Human Limits

In my last post I summarized an ongoing e-mail exchange I was having with David Epstein, Terry Laughlin and Amby Burfoot.   The focus of our exchange was on talent in general and the idea the champions are either born and then made or simply made via intense and deliberate practice.  When this topic comes up the first thing that pops into many people’s mind is the “10,000” hour rule as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell.  The basic idea is that practice beats talent and that with enough of it “anyone can become world class”.   

The conversation is continuing and David got Jonathan Wai involved.  Jonathan is one of the world’s leading experts on the nuances of intellectual and creative talent, and it has been fun to get his perspectives.  It is also interesting to see how ideas about talent, practice and achievement in academic and creative fields are the same or different than for sports.  So what have I learned in the last 10 days as the exchange continues?

Dr. Ericsson I Presume?

At least some of the ideas associated with what Terry Laughlin described in our exchange as the “10,000 brand” come from K. Anders Ericsson, a psychologist at Florida State University.  Ericsson is now either back tracking from some of his original ideas or perhaps they were misinterpreted and oversimplified to begin with.  Here are a few caveats to think about:

• Many of the groups used to make the 10,000 hour argument are elite or nearly elite to begin with.   So perhaps among the most talented people, more practice makes a difference.
• The distribution of practice times to “elitehood” is highly variable and reflects potentially complex interactions between talent, exposure, and what might be called trainability.  Average values rarely tell the whole story.
• There are obvious talents like body size, which trump all sorts of things.  You will never find small shot putters or big gymnasts.
• For academic and creative efforts there are many parallels with sport.  That having been said kids who do really, really, really well on early tests of academic ability end up (on average) with higher levels of academic and professional achievement later in life in comparison to the merely seriously above average.  Practice and motivation matter but so does talent.

Rage to Master!

One of the more interesting topics that came up is the so-called “rage to master” concept.  The idea is that a very few people are both gifted in a given domain and also develop an early interest in pursuing it like their “hair is on fire”.   There are some great examples from the visual art world that include people who draw well early.  There are also well known examples like Picasso.   The image below is the “First Communion” that Picasso painted when he was about 15.   I am not an art historian, but it is pretty clear that he had mastered what might be called classic 19^th century European painting at an early age before moving on to his later innovations.

The other interesting thing about highly precocious highly motivated kids is that they seem to “pull” their environment as opposed to being pushed by parents; again their hair is on fire.   David Epstein sees Tiger Woods as a classic example of pull that went along with any physical talent he had plus the early exposure.   It is also easy to see how under the right circumstances all of these factors can amplify each other with success leading to more motivation, more practice, and then more success……..

Go For Broke!

Tiger Woods (at least the Tiger of old) also conjures up what might be described as the “go for broke” mindset.   Amby Burfoot wonders if that is part of the success of the E. Africans in distance running.  They go out hard and push the pace.  Many crash and burn in big races, but if someone is really on that day, and conditions are right then the odds of a breakthrough time improve.   As I thought more about this it occurred to me that one of the reasons Tiger Woods is not as dominant as he once was is that the wave of golfers just behind him (the 20 somethings) saw him go for broke and now all do it.   Thus, on any given day at least someone almost as good as Tiger gets hot and is there to challenge him.

Practice, Practice, Practice

Terry is a very effective advocate of deliberate practice and he has shown repeatedly that technique and skill matter in swimming, and that it is way more than getting in the pool and mindlessly working out.   He sent a link about the 17 year old Ski phenomenon Mikaela Schiffrin.  The story reinforces many of the ideas we have been e-mailing about:

• She obviously has some ability and is the perfect size.  The picture in article shows what appear to be powerful legs and a low center of gravity.
• She got intensive early exposure but also developed well-rounded athletic skills like juggling while riding a unicycle.
• She seems to have the “rage to master” and by master I mean focusing on flawless and efficient technique.

Where to Leave It?

