Motherhood: a boon for the body?

Kim Clijsters made a fairytale comeback by winning the US Open on her return to Grand Slam tennis after giving birth to her daughter. Could child bearing actually be good for both body and mind, and should all new mothers be reaching for their rackets?

Clijsters' success has been seen as adding fresh credence to the theory that pregnancy can in fact enhance sporting prowess, at least among those who had some to start with.

She joins a short, but growing list of elite sportswomen who have pulled off impressive athletic feats not long after becoming mothers.

Few doubt that the demands of motherhood focus the mind as priorities are juggled.

But there is an increasing body of evidence that the biological changes of pregnancy may improve both physical and mental performance.

Blood supply

Pregnancy is itself a physical test.

Almost every organ of the mother's body works harder to accommodate the needs of the growing baby, and blood volume increases dramatically to carry oxygen to the womb.

Once the baby is born, the red blood cells created - rich in haemoglobin - remain in the woman's body for some time, potentially improving oxygen flow to the muscles.

This, in theory, could improve her stamina and the ability to train for longer.

At the same time, the hormone relaxin loosens the hips in preparation for childbirth, but may also give the athlete added flexibility, according to Dr James Pivarnik of Michigan University, who has studied pregnant athletes.

While the exact mechanisms and their impact are still the subject of investigation, the suggestion that pregnancy may have this effect is not new.

In 1988, the First Permanent World Conference on Anti-Doping in Sport included 'abortion doping' on its agenda.

This followed allegations - never substantiated - that East European athletes were being encouraged to get pregnant and abort their foetuses to improve their performance.

The ethics and anti-doping section of UK sport has also raised the issue of pregnancy as a means to legally increase the level of performance-enhancing hormones.

Mental manouevres

There is also the suggestion that the agony of childbirth increases the pain threshold, boosting the mind's ability to cope amid intense physical adversity.

This sounds plausible, although the jury is still very much out in this area. Some research has found that while the threshold may increase dramatically during labour, it returns to original levels in the aftermath.

A study from Bath University found women were wimpier than men when it came to pain. Females felt it sooner, and were able to withstand it for a shorter period.

Indeed it has even been suggested that it may be motherhood itself which makes women more attuned to pain, acutely conscious of any impending problem which could compromise their ability to care.

But on a similar note, it has been suggested that motherhood sharpens mental agility, making a woman more vigilant and alert - key skills on the court.

'Baby brain' or 'preg head' may be a convenient excuse for forgetting names and numbers, but in fact the hormone fluctuations during birth and breastfeeding appear to increase the size of cells in some areas of the brain.

Becoming Kim

For some new mothers feeling fatigued and fat, the suggestion that their bodies are now supercharged may seem risible.

A major review of studies published this summer found - at least when it came to losing weight - sensible eating rather than regular jogging was the key to getting back into shape.

But the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation says it hopes all mothers can draw some inspiration from Ms Clijsters.

"Our research shows that it's time pressures that stop women taking the exercise they want to," said Harriet Foxwell.

"At one level we need more sports facilities to provide child care. But we also need to find more activities to do with our children - swimming for instance is a good example.

"What was particularly moving was seeing Kim on court with her daughter. Exercise is something we should be able to do together."

'Big Fan' captures the extreme of sports mania

We scream and howl at people we don't know – probably never will know – and we spend good money for the right to do so. Events that have absolutely nothing to do with our lives can send us into an emotional tailspin. Our passions are thoroughly irrational and we couldn't care less.

We are, of course, sports fans. We belong to the same worldwide tribe as Paul Aufiero (or "Paul from Staten Island," as he identifies himself on his favorite radio call-in show), the New York Giants fanatic who suffers a big breakdown over the course of Big Fan, which opens today.

How big a fan is Paul? He gets beaten to a pulp by his favorite player, a fictitious and ferocious defensive lineman named Quantrell Bishop. And once he comes out of his coma, he's the one who feels guilty.

Put yourself in Paul's shoes. You live and die with every Cowboys game. You approach Dallas linebacker DeMarcus Ware at a club and he pummels you within an inch of your life. Then you apologize for creating a Jessica Simpson-sized distraction to the team.

