Latest / Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast. / The Athletic Gene

Transcript

The Athletic Gene · Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast.

0:00
Right, imagine this for a second. Albert Pujols,
0:02
you know, maybe the greatest hitter of his generation.
0:05
Absolutely dominant, yes, a real force. Steps
0:07
up to the plate, everyone's bracing for a home
0:09
run, but then the pitcher, Jenny Finch, she's
0:13
throwing underhand softball style. Ah, completely
0:16
different discipline, different mechanics, different
0:18
visual cues. And Pujols just, well he swings
0:21
and misses, strikes out, it actually happened.
0:24
It did. It's a brilliant example, isn't it? Really
0:28
highlights how specific skills are. Or here's
0:30
another thought, elite athletes, right? We hear
0:33
about the 10 ,000 hours. But what if some reach
0:35
the top with, say, only 600 hours of practice?
0:39
That's another key piece of the puzzle, definitely.
0:41
It challenges that whole narrative. Welcome to
0:43
the deep dive. This is where we take stacks of
0:46
sources, research papers, articles, expert insights,
0:49
and really get stuck in pulling out the surprising
0:51
facts and hopefully some genuinely valuable understanding
0:54
for you. Giving you that shortcut to being really
0:56
well informed on complex topics. Exactly, and
1:00
today we are diving into one of the biggest questions
1:03
in sport, aren't we? What actually makes an extraordinary
1:06
athlete? Is it sheer hard graft? Hours and hours
1:10
on the training ground? Or is it more about winning
1:13
the genetic lottery? Having the right body from
1:15
the start? Or maybe it's some complicated mix
1:18
of both? That's what we're aiming to unpack today.
1:20
Peeling back those layers. And joining me to
1:23
guide us through this really fascinating, sometimes
1:25
confusing world of sports science is Professor
1:28
Mo Imam. He's brilliant at pulling together information
1:32
from different fields and helping us see the
1:34
connections. Thank you. It's great to be here.
1:36
This topic is just full of assumptions, isn't
1:38
it? And I think some of the research we'll look
1:40
at today might, well, it might surprise a few
1:43
people. It certainly challenges some common ideas.
1:45
I'm already intrigued. OK, let's set the stage.
1:48
We've got three big questions we want to tackle
1:50
to frame this deep dive. First up, that 10 ,000
1:53
hour rule. It feels like it's become gospel,
1:56
hasn't it? In music, business, everywhere. It
1:59
really has, yes. But is it truly the universal
2:02
blueprint for becoming an elite athlete? Or are
2:05
we perhaps missing something crucial? Are there
2:08
other factors just as important, maybe more so?
2:11
That's the first big one. OK, second. Beyond
2:13
just the hours you put in, how much does your
2:16
actual body, the hardware you're born with, your
2:18
biology, how much does that set your athletic
2:21
ceiling? Do sports genes really exist in the
2:25
way people often talk about them? And how big
2:28
a role do they play? Exactly. How significant
2:30
are they really? And third, we often see certain
2:33
groups, maybe from specific countries or regions,
2:36
dominating particular sports, sprinters from
2:38
one place, marathon runners from another. Yes,
2:41
those clusters of talent. Is that purely down
2:43
to opportunity, better coaching, facilities,
2:46
maybe just cultural emphasis? Or is there a deeper
2:49
story there, something linked to, well, ancestry
2:52
and maybe even evolution? These are absolutely
2:54
the core questions. And you're right, the simple
2:57
nature versus nurture framing just doesn't cut
2:59
it. It's far more intricate. So we'll be looking
3:02
at how practice really shapes perception, how
3:04
the physical gifts matter. Definitely. And how
3:07
environment and genetics weave together in these
3:09
really interesting ways across the globe. Sounds
3:11
brilliant. Right. Let's start by taking apart
3:13
this practice principle and specifically that
3:16
10 ,000 hour rule. It's everywhere. It feels
3:18
like a guarantee sometimes. Where did it actually
3:21
originate? Well, the idea really gained traction
3:24
from the work of a Swedish psychologist, K Anders
3:26
Ericsson, back in the early 90s. He did this
3:29
now famous study on violinists at a top music
3:33
academy in Berlin. Ah, yes, the violinist study.
3:36
Exactly. He found that the very best violinists,
3:39
the ones considered elite, had averaged about,
3:41
oh, 7 ,410 hours of solitary practice by the
3:45
time they were 18. Right. And by age 20, that
3:47
number was typically hitting or passing 10 ,000
3:50
hours. So the conclusion drawn was, well, it
3:52
looked like a straight line. More hours equals
3:54
better performance. Practice seemed to be the
3:57
direct cause of what people often called innate
3:59
talent. Okay, so it looked pretty clear -cut
4:01
in that study. Practice makes perfect. Literally.
