Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 From: Joe Baker <9jrb=AT=qlink.queensu.ca>Subject: Sport performance is determined entirely by training To: forum=AT=sportsci.org In September there was a discussion on this list about the limits of human performance. I'd like to have a similar roundtable and get some opinions on the following topic: Sport performance and sport expertise is entirely the result of hours spent in focused, effortful training rather than innate, inheritable traits. Background: Recently in psychology a theory was presented that is predicated on the notion that expertise in any domain is the result of time spent in deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Romer, 1993). Deliberate practice activities include those forms of training that are low in enjoyment, high in physical and/or mental effort, and are focused on improving specific areas of required skills. This theory has gained a lot of momentum in the psychology and sport psychology literature and I am interested in getting responses from those in the applied science community. The studies that have been done with athletes have provided strong evidence to suggest that hours of training is the most important (if not the only) factor to predict level of physical performance. One of the most convincing factors in this research is that differences between very skilled athletes (experts) and less skilled athletes (novices or non experts) occur only in characteristics that are highly affected by training. For example, experts do not have superior visual abilities or faster reaction times. Instead, they attend to more relevant visual cues and have more efficient information structuring and processing skills. Further, studies of muscle physiology indicate that muscular adaptation is highly specific to the form and duration of the training stimuli and that these adaptations are confined to the muscle being stimulated. I realize that this is a controversial issue but I feel it is relevant to the majority of the list and good topic for discussion. I've been in contact with Will Hopkins regarding possibly writing up a paper for Sportscience based on the comments from this discussion so please provide references to back up your positions and/or statements. I look forward to your comments. Let the fireworks begin. Joe Baker School of Physical and Health Education Queen's University Kingston, ON CANADA Reference: Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Rmer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100 (3), 363-406. ------------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 15:45:07 -0500 (EST) From: Joe Baker <9jrb=AT=qlink.queensu.ca>Subject: devil's advocate - performance is result of training I have been getting some great responses to my post about training hours, innate abilities and sport performance. Unfortunately, none have been posted to the newsgroup so I thought I'd summarize and respond to some of the comments. First off, let me reiterate the presumption that I presented to the group. It was that "sport performance and sport expertise is entirely the result of hours spent in focused, effortful training rather than innate, inheritable traits." One poster wrote about the obvious height factor in numerous sports (most obviously basketball). Here the poster has hit upon the one area for which the theory of deliberate practice concedes an innate contribution. However, it states that ALL other factors that contribute to sport success are the result of training NOT genetic endowment. Another poster wrote felt that innate abilities fluctuated depending upon practice and use. This explanation seems to suggest to us that it is not an innate characteristic that fluctuates but rather the overall ability is fluctuating in response to hours of devoted training and practice. One responder used Tiger Woods as an example of someone who does not have flawless technique but rather has innate abilities that allow him to overcome technical deficits. However, Tiger Woods is the epitome of the deliberate practice ideal. He has devoted his entire life to the sport of golf since the age of three, practicing in an environment rich in necessary resources (e.g. instructors on course) and support (e.g. parents), receiving attention and extrinsic motivation necessary for continued involvement. While in college teammates and friends wondered why Tiger was once practicing one-irons shots alone in the driving wind and rain. He replied "I'm practicing for St.Andrews" the course he would not play until years later. Wayne Gretzky is a similar example from the sport of ice hockey. Both subjects support the notion of the all-importance of practice with comments and attributes stated in articles, books and interviews. A few responders brought up personal anecdotes of individuals who did not train as hard as others but yet seemed to effortlessly achieve high levels of performance. It is difficult for personal anecdotes to be accepted as proof for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it is difficult to ascertain a comprehensive profile of the quality and quantity of training an individual goes through (even for direct observers like parents or long term coaches). Our research on expert decision-makers in basketball, netball, and field hockey has indicated that you need to consider the entire gambit of training activities the athlete has ever been involved in before an explanation of their training background can even be attempted. This includes all forms of involvement from organized training to backyard play. The theory of deliberate practice is founded on long-term adaptation to training stimuli (over 10 years of involvement or over 10 000 hours). One responder