London 2012 Day 4: Quick thoughts

London Day 4 recap: le Clos pips Phelps, Phelps claims the record, a badminton farce and more on Shiwen

Four thoughts on yesterday's Olympic action

1)  le Clos wins gold by 0.05s from Michael Phelps in the race of the Games so far

South Africa is celebrating a gold medal today, after Chad le Clos and Michael Phelps produced one of the great races of the Games in the 200m butterfly.  It was le Clos, and not Phelps, who claimed the gold, ending Phelps' reign in the event and giving South Africa a second gold.

The race was expected to be a coronation for Phelps, as he needed only one more medal to equal Larissa Latynina’s all-time Olympic medal haul of 18.  And for 199m of the 200m race, it seemed he would do so with gold.  But in the final 1m, in a sequence that was astonishingly reminiscent of the 100m butterfly final from Beijing, the lead changed hands, as Phelps found his last stroke too short of the wall, and his long glide left the door open for le Clos to snatch a dramatic win.  Four years ago, Phelps was the beneficiary of Milorad Cavic's long glide, winning by 0.01s.  The role was reversed last night as the greatest swimmer the sport has ever seen lost out by 0.05s to the South African debutant.

Having earned a favourable center-lane for the final, le Clos had the opportunity to measure his effort off Phelps the entire race, and he stayed in touch throughout, turning reaching 150m only 0.58s behind Phelps.  It was the perfect position, and he ate progressively into Phelps’ advantage over the final 30m.  Still, Phelps looked certain for gold until that very final stroke.  It was a reminder of the margins between gold and silver at the Olympic level.

Phelps’ “failure” at the finish was the talk of the commentators on the broadcast, which is understandable - the historical context of the race, Phelps' dominance of the event in the past, and hey, it is Michael Phelps, after all, were the reasons that the talk was more of the silver medalist than gold.

This did something a disservice to le Clos’ performance though.  But being South African, you'll forgive me for looking to Lane 5 and not Lane 6 for some thoughts, at least at first.   It has to be said that Le Clos did exactly what any Olympian, particularly in their first Games, aspires to do – he got faster and faster, race by race, and ended with an enormous personal best.  He was comfortable in the heats (fifth fastest), then swam a personal best and African record in the semi-finals to earning his favourable lane, and then he went even faster in the final.  He ended with a PB of 1:52.96, over two seconds faster than he brought to London.  One cannot ask for more from a young swimmer.

Of interest too, is that le Clos’ winning time is faster than Phelps swam in the World Championships last year (1:53.34), and it is faster than Phelps swam at the US trials only a month ago (1:53.65).  Phelps himself was faster last night than he was in either of those races, and so it certainly cannot be said that Phelps did NOT produce a good swim in the final – he may have felt that he should be even faster, and certainly his 400m IM performance still suggests to me that something is not quite right, especially over the longer distances and in the second half of his races.  But Phelps didn't lose the race overall, as much as le Clos managed to elevate his level when it matter.  The "loss" by Phelps came in that final stroke.  

And that finishing “error” could well be put down to fatigue.  Even 5% more in Phelps' stroke length, and he finishes on the wall.  But as a swimmer fatigues, his stroke becomes shorter as his body position becomes lower in the water.  The result is that he's left with 1m to glide, rather than 50cm, for example, and that's worth 0.05s, at least.  Phelps held a fairly large lead over le Clos with 50m to go (0.68s), and the final 50m saw a stronger finishing le Clos get the final stroke right.  The result is a deserved gold medal for le Clos.

It was an unexpected gold, not only for the rest of the world, but dare I say it, for South Africa.  Chad le Clos is a name we'd all do well to remember, however, because he has the ability to go on from this and forge one of the great swimming careers.  He came into London carrying the "burden of potential", in the sense that everyone who has seen and followed his rise recognizes his future ability.  However, even he would not have predicted the gold medal in his strongest event.  He was quoted before the Games as promising to do his very best, but that a medal would be a bonus and the real target would be Rio in 2016.  My picks for London had le Clos as a "medal hopeful", rather than a "medal expectation", because I felt he needed the perfect day to win a medal.  He produced that, and then some, and the result was not just a medal, but the gold one.

So le Clos is ahead of his own curve now, and leaves London with that prized gold medal, and a personal best and African record that is about 2 seconds faster than anything he'd ever done before for the event.  And there may yet be more to come - the 200m individual medley is next, though he may not be the favorite, with both Lochte and Phelps in that race...but we've seen how that billing has played out once already.  Then there is the 4 x 100m medley relay, where South Africa's outside chance seems to have become a lot stronger, thanks to Cameron van den Burgh in the breaststroke, and now le Clos in the fly.  That happens later in the week. 

2) Phelps first equals and then beats the all-time medal record

Now, a word about Phelps.  The 200m butterfly produced a silver lining in more ways than one - first, he won silver in the event.  And secondly, while he'd have been disappointed, it took his all time tally to 18 medals, equal with Larissa Latynina.  

In the aftermath of the race, during the medal ceremony, Phelps showed tremendous class and true champion attitude in the manner in which he spoke with and engaged with le Clos.  It was, on a night of drama, perhaps the most rewarding sight, because he was magnanimous in defeat and honorable towards le Clos.  He earned a silver medal, but should also have earned enormous respect for that.  More than a record medal haul, it underlined Phelps' status for me.

If there was any disappointment (and there must have been), Phelps came out shortly after the medal ceremony and channeled it into the swim that would take him to sole position of the all-time medal list.  This time, it was a gold in the 4 x 200m freestyle, with Phelps producing the second fastest leg of the race (Yannick Agnel, the individual 200m champ, was fastest at 1:43.24 compared to Phelps' 1:44.05)

That took Phelps to 19.  15 are gold - this was already the record, the two bronze from Athens and the silver last night making up the collection.  Phelps has three events remaining - a leg in the 4 x 100m medley relay where it is very difficult to see the USA not winning gold, then the 200-IM where perhaps Lochte is favored, but Phelps should medal given the shorter length, and then the 100m butterfly, where he probably is favorite.  It's likely that Phelps will end his career on 22, with possibly 17 golds.  An amazing collection from the all-time greatest Olympic medal winner.  Cue debate about how 22 swimming medals compares to say, 5 rowing medals, where the multiple hauls are simply not possible. Regardless, Phelps is an undisputed Olympic legend.

