile, average 8% gradient, winding climb up Gibraltar Road. The long prologue required endurance, carefully conserving energy; the steep final climb needed raw strength. The rider who had best conserved his energy would be positioned to barge up that final climb.

“It all comes down to the power-to-weight ratio,” says former pro cyclist Jens Voigt of ending inclines. “It’s just survival of the fittest.”

… An article by Mobile ID World reported survey results from a joint poll of 706 Americans by biometric wearable-maker Valencell and the MEMS & Sensors Industry Group. … “More consumers than ever before are looking to biometric wearables to monitor their health and fitness, and wearables that cannot be trusted for accuracy will ultimately lose-out to wearables that have been properly validated,” said Valencell President and Co-founder Steven LeBoeuf. “These survey results are testament to Valencell’s view that accurate and interesting insights are critical to the success of the wearable industry, and are the biggest drivers of growth today.”

Professional football player Spencer Paysinger trains intensively as a professional football player but felt constantly fatigued. It wasn’t until testing with Blueprint for Athletes™, a novel sports performance testing service that arms dedicated athletes with personalized insights to help them achieve their personal best, that he learned he was allergic to the high levels of nuts and legumes he was consuming for energy, making tough training sessions tougher than they should have been. Since removing those foods from his diet, he’s felt lighter and stronger, and credits Blueprint for Athletes with helping to increase his performance.

Purpose: To prospectively investigate the association between isolated and functional lower extremity muscle strength, and the risk for non-contact ACL injury in Norwegian female elite handball and football players.

Methods: From 2007 through 2015, premier league players participated in strength testing and were prospectively followed for ACL injury risk. At baseline, we recorded player demographics, playing and ACL injury history, and measured peak concentric isokinetic quadriceps and hamstrings torques (60[degrees]/s), HQ-ratio, isometric hip abduction strength and 1RM in a seated leg press. We followed a pre-defined statistical protocol where we generated 5 separate logistic regression models, one for each of the proposed strength risk factors and adjusted for confounding factors. New ACL injury was the outcome, using the leg as the unit of analysis.

Results: A total of 57 (6.6%) out of 867 players (age: 21+/-4 yrs; height: 170+/-6 cm; body mass: 66+/-8 kg) suffered from a non-contact ACL injury after baseline testing (1.8+/-1.8 yrs). The OR of sustaining a new injury among those with an ACL injury history was 3.1 (95% CI 1.6 to 6.1). None of the 5 strength variables selected were statistically associated with an increased risk of ACL rupture when adjusted for sport, dominant leg, ACL injury history, and height.

Conclusion: Peak lower extremity strength was not associated with an increased ACL injury risk among female elite handball and football players. Hence, peak strength, as measured in the present study, cannot be used to screen elite female athletes to predict injury risk.

Background/aim Recent rule changes regarding the safety of basketball athletes necessitate up-to-date reports of injury incidence. This study describes the epidemiology of injuries in men’s and women’s National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) basketball during the 2009/2010–2014/2015 seasons.

Methods Basketball injury data originate from the 2009/2010–2014/2015 academic years from the NCAA Injury Surveillance Program (NCAA-ISP) from 78 men’s and 74 women’s NCAA basketball programmes which provided 176 and 181 team-seasons, respectively. A reportable injury occurred during organised practice or competition and required attention from an athletic trainer (AT) or physician. Injury rates, injury proportions and rate ratios (RRs) were calculated. All 95% CIs not containing 1.0 were considered statistically significant.

Results A total of 2308 and 1631 injuries were reported in men’s and women’s basketball, respectively, for injury rates of 7.97 and 6.54/1000 athlete-exposures (AEs). The rate was higher in men than women (RR=1.22; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.30). Non-time-loss (NTL) injuries (resulting in participation restriction time under 24?hours) accounted for 64.8% and 53.6% of men’s competition and practice injuries, respectively, and 53.9% and 51.3% of women’s competition and practice injuries, respectively. Injuries to the lower extremity were the most common in competitions (men: 54.9%; women: 59.0%) and practices (men: 62.4%; women: 67.3%). The most common injury in men’s and women’s basketball was ankle sprain (17.9% and 16.6%, respectively).

Conclusions NTL injuries account for over half of all injuries in basketball. Most injuries were lower extremity injuries, specifically ankle sprains. While rule changes have been implemented to make basketball safer, continued research is needed to assess the effectiveness of these changes.

A member of German soccer’s medical team outlines the science behind caring for some of the world’s most elite players.

For national soccer teams, players’ health is key, particularly before and during major international tournaments like EURO 2016. Tim Meyer is one of the doctors responsible for the German national team and a professor of sports medicine at Saarland University. We asked him what goes into keeping a team of elite players in top medical shape and how he unites research and practice as he does so.

… The point of the study (PDF), published in 2009 in the journal Psychology of Sport and Exercise, wasn’t to blow anybody away with heterodox findings, but rather an attempt to prove the validity of using attitudes toward doping as a proxy for actual doping behavior. As the authors point out, studies of the incidence of doping certainly help in trying to develop anti-doping strategies, “but obtaining reliable information on doping behaviour is hindered by the fact that athletes are asked to admit a behaviour that could jeopardise their sports career.”

Their study suggested that revealing attitudes toward doping was less incriminating and thus more reliable than self-reported doping behavior, and correlated strongly with actually doping. All of the PEAS averages were below the theoretical mid-point of 59.5 because doping is currently illegal, and in general, acceptance of doping is not the norm.

Recruiting rankings matter, and getting top talent is a prerequisite for winning college football championships. Teams need to sign a bunch of four- and five-star players to have any chance at all.

It’s common knowledge by now that a few states (Florida, Texas, California) have more of this elite talent than anywhere else. But just how clustered are America’s best four- and five-star football players? I counted, in every state and the District of Columbia.

So how did I become a cheating expert? For some odd reason, a co-worker asked me why this Julie Miller lady cheated during her Ironman “thingy.” Who is Julie Miller? I had to look this up. Overnight she’s become the next pariah for cheating at sport. I’m not oblivious to the idea of cheating while competing – I raced and idolized all those cyclists during the 90’s (or as the British describe it – the noughties).

Why would anyone cheat? It really doesn’t make sense. Obviously the end result is the prize, however, you know you didn’t earn it. So why jeopardize your morals just to stand at the top of a podium for 30 seconds. Strictly speaking, I am addressing the age group crowd. There is an apparent incentive to cheat at the professional level, yet, even then, you risk sponsors, legal and monetary retribution.

To save time, I’m not going to go into the historical evidence on those that have cheated. The lists are long and exhaustive. Every sport seems to have its crazy stories of what someone had done to gain an edge over their competition. What I will attempt to do is get into the mindset of the athletic scammer and talk about how athletes seem to justify their deception.