Latest / Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast. / The Future of Sports Medicine

Transcript

The Future of Sports Medicine · Deep Dive Ortho — Orthopaedic Surgery, AI & Digital Health Podcast.

• 0:00
  Okay, let's unpack this. Today's deep dive tackles
• 0:03
  a question I think many of us grapple with. What
• 0:06
  really separates the exceptional from, well,
• 0:09
  the rest of us? Is it pure talent? You know,
• 0:12
  something you're born with? Is it just sheer
• 0:14
  hard work? Or maybe something else entirely?
• 0:17
  It's the perennial question, isn't it? Nature
• 0:19
  versus nurture, framed in achievement. Exactly.
• 0:22
  And we've pulled together quite a stack of sources
• 0:25
  today. We've got research on athletic performance,
• 0:28
  genetics, training. drawing quite a bit from
• 0:32
  things like the sports gene. Ah, yes. Good stuff
• 0:35
  there. And we're pairing that with insights from,
• 0:38
  perhaps surprisingly, orthopedic knowledge updates
• 0:40
  things, touching on human variability, complex
• 0:43
  decision -making, assessment. Which might seem
• 0:44
  worlds apart, sport, and trauma surgery, but
• 0:47
  the underlying principles. That's what we want
• 0:49
  to explore. Our mission, really, is to pull out
• 0:51
  the key nuggets on expertise and achievement
• 0:53
  using sport and medicine as these, well, fascinating
• 0:57
  case studies. Looking for those universal threads.
• 0:59
  precisely. So get ready for maybe some surprising
• 1:03
  facts, perspectives that might just make you
• 1:05
  think differently about talent and performance,
• 1:07
  even in your own work. Absolutely. It's fascinating
• 1:10
  how looking at elite sport, pushing physical
• 1:13
  boundaries and complex trauma surgery, pushing
• 1:17
  cognitive and technical limits. How they can
• 1:19
  both illuminate these core ideas about high performance.
• 1:22
  Definitely. Both involve navigating the very
• 1:25
  edge of human capability. And one idea that seems
• 1:28
  to have really, you know, taken hold in popular
• 1:31
  thinking is the 10 ,000 hours rule. Practice
• 1:34
  makes perfect, essentially. Yes. Often linked
• 1:37
  to Anders Ericsson's work on deliberate practice,
• 1:40
  it's certainly permeated the culture. But our
• 1:42
  sources, looking at them together, they seem
• 1:43
  to suggest it's maybe a bit more nuanced than
• 1:46
  just clocking up the hours. Precisely. I mean,
• 1:48
  accumulated practice is undeniably crucial. Ericsson
• 1:51
  himself, I believe, called it their real wizard
• 1:53
  behind the curtain. No one doubts its importance.
• 1:56
  But the way it's often interpreted in the media,
• 1:58
  This idea that anyone can hit expert level with
• 2:03
  10 ,000 hours and that no one gets there with
• 2:05
  less. That's a real oversimplification. Even
• 2:09
  Erickson and his co -authors, when they started
• 2:11
  incorporating genetics, initially argued the
• 2:13
  necessary genes were common to all healthy individuals,
• 2:17
  making practice history the differentiator. But
• 2:20
  the sources we're looking at, taken as a whole,
• 2:22
  they really paint a richer, more complex picture.
• 2:25
  Yeah. They show the effect of practice isn't
• 2:28
  uniform at all. So it's not just the quantity
• 2:30
  of practice, but maybe how our biology, our underlying
• 2:33
  makeup, interacts with that practice. Exactly.
• 2:36
  The sports gene source really dives into this,
• 2:38
  showing how different bodies can respond so differently
• 2:41
  to the exact same training program. How so? Give
• 2:43
  us an example. Well, think about aerobic training.
