Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 2:02am
What is 'natural ability'?
Column: Spiritual Psychology
The accusations and denials are clashing. The hunt for other "violators" shows no mercy. Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte are in the hot seat. Did they or didn't they do it? Despite the avalanche of media attention, I can't get worked up over the steroid "scandal."
Consider that baseball waffled on steroid use until 2005 — previously they discouraged its use, but it wasn't until January 2005 that definitive sanctions for violations were imposed. Even then, the sanctions were relatively mild until the fourth violation - 10-game, 30-game and 60-game suspensions for the first three violations, then a one-year suspension for a fourth violation, followed by discretionary action by the commissioner after the fifth violation. Under pressure from Congress, those penalties were increased in November 2005.
Baseball's limp and indecisive action on performance enhancers up until fairly recently is hardly consistent with accusations that predate sanctions and the current moral outrage that the media are hyping, and that the public is blindly following in step.
I'm against the use of steroids and other substances, like human growth hormones, because evidence suggests they are harmful in the long run. And we simply don't know the nature and extent of all the potential future side effects.
It would be touching if this brouhaha were primarily about the baseball establishment's heartfelt concern for the health and well being of athletes. But frankly, I don't think the danger part is the central issue for baseball or other sports. It's the "unnatural" and "abnormal" performance enhancement, and the tampering with what's "natural," that is the issue. "Unnatural" enhancement, it's feared, destroys the level playing field and blurs the meaning and value of record-breaking performances.
Right now the focus is on prescription steroids and prescription human growth hormones. But as the investigation proceeds, a wider net is likely to be cast over other substances that can enhance performance. As the frenzy to uncover more culprits intensifies, it could easily turn into a witch hunt, since there are so many products that claim to build muscle mass and enhance stamina and performance.
Congress has now jumped into the fray and will be holding hearings on performance enhancers. As congressional investigators ponder this issue, they may be surprised to discover a huge can of worms that raises questions with no easy answers, or any answers at all.
The question of what is normal or natural performance, based on God-given or evolution-given ability, is murky at best. Throughout history the definition of normal limits of human functioning has changed, particularly in recent years, as nutrition and health practices have improved and people have begun to live longer and healthier lives. Often the resetting of "natural" limits has come through the use of drugs and other performance-enhancing substances, many of which are considered natural. As I write this article, agents of various drug companies are tripping over each other in the Amazon jungle searching for natural enhancement substances.
Consider, too, that many of the activities that we encourage — actually require — athletes to perform are unnatural. Are our arms and joints designed to throw baseballs at 90 miles an hour or faster for many innings over many years? Should a 40-year-old pitcher be allowed to do that? Should anyone be encouraged to perform these unnatural acts if we are primarily interested in the health of players and future fallout from the resulting body tortures?
And this concern doesn't stop at baseball. Football also calls for unnatural movements and stresses that the body is not built for. A few years ago I interviewed Joe Montana, the legendary four-time Super Bowl-winning former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, at a United Nations meeting in New York City. Joe was there to speak for the Arthritis Association. He was still a hunk of a man in his late 40s, and he looked terrific on the outside. But his legs were those of an old man, and he was facing the likelihood of joint replacements. Joe was in pain that day because, as he told me, a few days earlier he succumbed to the temptation of playing basketball with his teenage son and was now paying the price.
Joe Montana is not untypical of other former professional athletes: Many running backs, quarterbacks and other players suffer long-term damage and permanent disability from the pounding and the sharp running twists and turns they performed throughout their careers. I asked Joe, "If you knew then what you know now — the physical consequences of your moves in football — would you have played the game differently?" He fired back, "No — if you had to think about that, you couldn't play the game professionally."
And without belaboring the point, I'll just mention the abnormal and unnatural contortions that ballet dancers must master.
In light of these observations, using unnatural substances in the support of unnatural acts may not be so outlandish? Given that athletes are required to punish their bodies, why wouldn't they take whatever can reduce their pain, and make it easier to fulfill the performance demands of the job?
