How Fast Can Fast Get?

Running and swimming records are broken again and again at almost every international athletics event. But, can human performance continue to improve indefinitely? Will runners continue to accelerate off the starting blocks and reach the finish line in faster and faster times? Will swimmers always be able to dive into the record books with a quicker kick?

Writing in the International Journal of Applied Management Science, researchers from South Korea have analyzed data from sports events over the last one hundred years and have calculated that we could reach the upper limits on elite human performance within a decade.

Yu Sang Chang and Seung Jin Baek of the KDI School of Public Policy and Management in Seoul used non-linear regression models to accurately extrapolate the data from 61 running and swimming events. They have found the "time to limit" to be somewhere between 7.5 and 10.5 years. So, we may still see records being broken at the 2012 Olympics in London and perhaps at Rio 2016, but after that...who knows? The researchers believe their discovery of a "time to limit" has a number of policy implications for the local and national sport associations as well as for the international rule-setting federations.

Of course, US swimmer, Michael Phelps famously proclaimed that, "You can't put a limit on anything. The more you dream, the farther you get." Phelps has set around 40 world records. Sprinter Usain Bolt of Jamaica, similarly shaves split seconds from his 100-metre time almost every time he runs. Countless researchers have previously suggested that humans have a performance limit, Bolt's 9.58 second 100m shattered the previous theoretical running speed limit of 9.60s suggested 40 years ago.

"The limit of speed in sport events has been a popular topic for the public because watching athletes setting new records to win is exciting and stimulating for many sport fans," Chang and Baek suggest. "In addition, setting new world records may even be inspiring to the public because the process of improving and winning the competition reminds them of what they can accomplish in their own life."

Other researchers have criticized the use of linear regression to extrapolate to a limit. However, the present work uses the officially recognized world records on 61 sporting events during the period from 1900 to 2009. (29 running and 32 swimming events all at the Olympic level. "Therefore, this study may be the most comprehensive study undertaken so far," the researchers say.

Their statistical analysis suggests that improvements in running and swimming are slowing down and will eventually reach a maximum in the time period they suggest. However, their analysis does not take into account changes in the rules, measurements, and environmental conditions. If the governing federations move the starting blocks as it were, Phelps' prediction that there are no limits may come true and athletes will continue to make a splash in the record books indefinitely.

Source:  Inderscience Publishers  and Yu Sang Chang, Seung Jin Baek. Limit to improvement in running and swimming. International Journal of Applied Management Science, 2011; 3: 97-120

See also: The Fastest Man On No Legs and Usain Bolt Can Be Even Faster, Researchers Claim

Do Young Athletes Need Practice Or Genetics? A Conversation With Peter Vint

Recently, while I was taking up my normal Saturday position on a youth soccer game sideline, I overheard a conversation between two parents as they watched the players warm-up. “I just love watching James play soccer.  He’s just one of those natural talents.” “I agree. Even though his parents never played growing up, he just seems to have inherited all the right genes to be a top player.” 

It’s a common belief among parents and some coaches that kids either have “it” or they don’t.  Of course, some skills can be gained from practice, but the talent theory of player development and team selection seems to favor the opinion that athletic skill is “hard-wired”, unable to progress much beyond the natural limit.

Now, several books are out to prove this theory incorrect, with titles such as “The Talent Code: Greatness Isn’t Born, Its Grown”, “Talent Is Overrated”, and “The Genius in All of Us: Why Everything You've Been Told About Genetics, Talent, and IQ Is Wrong.” The common thread through all of the research studies quoted by the authors is the mantra that practice makes perfect. More specifically, about 10,000 hours of highly structured practice is required to reach elite performance levels.

Is athletic success that black or white? Instead, is there a combination of talent and tenacity that is required to reach the top? I put these questions to an expert who spends most of his waking hours trying to find the answer.

Peter Vint

Peter Vint is the High Performance Director for the United States Olympic Committee. His responsibilities include leading and coordinating the efforts of sport science and medical professionals focused on the Olympic sports of swimming, track and field, shooting, equestrian, weightlifting, and golf as well as the Pan Am sports of bowling and water skiing.

His team is responsible for conceptualizing, developing, and implementing successful and sustainable applied sport science programs with a focus on maximizing athlete development, performance, and longevity.

Recently, Peter was kind enough to endure my endless questions on this topic. Here is a synopsis of our conversation:

Dan Peterson: Peter, what makes a great athlete? Is it raw, inherited talent or years of dedicated practice?