• 2:46
  There's a large -scale study called HERITAGE
• 2:48
  that stands for Human Exercise Response to Training
• 2:51
  in Heredity and Genetics. They put a diverse
• 2:53
  group of people through a standardized exercise
• 2:56
  program and tracked how much their aerobic capacity
• 2:59
  improved, basically. How well their bodies got
• 3:02
  it using oxygen. And the results. Remarkable
• 3:04
  variability. Just huge differences. You had some
• 3:07
  people, the high responders, who saw massive
• 3:09
  improvements in their fitness. Right. But then
• 3:11
  you had others, the low responders, who saw very
• 3:13
  little improvement or sometimes none at all.
• 3:15
  from the exact same training dose. Wow. So same
• 3:19
  work in, but wildly different outcomes depending
• 3:22
  on your sort of biological lottery ticket. That's
• 3:25
  the core takeaway here. An editorial commenting
• 3:28
  on similar findings, I think it was in the Journal
• 3:30
  of Applied Physiology, put it quite bluntly,
• 3:32
  it suggested that for low responders, their predetermined
• 3:36
  genetic alphabet soup just may not spell runner.
• 3:40
  Hmm, quite a statement. It points very clearly
• 3:42
  to this biological variability influencing trainability
• 3:45
  itself. You can put the hours in, absolutely,
• 3:48
  but your genetic makeup seems to profoundly influence
• 3:51
  how much your body adapts and improves from that
• 3:54
  effort. That's a really key point. It certainly
• 3:56
  challenges the simple effort equals outcome equation,
• 4:00
  doesn't it? It does. And beyond just how trainable
• 4:02
  we are, the sources also talk about specific
• 4:05
  physical traits becoming almost essential in
• 4:08
  certain sports, certain contexts or games, as
• 4:10
  the source calls them. Quite right. Professional
• 4:13
  sport has, in effect, become this huge sorting
• 4:16
  mechanism. Maybe a natural selection laboratory
• 4:19
  or perhaps artificial selection is better. Sorting
• 4:21
  for what? For specific physical attributes. Individuals
• 4:25
  with certain body types are increasingly channeled
• 4:28
  into sports where those traits give them a distinct
• 4:31
  advantage. We're seeing what the source calls
• 4:33
  extreme self -sorting. Meaning? Meaning elite
• 4:36
  body types for different sports are diverging
• 4:38
  quite rapidly, actually. Think about elite distance
• 4:41
  runners. They're tending to get shorter over
• 4:43
  time. Okay. Compare that to elite volleyball
• 4:45
  players or rowers. They're getting taller, larger.
• 4:48
  The demands of the sport are selecting for these
• 4:50
  forms. And it's not just overall size, is it?
• 4:52
  I remember reading about gymnasts. Not at all.
• 4:54
  Female gymnasts, yes, they've shrunk significantly
• 4:57
  over the last few decades. And conversely, Think
• 5:00
  about track and field. Tall women are hugely
• 5:03
  overrepresented in Olympic finals compared to
• 5:05
  shorter women. So the specific game dictates
• 5:09
  the ideal physical toolkit in a way. Seems so.
• 5:12
  It's more than just training. It's a fundamental
• 5:14
  physical difference being amplified by the competitive
• 5:17
  environment itself. There was another example
• 5:19
  cited about throwing. The difference between
• 5:21
  boys and girls, even when young. Yes, the throwing
• 5:24
  gap. It appears very early. And, intriguingly,
• 5:29
  it seems to persist even in cultures where you
• 5:31
  might expect less differentiation. The source
• 5:34
  mentioned studies in some Aboriginal Australian
• 5:36
  communities where girls were taught to throw
• 5:38
  for hunting, just like the boys. But the gap
• 5:41
  remained. The gap remained. Now, this isn't about
• 5:44
  saying one group is generally better, but about
• 5:46
  understanding specific, measurable biological
• 5:49
  differences. Like what, in this case? The source
• 5:51
  has mentioned evidence suggesting, for instance,
• 5:52
  that boys develop a slightly longer forearm in
• 5:55
  the womb. Really? Before any practice difference?
• 5:58
  Potentially yes. And that small difference could
• 6:01
  contribute to altered throwing mechanics right
• 6:03
  from the start, independent of practice or cultural
• 6:06
  nudges. Fascinating. And then you have those
• 6:08
  famous examples, populations known for dominating
• 6:11
  certain sports, like the kalenjin runners from
• 6:13
  Kenya or Jamaican sprinters. Ah, yes. Those case
• 6:17
  studies are always compelling, aren't they? They
• 6:19
  force you to look beyond just individual effort.
