Scientists Assess Athletes of the Future

Sept. 27, 2000 -- Sprinters faster than a thoroughbred horse. Female swimmers withthe shoulders and swagger of linebackers.Weightlifters generatingenough energy in a single clean and jerk to illuminate your house — and your neighbor’s.

World records are falling in bunches at the Sydney 2000 OlympicGames.

The athletes’ performances are the product of superb genes, hardwork and, increasingly, science.

Body Analysis

Years ago, scientists — physiologists, kinesiologists,nutritionists, biomechanists, even physicists — began applyingtheir knowledge to athletes. As a result, practicing a sport forhours is no longer enough to win.

In the lungs of cyclists, they measure the maximum oxygen intakein milliliters per kilogram of weight per minute.

In the fast-twitch muscle cells of a rower, they determine theuse of energy-producing adenosine triphosphate and the buildup offatigue-inducing lactic acid.

Using computers, videotape and sensors, they streamline thetrajectory of a weightlifter’s hoist, or a gymnast’s vault.

Combined with more than 1,000 hours of intensive training ayear, how much might science improve an Olympian’s peakperformance?

Maybe 1 percent.

That’s often the difference between a gold medal and a silver.For now.

But are we reaching the upper limits of athletic performance?Are the world’s top athletes, in the words of British biochemistGuy C. Brown, “doomed to battle … over ever-diminishingfractions of seconds and centimeters?”

Or can more science help Olympic athletes improve significantly?

Women to Pull Ahead?

Both, Brown says. In a study published in the journal TheSciences, Brown reports athletes’ performances have improvedsteadily since 1900.

For example, the record time in the men’s 1500-meter run hasimproved by about 10 seconds every quarter-century. Menhistorically have outperformed women in most events, but the gap isnarrowing. In a 1992 UCLA study, scientists predicted the womenwould outrun men, especially in endurance races such as themarathon, by 2035.

By 2020, the editors of The Sciences predict, women will run the10,000-meter run a full minute faster than men.

But humans may soon reach the limits of physical fitness, Brownargues.

The overall limiting factor for athletes is the heart’s abilityto pump more freshly oxygenated blood through miles of bloodvessels.

“If it could push more blood through the body, an athlete couldrun, swim, row or ride a bicycle faster than usual,” Brown said.

Brown says athletic improvements in the 21st century probablywill depend on scientific and technological gains.

Engineering an Athlete

Among them, better equipment, surgical enhancements such as moreflexible tendons, even genetic engineering for faster-actingmuscles, higher oxygen absorption and faster blood circulation.

“Future limits to athletic performance will be determined lessby the innate physiology of the athlete,” Brown said, “than bytechnological advances and the evolving judgment on where to drawthe line between what is ‘natural’ and what is artificiallyenhanced.”

For now, there are no clear answers to the performance questionsBrown raises. Too many athletes. Too much history. Too manycomplicating factors.

At Sydney, scientists are keenly watching the women’s polevaulting, which debuted this year. Stacey Dragila won the goldmedal, but she failed to equal her world record of 15 feet 2.25inches. Few researchers and coaches believe it will remain there asfaster, stronger women compete.

“The women’s record is likely to improve quite a bit,” saidUniversity of Texas physicist Cliff Froelich.

Pole vaulting, he explains, is an example of energyconservation. The athlete’s kinetic energy, or motion, istranslated through the flexible fiberglass pole into the potentialenergy of the jump height.

His prediction: 17.5 feet. That would more than two feet abovethe current record, or an astonishing 15 percent improvement.

Dave Nielson, Dragila’s coach at Idaho State, also expectsabove-17-foot vaults, though he is among experts who doubt women’svaults will exceed the men’s record of 20 feet 1.75 inches. Physicsfavor the men, who are stronger and generally taller.

Records are falling at Sydney’s Aquatic Center, too. The men’ssurge has been led by Australian sensation Ian Thorpe, the“Thorpedo” whose feet (size 18) exceed his age (17). He won threegold medals and a silver before the first week was over, and settwo world records.

