Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
When Milwaukee Brewers pitcher Chris Capuano reports for spring
training in April, he will be anxious to demonstrate the effects of a
performance-enhancing off-season.
His brain will benefit from a sharper focus, while his throwing arm will boast an extra boost that has been missing since 2006.
Stimulants? Steroids? Scandal?
No. Capuano just had LASIK surgery for his eyes and "Tommy John"
surgery for his injured elbow. And if he chooses, he could have a few cups of coffee
before the game. Of course, were he to choose amphetamines to improve
his focus or steroids to increase his strength, he would be banned and
berated.
Society decides
There is confusion over the means and methods athletes have available to enhance their performance.
Certainly, corrective eye surgery to raise your vision level to 20/20
seems fair, but many athletes go into the procedure hoping to come out
with enhanced 20/15 or 20/10 eyesight.
Replacing a damaged elbow ligament with a tendon doesn't seem like
cheating, but what if it's done on a healthy elbow hoping for a few more
miles per hour on a fastball that has faded over the years?
In December of last year, a commentary in the journal Nature recommended a fresh look at cognitive-enhancing drugs
and where to draw the line in the sand between natural performance and
enhanced performance. The authors, an esteemed group of neuroscientists
and ethicists, argued that "enhanced" is only defined by the rules set
by society.
Abuse of prescription drugs, such as Ritalin and Adderall, is
illegal because of the potential, harmful side effects. Still, reports
of the rising use of these drugs by college students and professionals
show the demand for options beyond nutrition, exercise and sleep.
These drugs are just the first generation of possible brain boosting supplements, which is why the Nature
commentators are calling for an organized, stigma-free approach to
evaluating the risks, benefits and ethics of future products.
Even in Major League Baseball, there is mounting evidence that
cognitive-enhancing drugs may be on the rise. Since MLB banned
amphetamines in 2006, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of
therapeutic use exemptions issued to players for attention-deficit disorder
diagnoses, for which drugs like Ritalin and Adderall can be
legitimately prescribed. In 2006, 28 players applied for the exemption,
while a year later there were 103. There is suspicion that many of
these ADD diagnoses are just excuses to get the pills.
Legal jolt
So, what if there was a cognitive-enhancing, sports supplement that
increased alertness, concentration, reaction time and focus while also
decreasing the perception of muscle fatigue? Even more encouraging,
this supplement is sold in millions of outlets and is socially accepted
worldwide. It comes in three sizes, tall, grande or venti — coffee.
More specifically, caffeine has been the subject of many recent studies of its effectiveness, both cognitively and physiologically.
Earlier this year, Dr. Carrie Ruxton completed a literature survey
to summarize 41 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials published over
the past 15 years to establish what range of caffeine consumption would
maximize benefits and minimize risk for cognitive function, mood,
physical performance and hydration. The studies were divided into two
categories, those that looked at the cognitive effects and those that
looked at physical performance effects.
The results concluded that there was a significant improvement in
cognitive functions like attention, reaction time and mental processing
as well as physical benefits described as increased "time to
exhaustion" and decreased "perception of fatigue" in cycling and
running tests.
Given these results, how exactly does caffeine perform these
wonderful tricks? Dr. Ruxton explains: "Caffeine is believed to impact
on mood and performance by inhibiting the binding of both adenosine and
benzodiazepine receptor ligands to brain membranes. As these
neurotransmitters are known to slow down brain activity, a blockade of
their receptors lessens this effect."
Bottom line, the chemicals in your brain that would cause you to
feel tired are blocked, giving you a feeling of ongoing alertness. This
pharmacological process is very similar to that of the ADD drugs.
Ban coffee?
If caffeine is such a clear-cut performance enhancing supplement,
why did the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) first add caffeine to its
banned substance list, only to remove it in 2004? At the time that it
was placed on the banned list, the threshold for a positive caffeine
test was set to a post-exercise urinary caffeine concentration of about three to four cups of strong coffee.
However, more recent research has shown that caffeine has ergogenic
effects at levels as low as the equivalent of one to two cups of coffee. So,
it was hard for WADA to know where to draw the line between athletes
just having a few morning cups of coffee/tea and those that were
intentionally consuming caffeine to increase their performance level.
If Chris Capuano has a double espresso before pitching, his brain,
eyes and arm should enhance his performance in the game. Is that an
unfair advantage? Science will continue to offer new and improved
methods for raising an athlete's game above the competition. Players,
league officials and fans will have to decide where to draw the line.
