I'm not sure what you're trying to prove in your examples. The ability to train in volume and develop, or let's just say "work ethic" is just as genetic as aggression or any of the other characteristic in your puppy example. Michael Phelps and the sport of swimming is a prime example. It's well known that he's physically built for swimming, but elite level swimmers are known for their incredible workloads that most humans cannot mentally sustain. The psychological fortitude of an elite swimmer, of being able to train lap after lap, day after day, is genetic -- their workouts would break most normal athletes. Top level swimmers have it, most people don't -- even people with the ideal physiology for swimming -- you really need some level of both. If we're talking about swimming, another example would be Janet Evans. On cursory inspection, most swim coaches would say that she was pretty pedestrian physiologically. 5'5" VO2 max of 56 at her peak, when 70+ was a baseline at that time for an elite swimmer. But her hydrodynamics were excellent, and her ability to sustain a huge work volume allowed her to refine and optimize her drag coefficient. Sure the ability to do work is somewhat trainable, and you can use sticks and carrots to somewhat elevate what people are capable of, but it's far more genetic than people realize.
And then there is the luck factor. Are you even interested in swimming? Do you live in an area where competitive swimming exists and one’s potential can be cultivated? It is such a genetic and social lottery, especially as sports become more specialized and the body types become more specialized for success.
Yeah, luck is huge! Luck to be born in a place, family, or anything that allows you to even compete in sport. Or for some sports wealthy enough. Or like you said, even a place with a pool. Or even if you're really good at something, lucky enough to be recognized as good.
I think I understand what are you saying. I was a bit confused at first because its not an argument that I've ever heard before. What you're saying is that discipline/work ethic/psychological fortitiude... these things in and of themselves are a type of talent. And they are genetically predetermined. Correct me if I'm wrong. When people talk about genetics vs hard work... they usually are referring to the nature vs nurture debate. They usually are saying you have natural (aka genetic) talent on one end and hard work on the other. It is assumed in this case that "hard work" is a part of free will. That we all have the capacity to consciously decide to be lazy or to work hard. But what you are saying, from what I can tell, is that no, it's not a matter of free will. That the ability (and desire?) to work hard is itself a talent, which is pre-determined by ones genes. (do you separate ability and desire? someone can have the ability but not the desire or vice versa?) Its an interesting idea. I honestly haven't really though about it in that way. You could be right. I would have to think about it and research it before forming an opinion. But I have no reason to not believe you for now. For me personally, I have had phases of my life where I was very lazy (around middle school), and phases where I was a workaholic and very disciplined (college and beyond). In college there were times where I worked a lot and also took more than a full class schedule. There were quarters where I would average one all-nighter a week, because I just was overloaded but was determined to get As and did so. Not that that puts me anywhere in the category of a pro athlete in terms of discipline. But it illustrates that within an individual there can be high variability in terms of discipline, simply based on a change in mental attitude and circumstances. In terms of pro athletes... idk... there are some who train less than others but still can stay pro because they are so genetically gifted. There are plenty of stories of some pro athletes who partied quite a bit, sometimes the night before a game, but still showed up and performed great. There are athletes who were disciplined for a phase... then gave into the partying or just didn't feel like training so hard anymore and so eventually it led to their retirement. What about these people. You don't think that discipline and hard work can be "switched on and off"?
I think you're right, as your experience shows. People operate within a certain band according to their genetic ability, and I don't even think it's necessarily appropriate to generalize it as "work ethic". One person might have the genetic ability to focus on chess 8 hours a day. Another might be genetically capable of tolerating elevated lactate levels. And as you've noticed, the width of this band can change within your lifetime. The inherent ability to sustain high workloads can even be detrimental to an athlete -- even when you give empirical data to an athlete that they are over trained, some athletes will keep training leading to suboptimal results or even injury. And as you've pointed out, there are athletes with physical qualities that more than compensate for lack of discipline. But in general, coaches in most sports value discipline because results tend to be more consistent and the playing life tends to be longer for disciplined athletes.