Pieter van den Hoogenbrand of the Netherlands became the firstman to crack the 48-second barrier in the 100-meter freestyle.

Men Slipping, Women Climbing

Scientists aren’t particularly impressed by the men.

“The mens’ records are falling by a whisker,” saidphysiologist Joel Steger of Indiana University. “They are swimmingexactly as predicted.”

And the women?

“The women are completely different,” Steger said. “It isalmost alarming.”

The women’s performances in the pool defy biochemist Brown’sassertion that athletes’ margins of victory are narrowing as theirconditioning peaks.

No woman swam faster than Inge de Bruijn of the Netherlands. Sheset world records in the 100-meter freestyle and butterfly and the50-meter freestyle.

“Someone asked me what my limits are,” De Bruijn said. “Idon’t know. But the year 2000 is definitely my year.”

Or, consider Misty Dawn Hyman in the women’s 200-meterbutterfly. The Arizona native swam a full three seconds faster thanher previous best time to win gold.

But scientists say the proof of phenomenal performance lies withthe losers. The key measurement is “field time” — the averagetime of all the competitors.

In six of of the first eight women’s swimming events, Stagersays, the average time of the finalists was significantly fasterthan predicted.

In the women’s 200-meter butterfly, Stager had predicted anaverage field time of 2:10.01. They averaged 2:08.19.

Women swam the 200-meter freestyle 0.49 seconds faster thanpredicted. They swam the 100-meter breaststroke 0.92 secondsfaster.

“Rarely do you see such huge changes, especially if a sport hasbeen around for a while,” Stager said. “If we were seeing it withboth the men and the women, I’d think we did something wrong. Butwe’re seeing it with women only.”

What’s going on? Stager will spend the next four years ponderingthe question. But already he has some promising theories.

Age, Drugs, Money Are Key

He believes training alone cannot account for the improvement.Sure, De Bruijn lifts weights. But so do the others.

One factor could be age. The female swimmers are more mature,physically and emotionally. In 1988, the average age of U.S. womenswimmers was 15. Now it is nearly 20.

And economics. Top-name Olympians like Dara Torres areattracting lucrative endorsements.

“Torres can afford to be a swimmer,” Steger said. “That’s ahuge advantage.”

Nor can the illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs be ruledout, Steger says. Drug-testing in Sydney is the Olympics’ mostrigorous yet, including more than 2,000 random tests. But theydon’t directly identify some of the most effective biochemicaladvancements, including the use of human growth hormone anderythropoietin, which stimulates red blood cell production.

“Drugs remain a distinct possibility,” Steger said.

One factor that Steger dismisses in the swimming events is thenew style of swimsuit made to simulate fish skin to reduce drag inthe water. Medal winners wore a variety of suits, new and old.

Harder to measure, but equally important, is the mental side ofsports. It is here — especially among the women gymnasts — thatscientists have noticed a significant decline in performance.Experienced gymnasts repeatedly fell, stumbled and slipped.

Tension and doubt trigger biochemical changes that interrupt themuscles’ automatic motor response, the “muscle memory” honed byyears of practice.

“You have to be enjoying it,” said Boston University sportspsychologist Leonard Zaichowsky. “Just a small amount of excesstension results in failure when scores are based on fractions of apoint.”

To gain an edge, most elite athletes visualize a perfect race orroutine before competing.

Imagining Victory

“Visualization actually gets the muscles firing,” Zaichowskysaid. “It gives the body a rehearsal.”

Few athletes dream of victory more vividly than U.S. swimmerMegan Quann. In her bedroom in Puyallup, Wash., Quann would liewith a stopwatch in her hand and imagine herself touching the wallahead of defending champion Penny Heyns of South Africa.

“I can see the tiles on the bottom of the pool,” the highschool junior recalled. “I can taste the water. I can hear thecrowd.”

In the 100-meter breaststroke finals, Quann used a strong kickto defeat Heyns by a half-second, a huge margin.

She won the gold medal. For real.

Imagine that.