stated that since he now knows that the only thing between him and a NBA contract is training, he was going to get started. It is not quite that simple. Our research shows that the development of elite sport ability is the result of an almost full time involvement from a very young age in the primary activity or an activity that is directly related to the performance domain (e.g., netball for basketball players). Further, the early years of life, as supported by research in other domains, are critical developmental periods where fundamental physical and mental abilities are shaped and formed. This key period may begin the predisposing of individuals to particular domains (whether sporting or not), and it is this notion that explains why people often misconstrue advanced or delayed development to genetic aspects. Another responder postulated that the ability to attend to visual cues and process information more efficiently might be an innate ability. This notion is not supported by the research on expert/novice differences. Differences are domain specific and for an innate ability to exist it would mean that basketballers, for example, are born with the innate ability to perceive only basketball cues more efficiently. Clearly this is highly unlikely. It makes more sense to suggest that this sort of domain specific ability is the result of thousands of hours spent in the sport domain. Cognitive ability gained through practice procedures is supported in expertise research across many domains including medicine, arts, music, physic, games and sports. The responses to the posting so far have been great. Keep the comments coming. However, try to post to the newsgroup so that the others can follow the fireworks. Joe Baker and Steve Cobley Queens University Kingston, ON CANADA -------------------------------- Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:57:27 -0500 (EST) From: Vunch=AT=aol.com Subject: Re: devil's advocate - performance is result of training I think that you need to distinguish between practice and training, and then distinguish between physical training and mental training. There are many players in all sports who are naturals but few make it, most drop the game due to frustration. Even players who are not naturals, or who start playing a sport later than 3 yo in life, can make it if they train and practice properly. The only genetic determinant is probably desire, after that social support and personal dedication probably rank one-two or two-one! For example, I like the game of racquetball which is similar to tennis and other racquet sports. Most people think that the game is won and lost by the player's relative power, but as any pro will tell you, all the players have power! So why do only a few win consistently. They train in both aspects properly, they practice regularly, and they have good social support including good coaching. Does this sound like genetics? Vunch -------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:20:20 +0100 From: Frank Conijn Subject: Re: devil's advocate - performance is result of training Dear Joe, In my view all of the following conditions have to be met to have an athlete go to the top: * Talent: although every skill can in principle be learned, it will some folks take so many years that they will be far beyond their physiological top before they actually have learned it. * Congenital physical ability: you already mentioned the height in basketball, but many more sports require a tall and/or firm body: icehockey, football/rugby, volleyball, etc. Even in tennis a tall body allows for to hit a straight and hard service, while the short players will have to incorporate a topspin to get the ball in on a regular basis (the net is just to high for them to not incorporate it), and will thus hardly be able to produce winners on the first service. * Motivation: does someone feel like spending a huge amount of his/her time on just practicing and playing, while knowing that only 0.00001% will make a real living out of it? I know I wouldn't. A subconscious drive seems necessary, or an utter - and lasting - joy and happiness found in the sport. * A social support that lasts for many years. * The auto-ability of the athlete, and/or a coach, and this is where I agree with you, that skillfully finds the weak spots, AND knows how to correct them in an effective (!!!) manner. This includes the mental attitude, cos' most athletes will have some periods of things just not going (as) well (as they are used to). Getting cramped, scared or semi-depressed or substantially loosing the motivation/joy then is clearly not the way. * And moreover: I don't have any scientific data, but I'll bet my life that the ratio between a sport being popular in a country (as in: what percentage of the population plays the sport) and the number of athletes going to the world top is striking. Regards, Frank Conijn, PT The Netherlands ------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:41:00 -0500 (EST) From: Puttmagic=AT=aol.com Subject: Re: performance is result of training If the debate is framed in terms of which is more conducive to superior athletic performance -- innate ability or structured practice -- I have to comment that this is a false dichotomy. While it may make sense to ask whether player A's optimal performance level is MOST ATTRIBUTABLE to his or her innate abilities or to structured practice, it does not advance the field of knowledge of optimal performance to debate whether ALL players' optimal levels of performance are constrained by either innate ability or structured practice. Of course they are! The optimal levels are always constrained by BOTH innate ability and structured practice. For example, in the case