Peter Vint: The question of what makes an athlete great is very complex.  The extent to which performance is influenced by genetic predisposition or the expression of these traits through extensive hard work and practice is not at all a black and white issue. Human performance is always nuanced and complicated and multivariate. That said, if forced to give an opinion, I would absolutely fall on the nurture/deliberate practice side of this issue than on the nature/"giftedness" side.

But, whether you subscribe to the narratives in The Talent Code, Talent is Overrated, Bounce, Outliers, Genius in All of Us, etc. or not, a great number of the cited references in these books are solid and substantial. Be sure to review the footnotes and bibliographies.

DP:  Most of the books you reference go back to the research of K. Anders Ericsson of Florida State University, known as the “expert on experts.”  His theory states that an individual needs at least 10 years and 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in their chosen sport or skill to become world-class.  Some authors take this literally and suggest that is all that is needed.  Do you agree?

PV:  First, it’s important to recognize that the 10 year/10,000 hr rule is more of a general guideline than an absolute standard. Ericsson is very clear on this but perhaps owing to the simplicity of the message, it is quite possible that the general public has interpreted this in a more absolute sense. That said, I do think that Ericsson’s work is being somewhat oversimplified in that he, and others in this field, realize that there are obvious and necessary interactions between genetic predisposition, "deliberate practice", and even "opportunity" or circumstance. To what extent this has actually happened I cannot say. I can point to several examples in the popular media where authors have captured these complexities nicely (e.g., Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers, Matthew Syed’s Bounce, and David Shenk’s The Genius in All of Us).

It is likely that athletes like Lebron James, Shaquille O'Neill, and Kevin Durant would never have become an Olympic gymnast or Triple Crown winning jockey - regardless of how hard or how deeply they practiced. But, how many athletes with a relatively similar genetic makeup to guys like Lebron, Shaq, and KD have NOT become superstars? A lot. And, to flip the coin, how many superstars arise from relative obscurity or against all odds? A lot. Even when we do become aware of "young geniuses", closer inspection often yields interested and engaged and supportive parents and an environment that encourages and supports "effort" - and not "the gift" (see Carol Dweck’s “Mindset” for an exceptional treatment of this topic). Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, and Tiger Woods come to mind.

My feeling in reading a broad body of literature related to human performance is that, in general (and there are notable exceptions to this), there is likely a minimal set of physical traits or genetic makeup which facilitates achievement to a particular level of success. Note that this may not be an absolute necessity (think, Mugsy Bogues). However, I believe the great differentiator in human performance is not genetic predisposition. but rather the expression of the gene pool which is itself now clearly related to the extent to which the individual accumulates hours of "deliberate practice".

I see another common misinterpretation in the 10 year/10,000 hr rule. The literature is clear in this but the general public’s understanding often misses the distinction in that this is not simply accumulated hours of practice, but accumulated hours of DELIBERATE practice. Dan Coyle's introduction in "The Talent Code", "The girl who did a month's practice in 6-minutes" is, in my opinion, perhaps the most insightful example of this distinction I’ve ever read.

DP: So, do genetics play any role in sports success?

PV: My short answer is yes, to varying extents, they do. But, as before, I do not believe that genetics are necessarily an absolute limiter of exceptional performances. "Skill" is developed, not from basic physical or cognitive attributes or from some magical quality ("a gift"), but from sustained, effortful, and effective practice complemented with meaningful, well-timed, and actionable feedback.

Skill itself is a complex process and almost always involves many different types or classes of skill: motor skill (the physical actions involved with "doing something"), mental skills, and perceptual skills. The extent to which these various types of skills are called into play will depend on the overall task being executed.

For example, a pilot controlling an automated aircraft may need only nominal motor skill to press a button, but will require substantial mental and perceptual skill to understand what happens when the automation switches from one mode to another. On the other hand, a basketball player will require extensive motor skill in executing a drive to the basket but will, though to a lesser extent, also involve perceptual and mental skills. Good examples of the world's best players in sport (especially team sports) seem to have exceptionally well developed perceptual skills which allow them to "see the field" better than others and "know where players will be before they even arrive".

So, physical ability (height, strength, speed, coordination) and the specific genetic code which tends to manifest it, may or may not play a significant role in the execution of the skill, depending on what the skill actually requires. The same is true of genetic predisposition, which may either enhance or impair the development of mental and perceptual skill.

In the context of sport, well-matched physical abilities are often very advantageous. That said, those same physical attributes, without an ability to properly coordinate body actions or to properly execute the action at the appropriate time or to adequately control them under pressure or in unusual circumstances, more often than not, will lead to poorer performances. Pointing again to examples like Wayne Gretzky or Magic Johnson, these were not the biggest, fastest, or strongest athletes in their sport. Their exceptional performances came from exceptional development of all facets of the skills they were required to execute in the environments they worked in. This did not happen magically but through hard work, vast and varied experiences, and a level of physical ability that allowed them to execute.  To quote Wayne Gretzky, “I wasn't naturally gifted in terms of size and speed; everything I did in hockey I worked for. ..The highest compliment that you can pay me is to say that I work hard every day…”

DP:  Peter, thank you very much for your insight.

