Light Paper - What is the absolute limit for human athletes? Here’s the science…


A nadadora Katie Ledecky dos EUA

Figure. Katie Ledecky won seven Olympic gold medals and 19 world championship gold medals, the most in the history of a female swimmer (a) (1).


What is the absolute limit for human athletes? Here’s the science…(b)

Alberto Dolci Lecturer in Exercise and Environmental Physiology and Exercise Immunology, University of Westminster

Keywords: limits, swimming, sports, training, world record

https://n2t.net/ark:/21207/NADAR.v2i165.40

ABSTRACT

The Olympics have drawn to a close and this year saw the shattering of 19 different (2) world records, some by staggering margins. US swimmer Kate Ledecky (Figure) broke the 800 metre freestyle record, which she herself had previously set, by almost two seconds – a mammoth margin compared to the tenths and hundredths of seconds which often decide Olympic success. As we continue to swim faster, jump higher and throw further than ever before, these performances have left us wondering just how much further athletic performance can be pushed.

Many have tried to establish what the absolute limits for human performance are and science can provide us with some clues as to what they could be and when we will likely reach them.

INTRODUCTION

It is clear, that there has been a dramatic improvement in athletic ability over the past century. This is reflected by the continuous improvement of world records in track and field athletics from the early 1900s, which tend to follow a linear rather than an exponential trend. However, this progress is not distributed evenly across the various disciplines of track and field athletics.

Over the last 100 years, large improvements have been made in the javelin and shot put, for example, while much smaller gains have been made in short-distance races, such as the 100, 200 and 400 metres. In 1909, for example, the men’s shot put record was 15.54 metres; the current record, set in 1990, is 23.12 metres. This means that we had an increase of almost 50% in throwing distance in just over 80 years. By contrast, the improvement we have seen in the men’s 100 metres over the last century is a relatively small 8%.

The rate of improvement (3) for women, however, has been extraordinary, and overall greater than that observed for men over an identical period of time. Looking at the 100 metres, for example, women improved their performance by a huge 30% in just 80 years. As we have seen previously, men had just an 8% improvement in more than 100 years. This difference is even bigger in many other disciplines.

It has also previously been demonstrated that the sequence of records (4) in the history of athletics is not distributed in a random fashion, but that a distinct regularity exists (5).

WHY ARE WE GETTING BETTER?

Could such regular improvements over time be due to cyclical training techniques, whereby a novel training technique is applied to a generation of athletes until something more effective is found and then applied to the next generation? Or could it be down to the more effective discovery of elite athletes in consecutive human generations (6)? The honest answer is that evidence is currently lacking as to which potential mechanisms might be dominant.

Some factors do seem to play a part, however. First, economic advances and broader coverage of sports by the media have contributed to a growth in the base number of athletes, including those competing at higher levels. Statistically speaking, this increases the chance that “extreme outliers” (or peak performers) will occur in a normal distribution of athletes, and may partly account for the improvement in records.

Second, genetics (4) might be involved. Several genes influence athletic performance, which can thus be considered a polygenic trait – one in which a large number of genes, each one having a relatively small effect, contributes to an outcome. A high degree of natural selection will have occurred over time, and the best athletes might be increasingly characterised by a prevalence of these genes.

This may also account for the lower improvement of athletic performance in sprints (for example, 100, 200 and 400 metres) when compared with middle and long-distance events (1,500 and 10,000 metres and the marathon).

The performance of sprint athletes mostly depends on two variables: reaction time and fast muscle fibres. In endurance athletes, meanwhile, peak performance is regulated by slow muscle fibres, and by aerobic capacity. The latter can substantially be increased by either regular training or manipulation (blood doping, for example). Conversely, reaction time, which is strongly dependent on the nervous system, has a limited margin of improvement when compared with muscular power and aerobic capacity. Indeed, the nervous system cannot increase the speed of transmission of an eletric impulse, therefore there is little potential to improve reaction time through training. Here, genetics is key.

Equally, jumping events are limited by tendon stress limits, which cannot be overcome past a certain natural limit and this might explain why the curve of improvement for these specialities is now almost flat.

Whether and by how much genetic selection has helped the progression of world records may soon be known, however, as high throughput microarray-based epigenetic technology (7), which allows DNA profiling, will soon be widely available.

