The Science of Sport

Ross Tucker from The Science of Sport has written extensively on this issue. It's worth reading to understand the medical and performance issues. https://sportsscientists.com/thread/caster-semenya/

> after the barrier has been broken, dozens followed suit. I read an interesting article about that explaining that this wasn't really down to any kind of barriers but more having pacers and a better track (which is coincidentally about the previous 2h marathon attempt.) https://sportsscientists.com/2014/12/2-hour-marathon-4-min-mile/

This is the best discussion I’ve read for anyone who wants a bunch of details on the history of this case, why we’d want to measure testosterone in the first place, how it may affect some women more or less than others, and how nonsensical the CAS ruling is, at least based on the evidence presented: https://sportsscientists.com/2019/05/on-dsds-the-theory-of-testosteron…

Camille's run wasn't particularly remarkable--about 10% slower than the men's 100 mile record. Much more amazing to me is that this 10% performance difference holds remarkably steady for men and women's performance in a great range of distances, both running and swimming[0]. [0] - https://sportsscientists.com/2007/10/women-vs-men-part-ii-the-physiolo…

That's borderline naive to believe that the best teams don't dope anymore. E.g. the ascent times prove that the winners in the last years cannot be undoped. Mount Ventoux: 2013: 59m:00s Chris Froome 21.86 km/h Such a time is not possible undoped. See e.g. http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/froomes-first-mountain-performance… But same as Armstrong or Contador only the best do it the best way, and will not get caught for some time.

a good follow-up read, "The Power of the Tour de France 2013: Performance analysis groundwork" ~ http://sportsscientists.com/2013/07/the-power-of-the-tour-de-france-pe…

I've read this blog for a long time now re: minimalist running, it's really great. More interestingness: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/03/vibram-shoes-named-in-lawsuit-… I went back and checked this blog again (I haven't read it for a while) after seeing this: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27335251 (Vibram has settled a class action suit for misleading advertising claims). Barefoot running works well for me but I'm painfully aware there's really no good evidence either way. Certainly I don't advocate anything except that people should try it - now I'm not sure I'll even do that.

davidjohnson below posted this excellent link which talks about the shenanigans^Wcheating that happened during arbitration. http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/12/science-of-sport-awards-contro… And see the top comment for a good explanation (imho) for why you are wrong about the initial acceleration phase being important for 400m.

"In 1954, Roger Bannister set a world record, running one mile in 3:59.4. The 4 minute mile had become a white whale, with medical experts arguing that the human body wasn’t capable of completing it. Prior to Bannister, the previous one mile record had stood at 4:01 for nine years. Less than a year later, someone else ran a sub 4 minute mile. Today, hundreds of American runners, and likely thousands around the world have achieved this feat." This is often noted as a mental breakthrough, but what isn't told about this story is that Bannister had the advantage of a better running surface and pacemakers. Those that broke the 4-min mile after Bannister did it because they too took advantage of a better running surface and pacemakers. http://sportsscientists.com/2014/12/2-hour-marathon-4-min-mile/ "The difference that track surface makes is enormous – biomechanists estimate that modern synthetic tracks are worth 1.5% compared to the cinder tracks that Bannister and Landy ran on (some cinder being better than others, of course). And that’s why, as my friend David Esptein so elegantly presented at TED, of the 1,034 men who have broken 4-min for the mile since 1954, only 530 would remain if you applied that “correction factor” that predicts that synthetic tracks are worth about 1.5% per lap compared to the cinder tracks of the 1950. It means only 10 men per decade have joined the club since Bannister created it, and that should give you some context to this argument that “Four…

It's the only one I'm aware of that has been shown to have any statistically significant link with sprint performance. It's discovery is comparatively recent though (I think 2003?). It is extremely likely there are other genes that contribute too. Sure, we know there are lots of things we don't know yet. But we do know generally in almost every case every ethnic group has individuals whose genetic makeup overlaps with those from other ethnic groups. It's hard not to conclude that you're purposefully trying to fool someone here. It never occurred to you that more than one gene might be involved in sprinting? My point is that there is a lot more involved in sprinting (and high-performance generally) than just genetics. One of the best examples of this is the cross country skier Eero Mäntyranta[1]. His family carries a genetic mutation called Polycythemia[2] which means they produce a very high proportion of red blood cells (basically like the EPO doping Lance Armstrong did, but natural). Juvonen described lab-testing samples of Eero’s bone marrow cells, which produce red blood cells. The plan was to add EPO to the cells and track the creation of red blood cells. A typical human’s bone marrow cells won’t start making blood cells in the lab until EPO is added. But Eero’s bone marrow cells began the process of creating red blood cells before Juvonen could even stimulate them with EPO. Whatever tiny speck of EPO that was already in the sample was enough to keep the red cell…