Please visit my other articles on LiveScience.com and Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
Of all of the decisions parents face regarding
their children's future, choosing between shoulder pads or running
shoes for their Christmas present seems trivial. Well, according to
Kevin Reilly, president of Atlas Sports Genetics, this is a decision you should not take lightly.
"If
you wait until high school or college to find out if you have a good
athlete on your hands, by then it will be too late," he said in a
recent New York Times interview. "We need to identify these kids from 1 and up, so we can give the parents some guidelines on where to go from there."
In
December, Reilly's company began marketing a $149 saliva swab test for
kids, aged 1 to 8, to determine which variant of the gene ACTN3 is in their DNA. According to a 2003 Australian study,
ACTN3 was shown to be a marker for two different types of athletic
prowess, explosive power or long endurance. While everyone carries the
gene, the combination of variants inherited, one from each parent,
differs.
Science of success
The R
variant of ACTN3 signals the body to produce a protein,
alpha-actinin-3, which is found exclusively in fast-twitch muscles. The
X variant prohibits this production. So, athletes inheriting two R
variants may have a genetic advantage in sports requiring quick,
powerful muscle contractions from their fast-twitch muscle fibers.
In the ACTN3 study, Dr. Kathryn North
and her lab at the Institute for Neuromuscular Research of the
University of Sydney looked at 429 internationally ranked Australian
athletes and found significant correlation between power sport athletes
and the presence of the R variant. All of the female sprint athletes
had at least one R variant, as did the male power-sport athletes. In
fact, 50 percent of the 107 sprinters had two copies of the R variant.
What about those aspiring athletes that were not fortunate enough to inherit the R variant and its protein producing qualities?
North's
team also noted that the elite endurance athletes seemed to be linked
to the XX variation, although only significantly in the female sample.
In 2007, her team pursued this link by developing a strain of mice that
was completely deficient in the alpha-actinin-3 protein similar to an
athlete with an XX allele. They found the muscle metabolism of the mice
without the protein was more efficient. Amazingly, the mice were able
to run 33 percent farther than mice with the normal ACTN3 gene.
Cloudy future
Additional research is showing mixed results, however.
In
2007, South African researchers found no significant correlation
between 457 Ironman triathletes, known for their endurance, and the XX
combination. This year, Russian researchers at the St. Petersburg
Research Institute of Physical Culture also failed to establish the
XX-endurance performance link among 456 elite rowers but did find the
RR connection among a sample of Russian power sports athletes.
So, can we at least find the next Usain Bolt among our kids?
"Everybody
wants to predict future athletic success based on present achievement
or physical makeup. But predicting success is much more difficult than
most people think," Robert Singer, professor and chair of the
department of exercise and sport sciences at the University of Florida
warns in the book "Sports Talent" (Human Kinetics Publishers, 2001) by Jim Brown.
"There
are too many variables, even if certain athletes have a combination of
genes that favors long-range talent," Singer said. "A person's genetic
makeup can be expressed in many different ways, depending on
environmental and situational opportunities. Variables such as
motivation, coachability, and opportunity can't be predicted."
Destiny?
Just
as we assume that kids that are at the 99 percent percentile in height
are destiny-bound for basketball or volleyball, having this peek into
their genome may tempt parents to limit the sports choices for their
son or daughter.
Even Mr. Reilly expressed his concern
in the Times article: "I'm nervous about people who get back results
that don't match their expectations," he said. "What will they do if
their son would not be good at football? How will they mentally and
emotionally deal with that?"
For those parents that are just not ready to discover the sports
destiny of their child, or just want to save the $150, there is a much
simpler alternative. Hold your son or daughter's hand, palm up. Measure
the lengths of their index finger and their ring finger. Divide the
former by the latter. According to John Manning, professor of
psychology at the University of Central Lancashire, if the ratio is
closer to .90 than 1.0, you may have a budding superstar.
Manning explains in his aptly named new book, "The Finger Book"
(Faber and Faber, 2008),that the amount of a fetus' exposure to
testosterone in the womb determines the length of the ring finger,
while estrogen levels are expressed in the length of the index finger.
According to Manning's theory, more testosterone means more physical
and motor skill ability.
The digit ratio theory, as it
is known, has been the subject of more than 120 studies to find its
effect on athletic, musical and even lovemaking aptitude.
Don't
worry if the ratio is closer to 1.0, which is by far the norm. Plus,
you will be able to relax, enjoy your kids' sports events and only
worry about their genetic disposition to being happy.
