CU investigation finds body composition testing negatively impacted a "significant number" of athletes but Wetmore keeps his job

LetsRun.com wrote:

RW wrote:

In the athletic department’s summary of the findings, officials announced that while sum-of-seven testing will resume at the university, they’ll enact enhanced policies to increase support for athletes.
The updated guidelines specify that, among other safeguards, athletes must meet with a team physician and mental health professional before opting into testing, and that any deemed high-risk won’t be permitted to opt in. Those who do undergo testing will undergo regular check-ins with mental health practitioners and physicians. Students from certain sports, including the men’s and women’s cross-country and women’s track and field programs, won’t be allowed to undergo testing in their first year post-high school. Coaches won’t have access to body composition, weight, or similar data, and an annual review of the testing program will be conducted by “academic and medical professionals with strong research backgrounds."

rojo wrote:

I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.

A few other thoughts.

1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?

I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”

I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.

If

rojo wrote:

I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.

A few other thoughts.

1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?

I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”

I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.

If someone isn't thin despite training hard then they likely aren't cut out for elite distance no matter what they try to do with their diet just in the same way that if I can't keep 280 pounds on m y frame, I'm not going to cut it as D1 offensive lineman no matter what I do.
Nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches.

2) I'm stunned by the guts of the dietician. She openly admitted, she “practices performance nutrition within a Division 1 school with high-performing teams, not an eating disorder clinic.”

The dietician telling the lineman to eat 8,000 calories a day to way 330 doesn't apologize, so why should she?

3) It's said to me that according to Runner's World nearly "nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches."

Half the female athletes don't trust the coaches? That's not good. Period.

Wise Old Man wrote:

rojo wrote:

I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.

A few other thoughts.

1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?

I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”

I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.

If someone isn't thin despite training hard then they likely aren't cut out for elite distance no matter what they try to do with their diet just in the same way that if I can't keep 280 pounds on m y frame, I'm not going to cut it as D1 offensive lineman no matter what I do.
Nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches.

2) I'm stunned by the guts of the dietician. She openly admitted, she “practices performance nutrition within a Division 1 school with high-performing teams, not an eating disorder clinic.”

The dietician telling the lineman to eat 8,000 calories a day to way 330 doesn't apologize, so why should she?

3) It's said to me that according to Runner's World nearly "nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches."

Half the female athletes don't trust the coaches? That's not good. Period.

If the 45 athletes interviewed were a representative sample (not just a collection of those who had complained) and nearly half of them reported negative experiences or did not trust the coaches, it strikes me as a very damning outcome and that Whetmore and Burroughs got off easy. Robert, do you think half of the athletes you coached would say the same about you? I hope not. If this was not a representative sample, then these negative results are meaningless.

LetsRun.com wrote:

The full 82-page report is out but Wetmore and Burroughs and the dietician keep their job.

Here is a lengthy RW article recapping it.

Link:www.runnersworld.com/news/a44272887/co...

Here is the 82 page report.

Link:hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/cu-bou...

Moving forward, teams still can do "sum-of-seven" testing but there will be limitations.

RW wrote:

In the athletic department’s summary of the findings, officials announced that while sum-of-seven testing will resume at the university, they’ll enact enhanced policies to increase support for athletes.
The updated guidelines specify that, among other safeguards, athletes must meet with a team physician and mental health professional before opting into testing, and that any deemed high-risk won’t be permitted to opt in. Those who do undergo testing will undergo regular check-ins with mental health practitioners and physicians. Students from certain sports, including the men’s and women’s cross-country and women’s track and field programs, won’t be allowed to undergo testing in their first year post-high school. Coaches won’t have access to body composition, weight, or similar data, and an annual review of the testing program will be conducted by “academic and medical professionals with strong research backgrounds."

load of ship wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

The full 82-page report is out but Wetmore and Burroughs and the dietician keep their job.

Here is a lengthy RW article recapping it.

Link:www.runnersworld.com/news/a44272887/co...

Here is the 82 page report.

Link:hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/cu-bou...

Moving forward, teams still can do "sum-of-seven" testing but there will be limitations.