4:04
Erickson then sort of extrapolated from that,
4:06
suggesting this wasn't just about violins, but
4:09
applied across loads of fields. Chess, music,
4:13
even sports, citing some early work on how experts
4:16
see things differently. It's a very compelling,
4:19
almost democratic idea, isn't it? Just put in
4:21
the hours and you can get there. But you mentioned
4:24
there were critiques of how that research was
4:27
done. What was the issue? Yes, and it's a really
4:30
important critique. The main problem is that
4:32
these were mostly cross -sectional and retrospective
4:35
studies. Meaning? Meaning they looked at people
4:38
after they'd already become successful, after
4:40
they got into the top music academy. Okay, so
4:43
they only studied the winners. Effectively precisely
4:46
by only looking at the elite group the method
4:48
couldn't really account for all the people who
4:50
might have practiced just as hard Maybe even
4:52
harder but never made it to that top level or
4:55
those who got there much faster with fewer hours
4:57
Exactly. It's a bit like studying lottery winners
5:00
and concluding that buying tickets is the only
5:03
thing that matters for getting rich You're ignoring
5:05
everyone who bought tickets and didn't win It
5:09
showed a correlation in a select group not necessarily
5:12
a universal rule of cause and effect That makes
5:15
a lot of sense. You're looking backwards at a
5:16
pre -selected group. So what about tracking people
5:20
forwards, longitudinal studies? That sounds like
5:23
the way to really test it. It absolutely would
5:25
be the gold standard. You're right. But it's
5:27
incredibly difficult to do properly. Think about
5:30
someone like Dan McLaughlin. The guy who quit
5:32
his job to play golf, aiming for 10 ,000 hours.
5:35
That's the one. His story is fascinating, shows
5:38
incredible dedication. But imagine trying to
5:41
recruit hundreds of people. Get them to commit
5:44
years to practicing something new. Track every
5:47
single hour accurately. Logistically, it sounds
5:49
like a nightmare. And ethically tricky, too,
5:51
maybe. It is. So most research still ends up
5:54
relying on people remembering how much they practiced,
5:57
which, you know, can be a bit unreliable. Biases
6:00
creep in. OK, so given those challenges, what
6:02
does other evidence tell us? Does the 10 ,000
6:05
-hour rule actually hold up when you look across
6:07
different sports or more closely at the data?
6:10
Well, not really, no. Not as a universal law.
6:13
The evidence against it being a magic number
6:15
is pretty strong. Take chess, for instance. OK.
6:18
There's documented evidence of one player reaching
6:20
master level in only 3 ,000 hours. But another
6:23
player needed 23 ,000 hours to get to the exact
6:26
same level. Wow, that's nearly an eightfold difference.
6:29
Exactly. And perhaps even more telling, some
6:32
players put in over 25 ,000 hours and never reached
6:35
master level. So hours alone clearly aren't the
6:38
whole story. Right. It's not just quantity. And
6:40
in other sports. Yeah. Research suggests elite
6:43
status in things like basketball, field hockey,
6:46
wrestling. It often averages closer to 4 ,000
6:49
to 6 ,000 hours. Much less than 10 ,000. Considerably
6:51
less. And then you have cases like Vicki Wilson,
6:54
the Australian netball star. Truly exceptional
6:57
player. She made the national team with only
6:59
about 600 hours of formal practice. 600? That's
7:03
astonishing. It is. It really drives home the
7:05
point that 10 ,000 hours isn't always necessary,
7:08
nor is it always enough. Practice is vital, absolutely,
7:13
but how effective that practice is seems to vary
7:15
hugely between individuals. OK, so it's not just
7:19
the sheer volume of hours. What about those moments
7:22
in sport that feel like pure instinct? You know,
7:25
lightning reflexes, incredible anticipation.
7:27
Is that learned through practice too, or is that
7:30
something innate? Ah, that's a great question.
7:33
And it leads us to this idea of learned perceptual
7:36
expertise. It's crucial. What looks like raw
7:39
speed or instinct is often actually a highly
7:41
developmental library. A library of patterns.
7:44
Exactly. Built up through thousands of hours
7:46
of practice. Think back to Jenny Finch striking
7:48
out Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds. Right. Two
7:51
of the best ever. They weren't baffled because
7:53
she threw incredibly fast like a baseball pitcher.
7:56
They were baffled because their brains had no
7:58
database for underhand softball pitches. The
8:01
spin, the trajectory, the pitcher's movements.
8:04
It was all alien. So they couldn't predict it.
8:06
They were just reacting at the last second. Precisely.
8:09
Their fundamental reaction speed, you know, hitting
8:11
a button when a light flashes, is probably no
8:13
different to yours or mine. Around 200 milliseconds?
