No. 8. The Brazilian study.
bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2022/09/01/bjsports-2021-105400.info
Cardiopulmonary capacity and muscle strength in transgender women on long-term gender-affirming hormone therapy: a cross-sectional study
Leonardo Azevedo Mobilia Alvares, Marcelo Rodrigues Santos, Francis Ribeiro Souza, Lívia Marcela Santos, Berenice Bilharinho de Mendonça, Elaine Maria Frade Costa, Maria Janieire Nazaré Nunes Alves, Sorahia Domenice
Conclusion
In this small cohort of non-athlete TW, who were previously exposed to male pubertal development and underwent long-term oestrogen therapy, we identified higher grip strength and VO2 peak levels than in non-athlete CW, but these same parameters were lower compared with non-athlete CM.
These findings add new insights to the sparse information available on a highly controversial topic about the participation of TW in physical activities. Future studies involving transgender athletes that account for and quantify variable exposure times to pubertal development and assess muscle cell metabolism are needed to elucidate the effects of long-term GAHT on TW sports performance.
And from Ross Tucker on this study
From Ross Tucker on this study above:
Over a decade (14.4 yrs average) of T-suppression, and TW have VO2max 20% higher, grip strength 19% higher & skeletal mass 40% than women. More evidence that male biology persists long after T is removed. Another piece of the same puzzle, albeit from a cross-sectional study.
The cross-sectional bit is important - the study hasn't (like over a dozen others) tracked people from Day zero onwards, so the differences are a 'snapshot' rather than a 'movie', if that makes sense? Means you don't know how those TW began, 14.4 yrs earlier, but the finding of quite large differences compared to women (20% or more) is striking, because a) they either began as typically representative of males, and lost some, but retained significant advantages vs women, or b) they began well below men, and lost hardly any advantages. In either case, the end point, over a decade later, is biological differences compared to women that will create performance implications. Of interest, the mass retention and VO2max advantage mean that relative VO2max (ml/kg/min) ends up similar, which means in some sports (weight-determined) the performance implication may differ - sometimes very large, sometimes smaller, as in some categories within endurance sports.
But zero? Unlikely, because cardio function, FFM & strength are greater. Important paper, showing striking biological 'persistence' 14 yrs on.
Two further thoughts on the study. First, the TW vs women differences in muscle mass and strength remain large (20%) after more than a decade of T suppression. One year vs ten, biology "persists". Second, add training to the mix and TW and women would obviously get stronger.
You could TRY to argue that women would get stronger relatively more than TW (you'd have a job on your hands to explain why this would be, but anyway). More likely is that the differences - TW vs women - would persist or even increase with the addition of training. What this study confirms is that non-trained TW retain biological differences with performance implications after 14 years of T suppression. You'd have to believe that W could make up these gaps with training to believe in fairness in sport. That is, trained W = non-trained TW = fair!
No. 9. This is quite a good discussion on transitioned males in sport done by Australia's SBS TV channel. It includes people like Jane Fleming (Olympic athletics champ), Deborah Acason (Commonwealth games female weighlifting champion and pioneer), Holly Lawford-Smith, Prof David Handelsman (Uni of Sydney) specialist in Testosterone, Dr Roslyn Carbon (part of the team developing UK Sports guidance), Mianne Baggar and Joanne Harper.
Overall, it showed just how much the inclusive side fall onto emotional manipulation in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their claims.
No. 10. Discussion about ethics and inclusion.
The rebuttal of Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport ‘Transgender Women Athletes and Elite Sport: A Scientific Review’ has been released.
Here is the original:
www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf
here is the rebuttal:
idrottsforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/devineetal221129.pdf
”When Ideology Trumps Science: A response to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport’s Review on Transwomen Athletes in the Female Category”
Cathy Devine, Emma Hilton, Leslie Howe, Miroslav Imbrišević, Tommy Lundberg, Jon Pike
Independent Scholar; University of Manchester; University of Saskatchewan; Open University (UK); Karolinska Institutet
29 November 2022
This is good reading for anyone who wants some background. Although it is a long read.
Some highlights:
"Descriptive accounts tell us how things are. Normative accounts tell us how things ought to be. To answer the question: ‘is it fair for TW to compete in female sport?’ we need both."
and
"For example, the anonymous authors claim evidence showing that male advantage is lost after one year of testosterone suppression, while the two papers cited in support of this statement explicitly argue that male advantage is retained well beyond one year of suppression. In fact, a recent cross-sectional study (Mobilia Alvares et al, 2022) measuring the perfor- mance of transwomen suggests that the advantage may be maintained after 14 years of testosterone suppression." (p. 4-5)
and
"The Range Argument rests on a misunderstanding of fairness in sport. The same misunderstanding lies behind the repeated claim that it is wrong to compare TW with male athletes (‘cis’ men), and that they should be com- pared with female athletes (‘cis’ women). The difference is between the two conceptions of fairness in play: the ‘Advantage’ conception and the ‘Range’ conception. The Advantage view justifies our current categorisation into male and female sport, and so justifies the existence of women’s sport. The Range view does not justify the existence of women’s sport: rather, it would prescribe a sports category defined on the basis of some metric or set of metrics as a substitute for women’s sport – for example, tall sport and short sport. On the Advantage account of fairness, what matters is male advan- tage, so the appropriate comparison is between Transwomen and males to see whether there is retained male advantage. On the Range view, what mat- ters is whether TW are in the range of female athletes, so this prescribes that the appropriate comparison is with female athletes. This leads to the result that some TW metrics are within the female range. But the same objection applies: what matters is the removal of male advantage, not whether some males are (for example) shorter than some females." p 5-6
and
"Sports categories do not exist to account for undertraining and poor fitness; there are plenty of opportunities at the recreational level for TW to join other equally under- trained and unfit males." p 7
Also on p 7
"The CCES write in the conclusion of their Executive Summary (9): ‘There is no firm basis available in evidence to indicate that trans women have a consistent and measurable overall performance benefit after 12 months of testosterone suppression.’ If that really were the case, then the inclusion of TW would not be prudent. Suppose it turns out that they do have a sig- nificant advantage over women (which is actually the case), then, having included TW would have been unfair (and unsafe) for women. The pruden- tial principle is this: if we lack conclusive evidence, but a change of policy could lead to bad outcomes, then we should not implement such a policy – until we have such evidence. The paper equivocates between three claims: that there is no evidence of advantage, that there is no advantage, and that there is advantage (but fairness must be traded off against inclusion). This is deeply confused, but we note here that absence of evidence does not support a policy of including possible male advantages in female sport."
