Guest editorial by John Craig
PHOENIX, Arizona, October 10. MOST parents want the best for their children, both academically and athletically. And, many parents push their children, both in school and on the playing field. It is widely acknowledged that too much pushiness can backfire psychologically. Is it possible that it can also backfire physically?
I've noticed over time that the boys in high yardage programs who push themselves the hardest, the ones who rarely miss a practice between the ages of 12 and 15, often end up abnormally short, around 5' 6" or 5' 7". For some reason the effect with girls seems less pronounced. I read in the New York Times science section recently that stresses such as malnourishment stunt boys' growth more than girls'. A child who is overtraining is effectively malnourished since so much protein and calories must go towards just recovering from workouts.
A 15 year old boy once told me that his doctor told him that he was in the middle of his growth spurt, but that he wasn't growing it because he was expending so much energy in the pool. He ended up 5' 7". A child between the ages of 12 and 16, the prime growing years, who is constantly working out to the point of exhaustion, needs all his physical resources to merely recover from his workouts. It would stand to reason that in such cases growth might take a back seat.
Kids who do doubles are hit with a double whammy. They often miss valuable sleep time by getting up as early as 4:30 a.m. to reach a 5:30 a.m. practice. If they're up late doing homework, say until 11 p.m., that means only five and a half hours of sleep, and sleep is the only time that the body grows.
Another effect of overtraining I've noticed is that a lot of boys who swim, especially those who do reach normal height, end up abnormally skinny. When you're constantly tearing your muscle down and don't give your body a chance to recover, it's hard to end up muscular.
Every coach wants to have a champion upon whom he can build his reputation. And everybody in swimming has heard stories of the incredibly long, tough, downright heroic sets that great distance swimmers – like Erik Vendt -- have done. So some coaches assume that if they have their swimmers do similar sets, they too will produce champions.
The problem is that different people have different metabolisms. The ones who end up as champions are usually the one with the naturally strongest constitutions. Their stomachs, kidneys, liver, heart, and lungs just naturally produce more energy than most peoples'. And, just as importantly, they often have more natural testosterone in their systems than others, so their bodies naturally tend to put on more muscle. (Some cheat by using steroids, but that's another matter.) Most children are just not naturally cut out to be champions. And when they try too hard, with too little recovery time, their bodies pay a price.
The vast majority of serious swimmers I've met seem like nice kids. This is part of the problem. When a high yardage coach pressures them to show up to more workouts, and swim harder during those workouts, they do what well-brought-up youngsters do: they defer to the elder in the position of authority, assuming he knows best.
The situation bears a resemblance to Charles Dickens' England, where young children were made to get up early to work in the factories for 11 hours a day; they often did not grow tall either. The difference is that those children were just being exploited, whereas the parents and coaches who push their children athletically want the best for them. The end result, however, is similar.
Ironically, being tall is obviously a major advantage in swimming. You almost never see a short swimmer at the Olympics, except occasionally in the distance freestyles or breaststrokes, and you'll see many tall ones. I'm guessing that most of these swimmers were not doing doubles before the age of 16. I read once that Ian Thorpe only swam twice a week until the age of 11. I've also read that Gary Hall Jr. quit swimming between the ages of 12 and 15. I've heard that John Naber didn't even start swimming competitively until the age of 14. These stories may be apocryphal; I don't know. I wasn't there, so I can't attest to them. But it's hard to believe that a kid going more than 8,000 yards a day between the ages of, say, 13 and 16, will grow up to be six and a half feet tall. There may be exceptions, but that's probably what they are, exceptions.
The real tragedy of this situation, of course, is not that the boys don't reach their full potential athletically. After all, a sport is just a sport. It's that these boys have to go through the rest of their lives short. There have been countless studies showing how height helps in various ways in our society, whether in terms of the amount of money you're paid or the way other people perceive you or the range of potential mates available.
It's not just the coaches who are responsible for this, though any coach who constantly works his charges to the bone without sufficient recovery time certainly bears a large responsibility. I've seen parents shuttle their kids from a practice in one sport to another in a different sport without even feeding them in between. These parents think that they're producing little supermen this way, but they're doing the exact opposite. Some of the cases I've seen where the children do two sports in one season result in the smallest children of all. (One crucial factor is, of course, nutrition. Children who train very hard are frequently operating on a nutritional deficit, and must be fed constantly and well.)
Most sports don't seem to stunt growth. It's only the ones which require extremely high energy output, like swimming, or extremely long practice sessions, like gymnastics, which seem to have this effect. A baseball player can do a number of wind sprints, toss the ball for a while, and do drills without having any effect on his growth. In fact, a little exercise is probably good for growth, as it stimulates the body's circulatory system, which in turn stimulates the other systems. Swimming done in moderation is actually one of the safest sports, as there are no impact injuries (water is a very forgiving medium).
Some people were never destined to be giants, even with all the sleep and rest in the world. And there is of course no way of proving how much growth was lost due to overtraining in the case of any individual child. For that, you'd need to have two monozygotic (identical) twins, and have one go 10,000 yards a day in double sessions while the other one went 4000 yards in one afternoon session. Such an experiment sounds cruel and inhumane. But in fact it's being carried out unwittingly daily by all sorts of ambitious coaches and parents.
The solution to this problem would simply be to be careful not to overtrain kids who are still in their growth phase. It's near impossible to be a champion swimmer if you haven't grown up swimming. But it's also near impossible if you do so much that your growth ends up stunted. It's a fine line to tread, but I think it's one that more coaches and parents should be aware of.
I'd be curious to hear if anyone else has noticed the same phenomenon.
Search For More News About: John Craig
Reaction Time Comments
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
October 10, 2009 Mr. Craig,
You do a disservice to your position by stating such a raw, naked opinion as though it is clear fact. You need a great deal more reliable objective research to support such an opinion about a parameter which is affected by so many variables. It is fine to raise the possiblity that it may play a factor in some instances (so it might be appropriately studied), but with kids experiencing such differences in nutrition, rest, nature of those 8,000 yards (aerobic v anaerobic ratio, sensitivity of coach in responding to apparent overstress, etc.) and, probably most significantly, genetics, as well as a myriad of other factors beyond my (and though I don't know you, I'd suspect also well beyond your) paygrade, conclusions are not yet justified. Submitted by: dunc1952
October 10, 2009 I actually did read somewhere about two identical twins, who were both swimmers before one quit. The one that quit had a huge growth spurt in a few months, while the other experienced nothing of the sort...
