Genetic Testing and the Question of "Fair Play" in Athletics

           As technology has advanced in the last several decades, the role of genetic testing has become increasingly prominent in society. It has been used to determine genealogy, has come under fire for its use in the insurance world and in the realm of sports it threatens to open a venerable “Pandora’s Box” in new ways to cheat the system and gain an unfair advantage. This paper will address genetic testing from its beginning in the sporting world as a way to verify gender to current controversies raised and the questions it forces us as a society to answer, all the way to the potential role of genetic testing and, as a result, genetic doping has in the future of athletics.

            In a time before genetic testing was readily available, women in the sporting world, specifically track and field, had to, by mandate of the Internationals Association of Athletics Foundation (IAAF) and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), verify their gender by being, “…forced to parade in the nude before a panel of gynaecologists (sic) and were subjected to traumatic and degrading visual genital inspections.” (Ljundqvist, Martinez-Patino, Martinez-Vidal, Zagalaz, Diaz, Mateos) This practice was common until 1968, when the IOC implemented chromosomal testing for the first time in the Grenoble games. The reasoning was three fold: first, it was done to compromise against the outcry from the female participants against being violated, second, because the tests sometimes came back inconclusive, and lastly due to rumors of Eastern European men planning to impersonate women in the Olympic games. Unfortunately, these tests provided their own set of problems.

             Among the dozens of chromosomal disorders individuals could be affected by, one in particular, led to multiple “positive” chromosomal test for female competitors. The condition, androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), causes the cell receptors for testosterone to not recognize the androgen (testosterone) and as a result do not read the instructions being given to it. This would cause a male embryo to develop as a female with full feminine characteristics with the exception of XY chromosomes and undescended testes. There are several stages of AIS, the most severe of which results in a body’s complete inability to read testosterone. Those with a partial, or incomplete, version of AIS would be chromosomally male with a vagina and undescended testes, but may be able to read some of the testosterone signals in the body, but, as Ariel Levy of The New Yorker notes, “…that does not necessarily mean that they would have an athletic advantage.” Such was the case for Maria Patino.

            Patino, a Spanish champion hurdler and competitor in the World University Games in 1985, unknowingly also had AIS. At this point in time, visual inspections had been done away with and chromosomal tests were required of athletes without previous verification, which Patino had forgotten. Given her condition, the test came back registering her as a male. As a result, Patino was stripped of all previous athletic accomplishment, lost her university scholarship, and was left by her fiance.

Maria Patino - Redefining what "having a bad day" means.

         Her subsequent ban from athletic competition lasted three years and only after tireless campaigning on her part to prove that her condition did not make her male or give her an unfair advantage was it lifted. Unfortunately, by that time her athletic career was all but over. Three years later, in 1991, the International Association of Athletic Foundation (IAAF) abandoned the use of laboratory gender verification tests. The IOC did not do so until 1999. While it is estimated that at least one female athlete was excluded from the Olympic games due to AIS or a similar condition in the years between, it would be ten years before another controversy that would catch the world’s attention would arise.

            In 2009, Caster Semenya was an 18 year old up and coming track and field athlete from South Africa. She was a talented miler, but her best event was the 800m. Before she had even enrolled in college she had already won the 800 in the Commonwealth Games. She would later go on to win the African Junior Athletics Championships, dropping her personal best by over seven seconds in the effort and qualifying for the 2009 World Championships in Berlin, Germany. Even before competing in the World Championships, which she eventually won, there were whispers around the track and field world that a masculine woman was far and away surpassing her competition and dropping her times by unheard of margins. She had already broken the South African record previously held by Zola Budd. (Levy) As the whispers became roars from competitors and spectators alike, hitting its peak after she took the world championship by nearly three seconds, Semenya confirmed in a report that she had been approached and had submitted to a gender-verification test of her free will.

            A few months later the Daily Telegraph, an Australian paper, leaked that a source had confirmed that Semenya’s test had come back to reveal that she possessed neither ovaries or a uterus, but did have undescended testes that provided her body with three times the testosterone of a normal female body. They used this information to argue that she had an unfair biological advantage over her competitors.

The Daily Telegraph is also owned by Rupert Murdoch and we all know he's never told a lie.

            Though allowed to keep her title and prize money, Semenya was banned from further competition until the IAAF could come to a decision. When questioned, the IAAF stated that their, “…threshold for when a female is considered ineligible to compete as a woman is unclear.” It was nearly a year before Semenya was granted the right to continue competing. The IAAF has also never released her official medical records, citing privacy purposes as their reasoning.

            This issue raises an interesting problem for athletic governing bodies: how does one ensure “fairness” for all competitors in a game or event? With the inclusion of genetic testing and the intersex disorders it has unearthed, many of which would go unnoticed if not put to paper, the traditional gender guidelines must also be thrown out. If the IAAF cannot clearly determine what quantifies a participant as a male or female how can anyone? It is estimated that one in 20,000 people suffer from some sort of gene complication that contradicts their given and apparent gender. (Lemonick) Should these people be banned from competition for a genetic abnormality for which they have no control and, more importantly, may not even give them a distinct advantage over their competition? Even if it were to be advantageous in some fashion, the athlete is not cheating. They are simply taking advantage of the biological factors they were given at birth – no different than any other competitor.

