Chamblee: "When I see the things Rory's doing in the gym, I think of Tiger Woods"

[saevel25]

10 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

You said "working out has been shown to decrease injury." Where was this shown? When? What kind of injuries? In whom? Athletes? Ordinary people with back pain? Define in detail what YOU mean by "working out."

Here is a study done showing that weight lifting keeps athletes on the field and prevents injuries.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971022155847.htm

17 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

but I don't think we need them to see that there was a dramatic change in his muscle development between 97 and 2000, and certainly 2002. If you don't want to call it an extreme change, what do you want to call it? I think we can assume it's likely he was training differently in 2000 than he was in 1997.

It wasn't dramatic. There are pictures with his shirt off. He's not that ripped and he's not that huge. He's never been as big as the Chamblee's of the world want to make him out to be. People can put on a lot of muscle mass in 1-2 years with out any negative health effects. Especially if they get serious with their weight lifting.

 

23 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Muscle development is a reaction to the muscles being torn and damaged. Why is it so hard to consider that it is at least POSSIBLE that you can bring harm upon yourself by exercising vigorously and regularly for years?

All I could find is that strength training builds muscle mass, helps prevent joint related injuries, helps prevent back related injuries, helps in keeping an athlete from getting injured on the field, helps in long term health of the person.

Just do a Google search for benefits of weight lifting. There are a ton of sites showing the benefits. The only negatives is if you don't weight lift correctly.

Until we can get a detailed plan of what Tiger is actually doing when he works out then there is no proof that what he is doing actually caused him harm.

5 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

No worries. We all can get passionate about things at times. 

[djfajt71]

19 hours ago, colin007 said:

Would.

Or did you mean "wood?"

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Big Lex said:

Forgive me for not having his bicep measurements, but I don't think we need them to see that there was a dramatic change in his muscle development between 97 and 2000, and certainly 2002.

Two quick points:

• Tiger was barely 21 when he won the Masters in 1997. Young men add muscle and size naturally. The difference between a high school senior and a college senior is dramatic all on its own.
• Tiger wasn't nearly as big as you seem to be thinking. He looked like a fit guy, but I wouldn't call it anything close to "dramatic." Particularly given the first bullet point.

Heck, the guy finishing my basement is 20 years past his prime as a pro baseball pitcher… and he has more a more ripped chest and arms than I've ever seen on Tiger.

[Big Lex]

http://espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2921413

Nope. Nothing extreme or dramatic. 30 pound weight gain, post-skeletal maturity. Which means it's almost certainly 100% muscle gain, which when starting from 152 lbs that's 20% body mass gain. Nope. Not dramatic at all.

Not extreme, either. 6 days per week. 30-40 minutes of stretching, followed by weight training. His trainer says Tiger's lifting levels were "off the charts." "Two to three hours of focused" exercise, almost daily. Nothing extreme or dramatic there. Just like your average Dad at the gym on Saturday morning.

 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Big Lex

[Big Lex]

"Almost everything about Woods' training defies convention. For one, he works out as many as six days each week, including when he's playing in a tournament. "Sometimes, he'll take two days off," says Kleven. "But we alternate between different [routines], which allows him to be active all the time. Where the philosophy that you can only work out hard two or three times a week came from I don't know. I know we produce better athletes by working five or six days a week."

I wonder if Kleven has entertained the possibility that maybe there was some wisdom to the two or three time per week limit.

To be consistent....I've only been saying it's _possible_ that Tiger's (and Rory's) workout regimes may put them at risk for _long term_ injury. Yes, it is possible that Tiger's fitness prevented even worse injuries from occurring. What is more likely, though, at least with regard to his disc injuries, is that his fitness/weight training regime had little effect on it either way. It is extremely likely that the cause of his spinal disc problems was overuse from millions of golf swings.

But I think I've done a pretty good job establishing that Tiger Woods had a pretty aggressive and unconventional workout regime in his prime, and it had dramatic effects on his body.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Big Lex said:

http://espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2921413

Nope. Nothing extreme or dramatic. 30 pound weight gain, post-skeletal maturity.

I've known a lot of guys who filled out - naturally - from age 21 to 25 or so.