8:16
That's pretty standard for humans. So it's not
8:19
about physically reacting faster in that basic
8:21
sense. It's about seeing more. processing faster,
8:25
seeing the future almost. That's a brilliant
8:27
way to put it. Researchers like Janet Starks
8:29
did some fascinating work on this. She showed
8:31
that elite athletes don't have faster simple
8:34
reaction times. OK. But if you flash them a picture
8:38
of a game situation for just 16 milliseconds,
8:42
literally a blink and you miss it flash that
8:44
a novice wouldn't register properly. 16 milliseconds.
8:47
That's incredibly brief. It is. Yet top volleyball
8:50
players, for instance. could look at that flash
8:52
and extract crucial information. They could understand
8:55
the play, figure out roughly when and where the
8:58
photo was taken. A novice just sees, well, nothing
9:01
meaningful. It's like a chess grandmaster seeing
9:03
a position for five seconds and understanding
9:06
vastly more than a decent club player does in
9:08
15 minutes. It's all down to that learned database
9:11
of patterns and situations. This sophisticated
9:15
software is built by deliberate practice. That
9:18
chess analogy really clicks. Practice isn't just
9:21
repetition. It's building this incredibly complex
9:24
internal library. But you can have the best software,
9:27
can't you? But if the computer itself, the hardware,
9:30
isn't up to the job. Exactly. The software won't
9:32
run properly, or maybe not at all. Which brings
9:35
us neatly to the other side of the coin. The
9:38
unavoidable reality of our innate physical hardware.
9:41
our biology. How much does that dictate what's
9:43
possible for us athletically, our ceiling? This
9:46
is where we have to move beyond just talking
9:48
about practice. That learned skill operates on
9:51
a physical foundation. And some foundations are
9:53
just better suited for certain tasks. Vision,
9:55
for example, hugely important, often underestimated.
9:58
Really? Vision specifically? Absolutely. Louis
10:02
Rosenbaum did a meticulous study on the LA Dodgers
10:04
baseball team. He found their average visual
10:07
acuity was about 2013. that's significantly sharper
10:11
than standard 2020 vision. Better than perfect
10:14
vision, in a sense. Yes, and even more revealing,
10:17
the major league players consistently tested
10:19
better than the minor league players. Okay, suggesting
10:21
a link to performance level. Definitely. The
10:24
most famous story is probably Mike Piazza, the
10:26
Hall of Fame catcher. He was drafted incredibly
10:29
late, something like... the 13th, 390th pick.
10:33
Wow. Why so late if he was that good? Well, he
10:35
was apparently picked almost entirely based on
10:37
Rosenbaum's vision data. Someone saw those exceptional
10:40
visual scores and took a massive gamble and it
10:43
paid off spectacularly. So it's not just about
10:45
seeing clearly in general, it's about specific
10:48
visual skills needed for a sport. Exactly that.
10:51
Yeah. The U .S. Olympic softball team, for example,
10:53
they tested with an average acuity of 2011, even
10:56
sharper, plus outstanding depth perception and
10:59
contrast sensitivity. all vital for tracking
11:01
a small fastball. But archers, they need amazing
11:06
static visual acuity for hitting a still target,
11:09
but maybe not the same level of depth perception.
11:13
Fensers, on the other hand, need brilliant depth
11:15
perception for those quick, close -range judgments.
11:18
Different demands, different visual strengths.
11:21
Precisely. Even picking up the spin on a ball,
11:23
like seeing the red scenes on a baseball that
11:25
relies on sharp vision. Your amazing mental software
11:29
needs top -notch hardware, like clear vision,
11:32
to get the information it needs early enough
11:34
to work effectively. Makes sense. Beyond vision,
11:38
what other physical hardware traits are really
11:40
significant things we might not think about immediately?
11:43
Well, subtle biomechanics can make a huge difference.
11:45
Take the Achilles tendon. The one connecting
11:47
the calf to the heel. That's the one. Stefan
11:49
Holm, the Swedish Olympic high jumper, quite
11:52
short for a high jumper, actually was incredibly
11:54
successful. Partly because his intense training
11:56
had made his Achilles tendon unbelievably stiff.
12:01
In this context, yes. It meant it acted like
12:04
an incredibly powerful spring. Took enormous
12:07
force to stretch it even slightly. Now contrast
12:10
him with Donald Thomas, another high jumper from
12:12
the Bahamas. Thomas had a naturally very long
12:16
Achilles tendon. over 10 inches. That length
12:19
inherently gave him a massive capacity for storing
12:22
and releasing elastic energy when he jumped.
12:25
So one trained for stiffness, one had natural
12:28
length, but both got a powerful spring effect.
12:31
Exactly. It's called the stretch shortening cycle.
12:33
Think of a kangaroo bouncing exhaust. They use
12:36
their long elastic tendons to store and release
12:39
energy very efficiently. A longer or stiffer
12:41
tendon can store more energy and release it more
12:44
explosively. It's a critical mechanical advantage
12:47
whether you build it through training like home
12:48
or you're born with it like Thomas. built in
12:51
or built up. Fascinating. What about muscle fibers?