See also: Brains Over Brawn In Sports and Winning Olympic Gold With Sport Science

Aerobic Efficiency Is Key To Olympic Gold For Cross-Country Skiers

Cross-country skiing is one of the most demanding of all Olympic sports, with skiers propelling themselves at speeds that exceed 20-25 km per hour over distances as long as 50 km. Yet the difference between winners and losers in these grueling races can be decided by just the tip of a ski, as a glance at any recent world-class competition will show. So just what gives top racers the advantage?

In an article to be published in the European Journal of Applied Physiology, Øyvind Sandbakk, a PhD candidate in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology's Human Movement Science Programme, reports with his colleagues on the metabolic rates and efficiencies of world-class skiers. Sandbakk's research offers a unique window on what separates the best from the rest in the world of elite cross-country racers.

"Skiers need high aerobic and anaerobic energy delivery, muscular strength, efficient techniques and the ability to resist fatigue to reach and maintain top speeds races," Sandbakk says. Those physical attributes may not be so very different from other world-class athletes, except that cross-country skiers also need to have mastered a variety of techniques and tempos, depending upon the course terrain, Sandbakk notes.

These challenges mean that the importance of the athlete's different physical capacities will differ in different sections of races, and between different types of competitions. For example, during the 10- and 15-km freestyle (skate) races in the Vancouver Olympics (the first of which are scheduled for February 15, with a 10km women's race and a 15 km men's race), skiers with high aerobic power (often referred to as maximal oxygen uptake per kilo body mass) will have an advantage in maintaining high speeds during the race, especially in the uphill terrain, Sandbakk says.

He says it is the uphill terrain that normally separates skiers the most during freestyle races. However, the 10- and 15-km courses also contain a great deal of level terrain, where an athlete with higher muscle mass and anaerobic power may have the edge needed to win.

Cross-country skiing also challenges skiers to master a great range of techniques for different speeds and slopes. Sandbakk predicts this factor will be crucial in the technically difficult Vancouver competition tracks. In skating races, skiers have as many as seven different skiing techniques (much like the gears on a bicycle) at their disposal, and they constantly shift between these different techniques during a single race.

"Skiers even adapt these seven techniques depending on the speed and slope," Sandbakk says. "The best skiers tend to ski with longer cycle lengths (the number of metres a skier moves his centre of mass per cycle), but with a similar cycle frequency," he says. "But during the last part of the race, the cycle frequency seems to be higher in the better skiers."

Another crucial aspect of technique is when the skier pushes off with his or her skate ski, and the skier's ability to recover quickly from the tremendous physical demand of providing a forceful push. "The ability to resist fatigue seems tightly coupled to the ability to maintain technique and keep up the cycle lengths and frequencies during a race," Sandbakk says. "In two skiers of otherwise equal fitness, this may be the deciding factor during the last part of the race in determining who wins the gold."

See also: The Physiology Of Speed and For Rock Climbers, Endurance Is Key To Performance

Source: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)  and Metabolic rate and gross efficiency at high work rates in world class and national level sprint skiers. European Journal of Applied Physiology

Swiss Team Bobbing For Gold In Vancouver

Switzerland has a long tradition of bobsledding and the Swiss Bobsleigh Federation has a remarkable record at international competitions. Currently, Switzerland even boasts two reigning world champions: Ivo Rüegg in the two-man bob and junior world champion Sabina Hafner. Moreover, pilot Beat Hefti won last year’s world cup season – also in the two-man bob.

To be better than the rest, the athletes not only need talent and experience, but also a fast bobsled. No one knows this better than former bobsledder and leader of the “CITIUS” project, Christian Reich: “for a pilot, being able to rely on a strong team and fast equipment is the key to good performance.”

Consequently, three years ago a joint venture between the Swiss Bobsleigh Federation (SBSV), researchers from ETH Zurich and Swiss industrial companies set about building a high-speed bobsled from scratch. “We wanted to build a bobsled that was faster than the competition because in bobsledding you can’t afford to sit back”, explains Peter J. Schmid, Central President of the SBSV.

The project was named “CITIUS” after the motto of the Olympic Games, “Citius, altius, fortius” (faster, higher, stronger). Last Fall, after thousands of hours of development and numerous trials in the wind tunnel and on the ice track, the developers and federation representatives handed over the new high-tech sled to the Olympic bobsled squad in front of the media.