            IAAF policy allows a medical delegate at all competitions to use his or her discretion on matters regarding gender determination. This means that a person can decide whether or not they think a person may be lying about their gender based on appearance and performance alone. Such was the case with Semenya, who first garnered attention for her remarkable drops in time - times that could just as easily have been attributed to a transition from a dirt track in one of the poorest regions in South Africa to a proper training facility with abundant resources at her university. Were it not for outstanding performances and her muscular build she would have continued competing without question from anyone. At most, it makes one question how different her career may be without this issue, at the very least it would have saved her humiliation on a global level.

            Given this, the question remains: if the lines between male and female are blurred beyond clear distinction how is fairness for all competitors involved ensured? Should competitors be divided by other factors that may affect performance, such as height or weight? Should clear cut skill levels be devised and competitors divided among them with no consideration to gender? In most cases, this would lead to an elite male level with few to no females, and elite level females racing against sub-elite males. In either situation there appears to be no real winner. What about masculinity?

Which athlete is more masculine?

How about now?

          Even as genetic testing calls into question gender results, many organizations began wondering why they should stop at gender at all. In 1987, Australia, angered over not qualifying a rower for the 1988 Olympics and looking to become a major player in international athletics, enlisted the Australian Institute of Sport to find the next crop of superstar athletes. From this, the Talent Search Program was born. The institute searched the country for high school athletes with physical attributes and skill sets that would translate to rowing, whether the athlete was currently a rower or not. They selected candidates based on physical traits such as broad shoulders, long limbs, power output and endurance, etc. (Taubes) The program proved its effectiveness when Megan Still, who had been a track athlete before being discovered by the Talent Search, won gold in women’s rowing in the 1996 Atlanta games.

            Pleased with their results, the Talent Search Program was expanded to include over half a dozen other sports. While a wide array of tests had been created to find athletes with the potential for success in a given sport, they still could not efficiently determine whether the teenager would respond positively to organized training or was reaping the benefits of simply maturing early and had, in essence, “peaked out”. Again, scientists turned to genetic testing for the answer.

            By isolating the genes that translated to an individual’s propensity to excel at a given type of athletic movement with training the institute hoped to truly uncover the genetic potential of the country’s children and ensure that each was placed in the athletic program with which they were most likely to be successful. In 2004, the Australian company Genetic Technologies marketed a test to the public for the gene ACTN3. By reading the variants on the gene, scientists could accurately determine whether a person was predisposed to be successful at speed and power movements or was more inclined to be an endurance athlete. Four short years later the same test was made available to the American population via Atlas Sports Genetics in Boulder, Colorado.

            What are the implications of this? A potential benefit of such genetic sequencing could be the discovery of previously unseen heart arrhythmias or the prevention of debilitating injuries from brain damage. (Van Langen, Hoffman, Tan, Wilde) The gene apoE3 has been linked to a predisposition towards brain injury and Alzheimer’s disease. So if testing unveiled the presence of this particular gene variation a person could be warned of the potential consequences before engaging in contact sports such as football or boxing where head trauma and concussions are a normal part of the game. Even so, can these leagues use information from these tests to ban individuals from participating due to their predisposition towards permanent damage? If the person in question understands the risk and decides to continue playing anyway what right does anyone have to tell them they cannot participate?

Fiction to future?

            There is also the obvious risk of pigeon-holing adolescents into sports due to a supposed genetic predisposition that may not even manifest. After all, these tests only show a predisposition. They do not guarantee success. In an age where overuse injuries are on the rise due to specialization of athletics too early in life, and not allowing children to experience a multitude of activities, it could be argued that choosing a single sport at an early age could do more harm than good for many kids. Genetic testing also completely cuts out the idea of  “drive” or “heart”. Maximizing one’s athletic ability is only part of the equation in many cases. Sometimes the game actually goes to the competitor who wants it more. Almost every child, at one point or another, dreams of being a star athlete. If a child is told from birth that they stand no chance of ever becoming a professional basketball player due to their genetics, the dream of doing so is destroyed. If a child is told at an early age that no matter how hard they work they will never accomplish what someone else might due to their genes what will that do to their work ethic? Essentially, it tells them that unless these tests tell them they will be the best there is no point in trying. While the obvious benefit of maximizing one’s athletic potential is positive, does it outweigh the potential negatives?

            The question of fair play again comes to the forefront when one considers the potential to unveil other genetic mutations that have nothing to do with gender. For example, truncated EPOR genes, those responsible for the creation of erythropoietin (EPO), have been shown to lead to an overproduction of red blood cells (RBCs). These individuals are then predisposed to excel at endurance sports due to their body’s increased ability to transport and utilize oxygen. Some have even shown RBC levels higher than those attainable by EPO doping, a practice all too prevalent in cycling and endurance sports. Another genetic mutation that causes Becker’s muscular dystrophy cause individuals to put on muscle mass much easier than a normal person. Arguably, this could predispose that person to gain size and strength faster than the average person. Those suffering from acromegaly, or Marfan’s syndrome, can thank an overactive pituitary for growing to heights sometimes well over seven feet due to higher than normal levels of growth hormone in the blood. This would allow them advantages in the game of basketball or volleyball that the average person would not have. In all three cases, athletes with these disorders have been found that have gone on to great success in athletics, showing that while they indeed suffer from a disorder, in many cases they are by no means disabled.