The conversation is continuing, but where to leave it for now?  There are all sorts of pieces of advice that might flow for our discussion but one thing that is for sure is that we have at least some control over our effort and how well we practice.   The story of Mikaela Schiffrin juggling and riding a unicycle along with the observations in last week’s post on “sample early and focus “ make me think that focusing on general motor and intellectual skills and that mastering a few fundamentals at any age has a lot of merit.   That having been said, here is something about Vince Lombardi explaining his basic plays  in 1965 to center Bill Curry.  Curry was a rookie and Lombardi used nothing more than a yellow legal pad and a pencil:

“Our system is complete, simple, and comprehensive,” he went on. “We can attack the whole field. We have very little trickery. We really don’t need it.  We win with execution. Something works, not because it’s a brilliant piece of strategic or tactical thinking, but because our team has practiced the same plays, the same movements, and the same fundamentals over and over and over again.”

How great a teacher was Vince Lombardi? The best way to answer that is to tell you that, 43 years later, I remember each one of the plays he outlined for me that day. I can draw each assignment, make the calls, and teach their installation. I remember the coaching points for the guards, tackles, and tight ends. I remember it all, as if it were yesterday. “

In sports the fundamentals include superior technique, foot work, balance, timing, and conditioning.  Together they are tough to beat.  They can make the gifted elite and permit the rest of us mere mortals to develop high levels of skill and immense personal satisfaction.

Have you ever gotten into a long three or four way e-mail conversation with friends and colleagues?  Recently I had one that started out on the topic of “talent identification” in sports and headed off into several related directions over multiple days.   In addition to me, the participants were David Epstein, the author of the “Sports Gene”, Terry Laughlin, the creator of Total Immersion Swimming, and the runner/author Amby Burfoot.  Here is a synopsis of some of the things that came up in the exchange.

1.)  The Kid From Fargo

The conversation started when I asked David, Terry and Amby what they thought about the following story.  On the day after Christmas, my wife and I did a short swim workout at our local athletic club.  The next lane was occupied by a young guy who was doing what might be described as a serious swim workout.  During a break in his interval training, I asked what college he swam for thinking that perhaps he was a small college swimmer home for winter break.  Instead I learned he was high school kid from Fargo, N.D. visiting relatives in Minnesota.   We talked a bit more and he told me he could break 1:50 for a 200yd freestyle.  He also did some running with a 2-mile best of around 9:50.   His training regimen sounded serious but modest with no year round running for example.   I also guessed that the mystery swimmer was about 5’10” (9180cm) and  150lbs. (68 kg)…….perfect size for the triathlon.   We finished the conversation with me encouraging him to give the triathlon a try.

So, how good could the kid from Fargo get if he trained seriously for say an Olympic distance (1500m swim, 40km bike ride, and 10km run) triathlon?   The fact that he was training alone while on vacation made me think he was pretty committed.   His times while very good are not great; however, Fargo is not an endurance sports hotbed and who knows what opportunities he might have to really train and improve in college.  My bet is that with training he could become at least a sub-elite regional class triathlete, and with a bit of luck perhaps national or even world class.

2.)  Talent Identification

I have made the point before that in comparison to a country like Kenya there is plenty of wasted aerobic talent in the U.S.  The other critical point is that talent identification works.  A good recent example is the Great Britain Rowing Team Start Programme which seeks to find tall people with a lot of aerobic power and turn them into rowers.  This effort has been successful and resulted in a number of Olympic medals and World Champions and there is also a focus on who is motivated to do the training required to excel:

“The right physical characteristics are of course not the only factor that is needed to achieve that ultimate prize of an Olympic gold medal.  You also need commitment, the ability to train hard and the right mental attitude.  Even with all the physical capabilities described above if you don’t make the full commitment to training and make sacrifices where necessary then even the most talented person will not make it.”

So, when you say lack of talent, my response is lack of talent identification.

3.)  What About Motivation

In our e-mail exchange Terry pointed to an experience about motivation that he had early in his coaching career that I found fascinating:

“The most interesting observation I made while working with younger competitive swimmers–including a fair few elites who I developed–was that intrinsic motivation was a far more significant factor than physical talent. I first noticed this accidentally because my first coaching position was at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy at Kings Point, 1972-75.

But the much more interesting observation was about motivation. 