He's not exactly busting at the seams here:

Have you ever seen the guy in person? He's not thick and muscle-bound at all.

[InTheRough]

8 hours ago, Big Lex said:

"Almost everything about Woods' training defies convention. For one, he works out as many as six days each week, including when he's playing in a tournament. "Sometimes, he'll take two days off," says Kleven. "But we alternate between different [routines], which allows him to be active all the time. Where the philosophy that you can only work out hard two or three times a week came from I don't know. I know we produce better athletes by working five or six days a week."

I wonder if Kleven has entertained the possibility that maybe there was some wisdom to the two or three time per week limit.

To be consistent....I've only been saying it's _possible_ that Tiger's (and Rory's) workout regimes may put them at risk for _long term_ injury. Yes, it is possible that Tiger's fitness prevented even worse injuries from occurring. What is more likely, though, at least with regard to his disc injuries, is that his fitness/weight training regime had little effect on it either way. It is extremely likely that the cause of his spinal disc problems was overuse from millions of golf swings.

But I think I've done a pretty good job establishing that Tiger Woods had a pretty aggressive and unconventional workout regime in his prime, and it had dramatic effects on his body.

Tiger definitely was a hard worker but a five or six day a week workout program is not as aggressive as you think and is actually very common among athletes of all sports. In some of your posts you seem to be confusing the workouts that top level athletes do with body building.  Very few actual athletes are working out to "look good" or "get cut"--that is usually just a product of the hard work that they put in and their body type-- they are working to increase strength, flexibility, and explosiveness to make them better at whatever sport they play and less likely to get injured when their foot slips on a drive or they get tackled at an awkward angle.  Only working out 2 or 3 times a week is simply not enough to compete at a high level in most sports--that level of working out is great for the person just trying to be in a little bit better shape but an athlete would most likely only maintaining at best.

Increasing strength and flexibility are an important part of preventing injury.  Strong muscles stabilize joints and take stress off of tendons, ligaments and bones by absorbing the impact and stress caused by sports and just everyday life.  That helps prevent the wear and tear injuries that you see in sports with repeated motions.

While I agree with you that Tiger's injuries were most likely caused by countless swings of a golf club, I disagree that his workouts had little to no effect on it either way...his workouts more likely prevented that those injuries from happening much sooner along other possible injuries that would have come along with the countless golf swings (obviously this is straight up speculation and neither of us could ever prove one side or the other but just wanted to show the other side of the argument because I think you are missing the point of why athletes do what they do).  Don't  believe me?... Here is a link...(https://www.acsm.org/docs/current-comments/rtandip.pdf ) from the American College of Sports Medicine saying that resistance training is beneficial towards preventing injury for both the beginner and the professional athlete.

[Big Lex]

34 minutes ago, InTheRough said:

Tiger definitely was a hard worker but a five or six day a week workout program is not as aggressive as you think and is actually very common among athletes of all sports. In some of your posts you seem to be confusing the workouts that top level athletes do with body building.  Very few actual athletes are working out to "look good" or "get cut"--that is usually just a product of the hard work that they put in and their body type-- they are working to increase strength, flexibility, and explosiveness to make them better at whatever sport they play and less likely to get injured when their foot slips on a drive or they get tackled at an awkward angle.  Only working out 2 or 3 times a week is simply not enough to compete at a high level in most sports--that level of working out is great for the person just trying to be in a little bit better shape but an athlete would most likely only maintaining at best.

Increasing strength and flexibility are an important part of preventing injury.  Strong muscles stabilize joints and take stress off of tendons, ligaments and bones by absorbing the impact and stress caused by sports and just everyday life.  That helps prevent the wear and tear injuries that you see in sports with repeated motions.

While I agree with you that Tiger's injuries were most likely caused by countless swings of a golf club, I disagree that his workouts had little to no effect on it either way...his workouts more likely prevented that those injuries from happening much sooner along other possible injuries that would have come along with the countless golf swings (obviously this is straight up speculation and neither of us could ever prove one side or the other but just wanted to show the other side of the argument because I think you are missing the point of why athletes do what they do).  Don't  believe me?... Here is a link...(https://www.acsm.org/docs/current-comments/rtandip.pdf ) from the American College of Sports Medicine saying that resistance training is beneficial towards preventing injury for both the beginner and the professional athlete.