I think it was in Golden Girl (Natalie Coughlin's biography in the lead-up to 2004). Submitted by: David Rieder
October 10, 2009 A broad conclusion like this can't be adequately supported by anecdotes without even having any knowledge of the variables around the anecdotal event. Maybe there is a tie; maybe not; maybe they had different diets, different diseases, different emotional experiences, injuries, etc. It is an interesting idea but would need to be studied a lot more than "Did you hear about..." or "Have you ever notice how ..." studies to have any value. Submitted by: dunc1952
October 11, 2009 John Craig, thank you for articulating what I strongly believe! I believe I have a child who suffered from this. He is 'stringy', always tired, doesn't eat well, and rather than sleep, choses to spend a lot of time on social networking sites, and then there is am training! At 17, I suspect his growth has stopped at 6' 9. He comes from a tall family, and I have always wondered, and in fact concluded that his training (coupled with his bad choices/habits), stunted his growth. One without the other might have seen him grow to 6', but I fear the combination was growth fatal.
Also there are 2 clubs where we are, where the 10/11/12 year olds train for c.20 hrs/week. They are FAST; but they are also, it seems without exception, short. In fact, they tend to look like clones of one another - all short and stocky.
There may not be concrete/scientific evidence supporting your views, but to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the human growth processes and requirements, they make PERFECT SENSE! Submitted by: SwimMum
October 11, 2009 ...sorry, I meant to say my son is now 5'9, not 6'9! Submitted by: SwimMum
October 11, 2009 This is a sore topic with me. I have just been kicked out of a swimming club in Britain that I have been associated with for 25 years for suggesting that the club's program might be stunting children's growth. No proper hearing, just gone.
I have appealed the the British Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) but I suspect I will get nowhere there either. They will not discuss specifics, they simply refuse to accept that swimming in any form might have an adverse effect on the participants and are not even prepared to look at my evidence.
I would very much like to communicate with John Craig or anyone else who could corroborate what I am saying because I think that this is a very real problem. The reaction I am getting suggests that this is a can of worms that nobody wants to open.
Dave S Submitted by: Dave S
October 11, 2009 This is a sore topic with me. I have just been kicked out of a swimming club in Britain that I have been associated with for 25 years for suggesting that the club's program might be stunting children's growth. No proper hearing, just gone.
I have appealed the the British Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) but I suspect I will get nowhere there either. They will not discuss specifics, they simply refuse to accept that swimming in any form might have an adverse effect on the participants and are not even prepared to look at my evidence.
I would very much like to communicate with John Craig or anyone else who could corroborate what I am saying because I think that this is a very real problem. The reaction I am getting suggests that this is a can of worms that nobody wants to open.
Dave S Submitted by: Dave S
October 11, 2009 This is a sore topic with me. I have just been kicked out of a swimming club in Britain that I have been associated with for 25 years for suggesting that the club's program might be stunting children's growth. No proper hearing, just gone.
I have appealed the the British Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) but I suspect I will get nowhere there either. They will not discuss specifics, they simply refuse to accept that swimming in any form might have an adverse effect on the participants and are not even prepared to look at my evidence.
I would very much like to communicate with John Craig or anyone else who could corroborate what I am saying because I think that this is a very real problem. The reaction I am getting suggests that this is a can of worms that nobody wants to open.
Dave S Submitted by: Dave S
October 11, 2009 Apologies - I did not mean to submit three times - the website crashed on me twice! Submitted by: Dave S
October 11, 2009 Please accept my apologies for incorrectly citing the author as Craig Lord instead of John Craig. Submitted by: sparkycrane
October 11, 2009 I see that my follow up apology for a misquote in my response to article was posted, but not my actual original response. Is there a reason why? I posted the response between 2 and 3 AM on Sunday, October 11th. sparkycrane Submitted by: sparkycrane
October 11, 2009 You make some interesting observations about mid-teens but I have noted effects at an earlier age.
I believe that excessive swim training in pre-adolescents delays puberty, which is a real handicap once the swimmer reaches 14 and is not yet into puberty growth spurt. There are reports of this on the net relating to other sports and circumstances.
I suspect that the ability to mobilise body fat at the end of an excessively prolonged training session has something to do with the problem. In my experience it is particularly noticeable with endomorphic boys. Of course, girls have a higher proportion of body fat and are therefore less prone to it IMHO. Submitted by: Dave S
October 11, 2009 Doesn't look like a comment was posted for you, Sparkycrane. Submitted by: Jason Marsteller
October 11, 2009 This certainly sounds like there are enough people with concerns on the subject to justify pursuit of objective, university level research. If there really is something to it we owe it to our children, and ourselves, to learn about it and if it is found to be a statistically supportable condition, exactly what part of the alleged overtraining is the source of the problem and how can it be addressed. What would be the warning signs, etc.
Sounds like something USA Swimming, the Counsilman Center or some other entity skilled in study of adolescent development should be encouraged to study. If true, it is certainly too important a question to leave to interpretation of anecdotes. Submitted by: dunc1952
October 12, 2009 I agree with dunc1952' s latest post. Studies have been carried out on horses, and it was found that high intensity training can affect the secretion of the growth hormone (only secreted during sleep), and adversely so during puberty, or in patients with acromegaly or Cushing's disease (I found the paper hard going so I don't know if the conclusions re puberty and disease were about the horses, or humans!).
http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/297/2/R403 Submitted by: SwimMum
October 12, 2009 As a coach, I am interested in hearing more about this topic. However, as I am sympathetic to the concerns stated, I do agree with dunc1952 entirely that speculating on this topic, or any issue which should be backed up with comprehensive scientific testing and experimentation to PROVE that this is the case, not just the speculation that this is the case.
I personally have coached swimmers at all levels (novice to international) and was a competitive swimmer for 15 years. My personal opinion is that I have not experienced this either as a swimmer (my team when I was a swimmer would have been considered "heavy training") or as a coach. In fact, I have noticed that on majority, swimmers tend to be slightly taller than their normal counterparts.
Couple points from my direct observations that question your hypothesis:
I am 6'2. When I walked around the deck at Juniors this summer, as at other major meets in the last few years, I was struck at how "small" I felt in relation to the athletes there. And these were 18 and Unders!
And I would suggest also that a large number of swimmers that make Juniors come from programs that would be considered "heavy training" programs.
Also, not to be a fly in the ointment, but I coach a swimmer that is an identical twin. One swims, the other doesn't. The result is staggering. The swimmer is exceptionally taller, larger in every aspect, feet, hands, everything to the point it's hard to accept they are identical twins.