Then what about those athletes on heavy diets of red meat? Meat supposedly builds muscle mass and stamina — and some believe the more meat you eat, the bigger your muscles. But excessive meat eating, according to medical experts, can lead to liver malfunction, cardiovascular disease and other disorders. Some athletes eat excessive amounts of meat in the belief that they will benefit from the hormones in the animal feed. A report by the Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine addresses this issue: "There are six different kinds of steroid hormones that are currently approved by the FDA for use in food production in the U.S: estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate. Estradiol and progesterone are natural female sex hormones; testosterone is the natural male sex hormone; zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengesterol acetate are synthetic growth promoters (hormone-like chemicals that can make animals grow faster)."
The precise health effects of eating meat, milk or dairy products from hormone-fed animals is unclear and disputed. Meat and dairy industry officials deny that there are harmful hormones in animals, but the Cornell report recommends eating meat in moderation "to help reduce exposure to hormones." And Dr. Andrew Weil warns: "Hormone residues in food can increase the risk of breast cancer and other reproductive system cancers among women and may promote development of prostate cancer in men."
What about the fans who are paying for expensive stadium seats to watch superior performances? Are they getting their money's worth from the wimpy vegetarian athletes who may not be growing their muscle mass to optimal levels? Should we force them to eat meat to level the hormonal playing field?
Add to all this the question of what is optimal human performance and natural limits? If muscle mass by whatever means can be enhanced, then isn't that part of "natural" human potential? The history of breaking records in sports is filled with examples of stretching previously believed limits - and the method of achieving those stretches was often unnatural training demands on the human body — including the possible use of enhancement substances that were not on any radar screen at the time (prior to 1951 the line between prescription and non-prescription drugs was vague). So if a "superhuman" goal and new record can be achieved, maybe it's all "natural."
We like to think that exercise for the development of performance stamina and strength is a normal or natural method of enhancement. It's well known that intensive exercise can enhance performance, but not without collateral damage. For example, women body-builders who engage in "excessive" exercise and stress training often bring changes to their hormonal systems. Their regimen may build atypical strength and muscle mass, but at the same time can disrupt the menstrual cycle — a sure sign that hormones have been affected. If excessive body building is an unnatural enhancer, will the paparazzi have to rush over to health clubs to catch on film athletes not popping pills but unnaturally popping up muscles?
Now we came to an even thornier question about performance enhancement: the crucial role of the brain.
A few weeks ago in an interview on "60 Minutes," Alex Rodriguez, star third baseman and slugger for the New York Yankees, who has not been implicated in the enhancement "scandal," said what many athletes and commentators have always known: Much of success in any sport is mental. It's the mental advantage that tips the balance between outstanding performance and championship performance. If that's the case, then what about the use of brain enhancers to ratchet up performance? Is that unnatural? It's common knowledge that most of us use only a fraction - maybe 10 percent — of our brain power. So those athletes who enhance their brains through brain stimulation — like intensive cognitive training and mental-focusing techniques, doing daily crossword puzzles, tackling brain teasers, and pursuing other intellectual activities — will have an unfair advantage over other athletes who watch sitcoms and read comic books. Should we ban mental exercise for athletes? Yes, doing crossword puzzles may expand brain power — but our "natural" brain power, you might say. That may be true. But can't you say the same for expanding, by whatever means, muscle power? You can't expand what you don't have — if you can expand it, then it's part of your "natural" potential.
Then of course there's a bevy of substances that manufacturers claim, and many consumers believe, increase alertness, concentration and mental acuity. Will we regulate or ban them as well? Will Starbucks and its double-strength super-sized lattes be off limits for athletes?
So we are back to square one. How to get out of this mess?
Let's see how the brain power of Congress tackles these conundrums. More next week.
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.
Consider that baseball waffled on steroid use until 2005 — previously they discouraged its use, but it wasn't until January 2005 that definitive sanctions for violations were imposed. Even then, the sanctions were relatively mild until the fourth violation - 10-game, 30-game and 60-game suspensions for the first three violations, then a one-year suspension for a fourth violation, followed by discretionary action by the commissioner after the fifth violation. Under pressure from Congress, those penalties were increased in November 2005.