• 6:22
  Take the kalenjin. Incredible dominance in distance
• 6:24
  running. Astonishing. The source mentions that
• 6:27
  in just one month in 2011, 32 Kalinjin men ran
• 6:31
  a marathon faster than two hours 10 minutes.
• 6:34
  32 in one month. Compare that to I think only
• 6:37
  17 American men in history who have ever achieved
• 6:40
  that time. or consider St. Patrick's High School
• 6:43
  in Kenya, it apparently had four sub -4 -minute
• 6:45
  milers at the same time. That kind of concentration,
• 6:49
  it's hard to explain purely by training volume,
• 6:52
  even though they obviously train incredibly hard.
• 6:54
  It really makes you consider other factors, doesn't
• 6:56
  it? Genetic predispositions, unique environmental
• 6:58
  factors, cultural emphasis perhaps? It's likely
• 7:01
  a complex mix. The source mentioned the history
• 7:04
  of the Maroons in Jamaica as a possible factor
• 7:06
  for sprinting prowess. Yes, the idea linking
• 7:10
  it back to these selection pressures during slavery
• 7:12
  and the formation of the Maroon communities.
• 7:15
  One expert called it a convenient story, perhaps
• 7:18
  too neat. But the overall pattern across different
• 7:21
  sports, different populations? It is striking.
• 7:24
  It points strongly towards this complex interplay
• 7:27
  of nature, nurture, environment, culture. all
• 7:31
  tangled together. But the source was also quite
• 7:34
  conscious about the idea of finding a single
• 7:36
  athlete gene, wasn't it? That feels too simplistic.
• 7:39
  Absolutely spot on. That was maybe an early hope
• 7:41
  when genome sequencing took off. Find the gene
• 7:43
  for speed or the gene for endurance. But it's
• 7:45
  not like that. No. We now understand the biology
• 7:48
  is far more complex. Many, many genes contribute
• 7:51
  small effects to athletic traits. And importantly,
• 7:54
  different combinations of genes, different pathways,
• 7:56
  can actually lead to similar physical outcomes.
• 7:58
  OK, so no single magic bullet gene. And crucially,
• 8:02
  even within groups that might seem predisposed,
• 8:06
  there's still massive individual variation. The
• 8:09
  sword shows the example of how people respond
• 8:11
  to altitude training. Right. When exposed to
• 8:14
  altitude, some athletes see a big jump in their
• 8:16
  EPO levels. That's erythropoietin, the hormone
• 8:19
  stimulating red blood cell production. Good for
• 8:21
  oxygen transport. Which is what you want for
• 8:23
  endurance. Exactly. But other athletes exposed
• 8:26
  to the same altitude, their EPO levels actually
• 8:28
  declined. Even within potentially talented groups,
• 8:33
  there's huge biological variation in response
• 8:36
  to specific challenges like altitude. Precisely.
• 8:39
  It's described as a complex braid, nature and
• 8:41
  nurture, genes and environment all woven together.
• 8:44
  You might have the biological potential, but
• 8:46
  you absolutely still need the right environment,
• 8:48
  the coaching, the thousands of hours of focused
• 8:51
  practice to realize it. And the flip side. The
• 8:53
  flip side is you can practice incredibly diligently.
• 8:56
  But your individual biological response to that
• 8:59
  practice or your fundamental physical attributes
• 9:02
  might set a different ultimate ceiling for you
• 9:05
  in a highly specialized sport compared to someone
• 9:08
  with different inherent characteristics. It really
• 9:10
  makes you think about how we measure potential,
• 9:12
  how we predict success, not just in sports, but
• 9:16
  well, anywhere. Exactly. And that's where the
• 9:18
  parallels with our orthopedic trauma sources
• 9:21
  become really quite striking. How so? Because
• 9:23
  in trauma, you're also dealing with immense variability
• 9:26
  in patients, in injuries, in responses to treatment.