Eliminating brake sources

As far as ETH Zurich was concerned, about two dozen researchers from the Departments of Mechanical Engineering, Process Engineering and Materials Science were involved in the development of the bobsled. It was their job to refine the material whilst keeping to the specifications of the International Bobsleigh Federation and optimize the runners, aerodynamics, stability and vibrations.

Professor Ueli Suter, Program Coordinator at ETH Zurich, said that, “For a vehicle without an engine that hurtles down an ice track at 150 km/h, finding all the important brake sources, then eliminating them and still producing a safe piece of equipment for the athletes is a complex interdisciplinary undertaking.”

Extensive industrial expertise sought
The results of the research conducted at ETH Zurich were passed on to project supervisor Christian Reich, who in turn passed them on to the development, training and production workshops of the specialist industrial companies (see box). Dr. Jürg Werner, the head of V-Zug AG’s development department, said, “The industrial partners involved contributed their expertise to the project because they feel an affinity to Swiss bobsledding. The collaboration with ETH Zurich and among industrial partners resulted in a welcome transfer of knowledge. CITIUS stands for innovation, as do the industrial partners involved.”

The countdown is on!
A total of six two-man bobsleds and three four-man bobsleds of the “CITIUS” model have been constructed and are ready to compete for hundredths of a second. The final test runs are scheduled for the second half of October in Cesana/Turin before the Swiss pilots are given their first and only opportunity to train with the new bobsleds on Whistler’s Olympic bobsled track. Shortly afterwards, the world cup season gets underway with the first race in Park City.

The bobsled competition at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver will be held from February 20 – 27 2010. By then at the latest, we should know whether the big efforts of all those involved in the “CITIUS” project have paid off and whether Switzerland can add to its medal collection as a bobsledding nation.

Source: ETH Zuerich

Usain Bolt Can Be Even Faster, Researchers Claim

Well, maybe Usain Bolt was right after all.  As discussed in our Physiology of Speed story, Bolt predicted he could run 100 meters in 9.54 seconds, lowering his own world record of 9.69 seconds.

Earlier this week, he almost got there running a 9.58 at the World Championships in Berlin.

Now, researchers from Tilburg University in the Netherlands say he could shave another 3/100ths of a second off and hit the tape at 9.51 seconds.

Using the "extreme value theory", Professor of Statistics John Einmahl and former student Sander Smeets have calculated the fastest possible times for men and women.  Between 1991 and 2008, they chronicled the best times for 762 male sprinters and 469 female sprinters.  They did not trust the data prior to 1991 as possibly being tainted by doping athletes (not that's its gotten much better since then.)

For females, their current world record, set by Florence Griffith-Joyner, of 10.49 seconds could be theoretically lowered to 10.33 seconds.

Extreme value theory is a branch of statistics that tries to predict extreme events such as 100-year floods or major stock market movements that deviate signficantly from the median.  With less statistical confidence (95% confidence), Einmahl estimates the men could get to 9.21 while the women could run a 9.88.

To make this statistical postulating a reality, Bolt needs to find the secret competitive edge that will shave these tenths and hundredths of seconds away. Scientists at the Research Institute of Wildlife Ecology in Austria claim sunflower oil may be the super fuel that is missing.

They found that mice fed a diet high in sunflower oil, which contains n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids, were 6.3% faster in sprint races against mice fed a diet rich in linseed oil, which is high in n-3 fatty acids.

Their research was presented in June at the Society for Experimental Biology Annual Meeting.

"The results of the current study on mice suggest that moderate differences in dietary n-6/n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid intake can have a biologically meaningful effect on maximum running speed", says Dr Christopher Turbill, lead researcher. "The application of this research to the performance of elite athletes (specifically those in sports that involve short distance sprints, including cycling) is uncertain, but in my opinion certainly deserves some further attention" he said.

So, a little sunflower oil mixed into the pre-race Gatorade? It might work until world records start to fall and its added to the banned substance list.

Imagine Winning Gold In Beijing

Imagine winning a gold medal at the Beijing Olympics.  No really, go ahead, close your eyes and visualize it.  What did you see?  Were you standing on the medal platform looking out at the crowd, waving and taking in the scene through your own eyes, or were you a spectator in the crowd watching yourself getting the medal put around your neck?  This choice between "first-person" or "third-person" visualization actually makes a difference on our motivation to achieve a future goal.


