I felt inspired to write this blog after someone said to me “I bet I could run as well as Mo Farah if I trained as much as him”, which led me to voice my doubt and research the matter too…

There’s long been debate surrounding what makes an athlete elite and whether they are ‘made’ or ‘born’. Do you think Ronaldo is one of the most talented footballers in the World because he has spent a lot of time training, or because he has been born with the talent?

The 10,000 hour concept proposed by Anders Ericsson states that anyone can become an elite athlete if they engage in 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. As the old saying goes ‘practice makes perfect’ and research initially found an association between a musicians performance and the amount of hours they had practiced for, where those with over 10,000 hours of practice were the best performers and those with under 5,000 being the least accomplished. Along with subsequent studies and despite their methodological issues, Ericsson felt this strengthened the view that elitism could be attributed to training alone and therefore could be achieved by anyone.

The 10,000 hour concept has been subject to much criticism, where many have suggested that the genetic component to elitism is crucial. The most obvious argument against it is that of gender, a biological characteristic which demonstrates the impact of genes on performance. It is a fact that women are rarely able compete at the same level as men. Take the marathon for example, Paula Radcliffe currently holds the World Record for the women’s marathon, however around 5000 men have completed it in a faster time. This biological difference is why men and women compete in separate categories, if they didn’t, how many females would be successful? Surely if genetics can have such a huge impact between genders, they may have a similar effect within them too.

If the 10,000 hour concept is true, surely there’s no explanation for anyone who is successful with less than 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. However many young performing athletes display superior skills to their peers before this amount of training is even reachable.

There’s also no explanation as to why someone fails to be successful having practiced for over 10,000 hours. Research has provided much support for this, where the fastest chess player to reach master level did so after just 3,016 hours of practice whilst others failed to achieve such level despite 25,000 hours of accumulated training. This study in particular concluded that practice could only account for 34% of the variance in performance, and a similar study found deliberate practice in darts to account for just 28% of the variance, suggesting that training alone does not determine elitism.

Genetics certainly have an effect on sporting performance, where different genetic variants have been associated with certain aspects of sporting performance and may aid training adaptation. When improving VO2max (the maximum rate at which the body can effectively utilise oxygen during exercise) one study found 5 months of training to improve participants’ VO2max by an average of 15.2%. However the differences between individuals were vast, suggesting that there are high and low responders to training. Whilst the average participant (or 38% of them) improved VO2max by 300-500ml/min (typical response), 14% improved by less than 200ml/min (low responders) and only 8% improved by 800ml/min or more (high responders). They then performed a genome-wide association study to identify 21 genetic DNA variations which have been attributed to almost half the difference in the training response, finding low responders to carry fewer of the variations than high responders. Spread this to the entire population and you can start to see where elite performers lie.

It’s certainly evident that genetics influence sporting performance, some people are ‘naturals’ at certain sports whilst others struggle to pick up basic skills. However it also seems evident that training improves performance, at least to a certain extent. When teaching children to kick a football for example, some acquire the skill quicker than others but almost all will improve to some extent when learning a new skill.

Although genetics may determine performance thresholds, training may allow for genetic potential to be realised. However it’s far too simplistic to overlook the combination of many other factors which may impact performance. The right environment, the psychology, the lifestyle, the opportunity could all interact with the likes of genetics and training to produce an elite athlete. Take Jamaica for example, who produce incredibly talented athletes when it comes to power and sprinting disciplines. Athletes such as Usain Bolt are most definitely genetically gifted, enabling them to have the physiological attributes to perform at such level. However adding the lifestyle, coaching, culture, training, equipment, role models and exposure to such sports makes for the perfect recipe to produce incredibly successful athletes. Therefore, it is most feasible to conclude that genetics, training and a whole host of other variables interact in a complex and multifaceted manner to determine elite performers.

Adie Blanchard – Researcher

Reference

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/46/8/555.full.pdf+html