Michael Phelps. Usain Bolt. Michael Jordan. Tom Brady. All of these household names have a single commonality: these athletes are known for dominating the rest of the field in their respective sports. And, with their huge success, comes great curiosity. How did these select few beat out so many others and rise to the highest level in each of their respective sports? Some speculate that they owe their success to their destiny and fate, born with an innate gift to be great, while others believe that the reasons these athletes have seen so much success is due to their hard work, dedication, and the enviornment around them. This brings us to the age old debate: the question of nature versus nurture.  

“Put simply, the nature-nurture debate concerns the extent to which an individual is a product of her/ his genes or environment, generating questions over the role of genes and environmental influences and experience in a range of human behavioral con- texts, including athletic, educational and musical performance and achievement.” (Davids and Baker 3) 

Through, extensive research on the success of athletes, it is evident that athletes reach the elite level through a combination of both natural ability and hard work rather than just having one of the two, and the formula is much more complicated than what many may believe. Athletic excellence is achieved through different means for every respective individual and is dependent on a plethora of different factors that fall within the category of nature or nurture. 

 “Considering the number of body systems that must interact (musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory, nervous, etc.), athletic performance is one of the most complex human traits. Perhaps the first noticeable difference between athletes of different specialties is in body morphology (i.e., height and body composition), with specific body types naturally suited to specific sports. Beyond body morphology, endurance, strength, and power are primary factors underlying athletic performance.” (Guth and Ross)

The first aspect of this debate that we will be discussing will involve the nature aspect of the debate. Scientists and researchers have been researching the genetic makeup of humans and have been looking for genes that may give certain individuals a specific advantage in athletics for years. In recent findings, they have found four specific genes that they have determined may have the potential to influence natural athletic ability. They assessed 4 genes total, with one involved in muscles development (MSTN) and three involved behavioral insights (5HTT, DAT and MAOA) to athletic performances.” (Filonzi, et al. 531) They then performed an experiment and tested for the presence of these genes with 150 total athletes, with 50 being elite level athletes, while the other 100 were control athletes.  Based off of their research they were able to find a “significant correlation between the dopamine transporter genotype 9/9 and allele 9 and elite sport performances.” (Filonzi, et al. 534) Also, “Focusing on dopamine transporter, homozygous DAT genotype 9/9 resulted about five fold in elite athletes than in controls. Allele 9 was more than two-fold in top athletes than controls.” (Filonzi, et al. 533). Also within this study, they concluded that there was no significant correlation regarding muscle development genes and elite performances. This selection from the article “What makes champions? A review of the relative contribution of genes and training to sporting success”, essentially explains why the scientists did not see a huge correlation between the gene affecting muscle development.

“When considered individually, each biological system is in its own right complex, consisting of different cell types, proteins and other macromolecules. Multiple protein-coding and non-coding genes located throughout the entire human genome determine the genetic blueprint for each individual biological system. With these layers of complexity from the whole body right down to the genetic material in each cell, it is highly unlikely that a single or even a few genetic elements are associated with superior athletic performance.” (Tucker and Collins 2) 

With the results the scientists obtained, they were able to make the conclusion that, based upon their data, the dopamine neurotransmitter’s presence had a higher correlation to athletic excellence than the gene related to muscle development did. This information tells us that, based upon this study, genes that relate to emotional and psychological control play a much more important role in the development of elite athletes, than genes that affect athletic ability itself. These results are significant, as they highlight the role of emotional control and psychological management to reach high-level performances.

This is contrary to what many individuals may believe, for many have preconceived notions that elite athletes are born with “special” genes that elevate them to the next level simply because they are naturally more athletically inclined. 

