WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.740 Right, imagine this for a second. Albert Pujols, 00:00:02.899 --> 00:00:05.379 you know, maybe the greatest hitter of his generation. 00:00:05.540 --> 00:00:07.980 Absolutely dominant, yes, a real force. Steps 00:00:07.980 --> 00:00:09.720 up to the plate, everyone's bracing for a home 00:00:09.720 --> 00:00:13.779 run, but then the pitcher, Jenny Finch, she's 00:00:13.779 --> 00:00:16.760 throwing underhand softball style. Ah, completely 00:00:16.760 --> 00:00:18.600 different discipline, different mechanics, different 00:00:18.600 --> 00:00:21.620 visual cues. And Pujols just, well he swings 00:00:21.620 --> 00:00:24.839 and misses, strikes out, it actually happened. 00:00:24.879 --> 00:00:28.019 It did. It's a brilliant example, isn't it? Really 00:00:28.019 --> 00:00:30.710 highlights how specific skills are. Or here's 00:00:30.710 --> 00:00:33.469 another thought, elite athletes, right? We hear 00:00:33.469 --> 00:00:35.710 about the 10 ,000 hours. But what if some reach 00:00:35.710 --> 00:00:38.990 the top with, say, only 600 hours of practice? 00:00:39.049 --> 00:00:41.090 That's another key piece of the puzzle, definitely. 00:00:41.189 --> 00:00:43.850 It challenges that whole narrative. Welcome to 00:00:43.850 --> 00:00:46.350 the deep dive. This is where we take stacks of 00:00:46.350 --> 00:00:49.130 sources, research papers, articles, expert insights, 00:00:49.189 --> 00:00:51.689 and really get stuck in pulling out the surprising 00:00:51.689 --> 00:00:54.509 facts and hopefully some genuinely valuable understanding 00:00:54.509 --> 00:00:56.890 for you. Giving you that shortcut to being really 00:00:56.890 --> 00:01:00.070 well informed on complex topics. Exactly, and 00:01:00.070 --> 00:01:03.750 today we are diving into one of the biggest questions 00:01:03.750 --> 00:01:06.590 in sport, aren't we? What actually makes an extraordinary 00:01:06.590 --> 00:01:10.650 athlete? Is it sheer hard graft? Hours and hours 00:01:10.650 --> 00:01:13.010 on the training ground? Or is it more about winning 00:01:13.010 --> 00:01:15.569 the genetic lottery? Having the right body from 00:01:15.569 --> 00:01:18.290 the start? Or maybe it's some complicated mix 00:01:18.290 --> 00:01:20.650 of both? That's what we're aiming to unpack today. 00:01:20.950 --> 00:01:23.450 Peeling back those layers. And joining me to 00:01:23.450 --> 00:01:25.650 guide us through this really fascinating, sometimes 00:01:25.650 --> 00:01:28.670 confusing world of sports science is Professor 00:01:28.670 --> 00:01:32.049 Mo Imam. He's brilliant at pulling together information 00:01:32.049 --> 00:01:34.209 from different fields and helping us see the 00:01:34.209 --> 00:01:36.090 connections. Thank you. It's great to be here. 00:01:36.170 --> 00:01:38.150 This topic is just full of assumptions, isn't 00:01:38.150 --> 00:01:40.049 it? And I think some of the research we'll look 00:01:40.049 --> 00:01:43.409 at today might, well, it might surprise a few 00:01:43.409 --> 00:01:45.510 people. It certainly challenges some common ideas. 00:01:45.689 --> 00:01:47.890 I'm already intrigued. OK, let's set the stage. 00:01:48.069 --> 00:01:50.250 We've got three big questions we want to tackle 00:01:50.250 --> 00:01:53.989 to frame this deep dive. First up, that 10 ,000 00:01:53.989 --> 00:01:56.849 hour rule. It feels like it's become gospel, 00:01:56.890 --> 00:01:59.989 hasn't it? In music, business, everywhere. It 00:01:59.989 --> 00:02:02.890 really has, yes. But is it truly the universal 00:02:02.890 --> 00:02:05.670 blueprint for becoming an elite athlete? Or are 00:02:05.670 --> 00:02:08.469 we perhaps missing something crucial? Are there 00:02:08.469 --> 00:02:10.930 other factors just as important, maybe more so? 00:02:11.150 --> 00:02:13.900 That's the first big one. OK, second. Beyond 00:02:13.900 --> 00:02:16.360 just the hours you put in, how much does your 00:02:16.360 --> 00:02:18.400 actual body, the hardware you're born with, your 00:02:18.400 --> 00:02:21.360 biology, how much does that set your athletic 00:02:21.360 --> 00:02:25.439 ceiling? Do sports genes really exist in the 00:02:25.439 --> 00:02:28.259 way people often talk about them? And how big 00:02:28.259 --> 00:02:30.300 a role do they play? Exactly. How significant 00:02:30.300 --> 00:02:33.300 are they really? And third, we often see certain 00:02:33.300 --> 00:02:35.699 groups, maybe from specific countries or regions, 00:02:36.340 --> 00:02:38.580 dominating particular sports, sprinters from 00:02:38.580 --> 00:02:41.000 one place, marathon runners from another. Yes, 00:02:41.000 --> 00:02:43.479 those clusters of talent. Is that purely down 00:02:43.479 --> 00:02:46.360 to opportunity, better coaching, facilities, 00:02:46.560 --> 00:02:49.379 maybe just cultural emphasis? Or is there a deeper 00:02:49.379 --> 00:02:52.280 story there, something linked to, well, ancestry 00:02:52.280 --> 00:02:54.800 and maybe even evolution? These are absolutely 00:02:54.800 --> 00:02:57.000 the core questions. And you're right, the simple 00:02:57.000 --> 00:02:59.900 nature versus nurture framing just doesn't cut 00:02:59.900 --> 00:03:02.199 it. It's far more intricate. So we'll be looking 00:03:02.199 --> 00:03:04.879 at how practice really shapes perception, how 00:03:04.879 --> 00:03:07.319 the physical gifts matter. Definitely. And how 00:03:07.319 --> 00:03:09.360 environment and genetics weave together in these 00:03:09.360 --> 00:03:11.360 really interesting ways across the globe. Sounds 00:03:11.360 --> 00:03:13.900 brilliant. Right. Let's start by taking apart 00:03:13.900 --> 00:03:16.120 this practice principle and specifically that 00:03:16.120 --> 00:03:18.219 10 ,000 hour rule. It's everywhere. It feels 00:03:18.219 --> 00:03:21.120 like a guarantee sometimes. Where did it actually 00:03:21.120 --> 00:03:24.139 originate? Well, the idea really gained traction 00:03:24.139 --> 00:03:26.539 from the work of a Swedish psychologist, K Anders 00:03:26.539 --> 00:03:29.560 Ericsson, back in the early 90s. He did this 00:03:29.560 --> 00:03:33.599 now famous study on violinists at a top music 00:03:33.599 --> 00:03:36.439 academy in Berlin. Ah, yes, the violinist study. 00:03:36.740 --> 00:03:39.039 Exactly. He found that the very best violinists, 00:03:39.159 --> 00:03:41.780 the ones considered elite, had averaged about, 00:03:41.780 --> 00:03:45.539 oh, 7 ,410 hours of solitary practice by the 00:03:45.539 --> 00:03:47.939 time they were 18. Right. And by age 20, that 00:03:47.939 --> 00:03:50.379 number was typically hitting or passing 10 ,000 00:03:50.379 --> 00:03:52.599 hours. So the conclusion drawn was, well, it 00:03:52.599 --> 00:03:54.780 looked like a straight line. More hours equals 00:03:54.780 --> 00:03:57.120 better performance. Practice seemed to be the 00:03:57.120 --> 00:03:59.439 direct cause of what people often called innate 00:03:59.439 --> 00:04:01.539 talent. Okay, so it looked pretty clear -cut 00:04:01.539 --> 00:04:04.000 in that study. Practice makes perfect. Literally. 