You want to tell him he has to compete in the Special Olympics due to a genetic disorder? Be my guest.

            So what do governing bodies do when genetic testing unveils that several top competitors are succeeding, at least in part, due to a genetic mutation that allows them to achieve levels of performance unreachable by “average” humans? Should they be banned for something entirely out of their control? They are not intentionally cheating in any way. Their condition is due to nothing but a genetic “roll of the dice”. At some level, are we not all the victims of our genetics? It is known that some people will never reach the elite level of athletics due to “inferior” genes. The chances of athletic parents having an athletic kid are much higher than the chances of un-athletic parents having athletic kids. The advantages these genetic anomalies give individuals are no different than the advantages alleged of Caster Semenya. As we attempt to dictate how much success is too much, it creates a very slippery slope. Do we now go back through the annals of history and test the remains of every record holding athlete to determine whether their success was due, at least in part, to a genetic condition that at the time was untraceable?

            There are currently no rules in place in any sporting arena that force every competitor to play to the level of the least talented individual. Every athlete is expected to perform to the best of their ability and at some point the weaker athletes fall by the wayside and the more talented continue on. If a competition has been conducted by the rules set forth beforehand, at the end there is a winner and a loser. In most cases the more talented person or team wins and this still falls in the realm of “fair”. Rationality dictates that this same pattern should continue on until the very best athletes are competing at the highest level.

            The one caveat to the question of fairness as it relates to genetic differences is the quickly approaching issue of genetic doping. In this case, genes have been intentionally modified to illicit a specific response. Such technology is coming about thanks in part to the Genome Project and, as a result, due to science’s search for cures to diseases such as anemia and muscular dystrophy. In these cases, genetic alteration could lead to a cure for these disorders. In the case of anemia, the intentional truncating of the EPOR gene could lead to an increased production of RBCs which, in the sick individual, would lead to near average levels. In muscular dystrophy, the activation of genes used to synthesize insulin-like growth factor (IGF) could help to ward off the muscle wasting that accompanies muscular dystrophy. In either case, the intended result is to bring those afflicted with the condition up to near “average” levels if not negating the disease entirely. However, were these gene therapies to be performed on a healthy individual and an intentional advantage could be gained through higher than normal levels of either EPO or IGF and the corresponding training response.

What’s worse is that such practices would be difficult, if not impossible, to test for. (Rupert) The process alters the body on the genetic level. The gene then expresses a targeted strand of RNA, which then produces the desired protein. As this is occurring naturally in the body, at the time there is no effective means to test for it. (Unal and Ozer Unal) Along with the threat to fair play, the side effects of such doping practices are currently unknown. An overproduction of EPO could result in permanent high blood viscosity, predisposing one to blood clots, hypertension and stroke – side effects currently seen in today’s manual EPO dopers. Hormones in the bodies of today’s EPO dopers help to bring RBC levels back down when doping is discontinued, but if the gene triggering the production cannot be turned off then the dangerous levels of blood viscosity would be irreversible. Unregulated production of IGF could lead to disproportionate power and strength gains in a particular muscle; gains the body cannot compensate for. As a result, the doper is more likely to suffer tendon tears and avulsion fractures due to the muscle’s disproportionate power to the connective tissues around it. Unfortunately, if such practices were to become available to the masses and were to be safely regulated then the question of fair play goes completely out the window.

Ladies, the line starts to the left.

            As we enter an age where science shows that gender may not be as binary as once thought, perhaps it is time to do away with gender stratification in competition. Or perhaps governing bodies need to come to a consensus on the difference between what truly constitutes an unfair advantage in sport and what is simply an individual making the best of their genetic potential. After all, is that not what is at the foundation of athletics? People working towards the goal of becoming the best they can given what they have to work with? It seems absurd that anyone could dictate that a person did “too good” of a job at using the tools they had at their disposal from birth. As Jaime Schultz puts it, “…the small percentage of those who excel at the elite levels of sport enjoy some form of advantage that the general population does not - whether that advantage is circumstantial, cultural, psychological, or biological.” It’s possible that if people spent less time making excuses involving the advantages their competitors have and focused more on what they themselves can control, the playing field may find itself more level than we once thought.

References

23andMe. 23andMe, Inc., 2007. Web. 13 Apr. 2012. <https://www.23andme.com/>.

Beiter, T., M. Zimmermann, A. Fragasso, J. Hudemann, A. M. Niess, M. Bitzer, U. M. Lauer, and P. Simon. "Direct and Long-term Detection of Gene Doping in Conventional Blood Samples." Gene Therapy 18 (2010): 225-31. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Bland, Jesse A. "There Will Be Blood...Testing: The Intersection of Professional Sports and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008." Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law 13.2 (2011): 357-83. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

"Dennis Morrison on Genetic Testing." Telephone interview. 21 Apr. 2012.

"Firm Offers DNA Testing for Child Athletes." UPI News Track (Consumer Health) 29 Nov. 2008. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Gattaca. Dir. Andrew Niccol. By Andrew Niccol. Perf. Ethan Hawk and Jude Law. Columbia Pictures, 1997. DVD.

