Olympic athletes live much longer than ‘average Joes’ – but elite AFL and rugby union players don’t
- Written by Reidar P. Lystad, Research Fellow, Macquarie University
You would assume athletes who dedicate their lives to keeping fit and healthy would generally live longer lives.
Elite athletes are expected to live longer because[1] people who are fit are less likely to die from cardiovascular disease (heart attacks and strokes) and cancer.
Unfortunately, our new research suggests this does not appear to hold true for male elite Australian football and rugby union players.
What we discovered
Our research[2] examined survival and longevity in three groups of male elite Australian athletes: Australian Football League (AFL) players, rugby union national team players (the Wallabies), and summer Olympic athletes in cardio sports without high risk of head injury such as rowing, swimming and triathlon.
Before we dive in, a couple of definitions: survival[3] is state of continuing to live, while longevity[4] is the ability to live a long life beyond the average lifespan of people in the general population.
In our study, Olympians outlived the general population by 3.4 years. In contrast, neither AFL players nor the Wallabies lived significantly longer than the general population.
On average, AFL players lived almost four months longer, while the Wallabies lived about eight months less than the general population.
We also compared athletes who debuted before and after January 1, 1970 to see if survival had improved over time.
As expected, the younger generation had better survival than the older generation. But there were similar improvements in survival in the general population too.
In other words, there were no significant improvements in athlete survival relative to the general population.
These findings are surprising given dozens of previous studies featuring half a million elite athletes[5] indicate elite sportspeople typically outlive the general population by four to seven years.
Comparisions with previous research
Our findings on the Wallabies are consistent with previous studies on elite rugby union players from Scotland[6] and New Zealand[7].
But our findings on AFL players appear to be at odds with a previous study[8], which concluded AFL players had lower death rates than the general population.
Differences in study methods are likely behind the different findings. The most important being the player inclusion criteria.
We included all players who debuted from 1921 onward, while the previous study included players who debuted at any time, but excluded players who died before 1970.
In other words, the previous study preferentially excluded older generation players who died young. It also preferentially included older generation players who lived until old age.
That would bias the previous study’s findings towards better survival and longevity.
Why don’t elite AFL and rugby players live longer?
The survival benefit (how long athletes outlive the general population) varies across sports.
Athletes in non-cardio sports (such as weightlifting and discus throwing) do not enjoy the same survival benefit[9] as athletes in cardio sports (such as running and swimming).
But the survival benefit also varies between different cardio sports, which suggests there are additional determinants of longevity among elite athletes.
Determinants include characteristics of the sports (whether there is a risk of head trauma[10]), and features related to the type of person who plays these sports (such as someone’s socioeconomic status).
Unfortunately, we did not have access to information about cause of death or potential determinants of longevity in our study.
But we can find some clues from previous studies on professional soccer[11] and rugby[12] players from overseas.
These studies found these athletes had about 10%-40% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory disease (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease[13]), which is consistent with the idea that increased fitness delivers survival benefits.
However, the studies also found these athletes had about 140-250% higher risk of death from neurodegenerative disease[14] (like dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and motor neurone disease).
The bottom line appears to be the survival benefit gained from increased fitness is offset by an increased risk of neurodegenerative disease.
Read more: A year on from the Senate inquiry into concussion, what's changed and what comes next?[15]
We do not know if this explanation holds true for AFL players and the Wallabies, but further research could find out by linking athlete data to government death registration data.
This type of research can be costly and time consuming and regrettably, we were unable to secure the required funding for it this time around.
An opportunity cost?
Regardless of underlying reasons, the fact AFL players and the Wallabies do not greatly outlive the general population is a cause for concern.
It suggests there is an opportunity cost[16] for these athletes.
In other words, by participating in Australian football and rugby union at the elite level, they have foregone the benefit of participating in sports in which athletes outlive the general population by four to seven years.
From a population health perspective, we ought to take into account this opportunity cost when promoting participation in sport.
References
- ^ because (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ Our research (doi.org)
- ^ survival (www.merriam-webster.com)
- ^ longevity (www.age.mpg.de)
- ^ previous studies featuring half a million elite athletes (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ Scotland (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ New Zealand (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ previous study (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ do not enjoy the same survival benefit (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ head trauma (theconversation.com)
- ^ soccer (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ rugby (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- ^ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (www.who.int)
- ^ neurodegenerative disease (theconversation.com)
- ^ A year on from the Senate inquiry into concussion, what's changed and what comes next? (theconversation.com)
- ^ opportunity cost (www.linkedin.com)