Please visit my other articles on LiveScience.com and Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
When
it comes to improving your golf game, you can spend thousands of
dollars buying the latest titanium-induced, Tiger-promoted golf clubs;
taking private lessons from the local "I used to be on the Tour" pro;
or trying every slice-correcting, swing-speed-estimating,
GPS-distance-guessing gadget. But, in the end, it’s about getting that
little white sphere to go where you intended it to go. Don't worry,
there are many very smart people trying to help you by designing the
ultimate golf ball. Of course, they are also after a slice of this
billion dollar industry, as any technological advancement that can grab
a few more market share points is worth the investment.
In
fact, the golf ball wars can get nasty. Earlier this month, Callaway
Golf won a court order permanently halting sales of the industry's
leading ball, Titleist's Pro V1, arguing patent infringements involving
its solid core technology which Callaway acquired when it bought
Spaulding/Top Flite in 2003. Titleist disagrees with the decision and
will appeal, but in the meantime has altered its manufacturing process
so that the patents in question are not used.
The
challenge for golf ball manufacturers is to design a better performing
ball within the constraints set by United States Golf Association. The
USGA enforces limits on the size, weight and initial performance
characteristics in an attempt to keep the playing field somewhat level.
Every "sanctioned" golf ball must weigh less than 1.62 ounces with a
diameter smaller than 1.68 inches. It also must have a similar initial
velocity when hit with a metal striker, and rebound at the same angle
and speed when hit against a metal block. So, what is left to tinker
with? Manufacturers have focused on the internal materials in the ball
and its cover design.
Today's
balls have 2, 3 or 4 layers of different internal polymer materials to
be able to respond differently when hit with a driver versus, say, a
wedge. When hit with a driver at much higher swing speed, the energy
transfer goes all the way to the core by compressing ball, reducing
backspin. During a slower swing with a club that has more angle loft,
the energy stays closer to the surface of the ball and allows the
grooves of the club to grab onto the ball's cover producing more spin.
When driving the ball off of the tee, the preference is more distance
and less loft, so a lower backspin is required. For closer shots, more
backspin and control are needed.
The Science of Dimples
Which
brings us to the cover of the ball and all of the design possibilities.
Two forces affect the flight and distance of flying spheres, gravity
and aerodynamics. Eventually, gravity wins once the momentum of the
ball is slowed by the aerodynamic drag. Since all golf clubs have some
angular loft to their clubface, the struck ball will have backspin. As
explained by the Magnus Force effect, the air pressure will be lower on
the top of the ball since that side is moving slower relative to the
air around it. This creates lift as the ball will go in the direction
of the lower air pressure. Counteracting this lift is the friction or
drag the ball experiences while flying through the air.
Think about a boat moving through
water. At the front of the boat, the water moves smoothly around the
sides of the boat, but eventually separates from the boat on the back
side. This leaves behind a turbulent wake where the water is agitated
and creates a lower pressure area. The larger the wake, the more drag
is created. A ball in flight has the same properties.
The
secret then is how to reduce this wake behind the ball. Enter the
infamous golf ball dimples. Dimples on a golf ball create a thin
turbulent boundary layer of air molecules that sticks to the ball's
contour longer than on a smooth ball. This allows the flowing air to
follow the ball's surface farther around the back of the ball, which
decreases the size of the wake. In fact, research has shown that a
dimpled ball travels about twice as far as a smooth ball.
So,
the design competition comes down to perfecting the dimple, since not
all dimples are created equal! The number, size and shape can have a
dramatic impact on performance. Typically, today's balls have 300-500
spherically shaped dimples, each with a depth of about .010 inch.
However, varying just the depth by .001 inch can have dramatic effects
on the ball's flight.
Regarding shape, these traditional round dimple patterns cover up to 86
percent of the surface of the golf ball. To create better coverage,
Callaway Golf's HX ball uses hexagon shaped dimples that can create a
denser lattice of dimples leaving fewer flat spots. Creating just the
right design has traditionally been a trial-and-error process of
creating a prototype then testing in a wind tunnel. This time-consuming
process does not allow for the extreme fine-tuning of the variables.
Simulation Solution
At
the 61st Meeting of the American Physical Society's Division of Fluid
Dynamics last month in San Antonio, a team of researchers from Arizona
State University and the University of Maryland is reporting new
findings that may soon give golf ball manufacturers a more efficient
method of testing their designs. Their research takes a different
approach, using mathematical equations that model the physics of a golf
ball in flight. ASU's Clinton Smith, a Ph.D. student and his advisor
Kyle Squires collaborated with Nikolaos Beratlis and Elias Balaras at
the University of Maryland and Masaya Tsunoda of Sumitomo Rubber
Industries, Ltd. The team has been developing highly efficient
algorithms and software to solve these equations on parallel
supercomputers, which can reduce the simulation time from years to
hours.