The introduction of professional coaching, improvements in training techniques (8) and the introduction of ergogenic aids (9) – substances used for the purpose of enhancing performance, in the form of nutritional supplements for example – have also profoundly changed sports performance. Investigating the science of running economy has greatly improved long distance running, while the Fosbury flop technique improved high jump performance.

REACHING A PEAK

If these considerations are true, then limits will be approached, and a point will be reached, perhaps soon, when performance levels become essentially static, with only the occasional, once-every-generation “super-athlete” able to set new records. Indeed, this situation may have already been reached in some events, such as the long jump and short distance runs, as progression of world records in these events has nearly stopped or has substantially slowed.

Doping practices (10) might also have played a role in the progression of some world records. Also, the greater the role that equipment and technology plays a part in a sport, the greater the likely ongoing improvement. Thus, ergonomics/wind resistant clothes and better running shoes have enabled runners to optimise energy consumption.

The performances of athletes are the product of genetic endowment, hard work and, increasingly, the contribution of science. The latter began many years ago, when scientists, physiologists, nutritionists, biomechanists and physicists began applying their knowledge to the benefit of athletic performance. As a result, merely practising a sport for hours is no longer enough to enable an athlete to win.

Future limits to athletic performance will be determined less and less by the innate physiology of the athlete, and more and more by scientific and technological advances and by the still evolving judgement on where to draw the line between what is “natural” and what is artificially enhanced. A previous study (11) determined that by the year 2027, world records would have reached 99% of their asymptotic value, which represents the limit for human performance.


OBS.: A tabela a seguir possui barras de rolagem ao final, para melhor visualização em dispositivos com telas pequenas.

 

Asympt

Predicted Interval

Year of

Credibility

Period

Events

value

variation from asympt

99,95%

Interval

number

Cycling - 500m Time Trial (W)

33,289s

32,483

34,084

2034,6

2002,2

2176,6

1

Cycling - Individual Pursuit (W)

203,272s

194,021

212,627

2015,8

1995,8

2580,5

2

Cycling - Sprint (W)

10,689s

10,347

11,033

2031,9

1994,3

2163,1

1

Cycling - 1km Time Trial (M)

57,944s

55,721

60,196

2064,5

2000,6

2318,5

3

Cycling - Individual Pursuit (M)

247,298s

228,227

266,962

2026,0

1986,3

2580,2

2

Cycling - Sprint (M)

9,728s

9,676

9,778

2025,4

2012,5

2044,0

2

Cycling - Team Pursuit (M)

234,582s

230,940

238,277

2030,5

2005,7

2098,3

2

Speed Skating - 500m (W)

37,019s

36,998

37,040

2007,5

2005,1

2010,4

3

Speed Skating - 1000m (W)

72,817s

72,285

73,353

2016,6

2005,1

2045,2

4

Speed Skating - 1500m (W)

108,164s

104,731

111,538

2099,0

2051,3

2177,1

3

Speed Skating - 3000m (W)

224,599s

217,443

231,723

2100,6

2057,1

2167,2

2

Speed Skating - 5000m (W)

397,708s

389,901

405,567

2056,5

2028,2

2100,2

2

Speed Skating - Short Track 500m (W)

42,119s

41,149

43,068

2060,2

2037,9

2092,4

1

Speed Skating - Short Track 1000m (W)

88,493s

86,568

90,436

2046,8

2023,1

2084,0

1

Speed Skating - Short Track 1500m (W)

136,956s

133,085

140,879

2023,9

2004,9

2078,6

2

Speed Skating - 3000m relay (W)

249,876s

246,991

252,740

2014,9

2004,6

2036,2

2

Speed Skating - 500m (M)

33,771s

32,607

34,936

2074,1

2007,1

2268,7

5

Speed Skating - 1000m (M)

66,838s

66,461

67,216

2009,5

2003,9

2019,4

3

Speed Skating - 1500m (M)

101,888s

100,894

102,874

2017,5

2006,0

2046,1

6

Speed Skating - 5000m (M)

350,716s

331,245

370,072

2181,5

2085,5

2350,9

3

Speed Skating - 10000m (M)

758,138s

738,967

777,388

2023,0

1999,8

2369,4

4

Speed Skating - Short Track 500m (M)

40,944s

40,443

41,452

2014,4

2002,1

2050,8

2

Speed Skating - Short Track 1000m (M)

83,426s

80,996

85,895

2042,6

2007,7

2144,0

2

Speed Skating - Short Track 1500m (M)

