Genes and
Training for Athletic Performance Revisited Joseph Baker School
of Physical and Health Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6,
Canada. Email: 9jrb@qlink.queensu.ca Sportscience
5(2), sportsci.org/jour/0102/jb.htm, 2001 (2032 words) Reviewed by Keith Davids,
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, Manchester Metropolitan University,
Alsager, Cheshire ST7 2HL, UK. There is
evidence that genetic factors account for around 50% of variability in human
physical performance. However, data
supporting this position are not definitive.
Research from studies of sport expertise indicates that differences
between experts and non-experts in cognitive sports are found only in
domain-specific, information-processing abilities that are primarily the
result of training. Future research
should examine an interactionist perspective to
consider the relative contribution of genes and training to performance. Reprint pdf · Reprint doc KEYWORDS:
cognitive sports, environment, nature, nurture, skill |
|
Research Supporting the
Training Perspective Recently,
I presented on the Sportscience list the notion that "sport performance
and sport expertise are entirely the result of hours spent in focused,
effortful training rather than innate, inheritable traits". Will Hopkins summarized the responses to this
topic in a recent issue
of Sportscience (Hopkins, 2001). He
suggested that the empirical evidence presented by geneticists Claude
Bouchard and Thomas J. Bouchard allows for an end to the passionate
nature/nurture debate, at least for some measures of physical
performance. Current research from the
Bouchard labs indicates that up to 50% of the variance in these measures can
be accounted for by genetic variation.
While Hopkins’ paper serves as a general summary of the biological
evidence available to date, his description of the nurture position does not
fully express the complexity of current research examining the contribution
of environmental factors to the development of expert performance in highly
skilled athletes. Research Supporting the Training Perspective Currently,
the most radical viewpoint representing the primacy of training and
environmental factors is the Theory of Deliberate Practice, a general theory
of expertise presented by K. Anders Ericsson and his colleagues (see
Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer,
1993). This theory finds its basis in
the pioneering work completed by Simon and Chase in 1973. The Simon and Chase research identified
domain-specific, information-processing characteristics that differentiated
the expert chess player from the non-expert player. Moreover, they suggested that these
differences were the result of almost full-time commitment to chess training
rather than the result of innate abilities.
Ericsson et al. have furthered this work by suggesting that it was not
simply training of any type, but the engagement in "deliberate
practice" that was necessary for the attainment of expertise. Deliberate practice is made up of
activities done to develop required abilities that were not intrinsically
motivating, required effort and attention, and did not lead to immediate
social or financial rewards. Central to the notion of deliberate practice is
the monotonic benefits assumption, postulating a direct relationship between
the number of hours of deliberate practice and the performance level
achieved. To date, research examining
the application of the theory of deliberate practice to the domain of sport
has been limited but has typically provided support for the basic tenets of
the theory (e.g., Helsen et al., 1998, 2000; Starkes, 2000). The
research is primarily studies of differences between experts and non-experts
or novices. Specifically, no studies
have found consistent, reliable differences between experts and non-experts
or novices on static physical capacities such as visual acuity, reaction
time, and/or memory (often referred to as hardware). However, consistent differences are
reported for domain-specific information processing strategies (referred to
as software). Singer and Janelle
(1999), in a recent overview of the last 30 years of expertise research in
sport, summarized the characteristics that distinguish the expert as follows: 1.
Experts have greater task-specific knowledge: Researchers McPherson
(e.g., McPherson, 1993) and French (e.g., McPherson & French, 1991) have
provided substantial evidence that sport experts have greater domain-specific
knowledge than novices/non-experts.
However, this increased knowledge is restricted to their sporting
domain. 2.
Experts interpret greater meaning from available information:
Abernethy’s (e.g., Abernethy, 1987, 1990, 1991) research on visual search
strategies and anticipation indicates that experts are more efficient at
interpreting available visual information within their area of expertise. 3.
Experts store and access information more effectively: McPherson’s (e.g., McPherson, 1993) research on
information structure in decision-making sports suggests that experts have a
more complex and structured network of information that they can access more
efficiently than novices/non-experts. 4.
Experts can better detect and recognize structured patterns of play:
Pattern recognition paradigms such as those employed by Chase and Simon
(1973) and Allard and Starkes (1980) have provided
robust findings regarding the superior ability of experts to store and access
domain-specific information in more structured and complex
"chunks". 5.
Experts use situational probability data better: Abernethy’s research
with squash, tennis and badminton players has indicated that experts are
better able to anticipate the actions of their opponent (e.g., Abernethy
& Russell 1987a, 1987b). 6.
Experts make decisions that are more rapid and more appropriate: The
characteristics identified in the above points collectively provide an
information processing system that is highly effective and markedly more
efficient than those of the novice/non-expert. In
domains where the distinguishing characteristics between experts and
non-experts are domain-specific, information-processing abilities there is
evidence to suggest that these differences are the result of training rather
than innate abilities. While certain
gross, general traits have been linked to genetic endowment (e.g.,
intelligence), the refinement of these traits into domain specific abilities
(e.g., pattern recognition, strategic thinking) is likely due to specific
training undertaken during critical periods of development. The notion that there would be a gene that
predisposed an athlete to superior information processing that is only
manifested in a single domain (e.g., a gene for soccer processing) is not
supported by empirical data. Another
interesting issue supporting the predominant role of training deals with
studies examining the relative age effect (e.g., Helsen
et al., 2000). Studies of the birth
months of skilled athletes in numerous sports (e.g., soccer, ice hockey,
baseball, cricket) have consistently indicated elite
performers are more likely (up to 4 times more likely) to be born in the
first quartile of the selection year than in the last quartile. Further, dropouts from a particular sport
are typically born in the latter parts of the selection year. In some cases, athletes can have up to a
12-month advantage in physical maturation over their peers born late in the
selection year. In light of the
characteristics usually sought by those identifying "talent", these
findings imply that physical maturation characteristics determine who receives
access to improved training resources and coaching. As a result, this system becomes
self-perpetuating, promoting the further development of these athletes. Concerns with the "Nature" Position While I
applaud Dr. Hopkins for attempting to summarize this complex issue in such a
short space, the picture presented may not capture the actual complexity of
this issue. Specifically, there are
several areas that require further attention.