Noelia A. Vasquez, at York University and Roger Buehler, at Wilfrid Laurier University wanted to see if there was a link between our visualization perspective and our motivation level to achieve the imagined goal.  They asked 47 university students to imagine the successful completion of a performance task that was in their near future, whether it be a speech in a class or an upcoming athletic competition.  They were also asked to assume that the task went extremely well.  One group of students were asked to imagine this scene "through their own eyes" seeing the environment as they would actually experience it.  The second group was told to use the third-person perspective, pretending they were "in the crowd" watching themselves as others would see them achieving this goal.  Next, they were given a survey that asked each group how motivated they were to now go make this successful scene a reality. 


As hypothesized, the group that saw the scene through their audience's eyes (third-person) ranked their motivation to now succeed significantly higher than those that imagined it through their own eye (first-person).  The authors' explanation for this is the perceived additional importance attached to the task when we consider other peoples' opinion of us and our natural desire to increase our status in our peer group.  Seeing this newly elevated social acceptance and approval of ourselves from the eyes of our peers motivates us even more to reach for our goals.


The road to achievements like an Olympic gold medal is a long one with many steps along the way.  Over the years, as athletes maintain their training regimen, they can keep imagining the future goal, but they may need to also look back and recognize the improvements they have made over time.  This "progress to date" assessment will also provide motivation to keep going once they realize the hard work is actually having the desired effect and moving them along the desired path.  So, as they review their past to present progress, does the first or third person perspective make a difference there as well?



Researchers from Cornell, Yale and Ohio State, led by Thomas Gilovich, professor of psychology at Cornell, designed an experiment to find out.  They recruited a group of university students who had described their high-school years as "socially awkward" to now recall those years and compare them with their social skill in college.  The first group was asked to recall the past from a first-person perspective, just as their memories would provide them.  The second group was asked to remember themselves through the perspective of their classmates (third-person).  Next, each group was asked to assess the personal change they had accomplished since then.


As predicted, the group that had recalled their former selves in the third person reported greater progress and change towards a more social and accepted person in college than the group that remembered in the first-person.  "We have found that perspective can influence your interpretation of past events. In a situation in which change is likely, we find that observing yourself as a third person -- looking at yourself from an outside observer's perspective -- can help accentuate the changes you've made more than using a first-person perspective," says Gilovich.  "When participants recalled past awkwardness from a third-person perspective, they felt they had changed and were now more socially skilled," said Lisa K. Libby, an assistant professor of psychology at Ohio State University. "That led them to behave more sociably and appear more socially skilled to the research assistant."


So, whether looking forward or backward, seeing yourself through other's eyes seems to provide more motivation to not only continue the road to success, but to appreciate the progress you have made. 


Then the actual day of competition arrives.  It is one hour before you take your position on the starting blocks at the "Bird's Nest" stadium in Beijing or on the mat at the National Indoor Stadium for the gymnastics final.  Should you be imagining the medal ceremony and listening to your country's national anthem at that point?  In a recent Denver Post article, Peter Haberl, senior sports psychologist for the U.S. Olympic Committee says, "It takes a great deal of ability and skill to stay focused on the task at hand."  

He distinguishes between an "outcome" goal, (receiving the medal) and "performance" (improving scores/times) and "process" (improving technique) goals.  "The difference is that these types of goals are much more under the control of the athlete," explains Haberl. "The process goal, in particular, directs attention to the here and now, which allows the athlete to totally focus on the doing of the activity; this is key to performing well.  This sounds simple but it really is quite difficult because the mind takes you to the past and the future all the time, particularly in the Olympic environment with its plethora of distractions and enticing rewards." 


Mental imagery is a well-known tool for every athlete to make distant and difficult goals seem attainable.  By seeing your future accomplishments through the eyes of others, you can attach more importance and reward to achieving them.  Just imagine yourself in London in 2012!



Vasquez, N.A. (2007). Seeing Future Success: Does Imagery Perspective Influence Achievement Motivation?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(10), 1392-1405.


Libby, L.K., Eibach, R.P., Gilovich, T. (2005). Here's Looking at Me: The Effect of Memory Perspective on Assessments of Personal Change.. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 50-62. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.50

HGH - Human Growth Hoax?

Athletes, both professional and amateur, as well as the general public are convinced that human growth hormone (HGH), Erythropoietin (EPO) and anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) are all artificial and controversial paths to improved performance in sports.  The recent headlines that have included Barry Bonds, Marion Jones, Floyd Landis, Dwayne Chambers, Jose Canseco, Jason Giambi, Roger Clemens and many lesser known names (see the amazingly long list of doping cases in sport) have referred to these three substances interchangeably leaving the public confused about who took what from whom.  With so many athletes willing to gamble with their futures, they must be confident that they will see significant short-term results.  

