Just a thought: I haven't read the link, but just what is meant by
"lower than average bone density?" Is it possible that "competitive top
notch cyclists" are of a physical type having smaller, lighter
bones-----"than the average?" Or are they actually comparing similar
racial characteristics with an average of small boned--light boned
people? Now if they actually followed the same individuals from the
beginning of the cycling careers and could show a lowering of "bone
density" that would be something. ---------But I fear that someone has
gotten a dissertation or some grant money in Kinesiology or related
sports field?
Eric
Scott Rose wrote:
This article from the Well blog at the New York Times is about a month
old, but I don't think I've seen it mentioned here (please forgive me
if it has). It reports on evidence gathered by (in part) a researcher
at University of Oklahoma that shows lower-than-average bone density
in competitive cyclists. Why is not clear-- it could be leaching of
calcium by excessive sweating, or it could be to do with the lack of
skeletal stress during extreme exercise. Drinking calcium-enriched
water while cycling was determined to be helpful. Neither runners--
who certainly do have skeletal stress-- nor weight-lifters-- who have
much less-- were measured to exhibit the effect.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/is-bicycling-bad-for-your-bones/
or
http://is.gd/dZ8bu (nytimes.com)
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
