Performance trade-offs and ageing in the ‘world's greatest athletes’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanistic foundations of performance trade-offs are clear: because body size and shape constrains movement, and muscles vary in strength and fibre type, certain physical traits should act in opposition with others (e.g. sprint versus endurance). Yet performance trade-offs are rarely detected, and traits are often positively correlated. A potential resolution to this conundrum is that within -individual performance trade-offs can be masked by among -individual variation in ‘quality’. Although there is a current debate on how to unambiguously define and account for quality, no previous studies have partitioned trait correlations at the within- and among-individual levels. Here, we evaluate performance trade-offs among and within 1369 elite athletes that performed in a total of 6418 combined-events competitions (decathlon and heptathlon). Controlling for age, experience and wind conditions, we detected strong trade-offs between groups of functionally similar events (throwing versus jumping versus running) occurring at the among-individual level. We further modelled individual (co)variation in age-related plasticity of performance and found previously unseen trade-offs in throwing versus running performance that manifest through ageing. Our results verify that human performance is limited by fundamental genetic, environmental and ageing constraints that preclude the simultaneous improvement of performance in multiple dimensions. Identifying these constraints is fundamental to understanding performance trade-offs and predicting the ageing of motor function.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".