3) Badminton farce as teams throw matches to avoid one another

Then a less than savoury story emerged from the Games yesterday, as eight badminton players were charged with "not using one's best efforts to win the match".  I didn't see the matches (following the Olympic Games is an Olympian task), but it was the talk of Twitter and obviously big news.  The story is summarized here, but basically, teams that had already qualified want to get themselves favourable draws and so they tried not to win the match.

There are some sports where this is easier than others.  Running and cycling, for example, lend themselves to slowing down just enough to lose.  Technical sports, it's not as simple, because when an elite player repeatedly duffs a serve or simple shot, even a non-discerning fan will spot it.  As they did - fans jeered, the match officials warned players and then disqualified them, only for the DQ to be overturned on appeal and the match continue. 

The players should simply be expelled from the Games.  No questions asked.  Obviously, the act of deliberately under-performing is the reason, and this is one of the most disgraceful things an athlete can do, surely?  Doping is terrible, but at least it's for the right reason!  There is also a part of me that thinks they should be expelled because from all reports, they didn't even play badly well (if that makes sense). If you're going to defraud the event and public, at least do so convincingly...but that's a bit tongue-in-cheek.  

Of course, proving it is very difficult - suspicion is obvious, proof is not!  The Badminton World Federation will be dealing with the matter.

4) Shiwen in the spotlight, still: My one-tweet summary below...

And then speaking of easy suspicion with difficult proof, China's Ye Shiwen remains a talking point in London.  She won the 200m IM last night, to go with that 400m IM title that created the controversy in the first place.

I was contacted by a few media yesterday, and will even be talking to CNN later today, and so I've been giving the story and speculation a great deal of thought.  If you missed my initial thoughts on the subject, you can find them here, and then also see what has been said about her from other sources.

It's such a polarizing debate, because the idea of "targeted testing" or suspicion based solely on whose flag an athlete competes under is so easily turned into sports' equivalent of racial profiling.  There is no doubt that Shiwen is MORE suspected and questioned because she is Chinese.  Is that right?  I'm ambivalent.  There is a reality that can't, and shouldn't be ignored, and that is that Chinese athletes have a history of doping.  I quoted figures the other day of 40 Chinese swimmers failing tests, three times more than the next nation.  Yesterday I received a tweet saying it's 57, a shade over twice the next nation's numbers.

Regardless, it's clear that Chinese athletes have "earned" the mistrust that accompanies them.  That's just a fact.  What is unfair is for that to be turned into an immediate accusation against every swimmer from China who does well.  For example, Shiwen is NOT actually based full-time in China - I believe she is in Brisbane a good deal of the time (if anyone can confirm this, let me know).  It doesn't mean there's no link to a state system in China, of course, but it does force us to reconsider the generalization and image we probably have of young swimmers doping in rural China where no drug tester can go, right?  So guilt by association is a bad idea - we'd all be guilty of many things this way, and with no recourse.

So let me wrap this discussion up (for now), with the following quick thoughts:

I think the main point that needs to be made is that in sport, history has taught us to be skeptical of anything that is remarkable.  It's a sad state of affairs, but we've all been made fools of before.

In that light, the performances of Shiwen compel people to ASK questions,  But I think it's very important to understand two things:

1. Asking is not the same as accusing.  We should be quick to ask, but slow to accuse, and before accusing, should seek facts and information.  Asking the question applies pressure, it helps to change behavior, it adds to scrutiny.  It's good.  The more transparency we can "force" onto the system, the better off the sport, and the only way to do so is to ask questions.  But the knee-jerk reaction to a young swimmer dominating in that fashion is to accuse and reach judgment, and that's not fair.
   
2. Recognize that she is not the only one from whom questions should be asked.  Any swimmer who wins an Olympic gold medal is already remarkable.  To do so with a world record is even more so, and to do so with huge improvements when so young is a final piece of what is a remarkable story.  But Shiwen is not unique, and so she, along with other swimmers, should be placed under the same scrutiny.  The reality is that an Olympic medal comes with fineprint of suspicion, and that includes le Clos, it includes Phelps, in includes everyone.
   
3. The scrutiny should take the form of doping controls - you cannot "convict" someone of doping just because they are performing well.  It's unfair and unnecessarily cynical.  What you can do is use performance to establish a targeted testing programme, because performance gives context to drug testing.  So all swimmers, but particularly those who produce "uncertain" performances, should be the target of testing, some perhaps more than others.

The reality is that only drug testing can answer the question.  The question is asked based on performance, but answered based on testing.  I was earlier asked to sum up my view in a single tweet, so here goes: I'd say "unfairly judged and accused, but worthy of question. If that's unfair, hey, welcome to elite sport"

Lots more action to come on day 5!  Stay tuned

Ross 

The 14-percent advantage of eating little and then a lot: Putting it in practice

In my previous post I argued that the human body may react to “eating big” as it would to overfeeding, increasing energy expenditure by a certain amount. That increase seems to lead to a reduction in the caloric value of the meals during overfeeding; a reduction that seems to gravitate around 14 percent of the overfed amount.

And what is the overfed amount? Let us assume that your daily calorie intake to maintain your current body weight is 2,000 calories. However, one day you consume 1,000 calories, and the next 3,000 – adding up to 4,000 calories in 2 days. This amounts to 2,000 calories per day on average, the weight maintenance amount; but the extra 1,000 on the second day is perceived by your body as overfeeding. So 140 calories are “lost”.