Big Fan writer-director Robert Siegel, a New Yorker who grew up cheering for the New York Mets and the Pittsburgh Steelers, conceived of the film as "a tale of unrequited love." It's a condition with which most sports fans are familiar. "Fandom in general is a one-way street," Siegel says by phone. "It's easy to think you have a relationship with players, but you don't. Players talk about fans in the abstract, as in 'the fans were great.' But it's not like they know you're alive."

That's the rub for Paul, played by Patton Oswalt. He lives his life as a regular caller on the airwaves of WFAN, where he wages verbal warfare with rabid Eagles fan Philadelphia Phil (Michael Rapaport), and in the parking lot of Giants Stadium. He never has tickets, so he watches the games on a rickety TV powered by his car. He worships fervently but from a distance.

Reality intrudes when that distance is brutally shortened by his idol's fists. Now what? How to continue the rituals of fandom? How to go back to the way life was? His sports fan's cognitive dissonance – that mental disconnect that allows us to invest overpowering feelings in millionaire strangers – is thrown for a violent loop. Paul's escapist fantasy has become an existential crisis.

Big Fan is hardly the first fictional attempt to explore the fan's psyche. In Tony Scott's The Fan (1996), a deranged loner and San Francisco Giants fan played by Robert De Niro terrorizes a spoiled, Barry Bonds-like superstar (Wesley Snipes) and his family. The slugger has nothing but contempt for the fans. The stalker takes personal offense. The Fan eventually becomes a rote, harebrained thriller, but until then it brings a vicarious jolt to viewers fed up with such easy scapegoats as astronomic salaries and aloof jocks.

But Big Fan's best antecedent comes from the world of literature, not film. Frederick Exley's autobiographical novel A Fan's Notes (1968) is, like Big Fan, about a New York Giants partisan with an otherwise empty life. He lives with "a feeling that football was an island of directness in a world of circumspection. In football a man was asked to do a difficult and brutal job, and either he did it or got out." He finds himself "relying on the Giants as a life-giving, exalting force." Exley's protagonist has demons far stronger than Paul's: He drinks with a sense of perpetual desperation, and he spends much of the book checking in and out of mental hospitals. His self-aware streak also sets him apart from his Big Fan counterpart, and makes him a captivating, and devastating, first-person narrator.

For the sake of disclosure, let me point out that I'm hardly above the fray of sports obsession. I stayed in bed the day after the Giants (baseball, not football) choked away the World Series in 2002. More recently, the sight of the Mavericks coughing up the 2006 NBA Finals put my stomach in Windsor knots for days on end. I consider myself a fairly well-adjusted person. Unlike Paul from Staten Island, I don't live with my mom. I have a life and a career. Doesn't matter. I caught the fan bug early, and I imagine I'll carry it to my deathbed.

Yes, Paul and Exley are extreme examples of a common breed. They use fandom to fill a gaping void. And, as Siegel points out, the salve doesn't always have to be sports. "It's no different to me than people who live through their favorite band or rapper or actor," he says. "I don't think everybody is obsessed, but on some level it's relatable to anybody who lives through things that have nothing to do with their daily lives."

Just don't tell that to Paul. Not after he went and took one for the team. As the song says, love hurts.

College football teams tackling swine flu

Helmets and shoulder pads — and hand sanitizer.

College football players are protecting themselves from more than bruising hits and tackles this season. Swine flu can flatten them, too.

With outbreaks reported at the universities of Mississippi and Wisconsin, players are under orders to wash their hands and cover their mouths when they cough or sneeze, lest their teams join those who have been hit hard by the bug.

"After the first couple of cases, when people got sick on campus, me and my roommates, we went and got a big bottle of disinfectant," said Ole Miss running back Brandon Bolden, who lives with two teammates. "And as soon as we walk into our house, we have hand sanitizer."

Coaches are fretting the possibility of having to play games short-handed.

"It scares us to death," Texas coach Mack Brown said.

Swine flu hasn't been a problem for the Longhorns so far, but the list of teams affected has been growing steadily.

At Duke, in Durham, N.C., one player had a confirmed case of swine flu in early August, about a month before the season started last weekend. School officials said two or three dozen players experienced flu symptoms and it took about 10 days to get healthy.