Took me quite some time to find back where I read about that. Check that out : https://inrng.com/2017/12/chris-froomes-salbutamol-case/ https://sportsscientists.com/2017/12/brief-thoughts-froomes-salbutamol… The article you gave, they only state the principle of PEDS evasion tactics, some used a fake dick when it's time to urinate, some used compound modified, but it can't possibly tell every single way that scientists found to avoid detection. Froom is an actual athlete that got caught, that speak louder. Beside i heard it too in completely unrelated sport circle, running (sprint) and boxing from athlètes competing.

And it looks like Lance was about 6.97 W/kg in 2004: https://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimat…

Here some easier, older chart discussing the issues as understood at the time, though you have to check which riders got busted (all of them except Lemond and Indurain, and Lemond at least won the TdF pre-EPO, Indurain being faster than doped Armstrong is pretty suspicious and there was no testing for EPO at that point IIRC), on the other hand there's also the point that the climb may have come at a different point in the race. https://sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-a-weapon-aga…

The interesting analogy Ross Tucker (https://sportsscientists.com/who-are-we/) uses is adding vitamins and mineral is like adding a wheel to a car. If you onyl have 3, then adding the 4th is really going to make a massive difference. If you already have enough however, it's like adding a 5th wheel, which will essentially do nothing, and could be harmful. It works well as an explanation, as people do seem to try and reduce complex functions to simple rules, and extrapolate from specific populatiosn to create general rules (not helped by studies that are minimally generalisable)

> If a random guy said “I’m a woman,” would that have to be enough? The whole point of the "testosterone level below 10 nmol/L" was to provide a solid line on this so that the answer would be "yes, with caveats". 10 nmol/L of testosterone is right at the lowest level for a male and is WAY higher than normal for a female. Quoting an article about the IAAF study (https://sportsscientists.com/2017/07/testosterone-performance-intersex… > Among the 1332 females, 24 had T levels above 3.08 nmol/L (remember this is the 99th percentile in a previous study). Of the 24, nine were diagnosed as having a DSD. Nine were found to have been doping, and six were “impossible to classify” Translate "impossible to classify" as "doping, but we can't prove it so we'll get sued if we say it."

Nike Vaporfly has a carbon fiber plate for energy return built into the shoe: https://www.outsideonline.com/2262486/researchers-confirm-nikes-4-mara… Some say it should be banned because of unfair advantage to wearer: https://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon-fiber-de…

The point isn't whether I think it works in providing mechanical assistance. The point is whether it is intended to provide mechanical assistance, which as you mention from Nike's marketing, seems to be yes. Try this: http://sportsscientists.com/2017/03/ban-nike-vaporfly-carbon-fiber-dev… By the way, it doesn't really bother me if 3-hour marathoners want to wear them, or even 2:30 marathoners, but if you're competing for prize money, I think this sort of thing should be banned. At least the sport needs a discussion of where to draw the line on such devices.

Well, isn't it individual for every person? Firstly, someone who weighs 141 lbs does not lose weight with the same intensity as someone with 220 lbs. Secondly, if one wants to lose weight by doing sports, he should be reasonable about this and not eat a bar of a chocolate after a 50 min run. As I already said, I'm not a professional and I do speak from my personal experience. I don't have exact statistics either, I'd like to try and search for it though and post it here. I've found an interesting series of articles which I read just now, if you have interest or time you might want to skim through it, too: http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss/ http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss-part-2/

for sure ... average power on a stage might be in the high 300 Ws for a tough mountain time trial, lower over the whole race when you're in the peleton, an extra > 50W or 0.5 W/kg would turn a nobody into a champion. http://www.bicycling.com/training/fitness/trainingpeaks-power-profiles… http://sportsscientists.com/2011/07/the-tour-de-france-power-2011-outp… http://sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-estimate…

> http://sportsscientists.com/running/running-physiology/running-techniq… Read this. There's a ridiculous amount of pseudo-science, superstition, and hucksterism around running technique. Without becoming a quack myself, all I can say is "be patient and don't make any sudden changes."