To further add to the discussion on genetics and nature as a factor of athletic excellence, BBC released a short film documentary titled Nature versus Nurture during the 2012 London Olympic games. This documentary discussed the continued black dominance in sprinting events since 1932 when the first black man, Eddie Toleman, won gold at the Los Angeles Olympic games. 82 people in total have been able to run under ten seconds in the 100m dash, and only one of them has been white. Even then, no white man has even contested in the finals at the Olympic games in over 32 years. What is it that black sprinters have that white sprinters have been unable to obtain for so long? This documentary proposes that it is due to natural selection. Natural selection, a revolutionary theory developed by scientist Charles Darwin, comprised of the idea that only the fittest individuals will survive in order to pass the best possible traits down to their offspring. The weak and diseased will die, leaving the best suited individuals to reproduce. The documentary states that almost all African American men can trace their ancestry back to West Africa, which was where the slave trade originated.

“And here we come back to eugenics, the theory of accelerated selection. Who was that survived being put in shackles, packed into slave ships and taken across the ocean? Who was it that survived the life of forced labor on the cotton and sugar plantations? The fittest. Only the fittest could survive.” (Nature or Nurture - London Olympics 2012)

This documentary essentially theorized that because of the slavery that African American’s had to endure, only the fittest were able to survive, therefore, this explains why they dominate in events such as sprinting and jumping. This is an interesting theory, but is valid nonetheless and should be considered when discussing nature and nurture and the success of the top athletes. It makes the argument that nature played a role in the reason as to why African-American athletes have had historically faster athletes on average.

Nurture is not just comprised of the training an individual does but also involves the environment they were raised in and the types of individuals that may work with the athletes. Nurture can have extremely positive effects on the athlete’s success, and on the contrary, may also produce adverse effects detrimental to the athlete’s success. “Many seemingly environmental effects, such as parenting style, have turned out to have large genetic components.” (Kauffman 3) Along with parenting style, coaching style is also very significant on the success of the athletes. A study was done titled “Examining the interactive effects of coach-created empowering and disempowering climate dimensions on athletes' health and functioning”, in which the purpose of the experiment was to find out whether or not “a coach-created empowering motivational climate moderated the debilitating effects of a disempowering motivational climate on athletes’ health and optimal functioning.” (Appleton and Duda 2) This was tested by having approximately 400 athletes fill out a questionnaire regarding their coaches and their coaching environment, and assessing their feelings regarding it, specifically whether or not they felt it was positive or negative. The results gave very important insight on how a coaching environment can affect athletes either for better or for worse. 

“It is well established the sub-dimensions of a disempowering coach-created motivational climate are negatively related, and facets of an empowering climate positively correlated, to indices of athletes’ health and optimal functioning. The findings from this study provide some evidence to suggest the implications of a disempowering climate may be moderated when the coach is also empowering.” (Appleton and Duda 20)

This study essentially concluded that athletes would benefit most from an empowering environment with motivational speaking and words, and to avoid negative or demotivating words at all costs. This will help the athlete flourish to their greatest potential. This knowledge is also important for the nurture side of the argument because it argues the point that without proper coaching it will be very difficult to succeed at an elite level, especially in a coaching environment that is negative. 

In the book, “The Sports Gene” written by David Epstein, he goes into great depth involving the debate of nature versus nurture and many different scenarios that he either learned about or was a part of regarding elite athletes and how they reached the elite level. One of the points consistently emphasized in the book was something called the “10,000 hours’ rule”. Theorized by Malcolm Gladwell, this rule states that if anyone were to practice for a total of 10,000 hours they would greatly excel at the sport regardless of the level of talent they originally possessed when first attempting the sport. A prime example of this rule discussed in this book was in chapter one, where Epstein speaks of two high jumpers, Stefan Holm, and Donald Thomas. Holm had been training since he was 6 years old, whereas Thomas entered the high jump competition as a result of a bet made with one of his friends less than 8 months prior to the World Championships. Both ended up qualifying for the World Championships and went on to compete against each other. Holm was significantly shorter than Thomas, but his rigorous training had given him exceptional speed and strength. Thomas ended up winning the world title, although he never came close to that jump again. Holm placed second, although he eventually beat Thomas’s jump as his career continued to improve. This demonstrates both the nature and nurture side of the argument. The nature side is represented with Donald Thomas, who happened to have an abnormally strong Achilles tendon, which thereby allowed him to jump very easily, qualify and win at the World Championships with very minimal training in comparison to his competitors. Although he did end up beating his competition and jumping very well at this meet, he never jumped the same height again, and his competitors, including Stefan Holm, ended up surpassing his personal best after Worlds. Although Thomas was very tall and had the ideal body type to be a high jumper, his training was not up to par with Holms’, therefore in the end he ended up being beaten. This is a perfect example of how both are most definitely in action. Also, going back to the 10,000 hour’s rule, Holms’ most definitely had practiced for over 10,000 hours, and his body type was not ideal for high jumping, therefore the rule supports his case.  