Also, years ago (yes this was in the 80's), the speculation was that swimming actually made athletes "taller" than what they were supposed to be and many I knew ended up taller than what the "doctor predicted" and family geneology. The idea was that because swimmers spent so much time in the water and not playing other sports or using heavy weights as many sports push on high school age athletes (football anyone???) or just in general in land based activities which caused compression pressures on joints, spine and limbs, it allowed bones to develop slightly better. So where does this come in? What happened to this theory?
So how do these examples play into this theme? My experiences over 30 years in the sport are saying there is no corelation.
Has anyone looked into other extraneous factors that can be factored in here? Poor nutrtion seems to have popped up here and I would suggest would have more of a negative effect on growth due to malnutrition than the actual training. High level training athletes may not be making time to do other things in their lives effectively such as diet, sleep, or stress levels from other activities such as school, all of which can be managed effectively with education and time management and not necessarily the direct result of the actual training being done (yes, I am making a nod to parents who are quick to jump on coaches to blame this sort of thing on but tend not to look seriously at the factors that are primarily under their control for their athletes--a pet peeve-parents are part of the "team" too when it comes to training an athlete). Any of these done poorly could definitely affect growth rates maybe even more than the actual training.
As I said, if this is a legitimate issue, then I am interested in learning more. But hopefully Craig keeps up on this topic, rather than just putting potential harmful speculation out there and comes back with meaningful links to scientific studies that as a coach, I can go and research and learn more.
I want the best for my swimmers, so I would be interested in hearing more.
But even though I don't consider our training "heavy load" training, I do understand that for some athletes this is potentially necessary.
Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water until we have proven facts. Submitted by: rcoach
October 12, 2009 rcoach makes some valid poins, but I have worked with children and sport since 1974,and none of the sports I have coached require nine year old children to swim to the point of collapse, as I have seen recently. I cannot believe that such drudgery is in anyone's best interest.
You are quite right, successful competitive swimmers tend to be bigger than the average. This is down to simple physics and the principle of moments - long levers work better than shor ones, so swimmers with long arms, long legs and big hands and feet win races and stay with the spor of swimming. Those who are overtained and end up small are at a disadvantage and drop out.
I worked with a coupe of eight year olds (not identical twins) but very similar environments) who were the same size at age 8. Eighteen months later on of them was taken out of the club because hs parents complained of his excessive tiredness. The other continued to swim. Nine months later I saw them together, and the ex-swimmer was 2.5 inches taller than the swimmer. The sad thing was that the ex-swimmer was almost as fast as the (now) smaller swimmer.
It defeats me why it is necessary to have nine year olds swimming 5000 metres a night so that they can race 25 or 50 metres. Most of them hate the training and drop out as soon as they are old enough to stand up to their parents. Almost without exception our most successful swimmers are the smallest in their class at school.
You do not need anything fancy in the way of experimental proof, a simple statistical analysis would be enough to prove this point, but as I have said before this is a can of worms that nobody wants to open.
Submitted by: Dave S
October 12, 2009 Thank you to everybody who responded. I'll try to respond to everyone in order (not necessarily in one post):
Dunc1952: If you read the article again carefully, I think you'll find that I didn't state my theory as fact. The headline is stated as a question, the last line of the first paragraph is phrased as a question. What I've stated as fact is what I've observed personally, that an abnormally high percentage of kids who've trained hard in high yardage programs have ended up either abnormally short or abnormally skinny. The other stuff -- lack of sleep, and not eating enough to compensate -- is just common sense.
As far as my pay grade, I could point to two Ivy League degrees, but those are mostly irrelevant. Anyone who kept their eyes open could see what I've seen if they were in the same place. I did, btw, study statistics fairly extensively as both an undergrad and a grad student, and one of the projects I did in grad school was to plot the heights of every male swimmer who'd broken a WR between 1972 and 1982. (Among the things I found was that someone who was 6'1" had 160 times the chance of setting a WR as someone who was 5'9", once you take into account the proportion of the population which reaches each height.) In any case, if you take a look at the bell curve describing the height distribution of American males, you'll see that roughly only 10 stop out at 5' 6" or less. From what I've seen, more than 10 of swimmers who've trained big yardage between the ages of 12 and 16 end up there. Again, I'm only pointing out what I've observed, and my sample size is relatively small (maybe 450 boys over the past 12 years, plus a few other more random data points). But I wouldn't have written this article if it had been just two or three boys who ended up this way. I am curious to hear if others have observed the same thing, which is why I put in that last line.
As far as knowledge of biology goes, I'll gladly defer to the doctor who told that boy that he was missing his growth spurt because of all the calories he was expending in the pool.
As far as doing further research in this area, I think it would be pretty much impossible. In order to conduct a proper double blind experiment, you'd have to, as I said in the article, have a large set of monozygotic twins, one of whom swam, say, 4000 yards per practice, and the other of whom swam 10,000 or so in two sessions per day. Then you'd have to control for all sorts of other factors, including sleep time, protein and calorie intake, extraneous stress levels (mental as well as physical), and so on. No parent is going to volunteer their children for that kind of experiment in the first place, and it would be near impossible to control all those other factors anyway.
I'd like to stress that this is not an anti-swimming article by any means. I love swimming, and have been a lifelong fan, otherwise I wouldn't write occasional articles for this website. This is an anti-overtraining article. I'd also like to stress that I don't consider going, say, 3000 yards as a 12 year old overtraining, nor, say, 5000 yards as a 15 year old (and those are rough numbers). And some kids can handle considerably more than that. But everyone has a different metabolism, and for those with naturally weaker metabolisms, and perhaps less testosterone, I'm convinced that too much yardage can backfire. I realize that there are plenty of kids who've come out of high yardage programs who end up both tall and strong. they are generally the ones with stronger constitutions. I remember Bobby Hackett, who swam big yardage with Bernal's Gators back in the 70's and ended up as big and as strong as a horse. John Kinsella was another example of a big yardage swimmer who ended up as a big slab of beef. But we have to realize, those are the guys who get the publicity, the ones we hear of as swimming fans; it's the weaker ones, who don't end up champions, and whom we never hear of, who pay more of a physical price.
One other thing I'd like to stress: this article was not meant as a moral indictment of either coaches or parents. All of the parents involved in this kind of thing, and the vast majority of coaches, have the best interests of the kids at heart. It's just that they are unaware of the possible drawbacks of overtraining, which is why I'm pointing it out. Submitted by: halfbreed
October 12, 2009 Sorry, I meant to sign that last post. "Halfbreed" is me, John Craig.