 At Kings Point everyone was on scholarship, so no one swam for that reason. That left two reasons to swim (1) You wanted to, and (2) You did so to escape shit duty, as athletes were excused from reviews, washing latrines, swabbing floors, etc, during the season.. The prevalence of people who swam for intrinsic reasons in the faster lanes, and of escapers in the slower lanes, was even more striking than of body types. That observation remained true for the rest of my career in ‘serious’ coaching which continued through 1988.  And it remains the most influential aspect of the coaching I’ve done since.”

4.)  Early Specialization: Good or Bad?

One of the big ideas out there is that champions in sport and elites in many fields are made and not born via 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.  This would tend to argue for early specialization.  However, David pointed out that for “CGS” sports that are contested in centimeters, grams, or seconds there is evidence that later specialization is better:

“Based on a Danish sample of 148 elite and 95 near-elite athletes from cgs sports (sports measured in centimeters, grams, or seconds), the present study investigates group differences concerning accumulated practice hours during the early stages of the career, involvement in other sports, career development, as well as determining whether or not these variables predict membership in the elite group. The results clearly reveal that elite athletes specialized at a later age and trained less in childhood. However, elite athletes were shown to intensify their training regime during late adolescence more than their near-elite peers. The involvement in other sports neither differs between the groups nor predicts success. It can be concluded that factors related to the organization of practice during the mid-teens seem to be crucial for international success within cgs sports. Future research should adopt a longitudinal design with means of drawing causal inferences.”

Did the late specializers do better because they intensified their training during a key period of physiological growth and development?  Did being a bit older allow the most motivated kids to pick the sport that interested them the most and then really commit to the required training for the internal vs. external reasons mentioned by Terry above?

There is a lot of talk about of how birthdays early in the year are key determinants of who does well in sports like Hockey via what is called the relative age effect.  The idea is that kids who are relatively older do well and thus get more ice time and practice and thus get better and better leaving the younger kids in the dust.   However, on further review this appears to be a superficial analysis:

“Because RAEs are well-established in hockey, we analyzed National Hockey League (NHL) drafts from 1980 to 2006. Compared to those born in the first quarter (i.e., January-March), those born in the third and fourth quarters were drafted more than 40 slots later than their productivity warranted, and they were roughly twice as likely to reach career benchmarks, such as 400 games played or 200 points scored. This selection bias in drafting did not decrease over time, apparently continues to occur, and reduces the playing opportunities of relatively younger players. This bias is remarkable because it is exhibited by professional decision makers evaluating adults in a context where RAEs have been widely publicized. Thus, selection bias based on relative age may be pervasive.”

There are other holes in the 10,000 hour argument that David has covered in his book.  It is certainly an interesting idea that is easy to grasp, but like a lot of ideas that are easy to grasp sometimes the nuances get lost as things get oversimplified for public consumption.

5.)  Limits of Deliberate Practice?

Amby wanted to know what happens to people that really devote themselves to something new later in life.   The example of Dan McLaughlin comes to mind.  Mr. McLaughlin essentially quit his day job as a commercial photographer to see just how good a golfer he could become with 10,000s of deliberate practice:

“On April 5th, 2010, Dan quit his day job as a commercial photographer and began The Dan Plan. Having never played 18 holes of golf in his life, Dan started the 10,000 hour journey with just a putter.  After five months of putting, he received his second club, a pitching wedge. Just before the first anniversary of The Dan Plan, Dan took his first full-swing lesson.  After 18 months he swung a driver for the first time.  On December 28, 2011 he played his first full round with a full set of clubs.  Since then it has been off to the races.

Logging in 30-plus hours a week he will hit the 10,000 hour milestone by December 2016. During this time, Dan plans to develop his skills through deliberate practice, eventually winning amateur events and obtaining his PGA Tour card through a successful appearance in the PGA Tour’s Qualifying School.”