00:04:04.419 --> 00:04:06.219 Erickson then sort of extrapolated from that, 00:04:06.300 --> 00:04:09.319 suggesting this wasn't just about violins, but 00:04:09.319 --> 00:04:12.879 applied across loads of fields. Chess, music, 00:04:13.439 --> 00:04:16.620 even sports, citing some early work on how experts 00:04:16.620 --> 00:04:19.689 see things differently. It's a very compelling, 00:04:19.750 --> 00:04:21.970 almost democratic idea, isn't it? Just put in 00:04:21.970 --> 00:04:24.670 the hours and you can get there. But you mentioned 00:04:24.670 --> 00:04:27.250 there were critiques of how that research was 00:04:27.250 --> 00:04:30.370 done. What was the issue? Yes, and it's a really 00:04:30.370 --> 00:04:32.850 important critique. The main problem is that 00:04:32.850 --> 00:04:35.589 these were mostly cross -sectional and retrospective 00:04:35.589 --> 00:04:38.730 studies. Meaning? Meaning they looked at people 00:04:38.730 --> 00:04:40.970 after they'd already become successful, after 00:04:40.970 --> 00:04:43.610 they got into the top music academy. Okay, so 00:04:43.610 --> 00:04:46.199 they only studied the winners. Effectively precisely 00:04:46.199 --> 00:04:48.579 by only looking at the elite group the method 00:04:48.579 --> 00:04:50.600 couldn't really account for all the people who 00:04:50.600 --> 00:04:52.680 might have practiced just as hard Maybe even 00:04:52.680 --> 00:04:55.040 harder but never made it to that top level or 00:04:55.040 --> 00:04:57.480 those who got there much faster with fewer hours 00:04:57.480 --> 00:05:00.699 Exactly. It's a bit like studying lottery winners 00:05:00.699 --> 00:05:03.060 and concluding that buying tickets is the only 00:05:03.060 --> 00:05:05.779 thing that matters for getting rich You're ignoring 00:05:05.779 --> 00:05:09.040 everyone who bought tickets and didn't win It 00:05:09.040 --> 00:05:12.399 showed a correlation in a select group not necessarily 00:05:12.399 --> 00:05:15.069 a universal rule of cause and effect That makes 00:05:15.069 --> 00:05:16.709 a lot of sense. You're looking backwards at a 00:05:16.709 --> 00:05:20.769 pre -selected group. So what about tracking people 00:05:20.769 --> 00:05:23.670 forwards, longitudinal studies? That sounds like 00:05:23.670 --> 00:05:25.730 the way to really test it. It absolutely would 00:05:25.730 --> 00:05:27.990 be the gold standard. You're right. But it's 00:05:27.990 --> 00:05:30.529 incredibly difficult to do properly. Think about 00:05:30.529 --> 00:05:32.689 someone like Dan McLaughlin. The guy who quit 00:05:32.689 --> 00:05:35.490 his job to play golf, aiming for 10 ,000 hours. 00:05:35.949 --> 00:05:38.850 That's the one. His story is fascinating, shows 00:05:38.850 --> 00:05:41.930 incredible dedication. But imagine trying to 00:05:41.930 --> 00:05:44.600 recruit hundreds of people. Get them to commit 00:05:44.600 --> 00:05:47.220 years to practicing something new. Track every 00:05:47.220 --> 00:05:49.600 single hour accurately. Logistically, it sounds 00:05:49.600 --> 00:05:51.920 like a nightmare. And ethically tricky, too, 00:05:51.920 --> 00:05:54.920 maybe. It is. So most research still ends up 00:05:54.920 --> 00:05:57.079 relying on people remembering how much they practiced, 00:05:57.240 --> 00:06:00.240 which, you know, can be a bit unreliable. Biases 00:06:00.240 --> 00:06:02.279 creep in. OK, so given those challenges, what 00:06:02.279 --> 00:06:05.079 does other evidence tell us? Does the 10 ,000 00:06:05.079 --> 00:06:07.220 -hour rule actually hold up when you look across 00:06:07.220 --> 00:06:10.060 different sports or more closely at the data? 00:06:10.439 --> 00:06:13.220 Well, not really, no. Not as a universal law. 00:06:13.389 --> 00:06:15.910 The evidence against it being a magic number 00:06:15.910 --> 00:06:18.310 is pretty strong. Take chess, for instance. OK. 00:06:18.750 --> 00:06:20.870 There's documented evidence of one player reaching 00:06:20.870 --> 00:06:23.910 master level in only 3 ,000 hours. But another 00:06:23.910 --> 00:06:26.470 player needed 23 ,000 hours to get to the exact 00:06:26.470 --> 00:06:29.750 same level. Wow, that's nearly an eightfold difference. 00:06:29.949 --> 00:06:32.509 Exactly. And perhaps even more telling, some 00:06:32.509 --> 00:06:35.129 players put in over 25 ,000 hours and never reached 00:06:35.129 --> 00:06:38.350 master level. So hours alone clearly aren't the 00:06:38.350 --> 00:06:40.870 whole story. Right. It's not just quantity. And 00:06:40.870 --> 00:06:43.110 in other sports. Yeah. Research suggests elite 00:06:43.110 --> 00:06:45.790 status in things like basketball, field hockey, 00:06:46.230 --> 00:06:49.029 wrestling. It often averages closer to 4 ,000 00:06:49.029 --> 00:06:51.870 to 6 ,000 hours. Much less than 10 ,000. Considerably 00:06:51.870 --> 00:06:54.189 less. And then you have cases like Vicki Wilson, 00:06:54.350 --> 00:06:57.029 the Australian netball star. Truly exceptional 00:06:57.029 --> 00:06:59.350 player. She made the national team with only 00:06:59.350 --> 00:07:03.029 about 600 hours of formal practice. 600? That's 00:07:03.029 --> 00:07:05.839 astonishing. It is. It really drives home the 00:07:05.839 --> 00:07:08.639 point that 10 ,000 hours isn't always necessary, 00:07:08.920 --> 00:07:12.399 nor is it always enough. Practice is vital, absolutely, 00:07:13.060 --> 00:07:15.819 but how effective that practice is seems to vary 00:07:15.819 --> 00:07:19.329 hugely between individuals. OK, so it's not just 00:07:19.329 --> 00:07:22.009 the sheer volume of hours. What about those moments 00:07:22.009 --> 00:07:24.990 in sport that feel like pure instinct? You know, 00:07:25.209 --> 00:07:27.350 lightning reflexes, incredible anticipation. 00:07:27.949 --> 00:07:30.509 Is that learned through practice too, or is that 00:07:30.509 --> 00:07:32.790 something innate? Ah, that's a great question. 00:07:33.050 --> 00:07:36.730 And it leads us to this idea of learned perceptual 00:07:36.730 --> 00:07:39.639 expertise. It's crucial. What looks like raw 00:07:39.639 --> 00:07:41.939 speed or instinct is often actually a highly 00:07:41.939 --> 00:07:44.420 developmental library. A library of patterns. 00:07:44.699 --> 00:07:46.819 Exactly. Built up through thousands of hours 00:07:46.819 --> 00:07:48.819 of practice. Think back to Jenny Finch striking 00:07:48.819 --> 00:07:51.160 out Albert Pujols and Barry Bonds. Right. Two 00:07:51.160 --> 00:07:53.459 of the best ever. They weren't baffled because 00:07:53.459 --> 00:07:56.220 she threw incredibly fast like a baseball pitcher. 00:07:56.579 --> 00:07:58.819 They were baffled because their brains had no 00:07:58.819 --> 00:08:01.279 database for underhand softball pitches. The 00:08:01.279 --> 00:08:03.699 spin, the trajectory, the pitcher's movements. 00:08:04.100 --> 00:08:06.199 It was all alien. So they couldn't predict it. 00:08:06.199 --> 00:08:08.759 They were just reacting at the last second. Precisely. 00:08:09.220 --> 00:08:11.379 Their fundamental reaction speed, you know, hitting 00:08:11.379 --> 00:08:13.899 a button when a light flashes, is probably no 00:08:13.899 --> 00:08:16.500 different to yours or mine. Around 200 milliseconds? 00:08:16.740 --> 00:08:19.040 That's pretty standard for humans. So it's not 00:08:19.040 --> 00:08:21.519 about physically reacting faster in that basic 00:08:21.519 --> 00:08:25.509 sense. It's about seeing more. processing faster, 00:08:25.750 --> 00:08:27.589 seeing the future almost. That's a brilliant 00:08:27.589 --> 00:08:29.829 way to put it. Researchers like Janet Starks 00:08:29.829 --> 00:08:31.850 did some fascinating work on this. She showed 00:08:31.850 --> 00:08:34.590 that elite athletes don't have faster simple 00:08:34.590 --> 00:08:38.070 reaction times. OK. But if you flash them a picture 00:08:38.070 --> 00:08:41.070 of a game situation for just 16 milliseconds, 00:08:42.009 --> 00:08:44.490 literally a blink and you miss it flash that 00:08:44.490 --> 00:08:47.169 a novice wouldn't register properly. 