So, is it worth the risk?  Two very interesting recent studies provide some answers on at least one of the substances, HGH.


A team at the Stanford University School of Medicine, led by Hau Liu MD, recently reviewed 27 historical studies on the effects of HGH on athletic performance, dating back to 1966 (see reference below).  They wanted to see if there were any definitive links between HGH use and improved results.  In some of the studies, test volunteers who received HGH did develop more lean body mass, but also developed more lactate during aerobic testing which inhibited rather than helped performance.  While their muscle mass increased, other markers of athletic fitness, such as VO2max remained unchanged.  “The key takeaway is that we don’t have any good scientific evidence that growth hormone improves athletic performance,” said senior author Andrew Hoffman, MD, professor of endocrinology, gerontology and metabolism.



Both Liu and Hoffman cautioned that the amounts of HGH given to these test subjects may be much lower than the the purported levels claimed to be taken by professional athletes.  They also pointed out that at a professional level, a very slight improvement might be all that is necessary to get an edge of your opponent.  Hoffman also added an insightful comment, “So much of athletic performance at the professional level is psychological.”  If an athlete takes HGH, sees some muscle mass growth and isn't 100% sure of its performance capabilities, might he assume he now has other "Superman" powers?



That is exactly the premise that a research team from Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney, Australia used to find out if HGH users simply relied on a placebo effect.  Sixty-four participants, young adult recreational athletes, were divided into two groups of 32 and tested for a baseline of athletic ability in endurance, strength, power and sprinting.  One group received growth hormone and the other group received a simple placebo.  It was a "double-blind" study in that neither the participants nor the researchers knew during the testing which substance each group received.



At the end of the 8 week treatment, the athletes were asked if they thought they were in the HGH group or the placebo group.  Half of the group that had received the placebo incorrectly guessed that they were on HGH.  Not too surprisingly, the majority of the "incorrect guessers" were men.  Here's where it gets interesting.  The incorrect guessers also thought that their athletic abilities had improved over the 8 week period.  The team retested all of the placebo group and actually did find improvement across all of the tests, but only significantly in the high-jump test.


Jennifer Hansen, a nurse researcher and Dr. Ken Ho, head of the pituitary research unit at Garvan have not released the data on the group that did receive the HGH, but they will in their final report coming soon.



So, let's recap.  On the one hand, we have a research review that claims there is not yet any scientific evidence that HGH actually improves sports performance.  Yet, we have hundreds, if not thousands, of athletes illegally using HGH for performance gain.  Showing the effect of the "if its good enough for them, its good enough for me" beliefs of the public regarding professional athlete use of HGH, we now have research that shows even those who received a placebo, but believed they were taking HGH not only thought they were improving but actually did improve a little.  Once again, we see the power of our own natural, non-supplemented brain to convince (or fool) ourselves to perform at higher levels than we thought possible.








Liu, H., Bravata, D.M., Olkin, I., Friedlander, A., Liu, V., Roberts, B., Bendavid, E., Saynina, O., Salpeter, S.R., Garber, A.M. (2008). Systematic review: the effects of growth hormone on athletic performance.. Annals of Internal Medicine, 148(10), 747-758.

Brains Over Brawn In Sports

Sometimes, during my daily browsing of the Web for news and interesting angles on the sport science world, I get lucky and hit a home run.  I stumbled on this great May 2007 Wired article by Jennifer Kahn, Wayne Gretzky-Style 'Field Sense' May Be Teachable.  It ties together the people and themes of my last three posts, focusing on the concept of perception in sports.


Wayne Gretzky is often held up as the ultimate example of an athlete with average physical stature, who used his cognitive and perceptual skills to beat opponents.  Joining Gretzky in the "brains over brawn" Hall of Fame would be pitcher Greg Maddux, NBA guard Steve Nash and quarterback Joe Montana.  They were all told as teenagers that they didn't have the size to succeed in college or the pros, but they countered this by becoming master students of the game, constantly searching for visual cues that would give them the advantage of a fraction of second or the element of surprise.



Kahn's story focuses on two sport scientists that we have met before.  Peter Vint, sport technologist with the US Olympic team, who I highlighted in the post, Winning Olympic Gold With Sport Science,  comments on this, "In any sport, you come across these players.  They're not always the most physically talented, but they're by far the best. The way they see things that nobody else sees — it can seem almost supernatural. But I'm a scientist, so I want to know how the magic works."  So, Vint and his team continue to search not only for the secret to the magic, but how it can be taught.



Vint acknowledges the work of one of his fellow sport scientists, Damian Farrow, of the Australian Institute for Sport, who was part of the discussion roundtable mentioned in my post, Getting Sport Science Out Of The Lab And Onto The Field.