From what I can tell, three years into his plan, Dan McLaughlin currently has a handicap of about 6 meaning he usually shoots about six over par.   I am not an expert on handicap systems but from what I can tell top PGA pros are routinely a few shots under par on their home courses.   At some level this little experiment shows us both the power and limits of deliberate practice.  Dan McGlaughlin is becoming a solid golfer and now is in the 10% of people who actually take the time to post handicaps.   To put it in perspective, about 15% of marathon finishers run under 3:30.

However, I would be remiss if I did not highlight that many positive aspects of deliberate practice including improved performance and learning how to spend more time in a relaxed Flow like state while doing challenging things.    These effects can be hard to quantify but as Terry points out most of the time the key is train well vs. simply harder.

6.)  The Talent Question

To become truly skilled at most things requires practice.  Practice plus the nebulous concept of talent can lead to exceptional performances.  David tells me that the Kenyan runners are convinced they are more talented.  Is this real?  Does their belief increase their motivation and lead the most talented kids to pursue running?  Does it give them a psychological edge in competition?  Or, do they end up simply training harder as a result of their beliefs?

Based on everything I know, most tests of talent are pretty crude especially when you are trying to find the most exceptional person in a field full of exceptional performers.  This is true for tests in the physiology lab, paper and pencil tests of academic performance and also genetic testing for most things.  The tests needed to determine who has 1/100 talent, 1/1,000 talent, and 1/10,000 just are not there.  That having been said, the great NFL quaterback Tom Brady was a 6^th round draft pick with marginal NFL combine scores.   Does the fact he got to the NFL combine mean he was exceptional?  Or, does the mismatch between his “test scores” and performance simply show just how hard it is to determine or predict objectively who will be the best of the best?

Finally, to the extent that talent is something innate we don’t have control over it.  However, we do have control over how we apply it and I hope the kid from Fargo sees what he can do.

Last weekend there was a “60 Minutes” segment on the emerging sport of free diving.  That plus the death of free diver Nicholas Mevoli got me thinking about risk and extreme sports.  When things like this happen sometimes I get calls from the press and almost always my physician colleagues want to know “why anyone would try these things?”  Here are the ideas I cover in response to that question.

The Power of a Subculture

People who attempt to set extreme records or push themselves to the limit are usually part of an extreme and somewhat closed subculture.   Their friends and peer group share an intense interest in an activity and it becomes literally what they eat, breath and dream about.   A question like “how are you today?” from a casual friend or co-worker is frequently answered with something like “pretty good, I did a hard 15 mile run first thing this morning, we will see how the 10 miler this afternoon goes.”  This might be seen as an odd response in the real world, but totally normal in an extreme athletic subculture.

That sort of dialogue is an example from running but similar discussions can be had with those who are really committed to just about anything.   If you have never been part of an extreme athletic subculture three books that describe them in detail are “Muscle”, “Once a Runner”, and the recent the “Secret Race” by Tour de France rider Tyler Hamilton.  So, there is plenty of social reinforcement to “go for it” from the subcultures that people who are committed live in.

My Neurotransmitters Made Me Do It

One of the hallmarks of traditional addiction is the need to use ever more external stimulus to get the same satisfaction from whatever you are addicted too.   Traditional addiction to drugs rewires brain circuitry and neurochemistry to make this happen and there is evidence that gambling can do the same thing to susceptible individuals.  For many a peak and intense athletic experience is sometimes followed by a letdown as the excitement associated with the planning, training, and anticipation of the big event vanish afterward.   The obvious solution to this problem is to find an incremental challenge and start the whole process again.   Parallels with gambling seem appropriate here and when you mix what is happening in the brain with the right subculture it is pretty easy to see how the need to do ever more extreme things happens.

The Environment

A lot of disasters and deaths occur in extreme environments.   Think altitude, diving, hot and cold.  There are tremendous physiological adaptations that can be activated both acutely and in response to training that help us do more or go longer in extreme environments, but when things fail they can fail catastrophically.   There is a quote about bankruptcy from the “Sun Also Rises” by Earnest Hemingway that applies to physiological responses to extreme challenges:

“How did you go bankrupt?  Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

A classic example of this is watching soldiers faint while at attention on a hot day or seeing a patient respond to potentially life threatening blood loss.  If you were to measure the vital signs they would be pretty normal until just before loss of consciousness when there is a sudden drop in blood pressure.  When this happens many of the physiological systems that are compensating for the challenges of not enough blood returning to the heart fail essentially at the same time.  You can tell a similar story about catastrophic physiological failure in response to other severe stresses as well.   So, people feel OK until they don’t and in extreme environments the distance between OK and death is not that far.