16 milliseconds. 00:08:47.250 --> 00:08:50.610 That's incredibly brief. It is. Yet top volleyball 00:08:50.610 --> 00:08:52.649 players, for instance. could look at that flash 00:08:52.649 --> 00:08:55.549 and extract crucial information. They could understand 00:08:55.549 --> 00:08:58.070 the play, figure out roughly when and where the 00:08:58.070 --> 00:09:01.129 photo was taken. A novice just sees, well, nothing 00:09:01.129 --> 00:09:03.730 meaningful. It's like a chess grandmaster seeing 00:09:03.730 --> 00:09:06.309 a position for five seconds and understanding 00:09:06.309 --> 00:09:08.830 vastly more than a decent club player does in 00:09:08.830 --> 00:09:11.889 15 minutes. It's all down to that learned database 00:09:11.889 --> 00:09:15.250 of patterns and situations. This sophisticated 00:09:15.250 --> 00:09:18.570 software is built by deliberate practice. That 00:09:18.570 --> 00:09:21.700 chess analogy really clicks. Practice isn't just 00:09:21.700 --> 00:09:24.200 repetition. It's building this incredibly complex 00:09:24.200 --> 00:09:27.259 internal library. But you can have the best software, 00:09:27.480 --> 00:09:30.419 can't you? But if the computer itself, the hardware, 00:09:30.700 --> 00:09:32.860 isn't up to the job. Exactly. The software won't 00:09:32.860 --> 00:09:35.279 run properly, or maybe not at all. Which brings 00:09:35.279 --> 00:09:38.039 us neatly to the other side of the coin. The 00:09:38.039 --> 00:09:40.759 unavoidable reality of our innate physical hardware. 00:09:41.019 --> 00:09:43.919 our biology. How much does that dictate what's 00:09:43.919 --> 00:09:46.860 possible for us athletically, our ceiling? This 00:09:46.860 --> 00:09:48.240 is where we have to move beyond just talking 00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:51.039 about practice. That learned skill operates on 00:09:51.039 --> 00:09:53.659 a physical foundation. And some foundations are 00:09:53.659 --> 00:09:55.840 just better suited for certain tasks. Vision, 00:09:55.899 --> 00:09:58.539 for example, hugely important, often underestimated. 00:09:58.679 --> 00:10:02.179 Really? Vision specifically? Absolutely. Louis 00:10:02.179 --> 00:10:04.740 Rosenbaum did a meticulous study on the LA Dodgers 00:10:04.740 --> 00:10:07.720 baseball team. He found their average visual 00:10:07.720 --> 00:10:11.440 acuity was about 2013. that's significantly sharper 00:10:11.440 --> 00:10:14.120 than standard 2020 vision. Better than perfect 00:10:14.120 --> 00:10:16.799 vision, in a sense. Yes, and even more revealing, 00:10:17.340 --> 00:10:19.399 the major league players consistently tested 00:10:19.399 --> 00:10:21.840 better than the minor league players. Okay, suggesting 00:10:21.840 --> 00:10:24.120 a link to performance level. Definitely. The 00:10:24.120 --> 00:10:26.879 most famous story is probably Mike Piazza, the 00:10:26.879 --> 00:10:29.559 Hall of Fame catcher. He was drafted incredibly 00:10:29.559 --> 00:10:32.970 late, something like... the 13th, 390th pick. 00:10:33.070 --> 00:10:35.710 Wow. Why so late if he was that good? Well, he 00:10:35.710 --> 00:10:37.889 was apparently picked almost entirely based on 00:10:37.889 --> 00:10:40.309 Rosenbaum's vision data. Someone saw those exceptional 00:10:40.309 --> 00:10:43.570 visual scores and took a massive gamble and it 00:10:43.570 --> 00:10:45.769 paid off spectacularly. So it's not just about 00:10:45.769 --> 00:10:48.149 seeing clearly in general, it's about specific 00:10:48.149 --> 00:10:50.990 visual skills needed for a sport. Exactly that. 00:10:51.070 --> 00:10:53.429 Yeah. The U .S. Olympic softball team, for example, 00:10:53.850 --> 00:10:56.629 they tested with an average acuity of 2011, even 00:10:56.629 --> 00:10:59.370 sharper, plus outstanding depth perception and 00:10:59.370 --> 00:11:01.870 contrast sensitivity. all vital for tracking 00:11:01.870 --> 00:11:06.009 a small fastball. But archers, they need amazing 00:11:06.009 --> 00:11:08.789 static visual acuity for hitting a still target, 00:11:09.330 --> 00:11:12.230 but maybe not the same level of depth perception. 00:11:13.289 --> 00:11:15.809 Fensers, on the other hand, need brilliant depth 00:11:15.809 --> 00:11:18.330 perception for those quick, close -range judgments. 00:11:18.669 --> 00:11:20.850 Different demands, different visual strengths. 00:11:21.090 --> 00:11:23.309 Precisely. Even picking up the spin on a ball, 00:11:23.490 --> 00:11:25.350 like seeing the red scenes on a baseball that 00:11:25.350 --> 00:11:29.000 relies on sharp vision. Your amazing mental software 00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:32.639 needs top -notch hardware, like clear vision, 00:11:32.960 --> 00:11:34.860 to get the information it needs early enough 00:11:34.860 --> 00:11:38.279 to work effectively. Makes sense. Beyond vision, 00:11:38.539 --> 00:11:40.759 what other physical hardware traits are really 00:11:40.759 --> 00:11:42.919 significant things we might not think about immediately? 00:11:43.419 --> 00:11:45.379 Well, subtle biomechanics can make a huge difference. 00:11:45.620 --> 00:11:47.519 Take the Achilles tendon. The one connecting 00:11:47.519 --> 00:11:49.679 the calf to the heel. That's the one. Stefan 00:11:49.679 --> 00:11:52.059 Holm, the Swedish Olympic high jumper, quite 00:11:52.059 --> 00:11:54.320 short for a high jumper, actually was incredibly 00:11:54.320 --> 00:11:56.690 successful. Partly because his intense training 00:11:56.690 --> 00:11:59.509 had made his Achilles tendon unbelievably stiff. 00:12:01.350 --> 00:12:04.210 In this context, yes. It meant it acted like 00:12:04.210 --> 00:12:07.250 an incredibly powerful spring. Took enormous 00:12:07.250 --> 00:12:10.230 force to stretch it even slightly. Now contrast 00:12:10.230 --> 00:12:12.289 him with Donald Thomas, another high jumper from 00:12:12.289 --> 00:12:16.230 the Bahamas. Thomas had a naturally very long 00:12:16.230 --> 00:12:19.610 Achilles tendon. over 10 inches. That length 00:12:19.610 --> 00:12:22.470 inherently gave him a massive capacity for storing 00:12:22.470 --> 00:12:25.090 and releasing elastic energy when he jumped. 00:12:25.570 --> 00:12:28.269 So one trained for stiffness, one had natural 00:12:28.269 --> 00:12:30.870 length, but both got a powerful spring effect. 00:12:31.090 --> 00:12:33.389 Exactly. It's called the stretch shortening cycle. 00:12:33.600 --> 00:12:36.539 Think of a kangaroo bouncing exhaust. They use 00:12:36.539 --> 00:12:39.039 their long elastic tendons to store and release 00:12:39.039 --> 00:12:41.820 energy very efficiently. A longer or stiffer 00:12:41.820 --> 00:12:44.500 tendon can store more energy and release it more 00:12:44.500 --> 00:12:47.240 explosively. It's a critical mechanical advantage 00:12:47.240 --> 00:12:48.940 whether you build it through training like home 00:12:48.940 --> 00:12:51.539 or you're born with it like Thomas. built in 00:12:51.539 --> 00:12:54.340 or built up. Fascinating. What about muscle fibers? 