Someone tweeted me this study and I thought I'd share it here.
The point that they are promoting is that good sprinters are born that way. Those who are elite do not achieve that through working hard and hitting the 10,000 hours of practice that seems to have been accepted as the key to achieving elite status. Sure practice helps, but in reality the true elite are perhaps elite before they really start to practice?
I don't think this totally invalidates the idea of developing exceptional ability through practice, at least where that is based on skill. However perhaps it emphasises that it is worth pickin your field of endeavour to focus on one for which you are ....... gifted.
The point that they are promoting is that good sprinters are born that way. Those who are elite do not achieve that through working hard and hitting the 10,000 hours of practice that seems to have been accepted as the key to achieving elite status. Sure practice helps, but in reality the true elite are perhaps elite before they really start to practice?
I don't think this totally invalidates the idea of developing exceptional ability through practice, at least where that is based on skill. However perhaps it emphasises that it is worth pickin your field of endeavour to focus on one for which you are ....... gifted.
Abstract: Most scientists agree that expertise requires both innate talent and proper training. Nevertheless, the highly influential deliberate practice model (DPM) of expertise holds that either talent does not exist, or that its contribution to performance differences is negligible. It predicts that initial performance will be unrelated to achieving expertise and that a long period of deliberate practice — at least 10 years or 10,000 hours — is necessary and sufficient for achieving expertise. We tested these predictions in the domain of sprinting. Study 1 reviewed the biographies of 15 Olympic sprint champions. Study 2 reviewed the biographies of the 20 fastest male sprinters in U.S. history. In all documented cases, sprinters were exceptional prior to or coincident with their initiation of formal training. Furthermore, most reached world class status rapidly (Study 1 median = 3 years; Study 2 median = 7.5). Study 3 surveyed U.S. national collegiate championships qualifiers in sprints and throws. Sprinters recalled being faster as youths than did throwers, whereas throwers recalled greater strength and overhand throwing ability. Sprinters’ best performances in their first season of high school, generally the onset of formal training, were consistently faster than 95-99% of their peers. Collectively, these results falsify the DPM for sprinting. Because speed is foundational for many sports, they challenge the DPM generally.
Comments
In regards to another area, but in a similar vein, this piece reminds me of what Stuart McRobert always used to preach about the role of genetics in bodybuilding, and before him the likes of Arthur Jones. Yet young men, year on year, refuse to believe that they have not got what it takes to be a "Mass Monster", which in turn makes them easy prey for the marketeers, who will feed them with the lies that promise their dreams are only at the end of a specially designed training routine and at the bottom of a tub of designer supplement X. I used to be like that. Fortunately, I never got into the supplement game too heavily, but the amount of money I wasted on various muscle literature, trying to find the magic bullet. Sigh. If only I could go back knowing what I know now and speak to the younger me. How much time money and frustration I would have saved myself.
When I read the 10,000 hour idea, I immediately wrote it off. No sprinter I know has ever put in 10,000 hours of actual training prior to peaking (during a given 3 hour workout, sprinters will usually do about 10-20 minutes of actual WORK... do the math on how many 10-20 minute days it takes to get to 10k hours). Ditto for gymnasts (my previous All-American sport).
I don't know one good sprinter who wasn't the fastest guy in their elementary school (I was), or Junior High School (I was). By high school, though, training (or the lack thereof) starts to become a factor.
Using myself as example... all the other sprinters had growth spurts. I stayed at 5'5". Our coach didn't know anything about sprinting... so, unable to match guys who were 6+" taller, I became a pole vaulter, long jumper and gymnast. Then after a 30 year break, I started sprinting again and became a Masters All-American with a modicum of training.
Regards,
Tahitian Noni Juice
Just reading Clarence Bass' new book " Take Charge". In it he mirrors Stuart Phillip's assertions that some of us were just born to lift, some were born to run, and the rest of us lie somewhere in between. I do believe that as genetics are further researched, and more discoveries are made, we will realise that for every activity there are just some of us in this world that were born to do it. Like you say Chris it's just finding what you are best suited to. That's probably the hard part.
You don't have to have formal training to be practicing deliberately.
Going to a specific track practice with a coach is not the only way to practice sprinting. So, the 10,000 hour clock may be clicking much sooner.
Same with the violin. Your potential to become an international virtuoso is pretty much clear by the time you are 10, but the ones that actually make it out of the elite pack are the ones who work smart and hard.
So it's a bit of both.
But in sprinting and violin, the idea that someone with average genetic gifts could make it to the top through hard work alone is risible.