Is there a genetically determined limit to athletic performance?
Former Member
In his autobiographical book The Naturalist, E. O. Wilson suggests that there is a genetically determined limit to an individual's athletic performance which cannot be overcome regardless of the amount of training. Using himself as an example, he describes how he became a serious runner several years after graduating college. The gap between his times and those of the top runners in his age group (expressed as a percentage) remained what it was in college.
I looked at my current times (three years after joining USMS) and found that I am 12% behind in the 1000 and 15% behind in the 500. These percentages are exactly the same as they were in 1978, the last year I swam in college. I know there are exceptions within the ranks of USMS, but I wonder how valid this "rule" really is.
Originally posted by gull80
Second, humans are not rats (except for the Geek, of course).
A rat that eats like a pig maybe.
I'm not buying that ball skills are inherited, that's a bunch of bunk. We all have genetic predispositions but those can't account either solely for or against a certain skill. If catching and throwing is so ingrained, why is 90% of every baseball practice and basketball practice spent passing the ball? I've not known a single college player who just cruised on natural skills, they all worked their tails off growing up.
Originally posted by gull80
Second, humans are not rats (except for the Geek, of course).
A rat that eats like a pig maybe.
I'm not buying that ball skills are inherited, that's a bunch of bunk. We all have genetic predispositions but those can't account either solely for or against a certain skill. If catching and throwing is so ingrained, why is 90% of every baseball practice and basketball practice spent passing the ball? I've not known a single college player who just cruised on natural skills, they all worked their tails off growing up.