00:12:54.620 --> 00:12:56.200 Fast twitch, slow twitch, we hear those terms 00:12:56.200 --> 00:12:58.559 a lot. How much is that down to genetics? Muscle 00:12:58.559 --> 00:13:01.240 fiber type is a really fundamental piece of innate 00:13:01.240 --> 00:13:03.899 hardware. It heavily influences whether you're 00:13:03.899 --> 00:13:05.960 built more for power or endurance. You basically 00:13:05.960 --> 00:13:08.639 got fast twitch fibers, type two. Explosive ones. 00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:12.279 Yes. Powerful, but they tire relatively quickly. 00:13:12.620 --> 00:13:14.720 They grow well with weight training. Then you 00:13:14.720 --> 00:13:17.980 have slow twitch, type I. Their endurance fibers 00:13:17.980 --> 00:13:20.360 generate less force, but keep going for ages. 00:13:20.559 --> 00:13:22.679 And most people have a mix. Most people have 00:13:22.679 --> 00:13:26.100 a mix, yes. But elite athletes often have a distribution 00:13:26.100 --> 00:13:28.360 heavily skewed towards what their sport demands. 00:13:28.879 --> 00:13:31.899 Elite sprinters might have 75 % or more fast 00:13:31.899 --> 00:13:34.440 twitch fibers and key muscles. For that explosive 00:13:34.440 --> 00:13:37.399 start. Exactly. Whereas top marathon runners, 00:13:37.659 --> 00:13:39.879 like Frank Shorter was found to have, might have 00:13:39.879 --> 00:13:42.340 80 % slow twitch fibers. Perfect for endurance. 00:13:42.440 --> 00:13:44.740 Okay, so you're born with a certain distribution. 00:13:45.100 --> 00:13:48.220 Can training change your fiber type? Can you 00:13:48.220 --> 00:13:50.480 turn slow twitch into fast twitch if you train 00:13:50.480 --> 00:13:52.879 for power? Ah, well this is what some people 00:13:52.879 --> 00:13:55.240 find a bit disappointing actually. The research 00:13:55.240 --> 00:13:58.639 overwhelmingly says no, not really. Except in 00:13:58.639 --> 00:14:01.600 very extreme unusual circumstances like after 00:14:01.600 --> 00:14:04.419 a major spinal cord injury, you can't fundamentally 00:14:04.419 --> 00:14:06.639 change a slow twitch fiber into a fast twitch 00:14:06.639 --> 00:14:08.919 one or vice versa. So you're largely stuck with 00:14:08.919 --> 00:14:12.019 the ratio you've got. Pretty much. Training can 00:14:12.019 --> 00:14:14.059 definitely make your fast twitch fibers more 00:14:14.059 --> 00:14:16.379 resistant to fatigue or make your slow twitch 00:14:16.379 --> 00:14:19.440 fibers stronger. You can optimize what you have, 00:14:19.440 --> 00:14:22.879 but you can't change their basic type. And that 00:14:22.879 --> 00:14:25.100 has real implications for training, presumably. 00:14:25.259 --> 00:14:28.080 Huge implications. There was a Danish physiologist, 00:14:28.340 --> 00:14:31.659 Jesper Andersen. He noticed that many of Denmark's 00:14:31.659 --> 00:14:33.879 naturally fastest young football players were 00:14:33.879 --> 00:14:35.919 actually dropping out due to chronic injuries. 00:14:36.139 --> 00:14:40.629 Why was that? Because, paradoxically, The standard 00:14:40.629 --> 00:14:42.809 intensive training programs weren't suited to 00:14:42.809 --> 00:14:44.950 their fast twitch physiology. They were getting 00:14:44.950 --> 00:14:49.210 injured. So coaches ended up, perhaps unintentionally, 00:14:49.490 --> 00:14:51.610 favoring the slightly slower players who were 00:14:51.610 --> 00:14:54.950 less injury prone on those programs. A real mismatch 00:14:54.950 --> 00:14:57.490 between innate ability and training approach. 00:14:58.129 --> 00:15:00.309 Wow. So you need to train the athlete you have, 00:15:00.490 --> 00:15:02.370 not the athlete you wish you had. What about 00:15:02.370 --> 00:15:04.629 muscle growth itself? Are some people just genetically 00:15:04.629 --> 00:15:07.230 programmed to build muscle more easily? Absolutely. 00:15:07.450 --> 00:15:09.929 There's strong evidence for that. The most extreme 00:15:09.929 --> 00:15:12.549 example, though rare, is the German superbaby 00:15:12.549 --> 00:15:14.870 case. I think I've heard of this. A boy born 00:15:14.870 --> 00:15:18.090 with visibly double the normal muscle mass. Turned 00:15:18.090 --> 00:15:20.830 out he had mutations on both copies of his myostatin 00:15:20.830 --> 00:15:23.110 gene. Myostatin, that's the gene that limits 00:15:23.110 --> 00:15:25.029 muscle growth. Exactly, it acts like a break. 00:15:25.309 --> 00:15:27.210 He basically had no break, so his muscles just 00:15:27.210 --> 00:15:30.129 kept growing. Interestingly, his mother was a 00:15:30.129 --> 00:15:32.970 professional sprinter, and she had one copy of 00:15:32.970 --> 00:15:36.570 the mutant gene. Suggests a genetic link to enhanced 00:15:36.570 --> 00:15:39.200 muscle. And we see this in animals too. We do. 00:15:39.460 --> 00:15:41.539 Belgian blue and Piedmontese cattle are famous 00:15:41.539 --> 00:15:44.299 for this double -muscling due to natural myostatin 00:15:44.299 --> 00:15:47.019 mutations. Certain whippets have a mutation that 00:15:47.019 --> 00:15:49.299 makes them much more muscular and faster racers. 00:15:49.360 --> 00:15:52.559 Right, faster dogs. Even in racehorses. Thoroughbreds 00:15:52.559 --> 00:15:54.539 with a specific version of the myostatin gene, 00:15:54.960 --> 00:15:57.059 the C version, tend to be better sprinters and 00:15:57.059 --> 00:15:59.779 earn more money. Less myostatin, more muscle, 00:15:59.840 --> 00:16:03.029 more speed. So genetics clearly plays a role 00:16:03.029 --> 00:16:05.730 in baseline muscle potential. But what about 00:16:05.730 --> 00:16:08.409 how people respond to training? If two people 00:16:08.409 --> 00:16:11.029 do the exact same workout, do they get the same 00:16:11.029 --> 00:16:14.169 results? Not even close, usually. And this is 00:16:14.169 --> 00:16:16.029 another really crucial point that challenges 00:16:16.029 --> 00:16:19.919 the simple effort equals outcome idea. The Heritage 00:16:19.919 --> 00:16:22.159 Family study was massive for showing this. What 00:16:22.159 --> 00:16:24.620 did they do? They took thousands of people who 00:16:24.620 --> 00:16:27.220 didn't exercise much, put them all in the exact 00:16:27.220 --> 00:16:30.620 same standardized aerobic exercise program. And 00:16:30.620 --> 00:16:32.919 the results? All over the place. Some people 00:16:32.919 --> 00:16:35.460 saw virtually zero improvement in their aerobic 00:16:35.460 --> 00:16:38.740 capacity. Others improved by over 50 % from the 00:16:38.740 --> 00:16:41.240 same training. 50 % difference. That's huge. 00:16:41.320 --> 00:16:44.039 It's massive. Clearly, some people were high 00:16:44.039 --> 00:16:46.139 responders to that training and others were low 00:16:46.139 --> 00:16:49.360 responders. It strongly suggests that how much 00:16:49.360 --> 00:16:51.419 benefit you get from exercise your trainability 00:16:51.419 --> 00:16:54.289 has a significant genetic component. And does 00:16:54.289 --> 00:16:56.409 this apply to strength training, too? It does. 00:16:56.970 --> 00:16:58.850 A study at the University of Alabama Birmingham 00:16:58.850 --> 00:17:01.230 put people on identical weightlifting programs. 00:17:01.629 --> 00:17:04.769 Again, huge variation. Some saw basically no 00:17:04.769 --> 00:17:07.769 muscle fiber growth. Others saw a 25 % increase. 