The mechanisms by which this could happen are not entirely clear. Some studies contain clues; one example is the 2002 study conducted with mice by Anson and colleagues (), from which the graphs below were taken.

In the graphs above AL refers to ad libitum feeding, LDF to limited daily feeding (40 percent less than AL), IF to intermittent (alternate-day) fasting, and PF to pair-fed mice that were provided daily with a food allotment equal to the average daily intake of mice in the IF group. PF was added as a control condition; in practice, the 2-day food consumption was about the same in AL, IF and PF.

After a 20-week period, intermittent fasting was associated with the lowest blood glucose and insulin concentrations (graphs a and b), and the highest concentrations of insulin growth factor 1 and ketones (graphs c and d). These seem to be fairly positive outcomes. In humans, they would normally be associated with metabolic improvements and body fat loss.

Let us go back to the 14 percent advantage of eating little and then a lot; a pattern of eating that can be implemented though intermittent fasting, as well as other approaches.

So, as we have seen in the previous post (), it seems that if you consume the same number of calories, but you do that while alternating between underfeeding and overfeeding, you actually “absorb” 14 percent fewer calories – with that percentage applied to the extra calorie intake above the amount needed for weight maintenance.

And here is a critical point, which I already hinted at in the previous post (): energy expenditure is not significantly reduced by underfeeding, as long as it is short-term underfeeding – e.g., about 24 h or less. So you don’t “gain back” the calories due to a possible reduction in energy expenditure in the (relatively short) underfeeding period.

What do 140 calories mean in terms of fat loss? Just divide that amount by 9 to get an estimate; about 15 g of fat lost. This is about 1 lb per month, and 12 lbs per year. Does one lose muscle due to this, in addition to body fat? A period of underfeeding of about 24 h or less should not be enough to lead to loss of muscle, as long as one doesn’t do glycogen-depleting exercise during that period ().

Sounds good? It actually gets better. Underfeeding tends to increase the body’s receptivity to both micronutrients and macronutrients. This applies to protein, carbohydrates, vitamins etc. For example, the activity of liver and muscle glycogen synthase is significantly increased by underfeeding (the scientific term is “phosphorylation”), particularly carbohydrate underfeeding, effectively raising the insulin sensitivity of those tissues.

The same happens, in general terms, with a host of other tissues and nutrients; often mediated by enzymes. This means that after a short period of underfeeding your body is primed to absorb micronutrients and macronutrients more effectively, even as it uses up some extra calories – leading to a 14 percent increase in energy expenditure.

There are many ways in which this can be achieved. Intermittent fasting is one of them; with 16-h to 24-h fasts, for example. Intermittent calorie restriction is another; e.g., with a 1/3 and 2/3 calorie consumption pattern across two-day periods. Yet another is intermittent carbohydrate restriction, with other macronutrients kept more or less constant.

If the same amount of food is consumed, there is evidence suggesting that such practices would lead to body weight preservation with improved body composition – same body weight, but reduced fat mass. This is what the study by Anson and colleagues, mentioned earlier, suggested ().

A 2005 study by Heilbronn and colleagues on alternate day fasting by humans suggested a small decrease in body weight (); although the loss was clearly mostly of fat mass. Interestingly, this study with nonobese humans suggested a massive decrease in fasting insulin, much like the mice study by Anson and colleagues.

Having said all of the above, there are several people who gain body fat by alternating between eating little and a lot. Why is that? The most likely reason is that when they eat a lot their caloric intake exceeds the increased energy expenditure.

London 2012 Day 3 thoughts

London 2012 Day 3 thoughts

Three quick thoughts on the third day of action from London:

1.  More on Shiwen from a former coach: "brings back awful memories"


Yesterday I discussed the performance of Ye Shiwen, China's 400 IM gold medalist, in the context of her final freestyle leg being equal to that of Ryan Lochte when he won the men's event.  This issue was debated at length today, on radio and in media.  Then the Guardian came out with this piece, featuring detailed thoughts by John Leonard, the executive director of the World Swimming Coaches Association.

Among other things, Leonard says the following:

"The one thing I will say is that history in our sport will tell you that every time we see something, and I will put quotation marks around this, 'unbelievable', history shows us that it turns out later on there was doping involved. That last 100m was reminiscent of some old East German swimmers, for people who have been around a while. It was reminiscent of 400m individual medley by a young Irish woman in Atlanta."

The Irish woman he refers to is Michelle Smith, who surprised the world by winning the 400-IM in Atlanta before failing a dope test four years later.  The East Germans, well, they need no further explanation.

Leonard goes on to say:

"I have been around swimming for four-and-a-half decades now. If you have been around swimming you know when something has been done that just isn't right. I have heard commentators saying 'well she is 16, and at that age amazing things happen'. Well yes, but not that amazing. I am sorry."

"No coach that I spoke to yesterday could ever recall seeing anything remotely like that in a world level competition," Leonard continued. "Where someone could out-split one of the fastest male swimmers in the world, and beat the woman ahead of her by three-and-a-half body lengths. All those things, I think, legitimately call that swim into question."

"You can't turn around and call it racism to say the Chinese have a doping history," Leonard said. "That is just history. That's fact. Does that make us suspicious? Of course. You have to question any outrageous performance, and that is an outrageous performance, unprecedented in any way, shape or form in the history of our sport. It by itself, regardless of whether she was Chinese, Lithuanian, Kenyan, or anything else, is impossible. Sorry."

Those are fighting words.  In fact, given the climate of "political correctness" around the issue, I'm surprised that someone in a position of public authority would actually say them.  Not that I necessarily disagree, and as I tried to explain yesterday, asking the question is NOT the same as pronouncing someone guilty.

Regarding the Chinese, an interesting stat I saw today is that since 1990, China has produced 40 failed doping tests in swimming.  That is three times more than the next highest country.  The latest of those positives comes earlier this year, when a number of junior swimmers tested positive for EPO.  