You Are On Your Own

Of the people injured in the Boston Marathon bombing essentially everyone who made it to the hospital alive survived.   This is one of the main lessons from military combat casualty care for civilian medicine.  Extreme sports take place in extreme environments distant from the types of comprehensive medical care that make an incredible array of injuries and illnesses survivable especially in young otherwise healthy patients.   Other things that come to mind are the availability (or lack thereof) of specific equipment and logistical support needed to do challenging things in a safer way.   Getting a lot of hardware and a support crew to a remote location is challenging and sometimes there might be a temptation to try to do more with less.

Risk Amplifies

Extreme environments, the limits of physiology, and logistical issues are all risks but they are all amplified by poor judgment.  I like to tell people that taking four 3% risks at the same time doesn’t mean you have a 12% risk of failure.  Instead the risk is more like 3x3x3x3 or 81%.   This is a theoretical example but things really do seem to multiply while doing extreme things in extreme environments.  Time and time again you hear about people choosing to push it just a bit more prior to a disaster.

I Am All For It

Based on the observations above you might think I oppose people taking on extreme challenges in fact I am all for it.  Back in 2011 when Diana Niad was attempting to swim from Cuba to Florida I commented to PBS that questions about “why” do it

“miss the point, at some level, you’ve got to admire anybody who wants to test the limits of human potential in general, and her own limits, in specific…It’s a good thing we’re not all average.”

That having been said, I just want people to understand what they are getting into and avoid getting sucked up by their subculture and neurochemistry into challenges they are not prepared for in truly unforgiving environments.

For most of us when I say doping you say Lance Armstrong, or Barry Bonds, or Roger Clemmons or Marion Jones.   However, what about the rest of the world and our individual and collective drive for improved performance?  Here are a few thoughts on the topic and questions for all of us.

Doping With Tylenol?

A number of recent studies show that acetaminophen (Tylenol) can improve cycling performance.  This includes repeated sprints, exercise in the heat, and a self-paced time trial:

“Using acetaminophen, participants cycled at a higher mean power output, with an increased heart rate and blood lactate, but without changes in perceived pain or exertion. Consequently, completion time was significantly faster. These findings support the notion that exercise is regulated by pain perception, and increased pain tolerance can improve exercise capacity.”

Is this doping?  Should Tylenol be banned? You can tell a similar story and ask the same questions about caffeine.

What About Middle Age?

A recent piece in the Velo News tells the story of a late 50s recreational cyclist with clinical testosterone deficiency who went on testosterone replacement therapy for a number of issues including osteoporosis.  The athlete in question self-reported and asked for a therapeutic exemption so he could keep competing in local races.  The exemption denied because he did not have a clearly defined endocrine problem.  You can also make the case that Viagra like drugs might improve performance in some people especially at altitude.  What does this mean for master athletes who take these compounds for other reasons?

For women there is at least some evidence that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) improves exercise capacity but the data are far from clear cut.  What about the aging news anchor who uses botox to keep her job?

Is any of this doping when the drugs in question are used for legitimate medical purposes?  Search the internet for anti-aging clinics and you will find all sorts of outfits offering unproven (usually hormonal) therapies purported to slow the aging process.  Recently, some elite younger athletes have been tweaking their thyroids levels.  Where does the “legitimate medical purposes” justification end and doping or snake oil sales begin?

Academic Doping?

For the twenty somethings reading this article the idea of academic doping – using ADHD drugs obtained on the black market to do better on a test is old news.  This practice appears to be pervasive on college and even high school campuses.  It also appears to be drifting into the rest of the world where decision making and concentration are critical.