He is also fascinated with the perceptual abilities of elite athletes.  In his own sport, tennis, he wanted to know how expert players could return serves much better than novice players.  Similar to the research we looked at in an earlier post about tennis, Federer and Nadal Can See the Difference, Farrow designed an experiment that would try to identify the cues that players might need to instinctively estimate the speed and direction of a serve.  He had three groups of players, expert, non-expert but coached, and non-expert/non-coaced novices, wear ear plugs to block out the sound of the ball hitting the racquet as well as occlusion glasses that could block vision with the touch of an assistant's button.  

By changing the point of the serve at which the glasses would go black, and the players would be "blind", he could try to isolate the action of the server that the expert players might be tuned into that the novices were not.  The decisive point was immediately before impact between the racquet and the ball.  Arm and racquet position at that point seemed to let the expert players estimate the direction of the serve more accurately than the novices.


But Vint and Farrow are not satisfied just knowing what an expert knows.  They want to understand how to teach this skill to novices.  From his own competitive tennis playing days, Farrow remembers that if he consciously focused his mind on things like arm position, racquet angle, etc., he would be miss the serve as his reaction time would drop.  He understood that players need to not only learn the cues, but learn them to the point of "automaticity" through implicit learning.  

You may remember our discussion of implicit learning from the post, Teaching Tactics and Techniques in Sports.   Malcolm Gladwell, in his best-selling book, Blink, calls this implicit decision-making ability "thin slicing" and gives examples of how we can often make better decisions in the "blink" of an eye, rather than through long analysis.  Obviously, in sports, when only seconds or sub-seconds are allowed for decisions, this blink must be so well-trained that it is at the sub-conscious level.

For Vint and Farrow, the experiments continue, looking at each sport, but beyond the raw physical and technical skills that need to be taught but often times are the only skills that are taught.   

Understanding the cognitive side of the game will provide the edge when all else is equal.

Getting Sport Science Out Of The Lab And Onto The Field

You are a coach, trying to juggle practice plans, meetings, game prep and player issues while trying to stay focused on the season's goals.  At the end of another long day, you see this in your inbox:

MEMO
To:           All Head Coaches
From:      Athletic Director
Subject:  Monthly Reading List to Keep Up with Current Sport Science Research 
-  Neuromuscular Activation of Triceps Surae Using Muscle Functional MRI and EMG
-  Positive effects of intermittent hypoxia (live high:train low) on exercise performance are not mediated primarily by augmented red cell volume
-  Physiologic Left Ventricular Cavity Dilatation in Elite Athletes
-  The Relationships of Perceived Motivational Climate to Cohesion and Collective Efficacy in Elite Female Teams

Just some light reading before bedtime...  This is an obvious exaggeration (and weak attempt at humor) of the gap between sport science researchers and practitioners.  While those are actual research paper titles from the last few years under the heading of "sport science", the intended audience was most likely not coaches or athletes, but rather fellow academic peers.  The real question is whether the important conclusions and knowledge captured in all of this research is ever actually used to improve athletic performance?  How can a coach or athlete understand, combine and transfer this information into their game?

David Bishop of the Faculty of Exercise and Sport Science at the University of Verona has been looking at this issue for several years.  It started with a roundtable discussion he had at the 2006 Congress of the Australian Association for Exercise and Sports Science with several academic sport scientists (see: Sports-Science Roundtable: Does Sports-Science Research Influence Practice? )  He asked very direct questions regarding the definition of sport science and whether the research always needs to be "applied" versus establishing a "basic" foundation.  The most intriguing question was whether there already is ample research that could applied, but it suffered from the lack of a good translator to interpret and communicate to the potential users - coaches and athletes.  The panel agreed that was the missing piece, as most academic researchers just don't have the time to deliver all of their findings directly to the field.

In a follow-up to this discussion, Bishop recently published his proposed solution titled, "An Applied Research Model for the Sport Sciences" in Sports Medicine (see citation below).  In it, he calls for a new framework for researchers to follow when designing their studies so that there is always a focus on how the results will directly improve athletic performance.  He calls for a greater partnership role between researchers and coaches to map out a useful agenda of real world problems to examine.  He admits that this model, if implemented, will only help increase the potential for applied sport science.  The "middleman" role is still needed to bring this information to the front lines of sports.

The solution for this "gathering place" community seems perfect for Web 2.0 technology.  One specific example is an online community called iStadia.com.  Keith Irving and Rob Robson, two practicing sport science consultants, created the site two years ago to fill this gap.  Today, with over 600 members, iStadia is approaching the type of critical mass that will be necessary to bring all of the stakeholders together.  Of course, as with any online community, the conversations there are only as good as the participants want to make it.  But, with the pressure on coaches to improve and the desire of sport scientists to produce relevant knowledge, there is motivation to make the connection.