12:54
Fast twitch, slow twitch, we hear those terms
12:56
a lot. How much is that down to genetics? Muscle
12:58
fiber type is a really fundamental piece of innate
13:01
hardware. It heavily influences whether you're
13:03
built more for power or endurance. You basically
13:05
got fast twitch fibers, type two. Explosive ones.
13:09
Yes. Powerful, but they tire relatively quickly.
13:12
They grow well with weight training. Then you
13:14
have slow twitch, type I. Their endurance fibers
13:17
generate less force, but keep going for ages.
13:20
And most people have a mix. Most people have
13:22
a mix, yes. But elite athletes often have a distribution
13:26
heavily skewed towards what their sport demands.
13:28
Elite sprinters might have 75 % or more fast
13:31
twitch fibers and key muscles. For that explosive
13:34
start. Exactly. Whereas top marathon runners,
13:37
like Frank Shorter was found to have, might have
13:39
80 % slow twitch fibers. Perfect for endurance.
13:42
Okay, so you're born with a certain distribution.
13:45
Can training change your fiber type? Can you
13:48
turn slow twitch into fast twitch if you train
13:50
for power? Ah, well this is what some people
13:52
find a bit disappointing actually. The research
13:55
overwhelmingly says no, not really. Except in
13:58
very extreme unusual circumstances like after
14:01
a major spinal cord injury, you can't fundamentally
14:04
change a slow twitch fiber into a fast twitch
14:06
one or vice versa. So you're largely stuck with
14:08
the ratio you've got. Pretty much. Training can
14:12
definitely make your fast twitch fibers more
14:14
resistant to fatigue or make your slow twitch
14:16
fibers stronger. You can optimize what you have,
14:19
but you can't change their basic type. And that
14:22
has real implications for training, presumably.
14:25
Huge implications. There was a Danish physiologist,
14:28
Jesper Andersen. He noticed that many of Denmark's
14:31
naturally fastest young football players were
14:33
actually dropping out due to chronic injuries.
14:36
Why was that? Because, paradoxically, The standard
14:40
intensive training programs weren't suited to
14:42
their fast twitch physiology. They were getting
14:44
injured. So coaches ended up, perhaps unintentionally,
14:49
favoring the slightly slower players who were
14:51
less injury prone on those programs. A real mismatch
14:54
between innate ability and training approach.
14:58
Wow. So you need to train the athlete you have,
15:00
not the athlete you wish you had. What about
15:02
muscle growth itself? Are some people just genetically
15:04
programmed to build muscle more easily? Absolutely.
15:07
There's strong evidence for that. The most extreme
15:09
example, though rare, is the German superbaby
15:12
case. I think I've heard of this. A boy born
15:14
with visibly double the normal muscle mass. Turned
15:18
out he had mutations on both copies of his myostatin
15:20
gene. Myostatin, that's the gene that limits
15:23
muscle growth. Exactly, it acts like a break.
15:25
He basically had no break, so his muscles just
15:27
kept growing. Interestingly, his mother was a
15:30
professional sprinter, and she had one copy of
15:32
the mutant gene. Suggests a genetic link to enhanced
15:36
muscle. And we see this in animals too. We do.
15:39
Belgian blue and Piedmontese cattle are famous
15:41
for this double -muscling due to natural myostatin
15:44
mutations. Certain whippets have a mutation that
15:47
makes them much more muscular and faster racers.
15:49
Right, faster dogs. Even in racehorses. Thoroughbreds
15:52
with a specific version of the myostatin gene,
15:54
the C version, tend to be better sprinters and
15:57
earn more money. Less myostatin, more muscle,
15:59
more speed. So genetics clearly plays a role
16:03
in baseline muscle potential. But what about
16:05
how people respond to training? If two people
16:08
do the exact same workout, do they get the same
16:11
results? Not even close, usually. And this is
16:14
another really crucial point that challenges
16:16
the simple effort equals outcome idea. The Heritage
16:19
Family study was massive for showing this. What
16:22
did they do? They took thousands of people who
16:24
didn't exercise much, put them all in the exact
16:27
same standardized aerobic exercise program. And
16:30
the results? All over the place. Some people
16:32
saw virtually zero improvement in their aerobic
16:35
capacity. Others improved by over 50 % from the
16:38
same training. 50 % difference. That's huge.
16:41
It's massive. Clearly, some people were high
16:44
responders to that training and others were low
16:46
responders. It strongly suggests that how much
16:49
benefit you get from exercise your trainability
16:51
has a significant genetic component. And does
16:54
this apply to strength training, too? It does.
16:56
A study at the University of Alabama Birmingham
16:58
put people on identical weightlifting programs.
17:01
Again, huge variation. Some saw basically no
17:04
muscle fiber growth. Others saw a 25 % increase.