And so history has given us reason to be skeptical.  It's just the way it is.  That, combined with her age, and combined with the rapid improvement from someone who was already at the world-class level (she was 200-IM world champion and fifth in the 400-IM when the seven second improvement occurred), gives pause for concern.  A big improvement for a 15-year old is not by itself a huge problem.  When that improvement moves a world-class swimmer to a level never seen before, then it's a little different.

And related to that, the same standard should apply to any young swimmer.  Tonight we saw a 15-year old huge outsider complete a remarkable series of races to win the 100m breast-stroke gold, when Ruta Meilutyte beat off Rebecca Soni.  I'd be asking the same question about her, though her story may be able to answer those questions, I'm not sure.

I think at this early stage, what can be said with certainty is that Shiwen's performances are "unusual".  That may go on to be seen as a synonym for 'exceptional' - I certainly hope it does.  However, history has taught us that in sport, this kind of unusual often means something else.  Speaking of Shiwen, she broke the Olympic record in the 200-IM last night, which is sure to provide more polarizing opinion.  

2.  The results from the pool haven't gone entirely to script

The results from the pool have been dramatic for reasons other than we might have expected.  First, the anticipated showdown between Lochte and Phelps in the 400IM didn't quite materialize, as Phelps had an off-night and finished fourth.  The race very nearly didn't even happen, with Phelps only just squeaking into the final to begin with.

Then on Sunday, the Australian 4 x 100m freestyle relay team failed to live up to their favourite tag in the relay final, finishing outside the medals in fourth, and swimming only 0.66s faster in the final than they did in the heat (with a supposedly stronger squad for the final).  That squad included James Magnussen, who came to London the favourite for the individual race, but found himself beaten on Leg 1 by Nathan Adrian in a relatively slow time of 48.03s.  How he responds in the 100m free later in the week will be intriguing, but the form of Yannick Agnel (46.74s split with a 'flying start') would have everyone worried.

Then Lochte, admittedly in a weaker event for him, lost a 0.55s lead to the fast-finishing Agnel to give the USA a silver in the 4 x 100m freestyle relay.  France claimed their first gold in the event.  Lochte's London continued with a fourth-place in the 200m freestyle tonight, again losing out to Agnel, with Sun and Park dead-heating for silver.

And then there is Phelps, who was always going to attract the attention in the pool.  His campaign began with the 400IM 'aberration'.  He bounced back with the second fastest leg in the 4 x 100m freestyle relay, and then looked solid, if not spectacular in the heats and semi-final of the 200m butterfly.  He swims that final tomorrow evening, entering the final with the fourth fastest time.  He controlled his semi, so perhaps is still the favourite, but the doubt remains, as it will until he wins a race with an exclamation mark.

There are others who have been "upstaged" - Soni was a red-hot favourite, but was beaten by 15-year old Lithuanian Ruta Meilutyte in the 100m breaststroke.  Emily Seebohm broke the Olympic 100m backstroke record in the heat (58.23s), then went slower in the semi-final (58.39s) and then even slower in the final (58.68s), to finish with silver, when the time from her heat would have won the gold.  She was beaten by an amazing double-act from Missy Franklin, who swam the 200m freestyle, jumped straight into the diving pool to swim a few laps, and was back in the 100m backstroke final almost immediately to win gold. So that's a billing that lived up to the hype.

So an interesting swimming meet, showing that past performance is no predictor of future performance, even over the space of one day.  The media often coronate Olympic champions in the pool based on the results of the US and Australian swimming trials.  So far, 2012 has shown that the pool is a little more globalized than we tend to think!

3. Paula Radcliffe withdraws from the marathon

The other big news, the impact of which will only really be felt in a few days' time is the withdrawal of Paula Radcliffe from the marathon.  Radcliffe's Olympic marathon story is a long and painful one.  Two failed attempts in Athens and Beijing had led to the home performance, but as the months have gone by, it has been clear that Radcliffe just could not put together a consistent series of performances.  Whether it was illness or injury

Radcliffe's decision, which she announces in this statement, must have been an agonizing one to make. Having been burned by two Olympic Games, the second one by injury, she would have been mindful of history, and one can hardly blame her.  Especially because NOT finishing her home marathon would bring the British press and public down on her.  Judging from the post-Athens reaction, that's a cruel experience that most would wish to avoid.  She may yet have a Games in her, but one feels that this may be the end for the world's fastest female marathoner.

Her statement here is well worth a read.

And a final thought for SA readers - tonight sees our next medal chance in Chad le Clos in the 200m butterfly.  He qualified in second for the final, beaten only by Matsuda.  You have to think that Matsuda can go even faster, and then Phelps, who qualified in fourth, must be the favourite.  Which means that unless le Clos can find another big improvement, he's in strong contention for bronze, at least.  That will be hotly contested, with four men within half a second of one another.  Le Clos broke the Africa record to get lane 5 for the final, and so he is on the right trajectory.  It should be a fascinating race.

For the global audience, it's the race that really should see Michael Phelps tie Larissa Latynina for the all-time Olympic medal record of 18, and he may become the first man to win the same event at three consecutive Games.

Recap later (or tomorrow, depending on Olympic fatigue!)

Ross

Science of London 2012: Part 1 - clothing tech

The Science of the Olympic Games, Part 1: The technology effect

Last week Friday, at the Sports Science Institute of South Africa, I gave a public presentation to welcome in the start of London 2012.  The presentation covered four topics - technology, doping in sport, Oscar Pistorius' advantage and South Africa's chances of 12 medals, in the context of Olympic economics.

The talk was aimed at the general public, to give them some insight into the 'hidden side' of the Games, and the scientific stories they'd be seeing and perhaps hearing about over the next two weeks.

Over the next few days, I'll share segments of that presentation with you.  Of course, without narration, it may lack the context to be fully understandable, but it is mostly (I hope), self-explanatory.

The first segment is on technology.  Beijing produced a clearance sale on swimming world records thanks to Speedo's LZR swimsuit, and introduced to us the concept of "technological doping".