Now
that the model and process is in place, the next step is to begin the
quest for the ultimate dimple. In the meantime, when someone asks you,
"What's your handicap?" you can confidently tell them, "Well, my golf
ball's design does not optimize its drag coefficient which results in a
lower loft and spin rate from its poor aerodynamics."
Related Articles on Sports Are 80 Percent Mental:
Putt With Your Brain - Part 2
As first seen at LiveScience.com
and Sports Are 80 Percent Mental
The loneliest men in sports have not been making any friends lately.
Both
umpires and referees have been making news, despite their often
repeated goal, stated by World Series rookie umpire Tom Hallion said after Game 3: “As an umpire, you never want to be involved
in the outcome of the game.” He added: “We like to get every play
right. We’re human beings, and sometimes we get them wrong.”
Hallion and his five partners at October's Fall Classic did not quite reach their goal. In
Game 3, Hallion called Carl Crawford safe at first on a close play, but
replays showed he was out. In Game 4, it was the Phillies who benefited
after veteran umpire, Tim Welke, called Jimmy Rollins safe at third
during a rundown, despite an obvious tag on his backside.
The men in stripes are not doing any better. Veteran NFL referee, Ed Hoculi (aka "Guns"), blew a call in Week 2's Broncos/Chargers game.
Broncos' quarterback Jay Cutler let the ball slip out of his hand and
the Chargers recovered. However, Hoculi ruled the play an incomplete
pass. The video replay booth called it a fumble, but since Hoculi had
blown his whistle, the call could not be reversed.
Not
to be outdone by their American counterparts, two English soccer
officials have set a new standard for head-scratching calls.
In a Sept. 22 game between Watford and Reading,
referee Stuart Atwell and one of his linesmen, Nigel Bannister,
combined to become the ultimate sales pitch for any type of goal-line
replay technology. After a scramble in front of goal, the ball bounced
across the end line, two yards wide of the nearest goalpost. As both
teams headed up the field and Watford prepared for a goal kick,
Bannister signaled to Atwell that he saw the ball cross the line
between the goalposts and that Reading should be awarded a goal. To the
astonishment of all 22 players on the field and the 14,761 fans, Atwell
overruled his own eyes and gave the goal to Reading. The replay made it
painfully obvious how wrong the call was:
So, assuming officials want some kind of automated technical assistance, what is available?
First,
pure video instant replay gives officials a second, slower chance to
see the play again and possibly adjust their live call. All four major
sports leagues in the United States use replay at some level.
In
addition to judging if a shot was taken before the buzzer, the NBA
added replay this season to differentiate 2-point versus 3-point
baskets. MLB commissioner Bud Selig has put a stop to the spread of
replay beyond the home run/foul ball call for now, but public pressure
may change that. The NHL’s use of replay focuses mainly on different
goal scoring scenarios. The NFL is the most advanced user of replay to
judge multiple situations.
Second,
an emerging selection of decision-support tools can make the actual
call for the officials using location-based technology. In tennis, the Hawk-Eye system is being used at such high-profile events as Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.
A
system of six high-speed cameras records a ball's movement, which is
useful when it bounces near one of the court lines. It feeds the
cameras' input to a central computer that analyzes the data from all
angles and then creates a motion graphic that simulates the ball's
location when it bounces on the court, either on the line or next to
the line, with a judgment of "in" or "out."
A
player can challenge a line umpire's original call, but Hawk-Eye's
ruling is then final. The interesting illusion that tennis fans have
accepted is watching this 3D simulation as if it is based on a single
camera’s footage of the ball. Actually, the sequence shown to viewers
is Hawk-Eye's best estimate as to what actually happened based on the
data it received from the cameras. There have been more than 550
challenges at the U.S. Open since 2006 when Hawk-Eye was installed.
Thirty percent of those challenges resulted in a call being reversed.
In soccer, Adidas and Cairos Technologies
have partnered to create an "intelligent" ball that includes a
microchip that transmits its location on the field to a computer.
The
system also places a thin, underground electrical wire that surrounds
each goal. If the ball's location is sensed to be completely inside the
boundary of the goal, a signal is sent to a watch worn by the referee
indicating that a goal has been scored.
