@Scienceofsport
Account based inSouth Africa
About this account
- Account based in
- South Africa
- Connected via
- South Africa App Store
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Sports scientist, PhD Exercise Physiology. The Science of Sport podcast. Not on here much these days. Find me at https://nitter.cf/t.co/oqWxl62p16
Cape Town, South Africa
Joined February 2009
- Tweets85.9K
- Following252
- Followers102K
- Likes41K
Pinned Tweet
I want to try to explain something about testosterone and performance, since it has become the ‘fixation’ and the ‘the fix’ for inclusion policies for both DSD and trans athletes. So here’s a thread to ‘debunk’ and explain why T level, per se, is not quite the right place to look
100% agree. If you use HR properly, it almost always involves using it less rigidly, less often, less prescriptively and with other metrics given more priority. Proper use of HR means using it less, and with more nuance. It effectively diminishes its value when it’s understood.
From our latest Members show, where we ask "What is Talent?", and begin a series exploring one of sport's most fascinating challenges. Become a Supporter for exclusive shows, ad-free listens & our interactive listener community: patreon.com/c/thescienceofsp…
Ross Tucker retweeted
Ross Tucker explains why simply increasing Femke Broeders-Bol's aerobic capacity would probably compromise the advantage she has over her rivals. We can learn from this - Don't compromise on the very thing you are trying to prioritise.
Listen wherever you get your podcasts
Early on, I thought “ok this is where we are, let us discuss it, explore the facts, and provide the evidence, and see what it shows”. And sure enough, many sports were persuaded by biological reality & the rights of women. At THAT point, rugby, swimming, athletics, cycling (1/)
…all changed their policies, and sure enough the IOC followed suit (eventually). At one point along that journey, it became clear that it was really just a matter of choice. You chose FOR women’s rights, or against them. But it became, pretty simply, a matter of choice.
Or...and this solves the present "problem" (not that it's a problem by their current understanding of what a woman is) as well as the same thing in future, make the rule that males are not eligible, only females. If they're going to be "brave", might as well be right, too.
Ross Tucker retweeted
Honored to be a guest on the Real Science of Sport Podcast to talk all things creatine. Thanks to to Mike and Ross for great discussion! @Scienceofsport
shows.acast.com/realscienceo…
podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcas…
youtube.com/watch?v=jkA2DqYS…
The Peptide Show. Our latest podcast explores peptides - the hype, the politics, the fascinating origin-stories & legitimate concerns, and why the reward is inseparable from risk, while science chases marketing. From GLP1s to BPC-157, we have you covered: podcasts.apple.com/za/podcas…
Ross Tucker retweeted
It’s not just Pogačar and Vingegaard…
“Sources confirmed to Cycling Weekly that at least two other teams have been tested at 5am during the Tour, one in the first week and one in the second week.”
Story by @cmbreports:
cyclingweekly.com/racing/tou…
Our podcast on the Tour de France's 2am/5am drug-testing controversy. We explain the 11pm-6am window concept, why exceptions have to exist, and debate implied suspicions but unlikely smoking guns. Oh, and there's football WC & Kerr's mile WR in there too
podcasts.apple.com/za/podcas…
Ross Tucker retweeted
Pogačar and Vingegaard were dope-tested at 5am and 2am on Sunday morning and all hell broke loose. The authorities had to have justification to test between 11pm and 6am so do their actions indicate more than just another test?
Listen wherever you get your podcasts
Some brief thoughts: Antidoping authorities are not naive. They must know the blowback they'll receive, and the appearance of draconian methods when they test at 2am/5am. "Inhumane" is entirely predictable criticism. So the question that should be asked here is "Why do it then?"
Vingegaard crashes out as Evenepoel climbs higher and berates nocturnal doping controls
theguardian.com/sport/2026/j…
...and substances that can be used overnight, detectable only then. If that is the case, then testing at those times is not only understandable, but necessary. I've not seen the micro-dose required or the performance outcome from it to be convinced, though. So it seems to me...
This is untrue. Think about this claim: "Lose 2%, and physical performance drops 10%". Elite marathon runners finish marathons at 2-4% body weight loss. You're now saying they could run 1h50 if they replaced ALL sweat losses? Nope. We are quite happy dehydrated while exercising
Thirst during exercise is a poor indicator of how much you actually need to drink. By the time you feel it, performance has likely already taken a hit.
Research is pretty clear on this: people left to drink on their own volition during exercise consume only about half the fluids they need. The body's thirst signal lags well behind actual fluid loss, especially in the cold, where you often don't feel thirsty at all despite sweating steadily.
The numbers compound fast. A 185-lb person loses 1% of body weight at just under two pounds of fluid. Lose 2%, and physical performance drops 10%. Skill-based performance – accuracy, reaction time, coordination – deteriorates even before that.
Generic advice like "drink 8 glasses a day" doesn't account for body size, sweat rate, heat, or effort. Hydration during exercise needs a concrete target.
We built a free calculator to help you figure out the right amount of fluid you need. performpodcast.com/tools/hyd…
Here's one that shows AVERAGE BW loss of 2.3% in marathons, and...the fastest runners lost the most weight: bjsm.bmj.com/content/45/14/1… Supports a 2004 study in Ironman - the fastest finishers had the greatest weight loss. Also, look at the range - 5% loss is typical. No ill effects