Thanks for reading and for replying with a thoughtful reply. I think if you read all of my comments again (although I'm not recommending that ) you will see that I'm not missing the point regarding what athletes do. In fact, I agree with almost everything you write.

I am certain that Tiger did what he did because he believed it made him better at his sport and also more resistant to injury.

I also fully understand the conventional wisdom or belief that fitness training helps prevent injuries, stabilize joints, etc.,....all the points you make in your second paragraph.

What I cannot seem to get across to anyone is that I am suggesting that it's possible that the conventional wisdom is WRONG.

Maybe not entirely wrong....but partially wrong.

To qualify that statement, and I've tried this many ways, too, I would point out, regarding the ACSM paper you cite, that most ALL studies on fitness and injury in sports are studies with very short follow up times. Meaning.....they have established that weight/fitness training decreases the risk of injury in the short term - the next season or few seasons. There is very little or no literature on the long term effects (10 years of more) of high level athletic fitness training.

I never suggested that Tiger or Rory or any athlete is working out because they want to look good. I'm sure they don't mind this side effect of their workouts, but that was not my point.

My point is that people believe things that aren't true....in golf, as LSW tells us, "Feel ain't real," for example. I was pointing out that the mere fact that an athlete has an aesthetically perfect physique does NOT guarantee that whatever process created that physique is conducive to LONG TERM HEALTH.

We see expert athletes, doing amazing physical things. We associate this excellence with the look, the beauty, of their physique. And we hear all the time, from people in my profession (medicine), and from the gym owners, and the personal trainers, and the dieticians, etc., that exercise and fitness are good.

It is very difficult to persuade people that something like physical fitness, which has such universally _positive_ associations and connotations, might be bad. My point about the "look" of things was to say, in essence, seeing isn't always believing.

Tiger Woods has significant injury problems, as many, if not most, elite athletes do, if they are lucky enough to have long careers. Conventional wisdom states that their fitness practices are BENEFICIAL and protective for the athletes - enhancing performance, resistance to injury, and speed of recovery. In the short run, I agree, almost unequivocally, that this is true.

I don't believe it's proven that this applies to the long term, decade-plus time frame. I think it's what Chamblee was suggesting, and I think there is at least cause to be skeptical. Maybe someday someone WILL show that elite-athlete training has life-long benefits. But nobody has yet, and I at least believe we should be open minded and consider that there is a risk of exercising too much, too vigorously.

Regarding iacas's comments about people "filling out" between ages 20-25, this prompted my interest in reviewing some growth charts from my med school and ortho days.

Regarding stature, the growth curves flatten out almost completely by age 18 for men. It's rare for anyone to become much taller after age 18-20 or so. However, as Erik suggests, and as many of us have observed, weight continues to increase in men for some years into the 20s. This adding of weight without adding stature is what gives us the "filling out."

But how much do we fill out? I don't know, because most growth charts stop at age 18-20. However, if we look at this growth curve http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/data/set2clinical/cj41c071.pdf  , we can at least take a guess. The weight chart on page 1 shows an increase of about 1.7 kg between ages 19 and 20 (50th percentile curve). If we were to assume the same rate of growth for the next 5 years (unlikely, since eventually the weight gain stops, meaning it must taper off to a degree, but let's assume constant growth), that would be 8.5 kg, or about 18 lbs, for a man in the 50th percentile for weight. Tiger, at 72kg, is around the 50th percentile.

Tiger gained 30lbs during his workout years. If we presume that maybe 15-18 of that was a normal "filling out" effect, it means he gained maybe 15 lbs of muscle, or 10% of his body weight. If his training regime caused him to lose some body fat, then his muscle gain of course would have had to be even greater.

[SavvySwede]

13 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I am certain that Tiger did what he did because he believed it made him better at his sport and also more resistant to injury.

I also fully understand the conventional wisdom or belief that fitness training helps prevent injuries, stabilize joints, etc.,....all the points you make in your second paragraph.

What I cannot seem to get across to anyone is that I am suggesting that it's possible that the conventional wisdom is WRONG.