• 9:30
  And just like searching for a single athlete
• 9:31
  gene proved too simple, relying on simple metrics
• 9:34
  often falls short in complex medical situations
• 9:37
  too. Ah, OK. So in orthopedic trauma, the challenge
• 9:41
  is predicting outcomes, making critical decisions,
• 9:44
  often fast, with incomplete information. The
• 9:47
  sources mention trauma scoring systems. They
• 9:49
  do. These systems, like the Injury Severity Score,
• 9:52
  ISS, or the Revised Trauma Score, RTS, were developed
• 9:55
  with good intentions trying to objectively quantify
• 9:58
  how badly someone is hurt to guide treatment.
• 10:01
  Makes sense. And there are more specific ones,
• 10:03
  like the mangled extremity severity score or
• 10:06
  MESS -S. That was developed back in the late
• 10:09
  80s, early 90s, specifically to help surgeons
• 10:12
  decide whether to try and save a severely injured
• 10:14
  limb or if amputation was the better course.
• 10:17
  Seems like a useful tool. But you said simple
• 10:20
  metrics fall short. Well, yes. These scores provide
• 10:23
  valuable data, but relying solely on them has
• 10:26
  limitations. Research on the IMESA score, for
• 10:29
  example, found its predictive value for whether
• 10:31
  limb salvage would succeed was only around 50%.
• 10:35
  Only 50%. That's basically a coin toss. Pretty
• 10:37
  much. And perhaps more telling, another study
• 10:40
  showed that 20 % of patients who did have their
• 10:42
  limbs successfully saved had MES scores of 7
• 10:45
  or higher a level originally considered a strong
• 10:47
  indicator for amputation. So the score alone
• 10:50
  wasn't the deciding factor. Experts really cautioned
• 10:53
  against using meds as in isolation for day -to
• 10:55
  -day decisions now. Why? Because surgical techniques,
• 10:58
  critical care, our ability to manage infection
• 11:01
  and promote healing have all advanced significantly.
• 11:04
  We can now save limbs that might have been deemed
• 11:06
  unsalvageable based on those older score thresholds.
• 11:09
  So just like the 10 ,000 hours rule or the athlete
• 11:12
  gene idea is too simplistic in sport. Exactly.
• 11:15
  Relying only on an anatomical score like MSS
• 11:18
  is insufficient in complex trauma. You need much
• 11:22
  more than just the number. The score is data,
• 11:25
  but it needs interpretation within a broader
• 11:28
  context. Precisely the parallel. The expert surgeon
• 11:31
  integrates that score with countless other factors.
• 11:34
  Think about injuries to the hip socket acetabular
• 11:37
  fractures. Surgeons have tried using specific
• 11:39
  radiographic measurements, the size of bone fragments,
• 11:42
  angles, things like that, hoping to predict if
• 11:44
  the hip will be unstable after it heals. They
• 11:47
  provide some information, sure, but they've only
• 11:49
  been marginally successful as standalone predictors.
• 11:52
  Hip stability is complex. It depends on the exact
• 11:55
  fracture location, the socket's orientation,
• 11:57
  how well the ball part of the femoral head is
• 11:59
  covered, whether the hip dislocated initially.
• 12:01
  That's the variables. Exactly. So ultimately,
• 12:03
  the gold standard often involves examining the
• 12:06
  hip stability directly under anesthesia in the
• 12:09
  operating theater because no single measurement
• 12:11
  tells the whole story. You need that dynamic
• 12:13
  assessment. It sounds much less like following
• 12:16
  a formula. and much more like synthesizing diverse
• 12:20
  information streams, including real -time feedback
• 12:23
  in the OR. That's a great way to put it. And
• 12:25
  the goal isn't just fixing the bone. It's about
• 12:28
  promoting healing, restoring function long term.