of Tiger Woods' putting: His innate abilities relevant to putting are unquestionably superior to almost all other golfers, but his technique is hardly optimal in general or even specifically for him. This technical deficiency bespeaks structured practice that is in some manner flawed or deficient. However, the issue is indeed problematic because of the psychological and neurological development history of this particular golfer, who began golf steadily around age two years, thus beginning a neurophysiological development pattern that persisted through the critical first five years of development and into and through the pubescent years into young adulthood. Accordingly, while it is most likely true that better structured practice ought to raise Tiger's performance, this point is seriously muddied by the issues of existing habit, habit rivalry/conflict, habit extinguishment, and establishment of fresh habits. I have no doubt at all that another golfer, with less efficacious innate capacities than Tiger, can follow well-designed structured practice that will elevate putting performance beyond that of Tiger on a consistent basis. And the debate is further confused by the concept of innate abilities as a static or steady-state condition. They aren't. Innate abilities fluctuate depending upon practice and use. Specifically, the innate ability to target locations in space can be improved by practicing certain targeting behavioral routines that intelligently and optimally sequence the apprehension of relevant cues. The neurophysiological processes are not great respecters of human categorical verbalizations. That is to say, the neurological processes of vision, spatial analysis, "reflexes", etc., do not exist in a vacuum as "innate abilities" -- they exist only as USED in an integrated functioning of the brain and body in the context of ACTION. You do not judge whether a player sees the hole more sharply than another, with better visual acuity in a clinical sense, but whether player A's vision is more efficaciously utilized than player B's in the total integration of the action of targeting -- with vision, proprioception, cognitive content, recent movement history, spatial analysis abilities, and other modularized aspects of the action all taken into account. This is where the intelligent structuring of practice comes into play to affect so-called "innate abilities." In the sense that a glove constrains a hand, innate abilities and structured practice function hand-in-glove. But a more apt analogy is William Butler Yeats' the dancer and the dance. Not only can you not discern which of these two is the dancer and which is the dance -- they each are indeed BOTH simultaneously. Cheers! Geoff Mangum Greensboro North Carolina USA "Your personal putting assistant." http://hometown.aol.com/puttmagic "The World's most comprehensive putting resource." ---------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:08:47 -0500 (EST) From: Puttmagic=AT=aol.com Subject: Re: devil's advocate - performance is result of training Thanks for the marvelous summary and comments. I think we are on the same page, once the discussion is focused a little more sharply. With respect to domain expertise of atheletes who begin training at a very early age: What does the research show about the following issues: 1. Whether this sort of background lies behind MANY top performers; 2. Whether such athletes are almost invariably better performers than athletes without such backgrounds; 3. Whether such backgrounds are necessary prerequisite to optimal performance; 4. Whether another athelete without such a background cannot attain a skill and performance level that exceeds such early-development athletes; 5. Whether atheletes with such a background history have static innate abilities that cannot realistically be improved by alteration? My understanding is: 1. Yes. 2. Yes. 3. No. 4. Yes. 5. No. I agree with you about visual skills and sports domain. In golf, especially putting, the visual cues do not especially relate to acuity, contrast-sensitivity, color perception, and those sorts of so-called "innate" physiological processes. Instead the cues are identified and learned and used inside a gnostic context of intellectual and experiential learning that guides the development of perceptual and movement skill development. If you don't get some understanding of how to do it at an optimal level, you will struggle to get the relevant cues consistently. I do not believe abilities can be considered static. The brain and nervous system is somewhat dynamic and plastic. This underlies all learning. I believe this aspect of brain functioning means so-called innate abilities fluctuate -- perhaps the rate of fluctuation is different depending upon the abilitiy and th background of its development. This sort of semi-permanancy is illustrated in Ramachandran's book Phantoms in the Brain, about the persistence of phantom limbs in amputees and others. Moreover, one must be careful in defining what is meant by "ability" as well -- is the term used in a strictly neurophysiological sense? Or is the term used more like a bag full of cats that crudely summarizes a collection of behavioral attributes? I do not at all believe that a child-prodigy athelete such as Tiger Woods necessary has the most efficacious development background from his early years. While it is true the early years of neurophysiological development are decidedly critical, being ones of extreme plasticity, this does not at all mean that bad habits are not learned. The child golfer, for example, almost always uses equipment that forces body-position habits that promote bad habits. Tiger Woods' postural setup is definitely too upright in putting, and he