David Rieder -- Thank you for that anecdote.
SwimMum -- Thank you for your comment; you're more observant than most. I'm sorry for your troubles; staying up late to go on social networking sites combined with double sessions in the pool is certainly not a good combination.
Dave S -- Thank you for your comment. The management of the swim club you were associated with certainly sounds autocratic at best, and as if they're trying to cover something up at worst. There's a certain mentality which is unable to brook any disagreement, and it sounds as if you've run up against that. If you want to send me an email, my address is johnmcraig@aol.com.
You make another good point about fat reserves. I've read that a certain amount of fat is necessary for the production of testosterone among boys (as well as for regular menstruation among girls, which is why female marathoners reportedly often miss their periods). In any case, yes, this can be another disadvantage to boys who get too skinny. Submitted by: halfbreed
October 12, 2009 Thanks, halfbreed, I will be in touch.
Testosterone from fat? an interesting suggestion. I'm not a medic, but I do have a PhD in biosynthetic chemstry.
Testosterone is derived in the body from cholesterol in combination with fatty acids, so in a sense fats are involved, but it is not straightforward
Testosterone as you appreciate is responsible for muscle and bone growth as well as masculinity and competitiveness traits. Testosterone levels increase rapidly in both sexes at puberty, but moreso in boys than girls.
Ever since I started working with boys in sport I have noticed that early puberty is an enormous advantage to a sporty boy. Puberty growth spurt means better muscles and bigger body, plus increased drive and agressiveness. At 12 or thirteen when the education system shuffles chilren around they tend to end up at the top of the heap.
Puberty is triggered by body weight, rather than age. Therefore, child swimmers with a healthy layer of body fat at say, 10 or 11 seem to hit pubery earlier, therefore have higher testosterone levels at a given age than skinnier ones, appear to thrive on high mileage regimes, have competition success at a critical time in adolescence when they are finding their feet in the world and tend to stay in swimming.
This is often the time when the pre-adolescent multi sports skilled mesomorph, who excels at land based sports such as football opt out of swimming for the more socially prestigious land based team sports, leaving the slimmed down ex-fatties to excel at swimming.
If the child star msomorphs stay in swimming they tend not to thrive physically because their bodies are not suited to the high mileage regimes on offer and fade out of the competitive picture.
IMHO, of corse
Submitted by: Dave S
October 12, 2009 Rcoach --
Thank you for your comment, I've noticed you always have intelligent stuff to say on other threads. I think I addressed some of your concerns when I answered Dunc1952, so I'll try not to repeat myself.
Regarding all the tall swimmers you see at Juniors, Dave S is right, that is simply a matter of physics. The tall ones are going to be the successful ones. And I'm sure a fair number of them came from high yardage programs. That doesn't mean that those high yardage programs aren't too much for some of the other swimmers.
Your identical twin story is interesting. You said you were a high yardage swimmer yourself. Are you a coach who assigns high yardage? If not, then the story, while interesting, is not relevant to this discussion. I did say in the fourth to last paragraph in the article that a little exercise is probably good for growth. I agree that other sports which cause compression of the spine can stunt growth as well. I want to emphasize, I'm not talking about most swimming programs, just the high yardage ones, especially those with AM as well as PM practices for kids 12 to 16.
There's no question that nutrition and sleep habits (which can be affected by having to get up early for AM practices) play a big role.
I certainly hope this article isn't regarded as "harmful speculation." There is a certain amount of speculation involved -- as I said, one can never prove how much an individual child's growth might have been stunted because of overtraining, since there are so many other factors involved. But the reason I wrote it is because of what I've observed -- an abnormal number of boys who've ended up at 5'6" or so. I think that the real harm may be being done to these boys (again, not all of them, just the ones whose physical constitutions aren't geared to 8000+ yards a day). And I wanted to hear if others have observed the same thing.
One other point I'd like to stress. In the article, I was talking about kids aged 12 to 16. Generally, there is much less harm done by older kids doing big yardage and doubles. Most kids are pretty much through growing at 17. I know of only one instance where this wasn't the case, a kid who graduated h.s. at 5'6" (swimming big yardage the entire time), went to college (where he swam much less yardage) and shot up to 5' 11" his freshman year. But he was lucky, by that age most kids' growing yeas are over.
Every coach has to walk a fine line between undertraining and overtraining his swimmers. And it's a line that's hard to define since it varies from swimmer to swimmer. The main point I want to make is that coaches who are naturally inclined towards high yardage workouts should be very careful not to overtrain kids who are still growing. Submitted by: halfbreed
October 12, 2009 I was very interested by your follow up posts on here John and the back and the resulting posts by DaveS, and actually just an observation, I think that you should have included your own expertise and scientific based points you mention later as part of your article as well in the beginning because it is obvious from the follow ups that you have done some good investigative work here and in a field you definitely have expertise in.
Since I don't know you personally I just felt like the article came off more speculative than factual. But it appears that you do in fact have quite a bit of fact to back up your idea for the article and your field of education further backs this article up.
My suggestions and observations were just from my perspective.
I was a bit shocked at the references to 10 and Unders and the yardage done and did not make that connection in my initial reading.
In fact as a coach, I do not agree with 5000+ for 8-10 year olds at all.
I honestly don't know if it stunts growth, but there are so many other factors that involve my reasons for kids that age not needing to go that long.
Our older kids (and myself as a swimmer) did and do get up in yardage, but we trying grade it as they get older.
A point to DaveS. I spent some time with a British coach awhile back and was absolutely shocked when I heard the volume British swimming is prescribing for their 10+Unders. That is not the norm (I feel) here in the U.S.
I think you are right to question (again with your educational background) the reasonings for your termination.
My post was not meant to be hostile to this article, actually far from it. I read it with great interest and personally just had questions as to where the idea was coming from.
As I think I stated above, I want the best for my swimmers and definitely would be interested in hearing more on the topic and having it further expanded (and if further evidence keeps coming--then it should be shared with the swimming world as a whole).
My point was that I personally had never seen this. Doesn't mean it isn't true.
Thanks for helping expand this topic in these further posts. They have been interesting to read.