Another trend favoring more public awareness of sport science is the additional, recent media attention, especially related to the upcoming Beijing Olympics.  In an earlier post, Winning Olympic Gold With Sport Science, I highlighted a feature article from USA Today.  This month's Fast Company also picks up on this theme with their cover article, Innovation of Olympic Proportions, describing several high-tech equipment innovations that will be used at the Games.  Each article mentions the evolving trust and acceptance of sport science research by coaches and athletes.  When they see actual products, techniques and, most importantly, results come from the research, they cannot deny its value.







Bishop, D. (2008). An Applied Research Model for the

Sport Sciences. Sports Medicine, 38(3), 253-263.

Winning Olympic Gold With Sport Science

Its something that every coach and every athlete of every sport is searching for... the EDGE. That one training tip, equipment improvement, mental preparation or tactical insight that will tip the game towards them. The body of knowledge that exists today in each sport is assumed, with each competitor expected to at least be aware of the history, beliefs and traditions of their individual sport. But, if each team is starting with the same set of information then the team that takes the next step by applying new research and ideas will capture the edge.

To me, that is what sport science is all about. The goal is to improve sports performance by imagining, analyzing, experimenting, testing, documenting and training new methods to coaches and athletes.

You might have seen a great article in the 6/23 edition of USA Today; "In hunt for Olympic gold, techies are major players" by Jodi Upton. We meet Peter Vint, a "sport technologist" in the Performance Technology Division of the US Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, CO, whose job it is to find ways to win more gold medals. From the article; "The next revolution, Vint says, is breaking down the last secrets of elite athletes: response time, how they read the field and other players — everything that goes into the vision, perception and split-second decision-making of an athlete. 'We've always looked at that as mysterious, something that's unmeasurable and innate,' Vint says. 'But we think it can be taught.'"

Interestingly, Vint cites another pioneer in evidence-based sports coaching, Oakland A's general manager, Billy Beane. "We're becoming progressively more data-driven," Vint says of the center's training efforts. "We are trying to pursue what Sabermetrics and Billy Beane did for baseball, identifying factors that can truly influence performance." The radical concept that Beane created, as documented in the bestseller, "Moneyball" by Michael Lewis, is to stop searching for "the edge" in all the same places that everyone else is looking. Instead, he started from scratch with new logic about the objectives of the game of baseball itself and built metrics that gave new insight into the types of players and skill sets that he should acquire for his team.

If sport science is going to thrive and be accepted, it faces the challenge of inertia. The ideas and techniques that are the product of sport science can also be captured in the phrase, "evidence based coaching". Just as evidence based medicine has slowly found its place in the physician's exam room, the coaching profession is just beginning to trust the research. Traditionally, "belief based coaching" has been the philosophy favored in the clubhouse. Training drills, tactical plans, player selection and player development has been guided by ideas and concepts that have been handed down from one generation of coaches to the next. Most of these beliefs are valid and have been proven on the field through many years of trial and error. Subjecting these beliefs to scientific research may not produce conclusions any different than what coaching lore tells us. But, today's coaches and athletes see the competition creeping closer to them in all aspects, so they are now willing to at least listen to the scientists. Beane likens it to financial analysis and the stock market. The assumption is that all information is known by all. But, if someone can find a ratio or a statistic or make an industry insight that no one has considered, then they own the competitive advantage; at least until this new information is made public.

It takes time, though, to amass enough data to convince a head coach to change years of habits for the unknown. Reputations and championships are on the line, so the changes sometimes need to be implemented slowly. Vint describes the gradual process of converting U.S. hurdler Terrence Trammell and his coach to some of his ideas. "The relationship between the athletes and sports scientist is critical," Vint says. "But (for some), biomechanics has not yet provided useful enough suggestions."

There still is debate on evidence based coaching vs. belief based coaching. Here are two opposing opinions; evidence-based: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" by Brent S. Rushall of San Diego State University
and belief-based: "Evidence Based vs. Belief Based Coaching" by Richard Todd of Webball.com. If you have a few minutes, please read each opinion and offer your take on this. After considering these opinions, Robert Robson, sport psychologist and management consultant, stated, "Sports coaching should absolutely be evidence-based, but any argument that places the sole source of evidence in the realm of the scientific method is, I would argue, naive and lacking in an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science."

Looking forward, I will dig a little deeper into this topic in the next week, so please check back or subscribe to Sports Are 80 Percent Mental.