00:17:08.150 --> 00:17:10.289 And then there were extreme responders who saw 00:17:10.289 --> 00:17:13.230 a 50 % increase in muscle fiber size. Wow. What 00:17:13.230 --> 00:17:15.470 made them extreme responders? They found these 00:17:15.470 --> 00:17:18.470 individuals had significantly more satellite 00:17:18.470 --> 00:17:21.960 cells. These are cells crucial for muscle repair 00:17:21.960 --> 00:17:24.940 and growth. So again, an underlying biological 00:17:24.940 --> 00:17:28.220 difference dictating the response to the same 00:17:28.220 --> 00:17:31.180 training stimulus. So effort is essential, but 00:17:31.180 --> 00:17:33.859 your biology dictates how much return you get 00:17:33.859 --> 00:17:35.839 on that effort. Exactly. Think of someone like 00:17:35.839 --> 00:17:38.460 Jim Reid -Jone, the American runner. He apparently 00:17:38.460 --> 00:17:41.200 started high school running as, quote, the sorriest 00:17:41.200 --> 00:17:43.579 member of the team. Really struggled initially. 00:17:43.740 --> 00:17:46.869 OK. But his body responded incredibly well to 00:17:46.869 --> 00:17:49.309 the training. He improved dramatically very quickly, 00:17:49.470 --> 00:17:51.690 becoming a state champion, then world class. 00:17:52.109 --> 00:17:53.769 His baseline might have been low, like some of 00:17:53.769 --> 00:17:56.309 those heritage low responders, but his trainability 00:17:56.309 --> 00:17:58.670 was extraordinary. Not everyone, even with the 00:17:58.670 --> 00:18:00.750 same dedication, would see that kind of transformation. 00:18:00.990 --> 00:18:03.309 That's a really powerful illustration. The same 00:18:03.309 --> 00:18:05.730 input doesn't guarantee the same output. Our 00:18:05.730 --> 00:18:09.390 biology sets the parameters. Okay, let's shift 00:18:09.390 --> 00:18:12.440 gears slightly. Let's look at how the ideal athlete's 00:18:12.440 --> 00:18:15.140 body has changed over time and then dive into 00:18:15.140 --> 00:18:17.819 those geographic hotspots of talent. We hear 00:18:17.819 --> 00:18:20.099 about this big bang of body types in sports. 00:18:20.579 --> 00:18:23.380 What does that refer to? It refers to this really 00:18:23.380 --> 00:18:26.099 dramatic divergence in the physical shapes and 00:18:26.099 --> 00:18:28.619 sizes of elite athletes over the last century 00:18:28.619 --> 00:18:31.619 or so. Back in the early 20th century, maybe 00:18:31.619 --> 00:18:34.960 around the 1920s, the thinking was that a fairly 00:18:34.960 --> 00:18:38.750 average all -around build was best for most sports. 00:18:38.950 --> 00:18:41.970 One size fits all, kind of? Sort of, yes. You 00:18:41.970 --> 00:18:45.549 might look at photos from, say, 1925. An elite 00:18:45.549 --> 00:18:48.369 volleyball player, an elite discus thrower, could 00:18:48.369 --> 00:18:50.890 look remarkably similar in size and shape. OK. 00:18:51.170 --> 00:18:53.190 But as sports got more professional, more competitive, 00:18:53.309 --> 00:18:55.789 more scientific, well, you started seeing what 00:18:55.789 --> 00:18:57.950 you could call artificial selection at play. 00:18:58.750 --> 00:19:01.089 Bodies started becoming hyper specialized for 00:19:01.089 --> 00:19:04.039 the specific demands of each sport. So that average 00:19:04.039 --> 00:19:05.819 build just wasn't competitive anymore in most 00:19:05.819 --> 00:19:07.539 elite sports. Can you give some examples of this 00:19:07.539 --> 00:19:09.559 specialization? Oh, absolutely. The differences 00:19:09.559 --> 00:19:11.839 now are often huge. Compare an average elite 00:19:11.839 --> 00:19:14.099 male shot putter today to an average elite male 00:19:14.099 --> 00:19:16.200 high jumper. The shot putter is likely about 00:19:16.200 --> 00:19:19.839 2 .5 inches taller, but a massive 130 pounds 00:19:19.839 --> 00:19:22.519 heavier. Oh, polar opposites almost. Pretty much. 00:19:22.720 --> 00:19:25.599 Or look at female gymnasts. Over about 30 years, 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:28.200 their average height dropped from around 5 foot 00:19:28.200 --> 00:19:32.319 3 to 4 foot 9. A smaller, lighter frame is simply 00:19:32.319 --> 00:19:34.519 more advantageous for the incredibly complex 00:19:34.519 --> 00:19:36.299 rotations and flips they perform. That makes 00:19:36.299 --> 00:19:39.220 sense. Any other examples? Water polo players. 00:19:40.319 --> 00:19:42.420 A study in Croatia found that elite players' 00:19:42.680 --> 00:19:44.920 arm lengths were increasing five times faster 00:19:44.920 --> 00:19:46.599 than the arm lengths in the general Croatian 00:19:46.599 --> 00:19:49.920 population over a couple of decades. Longer arms 00:19:49.920 --> 00:19:52.180 give a clear advantage for reaching and throwing 00:19:52.180 --> 00:19:55.160 in the pool. The successful body types are literally 00:19:55.160 --> 00:19:58.190 pulling away from each other. The NBA must be 00:19:58.190 --> 00:20:00.869 a prime example of selecting for a very specific, 00:20:00.930 --> 00:20:04.069 unusual body type. Absolutely striking. The height 00:20:04.069 --> 00:20:06.569 difference alone is amazing. You take American 00:20:06.569 --> 00:20:09.690 men age 20, 40 who are genuinely seven feet tall 00:20:09.690 --> 00:20:13.160 or more. A staggering 17 % of them are currently 00:20:13.160 --> 00:20:15.880 playing in the NBA. 17%. That's incredible. One 00:20:15.880 --> 00:20:18.400 in six, basically. Roughly, yes. If you found 00:20:18.400 --> 00:20:21.079 six random seven -foot American men, odds are 00:20:21.079 --> 00:20:23.140 one plays pro basketball. But it's not just height. 00:20:23.460 --> 00:20:26.220 It's proportions. The ideal Vitruvian man is 00:20:26.220 --> 00:20:28.519 depicted in a square, right? Height equals arm 00:20:28.519 --> 00:20:31.319 span. Right. Leonardo da Vinci. Well, the average 00:20:31.319 --> 00:20:33.900 NBA player is more like a rectangle. Their average 00:20:33.900 --> 00:20:37.900 arm span to height ratio is about 1 .063. So 00:20:37.900 --> 00:20:40.240 their arms are over 6 % longer than they are 00:20:40.240 --> 00:20:42.579 tall. That's a huge difference from the average 00:20:42.579 --> 00:20:45.299 1 .1 ratio. It is. It actually approaches the 00:20:45.299 --> 00:20:47.640 criteria for Marfan syndrome, a condition that 00:20:47.640 --> 00:20:50.039 causes long limbs. Think of players like John 00:20:50.039 --> 00:20:52.799 Wall listed at maybe 6 foot 3, but with a reach 00:20:52.799 --> 00:20:56.460 over 6 foot 9. Or Chuck Hayes, 6 foot 5, but 00:20:56.460 --> 00:20:59.220 with a 6 foot 10 wingspan. That extra length, 00:20:59.500 --> 00:21:01.980 that innate trait, competes massively. It's like 00:21:01.980 --> 00:21:04.160 they're built for the job. And this specialization 00:21:04.160 --> 00:21:06.140 goes right down to the skeleton, doesn't it? 00:21:06.140 --> 00:21:08.319 How much muscle you can carry. It does. There's 00:21:08.319 --> 00:21:10.670 fascinating work by an exercise scientist. Kevin 00:21:10.670 --> 00:21:12.750 Hallway, suggesting a general biological rule. 00:21:13.390 --> 00:21:16.269 For every kilogram of bone mass, the body can 00:21:16.269 --> 00:21:19.430 typically support a maximum of about five kilograms 00:21:19.430 --> 00:21:21.910 of muscle. Oh, one to five ratio. Roughly. So 00:21:21.910 --> 00:21:23.930 if an Olympic thrower has a skeleton that's just, 00:21:23.930 --> 