Logo

Mounting Evidence

October 10, 2014

On three occasions over the last three months alone, I’ve posted opinions and statistics about the downsides of sports specialization, often citing the work and words of others because, frankly, I’m expected to oppose sports specialization – it’s in my DNA and job description – and anyway, the experts always come from some other place.
  • On July 15 (“Misspent Money”), the Chicago Tribune’s William Hageman was the reporter and Utah State University provided the research. The message was that sports specialization is a serious waste of family resources.

  • On July 18 (“Specialization Risks”), the renowned David Epstein was the writer and Loyola University of Chicago provided the work. The message was that serious health risks make specialization counterproductive to successful sports careers.

  • On Sept. 5 (“More Than a Myth”), I reported that the Lansing State Journal picked a three-sport male and four-sport female as its 2013-14 high school athletes of the year – practical proof that the reports of the death of the multi-sport athlete are greatly exaggerated.

Last month, Athletic Business recalled its August 2013 interview with the often quoted Dr. James Andrews, the orthopedic surgeon and injury consultant and author of “Any Given Monday: Sports Injuries and How to Prevent Them for Athletes, Parents and Coaches – Based on My Life in Sports Medicine.” In this interview, Dr. Andrews reiterated his earlier statements (some quoted in earlier postings here) that there is a “dramatic increase in overuse injuries ... due in large part to kids participating in one sport all year ...”

Athletic Business editor-in-chief Dennis Van Milligen added in his September 2014 editorial:

“Parents are ‘investing’ outrageous amounts of money into their children’s athletic development, because the fear is that they will not reach the level they need to without specialization, a notion constantly disproved.”

For multiple reasons, the multiple-sport experience is best. We must strive continually to make that experience possible for most of our student-athletes.

Cardiac Screening

October 31, 2014

The American Heart Association has once again concluded that sophisticated and expensive heart screening is not practical or appropriate as a precondition for youth and young adults to participate in competitive organized sports.
On Sept. 14, 2014, the AHA online publication Circulation stated:

Sudden death among 12 to 25-year-olds is “a low event rate occurrence.”

“There is insufficient information to support the view that ECGs in asymptomatic young people for cardiac disease is appropriate or possible on a national basis for the United States, in competitive athletics or in the general population.”

“At present, there is no mechanism available in the United States to effectively create national programs of such magnitude, whether limited to athletics or including the wider population of all young people.”

“There is insufficient evidence that particularly large-scale/mass screening initiatives are feasible or cost effective within the current US healthcare infrastructure . . .”

“The ECG . . . cannot be regarded as an ideal or effective test when applied to large healthy populations.”

“An additional, but unresolved, ethical issue concerns whether students who voluntarily engage in competitive athletic programs should have advantage of cardiovascular screening, while others who choose not to be involved in such activities (but may be at the same or similar risk) are in effect excluded from the same opportunity.”

The AHA’s Sept. 14 AHA writing group “does not believe the available data support significant public health benefit from using the 12-lead ECG as a universal screening tool. The writing group, however, does endorse the widespread dissemination of automated external defibrillators which are effective in saving young lives on the athletic field and elsewhere.”