Thirteen University of Iowa football players were recently hospitalized for rhabdomyolysis caused by extreme physical exertion. Symptoms of the ailment include dark-colored urine, fatigue, muscle weakness, and muscle tenderness. Although the athletes have since been released from the hospital, information has not been released as to whether any permanent injury has resulted.
Rhabdomyolysis is a serious medical problem. It occurs when myoglobin leaks out of muscle cells due alcoholism, crush injuries, heatstroke, extreme physical exertion and other causes. Just as hemoglobin in red blood cells carries oxygen to the muscles and other body tissue to provide energy through oxidation of carbohydrates and fats, myoglobin carries oxygen within the muscle cells to the mitochondria, which are the oxidative energy-production units within the cells. Myoglobin is a large molecule and, when it leaks into the blood stream, it travels to the kidneys for removal. However, the myoglobin molecules are too large for the kidneys to readily clear, and can easily block the kidney’s filtration system. In addition, myoglobin breaks down into potentially harmful compounds. Permanent kidney damage or even kidney failure may result, which may require lifelong dialysis or a kidney transplant. See the National Institutes of Health for further information on rhabdomyolysis.
Extreme muscle soreness brings with it with a significant risk for rhabdomyolysis. Virtually all muscle soreness is attributable to the eccentric phase of exercise, which occurs when the muscle is lengthened while resisting. This occurs in the lowering phase of every weightlifting or calisthenic repetition, and also in the initial ground-contact phase of running, particularly downhill running. It also occurs during the deceleration phase of sports activities, as in braking for directional change and bringing a moving limb to a halt.
There is no excuse for any strength and conditioning coach to induce rhabdomyolysis. The press has reported that the workouts of the Iowa football players were extremely severe and may have been used as a punishment. One athlete said, “I had to squat 240 pounds 100 times and it was timed. I can’t walk and I fell down the stairs.” Another one said, “Hands Down the hardest workout I’ve ever had in my life!”. In addition, the severe workout occurred just after the athletes returned from winter break, during which most of them had not engaged in heavy resistance exercise. That made them particularly vulnerable to extreme muscle soreness and rhabdomyolysis.
Such an approach is totally unnecessary. Firstly, exercise should never be used as a punishment. Secondly, any knowledgeable and competent coach has to be aware that any exercise regimen that induces extreme muscle soreness presents a significant risk for rhabdomyolysis. Muscle soreness is not a prerequisite for muscle strengthening! The most effective way to increase strength is to start with light resistance and gradually increase the weight lifted over a period of time as the muscles strengthen. High repetitions are totally unnecessary for strength and power athletes like football players. Muscle fatigue following a workout is expected and desirable within limits, but muscle soreness is unnecessary and can actually slow down progress in strength development.
An extensive article and interview of coaches, doctors, and a parent of one of the players is available on the Internet.
Showing posts with label risk. Show all posts
Showing posts with label risk. Show all posts
Friday, February 4, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
As We Age, Cholesterol Level Loses Its Value as a Risk Factor
Because both a high total cholesterol level and a high LDL-cholesterol level are risk factors for heart disease, statin drugs, which lower both levels, are widely prescribed. In the U.S., more prescriptions are written for Lipitor, the most popular statin, than for any other drug. Estimates for the number of people who take statins range between 11 million and 30 million. But should so many people be taking statins? A recent analysis, in which scientists reviewed 14 studies that included data from over 34,000 patients, showed little evidence that statins prevent heart trouble in patients with no history of cardiovascular disease. And because there is some evidence linking low cholesterol levels with increased risk of death from other causes, the study authors feel that doctors should be more cautious about prescribing statins.
An important factor to consider when deciding whether or not to prescribe statins is the patient’s age. A study by Kronmal et al., entitled, “Total Serum Cholesterol levels and mortality risk as a function of age” in the Archives of Internal Medicine (vol. 153, pp. 1065-1073, 1993) examined how age affected the ability of cholesterol level to predict the risk of dying, and it showed that the predictive value declined with age.
The most important consideration when judging mortality risk is the overall likelihood of dying from any cause. In that regard, at age 40, those people with higher total serum cholesterol levels had a significantly higher all-cause mortality risk. However, the relationship declined with age, and by age 60, the relationship between total cholesterol level and all-cause mortality had vanished. By age 80, the relationship actually reversed, so that those with higher cholesterol levels were at significantly lower risk of dying.
Looking specifically at the risk of death from coronary heart disease, the death risk at ages 40, 50, and 60 years was greater for those with higher cholesterol levels, although the effect got smaller with age. By age 70, the relationship was still positive but weak, but by age 80 the relationship reversed, and those with higher cholesterol levels actually had less chance of dying.
Looking at death due to causes other than heart disease, (e.g. cancer), from age 50 on, there was a lower risk of dying as cholesterol levels rose. This apparent protective effect of cholesterol against non-heart-disease death increased with age. Seventy-three percent of 80 year-old men with cholesterol levels above 240 survived for 5 years, while only 49% of those with levels below 240 did. The effect was in the same direction but weaker for women, with a 74% and 70% 5-year survival rates for women with cholesterol levels respectively above and below 240 mg/dl. In regard to cancer alone, higher cholesterol level was associated with lower death risk.
Bottom Line
The current practice of the medical establishment of prescribing statins to anyone with a total cholesterol level above 200 appears to be unjustified. For patients with elevated cholesterol levels and a history of heart disease, statins provide a proven reduction in risk. However, for patients with mildly elevated levels and no history or heart disease, the evidence in favor of prescribing statins is weak or nonexistent. And for men above age 70, even those with cholesterol levels above 240, statins could very well increase the risk of death.
An important factor to consider when deciding whether or not to prescribe statins is the patient’s age. A study by Kronmal et al., entitled, “Total Serum Cholesterol levels and mortality risk as a function of age” in the Archives of Internal Medicine (vol. 153, pp. 1065-1073, 1993) examined how age affected the ability of cholesterol level to predict the risk of dying, and it showed that the predictive value declined with age.
The most important consideration when judging mortality risk is the overall likelihood of dying from any cause. In that regard, at age 40, those people with higher total serum cholesterol levels had a significantly higher all-cause mortality risk. However, the relationship declined with age, and by age 60, the relationship between total cholesterol level and all-cause mortality had vanished. By age 80, the relationship actually reversed, so that those with higher cholesterol levels were at significantly lower risk of dying.
Looking specifically at the risk of death from coronary heart disease, the death risk at ages 40, 50, and 60 years was greater for those with higher cholesterol levels, although the effect got smaller with age. By age 70, the relationship was still positive but weak, but by age 80 the relationship reversed, and those with higher cholesterol levels actually had less chance of dying.
Looking at death due to causes other than heart disease, (e.g. cancer), from age 50 on, there was a lower risk of dying as cholesterol levels rose. This apparent protective effect of cholesterol against non-heart-disease death increased with age. Seventy-three percent of 80 year-old men with cholesterol levels above 240 survived for 5 years, while only 49% of those with levels below 240 did. The effect was in the same direction but weaker for women, with a 74% and 70% 5-year survival rates for women with cholesterol levels respectively above and below 240 mg/dl. In regard to cancer alone, higher cholesterol level was associated with lower death risk.
Bottom Line
The current practice of the medical establishment of prescribing statins to anyone with a total cholesterol level above 200 appears to be unjustified. For patients with elevated cholesterol levels and a history of heart disease, statins provide a proven reduction in risk. However, for patients with mildly elevated levels and no history or heart disease, the evidence in favor of prescribing statins is weak or nonexistent. And for men above age 70, even those with cholesterol levels above 240, statins could very well increase the risk of death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