This
technology would have saved Atwell and Bannister from their
embarrassment. However, after extensive testing at several FIFA
tournaments, Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, announced in March that
instead of technology, two additional human referee assistants would be
used to judge whether a goal was scored. "Let it be as it is and let's
leave it (soccer) with errors," Blatter said. "The television companies
will have the right to say he (the referee) was right or wrong, but
still the referee makes the decision — a man, not a machine."
Interestingly, the English Premier League was also testing the use of
Hawk-Eye as an alternative to Adidas' smart ball.
Even if the umps and refs don't want to use the technology, sports television producers still want to empower the fans.
In
baseball, ESPN's "K-zone" and Fox Sports' "Fox Trax" show a virtual
representation of pitches and the strike zone to let us judge the
accuracy of the home-plate umpire's calls. Think that last called
strike was a bit outside? Watch the computer generated replay that is
accurate to within one-half inch.
Then, go ahead and yell at the ump. If only they could come up with a way to transmit our voices directly into the stadium.
Athletes, both professional and amateur, as well as the general public are convinced that human growth hormone (HGH), Erythropoietin (EPO) and anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS)
are all artificial and controversial paths to improved performance in
sports. The recent headlines that have included Barry Bonds, Marion
Jones, Floyd Landis, Dwayne Chambers, Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi, Roger
Clemens and many lesser known names (see the amazingly long list of doping cases in sport)
have referred to these three substances interchangeably leaving the
public confused about who took what from whom. With so many athletes
willing to gamble with their futures, they must be confident that they
will see significant short-term results. So, is it worth the risk?
Two very interesting recent studies provide some answers on at least
one of the substances, HGH.
A team at the Stanford University School of Medicine, led by Hau Liu MD,
recently reviewed 27 historical studies on the effects of HGH on
athletic performance, dating back to 1966 (see reference below). They
wanted to see if there were any definitive links between HGH use and
improved results. In some of the studies, test volunteers who received
HGH did develop more lean body mass, but also developed more lactate
during aerobic testing which inhibited rather than helped performance.
While their muscle mass increased, other markers of athletic fitness,
such as VO2max remained unchanged. “The key takeaway is that we don’t
have any good scientific evidence that growth hormone improves athletic
performance,” said senior author Andrew Hoffman, MD, professor of endocrinology, gerontology and metabolism.
Both Liu and Hoffman cautioned that the
amounts of HGH given to these test subjects may be much lower than the
the purported levels claimed to be taken by professional athletes.
They also pointed out that at a professional level, a very slight
improvement might be all that is necessary to get an edge of your
opponent. Hoffman also added an insightful comment, “So much of
athletic performance at the professional level is psychological.” If
an athlete takes HGH, sees some muscle mass growth and isn't 100% sure
of its performance capabilities, might he assume he now has other
"Superman" powers?
That is exactly the premise that a
research team from Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney,
Australia used to find out if HGH users simply relied on a placebo effect.
Sixty-four participants, young adult recreational athletes, were
divided into two groups of 32 and tested for a baseline of athletic
ability in endurance, strength, power and sprinting. One group
received growth hormone and the other group received a simple placebo.
It was a "double-blind" study in that neither the participants nor the
researchers knew during the testing which substance each group received.
At the end of the 8 week treatment, the
athletes were asked if they thought they were in the HGH group or the
placebo group. Half of the group that had received the placebo
incorrectly guessed that they were on HGH. Not too surprisingly, the
majority of the "incorrect guessers" were men. Here's where it gets
interesting. The incorrect guessers also thought that their athletic
abilities had improved over the 8 week period. The team retested all
of the placebo group and actually did find improvement across all of
the tests, but only significantly in the high-jump test.
Jennifer Hansen, a nurse researcher and Dr. Ken Ho,
head of the pituitary research unit at Garvan have not released the
data on the group that did receive the HGH, but they will in their
final report coming soon.
So, let's recap. On the one hand, we have
a research review that claims there is not yet any scientific evidence
that HGH actually improves sports performance. Yet, we have hundreds,
if not thousands, of athletes illegally using HGH for performance
gain. Showing the effect of the "if its good enough for them, its good
enough for me" beliefs of the public regarding professional athlete use
of HGH, we now have research that shows even those who received a
placebo, but believed they were taking HGH not only thought
they were improving but actually did improve a little. Once again, we
see the power of our own natural, non-supplemented brain to convince
(or fool) ourselves to perform at higher levels than we thought
possible.
Liu,
H., Bravata, D.M., Olkin, I., Friedlander, A., Liu, V., Roberts, B.,
Bendavid, E., Saynina, O., Salpeter, S.R., Garber, A.M. (2008).
Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic
performance.. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148(10), 747-758.