Lemonick, M. D. "Genetic Tests Under Fire." Time 24 Feb. 1992: 65. EBSCOHost, 24 Feb. 1992. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Levy, Ariel. "Either/Or: Sports, Sex, and the Case of Caster Semenya." The New Yorker 30 Nov. 2009. NewYorker.com. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Ljungqvist, Arne, Maria Jose Martinez-Patino, A. Martinez-Vidal, Luisa Zagalaz, Pino Diaz, and Covadonga Mateos. "The History and Current Policies on Gender Testing in Elite Athletes." International SportsMed Journal 7.3 (2006): 225-30. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Magnay, Jacquelin. "Born To Run? Families Turn to Genetic Testing." Sydney Morning Herald 10 May 2008. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Rupert, J. L. "Transcriptional Profiling: A Potential Anti-doping Strategy." Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 19.6 (2009): 753-63. EBSCOHost. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.

Rushin, Steve. "Gene Genies." EBSCOHost, 29 Aug. 2011. Web. 15 Mar. 2012. <http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1189739/index.htm>.

Schultz, Jaime. "Caster Semenya and the "Question of Too": Sex Testing in Elite Women's Sport and the Issue of Advantage." Quest 63 (2011): 228-43. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Taubes, Gary. "Toward Molecular Talent Scouting." Scientific American Presents (2000): 26-31. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

Trumble, Paul D. ""Knickel" and Dime Issues: An Unexplored Loophole in New York's Genetic Discrimination Statute and the Viability of Genetic Testing in the Sports Employment Context." Albany Law Review 70: 771-76. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
Unal, Mehmet, and Durisehvar Ozer Unal. "Gene Doping in Sports." Sports Medicine 34.6 (2004): 357-62. EBSCOHost. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

Van Langen, M., N. Hofman, H. L. Tan, and A. A M Wilde. "Family and Population Strategies for Screening and Counselling of Inherited Cardiac Arrhythmias." Annals of Medicine 36 (2004): 116-24. EBSCOHost. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.

The Bane Project

       A few weeks ago I saw The Dark Knight Rises (and if you haven’t yet then what the hell are you waiting for?) and it sparked a conversation between myself and my roommate. The actor Tom Hardy reportedly put on thirty pounds to play the role of the villain Bane. 

       While this did indeed make him the imposing figure cast from the pages of the comic, we began to wonder what toll putting that kind of mass onto your body takes on you. Anyone who hit a pronounced growth spurt at any time in their adolescence knows that a rapid change in size has a huge impact on all aspects of your movement. For example, I grew ten inches in middle school. Ask anyone who knew me and they'll tell you I looked like a baby deer learning how to walk any time I tried anything athletic for the first two years of high school. It took me until well into my junior year to both develop the strength and proprioception to feel comfortable in my body again. While in my case this had to do with limb length and not overall mass, I believe the same effects could be felt when putting on a large amount of mass in a small time frame. 

       The most extreme example of this is Christian Bale in his role in 'Batman Begins' (I swear it is just a coincidence. This post isn't entirely about Batman). Prior to being cast as Batman, Bale filmed a movie called 'The Machinist', wherein he plays an extreme insomniac and dropped down to 110 pounds for the part (he's 6'1" and reportedly did so by eating only a can of tuna and an apple a day). After receiving the part of Batman, Bale turned around and put on 100 pounds of mass in six months to film 'Batman Begins'. To put it in perspective, that is roughly a pound of mass every other day. When asked about it, Bale calls the experience an, "...unbearable physical ordeal." No shit.

Christian Bale in 'The Machinist'

Christian Bale six months later in 'Batman Begins'

        In training, we often take into account how "functional" someone is, meaning does the person in question's body (whether it be a result of size or other factors) work the way it should and does it move well enough to meet any reasonable task asked of it. This is especially important in athletics, where dysfunction or immobility in a joint that should be mobile (and vice versa) can lead to injury. Taking factors such as mobility into account lead to questions like "Is bodybuilding a sport? or, perhaps more specifically, "Is bodybuilding athletic?"
      

Sure, he can bench 500lbs easy, but can he scratch his own back?

       In my previous post, I suggested that "skinny" was by no means synonymous with "healthy". I also believe the same could be said for the terms "muscular" and "athletic". Don't get me wrong. I am by no means taking away from the work bodybuilders put into their craft. They spend countless hours working to "perfect" (a relative term for their chosen activity, which I will get into more later) their bodies and the incredible discipline, especially when it comes to nutrition, they have is commendable, to say the least. I simply mean to suggest that being extremely muscular (jacked, yoked, massive, beefed out, whatever you want to call it) does not, in and of itself, make one an athlete. Though, to be fair, in order to make that claim I suppose I would have to give my definition of athletic, so here it goes: Athleticism is defined by a combination of qualities that work together to accomplish a desired act. To go further, I believe that those qualities are as follows:

• Strength-the ability to exert force upon an object using the muscular system
• Power-the rate at which you exert the above force
• Flexibility/Mobility-the ability to move properly through a given range of motion
• Endurance-the capacity to endure prolonged exercise without a breakdown in form or efficiency
• Body composition-the ratio of lean mass to fat mass in the body (some may disagree with the inclusion of this one, but I think an important quality to consider is a person's ability to maintain a body composition that allows them to remain as healthy as possible)

       I believe these criteria apply to all people, as we all have tasks we look to be able to achieve. I use the term "task" because this does not specifically apply to people looking to achieve extremely athletic goals like running a marathon or competing in Strongman competitions. Some people simply wish to be able to carry their groceries from their car to their house. Some may laugh, but this is an all too common goal for many people, especially in the elderly population, and it requires a certain level of fitness to accomplish. If you keep in mind that all people's goals may be different, then it is important to understand that all of these criteria are on a sliding scale, with an optimum area for each to be in to reach the desired goal. 