• 12:31
  This brings in more biological complexity and
• 12:33
  the nuances of surgical technique. How so? Well,
• 12:36
  fracture healing isn't just about lining up the
• 12:38
  pieces perfectly, though anatomical restoration
• 12:41
  is important. It's also about choosing the right
• 12:43
  fixation. the plates, screws, rods, and applying
• 12:48
  it in a way that encourages the right type of
• 12:50
  healing for that specific fracture and that specific
• 12:53
  patient's bone quality. There are different types
• 12:55
  of healing. Broadly, yes. And new technologies
• 12:59
  in implants like locking screws or dynamic constructs
• 13:02
  give surgeons more options. They can make the
• 13:04
  fixation very rigid or allow a tiny bit of controlled
• 13:07
  movement depending on what's needed biologically
• 13:09
  at the fracture site. But the source has mentioned
• 13:11
  these advances can sometimes have downsides too.
• 13:14
  They can, yes. For instance, if you make the
• 13:17
  fixation too rigid with some modern locking plates,
• 13:21
  particularly in certain fracture types, it can
• 13:23
  sometimes paradoxically slow down or hinder the
• 13:26
  natural secondary bone healing process, which
• 13:28
  actually relies on a bit of micro -motion to
• 13:31
  stimulate the bone -forming cells. Ah, interesting.
• 13:33
  So it's not just about having the latest gadget.
• 13:35
  Not at all. It's about the surgeon's deep knowledge.
• 13:38
  understanding the biology, understanding the
• 13:41
  technology's capabilities and limitations, and
• 13:44
  choosing and executing the optimal strategy for
• 13:47
  that unique biological and mechanical situation.
• 13:50
  It's highly context dependent decision making.
• 13:53
  That sounds incredibly complex, very much like
• 13:56
  an elite athlete. adjusting their race plan based
• 13:59
  on how their body feels or what competitors are
• 14:01
  doing. It's expertise far beyond just rote procedure.
• 14:05
  Absolutely. The orthopedic sources really hammer
• 14:07
  home the importance of this complex decision
• 14:09
  making, whether it's planning for mass casualty
• 14:12
  incidents like the Boston Marathon bombing response
• 14:14
  or the Haiti earthquake, where resources are
• 14:16
  suddenly overwhelmed. Right. Extreme circumstances.
• 14:19
  or even in more routine complex cases like debating
• 14:23
  the optimal timing for fixing fractures in patients
• 14:26
  with multiple severe injuries. There are biological
• 14:28
  windows, physiological considerations. It's rarely
• 14:33
  straightforward. Even amputation was reframed,
• 14:35
  wasn't it? Yes. The source made a point of framing
• 14:38
  amputation not as a failure, but sometimes as
• 14:40
  a necessary reconstructive procedure. The goal
• 14:43
  is to create the best possible residual limb
• 14:46
  to allow for optimal function with a modern prosthesis.
• 14:49
  It's about maximizing future potential. And recent
• 14:52
  advances seem to be leaning more into understanding
• 14:55
  the biology, not just the mechanics. Precisely.
• 14:58
  Things like targeted muscle re -innovation, TMR,
• 15:01
  or targeted nerve implantation, TNI. These are
• 15:04
  fascinating surgical techniques used during or
• 15:06
  after amputation. What do they do? Essentially,
• 15:08
  they involve rerouting the severed nerves from
• 15:10
  the amputated part into nearby remaining muscles.
• 15:13
  This gives the nerves a new job, a functional
• 15:15
  purpose. And the benefit. It can significantly
• 15:17
  reduce phantom limb pain. which can be debilitating.
• 15:21
  And excitingly, it can also provide clearer signals
• 15:23
  for controlling advanced mind -controlled prosthetic
• 15:26
  limbs. Wow, that's really blending biology and
• 15:29
  technology. It is. It stems from understanding
• 15:32
  the nervous system's biological response to injury
• 15:34
  and finding clever ways to harness that response
• 15:37
  for better function. Again, it's biological insight
• 15:40
  combined with technical surgical skill. It really
• 15:42
  does highlight that interplay between the patient's
• 15:45
  complex biology and the expert's intervention
• 15:48
  and decision -making. It's definitely not just
• 15:50
  a mechanical fix. No, it's deeply systems -based.