Maybe not entirely wrong....but partially wrong.

I don't believe it's proven that this applies to the long term, decade-plus time frame. I think it's what Chamblee was suggesting, and I think there is at least cause to be skeptical. Maybe someday someone WILL show that elite-athlete training has life-long benefits. But nobody has yet, and I at least believe we should be open minded and consider that there is a risk of exercising too much, too vigorously.
 

I don't think anyone is simply denying there is a possibility but rather it seems so implausible that it's not worth considering. Tiger Woods is only 40, some football players have made it longer than that.

[boogielicious]

I think the more likely scenario is Tiger has followed the advice of his Doctors and Physical Therapists who recommended that proper training would help him more that not doing anything. The man has won 79 PGA tournaments with a body that started having issues early on. My PT gave me clear recommendations on what and how to strengthen my body to reduce the impact of my issues. It includes a lot of weight training including squats even though I have arthritis in my kneecaps. 

Jack Nicklaus was plagued with hip issues in his career. Consider if he has the medical knowledge and training of today and he may have done even more.

[saevel25]

7 hours ago, Big Lex said:

I also fully understand the conventional wisdom or belief that fitness training helps prevent injuries, stabilize joints, etc.,....all the points you make in your second paragraph.

What I cannot seem to get across to anyone is that I am suggesting that it's possible that the conventional wisdom is WRONG.

This is the only thing I could find after a decent search on long term risks of weight lifting,

Quote

 An elbow specialist told me I have bone spurs on the elbow, which he said, is fairly common to people who lift heavy weights regularly. He did say however, the worst thing I can do is to quit training. His advise was to tweak my workout and find my limits, then adhere to them. 

Basically a specialist on the specific injury caused by heavy lifting over time told the guy not stop training, but to lower the level of his training.

This again is where I need to know the specifics of Tiger's regime. Did he adhere to the people he consulted on working out? Did he keep pushing the numbers up and up or did he plateau where he wanted? How often did he take a break from lifting? Did he lift heavy every single day? Did he lift the same muscles every single day? Just saying he ran in combat boots doesn't mean anything.

Until we can answer these question it is impossible to try to say that weight lifting had any significant negative influence on his health.

If you want to hang your hat on a possibility then I would say it's 5% chance at best.

7 hours ago, Big Lex said:

I don't believe it's proven that this applies to the long term, decade-plus time frame. I think it's what Chamblee was suggesting, and I think there is at least cause to be skeptical. Maybe someday someone WILL show that elite-athlete training has life-long benefits. But nobody has yet, and I at least believe we should be open minded and consider that there is a risk of exercising too much, too vigorously.

I don't think that is what Chamblee is saying. Look at him ripping into Rory. He's always been that lifting weights is not good for golf or causes injuries in general. He's never said long term lifting causes injuries over short term lifting.

Until someone does you can't state that it's harmful because no one has proven it is harmful.

7 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Tiger gained 30lbs during his workout years. If we presume that maybe 15-18 of that was a normal "filling out" effect, it means he gained maybe 15 lbs of muscle, or 10% of his body weight. If his training regime caused him to lose some body fat, then his muscle gain of course would have had to be even greater.

Honestly the guy is only 185 to 195 lbs at 6'1" tall! He's not huge. He doesn't have a lot of muscle on him to be considered an athlete by other sport standards. By most height, age and weight equations his ideal body weight should be from 165-180. He's only 5 lb over the max for the ideal body weight.

Ezekiel Elliot is 6' 225 lb running back who is going into the NFL next year. The guy is ripped. Very low body fat, high muscle.

Tiger is no where near the level of what athletes are at in other sports.

I am even considering contesting that Tiger even trained like other athletes when he doesn't even have the body type associated with the level of working you are trying to pin on him.

Is it possible working out had some negative effects. Yea, but it's unproven and by most convention the odds are very slim. I wouldn't base my opinion on such slim odds.

 

 

[newtogolf]

Tiger wasn't just going to a gym to lift and get in some cardio, at points, according to Haney, he was doing some pretty intense and frequent training with Navy SEALS.  We also don't know Tigers predisposition to back and knee injuries is.  