So far, London has been interesting in this regard, because records are falling, but at nothing like the rate we saw in 2008.  So far, with eight events completed, we've seen three world and six Olympic records.  Compare this to Beijing, where 32 events produced 66 Olympic and 25 World Records.

One interesting observation you might want to make from home as you watch the swimming, is to note how often a swimmer is AHEAD of world record splits at the first turn (50m), and how rarely they stay ahead.  One possible interpretation is that the first 50m has improved disproportionately, and that seems, at least to my eye, to be partly due to modified and improved starting blocks.  The addition of the second block at the back, to allow a forceful horizontal push from the back leg, seems to have made the starts faster.  The result is that many are going out faster, not because of a faster swim, but a faster start.  They are then slowing in the second half.  Or maybe it's just an interesting observation that says more about pacing than equipment, who knows?  Time will tell!

But for now, this is a look back to a section of a talk given on Friday, dealing with technology, before the swimming events began.  Later this week I'll post the section of the talk looking at the war on doping.

Oh, and the Day 3 recap of London is yet to come.  Later tonight, after the swimming finals!

Ross

Science of Olympics 2012 Part 1 on Prezi

London Day 2 Quick thoughts

London day 2: Women faster than men in the pool, and SA's first medal is gold
Day 2 in London produced some great racing, including the much anticipated men's 4 x 100m freestyle relay, which always seems to produce one of the races of the Games.

2012 was no different, and it was France who exacted revenge for the drama of Beijing, where Jason Lezak came from behind in the dying meters to hold off the French challenge to keep Phelps' dream of eight alive.

This time, the situation was reversed, and it was France who hit the water behind the USA for the final leg.  Lochte for the USA led Agnel of France by 0.55s at 300m, but Agnel's brilliant swim (a 46.74s performance, the fastest of the race by a considerable margin), first reeled the American in and then passed him for the win.  Lochte, for his part, closed in 47.74, exactly one second slower, and the USA took silver.

Speaking of times, Phelps actually produced the second fastest split of the race, a 47.15s.  Notwithstanding the fact that the lead-off swimmers don't get the benefit of a flying start, Phelps will be greatly encouraged by that performance after his poor showing last night.  It suggests that Day 1 was simply an aberration, and that he'll be back for more medals in events three to six.

It's the upside of a silver medal that might have been gold, were it not for a brilliant last leg by Agnel, who gave the USA a taste of the feeling they had in Beijing four years ago.

Some other quick thoughts from around the Games, beginning in the pool

Ye Shiwen's final 100m freestyle leg - a talking point

One of the big talking points in the media and over on Twitter was the observation that Ye Shiwen, China's 16-year 400 Individual Medley champion, swam the final 100m freestyle leg of her world record (4:28.43) in 58.68s, compared to the 58.65s by Ryan Lochte when he won the same event last night (time of 4:05.18)

The doping accusation

Much can (and has) been made of this, and for many different reasons.  The first, and the one that I will deal with right upfront, is what it implies about doping.  It should come as no surprise that people will be suspicious.  It's not just the fact that a world record was broken that arouses suspicion.  It is that the record breaker is only 16 years old, and has improved her time in the event by 7 seconds since last year's World Championships where she finished fifth in 4:35.

Also, and this has to be said, we regard swimmers from China with more suspicion.  There are a few reasons for this and some of them, I do not condone.  However, I do appreciate the suspicion - remember, this is the nation that produced a host of world-class runners almost overnight in the early 1990s.  They came, they saw, the smashed world records that are yet to be challenged, let alone broken, in the women's 1500m, 3000m and 10,000m.  Then they vanished almost as quickly.

In the pool, history teaches us to be equally skeptical.  Just this year, a 16-year old Chinese swimmer tested positive for EPO.  In the 1990s, the same thing happened for swimming as happened for running - came, saw, conquered.  But in that case, they got caught and then disappeared.

The doping allegations of the 1990s were largely confirmed by officials and sources who reported that doping within Chinese swimming programmes were widespread and institutionalized.  That, in turn, would come as no surprise to students of the sport and doping.  The practice of institutionalized doping began east of the Berlin Wall in the 1960s, and when the Wall fell, it just went further east. 

The result is that Chinese performances will always be viewed with suspicion.  In exactly the same way that a Tour de France leader is suspicious because of the history of that jersey, a Chinese world-beating athlete is going to face questions and suspicion. 

So I will be upfront here - when I see such remarkable a) performances; b) improvements in a short time and; c) pacing strategies in a 16-year old, I too am skeptical.  It's human nature, conditioned by human behavior in sport, and I think anyone who follows the sport understands the thinking process here.

However, that is NOT the same thing as condemning someone as a doper, and I would not do that based solely on performance.  I would, however, be asking the same question I think many are, and I think this is only right.  We should be suspicious, because history has shown us up more than once before.  And the thing about generalizations (they're Chinese, they must be doping, for example) is that sometimes, they become generalizations because there is an element of truth in them!  Does anyone who knows China's ethos and attitude towards Olympic sport actually believe that they would NOT deliberately dope their young athletes to win medals?  If your answer is no, then I'm afraid you're naive, just as we'd be naive to believe that any athlete, regardless of nationality, faces huge temptation to dope.

That doesn't mean they do it though, just that they might, and so what we need to avoid is to paint everyone with the same brush, and so let's ask, without reaching a verdict.  Just yet.

But let's just talk about the pacing, and the fact that this young Chinese swimmer can finish a medley as fast as Lochte did.  It has some really interesting implications, and I'm going to talk about those instead of doping for now.

Shiwen's race "structure" - why a fast finish implies a huge "reserve" capacity

I'm a "student" of pacing strategies - they were a significant part of my PhD, and so I read a great deal into the physiology and implications of how athlete's pace themselves.