00:21:27.009 say, 6 .5 pounds heavier than an average man's 00:21:27.009 --> 00:21:30.130 skeleton, that denser frame can naturally support 00:21:30.130 --> 00:21:32.650 over 30 pounds of additional muscle mass compared 00:21:32.650 --> 00:21:34.829 to the average person. Their skeleton dictates 00:21:34.829 --> 00:21:36.960 their muscle potential to a large extent. And 00:21:36.960 --> 00:21:39.619 that affects training, too. Definitely. A javelin 00:21:39.619 --> 00:21:42.200 thrower needs explosive power, but also speed, 00:21:42.539 --> 00:21:44.700 so they wouldn't want to carry much excess weight 00:21:44.700 --> 00:21:47.660 beyond that optimal muscle ratio. It would slow 00:21:47.660 --> 00:21:51.359 them down. A sumo wrestler, though, extra mass 00:21:51.359 --> 00:21:54.279 is an advantage, so they might benefit from exceeding 00:21:54.279 --> 00:21:57.039 that ratio. It shows, again, training has to 00:21:57.039 --> 00:21:59.450 be tailored to the underlying structure. This 00:21:59.450 --> 00:22:02.910 idea of matching body type to sport sounds like 00:22:02.910 --> 00:22:05.430 talent transfer. Finding people with the right 00:22:05.430 --> 00:22:07.369 build and putting them into a sport they might 00:22:07.369 --> 00:22:09.630 not have considered. Does that actually work? 00:22:09.970 --> 00:22:12.630 It works remarkably well sometimes. It really 00:22:12.630 --> 00:22:14.789 shows how the right hardware can shortcut the 00:22:14.789 --> 00:22:17.299 learning curve. The Australian Institute of Sport 00:22:17.299 --> 00:22:19.400 did this brilliantly. What did they do? They 00:22:19.400 --> 00:22:22.140 recruited athletes from surf life -saving people 00:22:22.140 --> 00:22:24.539 with incredible power, balance, nerve, often 00:22:24.539 --> 00:22:27.400 called beach babes, and they put them onto skeleton 00:22:27.400 --> 00:22:30.460 sleds. Skeleton? The head -first ice track thing, 00:22:30.559 --> 00:22:33.140 having never done it before. Exactly. Novices. 00:22:33.339 --> 00:22:35.319 And apparently within just three runs down the 00:22:35.319 --> 00:22:37.559 track, some of them were breaking Australian 00:22:37.559 --> 00:22:40.900 national records. Wow. That's incredible. Shows 00:22:40.900 --> 00:22:43.759 the power of the right physical foundation. Absolutely. 00:22:43.950 --> 00:22:46.769 Another great example is Elisa Kaplan. She was 00:22:46.769 --> 00:22:49.650 a top gymnast and sailor. Never even seen snow 00:22:49.650 --> 00:22:51.950 before she switched to aerial skiing. Aerial 00:22:51.950 --> 00:22:55.869 skiing? That looks terrifyingly complex. It is. 00:22:55.990 --> 00:22:59.109 Requires huge spatial awareness, power, precision. 00:23:00.049 --> 00:23:03.180 Yet she won Olympic gold. and she did it just 00:23:03.180 --> 00:23:05.599 six weeks after breaking both her ankles. That's 00:23:05.599 --> 00:23:08.700 just unbelievable resilience and aptitude. It 00:23:08.700 --> 00:23:11.259 shows that if you have the right fundamental 00:23:11.259 --> 00:23:15.059 physical attributes, the hardware gaze, you can 00:23:15.059 --> 00:23:17.019 sometimes learn the specific skills of a new 00:23:17.019 --> 00:23:19.720 sport astonishingly quickly and reach an elite 00:23:19.720 --> 00:23:22.259 level. It's about getting the best all -round 00:23:22.259 --> 00:23:24.279 athletes with the right predispositions into 00:23:24.279 --> 00:23:26.799 the sports that suit their biology. Which kind 00:23:26.799 --> 00:23:28.779 of pushes back against the idea that you must 00:23:28.779 --> 00:23:31.480 specialize super early in one sport, doesn't 00:23:31.480 --> 00:23:33.819 it? It really does. And there's growing evidence 00:23:33.819 --> 00:23:36.119 that early specialization might not always be 00:23:36.119 --> 00:23:38.980 the best path. In fact, it can sometimes be detrimental. 00:23:39.200 --> 00:23:42.000 How so? It can lead to burnout, overuse injuries, 00:23:42.079 --> 00:23:44.279 and sometimes what coaches call speed plateaus. 00:23:44.680 --> 00:23:46.640 Athletes hit a ceiling because their early training 00:23:46.640 --> 00:23:49.339 was too narrow. Didn't build a broad enough athletic 00:23:49.339 --> 00:23:51.700 base. Interesting. So maybe starting broader 00:23:51.700 --> 00:23:54.180 is better. It seems that way for many sports. 00:23:54.460 --> 00:23:57.579 A big Danish study in 2011 found that athletes 00:23:57.579 --> 00:24:01.099 who were near elite by age 15 had actually done 00:24:01.099 --> 00:24:03.559 more specialized practice hours than the ones 00:24:03.559 --> 00:24:06.140 who eventually became truly elite. Really? The 00:24:06.140 --> 00:24:09.039 ones who made it practice less early on? In their 00:24:09.039 --> 00:24:11.940 specific sport, yes. It was only after 15 that 00:24:11.940 --> 00:24:14.099 the future elites really ramped up their sport 00:24:14.099 --> 00:24:17.480 -specific training. It suggested building general 00:24:17.480 --> 00:24:19.960 athleticism. Trying different things when younger, 00:24:20.039 --> 00:24:23.119 what you might call late specialization, could 00:24:23.119 --> 00:24:25.019 actually be better for long -term development 00:24:25.019 --> 00:24:27.140 and reaching the highest level in many disciplines. 00:24:27.859 --> 00:24:30.180 You build a more robust, adaptable athlete first. 00:24:30.440 --> 00:24:32.960 That makes a lot of sense. OK, this brings us 00:24:32.960 --> 00:24:35.920 nicely to that intersection of geography, ancestry, 00:24:36.079 --> 00:24:38.839 and these talent hotspots. Like Jamaican sprinters, 00:24:39.000 --> 00:24:41.039 their dominance is undeniable. What's the story 00:24:41.039 --> 00:24:43.619 there? Is it genetics, environment, culture? 00:24:43.980 --> 00:24:47.660 Ah, Jamaica. It's a classic and complex example. 00:24:47.920 --> 00:24:50.279 There's often debate, isn't there? You have researchers 00:24:50.279 --> 00:24:53.200 like Yanis Pitsiladis, who really emphasize the 00:24:53.200 --> 00:24:55.480 environmental and cultural factors, and others 00:24:55.480 --> 00:24:57.859 like Errol Morrison, who give more weight to 00:24:57.859 --> 00:25:00.319 potential genetic predispositions. And there's 00:25:00.319 --> 00:25:02.519 that warrior -slave theory you sometimes hear 00:25:02.519 --> 00:25:05.930 mentioned. Yes, that theory suggests that maybe 00:25:05.930 --> 00:25:08.950 the strongest, fittest enslaved people from West 00:25:08.950 --> 00:25:11.589 Africa were brought to particularly harsh areas 00:25:11.589 --> 00:25:14.670 like Jamaica's cockpit country, and perhaps their 00:25:14.670 --> 00:25:17.109 descendants inherited genes suited for explosive 00:25:17.109 --> 00:25:19.630 power. It's a popular idea, but well, it's quite 00:25:19.630 --> 00:25:22.109 speculative. And genetically, Jamaicans are actually 00:25:22.109 --> 00:25:24.089 very diverse, reflecting many different West 00:25:24.089 --> 00:25:26.490 African origins. It's not one single genetic 00:25:26.490 --> 00:25:29.130 group. OK, so it's likely not that simple genetically. 