It is quite clear that there is an unmeasurable amount of variables that influence athletic excellence, including nature, nurture, and everything in between. But with the knowledge that genes and specific traits do influence athletic ability to an extent and the newfound ability to test for certain genes what does that mean for the future of athletes? Also, is it ethical to place individuals who have genes or traits that may give them an advantage athletically into specific sports they may excel at? These are some questions that are arising with the improvements of our technology and our continuously expanding knowledge on the human body. Although, we do have significant knowledge thus far, another question remains; how accurate are tests that have the ability to assess whether or not an individual possesses specific traits suitable for specific sports? 

“Genetic variations or PEPs have increasingly been identified in recent years (25, 9, 26). With costs of DNA sequencing dramatically decreasing, a growth trend is reasonably predictable. Despite the increasing complexity and sophistication of genetic science in sport, the assumption that athletic excellence can be traced back to specific genetic polymorphisms is a remarkably simplistic assumption.” (Camporesi and McNamee 2)

Based upon this quote, it may not be so incredibly worth it to take a test and based upon the results, only participate in sports your respective results say you would be best suited for. 

Another test, taken by BBC writer and ex gymnast Gabby Logan, involved the swabbing of her DNA to find out more about her genetic makeup. “The test would look at genes that affect fitness and health, what foods we respond best to and perhaps which sports we're most likely to be good at. If we have the sprinter genes, for example.” (Logan 2015) Her results concluded that she has more genes that would lead her to be a better long distance runner rather than a sprinter, has a high V02 max potential and a high risk of injury. Her results also gave information regarding what foods and diet she would need to maintain optimum health for her specific genetic makeup as well. While this is huge for the evolution of technology and science, is it huge for determining and calculating athletic potential? Logan voices that although genes may play a part, without putting them to use, they are useless. She also states that there are so many other different factors involved that even with the “ideal” genes, athletic success may not always come. 

Based off of the technology we have now it is accurate to say that we are able to test for genes that have the potential to lead to athletic success, but with the knowledge we also have on athletic success itself, reducing athletic success to just genetic makeup is blatantly ignoring the many other factors that are involved in the process. It may be an interesting thing to test one’s genes and see the results, but it probably shouldn’t be a determining factor in the decision of whether or not to base one’s sporting decisions on it, and instead, put in a lot of training and dedication if the goal is to become elite. 

In conclusion, in order to become an elite athlete, there are a plethora of different routes to success. 

“It must be remarked that the border between Nature and Nurture in elite performances is difficult to establish, since behavioral aspects connected to practices and competitions are generated by an ultimate synergic overlapping of the genetic basis of neurotransmission and related cultural insights.” (Filonzi et al. 537) 

Nature versus nurture is actually far more complex of a debate than what would most likely be expected. There are so many different ways to achieve greatness, whether it be through 10,000 hours of work, or through 100. Each individual is unique, not only in their athletic abilities, but in their physiological mindset as well. Also, environment, coaching environment, and parental roles play very significant roles as well. With all this being said, it is quite clear that no single formula works for the entire population. The formula for athletic success is more like an individualized puzzle rather than a path to follow. 