17:08
And then there were extreme responders who saw
17:10
a 50 % increase in muscle fiber size. Wow. What
17:13
made them extreme responders? They found these
17:15
individuals had significantly more satellite
17:18
cells. These are cells crucial for muscle repair
17:21
and growth. So again, an underlying biological
17:24
difference dictating the response to the same
17:28
training stimulus. So effort is essential, but
17:31
your biology dictates how much return you get
17:33
on that effort. Exactly. Think of someone like
17:35
Jim Reid -Jone, the American runner. He apparently
17:38
started high school running as, quote, the sorriest
17:41
member of the team. Really struggled initially.
17:43
OK. But his body responded incredibly well to
17:46
the training. He improved dramatically very quickly,
17:49
becoming a state champion, then world class.
17:52
His baseline might have been low, like some of
17:53
those heritage low responders, but his trainability
17:56
was extraordinary. Not everyone, even with the
17:58
same dedication, would see that kind of transformation.
18:00
That's a really powerful illustration. The same
18:03
input doesn't guarantee the same output. Our
18:05
biology sets the parameters. Okay, let's shift
18:09
gears slightly. Let's look at how the ideal athlete's
18:12
body has changed over time and then dive into
18:15
those geographic hotspots of talent. We hear
18:17
about this big bang of body types in sports.
18:20
What does that refer to? It refers to this really
18:23
dramatic divergence in the physical shapes and
18:26
sizes of elite athletes over the last century
18:28
or so. Back in the early 20th century, maybe
18:31
around the 1920s, the thinking was that a fairly
18:34
average all -around build was best for most sports.
18:38
One size fits all, kind of? Sort of, yes. You
18:41
might look at photos from, say, 1925. An elite
18:45
volleyball player, an elite discus thrower, could
18:48
look remarkably similar in size and shape. OK.
18:51
But as sports got more professional, more competitive,
18:53
more scientific, well, you started seeing what
18:55
you could call artificial selection at play.
18:58
Bodies started becoming hyper specialized for
19:01
the specific demands of each sport. So that average
19:04
build just wasn't competitive anymore in most
19:05
elite sports. Can you give some examples of this
19:07
specialization? Oh, absolutely. The differences
19:09
now are often huge. Compare an average elite
19:11
male shot putter today to an average elite male
19:14
high jumper. The shot putter is likely about
19:16
2 .5 inches taller, but a massive 130 pounds
19:19
heavier. Oh, polar opposites almost. Pretty much.
19:22
Or look at female gymnasts. Over about 30 years,
19:26
their average height dropped from around 5 foot
19:28
3 to 4 foot 9. A smaller, lighter frame is simply
19:32
more advantageous for the incredibly complex
19:34
rotations and flips they perform. That makes
19:36
sense. Any other examples? Water polo players.
19:40
A study in Croatia found that elite players'
19:42
arm lengths were increasing five times faster
19:44
than the arm lengths in the general Croatian
19:46
population over a couple of decades. Longer arms
19:49
give a clear advantage for reaching and throwing
19:52
in the pool. The successful body types are literally
19:55
pulling away from each other. The NBA must be
19:58
a prime example of selecting for a very specific,
20:00
unusual body type. Absolutely striking. The height
20:04
difference alone is amazing. You take American
20:06
men age 20, 40 who are genuinely seven feet tall
20:09
or more. A staggering 17 % of them are currently
20:13
playing in the NBA. 17%. That's incredible. One
20:15
in six, basically. Roughly, yes. If you found
20:18
six random seven -foot American men, odds are
20:21
one plays pro basketball. But it's not just height.
20:23
It's proportions. The ideal Vitruvian man is
20:26
depicted in a square, right? Height equals arm
20:28
span. Right. Leonardo da Vinci. Well, the average
20:31
NBA player is more like a rectangle. Their average
20:33
arm span to height ratio is about 1 .063. So
20:37
their arms are over 6 % longer than they are
20:40
tall. That's a huge difference from the average
20:42
1 .1 ratio. It is. It actually approaches the
20:45
criteria for Marfan syndrome, a condition that
20:47
causes long limbs. Think of players like John
20:50
Wall listed at maybe 6 foot 3, but with a reach
20:52
over 6 foot 9. Or Chuck Hayes, 6 foot 5, but
20:56
with a 6 foot 10 wingspan. That extra length,
20:59
that innate trait, competes massively. It's like
21:01
they're built for the job. And this specialization
21:04
goes right down to the skeleton, doesn't it?
21:06
How much muscle you can carry. It does. There's
21:08
fascinating work by an exercise scientist. Kevin
21:10
Hallway, suggesting a general biological rule.