Surprised no-one linked to sportsscientists.com: http://sportsscientists.com/2010/08/the-sub-2-hour-marathon-who-and-wh… A line of thought that's particularly interesting there is that a 2h marathon has implications for 10000m and half marathon speeds, which make it seem quite a bit further off.

Sports scientists have pointed out[1] that people who are innately good at a thing will do more of it, with less resistance to training, than people who aren't. The 10,000 hours are done by people who enjoy a subject or activity enough to do it almost constantly. And that usually comes about because of early successes. This is sometimes called "talent". [1] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performanc…

650W is far too high for the output of an average person for an hour ([3] shows this is almost 1 HP which should indicate how far it is off). Here is a more informed link: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/07/power-outputs-from-tour-de-fra…

This dialog reminded me of a rumor I heard awhile ago about trying to measuring efficiency of Lance Armstrong (competitive cyclist). A brief search gave me [1], but I'm sure there are better articles out there. My big take away is that even with modern technology and understanding there is just so much we still don't fully understand - especially about the human body and processes. [1] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/09/coyle-and-armstrong-research-e…

And that little side-note unravels the whole argument: how much better can practice be? Can it be so focused that one reaches mastery in 5k hours? 1k? To what degree is being a fast learner in a field a talent? http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-10000-hours-an…

Interesting experiment. But the 10,000 hours rule is a myth [1]. The variance in deliberate practice needed is huge: some top performers need 3,000 hours while others need 24,000 hours. Some never get to the top no matter how much they practice. Success is probably due to many different factors. Just focusing on the deliberate practice is neither necessary nor sufficient. [1] http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performanc…

Except for the fact that humans are really bad power sources. Tour de France riders generate about 500 watts. A quick googling turns up this article: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-power-esti… Basically you wouldn't even be able to keep the lights on, let alone run the televisions, AC, fans, etc...

I suspect that the same thing will happen to the 2 hour marathon. Really? http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/10/15959-sub-2-hour-marathon.html

> then it no longer makes any sense Don't all the reasons you gave for having the separate category still apply? Why does it no longer make any sense? > With that in mind, the question is, how would including male players (who call themselves women) This is where a gap in your understanding lies: the childhood experience of a closeted trans woman is not the same as the childhood experience of a cis man. If you can't resolve this gap yourself, my offer to find resources for you remains open. Given that understanding, you could make the minimum viable alteration to your worldview, and it would then satisfy the "valid" criterion I mentioned earlier – but I don't think that's the intellectually-honest result of starting where you are now, and gaining the additional understanding. (There are people with similar opinions to you who do have the understanding you lack, but they've reached those opinions from a very different direction.) > I've read their policy and […] Thank you for explaining your position. World Athletics C3.5A contains many inaccuracies and inconsistencies, including but not limited to: • Eligibility rule 3.5.2(a) unconditionally allows SRY-positive XX-males to compete in the women's category, but C3.5A§3.3 allows them to be excluded by the Medical Manager. Which is it? • Buccal smears can show false positives for SRY in the case of chimerism. The regulations have no provision for this. • Blood tests can show false negatives for SRY in the case of bone…

So taking a step back, as you go about a day you are always getting some energy from sugar stores, and some from fat stores. Example graph: http://www.sportsscientists.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Fat-and-CHO… Sitting still mostly fat. Normal person as you work harder, more and more come form sugar stores - as it can get you energy faster. All this is separate from calories you are taking in. You could eat sugar (sports drink), fat (an avocado), or protein (bacon) while you exercise. Your body will turn all of these into "sugar" which will then fuel your muscles through sugar. Fat is the longer term storage mechanism in the body. So while you could fuel a race by eating avocados or bacon, most people would have stomach issues.. as your stomach starts to shut down the harder you work (blood is in muscles not in gut, etc.). So this why when we talk about fueling in a race fat vs sugar, it's not really related to the source we are taking in our calories from.