- The Competitor - Sports
- Mr. Muscle - Fitness and Health
- Your Ride - Cars
- Greenbacks - Career/Money/Finance
- Toys - Gadgets (i.e. boys toys)
- Tasty Licks - Music, Movies, Books and other Entertainment
- Arguing - Politics
- The Great Outdoors - hunting, camping, extreme sports
- WWWD? (What Would Ward Do?...think about it, it'll come to you) - Family
- Black Socks & Flip-Flops - Personal Appearance
- Honeydew - Home Improvement/Tools
- The Wide World - Travel/Vacation
- Eye Candy
The Competitor - Really interesting article on LiveScience this week about elite athletes and the question of where enhancement (chemical, surgical, training or genetic) crosses the line and what is the difference from the genetic advantage they have over the average human - or as the article states "All top athletes, after all, have an advantage over non-athletes. They're bigger, stronger or faster. That's why they are athletes."One question asked and a good one if you really think about it is "What's the difference between an athlete having LASIK surgery to improve his or her vision and some other surgical or chemical enhancement?" I'm not saying I'm in favor of athletes using steroids but just pointing out that there is not always a bright line to cross; more often there are grey areas.
Nor do I think that all elite athletes use performance-enhancing drugs. As Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein "Follow the money". I am fortunate to have a number of good friends that were Olympic athletes, some of them Gold Medalists, but not in a high-profile sport. As a result none of them have ever gotten rich from their athletic success. I can also tell you that I am completely confident in their never having used performance-enhancing drugs. Why? Because I've flat-out asked them and the extent of our friendship is such that they would tell me the truth. So if you're not in a sport that can make you rich, the temptation to use performance-enhancing drug is greatly diminished.
Long story short - an article worth reading and thinking about.
Mr. Muscle - Take a look back at my Nov 7 posting and boy did I hit the nail on the head regarding the misuse of Body Mass Index (BMI). According to a news article, at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, students with a BMI over 30 ("obese") must take and pass a fitness course to receive their degrees. This kind of stuff scares me, using a 150-year-old method developed to describe populations as a measure for individuals. As a former college athlete I'm all for fitness and continue to workout regularly, but using the BMI is just plain misguided as it is well-documented that athletes often have a BMI over 30 due to carrying more muscle mass than the average person. The problem with BMI is that it doesn't take into account what makes up a person's weight - muscle or fat. I can't fathom how James L. DeBoy, chairman of Lincoln's department of health, physical education and recreation, doesn't know or take this into account. Instead they should be using a person's bodyfat percentage as a better measure of whether they are overweight or not.While not a national powerhouse in any sports, I'd like to see how the university handles telling the football players (who most likely have a BMI over 30) they need to take a fitness course to learn about the benefits of walking and weightlifting.
Your Ride - I'm starting to be a regular Carnac as I refer back to yet another seemingly prescient post, this time from Nov 2 when I gave Ford kudos for high reliability marks from Consumer Reports. Seems like this American icon has done it again with The Ford Fusion being named the Motor Trend Car of the Year. Another good reason to Buy American.
No comments:
Post a Comment