Is there a genetically determined limit to athletic performance?

I remember attending Phillips 66 Outdoor National Championship, and what really caught my eye, were the shape of the wet footprints around the deck. The mass majority were made from flat feet, these wide oblongs all over the place. I always remind my parents on how they limited my swimming potential by fitting me with corrective shoes when I was young, to fix my flat feet. They told me they did it, to keep me eligible for the military draft. LOL. Hyper-extending elbows (backstrokers) and knees (breaststrokers) also add greatly to physiological advantages. We had a guy on my college team, probably one of the hardest worker on the team. The guy did everything right, but he never got better, actually, he stunk. LOL. never went sub 1:12 100 YARD ***, couldn't break a minute 100 free. We all respected him for his work ethic, but the kid just could not swim.

I'm not sure I agree with rtodd that genetics plays a big role in specific skills such as throwing a football or hitting a baseball. I think specific skills are the least likely to be impacted by genetics because they require technique and benefit the most from practice. I think genetics has a bigger role in establishing the upper limits of strength, speed, and endurance. We know height is a genetic issue. Most elite swimmers are tall. Ultimate cardiovascular ability is genetically influenced. Lance Armstrong has extraordinary VO2 max capability. And of course he has used it to best advantage through incredible motivation and training. We've all known people who added speed easily with less training than us. Others can smoke and eat bad food but still have low cholesterol. I wish I were one of those genetically advantaged people!

Originally posted by gull80 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. Do you suppose that a couple months of training with the Michigan Wolverines would shave a few points off of that percentage? I think it is very hard to determine where a person's limits truly are. Surely not everbody can train enough to hang with the likes of Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong, but how many of us feel that we have trained to the point where there is no more to give? Very few I suspect.

VERY FEW of us are anywhere near our genetic limits. If I didn't have to work, didn't have a family, gave up good beer, etc. maybe I'd get closer to my limits.

Doro, you are probably better than you would be if you hadn't those features. Flexibility/hyperextension test: Can you turn you feet (both of them) all the way around to make it look like your feet were put on backwards? Can you reach over your head, and touch the ear on the same side of the arm your reaching with? My doctor tells me I enjoy these tricks now, and greatly influence my swimming ability, but I am going to pay dearly for them in the future:)

Originally posted by scyfreestyler Do you suppose that a couple months of training with the Michigan Wolverines would shave a few points off of that percentage? Right. That's the question--can I narrow the gap between my times and those of the top 2 or 3 in my age group? Wilson would say no. I thought it was interesting (and a little discouraging) that the percentages are exactly the same as they were 28 years ago.

Very good thread Craig. When you think about the maximum heart rate which is 220 beats per minute less one's age....the average 40 year old athlete has only lost twenty beats per minute versus a twenty year old. Basically that's 200 bpm rather than 180 bpm. A 10% decline. Having seen some of the times in the 50 and 60 plus age groups...the theory that people slow down with age is really questionable in some cases.

What about those hardcore noodlers that manage to keep their bulk at 450lbs and still workout out bouncing up and down for 15 minutes in a buoyancy laden body? That my friends is genetics! The edge in competitive swimming is if you've got it mentally.

Originally posted by rtodd I'm not ready to buy into the genetic limitation thing and won't let my kids buy into it either. I think many people are unwilling to buy into it. The fact of the matter is, we don't know what our limits are unless we test tham. I just encourage my kids to try to achieve their full potential, whatever that may be. The percentages I included in my post could be used to set goals (as an alternative to just looking at times).

Gull, since we are on the subject of health I wonder what you think of the article from USMS Swimmer from JACC about reduced calorie diets being good for your health?