↓ Skip to main content

Can the ability to adapt to exercise be considered a talent—and if so, can we test for it?

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
50 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can the ability to adapt to exercise be considered a talent—and if so, can we test for it?
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40798-017-0110-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Craig Pickering, John Kiely

Abstract

Talent identification (TI) is a popular and hugely important topic within sports performance, with an ever-increasing amount of resources dedicated to unveiling the next sporting star. However, at present, most TI processes appear to select high-performing individuals at the present point in time, as opposed to identifying those individuals with the greatest capacity to improve. This represents a potential inefficiency within the TI process, reducing its effectiveness. In this article, we discuss whether the ability to adapt favorably, and with a large magnitude, to physical training can be considered a talent, testing it against proposed criteria. We also discuss whether, if such an ability can be considered a talent, being able to test for it as part of the TI process would be advantageous. Given that such a capacity is partially heritable, driven by genetic variation between individuals that mediate the adaptive response, we also explore whether the information gained from genetic profiling can be used to identify those with the greatest capacity to improve. Although there are some ethical hurdles which must be considered, the use of genetic information to identify those individuals with the greatest capacity appears to hold promise and may improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of contemporary TI programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 5 5%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 46 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 29 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2019.
All research outputs
#902,537
of 25,513,063 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#82
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,308
of 447,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,513,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.