Submitted by: rcoach
October 12, 2009 Dave S-- With your PhD in biosynthetic chemistry you're way ahead of me. You bring up several points I hadn't even been aware of. I hadn't known that puberty was triggered by body weight rather than age. And to tell the truth, I wrote this article about 12 to 16 year olds because those were the ones I noticed were being overtrained. But you're absolutely right, sending 9 year olds 5000 meters seems crazy -- maybe even crazier. And I hadn't been aware of the difference when it comes to capacity for training between natural endomorphs and mesomorphs. (BTW, I think it's the ectomorphs who suffer the most under these regimes.)
Your earlier story about the kid who quit swimming and grew more being almost as fast as the kid who stuck with it reminds me of another correlation I've noticed over the past thirty-five years: the best sprinters are often the laziest guys. I know, it's not always true, especially when it comes to being an Olympic class 100 long course meter freestyler. But how many of us do not have at least a couple stories about lazy guys we knew who just seemed incredibly naturally talented and could reel off a 21 second 50 yard freestyle at will with seemingly no serious training? The longer I've observed this sport, the more I think that that is not entirely coincidence. The lazy guys weren't constantly tearing down their own muscles (they would "dog" a lot of sets), and they would skip workouts and give themselves time to recover, and they were stronger and sharper as a result. And they had been that way (lazy) all their lives (character rarely changes). I know, a 21 second 50 yard freestyle is not going to get you very far these days, but it's still a very respectable high school swim, and I suspect a fair number of the 20-point sprinters are the same way.
Anyway, I digress. Dave S, you're obviously a lot smarter -- and more honest -- than the people who ousted you from that team. It's sad, but that's the way the world often works. Submitted by: halfbreed
October 12, 2009 Maybe the direction of this might not even be the overtraining of 14-16 year olds, but the 14-16 year olds who are coming out of programs who are hammering it down from 8-12???
I really think there are some 15-16 year olds out there who with certain physical maturities can handle -- while maybe not "super training" (the 100K weeks--week in and week out--I don't think anyone can or should) but can and sometimes need training in the 70-80K per week range(which I have been told is very heavy training--what do you guys think?).
And I am not saying you need to do this every week in life.
However.
Maybe the problem is that the kids who are showing signs of limited growth have already had the damage done so early that by the time they get to the age range you are discussing it's not the "current" yardage from 12-16. Maybe they are coming out of programs that were over training at a far younger age.
And this may be much harder to spot if you think of it.
9 year old kid goes to workout, swims for 2 hours, at that age, Mom and Dad probably don't have a great handle on the sport or what it involves, sees their kid swimming up and down the pool furiously and figures that's normal. Then they're happy because Johnny comes home, is tired and the normally off the wall energy of a 9 year is gone and he goes to straight to bed that night.
They don't realize that their kid at 9 just did 10 x 400 and is physically exhausted. Then maybe coming back the next night and doing it all over again. Fatigue we know is cumulative and after a period of weeks or months, this 9 year old is suffering.
But we don't worry about 9 year olds because we always say at that age "everybody develops at different rates", and "he/she will grow--they are just a late bloomer".
Maybe the study should look farther down the age group line than into the mid-teen years???
Just thought. You guys are putting great info. up on this, so please feel free to tell me if I am wrong.
And just one little argument against-- we do need to remember that guys like Matt Biondi trained for the 500 and only went to pure sprinting later in their careers. Tom Jager, same thing as an age grouper. Gary Hall Jr. I believe was a 4:22 out of high school in the 500 (I only know this as rumor--so if not factual feel free to call me on it).
While the image is there of "slacker" for the good/great sprinters, if we look at the very best, at an earlier age, that doesn't quite hold true. If we look to another sport, Usain Bolt has been very vocal about the fact that he trains for the 400 meters to run the 200 well and it just so happened that he felt it helped his 100 as well.
Just an observation.
You two guys should get together and write a big article on this. I would very much enjoy reading it.
Submitted by: rcoach
October 12, 2009 Maybe the direction of this might not even be the overtraining of 14-16 year olds, but the 14-16 year olds who are coming out of programs who are hammering it down from 8-12???
I really think there are some 15-16 year olds out there who with certain physical maturities can handle -- while maybe not "super training" (the 100K weeks--week in and week out--I don't think anyone can or should) but can and sometimes need training in the 70-80K per week range(which I have been told is very heavy training--what do you guys think?).
And I am not saying you need to do this every week in life.
However.
Maybe the problem is that the kids who are showing signs of limited growth have already had the damage done so early that by the time they get to the age range you are discussing it's not the "current" yardage from 12-16. Maybe they are coming out of programs that were over training at a far younger age.
And this may be much harder to spot if you think of it.
9 year old kid goes to workout, swims for 2 hours, at that age, Mom and Dad probably don't have a great handle on the sport or what it involves, sees their kid swimming up and down the pool furiously and figures that's normal. Then they're happy because Johnny comes home, is tired and the normally off the wall energy of a 9 year is gone and he goes to straight to bed that night.
They don't realize that their kid at 9 just did 10 x 400 and is physically exhausted. Then maybe coming back the next night and doing it all over again. Fatigue we know is cumulative and after a period of weeks or months, this 9 year old is suffering.
But we don't worry about 9 year olds because we always say at that age "everybody develops at different rates", and "he/she will grow--they are just a late bloomer".
Maybe the study should look farther down the age group line than into the mid-teen years???
Just thought. You guys are putting great info. up on this, so please feel free to tell me if I am wrong.
And just one little argument against-- we do need to remember that guys like Matt Biondi trained for the 500 and only went to pure sprinting later in their careers. Tom Jager, same thing as an age grouper. Gary Hall Jr. I believe was a 4:22 out of high school in the 500 (I only know this as rumor--so if not factual feel free to call me on it).
While the image is there of "slacker" for the good/great sprinters, if we look at the very best, at an earlier age, that doesn't quite hold true. If we look to another sport, Usain Bolt has been very vocal about the fact that he trains for the 400 meters to run the 200 well and it just so happened that he felt it helped his 100 as well.
Just an observation.
You two guys should get together and write a big article on this. I would very much enjoy reading it.
Submitted by: rcoach
October 13, 2009 Hi all, a friend sent me a link to this, as this is something I have been interested in.
I have 2 sons, 1 is 16, and the other 12. The 16 year old, up until around a year ago was nearly the same weight as his brother. The older son is an ecto/mesomorph, whilst the younger one is an endomorph. Like as with a child above, my older son does not eat well, and was always thin. As I moaned at him so much for not eating well (you cannot force feed any child!), I couldn't moan about the younger one being on the greedy side, which he is, and therefore has always been bigger - nearly fat, but not quite.
