On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:54:09 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
What do you guys think of the writings of Leonard Zinn, such as this
article:

I take Lennard with a large grain of salt. I've seen him get enough
stuff about bikes wrong over the years, although it's also been at least
15 years since I've read any of his articles. I would use a larger
grain of salt when it comes to Lennard writing about medical stuff. I
work in health care and see time and time again that non-medical writers
screw up interpretation of studies and publish inaccurate information
more often than they get it right.

http://www.velonews.com/2016/01/bike...-issues_393197

concerning cyclists who have heart attacks later in life due to having
an enlarged heart?

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that people who engage in regular
aerobic exercise have fewer heart attacks and that, when they do, they
are likelier to have a better outcome. People who exercise regularly
also tend to maintain cognitive functioning better longer, are at
soemwhat lower risk for all forms of dementia and if they do develop it
tend to do so later in life.

The problem with atributing things like ventricular hypertrophy, etc.,
to activities like cycling is that those things also develop in people
who don't evercise. Would the person have gotten those problems even if
they didn't ride bike?

Do some people have a genetic predisposition to the condition?

Maybe. But not necessarily. There are lots of other causes of heart
problems. Hyperthyoidism, for example, can cause atrial fibrillation.

The athletes who do develop cardiac problems from exercise are more than
likely those on Olympic-caliber training regimens. This is a level of
training that exceeds what almost anyone who has a day job can manage.
Even most Cat 1s don't come near that level of training. Or they are
people who already have a genetic or congenital risk factor and probably
would have developed those heart problems if they did no exercise.