So truth number 1 - our ability to finish fast is a function of how much "reserve" capacity we maintain during the race.  If we are racing maximally, at world record pace, for example, then we do not produce super-fast sprint finishes.  Think of a 5,000m runner at world record pace with one lap to go.  He is not going to blast a 52 second final lap.

Now consider the same runner, same distance, but running 30 seconds slower in a tactical Olympic final.  They can run 52 seconds for the final lap, because they have a physiological reserve.  The point is, our finishing speed is a function of the difference between our best performance potential and what we are actually doing - the closer we get to our best, the slower we finish.

Overall, the best performance comes from making sure that reserve is as low as possible.  That is, you will perform your best when you have the least reserve at the finish.  Put differently, if you have a big reserve at the finish, your overall performance is NOT as good as it might have been.

So, that's a long-winded explanation, let's look at what it means for Shiwen.

First point, we're talking about a medley here - 100m each of butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke and freestyle.  Because there are different strokes, any comparison we make between Shiwen and Lochte may be affected by the relative strengths of the two for the freestyle stroke.  You might be comparing an exceptional freestyle female swimmer in Shiwen to a fairly mediocre male freestyle swimmer in Lochte.  If that were true, then similar times at the end would be no big deal.

But that's NOT the case here - Lochte is a good freestyle swimmer.  An hour ago, he did a 47.74s 100m relay leg.  It didn't win gold, but it's right up there, at most only a second off the very best on the day.  Shiwen, on the other hand, is clearly an exceptional freestyle swimmer, but is not in their relay teams, and nor does she do any individual freestyle events, so she's not at the kind of level that would destroy world records (which is what it would need to be to make the comparison invalid).  I'd argue that they're probably very similar, relative to their peers, at that stroke.

So I think it is safe to say that at best, Shiwen may edge Lochte for relative strength in the event, but not by much, and so she is comparable to Lochte for the specific stroke. Therefore, a direct comparison between Lochte and Shiwen for the freestyle leg is not invalid - it can be made without the confounder of relative freestyle strength.

Next, you look at what it "typical" in the 400IM race.  For men, the best swimmers typically close in 57 to 59 seconds (check splits from London). This is about 19 to 23% SLOWER than the best men finish in an isolated 100m freestyle.

For women, the TYPICAL (excluding Shiwen) final 100m freestyle takes 61 to 64 seconds. This is 18 to 22% slower than the best females swim 100m freestyle.

So the sport shows that you have a normal pattern, a typical ratio of medley freestyle to best freestyle - they SHOULD BE between 18 and 23% slower at the end of a 400m IM than in a 100m freestyle by itself.

Yet Shiwen is not. She does a 58.68 s final leg, which is only about 10% off the best 100m freestyle swimmers.  The conclusion that I would draw from this is that her 100m freestyle leg is disproportionately fast not only by comparison to Lochte, but also to her peers, and to the best 100m freestyle swimmers.

The only way to interpret that is to recognize that the physiology of a fast finish tells us that she must have a significant reserve for that final leg.  It says that her first 300m was an extremely conservative effort. The simple question is "Under what circumstances does a female have the capacity to finish a race as fast as a male?"

To answer this, think back to the key concept - finishing ability is a function of how close we are to our potential.  To finish as fast as Shiwen does, relative to an unfatigued, isolated 100m freestyle, implies that she has a lot more potential in the event than was realized with her world record.  The fact that Shiwen could close as fast as Lochte suggests to me that her efforts over the first 300m of that final took very little out of her.

If that is true, then her overall performance is a significant underperformance.  The allocation of energy over the course of the race might be debated, but what physiology suggests is that it should probably be more even for Shiwen, and it would allow her to swim quite a lot faster than the 4:28 that she did.

Now, at this point, many will say "maybe it's just her way to finish fast", and that may be true.  You'll find examples of athletes who just had more at the end, and of course you get ranges.  But the range is 18-23% off the isolated performance, not 10%.  That's too big, and it's not the optimal way, based on everything we know about performance and pacing.  I suspect that Shiwen would probably be 2 or more seconds faster if she went out harder and pushed to the point of fatigue.  It would force her final leg to be slower, maybe 62 instead of 58.6 seconds, but the gaps would have been created early.

Scary thought then that there is a "reserve" there that would see her get even better.  It would only cause more questioning though - imagine a strong world record of 4:30 lowered by 5 or 6 seconds by a 16-year old?

Interesting times.  Again, to stress the earlier point, this is an interesting discussion.  And the doping aspect is important (don't shy away from the question just because it's politically incorrect - look where that got sport before), but this doesn't prove anything.  So let's wait and see.

South Africa's gold - van der Burgh delivers

In other news, on the local front, South Africa has its first medal, and as expected, it is gold.  Cameron van der Burgh hinted at the possibility in the semi-final last night, and did the job tonight in spectacular fashion, winning the 100m breaststroke in dominant fashion.

A world record of 58.48s was the bonus for van der Burgh, who showed class and poise before and after the race.  A genuinely deserving champion, he was as emotional as anyone about the death of perhaps his greatest rival for the gold, Norway's Alexander Dale Oen, earlier this year and will dedicate this medal in part to his memory.

van der Burgh was always going to be SA's best medal chance.  I actually picked him to win silver, mostly because in the past, he has always been so much stronger in the shorter, more explosive 50m event, and the short-course races.  His 100m history is good, make no mistake, but it's not the dominant one he has in the shorter distance.  

The question then, was always going to be whether he could translate his power and speed into a longer event, and produce 100m of racing.  He did exactly that - perhaps the fact that the 50m event is not on the Olympic programme meant his training focus changed enough to allow him to work on the second half, unencumbered by the need for speed, made the difference.

But he swam the perfect race for a man with the best 50m credentials.  He got the fastest start, building a lead and putting himself 0.60 seconds under world record pace at the halfway mark.  Then he worked brilliantly off the wall, opened that lead even more, and the race was won at 75m.  He lost some of his advantage over the final 25m, as the more endurance-based swimmers began to come back, but the work had been done and his margin in the end was impressive.  The script could not have been implemented more perfectly, and he took the necessary step to move his 100m history from silver and bronze to a dominant, and well deserved gold.