Tulane, in New Orleans, cleared 27 players with mostly mild symptoms to return to practice about a week before the Green Wave opened their season with a loss to Tulsa.

Washington State had 16 players get sick before its home opener Saturday — a loss to Stanford — amid a larger flu outbreak at the school. The university placed hand sanitizers at concession stands for the game, which drew just 22,386 fans — about 5,500 fewer than last year's opener.

Mississippi and Wisconsin have been dealing with seriously depleted rosters at practice this week as player after player has come down with the fever, coughing, body aches and sore throats that are symptoms of the H1N1 virus.

Swine flu spreads the same way seasonal flu does, from an infected person sneezing or coughing near other people or touching objects. People inhale the virus or pick it up by touching an infected person or object and then putting their hands to their own nose or mouth.

In Oxford, Miss., the number of Rebels to miss practice with flu symptoms was up to 30 by Thursday. That includes star quarterback Jevan Snead and top running back Dexter McCluster. The number of cases among the entire student body was approaching 400.

The Rebels caught a break, however, because they are off this week and on Sept. 19 play Southeastern Louisiana, which is in a lower division.

In Madison, Wis., at least 10 players were dealing with flu symptoms, and university officials say about 200 students sought medical attention the first week of school. Coaches have been tightlipped about which players have been affected and if any will miss Saturday's home game against Fresno State.

In Tuscaloosa, Ala., Stillman College, which plays Division II football, had to cancel its opener last week against Clark Atlanta because 37 players had flu-like symptoms.

Georgia safety Makiri Pugh tested positive and missed the first game against Oklahoma State. He expects to play Saturday against South Carolina and said the illness was "not a big deal."

The larger problem could be that Pugh's teammates were likely exposed to the virus before playing in Stillwater, Okla., so now the Cowboys might have been exposed, too.

Health officials say football players shouldn't be at any more risk from swine flu than other students, assuming they take precautions such as washing their hands and staying home when they feel sick so they don't infect others.

But football players spend a lot of time together, and there are other factors that might contribute to swine flu spreading through a team, said Dr. William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University flu expert.

Football players are not famous for their cleanliness — the spread of bacterial infections is a noted locker room problem. And the idea of staying home with flu symptoms doesn't fit the sport's tough culture.

Scholarships are predicated on showing up for practice and performing well in games, and full participation is equated with "not letting the team down," Schaffner noted.

"There is some conflict with the public health message," Schaffner said.

But school officials around the country say they are following guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and isolating sick students for 24 to 48 hours even after their symptoms clear up. A vaccine for the swine flu will not be available until next month.

Georgia head athletic trainer Ron Courson said he included swine flu prevention in his preseason talk with players, a seminar that usually hits on topics such as heat illness and injury prevention.

Every Georgia player and coach has received a fact sheet about the H1N1 virus so they can better recognize symptoms and get treated quickly. And each player got his own small bottle of alcohol-based hand sanitizer.

The infection can be treated with drugs such as Tamiflu and Relenza, but Courson said he has steered away from using them on football players because the vast majority are not in the high-risk groups — small children and those with pre-existing medical conditions — for whom swine flu can lead to more serious illness, even death.

Rest, drinking fluids and maybe some Tylenol or ibuprofen are what Courson would order for a sick student-athlete.

Coaches, meanwhile, are just hoping that an All-American won't fall ill for the big game.

"That's all half-luck," Kentucky coach Rich Brooks said, "and we just hope that if we do get a case or two that it will be isolated — and at this point, knock on wood, we're among the fortunate ones that haven't gone through it — and hope that it doesn't happen at the worst time with the wrong players."

Being Bad (at Sports) Can Be Good

So you can pay $149 to be told whether your child has a gene that may or may not be linked with athletic ability. That is the news on yesterday’s front page, where Juliet Macur wrote about a newly released product from Atlas Sports Genetics, which allows parents learn whether their child carries the version of a gene, called ACTN3, that makes for physical power or the version that makes for endurance.

I will leave it to others to debate what this means for the future of sports. And let’s ignore for the purposes of this conversation the fact that the test really doesn’t predict anything with real certainty.