• 15:54
  The sources on polytrauma patients with multiple
• 15:56
  severe injuries stress the need for multidisciplinary
• 16:00
  teamwork. It's driven by trauma surgery, yes,
• 16:03
  but needs constant integrated input from neurosurgery,
• 16:06
  radiology, emergency medicine, anesthesia, critical
• 16:09
  care, a whole team synthesizing information,
• 16:11
  and using biological markers to guide decisions.
• 16:14
  For example, tracking venous lactate levels,
• 16:17
  basically a measure of oxygen debt in the tissues,
• 16:20
  helps gauge the patient's overall physiological
• 16:22
  state and whether they're stable enough for major
• 16:24
  definitive surgery, a biological reading and
• 16:27
  forming a critical technical decision. It really
• 16:29
  is a systems approach, isn't it? Whether it's
• 16:31
  the athlete's body performing at its limit or
• 16:34
  the trauma patient's body responding to severe
• 16:36
  injury, they're both incredibly complex systems.
• 16:39
  And the outcome depends on so many interacting
• 16:42
  factors, way beyond simple inputs like hours
• 16:45
  practiced or fixation method or a single score.
• 16:48
  Precisely. It boils down to understanding inherent
• 16:52
  human variability. assessing performance or injury
• 16:55
  across multiple dimensions, and applying deep
• 16:58
  expert knowledge to navigate complex, often unpredictable
• 17:01
  situations. So metrics, tools, training data,
• 17:05
  genetic profiles, trauma scores, they're valuable.
• 17:08
  Incredibly valuable, yes. But they are aids to
• 17:11
  complex decision making, not replacements for
• 17:13
  it. Expert judgment integrates all these data
• 17:15
  points with a fundamental understanding of the
• 17:17
  underlying biology and mechanics. That feels
• 17:19
  like a really fundamental truth, actually. Something
• 17:21
  that cuts across high achiev - in almost any
• 17:24
  complex field. I think so. Whether you're an
• 17:26
  athlete, a surgeon, a leader, whatever, focusing
• 17:29
  just on one thing effort alone or supposed innate
• 17:33
  talent or hitting one particular metric, it just
• 17:37
  fails to capture the whole story of what leads
• 17:39
  to truly extraordinary results. So what does
• 17:42
  this all mean? Well, this deep drive into our
• 17:44
  sources today, looking at everything from athletic
• 17:47
  genetics and training science to the complexities
• 17:50
  of medical assessment and outcomes. It really
• 17:53
  reveals a crucial insight. I think which is that
• 17:55
  what makes someone truly extraordinary is Rarely
• 17:59
  if ever down to just one single factor, right?
• 18:02
  We've seen that dedicated practice is vital Absolutely
• 18:05
  essential. But the response to that practice
• 18:07
  varies enormously, influenced by our individual
• 18:10
  genetic and biological makeup. And the environment,
• 18:12
  or the game itself, shapes which traits become
• 18:15
  advantageous, like a specialized body types in
• 18:17
  sports, or how different people respond physiologically
• 18:19
  to altitude. Crucially, simplistic ideas like
• 18:22
  hunting for a single athlete gene, or relying
• 18:25
  only on the 10 ,000 hours rule, or using just
• 18:27
  one anatomical score in trauma, they just fail
• 18:30
  to capture the full complex picture. So extraordinary
• 18:33
  performance emerges from this intricate interplay
• 18:36
  of nature, nurture, and context. Exactly. So
• 18:41
  as you reflect on talent, training, performance,
• 18:44
  maybe in your own professional life, perhaps
• 18:46
  the provocative thought to leave you with is
• 18:48
  this. Go on. How can you move beyond relying
• 18:51
  on simple metrics or single explanations? How
• 18:54
  can you embrace this more nuanced, complex understanding
• 18:57
  to really unlock potential both in yourself and
• 19:00
  in others you might lead or mentor? That's a
• 19:02
  great question to ponder. It challenges us to
• 19:04
  look deeper. Indeed. And if you found this deep
• 19:06
  dive valuable today, please do consider taking
• 19:08
  a moment to rate and share the show. It really
• 19:10
  helps others find it.