More to come tomorrow, of course.  Join me then!

Ross

London 2012: Day 1 thoughts

Day 1 thoughts: Phelps vs Lochte R1, cycling coverage and SA's first gold?

I wait three years and 50 weeks for these next two weeks - the Olympics are the highlight of the sporting calendar, and I can't think of a better platform to showcase not only the human spirit and the most talented athletes in the world, but also the science of performance.

I gave a presentation at the Sports Science Institute yesterday, which I'll put up soon (check in on Monday for installment #1), where I tried to describe how it's the margins between winning and losing, between gold and silver, between legends and other elites that is most fascinating to me.  The Olympic Games are the microscope that allows us to see those margins.  The "space between" is where I find fascination in sport (credit to Dave Matthews), and Olympic Games give plenty of opportunities to go there!

So for the next two weeks, join me for a look at the day's action, both in review and preview, as I look at some of the interesting aspects, scientific and management related, of London 2012.

The place to follow it is either on Twitter or on our Facebook page - that's where the regular updates and quick thoughts will go out.  When there's anything to say in a hurry, that's where it will be said, so if you haven't followed yet, jump over now for ongoing comment.

Then I'll do my best to get some quick thoughts on the site daily, when work allows!

Let's start that now, with three quick thoughts on Day 1:

1.  Phelps vs Lochte: The duel that nearly didn't happen, and then the duel that, well...didn't

The hype around day 1 was the anticipated battle between Phelps and Lochte in the 400m IM.  In the end, Lochte dominated and Phelps just didn't "arrive" that the biggest news was not the win for Lochte but the failure to medal for Phelps.

Phelps only qualified in 8th place for the final, a mere 0.07s away from missing it altogether.  Once there, he got lane 8, which meant the head-to-head was now more like two separate races, with Lochte racing out of Lane 3.

Phelps was never in it - his strongest leg, the butterfly, was the first sign that things were not right, as he ended it in third place, behind Lochte and early leader Chad le Clos of South Africa.  Phelps fell further and further back over the backstroke and breaststroke legs, and turning for the final 100m freestyle leg, found himself in fourth, out of the medals.

With 50m to go, he was 0.4s behind Japan's Hagino, but even here, a "normal" day would have seen Phelps at least claw his way back onto the podium, and possibly even into second (the gap to Perreira was 1.3s. By this stage, Lochte was way gone, fully four seconds ahead).  However, even that was not to be, and Phelps finished outside the medals in an Olympic Games for the first time since his debut as a 15-year old in Sydney.

Just an early observation on this performance:

Almost exactly a month ago, Lochte narrowly beat Phelps in the US Trials in Omaha.  Here are those performances:

Lochte 4:07.06 vs Phelps 4:07.89

In London today, Lochte swims 4:05.18, an improvement of 1.88s.  Phelps?  He does a 4:09.28, slower by 1.39s.  That's a 3.27s swing in a month.

Now, this may be an off day - it happens.  But that trend, where one is getting faster, the other slower, is the kind of thing that really worries a swimmer and a coach, because it may be a sign of something else.  We won't know whether that is the case or not until another event or two has been swum.  It will be interesting to see whether Phelps can bounce back and return to his US Trials form (which would indicate that the 400IM was just a horrible, once-off day to write-off), or whether this decline (about -0.6% which is big for this level of athlete) continues, suggesting something else is amiss.

Watch this space - events 2 to 6 will tell the story.

2.  Men's cycling road race

The men's cycling road race was won, surprisingly, by Alexander Vinokourov.  There is much to be said about it, but others will say it better than I can.  Truth be told, I didn't watch too much of it, though as you will know if you watched it, that probably wouldn't have helped anyway!  There was as much talk of the poor quality of the broadcast as there was of the actual result, which saw pre-race favourite Mark Cavendish's hopes of home-gold disappointingly disappear as Sky...I mean, Team GB...failed to close down a break and deliver their self-proclaimed unbeatable sprinter to the line.

The BBC even expressed their frustration at the TV coverage, even placing blame, because it turns out that the Olympic broadcast is outsourced to the Olympic Broadcasting Services, which was described by @inrng as "a cosy company with monopoly TV rights granted by IOC. Directors include ex-UCI boss Hein Verbruggen".

The problem today, apparently, was a technical one where the GPS data was not provided and so there were no time-gaps available for commentators or viewers to understand how the race was unfolding.  This is of course a significant part of following the race, and when a break is clear, and the favourite is in the main group chasing, the frustration was overwhelming at times.

I felt that the lack of information was one of many aspects that could be improved, including the commentary.  All round, the standard was not what a regular cycling watcher would have been accustomed to from events like the Tour de France (any ASO event, in fact).  And perhaps more unfortunately, it was certainly not good enough to turn a newcomer to the sport of cycling into a fan!  It was a race that had drama and intrigue, but it was missed entirely as a result of the lack of information.

Ultimately, while the broadcaster is responsible for the failure, accountability rests with numerous bodies, including the UCI.  The broadcast deals for these global sports events is always a nightmare of contracts and kickbacks and networks and relationships (having worked in sports sponsorship and media rights for a while, I know it's a minefield...), but the necessity of getting it right cannot be over-stated.  The opportunity to get the sport to a global audience on the Olympic platform is just too big to 'mess up' with poor coverage.

And so in an ideal world, what should happen is that the broadcaster, even if it is the "cosy" OBS, should be benchmarking coverage against the best standard in the world, the Tour de France.  If that means paying the relevant people to assist, then it must be done.  If that means that additional costs are incurred, then the UCI should be willing to contribute to offsetting them, because it's their "product" that is effectively on the shelf.  Ultimately, politics gets in the way, and the serious fan, as well as the casual observer, pay for it. 