128,816s

124,884

132,790

2028,3

2004,4

2098,6

2

Speed Skating - 5000m relay (M)

395,775s

386,571

405,085

2034,2

2009,0

2090,7

1

Swimming - 50m free style (W)

23,987s

23,517

24,456

2019,4

1993,1

2139,0

2

Swimming - 100m free style (W)

53,108s

52,539

53,673

2034,3

1998,5

2175,9

5

Swimming - 200m free style (W)

115,176s

114,627

115,737

2027,3

2011,0

2050,5

2

Swimming - 400m free style (W)

241,906s

241,749

242,063

2010,9

2006,6

2015,6

2

Swimming - 800m free style (W)

485,965s

477,137

494,864

2036,2

2014,4

2065,5

2

Swimming - 1500m free style (W)

939,524s

937,824

941,246

2027,2

2021,8

2032,8

3

Swimming - 100m backstroke (W)

59,331s

59,162

59,499

2019,2

2007,9

2034,8

4

Swimming - 200m backstroke (W)

124,669s

122,821

126,562

2032,6

2012,2

2063,1

3

Swimming - 100m breaststroke (W)

63,832s

62,612

65,038

2104,3

2056,9

2176,4

3

Swimming - 200m breaststroke (W)

138,147s

136,776

139,525

2088,4

2067,5

2113,7

3

Swimming - 100m butterfly (W)

55,833s

54,126

57,530

2053,3

1997,8

2240,1

3

Swimming - 200m butterfly (W)

125,051s

124,389

125,721

2046,0

1998,8

2212,3

2

Swimming - 200m medley (W)

129,067s

127,814

130,295

2017,5

1998,3

2051,6

3

Swimming - 400m medley (W)

272,397s

271,859

272,924

2020,0

2012,3

2028,9

2

Swimming - 4*100m medley relay (W)

233,449s

230,630

236,306

2051,1

2025,8

2088,8

2

Swimming - 4*100m freestyle relay (W)

215,063s

214,324

215,805

2024,6

2015,0

2036,0

3

Swimming - 50m free style (M)

21,5s

21,338

21,659

2022,4

2009,7

2039,2

1

Swimming - 100m free style (M)

47,353s

46,806

47,899

2054,8

2025,9

2094,2

2

Swimming - 200m free style (M)

103,445s

101,607

105,272

2034,4

1991,2

2308,5

4

Swimming - 400m free style (M)

216,389s

214,462

218,304

2069,4

2047,8

2096,8

4

Swimming - 800m free style (M)

454,336s

451,785

456,907

2045,7

2033,3

2060,5

5

Swimming - 1500m free style (M)

870,014s

866,048

873,946

2026,9

2017,1

2038,7

3

Swimming - 100m backstroke (M)

52,228s

51,730

52,727

2080,4

2054,0

2115,6

3

Swimming - 200m backstroke (M)

112,446s

111,164

113,748

2080,1

2047,0

2129,0

3

Swimming - 100m breaststroke (M)

57,991s

57,223

58,758

2101,6

2064,7

2153,8

3

Swimming - 200m breaststroke (M)

126,91s

125,293

128,520

2062,9

2033,9

2104,7

4

Swimming - 100m butterfly (M)

50,16s

49,233

51,069

2015,2

2001,0

2133,8

3

Swimming - 200m butterfly (M)

112,462s

111,465

113,483

2054,1

2041,6

2068,2

1

Swimming - 200m medley (M)

113,67s

112,398

114,954

2067,9

2035,8

2118,3

2

Swimming - 400m medley (M)

242,685s

240,830

244,544

2072,9

2060,7

2086,4

1

Swimming - 4*100m medley relay (M)

208,407s

206,508

210,314

2065,5

2042,3

2097,4

2

Swimming - 4*100m freestyle relay (M)

190,918s

190,062

191,777

2058,3

2048,2

2069,4

2

Swimming - 4*200m freestyle relay (M)

418,482s

413,795

423,125

2072,6

2036,3

2130,1

3

Track & Field - 100m (W) - version 1

10,426s

10,007

10,841

2013,0

1974,1

2754,4

3

Track & Field - 100m (W) - version 2

10,727s

10,617

10,837

1996,3

1978,2

2066,1

3

Track & Field - 200m (W)

21,111s

20,510

21,711

2054,7

1986,6

2277,3

3

Track & Field - 400m (W)