21:13
For every kilogram of bone mass, the body can
21:16
typically support a maximum of about five kilograms
21:19
of muscle. Oh, one to five ratio. Roughly. So
21:21
if an Olympic thrower has a skeleton that's just,
21:23
say, 6 .5 pounds heavier than an average man's
21:27
skeleton, that denser frame can naturally support
21:30
over 30 pounds of additional muscle mass compared
21:32
to the average person. Their skeleton dictates
21:34
their muscle potential to a large extent. And
21:36
that affects training, too. Definitely. A javelin
21:39
thrower needs explosive power, but also speed,
21:42
so they wouldn't want to carry much excess weight
21:44
beyond that optimal muscle ratio. It would slow
21:47
them down. A sumo wrestler, though, extra mass
21:51
is an advantage, so they might benefit from exceeding
21:54
that ratio. It shows, again, training has to
21:57
be tailored to the underlying structure. This
21:59
idea of matching body type to sport sounds like
22:02
talent transfer. Finding people with the right
22:05
build and putting them into a sport they might
22:07
not have considered. Does that actually work?
22:09
It works remarkably well sometimes. It really
22:12
shows how the right hardware can shortcut the
22:14
learning curve. The Australian Institute of Sport
22:17
did this brilliantly. What did they do? They
22:19
recruited athletes from surf life -saving people
22:22
with incredible power, balance, nerve, often
22:24
called beach babes, and they put them onto skeleton
22:27
sleds. Skeleton? The head -first ice track thing,
22:30
having never done it before. Exactly. Novices.
22:33
And apparently within just three runs down the
22:35
track, some of them were breaking Australian
22:37
national records. Wow. That's incredible. Shows
22:40
the power of the right physical foundation. Absolutely.
22:43
Another great example is Elisa Kaplan. She was
22:46
a top gymnast and sailor. Never even seen snow
22:49
before she switched to aerial skiing. Aerial
22:51
skiing? That looks terrifyingly complex. It is.
22:55
Requires huge spatial awareness, power, precision.
23:00
Yet she won Olympic gold. and she did it just
23:03
six weeks after breaking both her ankles. That's
23:05
just unbelievable resilience and aptitude. It
23:08
shows that if you have the right fundamental
23:11
physical attributes, the hardware gaze, you can
23:15
sometimes learn the specific skills of a new
23:17
sport astonishingly quickly and reach an elite
23:19
level. It's about getting the best all -round
23:22
athletes with the right predispositions into
23:24
the sports that suit their biology. Which kind
23:26
of pushes back against the idea that you must
23:28
specialize super early in one sport, doesn't
23:31
it? It really does. And there's growing evidence
23:33
that early specialization might not always be
23:36
the best path. In fact, it can sometimes be detrimental.
23:39
How so? It can lead to burnout, overuse injuries,
23:42
and sometimes what coaches call speed plateaus.
23:44
Athletes hit a ceiling because their early training
23:46
was too narrow. Didn't build a broad enough athletic
23:49
base. Interesting. So maybe starting broader
23:51
is better. It seems that way for many sports.
23:54
A big Danish study in 2011 found that athletes
23:57
who were near elite by age 15 had actually done
24:01
more specialized practice hours than the ones
24:03
who eventually became truly elite. Really? The
24:06
ones who made it practice less early on? In their
24:09
specific sport, yes. It was only after 15 that
24:11
the future elites really ramped up their sport
24:14
-specific training. It suggested building general
24:17
athleticism. Trying different things when younger,
24:20
what you might call late specialization, could
24:23
actually be better for long -term development
24:25
and reaching the highest level in many disciplines.
24:27
You build a more robust, adaptable athlete first.
24:30
That makes a lot of sense. OK, this brings us
24:32
nicely to that intersection of geography, ancestry,
24:36
and these talent hotspots. Like Jamaican sprinters,
24:39
their dominance is undeniable. What's the story
24:41
there? Is it genetics, environment, culture?
24:43
Ah, Jamaica. It's a classic and complex example.
24:47
There's often debate, isn't there? You have researchers
24:50
like Yanis Pitsiladis, who really emphasize the
24:53
environmental and cultural factors, and others
24:55
like Errol Morrison, who give more weight to
24:57
potential genetic predispositions. And there's
25:00
that warrior -slave theory you sometimes hear
25:02
mentioned. Yes, that theory suggests that maybe
25:05
the strongest, fittest enslaved people from West
25:08
Africa were brought to particularly harsh areas
25:11
like Jamaica's cockpit country, and perhaps their
25:14
descendants inherited genes suited for explosive
25:17
power. It's a popular idea, but well, it's quite
25:19
speculative. And genetically, Jamaicans are actually
25:22
very diverse, reflecting many different West
25:24
African origins. It's not one single genetic
25:26
group. OK, so it's likely not that simple genetically.