That's pretty funny. I watch all levels of soccer. Not just 7v7. That looks like an interesting article. Its long but I'll try to read it all. But in the end they say: The reality is that participation in one of those elite soccer leagues does bode well for your odds of playing college soccer. Again, there are over 900 college soccer programs. Just because you didn’t make it to a D1 program straight out of high school doesn’t mean you’re not a quality player, that you can’t play college soccer, or that you won’t make a D1 roster at some point. They also say: Pursue that D1 dream Let's go baby! Thanks for the inspiration @The Stig
I believe that he was referring to your statement of believing your kid had a 5 to 10 % chance of playing at Stanford. Playing at Stanford is way different than playing at Sac State. Saying a kid has a 5 to 10% chance of playing for Stanford is quite the bold statement. I admit I thought of potentialities for kid as well but nothing that big. I do admire the confidence..
He's a good student with a lot of charisma. Those are the kinds of kids that Stanford likes. So I think he would fit in there well. Part of picking a college is the personality fit. I think my kid would fit in better in a Pac 12 (whatever is left) school vs SEC.
I think this is not an American way to think. There is that saying to "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". Anyone can do anything. We all have the opportunity to succeed if we work hard. I've never heard any talk that working hard is based on your genes. I think that fundamentally just doesn't jive with our culture and our values. There are traits that are well known to be passed along in genes. But I've never heard that discipline and hard work are traits expressed via genes, though maybe there's some truth to it.
This line is BS. You show me a peer reviewed genetic study that makes this link. My wife, who has her PHD in genetics and 30 years of genetic research, will be looking for one also. You are using a rather broad definition of genetics to make this link. I know from a lifetime of swimming experience as swimmer myself, my siblings, my nieces and nephews, and many friends that the ability to "train lap after lap, day after day" is definitely "psychological fortitude" but that is built by the environment that the swimmer makes tor themselves not by genes. Over the years my sons and I have discussed the many differences between being a competitive swimmer and a competitive soccer play. From a training aspect i always told them that swimmers are completely dependent on their teammates on day-to-day basis to manage and survive the rigors of training. Very few, if any swimmers do it alone. From a competition aspect, it gets pretty lonely on the block. Soccer is somewhat the opposite, the first thing soccer players need to do is to establish a relationship with the ball, this can be a singular task. Mastery of the "touch" is a very difficult process, even the "talented ones" fail more often than not. It is also what drives most players out of the game. Watching my sons in this process is where my utmost respect for the beautiful game was formed. This too had nothing to do with genes. From a competition aspect, soccer players are completely dependent on their teammates to obtain a result. Sorry for straying off topic, but I could not let the statement above go by without comment, my life experiences with many others says differently.
I would bet that you won't find a single study that shows a genetic marker for most athletic qualities. If she has 30 years in genetic research, she'll also tell you that most traits aren't controlled by a single gene -- never mind the complexity of gene expression. But if you pay attention to sports (or are a coach), or look at twin studies (especially the bizarre ones on twins separated at birth), you'll see that psychological and physical attributes are heavily genetic. The environment may influence how these genes are expressed, so it's obviously not the be all end all, but every elite coach knows the easiest way to succeed in a sport is "to pick your parents well." And they're not talking about being able to pay club fees.
This sounded so off, I just had to google it. Top result: "A review of various studies shows that genes, such as ACTN3 and ACE, are responsible for athletic performance." from https://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2023/06/shsconf_essc2023_04017.pdf The next result: "genetic factors underlie 30 to 80 percent of the differences among individuals in traits related to athletic performance." "The best-studied genes associated with athletic performance are ACTN3 and ACE. These genes influence the fiber type that makes up muscles, and they have been linked to strength and endurance. The ACTN3 gene provides instructions for making a protein called alpha (α)-actinin-3, which is predominantly found in fast-twitch muscle fibers. A variant in this gene, called R577X, leads to production of an abnormally short α-actinin-3 protein that is quickly broken down." "The ACE gene provides instructions for making a protein called angiotensin-converting enzyme, which converts a hormone called angiotensin I to another form called angiotensin II. Angiotensin II helps control blood pressure and may also influence skeletal muscle function, although this role is not completely understood. A variation in the ACE gene, called the ACE I/D polymorphism, alters activity of the gene. Individuals can have two copies of a version called the D allele, which is known as the DD pattern, two copies of a version called the I allele, known as the II pattern, or one copy of each version, called the ID pattern. Of the three patterns, DD is associated with the highest levels of angiotensin-converting enzyme. The DD pattern is thought to be related to a higher proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibers and greater speed. Many other genes with diverse functions have been associated with athletic performance. Some are involved in the function of skeletal muscles, while others play roles in the production of energy for cells, communication between nerve cells, or other cellular processes." https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/traits/athleticperformance/ What say you @tobu ?