00:25:29.450 --> 00:25:32.130 What are the stronger arguments then? What really 00:25:32.130 --> 00:25:35.910 drives that conveyor belt of sprint talent? Well, 00:25:35.990 --> 00:25:37.750 Pizzalotta's having spent a lot of time there 00:25:37.750 --> 00:25:39.710 working with coaches points very strongly to 00:25:39.710 --> 00:25:42.250 the environment and culture. Jamaica has this 00:25:42.250 --> 00:25:45.470 incredible champs culture, national high school 00:25:45.470 --> 00:25:47.569 track and field championships. I've heard it's 00:25:47.569 --> 00:25:50.190 huge over there. It's a national obsession, like 00:25:50.190 --> 00:25:52.569 the FA Cup final here, maybe even bigger relative 00:25:52.569 --> 00:25:55.950 to the population size. This creates this amazing 00:25:55.950 --> 00:25:59.490 island wide talent identification system. Almost 00:25:59.490 --> 00:26:03.309 every kid, especially in rural areas, tries sprinting. 00:26:03.630 --> 00:26:05.690 The coaches are incredibly knowledgeable and 00:26:05.690 --> 00:26:08.730 spot talent early. So kids with natural speed 00:26:08.730 --> 00:26:11.569 get noticed and channeled into track. Exactly. 00:26:12.250 --> 00:26:14.869 Usain Bolt wanted to be a cricketer, but a sharp 00:26:14.869 --> 00:26:17.569 coach saw his raw speed at 14 and pushed him 00:26:17.569 --> 00:26:20.190 towards track. In other countries, a kid that 00:26:20.190 --> 00:26:22.710 big and fast might easily end up playing rugby 00:26:22.710 --> 00:26:25.470 or American football. In Jamaica, the system 00:26:25.470 --> 00:26:27.720 keeps them in sprinting. So the culture acts 00:26:27.720 --> 00:26:30.099 like a giant sieve, catching all the fast kids. 00:26:30.539 --> 00:26:33.880 Precisely. And it ties into this idea, you know 00:26:33.880 --> 00:26:36.240 the saying, you can't teach speed. Well, you 00:26:36.240 --> 00:26:38.140 can definitely improve technique and conditioning 00:26:38.140 --> 00:26:40.740 to make someone faster. It's also generally true 00:26:40.740 --> 00:26:42.720 that kids who are naturally slow don't suddenly 00:26:42.720 --> 00:26:45.599 become world -class sprinters as adults. Jamaica 00:26:45.599 --> 00:26:47.759 system is just incredibly effective at finding 00:26:47.759 --> 00:26:50.200 those naturally fast kids very young and keeping 00:26:50.200 --> 00:26:52.339 them in the sport. OK, that makes a lot of sense. 00:26:52.500 --> 00:26:54.779 A powerful cultural and structural advantage. 00:26:55.119 --> 00:26:57.400 Now let's switch continents. East Africa, especially 00:26:57.400 --> 00:27:00.359 Kenyan runners, the Kalenjin people, their dominance 00:27:00.359 --> 00:27:03.359 in distance running feels almost mythical sometimes. 00:27:03.740 --> 00:27:06.339 Is there a similar story there? Genetics? Environment? 00:27:07.000 --> 00:27:09.160 Again, it looks very much like a combination 00:27:09.160 --> 00:27:11.859 of factors working together. The statistics are 00:27:11.859 --> 00:27:14.519 quite staggering. The Kalenjin make up only about 00:27:14.519 --> 00:27:17.180 12 % of Kenya's population, but they account 00:27:17.180 --> 00:27:19.490 for something like three quarters of the country's 00:27:19.490 --> 00:27:22.210 top -distance runners. 75 % from just 12 % of 00:27:22.210 --> 00:27:24.849 the people. Exactly. And you see similar patterns 00:27:24.849 --> 00:27:27.690 with the Oromo in Ethiopia, the Sebi in Uganda. 00:27:28.329 --> 00:27:30.089 There are countless stories of people who seemed, 00:27:30.089 --> 00:27:32.470 you know, comfortably sedentary, like a runner 00:27:32.470 --> 00:27:34.930 called Paul Rodich, who start training relatively 00:27:34.930 --> 00:27:38.170 late and just rabidly transform into elite competitors. 00:27:38.490 --> 00:27:41.049 An incredible natural aptitude. So is there a 00:27:41.049 --> 00:27:44.069 specific physical advantage they possess? There 00:27:44.069 --> 00:27:47.089 seems to be. Studies comparing Kalenjin boys 00:27:47.089 --> 00:27:50.769 to say Danish boys, found the kalenjin on average 00:27:50.769 --> 00:27:53.250 have significantly thinner lower legs. Maybe 00:27:53.250 --> 00:27:55.769 15 -17 % thinner? Thinner lower legs. Why does 00:27:55.769 --> 00:27:57.670 that matter? Think of your legs swinging like 00:27:57.670 --> 00:28:00.109 a pendulum when you run. Less weight at the end 00:28:00.109 --> 00:28:02.049 of the pendulum means it takes less energy to 00:28:02.049 --> 00:28:04.289 swing it forward with every stride. It improves 00:28:04.289 --> 00:28:07.390 running economy, how efficiently you use oxygen 00:28:07.390 --> 00:28:10.470 at a given speed. Ah, I see. Less effort required. 00:28:10.829 --> 00:28:13.190 Precisely. And this difference seems to exist 00:28:13.190 --> 00:28:15.289 even in Kalanjin boys who aren't particularly 00:28:15.289 --> 00:28:17.990 active, suggesting it might be a more inherent 00:28:17.990 --> 00:28:20.670 morphological trait, possibly genetic. And what 00:28:20.670 --> 00:28:23.589 about the environment? Running to school? Altitude? 00:28:24.089 --> 00:28:26.869 Both likely play a role. Many elite East African 00:28:26.869 --> 00:28:29.470 runners did run or walk long distances to school 00:28:29.470 --> 00:28:33.970 as children. People like Dere Dutulu, Moses Kiptenui. 00:28:34.349 --> 00:28:37.069 That's thousands of hours of low -intensity aerobic 00:28:37.069 --> 00:28:39.890 work during development. But it's not universal. 00:28:40.170 --> 00:28:42.410 Paul Turgot, Wilson Kipkitter, they mostly walked, 00:28:42.509 --> 00:28:44.529 so it's not the only factor. Now, altitude is 00:28:44.529 --> 00:28:47.130 fascinating and complex, too. Many train at moderate 00:28:47.130 --> 00:28:49.450 to high altitudes. But different populations 00:28:49.450 --> 00:28:52.250 adapt differently. Tibetans have that EPAS1 gene 00:28:52.250 --> 00:28:54.470 variant for better blood flow without extra red 00:28:54.470 --> 00:28:57.329 blood cells. Amhara Ethiopians seem to transfer 00:28:57.329 --> 00:29:00.150 oxygen very rapidly at the tissue level. And 00:29:00.150 --> 00:29:02.190 Amguns increase their hemoglobin significantly. 00:29:02.630 --> 00:29:04.430 So different strategies for coping with thin 00:29:04.430 --> 00:29:07.890 air. Exactly. And Oromo Ethiopians are often 00:29:07.890 --> 00:29:10.529 altitude responders. Their hemoglobin increases 00:29:10.529 --> 00:29:13.869 even at moderate altitudes. Plus, being born 00:29:13.869 --> 00:29:16.160 and raised at altitude... generally leads to 00:29:16.160 --> 00:29:18.619 larger lung volumes, which is a permanent advantage 00:29:18.619 --> 00:29:21.079 for oxygen intake. It really sounds like a perfect 00:29:21.079 --> 00:29:24.460 storm of potential genetic predispositions, specific 00:29:24.460 --> 00:29:27.640 body types, environmental conditioning like altitude 00:29:27.640 --> 00:29:29.920 and maybe childhood activity. It does seem to 00:29:29.920 --> 00:29:31.900 be a confluence of many factors. And there was 00:29:31.900 --> 00:29:33.640 that interesting case of the American Canyon, 00:29:33.839 --> 00:29:36.380 wasn't there? Yes. Tell us about that. Anthony 00:29:36.380 --> 00:29:39.420 Sandoval. He grew up at high altitude, 8000 feet 00:29:39.420 --> 00:29:42.240 in New Mexico, walked and ran miles as a kid, 00:29:42.519 --> 00:29:44.980 similar to some East African runners' childhoods. 