25:29
What are the stronger arguments then? What really
25:32
drives that conveyor belt of sprint talent? Well,
25:35
Pizzalotta's having spent a lot of time there
25:37
working with coaches points very strongly to
25:39
the environment and culture. Jamaica has this
25:42
incredible champs culture, national high school
25:45
track and field championships. I've heard it's
25:47
huge over there. It's a national obsession, like
25:50
the FA Cup final here, maybe even bigger relative
25:52
to the population size. This creates this amazing
25:55
island wide talent identification system. Almost
25:59
every kid, especially in rural areas, tries sprinting.
26:03
The coaches are incredibly knowledgeable and
26:05
spot talent early. So kids with natural speed
26:08
get noticed and channeled into track. Exactly.
26:12
Usain Bolt wanted to be a cricketer, but a sharp
26:14
coach saw his raw speed at 14 and pushed him
26:17
towards track. In other countries, a kid that
26:20
big and fast might easily end up playing rugby
26:22
or American football. In Jamaica, the system
26:25
keeps them in sprinting. So the culture acts
26:27
like a giant sieve, catching all the fast kids.
26:30
Precisely. And it ties into this idea, you know
26:33
the saying, you can't teach speed. Well, you
26:36
can definitely improve technique and conditioning
26:38
to make someone faster. It's also generally true
26:40
that kids who are naturally slow don't suddenly
26:42
become world -class sprinters as adults. Jamaica
26:45
system is just incredibly effective at finding
26:47
those naturally fast kids very young and keeping
26:50
them in the sport. OK, that makes a lot of sense.
26:52
A powerful cultural and structural advantage.
26:55
Now let's switch continents. East Africa, especially
26:57
Kenyan runners, the Kalenjin people, their dominance
27:00
in distance running feels almost mythical sometimes.
27:03
Is there a similar story there? Genetics? Environment?
27:07
Again, it looks very much like a combination
27:09
of factors working together. The statistics are
27:11
quite staggering. The Kalenjin make up only about
27:14
12 % of Kenya's population, but they account
27:17
for something like three quarters of the country's
27:19
top -distance runners. 75 % from just 12 % of
27:22
the people. Exactly. And you see similar patterns
27:24
with the Oromo in Ethiopia, the Sebi in Uganda.
27:28
There are countless stories of people who seemed,
27:30
you know, comfortably sedentary, like a runner
27:32
called Paul Rodich, who start training relatively
27:34
late and just rabidly transform into elite competitors.
27:38
An incredible natural aptitude. So is there a
27:41
specific physical advantage they possess? There
27:44
seems to be. Studies comparing Kalenjin boys
27:47
to say Danish boys, found the kalenjin on average
27:50
have significantly thinner lower legs. Maybe
27:53
15 -17 % thinner? Thinner lower legs. Why does
27:55
that matter? Think of your legs swinging like
27:57
a pendulum when you run. Less weight at the end
28:00
of the pendulum means it takes less energy to
28:02
swing it forward with every stride. It improves
28:04
running economy, how efficiently you use oxygen
28:07
at a given speed. Ah, I see. Less effort required.
28:10
Precisely. And this difference seems to exist
28:13
even in Kalanjin boys who aren't particularly
28:15
active, suggesting it might be a more inherent
28:17
morphological trait, possibly genetic. And what
28:20
about the environment? Running to school? Altitude?
28:24
Both likely play a role. Many elite East African
28:26
runners did run or walk long distances to school
28:29
as children. People like Dere Dutulu, Moses Kiptenui.
28:34
That's thousands of hours of low -intensity aerobic
28:37
work during development. But it's not universal.
28:40
Paul Turgot, Wilson Kipkitter, they mostly walked,
28:42
so it's not the only factor. Now, altitude is
28:44
fascinating and complex, too. Many train at moderate
28:47
to high altitudes. But different populations
28:49
adapt differently. Tibetans have that EPAS1 gene
28:52
variant for better blood flow without extra red
28:54
blood cells. Amhara Ethiopians seem to transfer
28:57
oxygen very rapidly at the tissue level. And
29:00
Amguns increase their hemoglobin significantly.
29:02
So different strategies for coping with thin
29:04
air. Exactly. And Oromo Ethiopians are often
29:07
altitude responders. Their hemoglobin increases
29:10
even at moderate altitudes. Plus, being born
29:13
and raised at altitude... generally leads to
29:16
larger lung volumes, which is a permanent advantage
29:18
for oxygen intake. It really sounds like a perfect
29:21
storm of potential genetic predispositions, specific
29:24
body types, environmental conditioning like altitude
29:27
and maybe childhood activity. It does seem to
29:29
be a confluence of many factors. And there was
29:31
that interesting case of the American Canyon,
29:33
wasn't there? Yes. Tell us about that. Anthony
29:36
Sandoval. He grew up at high altitude, 8000 feet
29:39
in New Mexico, walked and ran miles as a kid,
29:42
similar to some East African runners' childhoods.