then
"Furthermore, what is supposed to happen once we have achieved ‘rep- resentative levels’ of participation? Should we then resurrect the fairness criterion and exclude all TW? With zero participation, we would have to open the female category again for TW, and this ‘game’ (close, open, close, open) could go on forever." p 8
and
"The other view is to say that, because the sociocultural disadvantages faced by TW are ‘special’ and differ fundamentally from the disadvantages of other athletes, sports authorities should accede to the demand that they be included in female sport. On this line of argument, inclusion of TW in female sport is not fair, but is an act of solidarity with them. This justifica- tion, though, must attend to the opposite claim: that because inclusion is not fair, it amounts to an act of animosity towards female athletes." p 10
Page 12 & 13 bring in sex testing and how olympic women athletes were all in support of it but that it was ignored.
And how sexism is rife.
"Similarly, the voices of black elite female athletes from the Global South without these XY DSDs/VSDs, are ignored in the name of anti-racism, in fa- vour of advocacy for athletes who do have them. This completely disregards the black elite female athletes without these congenital conditions from the Global South, who are well represented in, for example, elite athletics, and depend on female categories and the World Athletics DSD regulations for their success"
No. 10. (One I have not read, but only read the dissemination of as I cannot access this one)
Study released 14th December 2022 from Nederlands and Denmark.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36534950/
Lisanne H P Houben, Maarten Overkamp, Puck van Kraaij, Jorn Trommelen, Joep G H van Roermund, Peter de Vries, Kevin de Laet, Saskia van der Meer, Ulla R Mikkelsen, Lex B Verdijk, Luc J C van Loon, Sandra Beijer, Milou Beelen
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the effects of 20 weeks resistance exercise training with or without protein supplementation on body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength, physical performance and aerobic capacity in prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT).
Methods: Sixty prostate cancer patients receiving ADT were randomly assigned to perform 20 weeks of resistance exercise training with supplementation of 31 g whey protein (EX+PRO, n = 30) or placebo (EX+PLA, n = 30), consumed immediately after exercise and every night before sleep. A separate control group (CON, n = 36) only received usual care. At baseline and after 20 weeks, body composition (dual energy X-ray absorptiometry), muscle mass (computed tomography scan), muscle strength (1-repetition maximum strength tests), physical performance (Timed Up and Go Test, 30-second Chair Stand Test, Stair Climb Test), aerobic capacity (cardiopulmonary exercise test) and habitual dietary intake (food diary), were assessed. Data were analyzed using a two-factor repeated-measures ANOVA.
Results: Over time, muscle mass and strength increased in EX+PRO and EX+PLA and decreased in CON. Total fat mass and fat percentage increased in EX+PRO and CON, but not in EX+PLA. Physical performance did not significantly change over time in either group. Aerobic capacity was maintained in EX+PLA, while it decreased in EX+PRO and CON. Habitual protein intake (without supplements) averaged >1.0 g·kg body weight-1·day-1, with no differences over time or between groups.
Conclusions: In prostate cancer patients, resistance exercise training counteracts the adverse effects of ADT on body composition, muscle mass, muscle strength and aerobic capacity, with no additional benefits of protein supplementation.
No. 11. This is just a peak for Harper’s new study of just Bridges.
twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1621072256846950400?s=46&t=ig4wy4ZxTb223nzt6s9t9Q
These are the slides released by Harper on Bridges performance. There is an increase in performance that correlates to the training effort. And when training drops so does performance.
The IOC paid a lot of money for this.
No. 12. Meaningful competition by Jon Pike
Why ‘Meaningful Competition’ is not fair competition
6th Feb 2023
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00948705.2023.2167720
ABSTRACT
In this paper I discuss a new conception that has arrived relatively recently on the scene, in the context of the debate over the inclusion of transwomen (hereafter TW) in female sport. That conception is ‘Meaningful Competition’ (hereafter MC) – a term used by some of those who advocate for the inclusion of TW in female sport if and only if they reduce their testosterone levels. I will argue that MC is not fair. I understand MC as a substitute concept, as an attempt to substitute for the perfectly serviceable concept of fair competition. It is an attempt at conceptual engineering that should be resisted. This is important because some International Federations have accepted MC as good coin, and the underlying theory of MC, which I explicate for the first time, underpins the stance taken by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) in its Framework Document. To establish that the inclusion of TW in female sport meets the criteria of MC in the sense I explicate here, does not show that the inclusion of TW in female sport is fair. Such inclusion is not fair, and the proper currency of sport is fair competition. ‘Meaningful Competition’, on the other hand, is a snare and a delusion.