In 2003 a group of international scientists succeeded in mapping the human genome having identified around 23,000 regions of DNA that contain the genes which make us who we are. That is, the instruction manual that creates us and renders us unique, identical twins aside. They expected future research to find single genes for specific traits such as height, eye colour, sprinting prowess and so on but the reality proved to be far more complicated than that.

“If Usain Bolt had been born in remotest Mongolia… he’s more likely to have been herding yaks than thrilling sold-out stadiums.”

Even seemingly straightforward characteristics such as height result from the combination of many different sections of many different genes in ways scientists are only just beginning to understand. While some genetic trait variants will only be switched on by certain environmental factors, such as training at altitude.

And when you take something as nebulous as sporting talent, which of course varies from sport to sport, the traits of a super fast sprinter being markedly different from those of an elite marathon runner, weight-lifter or badminton player, defining which genes make us really good is even harder. Especially as some psychological characteristics, such as the will to win or train or endure pain, appear to have a genetic dimension too.

But scientists are trying, helped by the big data crunching capabilities of computers and improvements in lab testing. To test someone’s DNA you now only need a swab on the end of a cotton wool bud. Yet Dr Alun Williams, a reader in Sport and Exercise Genomics at Manchester Metropolitan University, tells me the biggest stumbling block is the data collection. He says: “You need very large data samples to do an effective analysis, tens of thousands really.”

And there simply aren’t that many elite athletes out there, plus you have to get through their entourage. It’s also tricky if you want to test something such as ‘trainability’, whereby two people can do exactly the same amount of training but one will get fitter than another. It’s thought to have a genetic basis, but to test it you need big groups of untrained volunteers willing to train over a period of time and be assessed. Though one such study managed to do just that. Slowly researchers are making inroads.

Their genetic dice might mean they respond better to short tough bouts of weight-lifting rather than a long run or spin class. Williams says: “This isn’t just about future sport stars but general health.”

Mindful of Williams’ advice on the science having a long way to go but curious as to where it’s actually at now I decide to get my DNA tested through the company DNAFit, who promise to help you “achieve your genetic potential.”  I chose them as they stick to genes related to fitness and diet, as I wasn’t up for any massively dark news such as whether I was going to develop dementia down the line.

As Tom Lancashire, a middle-distance runner and former Olympian who now works for DNAFit explains as he talks through my results. “There’s no bad news. It’s about helping you improve your life in a positive way. We have a strict inclusion protocol for the 45 gene expressions or SNPs that we test. They have to have been tested in multiple independent studies.”

“This isn’t just about future sport stars but general health.”

DNAFit work with the NHS, David Lloyd and many other sports clubs and stars, including the Team GB long jump star Greg Rutherford. I like that they remind you their tests are “neither comprehensive or absolute” and that they can “subsequently be deemed inaccurate or out of date by scientific advances.” And I’m pleased they’re strictly against testing under 18s, though as you can buy them in Superdrug for £119 some unscrupulous parents could I guess bypass that if they really wanted to.

I ask Avi Lasarow, the CEO of DNAFit, why he’s against genetic testing on kids? He says: “It comes down to how you explain the science. Our test doesn’t tell you what sport you can or can’t play, or what you can or can’t do. It gives you information, so it can empower the person to be the best at what they are trying to do. If a company wasn’t responsible they might test a child and say it says you can’t be an elite athlete because of your genetics. That’s going to impact their positive outlook and that’s what you want to stay away from with anyone but especially with kids.”

But he is keen to point out the positive impacts the test can have for adults citing someone he worked with who was 43% body fat, so technically overweight. He says: “Her personal trainer was saying get on the treadmill we’ll do loads of cardio and high-intensity training but she used to hate it. Her DNA test showed she had a much higher bias towards power so we put her on a weights regime instead and she had great results.”

He also mentions a clinical study they carried out earlier this year, which showed individuals get fitter on a genetically-matched training plan.

He says: “There is no doubt that you can use your genes to train well.”

I scrape some of my cheek cells onto a cotton wool bud and post them off to DNAFit. 10 days later I login to check my results, which I later go through with Lancashire. It feels exciting and otherworldly to be looking at the things that make me me, even with the knowledge that this is a tiny pixel of the bigger picture.