       For example, a cross country runner obviously needs to have a very high level of endurance, but in order to stay healthy they cannot neglect all of the other aspects. If all they focus on is endurance, the lack of strength, power, and mobility, will (not if, will) eventually lead to injury. Do they need to be power cleaning 200 pounds? Absolutely not, but a baseline level of strength and the ability to properly activate the correct muscle groups at the right time can do wonders for their performance. I have seen this first hand. Unfortunately, body issues also run rampant in cross country runners. If they neglect proper nutrition and continue to run 50+ miles a week their bodies will (again, WILL) eventually break down. Proper nutrition is key to building and maintaining athletic gains.

       Now, compare the needs of a cross country runner to those of a football player. Endurance is still important for fourth quarter performance, but more of an emphasis must be placed on strength and power to be successful in such a violent game. In that same vein, mobility becomes incredibly important as players are often put in awkward positions during tackles or pile ups and an immobile joint will become injured if it cannot bend to compensate (just don't say that to Willis McGahee). Body composition is also important given the needs of the various positions. So there you have it. Two athletes with two very different skill sets and requirements to be successful in their sport, but with a common set of categorized needs to reach that success.

       To bring this full circle, the question raised by my roommate was can someone put such mass on themselves in a short amount of time and still stay functional or "athletic". After some discussion, I decided to find out for myself.

The Bane Project

       The objective of the Bane Project is relatively simple: find out if a given level of athleticism can be maintained, or even improved, with a sharp increase in mass. I began by running several baseline tests encompassing the aspects of athleticism I listed above on myself and over the next several months I will attempt to put on a substantial amount of muscle mass (around 20-25 pounds, I'm not Christian Bale, sorry) with a combination of weights, high intensity cardio, and eating everything in sight. I predict the last of those will be of utmost importance. If you forget every bullshit shortcut and "diet secret" pedaled to you by every asshole trying to make a quick buck, the key to weight gain/loss, at the end of the day, is "calories in, calories out". To put it simply, if you burn more calories than you eat, you will lose weight, and vice versa. There it is. There's the secret. Save your money.

       So, in order to gain mass I need to be sure to always take in more calories than I burned that day. To ensure this, I wrote up a spreadsheet that will calculate my resting metabolic rate (RMR), or the number of calories my body will burn in a given day. If I add the RMR to the calories burned in whatever exercise I do that day, that will give me the number of calories I need to exceed with my diet. To ensure I am eating enough, I downloaded the MyFitnessPal app to my phone to help keep a daily log of how many calories I am taking in. (A quick side note: I highly recommend this app. It is incredibly convenient and easy to use. It also has a huge database of food items as well as a bar code scanner that you use the camera in your phone to scan a given food item for a complete nutritional breakdown.)

       Is it an exact science? No, but it gives me a ballpark idea of whether I am staying anabolic (positive caloric balance) or catabolizing the mass I already have to meet the energy demands. This also allows me to challenge my long time "cop out" of being what is referred to as a "hard gainer". I have a high metabolism and have often used this as a reason why I cannot put on a lot of muscle mass. The rigorous keeping of data will be able to show once and for all whether this is the case or, as I actually suspect, is a complete crock of shit. 

       Before you completely tune out and look at this blog as another meat head that just wants to talk about his training, the Bane Project (seriously, how much of a nerd am I?) will NOT be the focus of the blog. I will still be posting about various topics in fitness. I may just give updates every now and then as to how it is going. Honestly, it should be entertaining for you (at least I hope) to watch as I put myself through this. I started on Monday and already have the following gems in my training log:

• Mother of God, what have I done?
• Got stuck on the toilet for half an hour because it hurt too much to stand up.
• Was complaining about how much I have to eat and a starving kids commercial came on the television. I'm an asshole.

       So there it is. This is my next several months. Keeping with the Batman theme I believe there is only one thing left to say:

Training Song of the Week:

       Another new section where I'll list a great song to work out to. I also vow to you that it will never, ever be Justin Beiber. Ever. Ever ever. Ever.

Grand Disaster - Bulletproof Messenger

Motivational Video of the Week:

      I'm not going to keep explaining these. I think you get the idea.

Body Issues and The Body Issue

       Let me begin by making it clear that I cannot begin to understand what it is like to be a young woman in today's society. The pressures placed on you all to look a certain way by the media must be suffocating. I sincerely believe that the entertainment industry is a primary player in the widespread pandemic of body image issues that plague not only you women, but also a rising number of men in their teens and twenties (an estimated 5-15% of all eating disorder cases are male). 

