Athletic Heart in the media

[Mark Rippetoe]

This is one of these things that I normally don't post, but this is just so fucking stupid it has to be addressed, because someone might believe it:

NFL players' bigger hearts could hurt them decades after retiring | Daily Mail Online

[Eric May]

A couple weeks ago I had a "concerned friend" tell me I should be very careful not to get too muscular because it is bad for your heart. After all the bigger you are the harder your heart has to work to pump blood through all your muscles which would almost certainly lead to an early death. They recommended I stick to lighter weight and higher reps to avoid getting "too bulky"...

I had a very hard time not bursting into laughter as they explained this to me.

[EyeMD]

Wow, I've read some stupid shit in the mainstream media but this is impressive. Two of my favorites:

"Findings showed that about 12 percent of the men had LVH, which is about the same rate found among US adults." -- one would think this would be the end of the study
"The rate was highest among former football players with hypertension, who had more than double (1.5 times) the risk of LVH than those without hypertension." -- oh, what a novel finding!

I am embarrassed for the medical profession that this piece of crap was actually accepted for a poster presentation at a seemingly reputable medical conference.

[Mark Rippetoe]

I searched for a sentence -- a phrase, even -- that was actually true in this piece of embarrassing shit. This is the only one I found:

we don't yet truly understand

[jfsully]

Has the actual study been published? I didn’t see a citation. Having worked in a medical “newsroom” briefly, I can say that it is a miracle when an academic study is accurately represented in the popular press.

In other words, assume the newspaper article is oversimplified to the point of contradicting the original paper, and critique the actual paper when it’s available.

[GammaFlat]

"'Athlete's heart' results in an enlarged heart with a slower resting rate than normal.
One sign is left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), which is when the walls of the left ventricle, the heart's main pumping chamber, thickens.
LVH is not a disease itself, but it is often a marker for heart disease. "

This is highly deceptive and embedded with weasel words like "LVH is not a disease itself, but is often a marker". The cardiologist I spoke with said that exercise induced wall thickness was not a problem at all. I suspect wall thickness from other causes (congenital defects or infectious diseases like whooping cough) is conflated with the "exercise induced version" making it suspicious when there's really nothing wrong with it.

[deeprooted]

Sooo... why are former athletes specifically more at risk developing heart issues when "Findings showed that about 12 percent of the men had LVH, which is about the same rate found among US adults."?

[Frankie]

Sooo... why are former athletes specifically more at risk developing heart issues when "Findings showed that about 12 percent of the men had LVH, which is about the same rate found among US adults."?

"In addition, the researchers found the likelihood of LVH tracked closely with the player’s position. LVH was most prevalent in positions that emphasize strength-based training and large body size, including linemen, fullbacks, running backs, linebackers, quarterbacks and tight ends."

Yeah the article sucked ass and is just standard health fear mongering for clicks but this is a study funded by the NFL Player Care Foundation about to be presented at the American College of Cardiology Annual...and your counter evidence to it is...what? Anecdotal?

I'm sure it's a flawed study that doesn't take all the correct variables into account but I thought you guys would love this shit. It seems like a discussion and investigation worth having.

[LimieJosh]

Has the actual study been published? I didn’t see a citation. Having worked in a medical “newsroom” briefly, I can say that it is a miracle when an academic study is accurately represented in the popular press.

In other words, assume the newspaper article is oversimplified to the point of contradicting the original paper, and critique the actual paper when it’s available.

It's a report on an abstract being presented at a conference that does not require peer review. Conference proceedings are an important part of the process, but there is a good reason why they are generally not part of an academic's CV. This will get published eventually though as it is part of a project there is a lot of interest in. That makes it all the more unfortunate that it's a piece of crap study predicated on faulty assumptions...strength based vs endurance based is a meaningful distinction between the groups the study has created, 2) any difference observed can be attributed to the process of acquiring strength, as is heavily insinuated.

There is an important point in here though that this study thinks it wants to make but fails to. LVH by itself is not a problem, only certain manifestations of it are. The sort of LVH we see in many athletes are fine. The sort of LVH we see in the general population is a problem (increase in hypertrophy without a corresponding increase in chamber volume). These are quite easily distinguished, albeit not by ECG, and so it is quite disappointing the abstract (I am assuming that is the case as I have read several different reports of it that are all comparable) makes no attempt to make this critical distinction despite using ultrasound to measure wall thickness, a technique that would allow for this distinction to be made. Without this distinction this study is pointless. With it, it is still likely pointless if they want to make the extrapolations they seemingly want to make.

[Mark Rippetoe]

It seems like a discussion and investigation worth having.

Can we also discuss whether Creatine Monohydrate causes kidney cancer? The seriousness of the question demands an investigation.