could be a much better putter if he did not have this perceptual-motoric baseline for his performance. His has learned bandaid compensations that only function on a so-so basis. In other words, he can improve A LOT in his putting. Would this sort of retooling be especially difficult to extinguish his poor habits and deficits? Absolutely. But he has already retooled his golf swing! Also, please note that Tiger's performance has been IMPROVING steadily since he left the incubator of the American collegiate world. His average score has trended downward steadily from about 73 or so at the start of his professional carrer in 1995 to today's 67.9! That's quite a dramatic development for a child prodigy. So, his abilities have obviously NOT carried him as far as he can go. So what if he practices? He needs the RIGHT sort of practice to retool his abilities. Geoff Mangum Greensboro North Carolina USA "Your personal putting assistant." http://hometown.aol.com/puttmagic "The World's most comprehensive putting resource." ------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:21:12 -0500 (EST) From: Joe Baker <9jrb=AT=qlink.queensu.ca>Subject: Re: devil's advocate - performance is result of training Geoff, thanks for the comments. It sounds like we are similar in our thinking with a couple exceptions that I'll comment on briefly. I'd like to specifically address two of your questions regarding early development and innate abilities. First, "Whether such backgrounds are necessary prerequisite to optimal performance" You argue that backgrounds similar to Tiger Wood's are not a necessary prerequisite for optimal performance. This may or may not be true. I don't mean to be confusing but the truth is that we have no real evidence (besides personal anecdotes) of anyone reaching a high level of performance in sport without dedicating many years of full time involvement to their primary sport or one very similar to it (we did have an interesting netball player who spent only 600 hours of training in netball before making the Australian national team but it turns out she played basketball for years at a near elite level). Second "Whether athletes with such a background history have static innate abilities that cannot realistically be improved by alteration?" The point I think you are making here is that innate talents improve with training and it may very well be that this is the case. The truth is we have no real way of reliably measuring this. But, consider the other option - that it is not an innate ability that is changing but rather the general ability that has been developed from early childhood involvement during crucial periods of cognitive and physical development. ------------------------- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 10:11:30 -0500 From: Ian Shrier Subject: RE: devil's advocate - performance is result of training I am very confused on this argument. The proponents of training keep coming back to say that training is necessary, no one has reached elite levels without thousands of hours of training, etc. If the question is "Can you reach elite levels without training?", then I agree the answer is no. But this was not the question. The original posting was: > I'd like to have a similar roundtable > and get some opinions on the following topic: > > Sport performance and sport expertise is entirely the result of hours > spent in focused, effortful training rather than innate, inheritable > traits. This says entirely. Therefore, even one anecdotal case disproves the point. Furthermore, the following evidence strongly suggests that the premise is incorrect. First, evidence suggests VO2max can only be increased by 25% with training. So, take an untrained individual with VO2max of 45 ml/min/kg. Even this person increased VO2max by 40%, the person will still only have a VO2max of 63 ml/min/kg. Even though velocity at lactate threshold is the better predictor, this would not be enough to win a medal at world championship. Second, among children who have never trained, we see great differences in sport abilities. Just look at standardized fitness test results (e.g. standing jump, 12-min run, 300-yard run, etc) across a class. These are not "anecdotal" reports but are replicated in every group that has ever performed them (range of results can be found in published reports). Given that the hypothesis proposed contradicts the evidence to date, I believe it is the responsibility of the proponents to prove that training can overcome "natural" deficits. In fact, I would even accept one case of anecdotal evidence, but it must be for the right sport (strictly skill sports/activities like billiards wouldn't count although some might argue that there are innate differences here as well). So, all we need is the documentation of one child with average VO2max or speed in his/her elementary school class that later goes on to become a medal winner at an Olympic games or World Championships. Evidence that no one has reached this level without lots of training is not evidence in favor of the hypothesis stated. Ian Shrier MD, PhD, Dip Sport Med Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies SMBD-Jewish General Hospital 3755 Cote Sainte-Catherine Rd Montreal, Qc H3T 1E2 check out the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine website http://www.casm-acms.org ----------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 08:52:40 -0500 From: Ian Shrier Subject: RE: devil's advocate - performance is result of training Dear Joe, In response to: > Ian, > > Could you provide a reference for your statement that VO2max is only > trainable to an increase of 25%? A researcher in our laboratory at Queens > is getting a 25% increase after 12 weeks of training