       Recent surveys estimate that roughly 24 million people in the United States alone suffer from some form of eating disorder. Think that's scary? A similar survey found that 69% of girls ranging from 5th to 12th grade admitted that pictures they saw in magazines influenced what they thought the "perfect" body shape was. 

70% of girls in primary school think this is "perfect"

       One of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to female health is the stigma associated with lifting weights or engaging in intense exercise with the reasoning of, "not wanting to get too bulky" or, "not wanting to look like a man" (Lucky for me, I get to hear this roughly six times a day at my job). The fact of the matter is a woman will never gain the amount of muscle mass it would take to look bulky or "like a man" (admittedly, this is subjective as Michael Cera is considered a man by definition).

       This is due to the hormone balance of estrogen and testosterone in their system. Without getting too deep into the biology of it, women naturally produce less testosterone, which is anabolic (builds muscle), and more estrogen, which is detrimental to muscle mass (catabolic), than men do. While there are exceptions to this rule such as the occasional genetic outlier that naturally produces more testosterone than "normal", female ranges vary based on where you look, usually you will find numbers anywhere between 10-80ng/dl of testosterone qualifies as within "normal" ranges (comparatively, men that register levels anywhere from 300-1,000ng/dl are considered normal). 

       If that wide of a scope is considered normal for a woman then it is not too hard to imagine that some women will fall out of that range biologically. This information is also not to be abused, much like the report that obesity is genetic, in assumptions that you MUST be one of those women with "too much" testosterone if you happen to see a muscle or two after training. It is very rare.

       The other obvious exception is those that abuse hormone treatments. Strength training in a normal, healthy female two to three times a week will not result in "She-Hulking" and can be extremely beneficial both physically and aesthetically.

I'm not saying she used steroids to get to this point, but I'm not not saying it.

       Last week ESPN The Magazine unveiled its fourth installment of 'The Body Issue'. For those not aware, the Body Issue features several prominent athletes of today in the nude. While tastefully done, it still leaves very little to the imagination. I, for one, am a staunch supporter of the Body Issue. Leave out the fact that it is full of nude female (and male, if that's more your speed) athletes and I still think it is fantastic for the fact that it shows young women that the stick model look that Cosmo, People, etc. raves about does not single-handedly define "sexy".

OK! Magazine's Sexiest Woman Alive

      This is Gina Carano.

       She is an American mixed martial artist. If she looks familiar, she was also recently in a movie called Haywire and was also 'Crush' on the American Gladiators remake of a couple years ago. She doesn't fit the media's cookie cutter image of what a woman needs to look like to be "attractive". She doesn't weigh 100lbs. She has muscle. I'm willing to bet she eats more than once a week. You want to tell her she's too heavy because she weighs 145lbs? That she'd be more attractive if she slimmed down a bit? Be my guest.

By all means, go for it. I'm just saying...

       The studies have shown that the young girls are going to generate their opinion of a healthy body from magazines and social media. If that is going to be the case, why not provide them with actual healthy people to formulate these notions from. So kudos to ESPN for continuing to produce The Body Issue. I think it is wonderful that they are providing young girls with healthy women to use as role models. as well as debunking myths about females and the effects of exercise. As professional athletes, these women exercise more than just about anyone and they are all still able to exude femininity as a part of their strength, not in spite of it.

       So are you a skinny girl wishing you had an ass? Lift weights. Are you looking to lose a few pounds? Ditch the treadmill. Lift weights. Studies show it is a more efficient use of your time anyway (and thanks to a process known as EPOC your metabolism will stay elevated up to a day and a half later). I sincerely hope that more magazines, if not society as a whole, begin to follow suit and acknowledge that "skinny" and "healthy" are not synonyms.

       Let me leave you with this: who looks healthier?

       For more information on eating disorders, or if you suspect someone you know may be suffering from an eating disorder, I recommend checking out the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders.

Tim Tebow - The Man We Hate To Love To Hate

       Unless you have been under a rock for the last half decade you have heard of Tim Tebow. The guy is everywhere. He is the former Heisman and National Championship winning quarterback from the University of Florida, outspoken (understatement) Christian, Philipino surgeon, and current "savior" of the Denver Broncos. He is the football media's Captain America: a shining example of what is great and wonderful in the world. He does no wrong. He is so pure that it is easy to make him the brunt of jokes, especially when it comes to his faith (a recent SNL skit and now infamous Bill Maher tweet come to mind). The problem here is that he is so nice that you hate to hate him. Hating him is like hating a baby panda.

Try it. I dare you.

       This post is not meant to specifically make fun of Tim Tebow. He is a very gifted athlete and all around decent human being. What he chooses to do (or not do) in the bedroom is his business, regardless of the millions of women that would give it up in a second were he to only ask.

Seriously, man. You're killing me.

       No, I only mean to suggest that much of his hype is due to the repeated vocalization of his faith. Let us consider his accomplishments this season. To the numbers:

       Upon getting the starting nod in Week 7, the Tebow-led Broncos went 7-4 in the regular season. In those seven wins, with the exception of a 14-point victory over Oakland, the Broncos won by an average score of 3.8 points, all of which against non-playoff (read: bad) teams. In the four losses, the Broncos were defeated by an average score of 20.8 points, three of which were playoff (read: good) teams.