7.
Lack of associations between DNA
sequence and athletic performance. This
lack of association between genetic markers and performance may be
"because performance is determined by many genes and/or they haven’t
struck gold yet" (Hopkins, 2001) or conversely, it may be because
environmental effects have a larger contribution than considered. Scientific rigor compels us to consider all
possible perspectives in the face of conflicting results (such as those
examining the ACE allele). 8.
Concerns with twins
research. There are methodological concerns regarding
research using twins to examine the relative roles of genes and environment
on human behavior. Twin studies
typically examine participants from a specific sub-section of the population
(e.g., those middle to upper class); further,
"heritability estimate[s] should not be extrapolated to the extremes of
environmental disadvantages still encountered in society" (pp 137-138;
Bouchard, 1997). By not including
participants from the extremes, researchers may remove inter-individual variance
that is associated with environmental factors and thereby inflate the
contribution of genes. 9.
Lack of elite athlete research.
Studies of genetic predisposition normally examine participants from
the general population and then generalize these results to elite
athletes. Hopkins identified the lack
of research examining genetic predisposition in elite athletes. Elite athletes have performed large amounts
of structured, specific training designed to make physiological adaptations
necessary for high performance. The
long-term (>10 years) effects that this type of training on the body are
not clearly understood. Research
examining the body's physiological and cognitive limits to adapt to training
stress would provide useful data to address this topic. In view
of the strong evidence regarding the genetic contribution to performance on
key variables, it seems clear that a certain portion of performance variance
has to be attributed to heredity.
However, the relative contribution of genes to sport performance is
likely more varied than the 50% contribution indicated by Hopkins
(2001). For example, the genetic
contribution to inter-individual variance in height is around 80%. Therefore, it seems likely that the contribution
of genetically transmitted characteristics to key performance variables will
vary as well. Indeed, there may well
be characteristics where heredity accounts for little variance among
individuals. This hypothesis has yet
to be proved or disproved empirically.
Future
research should also consider an approach to sport expertise that
investigates the inter-dependent role of genetic and environmental
factors. For example, does possessing specific genes for general intelligence (g) influence the development of
information-processing skills?
Moreover, is this relationship moderated or mediated by early
cognitive stimulation during the first years of life? Interactionist
models will likely be better able to capture the complexity of sport
performance and expertise. More
research is clearly needed before the nature vs nurture debate is resolved. Acknowledgments The
author would like to acknowledge the responders to this original posting on
the Sportscience list and Will Hopkins specifically for his helpful
comments. Thanks also to graduate
students and faculty at Queen’s University for their constructive
criticism. References Abernethy B (1987). Selective attention in fast ball sports II:
Expert-novice differences. Australian
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 19, 7-16 Abernethy
B (1990). Anticipation in squash:
Differences in advance cue utilization between expert and novice
players. Journal of Sports Sciences 8,
17-34 Abernethy
B (1991). Visual search strategies and
decision-making in sport.
International Journal of Sport Psychology 22, 189-210 Abernethy
B, Russell DG (1984). Advance cue utilisation by skilled cricket batsmen. The Australian Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport 16, 2-10 Abernethy
B, Russell DG (1987). The relationship
between expertise and visual search strategy in a racquet sport. Human Movement Science 6, 283-319 Allard F,
Starkes JL (1980).
Perception in sport: Volleyball.
Journal of Sport Psychology 2, 22-33 Bouchard
C, Malina RM, Pérusse L
(1997). Genetics of fitness and
physical performance. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics Bouchard
TJ (1997). IQ similarity in twins
reared apart: Findings and responses to critics. In RJ Sternberg, E Grigorenko
(Eds.) Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Bouchard
TJ, Lykken DT, McGue M,
Segal NL, Tellegen A (1990). Sources of human psychological differences:
The Minnesota study of twins reared apart.
Science 250, 223-228 Coyle EF,
Feltner ME, Kautz SA,
Hamilton MT, Montain SJ, Baylor AM, Abraham LD, Petrek GW (1991).
Physiological and biomechanical factors associated with elite
endurance cycling performance.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 23, 93-107 Ericsson
KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer
C (1993). The role of deliberate
practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100, 363-406 Helsen
WF, Hodges NJ, Van Winckel J, Starkes
JL (2000). The roles of talent,
physical precocity and practice in the development of soccer expertise. Journal of Sports Sciences 18, 727-736 Helsen
WF, Starkes JL, Hodges NJ (1998). Team sports and the theory of deliberate
practice. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology 20, 12-34 Hopkins
WG (2001). Genes and training for
athletic performance. Sportscience
5(1), sportsci.org/jour/0101/wghgene.htm McPherson
SL (1993). Knowledge representation
and decision-making in sport. In JL Starkes, F Allard (Eds.), Cognitive Issues in Motor
Expertise (pp. 159-188). Amsterdam: North-Holland McPherson
SL, French KE (1991). Changes in
cognitive strategies and motor skills in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
25, 249-265 Simon HA,
Chase WG (1973). Skill in chess. American Scientist 61, 394-403 Starkes
JL (2000). The road the expertise: Is
practice the only determinant?
International Journal of Sport Psychology 31, 431-451 Edited and webmastered by Will Hopkins. |