The runnersworld staff is clearly against Wetmore but even their spin can't make this look bad. Take this segment:

While many men and some women on the team reported positive experiences with the testing, a “significant number” of athletes—including about half of the women who participated in the inquiry—reported negative effects, the investigators concluded. For example, one athlete said they “starved themselves a bit” due to the visits, and two others said they had existing eating disorders that were worsened by testing.

For a news establishment trying to harm CU, "about half" might mean 10-12 of the 28 women. Then they highlight the two most damning statements they can find - which aren't damning at all. "starved a bit" and people with pre-existing eating disorders. NOTHINGBURGER.

Wise Old Man wrote:

rojo wrote:

I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.

A few other thoughts.

1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?

I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”

I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.

If someone isn't thin despite training hard then they likely aren't cut out for elite distance no matter what they try to do with their diet just in the same way that if I can't keep 280 pounds on m y frame, I'm not going to cut it as D1 offensive lineman no matter what I do.
Nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches.

2) I'm stunned by the guts of the dietician. She openly admitted, she “practices performance nutrition within a Division 1 school with high-performing teams, not an eating disorder clinic.”

The dietician telling the lineman to eat 8,000 calories a day to way 330 doesn't apologize, so why should she?

3) It's said to me that according to Runner's World nearly "nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches."

Half the female athletes don't trust the coaches? That's not good. Period.

If the 45 athletes interviewed were a representative sample (not just a collection of those who had complained) and nearly half of them reported negative experiences or did not trust the coaches, it strikes me as a very damning outcome and that Whetmore and Burroughs got off easy. Robert, do you think half of the athletes you coached would say the same about you? I hope not. If this was not a representative sample, then these negative results are meaningless.

LetsRun.com wrote:

The full 82-page report is out but Wetmore and Burroughs and the dietician keep their job.

Here is a lengthy RW article recapping it.

Link:www.runnersworld.com/news/a44272887/co...

Here is the 82 page report.

Link:hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/files/cu-bou...

Moving forward, teams still can do "sum-of-seven" testing but there will be limitations.

RW wrote:

In the athletic department’s summary of the findings, officials announced that while sum-of-seven testing will resume at the university, they’ll enact enhanced policies to increase support for athletes.
The updated guidelines specify that, among other safeguards, athletes must meet with a team physician and mental health professional before opting into testing, and that any deemed high-risk won’t be permitted to opt in. Those who do undergo testing will undergo regular check-ins with mental health practitioners and physicians. Students from certain sports, including the men’s and women’s cross-country and women’s track and field programs, won’t be allowed to undergo testing in their first year post-high school. Coaches won’t have access to body composition, weight, or similar data, and an annual review of the testing program will be conducted by “academic and medical professionals with strong research backgrounds."

rojo wrote:

I'm pleased the administration didn't cave and fire the coaches. This is the right outcome. People need to be allowed to make mistakes and improve, not just be canned.

A few other thoughts.

1) Is Wetmore and Burroughs' focus on "body composition" totally not needed?

I was surprised they wrote this to the team, "We believe that optimal body composition is second only to serious training in relevance to your racing results.”

I've long said that of course weight is important to distance running but in my mind weight loss in incredibly highly correlated and the natural result of "serious training." It seems to me if people are fit, they will naturally be lean enough to compete if they were meant to be an elite distance runner. Why not just focus on the training? I think the nutrition / diet stuff is vastly overrated. Unless they are eating like a complete moron, so much of it is training/genetics.

If someone isn't thin despite training hard then they likely aren't cut out for elite distance no matter what they try to do with their diet just in the same way that if I can't keep 280 pounds on m y frame, I'm not going to cut it as D1 offensive lineman no matter what I do.
Nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches.

2) I'm stunned by the guts of the dietician. She openly admitted, she “practices performance nutrition within a Division 1 school with high-performing teams, not an eating disorder clinic.”

The dietician telling the lineman to eat 8,000 calories a day to way 330 doesn't apologize, so why should she?

3) It's said to me that according to Runner's World nearly "nearly half of the women involved in the inquiry reported negative experiences with Wetmore and Burroughs and about the same number said they did not trust the coaches."

Half the female athletes don't trust the coaches? That's not good. Period.