10 months ago, my older son at 15, gave up swimming. He was 5'6" tall at the time. He turned 16 a month later. 7 months after giving up swimming, he was 5' 10"; I hope he has still got more to go; he also put on some weight - 5 kg in the first month (haven't weighed him since). He was overtrained (not the Coach's fault; he wanted to be in the squad he was in, and he was seen as having the talent to justify being there, and we were chuffed when he was moved into it). My son was always moaning about one niggle or another though - at least once a week - most of them genuine, and did not pb for the first 12 months of moving into this top squad.
My younger son (12 years old) is in the same squad (a bit less meterage because of his age - but older son started on same). He has had no niggles; he pb'd literally from day 1 (the increased meterage of moving into the squad did not have an adverse effect on his performance). He is also growing steadily, and measured 5'4" last month.
I have provided this much detail to support a view given above that body types do have a part to play in the end result - i.e. male endomorphs can survive high meterage/yardage programmes than swimmers with other body types - my younger son averages 5000m/session, and does 7 a week (in around 12 hours a week). My older son averaged (at the end of his swimming) 5700m/session and did 9 a week (or was supposed to!).
I disagree however, with the view that body weight determines the onset of puberty in boys (but accept this is so in girls). I have no expertise in this matter, but can only go by my own experiences. As said above, my boys are physically different, yet they both started puberty at around the same time - 11/12 years old. I also know of a friend's son, who is 'porky'. His puberty didn't start till he was nearly 15. For these (and other examples supporting my hypothesis), I believe that puberty in boys is triggered by genetical factors.
Re Dave S, I am sorry to hear of your woes. We live in the UK too, and I am not surprised with how you have been treated. I personally have no confidence in the ASA. In fact so much so that if my younger son continues to swim well, we shall explore the possibilities of him moving to the USA when he is older. I fear that otherwise, any talent he might have will be killed off by the lack of vision and good sense that I fear the ASA displays. You might do well to look to other avenues yourself, or I fear you will be frustrated even more. The problem you face as well is that most parents want their children in these damaging programmes, because it is the only way to make the 'questionable' NQTs imposed for the younger swimmers. Our club has a slightly different ethos - more of a long term development, than instant 'flash in the pan' success. Whilst I am happy with this (because of my fears re my older son, whom with hindsight was not physically or mentally suited to the demands of his squad, and who might never grow to 6', which I would love for him), and because I believe that this programme, whilst not yet yielding NQTs, is working well - my younger son is in the Top 10 for his calendar year for quite a few events, both LC & SC, many parents are not. Submitted by: PO
October 13, 2009 This is an interesting subject and deserves some more research. I disagree with one of your statements. It is not necessary to start swimming at a very early age in order to be a champion swimmer. I did not start swimming competitively until my sophomore year in high school. My senior year I was the Michigan high school champion with the 5th fastest high school butterfly time in the country for 1957. I also made finale in both the 100 and 220 yd fly that year at short course Nationals. Two years later I was the NCAA champion in both fly events. I won the 200m fly at the 1959 Pan Am Games and have a bronze medal from the 1960 Olympics. I out swam a number of swimmers who had started as age groupers. My late start did not give me a disadvantage against the swimmers that started at a very young age. In the late 1970's I saw a high school boy in Texas win the high school 100 free in only his third year of swimming. I am sure you can find many more cases where late starters have surpassed the swimmers that started early. Submitted by: JDavidG
October 13, 2009 As an orthopaedic surgeon, Ivy Leaguer(not to sound like I think tha is very special) I find your comments to be
interesting,amusing, annecdotal, and full of untruths. I am one of three boys who all swam. I did serious yardage during my
growth spurt years, as you define them. In actuality there is great variability in
age of growth spurts and when males stop
growing, as late as early 20's. From age 13-17 I commonly did over12-15,000 yards per day. My brothers who also swam were not as committed. I also did a good amount of dryland. Prior to a serious back injury which shortened me
I was over three inches taller than my
next tallest sibling. Kind of contradicts your "theory". I also ate much more than they did as I was burning tons of calories and grew until I was 21.
Your theory is just that. You state things too factually for the general public to interpret correctly. You
write in generalities with no scientific data to support what you say.
On top of this, while being taller may
help it is not a prerequisite for being
fast. There have been many, many average
height males/females swimming in the top tier.
For example Eric Vendt, Natalie Coughlin, Kosuke Kitajima, Janet Evans,
Anthony Nesty(Surinam) 5'9" won olympic gold 100 fly shortest man in the race.
There is no doubt that force applied through growth plates has an effect on growth, usually positive.
Before you make statements as you did, which can lead to mass parental hysteria
about how too much yardage can stunt growth and pull kids out of sports, lets see some science here. Everyone knows height is basically genetically predetermined. Do some research, suggest
a study , but please don't be dogmatic
when all you have is anecdotes to support your theory.
Submitted by: robodoc920
October 13, 2009 Robodoc920,
As a coach, I have been very interested in following this thread and reading the information that is being provided. I continue with your post to read with interest.
I was curious to your opinion as to potential growth issue effects on kids who are pushed to higher meterages (5000+) on younger aged swimmers, as I questioned above from 9-12 years old.
And in some cases maybe even higher yards/meters at this age.
For me, this has become the point of interest in the way the thread is going and would be interested in hearing your opinion on that. Seems like you were directing your comments more toward the mid-teen years.
Do you see any potential for problems in having young swimmers doing distances that could generally be considered teenage distances?
Submitted by: rcoach
October 13, 2009 I agree with robodoc. I too was one of three siblings. I trained the hardest of the three, swimming up to 90K/week by the time I was 16 and 17. I'm 5'9", which may sound short, until you realize that my parents were both short (5'3" and 5'5") and both of my brothers (who were lazy and hardly ever went to morning practice) are shorter than I by 2" and 3".
Also, the argument that you need identical twins to conclusively prove anything related to this topic is laughable. By that logic, we would never be able to get effective drugs in the market or figure out what causes diseases. And you can't have it both ways: you can't, on the one hand, say that successful swimmers are tall because they have mechanical advantage, and then claim that training too much makes swimmers short. By the way, the vast majority of world-class swimmers that I knew in college had worked really hard during their teenage years and they also happened to be tall. But this is merely a personal observation and not a scientific theory.
