Researchers at Stanford, led by two biologists, are close to having a commercially viable cooling glove, a device designed to cool core body temperature by cooling blood in particular veins in the palm that are devoted to temperature regulation. (H/T: My colleague Tracy Hresko Pearl).
The research team also discovered that the glove carries athletic benefits. Cooling the body also cools muscles. Muscle fatigue, it has been found, is a product of the temperature in the muscle getting too high (something to do with a chemical enzyme); by cooling the muscles, the glove essentially resets the state of muscle fatigue, allowing an athlete to start over. In a six-week period, one member of the team went from doing 180 pull-ups in a session to over 620; they found similar improvements in bench press, running, and cycling. And several teams--including the Raiders, Niners, Man United, and the Stanford football and track teams--have begun using it.
Given this level of improvement, one of the researchers said that the glove was "[e]qual to or substantially better than steroids … and it's not illegal." But should it be? And if not, returning to a question I asked when I first started blogging, why is the glove different from steroids or HGH or EPO or blood doping or other performance enhances that we have outlawed and decried? All use modern technology and modern scientific knowledge (the science behind cooling was not fully understood until 2009) to improve athletic performance. Athletes training with any of these have a technological advantage not available 10, 20, or 50 years ago.
The only apparent difference is the negative health consequences associated with steroids. But is that all there is? And in our new Libertarian Era, should that be enough?
So Why Not Have a Boxing Dream Team?
A Look at the Potential Implications of Amateur Boxing’s Governing Body Allowing Professional Boxers to Retain Olympic Eligibility
Amateur boxing has a rich history in the Olympic Games. Fordecades, many of the world’s top professional boxers have introduced themselves to the world in medal winning performances in amateur boxing. It thus came as a shock this past month to read about AIBA, the governing body that presides over amateur boxing worldwide, signing several top Olympic boxers, including two-time gold medalist Vasyl Lomachenko, to professional contracts under the new outfit AIBA Professional Boxing (“APB”). Most surprising was the Associated Press report which indicated, in part, that the top 56 boxers who sign with APB to begin their professional careers will have Olympic quota places reserved for them, “while regular professional boxers wouldn’t be eligible for an Olympic shot.” If interpreted as it appears to read, boxers who turn professional under the umbrella of APB, an off-shoot of amateur boxing’s international governing body, will be permitted to return to the Olympics and compete in the boxing competition even though they will have fought as professionals by then, yet those who do not sign promotional agreements with APB cannot. If one thinks that this sounds patently unfair and could eventually spell the death in the participation of amateurs in Olympic boxing, such thoughts do not seem so farfetched. Why would any nation feel compelled to keep sending its best amateurs when those nations with APB signees can send their best professional boxers? A quick look at the intention behind APB and what a country such as the United States might be able to do in order to send its own professionals follows.
For the article, please go to this link.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