But let’s say that you really could gauge, with a swab inside the mouth, your child’s chances of dominating at track and being just mediocre at football. And let’s focus on what the possibility of such a test means for parenting.

What I fear it would become is one more way for parents to insure that their children never learn to fail. In her latest book, “Freeing Your Child from Negative Thinking: Powerful, Practical Strategies to Build a Lifetime of Resilience, Flexibility and Happiness,” the psychologist Tamar Chansky argues that this is one of the most fundamental jobs of a parent, and one we don’t tend to do very well. (Her book even includes scripts for how to walk a child through failure for those of us who need the guidance.)

If you never fail, she writes, you never learn that you can pick yourself back up again. And that’s a lesson best learned young, while your center of gravity is low and it doesn’t hurt as much to fall down.

Yesterday’s article opens with a quote from the mother of a 2 year old, who is watching her toddler struggle through a soccer lesson and who thinks a genetic test for sports aptitude would be a grand idea.

“I could see how some people might think the test would pigeonhole your child into doing fewer sports or being exposed to fewer things, but I still think it’s good to match them with the right activity,” the mother said. “I think it would prevent a lot of parental frustration.”

But isn’t that very frustration, particularly for the child, the point of sports — the point of growing up — in the first place?

I was an ice skater as a kid. Years of 5 a.m. patch sessions taught me I wasn’t a very good ice skater. It also taught me that ice skating could be fun and that I could move on.

My boys, in turn, have cycled through soccer, karate, wrestling, baseball, swimming, football, fencing, snowboarding and a few others I have probably forgotten. Along the way they found they love tennis and golf.

If a test had clued me into that fact at birth, they might have gotten an earlier start and been more competitive for it. But they might also have been cheated of half the journey, the part where they learn what they aren’t great at, what they have to worker harder at than others — and where they also learn that that’s just fine.

Kids should play sports, not genetics

Imagine this. You are 6 years old. Four weeks ago, Mommy and Daddy asked you to let them swab your cheek. Today they got a big letter in the mail, and after they opened it, they told you that next week, instead of going to play with your friends, you are starting football. Sounds outrageous, right?
Enter ATLAS Sports Genetics, a Colorado-based company that, according to its website, “uses enhanced DNA analysis to identify those athletes that are genetically predisposed to either speed/power or endurance characteristics.”

The company tests for the ACTN3 gene, which has two variants, X and R. The X version does not allow the production of a protein called alpha-actinin-3, while the R version does. Basically, people with two copies of the R version have a muscle composition more suited to power sports like football than people with one R and one X version, who are more suited to sports that combine endurance and power, like soccer. Continuing the pattern, people with two copies of the X variant are predisposed to be better at pure endurance sports like distance running, and studies have supported these claims. In fact, one result showed that 50 percent of the Olympic sprinters tested had two copies of the R version and that no female sprinter had two X versions of the gene.

Now, the scenario I outlined above is clearly the worst case, in which parents overreact to the information presented to them and begin to pigeonhole their child into whatever sports the test tells them little Jessica will be best at.

In The New York Times article that brought this company to my attention, the president of ATLAS is quoted as saying that we need to identify top athletes “from [age one] and up so we can give the parents some guidelines on where to go from there.” He added that “if you wait until high school or college to find out if you have a good athlete on your hands, by then it will be too late.”

Newsflash: If the kid is a good athlete, it’ll show up without a genetic test because she’ll be really good at sports. To say that a genetic test is necessary to determine athletic prowess is utter nonsense. Because if 50 percent of the sprinters had two copies of the R variant, that means that 50 percent of the sprinters didn’t have the optimal combination and still made it to the Olympics.

Once you realize that ACTN3 is one of 200 genes that have been tied to athletic performance, you begin to see ATLAS’ test for what it really is: a scam. Many, many factors affect a child’s athletic ability. You could have two copies of the R version of the gene that will “make you a great football player,” but you might not have the necessary height. Or you could have two copies of the X version but bad knees that can’t support the 100-mile-a-week training regimen necessary to win the Boston Marathon.

The reasons parents should pass on the test go beyond ATLAS’ ridiculous reasoning that knowledge of a child’s genome will have a significant effect on his performance. Children should be free to play any sport they want without being limited or pushed by talk about “genetic predispositions.”