There are all sorts of drugs that enhance or might enhance cognition and more are in the pipeline.  Who gets them and when is it fair to use them?  Is this just another potential edge for the children of the well-off?  In a world of high stakes testing for admission to an elite school or academic program should these substances be banned and test takers subject to doping control?  The discussion in the cognitive enhancement world mirrors in many ways the sports doping discussion:

“Drugs developed to treat cognitive impairments are proving popular with healthy college students seeking to boost their focus and productivity. Concerned observers have called these practices a form of cheating akin to athletes’ use of steroids, with some proposing testing students’ urine to deter “academic doping.” The ease with which critics analogize the academic enterprise to competitive sport, and the impulse to crack down on students using study drugs, reflect the same social influences and trends that spur demand for these interventions-our hyper-competitive culture, the commodification of education, and our attraction to technological quick-fixes. Rather than focusing on the technologies that are being put to troubling uses, we would be better served reforming the culture that makes these practices attractive.”

Are We All Dopers?

All of us are surrounded by performance enhancing choices beyond the things like the drugs or nutraceuticals we can inject or put in our mouths.  The pervasive invasion of technology into almost every aspect of life offers even more opportunities for performance enhancement.  In the end, what does it mean to be human in the 21^st century:

1. What happens when things like Tommy John surgery are used to pre-emptively improve pitching performance before an injury?
2. Who draws what lines about what is ethical and fair?
3. Should we even strive for a level playing field?
4. What does it mean to be a human in a world where almost every imaginable activity might be subject to high tech performance enhancing strategies?

In the end is there any value left in the lone individual struggling against his or her own limits, or is all about return on investment thinking where the individual is just part of a supply chain leading to a more desirable outcome?

click for article

click for article

click for article

Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod) was suspended for 200 games by major league baseball based on “non-analytic” evidence of doping, most recently as part of the “Biogenesis” scandal in south Florida.  He was one of 13 players suspended and his suspension is the longest doping suspension in major league history.  Like Lance Armstrong he “passed” any number of drug tests.  That having been said, there was a terrific article a couple of weeks ago in the Economist about “game theory” and doping in sports.  The idea is that the athletes are in a game with each other.  If testing and enforcement are lax, then (depending on the rewards for a superior performance) the risk of getting beat by a doper is greater than the risk of getting caught.

The Bud Selig Game

The athletes are also in a game with the authorities.  More importantly the authorities are in a game with the fans.  Incredible performances increase fan interest and so a cynic might argue that the owners want the appearance of compliance more than a truly clean game.  This charge has been leveled at Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig who has been accused of turning a blind eye during the Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds homerun derby era after the 1994-95 baseball strike.   One argument about the Lance Armstrong case is that the cycling authorities knew what was going on but were more than happy to have Lance win year after to year to “grow” the interest in their sport in the U.S. which was a relatively untapped market compared to Europe.

The Yankee Game

The Yankees signed A-Rod to a huge long term contract.  To what extent are they more than happy to see him more or less go away so they can “head in a different direction”?

The Other Games

Here are some other games that are being played:

1. As I have pointed out numerous times, testing is beatable on many levels.  Who are the authorities trying to fool?
2. Testing in U.S. professional sports is generally less rigorous than WADA based testing used in the Olympics, and WADA based testing is still beatable.
3. There is a lack of transparency.  Post who was tested how often but after the tests were performed.  Then post the results.   This would increase confidence among athletes about “unilateral disarmament” and also let everyone see if any stars were in fact being protected.   It would also essentially crowd source scrutiny of high normal values, and I bet there are plenty.
4. What about unregulated anti-aging clinics that sell all sorts of hormone based potions to all sorts of people?   When Jane or Joe six-pack can essentially get drive through hormone treatment to buff themselves up, why not ballplayers?

Suspend Bud Selig?

A-Rod (like Lance Armstrong) is not a person I want to defend.  However, he is just one dishonest cog in the machinery of denial.   If he deserves to be suspended then so does Bud Selig for either turning a blind eye or never looking very hard in the first place.  Does anyone really believe that the hard-nosed billionaire owners did not know what was going on?  Are they cracking down now because they finally woke up or because their checkbooks are talking?