Some football players go their entire career without tearing any knee ligaments while others have multiple surgeries.  I know quite a few people at all different ages and various levels of conditioning that have had back surgeries.  

It's almost impossible to take one subject (like Tiger) given all the contributing factors and make a conclusive finding about the impact elite athletic training has on the body long term.  

[iacas]

@Big Lex, I don't think anyone really cares about the long-term effects here. These guys are athletes, and they only really care about their bodies so long as they're competing. What I mean by that: they're willing to trade off an uncertain (to some extent) future in order to do what they think maximizes their chances now.

Consider… http://nslog.com/2010/06/03/goldman_dilemma

Quote

There's a well-known survey in sports, known as the Goldman Dilemma. For it, a researcher, Bob Goldman, began asking elite athletes in the 1980s whether they would take a drug that guaranteed them a gold medal but would also kill them within five years. More than half of the athletes said yes. When he repeated the survey biannually for the next decade, the results were always the same. About half of the athletes were quite ready to take the bargain.

Only recently did researchers get around to asking nonathletes the same question. In results published online in February, 2009 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, exactly 2 of the 250 people surveyed in Sydney, Australia, said that they would take a drug that would ensure both success and an early death. "We were surprised," James Connor, Ph.D., a lecturer at the University of New South Wales and one of the study's authors, said in an e-mail message. "I expected 10-20 percent yes." His conclusion, unassailable if inexplicable, is that "elite athletes are different from the general population, especially on desire to win."

[Big Lex]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

@Big Lex, I don't think anyone really cares about the long-term effects here. These guys are athletes, and they only really care about their bodies so long as they're competing. What I mean by that: they're willing to trade off an uncertain (to some extent) future in order to do what they think maximizes their chances now.

Consider… http://nslog.com/2010/06/03/goldman_dilemma

Yup. I doubt they are worried about possible side effects 10 or more years down the road. Even among non-athletes, the behavior of 20 year old men suggests that most of them are not pre-occupied with how their actions might affect them a decade or two later.

[Big Lex]

Geez this has been a great thread.

[colin007]

21 hours ago, Big Lex said:

http://espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2921413

Nope. Nothing extreme or dramatic. 30 pound weight gain, post-skeletal maturity. Which means it's almost certainly 100% muscle gain, which when starting from 152 lbs that's 20% body mass gain. Nope. Not dramatic at all.

Not extreme, either. 6 days per week. 30-40 minutes of stretching, followed by weight training. His trainer says Tiger's lifting levels were "off the charts." "Two to three hours of focused" exercise, almost daily. Nothing extreme or dramatic there. Just like your average Dad at the gym on Saturday morning.

 

@Big Lex - im sorry but i just couldnt let that go without putting in my own personal experience.  i stopped growing when i was 16.  i started working out when i was 18.  in three years i went from 165 to 225.  thats SIXTY POUNDS!!!  all i did was eat and lift three times a week.  thats only 3 times.  not much.  no roids, no creatine, not even protein powder or aminos. and even with putting on 60lbs, the guys at the gym dwarfed me.

[Big Lex]

6 minutes ago, colin007 said:

@Big Lex - im sorry but i just couldnt let that go without putting in my own personal experience.  i stopped growing when i was 16.  i started working out when i was 18.  in three years i went from 165 to 225.  thats SIXTY POUNDS!!!  all i did was eat and lift three times a week.  thats only 3 times.  not much.  no roids, no creatine, not even protein powder or aminos. and even with putting on 60lbs, the guys at the gym dwarfed me.

I think your situation is dramatic, too. I worked out for a year, about 4 times per week, when I was in my early 30s, and was only able to gain about 5-10 lbs of muscle.

If the weight gain isn't dramatic, the Men's Fitness article certainly does paint a picture of a very intensive workout regimen. They emphasize that he was more interested in high repetitions, which don't build as much muscle bulk as high resistance does. But he was working out....a LOT.

 

[Big Lex]

http://www.sbnation.com/golf/2014/4/9/5597870/gary-player-blasts-critics-tiger-woods-workout-masters-2014

Gary Player TOTALLY disagrees with me.  And Brandel.