It would be straightforward to carry out a study that measures swimmers' height and correlates them to amount of training, while correcting for other known factors, such as diet and parents' height. Of course this would require some serious scientific work by experts in nutrition, genetics, and statistics. Until a comprehensive study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, I won't believe any of the pseudo-science in Crag's article. Submitted by: dlwv
October 14, 2009 Thanks for the support, PO. I have moved on. I am now involved in teaching swimming at the lower stages, ASA levels 1 to 6, but also adult learners and handicapped adults. I have no interest in being involved in a sport that necessitates forcing young children to swim to the point of collapse.
More importantly, the fact that my club and apparently its governing body is trying to cover the issue up is reason enough to be worried. After all, the long term welfare of the child must be paramount.
There are a number of comments, in themselves valid, which relate to a swimmer's personal experience. If they are scientists themselves they must appreciate that in a statistical observation size of sample is important and observation based upon two or three swimmers is of limited value.
There are lots of people who are telling me about this problem, and a large number of Google hits relating to stunting and overexercise in other sports. The energy output demand in swimming is far greater than any other sport I have been associated with other than perhaps marathon running, and distance running for young children has been frowned on in the UK for a number of years now.
This in itself suggests to me that some serious research needs to be done to eliminate even the slightest possibility of harm, and that will only happen if informed people in swimming stimulate a debate. Please keep up the good work and discuss this important issue. Submitted by: Dave S
October 14, 2009 To rcoach- I don't perceive this to be much of a danger. The big issues are the rate of progression and proper stroke mechanics. Since most training is freestyle based attention to proper head postiton, bilateral breathing, body roll for long axis strokes will allow a child to progress without causing irritation of the growth plates of the top of the humerus bone. This is
a very common problem I see in my practice which does include a large number of swimmers. Too much fly- length
of interval can be problematic for the growing athletes shoulder so I reccommend keeping the intervals to a distance (probably all strokes,esp.fly)that the swimmer can keep the stroke mechanics together.
No doubt nutrition plays an important role in growing kids expending so much
energy so multivitamins with a little extra vitamin C and a diet providing
sufficient caloric intake with attention paid to %protein/carbs/fats is
important. Pay close attention to complaints of shoulder pain in the growing swimmer, it is like Osgood Schlatter's disease of the knee, growth plate irritation and if the shoulder isn't rested and stroke mechanics aren't fixed it will persist until the child can't swim. In those cases I /we- the coaches where my kids swim back off, keep them kicking hard, scull, work mechanics and move forward with fins to progress to none. I am convinced
that it is not the distance but the intensity of training and stroke mechanics that need to be watched. Once the mechanics are good they can be pushed harder, carefully.
As far as growth is concerned and the comments which have been made above are concerned, I swam from age 11 through college training classified as high volume/intense, several clubs, and swam with guys in college who had swum all over the USA in similar programs ranging
from 5'6" to 6'6", so I doubt highly that swimming hard at a young age was affecting growth. Perfect example is Michael Phelps, started training hard while young and hasn't stopped. Pretty tall guy.
I think that this whole discussion is interesting enough that someone could easily do a retrospective study(easier but not as good as prospective) that would show that the primary determinant of height is genetics and general health. Obviously a child with nutritional deficiencies caused by disease or otherwise will not grow as well. I would agree with DaveS that an
issue such as this merits some research
if only to calm parents fears about
this issue. Personally, having been around the sport in the pool(still), on the deck, in my office, or in the stands, I don't think people need to lose sleep over this and have seen enough good/top tier swimmers from average height to very tall that I believe that if a study of the effect of training on height at adulthood were to be done the conclusion would be that the height is genetically predetermined.
Robodoc Submitted by: robodoc920
October 14, 2009 Here is an interesting article form the
European Journal of Applied Physiology Vol 100 No. 2 May 2007
It is called "Increased oxidative stress indices in the blood of child swimmers"
You can pick it up on the net at http://springerlink.com/content/d365j4hl03754392/
This seem sto show that swimming training (effort levels not stated) increases a condition known as "oxidative stress" If you do a web search on "oxidative stress" perhaps in conjunction with the word "children" you find all sorts of problems that this causes. One of them is cell death. Is this a plausible mechanism for stuntig if cells required for growth are dying off?
Submitted by: Dave S
October 14, 2009 Dave S:
Oxidative stress may be detrimental, benign, or perhaps even good for the child. Is this related to the ultimate height of the child? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps oxidative stress stimulates more cell growth during rest periods. I seem to remember a recent article in the NY times that people that engaged in high intensity aerobic exercise (vs. more passive forms of exercise) were less likely to get cancer.
There is no way to determine these issues by linking things that may or may not be connected to each other. This is why when determining whether a particular treatment against a deadly disease (e.g., cancer) is effective, the study determines whether people eventually get the disease and die, taking into account known factors. They don't study whether a certain cellular or subcellular event takes place because interactions between processes are extremely complicated. This is the same reason why there are clinical trials for new drugs. Even drugs that are effective in mice are sometimes found not to be effective in humans. As I stated previously, a serious direct study of data at hand would settle this issue.
Also, we should be skeptical of comments from doctors like "energy used in training is energy not used for growth" (I'm paraphrasing what someone wrote above). Medical doctors are not necessarily trained scientists. Indeed, for many years there were doctors saying that it was physiologically impossible for someone to run under a 4:00 mile. These days if you don't run under a 4:00 mile you are not a world-class middle-distance runner. Go figure. Submitted by: dlwv
October 14, 2009 witch doctor?