in obese > women. Would > you suggest that this would be the ceiling of improvement in this > population and that they would see no further increase even after years of > training? This seems highly unlikely. I will forward the reference soon but have to go and find it. It comes from a normal activity to bed rest to training study. Yes, the training is limited in duration and perhaps years will increase even more. That's why I put in 40% increase instead of keeping it at 25%. I don't doubt the VO2max of your obese patients is increasing that much. That is because they are probably starting at a level equivalent almost to bed rest rather than a "normal level of activity". After bed rest or long periods of inactivity, much greater increases are seen than 25%. Also, as the weight drops, the ml/min/kg will go up simply because the kg is going down. But those points are not really relevant when the discussion is about athletes and elite athletes. The 25% figure is based upon "normal" individuals at "normal" levels of activity. I am very much for challenging current dogma. Why do research that "dots i's and crosses t's" when you can "change the world". My PhD was like that (blood flow through a vascular bed is not dependent on the difference between arterial and venous pressure), and so is my current research and reviews (e.g. stretching immediately before exercise does not prevent injury). I will be convinced that your hypothesis is true when you find that one anecdotal report of an average student in elementary/high school becoming an exceptional athlete. With all the exceptional athletes, this shouldn't be that hard to find if your hypothesis is indeed correct. Ian Shrier MD, PhD, Dip Sport Med Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies SMBD-Jewish General Hospital 3755 Cote Sainte-Catherine Rd Montreal, Qc H3T 1E2 check out the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine website http://www.casm-acms.org ----------------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:30:25 -0600 From: "Barrett, Jill" Subject: RE: performance is result of training I joined this list for reading and learning only, as I have only a bachelor's degree in the field, and not enough knowledge/experience to comment on anything. Having qualified my question as coming from purely an inquisitive mind, and little knowledge, how about the following notion: Performance is the perfect recipe of innate abilities (genetics), training (not only HOW trained, but also when in life...early childhood vs late childhood, adulthood), and psychology (determination, willingness to work through pain and other setbacks, competitive drive, etc etc). Just wondering what you guys think..... Jill Barrett Baylor-Tom Landry Sports Medicine Research Center ----------------------------- Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:10:17 -0800 From: Jeff Ives Subject: Re: Sport performance is determined entirely by training Dear SportSci: With great interest I am reading the debate regarding genetics vs. practice. I have been using the Ericsson et al. (1993) article in my neuromuscular control course for 4 years now as a topic for class discussion. From these discussions have come a few prominent themes: 1. Most of the student-athletes in my classes do NOT follow the deliberate practice model as outlined by Ericsson, i.e., A. Practice is designed to take into account previous knowledge of the performer. B. Immediate feedback/knowledge of results. C. Repetition of the task or similar tasks. D. Specific intention to improve skill and/or overcome weaknesses in performance. E. A strong motivation by the individual to improve. F. A maximal effort given in practice. Interestingly, I would say that of these practice characteristics (we also include "training" as practice), the one most violated is D -- a specific intention to improve. Athletes often don't know EXACTLY what it is they are trying to get better at or how to do it. Giving maximal effort is also violated. There is too much down time, especially in team sports. I should mention that these athletes are NCAA Div. III -- small time sports. 2. Most would agree with Ericsson that genetics plays a role in domain selection. After all, there are not too many 7 foot tall jockeys and 5 foot tall basketball players, nor are there too many marathoners with 95% fast twitch fibers in their legs. Students have a difficult time separating out the genetic factors involved in domain selection from the genetic factors they say are necessary for expert performance in one's chosen field. Indeed, this is a point of controversy that is evident in the SportSci posts on this topic. 3. All agree that deliberate practice is necessary regardless of innate abilities; the important question is if a person without certain innate talents can become an expert performer. Put differently, can any person attain expert performance in any activity given the appropriate practice and amount of time? I don't believe Ericsson takes it that far because of domain selection. 