I think its a factor. Probably we all are influenced by it at least subconciously. When you form an opinion of someone, maybe you will like them more if they have charisma. Probably this weighs in, like it or not, by decision makers, because they are human and will be psychologically influenced. It is like be influenced by appearance. A lot of judges will make a perception on someone based on their height or how athletic they may or may not appear. Weight, clothing, gait, body shape, things of this nature.
Sorry I was thinking baseball when I said Pac 12 vs SEC. Because SEC is known for baseball. Very strong conference (as they are in football too). Personalities I think play a role in that you want to go where you fit in. A really nerdy kid might not fit in where there is a big social scene (greek scene for ex). Or a kid from a diverse city in the west coast might feel out of place if they are surrounded by "rednecks" in a school in the south for example. But hey maybe that is a "first world problem" and I shouldn't worry about it. Plus there is some value in hanging out with people you may not feel comfortable with at first. But I think my kid would fit, personality-wise, somewhere like UCLA, Stanford, Oregon. I also admire anyone who starts a juco because that can be a good place to start. With the transfer portal now, from what I have been hearing, it is easier now for a juco kid to get into a 4-year school for sports. But I was just thinking baseball, because it was on my mind because my next door neighbor was just telling me about how his grandson was hanging out with his friend who just got drafted in the first round MLB. The kid played little league where my kid plays and went to the high school a few minutes down the road and Stanford and now MLB. Said neighbor always remarks about my kid. Says he reminds him of Patrick Mahomes because he's good at everything he tries.
That's just a baseline and really just tells you the bare minimum. It's kind of like saying having a baseball field in your region is associated with having baseball players. We all know that genetics and muscle fiber composition predisposes to one sport or another. You'll find genes that are linked to weight, some to height, etc. You'll probably find some genes associated to body characteristics on the extreme ends. You'll find genes associated with pathology. But you won't find a gene that will tell you if someone can run a 4:00 mile, can bench press 300 lbs, or has the work capacity of 25000 kj per week. You won't find a gene that will tell you if you have a photographic memory or a 150 IQ. You won't find a gene that can tell you if you can tolerate 6mMol/L of lacate levels for 30 minutes. But the general understanding amongst scientists is that most of it's genetic, but we don't know exactly what genes are involved. You could easily have 2 copies of the D allele and never be able to run 11 seconds for the 100m. We could definitively rule out being able to run a sub 2:30 marathon. So it might tell you what you can't do, but it probably won't tell you what you absolutely can do. Not that this stuff isn't being researched -- gene doping is going to be a thing, it's probably just a matter of when. It's not as simple as "we just have to find the gene for this protein that will make you 'x'". Multiple genes control multiple things, and they all interact in ways that aren't transparent. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that AI is going to massively accelerate the way we understand how genes interact.
I've been on a cruise ship for a week, and just now trying to catch up. I feel like I asked this before, but don't feel like looking it up and don't remember the answer... @NewDadaCoach, you claim you're looking for "information" so you can "plan" your kids' path. Do I have that right? These are the questions I have for you... 1) What exactly would you change based on the answer? Let's say folks say "yes, a single athlete CAN compete in two sports in D1." What do you do now? Or, if the answer is "no, a single athlete CAN'T compete in two sports in D1." What do you do now? By the same token, "Can son still play school ball if he's MLSNext?" What difference does the answer NOW make? Even if the answer is "yes" as a league rule, that doesn't mean a specific club or coach will allow it. Same for the reverse. 2) You've said "I think my kid would fit, personality-wise, somewhere like UCLA, Stanford, Oregon." (and similar). You do realize a LOT can change "personality-wise" in eight years. Heck, it can change a lot in eight WEEKS, and even less. At least at two schools DS interviewed with/visited, and was asked to join the team (D3, so no scholarship offer), within a month (one was a week), the head coaches announced they were leaving the school. Do you not think a new coach would change the "personality" of a program? Heck, as mentioned, with the "strange times we're living in" (ex: NIL, conferences merges, etc), it's VERY possible non-revenue sports (which soccer AND baseball are), are dropped at schools in the next eight years. It's already happened, even at D1. And take it from experience, wait until your son gets a girlfriend. THEN see if his priority stays with sports. DS was a starter on the top team in the state, top player in HS, and once he got a GF, his priority went from soccer (which he still enjoyed and thrived at) to the GF. You can't prevent that no matter what you do. There are SO many things you don't have control over. How do the answers you get TODAY affect your plans for 3+ years from now? You still haven't answered the question about what would you do if he gets asked to join a club 3+ hours away?
