Michael P. Lombardo · PeerJ 2014 · retrospective biographical review and cross-sectional survey · n=99

You can’t teach speed: sprinters falsify the deliberate practice model of expertise

Cited 19 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Retrospective case series and cross-sectional survey (graded by design analogy, non-clinical CEBM).

OpenAlex W2070636316 · doi:10.7717/peerj.445 · record verified 2026-08-27

What was done

The authors tested the deliberate practice model of expertise (which posits that 10 years of practice is required and baseline talent plays a negligible role) across three studies of track and field athletes. Studies 1 and 2 analyzed biographical records of 15 Olympic sprint champions and the 20 fastest American male sprinters in U.S. history to evaluate pre-training performance and time to world-class status. Study 3 surveyed U.S. national collegiate championship qualifiers, comparing sprinters (n = 20) and throwers (n = 44) regarding childhood athletic abilities and first-season high school track performance.

What was found

In all documented historical cases (Studies 1 and 2), sprinters demonstrated exceptional performance prior to formal training, and reached world-class status in a median of 3.0 years (Study 1) and 7.5 years (Study 2), both below the 10-year deliberate practice benchmark. In Study 3, collegiate sprinters recalled superior youth speed compared to throwers, while throwers recalled superior strength and throwing ability. During their first high school season (typically the onset of formal training), sprinters' performances were consistently faster than 95% to 99% of peers.

Why it matters

The findings demonstrate that baseline talent strongly predicts elite performance and that world-class status in sprinting can be achieved in far less than 10 years of deliberate practice, directly challenging pure practice-based models of athletic expertise.

Limits

The evidence relies heavily on retrospective biographical accounts and athlete self-report/recall surveys, which are vulnerable to recall and reporting biases. Sample sizes were small (total n = 99 across three cohorts), limited to elite male sprinters in historical cohorts, and restricted to collegiate qualifiers in the survey study. Objective physiological and genetic measures were not collected.

Cited by