4. In answering the question above, most students think that it is somewhat dependent on the sport. Sports high in tactics/strategies and cognitive skills (e.g., baseball) are less dependent on innate talents than sports low in tactics (e.g, 100 m dash). On the other hand, when domain selection is factored in (e.g., high level sprinters all got into sprinting because they had early success -- success due in large part to a high percentage of fast twitch fibers), the students are not so sure. In other words, are the top 20 sprinters in the world separated by some genetic factors or because they trained better? The majority of the students would agree that because of genetics the athlete was ABLE to train better or get a better training response. (Training also includes psychological training.) These genetic components could include some psychological factors related to motivation or persistance. Ericsson would not discount this idea. 5. Most importantly, the major point taken from the discussion is that students no longer believe that many, or even most, of the athletes they see on TV are a bunch of genetic superpowers whose successes are out of reach of the "normal" person. However, they often question whether or not it is worth it. Put differently, the rewards of attaining expert performance come at a cost to benefit ratio that seems too high. Jeff Ives -- Jeffrey C. Ives, Ph.D. Dept. Exercise & Sport Sciences Email: jives=AT=ithaca.edu Ithaca College Phone: 607-274-1751 Ithaca, NY 14850 USA Fax: 607-274-1943 ---------------------------------- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:43:54 +0000 From: bex=AT=infonie.fr Subject: Re: devil's advocate - performance is result of training RE: "sport performance and sport expertise is entirely the result of hours spent in focused, effortful training rather than innate, inheritable traits." Hey guys, there is in my experience much more to the 'picture' than just discussing these two important traits in an athlete!. I disagree that talent and ability should be separated in this argument as an 'either / or' option for debate. It is my belief that to 'achieve', BOTH need to be present within an individual to succeed... It is almost impossible to define exactly what makes someone excel in sport without taking into account strong individual differences. Individual athletes apparently differ hugely from one athlete to another, i.e: one World Champion may have totally different arrary of winning attributes than another Champion. To visulise the picture clearly: there are many, many important traits combined, overlapped and probably entwined within an athlete that succeeds - each combination of traits being different from one successful athlete to another. If I had to sit here and write out and/or debate all the many attributes of one athlete only, then the combinations would be endless. We should therefore in my view make 'global assumptions' and take a much more 'global' view of what it takes for an athlete or athletes to succeed. One thing for sure is if it took only talent AND training hours, then I and many other athletes would probably be very, very happy! Regards, Rebecca Bishop -------------------- Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:19:24 -0500 From: Ian Shrier Subject: increases in VO2max > I suspect the study you are referring to is the 'Dallas Study' > conducted by > Saltin et al and discussed by strand and Rodahl (1986). Five subjects > (three of whom were usually sedentary and two of whom were > normally active) > spent 20 days in bed and then 50 days training (which was 'intensive and > continuously supervised'). There was a mean drop of 27% in VO2max > following > 20 days of bed rest compared with the pre-bed-rest VO2max. > Thank you. Yes this was the study I was referring to. Although some people may say "how can you generalize on 5 patients?", I have since looked at increases in VO2max with training studies I read. Although I haven't done an exhaustive literature review, they seem to concur with this study. If people have other studies that refute these claims, please let me know. I would love to become an gold-medal winner but this study just shot down my hopes (I run about a 6-min km over long distance, but my sprinting is a blinding 13-sec 100m, or was when I was young. Ian Shrier MD, PhD, Dip Sport Med Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies SMBD-Jewish General Hospital 3755 Cote Sainte-Catherine Rd Montreal, Qc H3T 1E2 check out the Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine website http://www.casm-acms.org ---------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:58:43 +1300 From: Will Hopkins Subject: Genes vs training revisited About 6 weeks ago Joe Baker posted this hypothesis to the list: >Sport performance and sport expertise is entirely the result of hours >spent in focused, effortful training rather than innate, inheritable >traits. There was some follow-up discussion, but there was little reference to published work. In particular and astonishingly, noone referred to the work of the Bouchards (C and TJ). I was too busy with other things to reply at the time, but I have now had a chance to revisit the literature. As far as I can see, the work of the Bouchards is definitive. Genes count for at least 50% of the variation in performance and probably more than 50% of the variation in the response to training. Claude Bouchard and coworkers have done most of the work with physical performance. Their earlier work was based on analysis in the variation in performance (and effects of training on performance) within and between families, including twins in some studies. The subjects were mostly non- athletes. For every aspect of performance and training on performance, the majority of the variation between individuals is determined by genes. The group is now looking at the association between specific DNA sequences and performance. So far they have found little or no association, presumably because performance is determined by many genes and/or they haven't struck gold yet. For a good brief review of the recent and the earlier work, see the introduction to their most recent paper in the October issue of Med Sci Sports Exerc (Wolfarth et al., 2000). The comprehensive familial study in MSSE by another group (Maes et al., 1996) is also well worth a look. The stats are daunting, but the conclusions are clear. Thomas J Bouchard's main