47,119s

46,252

48,003

2016,3

1989,6

2076,1

2

Track & Field - 800m (W)

110,285s

107,269

113,313

2061,8

2016,6

2139,9

2

Track & Field - 1500m (W)

230,181s

229,907

230,457

1998,0

1992,8

2004,4

1

Track & Field - 5000m (W)

847,533s

835,598

859,742

2060,0

2021,7

2134,9

1

Track & Field - 10000m (W)

1758,127s

1732,766

1783,648

2007,1

1993,9

2033,2

1

Track & Field - Marathon (W)

8010,233s

7871,285

8151,998

2045,1

2030,5

2063,1

1

Track & Field - 20km walk (W)

5101,599s

5067,330

5135,802

2027,5

2017,8

2039,4

3

Track & Field - 100m Hurdles (W)

12,095s

11,994

12,196

2022,8

2003,0

2054,2

1

Track & Field - 400m Hurdles (W)

52,194s

51,886

52,505

2018,2

1998,1

2069,6

2

Track & Field - 4*100m relay (W)

40,983s

40,088

41,893

2027,5

1984,7

2160,8

2

Track & Field - 4*400m relay (W)

193,686s

190,532

196,782

2011,0

1988,3

2060,6

1

Track & Field - High jump (W)

2,099m

2,063

2,135

2000,6

1982,2

2085,2

3

Track & Field - Pole vault (W)

5,146m

4,878

5,422

2045,9

2013,1

2128,0

2

Track & Field - Long jump (W)

7,547m

7,465

7,629

1993,0

1985,7

2013,1

3

Track & Field - Triple jump (W)

15,631m

15,093

16,171

2002,9

1991,7

2094,4

1

Track & Field - Discus throw (W)

78,905m

76,642

81,153

2043,4

2014,9

2089,9

3

Track & Field - Hammer throw (W)

78,49m

77,266

79,700

2019,4

2008,9

2036,9

1

Track & Field - Shot put (W)

22,8m

22,647

22,952

2004,8

1997,5

2013,6

3

Track & Field - Heptathlon (W)

7341,529

7122,168

7563,400

1997,3

1983,9

2073,4

1

Track & Field - 100m (M)

9,726s

9,677

9,776

2019,2

1996,8

2126,5

3

Track & Field - 200m (M)

19,193s

18,990

19,400

2040,4

1999,5

2121,9

1

Track & Field - 400m (M)

43,009s

42,617

43,401

2036,4

1991,0

2130,5

3

Track & Field - 800m (M)

100,584s

98,943

102,194

2052,2

1981,3

2315,4

3

Track & Field - 1500m (M)

205,178s

202,899

207,432

2025,9

1991,0

2154,9

4

Track & Field - 3000m Steeple chase (M)

468,774s

462,866

474,806

2067,5

2020,9

2158,1

3

Track & Field - 5000m (M)

754,01s

744,178

763,755

2033,0

1996,4

2142,9

3

Track & Field - 10000m (M)

1575,759s

1572,589

1578,987

2008,6

2002,8

2017,2

3

Track & Field - Marathon (M)

7388,47s

7324,533

7452,136

2080,3

2054,5

2112,3

2

Track & Field - 20km walk (M)

4622,507s

4601,707

4643,639

2020,9

2009,3

2036,7

3

Track & Field - 50km walk (M)

12877,216s

12823,958

12930,889

2042,4

2030,3

2056,8

2

Track & Field - 110m Hurdles (M)

12,711s

12,497

12,926

2107,6

2034,6

2235,7

2

Track & Field - 400m Hurdles (M)

46,537s

46,319

46,755

2021,6

2005,1

2044,3

2

Track & Field - 4*100m relay (M)

37,105s

36,682

37,531

2054,0

2004,7

2169,2

3

Track & Field - 4*400m relay (M)

173,383s

169,462

177,285

2035,7

1972,2

2775,3

2

Track & Field - High jump (M)

2,467m

2,433

2,501

2027,4

1997,8

2090,9

4

Track & Field - Pole vault (M)

6,154m

6,118

6,190

2001,1

1990,8

2028,2

5

Track & Field - Long jump (M)

891,454m

857,991

924,691

1991,7

1965,4

2225,7

2

Track & Field - Triple jump (M)

18,495m

18,163

18,826

2057,9

2007,3

2159,1

3

Track & Field - Discus throw (M)