       For the sake of argument, I will speak as though Tebow is solely responsible for the outcome of the games as the media does. Tebow beat seven non-playoff teams and lost to three playoff teams and one non-playoff team (Buffalo). Could it not be argued that these games were won in spite of him? He barely beat teams with a combined record of 48-64. Yes, he had several fourth quarter comebacks this season. However, it could be argued that the comebacks would have been unnecessary had the game been played with quality quarterbacking in the first three quarters. Tebow's quarterback rating in the first three quarters during the regular season was 65.1. By comparison, of the 33 quarterbacks to play enough for a quarterback rating this season, the median player was Kevin Kolb, of the non-playoff Cardinals, with an 81.1 rating. The question must be asked: how much different would the Broncos scores look with a more efficient passer behind the center? You could bring up Kyle Orton, but that's the beauty of a hypothetical question. We'll never know. The numbers do show that with Orton at QB the Broncos averaged 20.6 points per game, compared to Tebow's 18.5, so take that for what you will.

       I'd like to bring the conversation back to topic by re-visiting a point I made above. The media has given sole responsibility to Tebow for the team's success. They seem to completely overlook the fact that football is a TEAM sport. Let us not forget that he is backed up by the number one rushing offense in the entire league, usually found to be a staple of a successful young QB (see: Roethlisberger, Sanchez). Or how about the fact that he was only able to score more than 18 points in two of his wins? In a time of offensive explosion, 18 points has become the sign of a sputtering offense. Therefore, should credit not be given to the defense for keeping the other team to less than 18? It is true that at the end of the game the only thing that matters is the final score, but at the same time Tebow is lauded as the savior of the season, the Mile High Messiah, with no credit given to any other piece of the team. Could this be, at least in part, a result of wanting to see such a pure, devoutly religious figure be successful in a league littered with scandal and felonies?

       Tebow-mania came to a frenzied head this weekend as the Broncos defeated the Steelers in an AFC Wildcard game in overtime. Any headline you read likely cited Tebow's 80-yard touchdown pass on the first play of overtime as the reason behind the win, making it sound as though he heaved the ball four-fifths of a football field to a receiver for the victory. Here is the play. It appears to me that the receiver, Demaryius Thomas, did most of the work on the play in fending off more than one defender while running 60 yards to the end zone. All Tebow did was throw a 20-yard pass to a wide open receiver (a throw he short-hopped the series before) and let Thomas do the rest of the work. It then took less than a day for a link to be made between his total passing yards in the game, 316, and his favorite Bible verse, John 3:16. To many, this is clear proof that his belief in God is leading to wins on the football field.

       Assuming that this isn't completely ridiculous and that God has chosen to spend his time fixing American football games and not feeding the hungry or curing the sick, let's analyze this idea. How is it that God receives all the credit from Tebow for wins (here or here or any time he opens his mouth) yet God is never blamed when Tebow loses? If He (God) has a direct impact on victories then logically He must also be responsible for defeats. In fact, Tebow himself takes all the blame in defeats, especially in a now famous speech he gave in college after a loss to Ole Miss. He promises the fans that they, "...will never see any player in the entire country work as hard as [he] will play the rest of the season." If Tebow's talent is all thanks to God, then he can't accept credit for being such a hard worker and a winner because both are out of his control.

       In closing, if you truly believe that Tebow's outspoken faith is not a factor in his fame and the credit he receives for the team's wins then ask yourself this: what if he were praising Allah after every victory?

       One final note to faith-based Tebow fans: correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a few of the commandments to not have any other Gods and to not bow down to a false idol? (They are. They're the first two. I'm being facetious.)

See you in Hell.

Five New Year's Resolutions Pro Athletes Need To Make

       In the spirit of the season I thought I would write a New Year's themed post. It occurred to me that arguably the most important part of New Year's is the resolution (next to putting this as your Facebook status). I'm not too concerned about my own long-standing resolution as I do not foresee myself saying the phrase, "We're in a real pickle" any time soon (and no, that doesn't count). Many people's resolutions center around health - losing weight, quitting smoking, exercising three days a week, etc., while others revolved around how they treat others/themselves or making positive changes in the world around them. A few interesting resolutions I saw were profession related and it got me thinking about changes certain professions could use in the new year. 


       As big time athletics makes up a large part of my life, I decided there were a few New Year's resolutions that it wouldn't hurt for professional athletes to adopt:


I will not celebrate minuscule accomplishments.

       You've all seen it. It is especially prevalent in professional football (and as a result college football). A linebacker makes a tackle after a six yard gain and gets up smacking his chest, talking a lot of shit to the opponent (probably like this, I'd imagine), and pointing to the sky or the crowd or, if you are All-American Gary Bertier, the opposing coach (which really was one of the weirdest parts of that movie. Why? What is he implying?). 

Taken immediately after a gain of 16, probably.

       Guess what, guys? It is your JOB to do this. Actually, it is your job to do this before the offense gets a first down. You're getting paid a lot of money (which I will get to in a minute) to make sure the team you are playing doesn't make those gains, score those touchdowns, and as a result shame the entire state you play for, causing a proven spike in spousal abuse, irritable bowel syndrome, diaper rash, underage pregnancy, and scurvy (I looked for the link to that study, but it was difficult to find as it does not exist).


