3 ms·

Here's an alternate view. Practice methods matter a great deal because our biology allows us to be extremely adaptive. However, not everybody's biology is ide

by xiaoma 16y ago

Here's an alternate view. Practice methods matter a great deal because our biology allows us to be extremely adaptive. However, not everybody's biology is identical and those differences will dominate in competitions between groups of highly motivated and well coached individuals. Phelps is a particularly clear example: Phelps, the six-times Olympic swimming champion, has size 14 feet, which act like flippers to propel him through water. He is 6ft 4in tall but has arms that span 6ft 7in from fingertip to fingertip. “If you’re putting a human being together from science this is what you want,” said Rowdy Gaines, the winner of three Olympic swimming gold medals in 1984. Phelps is also faster at processing lactic acid, the fluid which makes muscles ache, than any other known human. After a race, most swimmers measure a lacticity of between 10 and 15 millimoles per litre of blood. Phelps’s count after breaking a world record last year was 5.6. Genadijus Sokolovas, the Team USA physiologist, has measured 5,000 international swimmers and failed to find another with a post-race lacticity count of less than 10. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-michael-phelps-so-good http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-makes-... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article555183.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article555183.ece

jacques_chester 16y ago
I have in other fora predicted that in future, the Olympics will be reduced to geneticists submitting the genetic profile of individuals in their country. As an Olympic-style weightlifter I can tell you that genes play a distinguishable role in outcomes at the elite level. Muscle vs tendon length, tendon insertion point geometry, muscle bundle geometry, ratio of fast-twitch to slow twitch, neural drive efficiency, length of limbs vs torso, size of hip bones ... But for ordinary human beings like me it's mostly about practice. You might never beat Phelps in a pool, but with dedicated practice you could beat, say, 99% of the human population. Being in the top percentile is as good a definition of 'excellence' as you might want. Likewise I will never beat Hossein Rezazadeh, but there's a reasonable chance I will wind up as one of the strongest 5% of people alive.
- thesz 16y ago
  >with dedicated practice you could beat, say, 99% of the human population. Exactly. And you will still have time to practice some other field or two to beat there another 98% (or twice that) of people. I mean that such practice leave time for other fruitful pursuits. Often they help each other, like weightlifting and programming.
jamesbritt 16y ago
"Phelps is also faster at processing lactic acid, the fluid which makes muscles ache, than any other known human." I wish I could recall some details, but that comment reminded me of something I heard about Lance Armstrong, that he possessed some way-out-of-the-norm physiological characteristics that provided some key advantages for bike races. You have to wonder how common this is, plus the odds of someone with some physiological gift also being attracted to and motivated to pursue a well-matched sport.
- msbmsb 16y ago
  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6273202.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6273202.stm Larger lung capacity, larger heart, lower lactic acid levels, higher Vo2 max. Also: "Spaniard Miguel Indurain, who took five successive [Tour de France] titles, had lungs so big they displaced his stomach, leading to his trademark paunch. Indurain's lung capacity was eight litres, compared to an average of six litres."
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
RyanMcGreal 16y ago
I think it's fair to draw a distinction between being excellent at something and being the best in the world at something. Any number of people who possess an adequate combination of innate ability and proficiency can qualify as excellent - and beyond a certain threshold, slightly greater proficiency can make up for slightly inferior innate ability. There are some winner-take-all contests in life in which a tiny advantage in innate ability translates into total victory over everyone else, but in most cases, good enough is just that. Those tiny advantages in innate ability are less significant than the general benefits of training-based proficiency for most activities where excellence is required. For example, my doctor doesn't have to be the best in the world to diagnose an illness accurately and prescribe an effective treatment. She merely has to be competent enough to accomplish that task.
gchucky 16y ago
Actually, there was an article in the NYTimes four years ago about lactic acid, and it turns out that "lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.htm...) So maybe that explains why Phelps can train as he does: if he's producing fuel faster than anyone else, presumably his body is also better adapted to absorbing and using it.

by xiaoma 16y ago

jacques_chester 16y ago

I have in other fora predicted that in future, the Olympics will be reduced to geneticists submitting the genetic profile of individuals in their country. As an Olympic-style weightlifter I can tell you that genes play a distinguishable role in outcomes at the elite level. Muscle vs tendon length, tendon insertion point geometry, muscle bundle geometry, ratio of fast-twitch to slow twitch, neural drive efficiency, length of limbs vs torso, size of hip bones ... But for ordinary human beings like me it's mostly about practice. You might never beat Phelps in a pool, but with dedicated practice you could beat, say, 99% of the human population. Being in the top percentile is as good a definition of 'excellence' as you might want. Likewise I will never beat Hossein Rezazadeh, but there's a reasonable chance I will wind up as one of the strongest 5% of people alive.

thesz 16y ago
>with dedicated practice you could beat, say, 99% of the human population. Exactly. And you will still have time to practice some other field or two to beat there another 98% (or twice that) of people. I mean that such practice leave time for other fruitful pursuits. Often they help each other, like weightlifting and programming.

jamesbritt 16y ago

"Phelps is also faster at processing lactic acid, the fluid which makes muscles ache, than any other known human." I wish I could recall some details, but that comment reminded me of something I heard about Lance Armstrong, that he possessed some way-out-of-the-norm physiological characteristics that provided some key advantages for bike races. You have to wonder how common this is, plus the odds of someone with some physiological gift also being attracted to and motivated to pursue a well-matched sport.

msbmsb 16y ago
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6273202.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6273202.stm Larger lung capacity, larger heart, lower lactic acid levels, higher Vo2 max. Also: "Spaniard Miguel Indurain, who took five successive [Tour de France] titles, had lungs so big they displaced his stomach, leading to his trademark paunch. Indurain's lung capacity was eight litres, compared to an average of six litres."
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

RyanMcGreal 16y ago

I think it's fair to draw a distinction between being excellent at something and being the best in the world at something. Any number of people who possess an adequate combination of innate ability and proficiency can qualify as excellent - and beyond a certain threshold, slightly greater proficiency can make up for slightly inferior innate ability. There are some winner-take-all contests in life in which a tiny advantage in innate ability translates into total victory over everyone else, but in most cases, good enough is just that. Those tiny advantages in innate ability are less significant than the general benefits of training-based proficiency for most activities where excellence is required. For example, my doctor doesn't have to be the best in the world to diagnose an illness accurately and prescribe an effective treatment. She merely has to be competent enough to accomplish that task.

gchucky 16y ago

Actually, there was an article in the NYTimes four years ago about lactic acid, and it turns out that "lactic acid is actually a fuel, not a caustic waste product. Muscles make it deliberately, producing it from glucose, and they burn it to obtain energy. The reason trained athletes can perform so hard and so long is because their intense training causes their muscles to adapt so they more readily and efficiently absorb lactic acid." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/health/nutrition/16run.htm...) So maybe that explains why Phelps can train as he does: if he's producing fuel faster than anyone else, presumably his body is also better adapted to absorbing and using it.