claim to fame is studies of twins separated at birth. For various reasons, such studies are probably the best for resolving the nature-nurture debate. The closest he has got to a study of physical performance with such subjects is a training study involving a visual skill (Fox et al., 1996). More than half the variation in ability was genetic, and the contribution of genes actually increased with training. In spite of all this hard evidence for the role of heredity in physical performance and many other aspects of human behavior, there is still a clique of academics who hold out for the primacy of environment. See for example Howe et al. (1998). Maybe these people are too numerically challenged to understand or trust the genetics studies. They didn't even cite Fox et al. (1996) or Maes et al. (1996). Very disappointing. Incidentally, the November issue of MSSE has a paper (Fatini et al., 2000) about the effects of the two forms of the ACE gene on an outcome of training (left ventricular mass). Fatini C, Guazzelli R, Manetti P, Battaglini B, Gensini F, Vono R, Toncelli L, Zilli P, Capalbo A, Abbate R, Gensini GF, Galanti G (2000). RAS genes influence exercise-induced left ventricular hypertrophy: an elite athletes study. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32, 1868-1872 Fox PW, Hershberger SL, Bouchard TJ (1996). Genetic and environmental contributions to the acquisition of a motor skill. Nature 384, 356-358 Howe MJA, Davidson JW, Sloboda JA (1998). Innate talents: reality or myth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21, 399-442 (includes withering open peer commentary, which Howe et al. failed to respond to in any convincing way) Maes HHM, Beunen GP, Vlietinck RF, Neale MC, Thomis M, Eynde BV, Lysens R, Simons J, Derom C, Derom R (1996). Inheritance of physical fitness in 10-yr- old twins and their parents. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 28, 1479-1491 Wolfarth B, Rivera MA, Oppert JM, Boulay MR, Dionne FT, Chagnon M, Gagnon J, Chagnon Y, Perusse L, Keul J, Bouchard C (2000). A polymorphism in the alpha(2a)-adrenoceptor gene and endurance athlete status. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 32, 1709-1712 Will ----------------------- Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:34:29 +0000 From: David Driscoll Subject: Re: Genes vs training revisited >Thomas J Bouchard's main claim to fame is studies of twins separated >at birth. For various reasons, such studies are probably the best >for resolving the nature-nurture debate. Every time I hear about these studies, i wonder if there is any thought given to the pre-natal environment and its effect on learning, personality and other behavioural/psychological traits?? Seems that separated twins share this environment, and may affect outcomes and the conclusions that many aspects are genetic? David Driscoll --------------------------------- Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:05:27 +1300 From: David Rowlands Subject: Genes vs training revisited and pre-natal envirn > Every time i hear about these studies, i wonder if there any thought > given to the pre-natal environment and its effect on learning, > personality and other behavioural/psychological traits?? Seems that > seperated twins share this environment, and may affect outcomes and the > conclusions that many aspects are genetic? I read somewhere about 2 years ago there is evidence to suggest maternal dietary intake of essential fatty acids influences nervous system development and subsequent functioning. That is, deficiencies caused lower IQ and later motor development in the child. Sorry, no reference. Perhaps some environmental factor influences tissue and organ development in the fetus, which could impact on exercise? Possibly, but I don't think so, because of the overwhelming effects of gene expression over a life-time (protein synthesis and turnover of cellular materials). DAVE -------------------------------- Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:29:33 +1300 From: Will Hopkins Subject: Re: Genes vs training revisited I wrote: >Thomas J Bouchard's main claim to fame is studies of twins separated >at birth. For various reasons, such studies are probably the best >for resolving the nature-nurture debate.<< And David Driscoll replied: > Every time i hear about these studies, i wonder if there any thought > given to the pre-natal environment and its effect on learning, > personality and other behavioural/psychological traits?? Seems that > seperated twins share this environment, and may affect outcomes and the > conclusions that many aspects are genetic? Good point. The argument would be that similarities between twins are nothing to do with genes and everything to do with pre-natal environment. Therefore the variance explained by genes is really variance explained by experience. Fine, except that Bouchard uses dizygotomous twins separated at birth as controls, at least in the Nature paper I referred to. There was little similarity between the dizygotomous twins in performance and in the effect of training on performance in the skilled task. In fact, there was less similarity than you would expect for individuals sharing half their DNA. The authors didn't remark on or discuss that point, and I'm not quite sure what to make of it. One twin sometimes hogs the uterus, so that could add a greater environmental effect. Or maybe the effect of sharing genes isn't simply linear for some skills. In other words, half the DNA means on average half the variance in whatever trait due to genes, but there might be a lot of variation between traits. Any comment from genetics experts on this list?
Back to Genes and Training for Athletic Performance
Sportscience Homepage
|