Baseball's limp and indecisive action on performance enhancers up until fairly recently is hardly consistent with accusations that predate sanctions and the current moral outrage that the media are hyping, and that the public is blindly following in step.
I'm against the use of steroids and other substances, like human growth hormones, because evidence suggests they are harmful in the long run. And we simply don't know the nature and extent of all the potential future side effects.
It would be touching if this brouhaha were primarily about the baseball establishment's heartfelt concern for the health and well being of athletes. But frankly, I don't think the danger part is the central issue for baseball or other sports. It's the "unnatural" and "abnormal" performance enhancement, and the tampering with what's "natural," that is the issue. "Unnatural" enhancement, it's feared, destroys the level playing field and blurs the meaning and value of record-breaking performances.
Right now the focus is on prescription steroids and prescription human growth hormones. But as the investigation proceeds, a wider net is likely to be cast over other substances that can enhance performance. As the frenzy to uncover more culprits intensifies, it could easily turn into a witch hunt, since there are so many products that claim to build muscle mass and enhance stamina and performance.
Congress has now jumped into the fray and will be holding hearings on performance enhancers. As congressional investigators ponder this issue, they may be surprised to discover a huge can of worms that raises questions with no easy answers, or any answers at all.
The question of what is normal or natural performance, based on God-given or evolution-given ability, is murky at best. Throughout history the definition of normal limits of human functioning has changed, particularly in recent years, as nutrition and health practices have improved and people have begun to live longer and healthier lives. Often the resetting of "natural" limits has come through the use of drugs and other performance-enhancing substances, many of which are considered natural. As I write this article, agents of various drug companies are tripping over each other in the Amazon jungle searching for natural enhancement substances.
Consider, too, that many of the activities that we encourage — actually require — athletes to perform are unnatural. Are our arms and joints designed to throw baseballs at 90 miles an hour or faster for many innings over many years? Should a 40-year-old pitcher be allowed to do that? Should anyone be encouraged to perform these unnatural acts if we are primarily interested in the health of players and future fallout from the resulting body tortures?
And this concern doesn't stop at baseball. Football also calls for unnatural movements and stresses that the body is not built for. A few years ago I interviewed Joe Montana, the legendary four-time Super Bowl-winning former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, at a United Nations meeting in New York City. Joe was there to speak for the Arthritis Association. He was still a hunk of a man in his late 40s, and he looked terrific on the outside. But his legs were those of an old man, and he was facing the likelihood of joint replacements. Joe was in pain that day because, as he told me, a few days earlier he succumbed to the temptation of playing basketball with his teenage son and was now paying the price.
Joe Montana is not untypical of other former professional athletes: Many running backs, quarterbacks and other players suffer long-term damage and permanent disability from the pounding and the sharp running twists and turns they performed throughout their careers. I asked Joe, "If you knew then what you know now — the physical consequences of your moves in football — would you have played the game differently?" He fired back, "No — if you had to think about that, you couldn't play the game professionally."
And without belaboring the point, I'll just mention the abnormal and unnatural contortions that ballet dancers must master.
In light of these observations, using unnatural substances in the support of unnatural acts may not be so outlandish? Given that athletes are required to punish their bodies, why wouldn't they take whatever can reduce their pain, and make it easier to fulfill the performance demands of the job?
Then what about those athletes on heavy diets of red meat? Meat supposedly builds muscle mass and stamina — and some believe the more meat you eat, the bigger your muscles. But excessive meat eating, according to medical experts, can lead to liver malfunction, cardiovascular disease and other disorders. Some athletes eat excessive amounts of meat in the belief that they will benefit from the hormones in the animal feed. A report by the Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine addresses this issue: "There are six different kinds of steroid hormones that are currently approved by the FDA for use in food production in the U.S: estradiol, progesterone, testosterone, zeranol, trenbolone acetate, and melengestrol acetate. Estradiol and progesterone are natural female sex hormones; testosterone is the natural male sex hormone; zeranol, trenbolone acetate and melengesterol acetate are synthetic growth promoters (hormone-like chemicals that can make animals grow faster)."
