Why the study?
Despite an explosion of new approaches designed to improve physical performance, insights are needed to determine which tools lead to meaningful enhancement and warrant resource investment.
Highlights the critical role of integrative physiology in quantitatively evaluating and developing approaches for human performance augmentation.
Physiology insights may prioritize performance tools for athletes; leaves open validation of specific approaches before investment.
In recent years, there has been an explosion of new approaches (technological, methodological, pharmacological, etc.) designed to improve physical performance for athletes, the military and in other applications. The goal of the present discussion is to review and quantify several ways in which physiology can provide important insights about which tools may lead to improved performance (and may therefore be worth resource investment) and which tools are less likely to provide meaningful enhancement. To address these objectives, we review examples of technological solutions/approaches in terms of the magnitude of their potential (or actual) influences: transformational, moderate, ineffective or undetermined. As one example, if there were a technology which significantly increased arterial oxygen partial pressure by 10%, this would be relatively meaningless in healthy people resting at sea level, where it would have a minimal effect on arterial oxygen content. However, there might be specific situations where such an effect would be very helpful, including at high altitude or in some patient populations. We discuss the importance of quantitative evaluation of putative approaches to performance enhancement and highlight the important role of integrative physiologists in the development and critical appraisal of these approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ryan et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: