3 ms·
"Of course, this type of single-snapshot-in-time study can’t tell us whether the athletes’ training actually changed their muscle health over the years or if th
by zeroxfe 11y ago
"Of course, this type of single-snapshot-in-time study can’t tell us whether the athletes’ training actually changed their muscle health over the years or if the athletes were somehow blessed from birth with better muscles, allowing them to become superb masters athletes."
I really wish they hadn't used world class athletes, who almost always have major genetic advantages.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y agoAlso, even if the difference is 100% in the diet and exercise regimen (which I consider vanishingly unlikely, given the established and increasing knowledge base of how genetic factors influence major age-related illnesses), a 14% increase in muscle mass between "sedentary" and "world-class athlete" doesn't suggest the greatest ROI for a more moderate regimen. I think there's value in this study; the study of extremes often yields useful hints for future research. But the way it's reported here is pretty bad. This kind of crap will continue until the prevailing attitude shifts away from the concept of "successful aging". Where would we be if Jonas Salk had focused on "successful polio"?
- bryanrasmussen 11y agoyes, and maybe if they hadn't used world class athletes they could have had more than 29 of them. I mean if they had 10000 exceptionally fit people for their age, that might start to mean something.
- takno 11y agoGiven that they had to get them into a lab and use specialised equipment on them I'd guess the low number of participants was more due to budget than experiment design
- bryanrasmussen 11y agoprobably, but the result is the same.