00:29:44.960 --> 00:29:48.119 A top exercise physiologist, David Martin, tested 00:29:48.119 --> 00:29:50.680 him, was just blown away. What did he find? Described 00:29:50.680 --> 00:29:54.500 as a physiological specimen. Long legs, big heart, 00:29:54.680 --> 00:29:57.579 big lungs, small torso, incredibly efficient 00:29:57.579 --> 00:30:00.319 oxygen transport. And Martin's conclusion was 00:30:00.319 --> 00:30:02.579 famously, you know what he is, he's a Kenyan, 00:30:03.099 --> 00:30:06.440 an American Kenyan. Wow. So similar environmental 00:30:06.440 --> 00:30:10.259 pressures plus maybe the right innate physiology 00:30:10.259 --> 00:30:13.400 created a similar athletic profile, despite the 00:30:13.400 --> 00:30:15.880 different ancestry. It really suggests how powerful 00:30:15.880 --> 00:30:17.819 that interplay between biology and environment 00:30:17.819 --> 00:30:20.740 can be in shaping athletic potential for endurance. 00:30:21.240 --> 00:30:23.279 This has been absolutely illuminating. It's so 00:30:23.279 --> 00:30:25.220 clear that it's never just nature or nurture, 00:30:25.400 --> 00:30:27.839 is it? It's this incredibly complex dance between 00:30:27.839 --> 00:30:30.779 them. OK, let's wrap up with a few quickfire 00:30:30.779 --> 00:30:33.519 questions to nail down some key takeaways. First 00:30:33.519 --> 00:30:36.200 one, a parent's listening. They want to know 00:30:36.200 --> 00:30:38.880 if their kid has potential to be fast. What's 00:30:38.880 --> 00:30:41.519 the best, most practical genetic test they can 00:30:41.519 --> 00:30:44.299 use right now? A stopwatch, honestly. Take them 00:30:44.299 --> 00:30:46.519 out, let them race their friends. Direct measurement 00:30:46.519 --> 00:30:49.700 of the actual skill or attribute is always, always 00:30:49.700 --> 00:30:51.660 better than trying to guess from indirect genetic 00:30:51.660 --> 00:30:54.059 information. Simple direct makes perfect sense. 00:30:54.180 --> 00:30:57.339 OK, next. Can anyone, anyone become truly elite 00:30:57.339 --> 00:30:59.240 if they just put in enough hours, show enough 00:30:59.240 --> 00:31:01.980 dedication, or is there a biological limit? Realistically, 00:31:02.220 --> 00:31:05.700 no. Not everyone can become elite. As we've seen, 00:31:05.920 --> 00:31:08.039 tradeability varies massively. Someone might 00:31:08.039 --> 00:31:10.259 need eight times the practice to reach the same 00:31:10.259 --> 00:31:12.920 level as someone else. And some people, however 00:31:12.920 --> 00:31:15.259 hard they work, their biology just might not 00:31:15.259 --> 00:31:17.359 respond enough to get them to that absolute top 00:31:17.359 --> 00:31:20.519 tier. Effort is crucial, but it doesn't guarantee 00:31:20.519 --> 00:31:22.720 an elite outcome for everyone. Right, biology 00:31:22.720 --> 00:31:26.099 sets boundaries. And final quick question, is 00:31:26.099 --> 00:31:30.240 there one single perfect athlete gene? or maybe 00:31:30.240 --> 00:31:33.039 perfect genetic profile that guarantees success. 00:31:33.440 --> 00:31:35.920 Statistically speaking, absolutely not. It's 00:31:35.920 --> 00:31:38.900 a nice idea, but the reality is far more complex. 00:31:39.460 --> 00:31:41.799 Just looking at 23 genes linked to endurance, 00:31:42.339 --> 00:31:44.240 the odds of someone having the ideal version 00:31:44.240 --> 00:31:46.880 of all of them are less than one in a quadrillion. 00:31:47.019 --> 00:31:48.660 One in a quadrillion, so basically impossible. 00:31:48.960 --> 00:31:51.599 Pretty much, yes. Most of us, genetically speaking, 00:31:51.900 --> 00:31:54.269 are somewhere in the muddled middle. Elite performance 00:31:54.269 --> 00:31:57.269 arises from a very rare combination of many favorable 00:31:57.269 --> 00:31:59.450 genes interacting, plus the right environment, 00:31:59.789 --> 00:32:02.430 the right training, immense dedication, and those 00:32:02.430 --> 00:32:04.670 crucial psychological factors too. This has been 00:32:04.670 --> 00:32:07.910 so insightful. It hammers home that elite performance 00:32:07.910 --> 00:32:11.369 is this intricate braid. Genes lay a foundation, 00:32:11.609 --> 00:32:14.549 a predisposition. And then environment? Culture? 00:32:15.130 --> 00:32:18.269 opportunity, and crucially, the right kind of 00:32:18.269 --> 00:32:20.509 dedicated practice work to develop that potential. 00:32:20.789 --> 00:32:23.410 It's never either. And that 10 ,000 -hour rule. 00:32:23.869 --> 00:32:26.529 Clearly an oversimplification. Practice is vital, 00:32:26.789 --> 00:32:29.349 but its effectiveness depends hugely on the individual's 00:32:29.349 --> 00:32:31.970 biology and whether the practice itself is smart, 00:32:32.210 --> 00:32:34.450 deliberate, and personalized. Spot on. Quantity 00:32:34.450 --> 00:32:36.650 isn't enough. Quality and suitability matter 00:32:36.650 --> 00:32:39.440 enormously. We've also seen how specialized bodies 00:32:39.440 --> 00:32:41.859 are becoming increasingly key for elite success, 00:32:42.000 --> 00:32:43.960 with things like limb length, muscle fibers, 00:32:44.200 --> 00:32:46.559 bone structure, and sheer trainability playing 00:32:46.559 --> 00:32:50.200 huge, often genetically influenced roles. While 00:32:50.200 --> 00:32:52.559 geography and ancestry clearly contribute to 00:32:52.559 --> 00:32:55.079 talent hotspots, we must remember the immense 00:32:55.079 --> 00:32:57.839 diversity within any population group, often 00:32:57.839 --> 00:33:00.400 more variation within than between groups. And 00:33:00.400 --> 00:33:02.339 critically, it's not just about the physical, 00:33:02.599 --> 00:33:05.039 those psychological traits, the drive, the pain 00:33:05.039 --> 00:33:06.900 tolerance, that almost obsessive commitment. 00:33:07.130 --> 00:33:10.069 Yes, the head stuff. Often with its own genetic 00:33:10.069 --> 00:33:13.329 links, too. Think of sled dogs bred for willingness 00:33:13.329 --> 00:33:16.710 to pull. Or ultra -runners who genuinely need 00:33:16.710 --> 00:33:18.990 that extreme activity. It's the whole package, 00:33:19.269 --> 00:33:22.730 mind and body. Absolutely. And the encouraging 00:33:22.730 --> 00:33:24.650 thing is, even if becoming an Olympian isn't 00:33:24.650 --> 00:33:27.430 the goal, everyone benefits from exercise in 00:33:27.430 --> 00:33:30.309 their own way. Finding what works for your unique 00:33:30.309 --> 00:33:33.450 biology is key for health, enjoyment, and getting 00:33:33.450 --> 00:33:35.630 the most out of it. That's the real journey of 00:33:35.630 --> 00:33:38.059 self -discovery, isn't it? It really is. If you 00:33:38.059 --> 00:33:40.480 found this deep dive into athletic potential 00:33:40.480 --> 00:33:43.519 useful, please do consider rating the show or 00:33:43.519 --> 00:33:45.900 sharing it on LinkedIn or ex -formally Twitter. 00:33:46.279 --> 00:33:48.559 It really helps others find these conversations. 00:33:48.859 --> 00:33:51.500 And perhaps a final thought to leave with. Pursuing 00:33:51.500 --> 00:33:54.380 athletic improvement at any level is really a 00:33:54.380 --> 00:33:56.640 quest to find what works for your unique biology. 00:33:57.309 --> 00:33:59.769 Taking part is a journey of discovering yourself 00:33:59.769 --> 00:34:02.309 in ways that maybe even science can't fully map 00:34:02.309 --> 00:34:04.630 yet. A perfect place to end. Thank you so much 00:34:04.630 --> 00:34:06.529 for sharing your expertise today. My pleasure 00:34:06.529 --> 00:34:08.949 entirely. Fascinating discussion. Thank you for 00:34:08.949 --> 00:34:10.849 joining us on the Deep Dive. We'll be back soon 00:34:10.849 --> 00:34:11.929 with another exploration.