Robodoc Submitted by: robodoc920
October 15, 2009 Here is the first paragraph of the article summary. It does not sound as if the researchers believe it is a positive
"In recent years, the concept of exercised-induced ‘oxidative stress' (damage caused within cells at the molecular level as a result of increased oxygen metabolism) has become much more widely understood by athletes and coaches. While maximising oxygen uptake is a good thing for athletic performance, the price paid is potentially damaging increased oxidative stress (a bad thing), which explains the growing interest in the role of protective antioxidants in the diets of endurance athletes." Submitted by: Dave S
October 18, 2009 Aren't USA Swimming club coaches suppose to notify the parents when a swimmer is injury? Twice our swimmer has been injuried and pressured to stay in the water or else?? Twice the Sport Medicine doctor ran an MRI to confirm the injury. Alot of coaches have ego to stroke and are arrogant to the parents. Coaches must remember, we the parent pay the monthly fee and it doesn't give them the right to abuse our children! Another time during age group swimming championship, our swimmer's shoulder pop out and was very sore. The club coach still wanted our swimmer to swim the relay because the team needed the points. At the time the swimmer was only 13, I stepped in and said NO! Coaches may not like it, but who is paying the bill and has to live with the results of a carrer ending injury. Not the coach! When our swimmer was young and we felt that he/she was getting to many hard long workouts, we just let he/she stay home and rest. If the coach didn't like that, so be it. I pay the monthly fee and the medical bill. Coaches may not like to hear this, when it comes to one's childs health the Parents have the last say. And if you coaches don't like that attitude, "oh well". The sun will still come up tomorrow. Now our swimmer is a D-1 swimmer at a major university. Doing very well. Parents do need to step when the coaches fail respect what one is saying. Not notifying the parents or the swimmer of a possible injury is total neglect. Some coaches need to listen and put eveything into perspective. Submitted by: speedboat
October 18, 2009 robodoc920: excellent blog, I totally agreed with you. Submitted by: speedboat
October 18, 2009 speedboat You make some good points however this discussion really was not about injuries, it was about the effect of overtraining on growth. How tall is your child anyhow compared to family members? Taller, shorter? I agree that there should be discussion with a coach if a child is injured and that ultimately it is the parent who should take the child to see a doctor if the coach hasn't suggested it yet. There is no reason to use/abuse a body part that is causing severe pain. Submitted by: robodoc920
October 18, 2009 I agree with speedboat. I have seen club coaches make fun of young swimmers getting out of the water because they are inlured, calling them wimps behind their backs. It is all part of the overcoaching syndrome, coaches who seem the children in their lanes as competitors rather than human beings.
I know a number of swim teachers, even teaching at county level, who cannot swim themselves or at best can just about manage 25 metres in 5 minutes or so. Yet these are often the worst poolside bullies because they do not have that internal feeling of how much a hard training session hurts.
Submitted by: Dave S
October 19, 2009 robodoc920, our swimmer is a female 5'9 1/4", our other daughter who swam through high school 5'4 1/2". Our son 6'..My wife 5'6" and I'm 6'4" My father 5'6" and my mother 5'1" and grandfathers 5'6" and grandmothers 5'5" and 5'1"..I've seen a lot of articles on offspring being a lot taller than their parents. It seem its because of better nutrient. I do believe when a child is young 6-10 years old yards should be limited and the focus be on the stroke....and having fun and enjoying being in water 3 to 4 days a week. When puberty comes and the homo flow, hey time to add the yards and adjust the stroke for the growth spurts. Parents need to be more proactive of what goes on at the pool when the child is young. Yes, I've also seen coaches yelling insults at some real go age group swimmers. Some eventually dropped out and went into another sport. Really, some coaches need to clean up their act. And, some coaches are really great with the kids. Our age group coach that coached our swimmers from the ages of 6 to 10 years old is retired and on his Facebook its testament of how well he did with his swimmers over 25 years of coaching. He has no less than 900 friends and I figure 90% of them are former swimmers and their parents. What makes a coach good, the number of medals his swimmers win or the number of swimming friends. This coach had both, medals and friends because he look after their welfare and treated each individual as a "human being".
Submitted by: speedboat
October 30, 2009
Reading this article I got the impression that heigth is all that counts in life. What really matters is that the child is healthy and not how tall or short he or she is. Once your child has a serious illness like cancer you would not think even a milisecond hou tall you want him or her to be.
This discussion about height is just ridiculous. If he grows 6'6" then it's fine and if he grows 5'6" then it is perfect too. The most important is that he is healthy and can live a normal life without spending all his free time in the hospital. Think about.
Submitted by: Tall_Strong
October 30, 2009 Tall_Strong, you are quite right, but as the title, and therefore focus of this article and posts is about growth (height) and swimming, it is surely understandable that that is what most posters here have addressed their minds to... Submitted by: SwimMum
October 30, 2009 I disagree with Tall_Strong. Appearance is very important to teenagers and height is an important aspect of that. If excessive training does stunt children's growth then the swimmers and their parents should have all of the information o that they can mak an informed choice as to whether they want transient success in the pool during hildhood, at the risk of spending your life several inches shorter than their non-swimming colleagues.
Hopefully the outcome of this debate is to stimulate interest and therefore research on this subject. I am not sure why the issue of childhood cancer has been brought into the arguement, however. It is a dreadful illness and I have seen its effects. Please read the reference above about young swimmers undergoing oxidative stress during excessive training. Oxidative stress is caused by free radicals produced in the cell's mitochondria during excessive exercise. The authors say that these can cause cell damage, presumably includind DNA. This could possibly imply an increased cancer risk to chilren who exercise excessively. Research definately needs to done urgently.
Submitted by: Dave S
November 16, 2009 I have just come across an interesting article called "The Trainability of Children" at Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2007) 6, 353-367
The journal has a website at http://www.jssm.org. It says that between half to one third of all swimmers will suffer overtraining at some time, and that ovetraining is counter-productive. The author is very cautious and discontinued communication when I asked whether he thought overtraining children could stunt their growth.
I can understand why. As I said earlier I was kicked out of my club without a proper hearing for suggesting the possibility that this was happening in our swimming club. I took my case to the UK governing boby of swimming, the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) who seem to have spent the last four months passing me from one person to another. Now the legal department tells me that they cannot hear my complaint against my club because a complaint has to be lodged within thirty days of the incident happening!
I can understand why somebody on this comment board said that they had no confidence in the UK Amateur Swimming Association. Clearly the issue of overtraining is an important one, and it seems like the ASA is doing their best to make sure that anybody who talks about it is given a hard time. I honestly feel like quitting the sport and doing something else.
Submitted by: Dave S
November 16, 2009 Dave --
I appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness on this subject. I think that a big part of the reason British Swimming and other groups are so reticent to discuss this is because (a) it's bad publicity for swimming, and (b) they are afraid of potential lawsuits. It's my feeling that any lawsuits would go nowhere because it's basically impossible to prove that any one individual had his growth stunted for this particular reason (there are always a host of factors involved in growth) -- but that doesn't keep people from being paranoid in this overly litigious era.
I've refrained from giving specific evidence on this subject because I don't want to single out a particular team, but I've seen more than enough cases of boys who trained very hard between the ages of 12 and 15 ending up at 5'6" or 5'7" to feel quite confident that there is a correlation.
John Craig Submitted by: halfbreed
Reaction Time responses do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions
of Swimming World Magazine or SwimmingWorldMagazine.com.
Reaction Time is provided as a service to our readers.
|
Subscribe Now!
|