Our day was spent talking about gene expression, and the multitude of environmental influence that impact these processes. It can literally start at birth such as a vaginal birth versus a c-section can change the gene expression and the development of the individual. This is an environmental impact not an inherited one. Not sure what you consider elite athletes, but I have been around Olympic gold medalist, world class coaches and every level of swimmer in the world. The elite coaches I know will tell you the environment that parents provide for their children has a far greater impact than any physical attribute.
Tobu, I don't think anyone is aruging that a gene will tell if someone can run a 4:00 mile. There are genes, and then there is training. Even those articles talk about other factors other than genes. "Athletic performance is also strongly influenced by the environment. Factors such as the amount of support a person receives from family and coaches, economic and other circumstances that allow one to pursue the activity, availability of resources, and a person’s relative age compared to their peers all seem to play a role in athletic excellence. A person’s environment and genes influence each other, so it can be challenging to tease apart the effects of the environment from those of genetics. For example, if a child and his or her parent excel at a sport, is that similarity due to genetic factors passed down from parent to child, to similar environmental factors, or (most likely) to a combination of the two? It is clear that both environmental and genetic factors play a part in determining athletic ability."
That paragraph pretty much sums up the conversations I had with my wife. So, from there, I use my life experience and those of friends and family. Just last week we were at a dinner party with old friends, all ex-swimmers and some active career coaches, and we got on the topic of how our real hard core competitive swimming careers got started, for me, it started with a coach at age 14. He sat me down and basically said I had talent, but if I did not go work, I would be passed by. One of the other quests, who is an Olympic gold medalist from 1996, told the same story. The other aspect that was similar was we both lost our fathers while in high school, and we both used this tragic event as more motivation. I have many conversations like these over the years with all levels of athletes and I have become a firm believer that your environment is far more important. I have seen too many talent athletes not reach their full potential because of the wrong coach, the wrong group of friends, the inability to walk away from bad situations, basically life choices destroyed their chances. Those that do live up to their potential will tell you, everything went right. The ones that have always amazed me are the less talented who thru shear will make it happen.
Now back to the OPs original premise, i have enjoyed reading this thread and the reactions from all the posts. Must say from a theoretical standpoint, the idea of planning a 10-year-olds life as a college student is a parent's dream. From a practical standpoint, it is a useless endeavor. When i look back at my two sons' life from 10years old to now, I could have never imagined the full path they took. And I did not. It is their life; they make the final decisions. We guide them from catastrophic decisions, but still let them decide and live with the choices. It is how you make them successful adults, not necessarily successful athletes. Their successes and failures become theirs, they own them, this will form the basis of their confidence in life.
I wouldn't disagree with any of those statements. We all operate within a range of possibilities that are constrained by our environment and genes. But the point is that in athletes discipline, work ethic, the ability to do work are also environmental and genetic. You can do a deep dive into fatigue in general, muscular fatigue, neuromuscular fatigue, lactate metabolism, energy deficiency -- but we know that so much of it is genetic. So before criticizing a "talented athlete x" that they would be so much better if they trained as much as "talented athlete y" we should also consider that different athletes experience training differently and might need a completely different kind of program. You see this all the time when training comparable athletes at submaximal levels. Some athletes are completely wrecked at 5mMol lactate levels, crack, and they can't complete a workout. Some athletes, it's a walk in a park, and they can repeat the same workout over and over -- they might tell you that it's not super hard. So you can claim that the 1st athlete just needed more focus and a better mindset, but when you've seen this often enough you realize that the ability to do work is probably somewhat genetic and you have to tailor the training loads to the inherent capacities of the athlete.
Only National and Continental level Champions. Never an Olympian. And I would definitely agree with your statements on this one too. But I would probably think that that your colleagues would agree to the phrase, "You can't turn a donkey into a race horse, but it's easy to turn a race horse into a donkey."