       And it isn't just the defense. How many times have you seen a running back run for no gain or a receiver catch a ball for a three yard gain and get up as though they had just won the Super Bowl? Guys, this represents the minimum effort you can give and still argue that you're doing your job. It would be the same as your waiter bringing you a piece of burnt toast with olives on it, even though you ordered a cheeseburger, and expecting a good tip because what he brought you was still technically food.


I will appreciate the fact that I make millions to play a game.


       A few weeks ago news broke that Diedre Pujols, wife of MVP first baseman Albert Pujols, was "mad at God" over the five-year, $130 million deal that the St. Louis Cardinals offered to keep him in the Mounds City (seriously, that's the nickname. Speaking of nicknames, how does no one call him 'Poo holes'? I mean, come on. It's right there. You guys can have that one. My gift to you in the new year). Apparently making $26 million is a slight by God. I don't blame her. You can barely fill your fleet of Escalades up on $26 million these days, let alone pay the electric bill on your third beach house.

Pictured above: Poverty.

       Granted, it was nothing compared to the 10-year, $254 million contract ($25.4 million a year. Someone got fucked in those negotiations and I believe it was Poo Holes. See how fun that nickname is?) he signed with the Angels, which she attributes to God's quirky sense of humor at the end of the above article, making it that much easier to hate her.


       Talk about a slap in the face to your loyal fans. According to the 2011 census, the per capita income of St. Louis is $27,800. Take the final offer St. Louis offered, $21 million per year over ten years, and compare that to the average Cardinals fan. Pujols would have been able to pay a full year's salary to one of them for 755 years with a single year of the contract offered to him, which ironically is probably what it would cost to find a fan of his in St. Louis these days (and if those negotiations didn't go like this then I don't even want to live in America anymore).


       I have nothing against getting paid what you think you are worth, but to say that a salary in the multi-millions of dollars per year is an insult to you is really just disrespectful to the hard working fans that use their money they earned educating the future of America, protecting your streets, and making sure you don't get the itchy skin that comes from too much chlorine in your pool, just to watch you hit a ball. Maybe Diedre can use that massive pay day to buy a little perspective. While we are on the subject...


I will not complain about my life.


       Nobody wants to hear about how bad you have it. Oh, you have practice and meetings and there's a good chance you're going to get hurt at some point in time? Tell it to these guys:

       I hate to keep beating at a dead Sarah Jessica Parker, but let's look at money again. Granted, this is from 2006, but given how salaries have exploded in the last several years these numbers are probably lower than today's average athlete salaries. They ranged from the highest, the NBA at $5 million, to the lowest, Women's golf, at $162,000. Then consider that the average American soldier makes about $1,300 a month and even if you want to argue that they get bonuses and housing arrangements (and why would you do that? You some kind of communist?) they are still a far shot from even coming close to the salaries we are talking about for a professional athlete. 

       Go to practice, entertain your fans, go home and ignore your super model girlfriend while you literally swim in your riches like Scrooge McDuck. Quit telling us what a victim you are. If you really hate the lifestyle, remember that no one is making you spend your life as a professional athlete and that the military is always hiring.


I will not date socialite trash.

      Moving on...

I will not change my name to something stupid.


       Any time a professional athlete changes his legal name, with the exception of religious reasons, it comes across as a publicity stunt. The shining example of this is Chad Johnson, who in 2008 changed his name legally to Chad "Ocho Cinco". At the time it was the latest in a long string of publicity stunts, ranging from sending opponents "care packages" of deodorant and Pepto Bismol (because they stink/might get sick, get it?) to actually riding a live bull in the off-season because the Professional Bull Riding (Club? Association?) challenged him to it. It went really well, by the way. He claims to have changed his name in honor of Latin-American awareness month, but if that were the case why would he make his last name "eight five" and not "eighty-five", which is his number? (Ochenta y cinco would be eighty-five, by the way.)

It's probably got nothing to do with a need for attention.

       The latest example of this phenomenon has been from a shining example of emotional stability, Ron Artest. If you missed it in the video, Artest is the guy that charges into the stands in Detroit to fight fans who threw a cup of ice at him (but seriously, how did you miss that?). His legal name is now Metta World Peace, which led to millions of people doing this move at their televisions when the news broke. Yes, the same guy that charged into the stands during an NBA game and threw a hay maker at the wrong guy will be known as 'Mr. World Peace' when he is substitute teaching in the next three to five years.

       So in the coming year maybe think back to this post and reconsider when you want to change your name to Captain Gummy Bear because, if for no other reason, that's a terrible name. Though I guess my point in all of this is the following: everyone makes mistakes and has issues they need to work on, even the rich and famous (in many cases, especially the rich and famous).  The whole point of a resolution is to recognize something in yourself that needs changing. Hopefully in the next 361 days you succeed in changing it for the better or maybe take a few steps in the right direction. At the very least you gave it a shot. That's all anyone can do. 

       Unless you're a professional athlete, in which case you probably pay someone to do it for you.

Happy New Year!