76,022m

74,030

77,975

2050,2

2016,2

2106,5

3

Track & Field - Hammer throw (M)

87,189m

85,169

89,167

1992,0

1982,2

2043,9

2

Track & Field - Shot put (M)

23,833m

23,178

24,477

2077,1

2036,7

2137,6

2

Track & Field - Decathlon (M)

9088,487

8930,790

9248,429

2041,3

1994,9

2234,2

3

WeightLifting - C&J 48kg (W)

118,77kg

116,408

121,102

2017,0

2002,2

2080,9

1

WeightLifting - C&J 53kg (W)

128,211kg

125,324

131,089

2006,6

1999,6

2042,3

1

WeightLifting - C&J 58kg (W)

140,905kg

134,718

147,042

2017,7

2001,9

2098,7

1

WeightLifting - C&J 63kg (W)

142,836kg

140,864

144,817

2021,3

2012,0

2037,1

1

WeightLifting - C&J 69kg (W)

155,877kg

149,193

162,540

2018,7

2004,4

2063,9

1

WeightLifting - C&J 75kg (W)

161,216kg

154,475

168,068

2016,8

2003,2

2069,6

1

WeightLifting - C&J 75pluskg (W)

185,388kg

163,540

207,413

2016,7

1998,7

2500,6

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 48kg (W)

99,248kg

93,290

105,252

2017,9

2002,3

2090,5

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 53kg (W)

103,364kg

100,942

105,788

2007,7

2000,7

2031,3

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 58kg (W)

111,931kg

103,754

120,154

2013,8

1999,7

2152,2

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 63kg (W)

117,178kg

114,676

119,692

2017,4

2005,3

2049,0

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 69kg (W)

123,685kg

116,691

130,696

2014,6

1999,4

2191,6

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 75kg (W)

127,043kg

120,637

133,453

2016,1

1999,6

2191,6

1

WeightLifting - Snatch 75pluskg (W)

137,713kg

137,395

138,039

2004,3

2002,6

2006,6

1

WeightLifting - C&J superheavyweight (M)

263,793kg

263,396

264,182

2006,4

2003,2

2010,6

4

WeightLifting - C&J lightheavyweight (M)

218,636kg

212,266

224,989

2002,4

1993,2

2490,1

5

WeightLifting - C&J lightweight (M)

198,202kg

197,042

199,386

2014,4

2002,8

2042,4

5

WeightLifting - C&J flyweight (M)

163,053kg

158,000

168,224

2024,0

1998,2

2097,3

3

WeightLifting - Snatch superheavyweight (M)

213,864kg

208,702

218,874

2010,3

1995,4

2119,1

5

WeightLifting - Snatch middleheavyweight (M)

188,093kg

188,055

188,130

1999,0

1998,4

1999,6

4

WeightLifting - Snatch lightheavyweight (M)

187,42kg

178,280

196,455

2064,4

2007,5

2174,6

2

WeightLifting - Snatch middleweight (M)

173,826kg

173,675

173,977

2007,0

2005,7

2008,4

4

WeightLifting - Snatch bantamweight (M)

139,797kg

137,964

141,632

2031,0

2009,9

2064,8

5

Table. Predicted WR asymptotic value, year of the 99.95% limit, credibility intervals and period number per event. Women and men are respectively symbolized by (W) and (M). C&J are Clean and Jerk weight lifting events. Two versions of the Track women 100 m are presented, version 1 includes the last WR, version 2 leaves it out. (c) (12).


Although world records initially progressed according to a linear model in the Olympic disciplines of track and field athletics, in most instances the progression curve has flattened out over the past 20 years (for example, in running and jumping), while in some sports (for example, shot put) no improvement has been recorded since the mid-1990s. Hence, if the present conditions prevail for the next 20 years, this will support the hypothesis that most of the male world records will probably no longer be substantially improved, although some female world records can still be expected to be broken, given increased access and participation.

Nevertheless, if gene doping happens (13), we may never be able to predict what the limits of human performance are. The probability is that further improvements will be mostly due to chance (occurrence of “extreme outliers” in the normal distribution of top-class athletes), the use of mechanical aids, the introduction of genetic or other forms of doping and, finally, environmental and ecosystem revolutions (pollution, for example). These would probably make any current mathematical model unreliable for forecasting progression of world records in athletics.