29:44
A top exercise physiologist, David Martin, tested
29:48
him, was just blown away. What did he find? Described
29:50
as a physiological specimen. Long legs, big heart,
29:54
big lungs, small torso, incredibly efficient
29:57
oxygen transport. And Martin's conclusion was
30:00
famously, you know what he is, he's a Kenyan,
30:03
an American Kenyan. Wow. So similar environmental
30:06
pressures plus maybe the right innate physiology
30:10
created a similar athletic profile, despite the
30:13
different ancestry. It really suggests how powerful
30:15
that interplay between biology and environment
30:17
can be in shaping athletic potential for endurance.
30:21
This has been absolutely illuminating. It's so
30:23
clear that it's never just nature or nurture,
30:25
is it? It's this incredibly complex dance between
30:27
them. OK, let's wrap up with a few quickfire
30:30
questions to nail down some key takeaways. First
30:33
one, a parent's listening. They want to know
30:36
if their kid has potential to be fast. What's
30:38
the best, most practical genetic test they can
30:41
use right now? A stopwatch, honestly. Take them
30:44
out, let them race their friends. Direct measurement
30:46
of the actual skill or attribute is always, always
30:49
better than trying to guess from indirect genetic
30:51
information. Simple direct makes perfect sense.
30:54
OK, next. Can anyone, anyone become truly elite
30:57
if they just put in enough hours, show enough
30:59
dedication, or is there a biological limit? Realistically,
31:02
no. Not everyone can become elite. As we've seen,
31:05
tradeability varies massively. Someone might
31:08
need eight times the practice to reach the same
31:10
level as someone else. And some people, however
31:12
hard they work, their biology just might not
31:15
respond enough to get them to that absolute top
31:17
tier. Effort is crucial, but it doesn't guarantee
31:20
an elite outcome for everyone. Right, biology
31:22
sets boundaries. And final quick question, is
31:26
there one single perfect athlete gene? or maybe
31:30
perfect genetic profile that guarantees success.
31:33
Statistically speaking, absolutely not. It's
31:35
a nice idea, but the reality is far more complex.
31:39
Just looking at 23 genes linked to endurance,
31:42
the odds of someone having the ideal version
31:44
of all of them are less than one in a quadrillion.
31:47
One in a quadrillion, so basically impossible.
31:48
Pretty much, yes. Most of us, genetically speaking,
31:51
are somewhere in the muddled middle. Elite performance
31:54
arises from a very rare combination of many favorable
31:57
genes interacting, plus the right environment,
31:59
the right training, immense dedication, and those
32:02
crucial psychological factors too. This has been
32:04
so insightful. It hammers home that elite performance
32:07
is this intricate braid. Genes lay a foundation,
32:11
a predisposition. And then environment? Culture?
32:15
opportunity, and crucially, the right kind of
32:18
dedicated practice work to develop that potential.
32:20
It's never either. And that 10 ,000 -hour rule.
32:23
Clearly an oversimplification. Practice is vital,
32:26
but its effectiveness depends hugely on the individual's
32:29
biology and whether the practice itself is smart,
32:32
deliberate, and personalized. Spot on. Quantity
32:34
isn't enough. Quality and suitability matter
32:36
enormously. We've also seen how specialized bodies
32:39
are becoming increasingly key for elite success,
32:42
with things like limb length, muscle fibers,
32:44
bone structure, and sheer trainability playing
32:46
huge, often genetically influenced roles. While
32:50
geography and ancestry clearly contribute to
32:52
talent hotspots, we must remember the immense
32:55
diversity within any population group, often
32:57
more variation within than between groups. And
33:00
critically, it's not just about the physical,
33:02
those psychological traits, the drive, the pain
33:05
tolerance, that almost obsessive commitment.
33:07
Yes, the head stuff. Often with its own genetic
33:10
links, too. Think of sled dogs bred for willingness
33:13
to pull. Or ultra -runners who genuinely need
33:16
that extreme activity. It's the whole package,
33:19
mind and body. Absolutely. And the encouraging
33:22
thing is, even if becoming an Olympian isn't
33:24
the goal, everyone benefits from exercise in
33:27
their own way. Finding what works for your unique
33:30
biology is key for health, enjoyment, and getting
33:33
the most out of it. That's the real journey of
33:35
self -discovery, isn't it? It really is. If you
33:38
found this deep dive into athletic potential
33:40
useful, please do consider rating the show or
33:43
sharing it on LinkedIn or ex -formally Twitter.
33:46
It really helps others find these conversations.
33:48
And perhaps a final thought to leave with. Pursuing
33:51
athletic improvement at any level is really a
33:54
quest to find what works for your unique biology.
33:57
Taking part is a journey of discovering yourself
33:59
in ways that maybe even science can't fully map
34:02
yet. A perfect place to end. Thank you so much
34:04
for sharing your expertise today. My pleasure
34:06
entirely. Fascinating discussion. Thank you for
34:08
joining us on the Deep Dive. We'll be back soon
34:10
with another exploration.