Oh, and there was a bike race, won perhaps unpopularly by Vinokourov.  As I said, others have written the story, and so if you missed it, three pieces here:

• The race report
• Mark Cavendish gives his thoughts after a valiant but unsuccessful attempt by GB to control the race
• Vino credits lack of race radios for his win

My three final thoughts:

1. If you are GB, you cannot expect rival teams to help and then criticize for not helping because a) you've claimed for weeks that you have an unbeatable sprinter.  Why would any other team help you deliver him to the line?  Besides, this is not even true - Eisel was riding as a GB member most of the day; and b) having dominated the Tour de France just a week ago (different name, same team - that was the whole idea behind Sky, right?), who wants to help you win another major title?
   
2. Smaller teams and no race radio means less control, and that means more exciting racing.  It's a blue-print for GC Tours in future, perhaps?
   
3. Vinokourov will be an unpopular champ because of his doping past, and his lack of repentance for it.  That's fair enough.  I'm all for second chances, but I like to see some admission, some acknowledgement and some action to show that you're not simply re-running the same script the second time around, and refusing to discuss the past with denials and stony silences.  Everyone deserves the benefit of some doubt, but it's a two-way street, this trust thing, and there's not much of it left for some athletes.  In any event, gold is awarded, race over.  Insert joke about waiting for doping control here...

3.  South Africa's first gold medal looms tomorrow

And finally, for local followers here in South Africa.  Cameron van der Burgh was always going to be South Africa's best chance of a medal, and it seems we may not need to wait too long to win it this time around.  It also seems like a very likely gold, thanks to a brilliant swim in the 100m breaststroke semi-final this evening.

The final is tomorrow, and van der Burgh goes into it as the Olympic record holder and the fastest qualifier by an enormous 0.61s.  The manner of his win suggests more to come, particularly if he improves the final 10m where he wasn't perfect.  So van der Burgh gets faster, and everyone else is looking for 0.7s or more just to get him off the top step of the podium.  Few things in sport are certain, but I suspect a medal for South Africa is one of them.  Whether it's gold or not, perhaps it's better to be a little circumspect, but the signs are there.  

I confess I actually picked him for silver - I thought Kitajima would be a little better, but that seems conservative now.  So maybe by this time tomorrow we'll be celebrating in SA (we take every one we can!)

Regardless, I'll be commenting.  As mentioned, I'll do my very best to get quick thoughts on the website, even if it's a short post two or three times a day.  But if I can't, I'll definitely be active on Twitter, so follow the discussion there if you feel the need!

Oh, and finally, I know there's a lot of discussion about the sensational swim of 16-year old Ye Shiwen who smashed the 400 IM world record tonight.  Some of it is, as expected, ominous as a result of the huge improvement in the last year - about 7 seconds.  I'll wait on the 200 IM and then comment further on that.  I know that Mark Foster was openly questioning her performance, and perhaps that's the first of the "smoke" that so often indicates fire.  Or maybe she's just a new sensation.  Time will tell, I hope. More to come, either way.

Enjoy Day 2!

Ross

The 14-percent advantage of eating little and then a lot: Is it real?

When you look at the literature on overfeeding, you see a number over and over again – 14 percent. That is approximately the increase in energy expenditure you get when you overfeed people; that is, when you feed people more calories that they need to maintain their current weight.

This phenomenon is related to another interesting one: the nonlinear increase in body weight and fat mass following overfeeding after a period starvation, illustrated by the top graph below from an article by Kevin Hall (). The data for the squares on the top graph is from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment (). The graph at the bottom is based mostly on the results of a simulation, and doesn’t clearly reflect the phenomenon.

Due to the significant amount of weight lost in what is called above the semistarvation stage (SS), the controlled refeeding period (CR) actually involved significant overfeeding. Nevertheless, weight was not gained right away, due to a sharp increase in energy expenditure. That is illustrated by the U-curve shape of the weight gain in response to overfeeding. Initially the gain is minimal, increasing over time, and continuing through the ad libitum refeeding stage (ALR).

Interestingly, overfeeding leads to increased energy expenditure almost immediately after it starts happening. It seems that even one single unusually big meal will significantly increase energy expenditure. Also, the 14 percent is usually associated with meals with a balanced amount of macronutrients. That percentage seems to go down if the balance is significantly shifted toward dietary fat (), probably because the metabolic “cost” of converting dietary fat into body fat is low. In other words, large meals with a lot of fat in them tend to cause a reduced increase in energy expenditure – less than 14 percent. Shifting the balance to protein appears to have the opposite effect, increasing energy expenditure even more, probably because protein is the jack-of-all-trades among macronutrients ().

The calorie surplus used in experiments where the 14 percent increase in energy expenditure is observed is normally around 1,000 calories, but the percentage seems to hold steady when people are overfed to different degrees () (). Let us assume that one is overfed 1,000 calories. What happens? About 140 calories are “lost” due to overfeeding.

What does this have to do with eating little, and then a lot, in an alternate way? It allows for some reasonable speculation, based on a simple pattern: when you alternate between underfeeding and overfeeding, you reduce food consumption for short period of time (usually less than 24 h), and then eat big, because you are hungry.

It is reasonable to assume, based on the empirical evidence on what happens during overfeeding, that the body reacts to “eating big” as it would to overfeeding, increasing energy expenditure by a certain amount. That increase leads to a reduction in the caloric value of the meals during overfeeding; a reduction of about 14 percent of the overfed amount.

But the body does not seem to significantly decrease energy expenditure if one reduces food consumption for a short period of time, such as 24 h. So you have the potential here for some steady fat loss without a reduction in caloric intake. Keeping a calorie intake up above a certain point is more important than many people think, because a calorie intake that is too low may lead to nutrient deficiencies (). This is possibly one of the reasons why carrying a bit of extra weight is associated with increased longevity in relatively sedentary populations ().

Is this 14-percent effect real, or just another mirage? If yes, what does it possibly translate into in terms of fat loss? More on these issues is coming in the next post.