REFERENCES

(1) Wekimedia Commons [Internet].Ledecky before her last individual high school race.; 2015. [cited 2022 Nov 04]; Available from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ledecky_High_School.jpg

(2) The Telegraph [Internet]. Saint John; 2016 Aug 22. Rio Olympics 2016 in numbers: what made this GB‘s best Games and how many records were broken?; [cited 2022 Nov 7]; Available from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2016/08/22/rio-olympics-2016-in-numbers-what-made-this-gbs-best-games-and-h/.

(3) Dyer KF. Social influences on female athletic performance. Journal of Biosocial Science [Internet]. 1976 Apr [cited 2022 Nov 7];8(2):123 - 129. DOI 10.1017/S0021932000010555. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-biosocial-science/article/abs/social-influences-on-female-athletic-performance/B511FF810C14BD9D3219F166641997D9

(4) Lippi G, Banfi G, Favaloro EJ, Rittweger J, Maffulli N. Updates on improvement of human athletic performance: focus on world records in athletics. British Medical Bulletin [Internet]. 2008 Sep [cited 2022 Nov 7];87(1):7–15. DOI 10.1093/bmb/ldn029. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/87/1/7/339265

(5) Wikipedia [Internet]. [place unknown]; 2022 Oct 28. List of world records in athletics; [cited 2022 Nov 7]; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_records_in_athletics

(6) Norton K, Olds T. Morphological Evolution of Athletes Over the 20th Century. Sports Medicine [Internet]. 2001 Feb [cited 2022 Nov 7];31(11) DOI 10.2165/00007256-200131110-0000. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kevin-Norton-3/publication/11766594_Morphological_Evolution_of_Athletes_Over_the_20th_Century/links/0912f51143a64601d9000000/Morphological-Evolution-of-Athletes-Over-the-20th-Century.pdf

(7) Schumacher A, Kapranov P, Kaminsky Z, Flanagan J, Assadzadeh A, Yau P, et al. Microarray-based DNA methylation profiling: technology and applications. Nucleic Acids Res [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2022 Nov 8];34(2):528–542. DOI 10.1093/nar/gkj461. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1345696/.

(8) The Conversation [Internet]. Melbourne; 2016 Aug 09. How do Olympic athletes learn to handle the heat?; [cited 2022 Nov 8]; Available from: https://theconversation.com/how-do-olympic-athletes-learn-to-handle-the-heat-63438

(9) Thein LA, Thein JM, Landry GL. Ergogenic aids. Phys Ther [Internet]. 1995 May [cited 2022 Nov 8];75(5):426-439. DOI 10.1093/ptj/75.5.426. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7732086/.

(10) BBC [Internet]. London; 2016 Jan 11. Athletics doping crisis: UK Athletics wants to reset world records; [cited 2022 Nov 9]; Available from: https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/35277793

(11) Berthelot G, Thibault V, Tafflet M, Escolano S, El Helou N, Jouven X, et al. The Citius End: World Records Progression Announces the Completion of a Brief Ultra-Physiological Quest. PLoS ONE 2006;3(2):e1552; [cited 2022 Nov 9]; Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001552

(12) Berthelot G, Thibault V, Tafflet M, Escolano S, El Helou N, Jouven X, et al. The Citius End: World Records Progression Announces the Completion of a Brief Ultra-Physiological Quest. PLoS ONE 2006;3(2):e1552. Table of predicted WR asymptotic value, year of the 99.95% limit, credibility intervals and period number per event. Women and men are respectively symbolized by (W) and (M). C&J are Clean and Jerk weight lifting events. Two versions of the Track women 100 m are presented, version 1 includes the last WR, version 2 leaves it out.

(13) The Conversation [Internet]. Melbourne; 2016 Aug 08. Explainer: what is gene doping – and will any athletes at Rio 2016 have tried it?; [cited 2022 Nov 8]; Available from: https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-gene-doping-and-will-any-athletes-at-rio-2016-have-tried-it-63230

FOOTNOTES


(a) Michael Ledecky, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
(b) Article adapted for publication in accordance with the journal's submission rules, under a Creative Commons license from The Conversation.
(c)Copyright: © 2008 Berthelot G, Thibault V, Tafflet M, Escolano S, El Helou N, Jouven X, et al. (11)
The Conversation

Article Statistics

Stats

 


Support

Support NADAR! Send a message now, to: NADAR@REVISTANADAR.COM