The precise health effects of eating meat, milk or dairy products from hormone-fed animals is unclear and disputed. Meat and dairy industry officials deny that there are harmful hormones in animals, but the Cornell report recommends eating meat in moderation "to help reduce exposure to hormones." And Dr. Andrew Weil warns: "Hormone residues in food can increase the risk of breast cancer and other reproductive system cancers among women and may promote development of prostate cancer in men."
What about the fans who are paying for expensive stadium seats to watch superior performances? Are they getting their money's worth from the wimpy vegetarian athletes who may not be growing their muscle mass to optimal levels? Should we force them to eat meat to level the hormonal playing field?
Add to all this the question of what is optimal human performance and natural limits? If muscle mass by whatever means can be enhanced, then isn't that part of "natural" human potential? The history of breaking records in sports is filled with examples of stretching previously believed limits - and the method of achieving those stretches was often unnatural training demands on the human body — including the possible use of enhancement substances that were not on any radar screen at the time (prior to 1951 the line between prescription and non-prescription drugs was vague). So if a "superhuman" goal and new record can be achieved, maybe it's all "natural."
We like to think that exercise for the development of performance stamina and strength is a normal or natural method of enhancement. It's well known that intensive exercise can enhance performance, but not without collateral damage. For example, women body-builders who engage in "excessive" exercise and stress training often bring changes to their hormonal systems. Their regimen may build atypical strength and muscle mass, but at the same time can disrupt the menstrual cycle — a sure sign that hormones have been affected. If excessive body building is an unnatural enhancer, will the paparazzi have to rush over to health clubs to catch on film athletes not popping pills but unnaturally popping up muscles?
Now we came to an even thornier question about performance enhancement: the crucial role of the brain.
A few weeks ago in an interview on "60 Minutes," Alex Rodriguez, star third baseman and slugger for the New York Yankees, who has not been implicated in the enhancement "scandal," said what many athletes and commentators have always known: Much of success in any sport is mental. It's the mental advantage that tips the balance between outstanding performance and championship performance. If that's the case, then what about the use of brain enhancers to ratchet up performance? Is that unnatural? It's common knowledge that most of us use only a fraction - maybe 10 percent — of our brain power. So those athletes who enhance their brains through brain stimulation — like intensive cognitive training and mental-focusing techniques, doing daily crossword puzzles, tackling brain teasers, and pursuing other intellectual activities — will have an unfair advantage over other athletes who watch sitcoms and read comic books. Should we ban mental exercise for athletes? Yes, doing crossword puzzles may expand brain power — but our "natural" brain power, you might say. That may be true. But can't you say the same for expanding, by whatever means, muscle power? You can't expand what you don't have — if you can expand it, then it's part of your "natural" potential.
Then of course there's a bevy of substances that manufacturers claim, and many consumers believe, increase alertness, concentration and mental acuity. Will we regulate or ban them as well? Will Starbucks and its double-strength super-sized lattes be off limits for athletes?
So we are back to square one. How to get out of this mess?
Let's see how the brain power of Congress tackles these conundrums. More next week.
(My book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" is now available at Amazon.com,Barnes & Noble.com and other major book outlets.)
— — —
Bernard Starr, Ph.D., formerly professor of developmental and educational psychology at the City University of New York, now teaches "Spirituality in Film" and leads "The Spiritual Forum" at Marymount Manhattan College. In addition to his work in radio, he is a longtime contributor of commentary and opinion articles to numerous major publications. He is also the main United Nations representative for the Institute of Global Education that founded the Mucherla Global School in Mucherla, India. His book "Escape Your Own Prison: Why We Need Spirituality and Psychology to be Truly Free" has been published by Rowman & Littlefield. He can be reached at {email OmniCns@aol.com}OmniCns@aol.com{/email}. © Copyright 2008 by Bernard Starr.