... and what was your birth weight?

[MattTuck]

Originally Posted by BobO

Two points;

1. Statistical mean data tends to be less accurate when you look at individuals. IOW, if you look at the data of the study you're going to find that outliers to the conclusions aren't all that uncommon.

2. Genetics. Having someone in the direct bloodline is going to be a far more likely indicator of performance potential.

For sure. But I wouldn't bank on an athletic scholarship based on my genetics! Also, we are not Scandinavian -- so not sure if the results will hold. Also, seems that birth weight may be related to other things that could influence sporting performance (ie. health and income of parents, for example)

My son is still super light (at 18 months), I tell my wife that he is a natural climber. (unlike his dad)

[thwart]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Doesn't look good for my premie twins

Take heart there, Matt. Study involved folks born at term.

[hokoman]

Originally Posted by tuscanyswe

Interesting, i thought perhaps 40 yards were the same as 60 meters with some poor and fast conversion in my head and that you were idd very proud of that lightning speed of yours .) Thats what we run here but realize with some more proper math its not the same.. So is 40 yards something you run at a young age or something in the US?

I think it's a standard for speed in (American) football. That is the only reference I've ever heard it being used with.

[BobO]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

For sure. But I wouldn't bank on an athletic scholarship based on my genetics!

Genetics are really fun when you watch your kids grow. I was a runner / cyclist, tallish but light, pretty good VO2 max, etc. My son who is now 15 is going to be taller than me by quite a lot, already 6 foot with size 13 shoes and he's still growing fast. He doesn't have my physical characteristics. He is built like my wife's uncle who was 6'-5" and carried 250 pounds well. In the family, but he's diverged from me by quite a bit.

Oh ya, my best friend growing up was a preemie, almost didn't make it. As teens he and I use to push each other really hard in cross-country and track. But then, they are what they are and it's just important to be supportive of that.

[m_sasso]

Originally Posted by jm714

21.5” @ 8 lb 10 oz now 6’ 5” 220lb. I college I did a body fat test For a team I was on in a tank of water, they had me exhale all the air I could and they couldn’t believe what my output was. The docs also say my heart is larger than normal.

My son was 22” and 8’ lb 12 oz. He’s 6’6” 205 with a large heart. He went 1:44 in the 200 yard free last year as a part time swimmer. His swim coach tells me his capacity for work is extreme and if I would let him swim year round he would come home with a D1 swim scholarship. He’s on pace to break 1:40 this year. We shall see

Not to be snarky or start a debate however you are under some misconceptions here.

First, during a "dunk test" which looks at body composition, fat vs lean muscle mass, your output is nill, it is a static test, so I can understand how "they couldn't believe your output". A dunk test evaluates body density displacement.

Second, a large heart is indicative of all most nothing but possible issues. A large heart is more likely to be a sign of volume pumping issues than performance. A large heart may show the ability to move larger volumes of blood, however, if an individuals muscle cells makeup can't utilize the necessities carried by blood, zero enhanced performance.

[jm714]

Originally Posted by m_sasso

Not to be snarky or start a debate however you are under some misconceptions here.

First, during a "dunk test" which looks at body composition, fat vs lean muscle mass, your output is nill, it is a static test, so I can understand how "they couldn't believe your output". A dunk test evaluates body density displacement.

Second, a large heart is indicative of all most nothing but possible issues. A large heart is more likely to be a sign of volume pumping issues than performance. A large heart may show the ability to move larger volumes of blood, however, if an individuals muscle cells makeup can't utilize the necessities carried by blood, zero enhanced performance.

If I remember the test correctly (going back to 87) I blew into a spirometer that measured output before going into the tank. As far as the large heart is concerned I understand that it doesn’t prove anything. There are a ton of factors that go into being an athlete. My son doesn’t have the biomechanics to run fast, but he has always had an efficient stroke that allows him to swim fast. How efficient his cardiovascular is I don’t know, but his swim coach who has placed a number of swimmers in D1 programs says his capacity for work is extreme and he doesn’t break down like other swimmers when he’s under stress and he chided me for only having him 4.5 months out of the year. His true love is water polo and that is what he plans to pursue at the next level.

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by hokoman

I think it's a standard for speed in (American) football. That is the only reference I've ever heard it being used with.

Ah that makes sense. Not a lot of that going around here..

[bigbill]

I have two female first cousins. We're all within a few years of each other and our moms are identical twins. They both have two kids, each with a son and daughter. Their dad was 6'4" and they're both 6' tall. Their dad was adopted so he's a wild card. He played baseball and football at Baylor before shifting to professional golf to pay for grad school. I'll call her cousin 1, her son is 6'5" and plays for the Buffalo Bills. He played at Cal. Her daughter is 6' and was a collegiate swimmer. Cousin 2, her son is 6'10" and her daughter is 6' as well. Both husbands are around 6'2". The 6'10" kid was all state in basketball but turned down athletic scholarships to attend Texas A&M on an academic to study mechanical engineering.

That shows you what can be hidden away in genetics.

[Black Dog]

Originally Posted by MattTuck

Doesn't look good for my premie twins

Run what their birth weight would have been if they had delivered at full term, then you will know where they will be on the podium at the 2040 olympics.

[bpiecuch]

Maybe I'm mis-understanding this study. It seems to me that they're concluding that higher birth weights equate to higher max wattage on a erg in their late adolescent years. Fine, i have no problem with that.

But, I believe they're using peak power to equate to "Cardiovascular Fitness." That doesn't make sense to me. We all know that heavier cyclists output higher watts. So, where is the weight data at the time of the tests, and shouldn't that be part of the equation? I would have preferred to see a VO2 max test, or sustained w/kg for 20mins as a comparison in this test. Peak power doesn't really mean much in terms of "Cardiovascular Fitness."

[mt2u77]

Originally Posted by bpiecuch

Maybe I'm mis-understanding this study. It seems to me that they're concluding that higher birth weights equate to higher max wattage on a erg in their late adolescent years. Fine, i have no problem with that.

But, I believe they're using peak power to equate to "Cardiovascular Fitness." That doesn't make sense to me. We all know that heavier cyclists output higher watts. So, where is the weight data at the time of the tests, and shouldn't that be part of the equation? I would have preferred to see a VO2 max test, or sustained w/kg for 20mins as a comparison in this test. Peak power doesn't really mean much in terms of "Cardiovascular Fitness."

Exactly. I was just going to post the same thing. Gee, what a surprise-- big babies turn into big adults, and big people can create big peak power.

[veggieburger]

My daughter was 10.5lbs, 23 inches long. Once she aces the Strider, I'm putting her on a track bike.

[jmoore]

Originally Posted by kppolich

20 inches long/ 8lbs 7oz
Proud owner of a 4.4 40 yard dash and 2:51 marathon.
Pretty average outside of that currently standing 6’ tall @ 157lbs
FTP around 320w at it's peak for 5 W/kg.

Impressive, esp combined.

[gasman]

I think the study has limited utility. Correlation (lg birth weight and higher output) does not equal causation (better CV fitness because of size)
If they had looked at these kids and measured output in watts/kg rather than just wattage output until exhaustion I would be more interested. The result of males with a higher BMI producing more power is commonsense.
I would have liked to see the same study done using VO2max.

Oh well, researchers need to produce studies to get grants to produce more studies.

Really good studies are difficult to produce.

[Drmojo]

Originally Posted by chunkylover53

11 pounds, 7 ounces. Midpack rider at best, lol.

thought it might help at craps table!
or robbing a 7-11