“If a company wasn’t responsible they might test a child and say it says you can’t be an elite athlete because of your genetics. That’s going to impact their positive outlook…”

Of course I’m interested in whether I have either of the ACTN3 sprinter gene variants and I do (watch out Usain Bolt!) though I also have a 35.3 per cent power response compared to 64.7 per cent for endurance. That doesn’t mean I can’t sprint but Lancashire tells me I will get more fitness gains from a longer workout or run or bike ride below my maximum capacity rather than short tough bursts of activity. That’s kind of what I do already but by chance not design.

He says: “A lot of elite athletes say I wish I’d known this five years ago because I would have not lost a year training this way.” I can certainly see how this could enable people to train more effectively.

My VO2max trainability is medium, which means I’ll get a benefit if I spend time improving it and my recovery speed is fast, which is good as it means I can train everyday but bad as it’ll be tougher for me to justify rest days. The most surprising news was that my injury risk was very high, as I have genetic variants, which may predispose me to inflammation. Aside from a broken stubbed toe this summer, which I blame on Brexit, I’m hardly ever injured.

Lancashire tells me that could be good biomechanics or just good luck and that I should see it as a warning. If I was going to seriously up my road running to say 80 miles a week I may be at risk of stress fractures, or it would be wise to strengthen the muscles around my knee if I was going to take up squash. Squash isn’t my thing but I did ditch my snowboard for a day last winter and go on skis and my knees did feel a little tender afterwards. If I try skis again I’ll be sure to strengthen up first.

What happens if Talent ID evolves into genetic testing and means a future where kids will be swabbed as infants or have their DNA sampled in the womb and told which sports to play at school with the freak genetic outliers such Usain Bolt siphoned off for elite programmes? Might we then miss out on athletes such as Messi, whose destined height could have seen him written off as a junior? What would happen to kids who have a mad passion for a sport but the wrong genes for it? Is it even helpful to know that much about your essence?

From a spectator’s point of view, there are questions too.  Would the Olympics get too predictable if all the athletes had the perfect genes for their sport? Perhaps, or maybe the public would get even more invested in watching the extreme genetic outliers compete. But that still leaves the the psychological side, would we be less impressed with Laura Trott’s grit if we knew it was genetically predetermined?

“Would we be less impressed with Laura Trott’s grit if we knew it was genetically predetermined?”

There’s also the risk of gene editing, either of human embryos or actual humans, to produce the most genetically gifted athletes. It might sound like the ultimate dystopia but there’s a new technique called CRISPR, which allows scientists to modify DNA and many are predicting it to be the next doping-style scandal in elite sport. For surely it would be impossible to test whether your characteristics were natural or gene edited.

Perhaps the future will lie in Olympic sports where there are too many external variables for the most genetically gifted athletes to definitely win. In Rio it’s been interesting to see how well Team GB did in the controlled and consistent conditions of the velodrome compared to how badly they fared in the road races when weather and differing course profiles came into play.

Freestyle snowboarders and skiers constantly face variable weather conditions and their half pipes and slopestyle courses are always different. Plus the judging is not an exact science, unlike crossing a line in first place. Lesley McKenna, GB Park and Pipe Team Manager tells me that means they need a slightly different approach to Talent ID, and that while they are looking for gymnastic or acrobatic qualities that would never be enough.

She says: “If you have a top level gymnast and they’re not interested at all in snowboarding I would say they could get to the top level but the chance of them being the best in the world is nil.”

“If the main driver is to win at all costs in our world it won’t sustain. Due to the weather conditions and snow conditions, and you’ve got the culture to understand and the way our sports are judged. In order to excel in that environment you have to value the progression of the sport not just the winning.”

“Torah Bright and Jenny Jones fell in love with snowboarding before they went onto the competition circuits. They were driven by their enjoyment and the fulfilment they got from doing those sports. Billy Morgan came from an acrobatic background, but then went to a dry slope and decided he wanted to do a season. We need to find more people like that.”

“Everybody can gain something from a sport if it’s a lifelong learning thing, as you can better yourself.”

McKenna also reminds me that elite athletes are just a small part of the picture. “Everybody can gain something from a sport if it’s a lifelong learning thing, as you can better yourself. If you’re motivated and get something out of playing sport then it will always be for you, it doesn’t matter if you’re never going to be at the elite end.”

Regarding GB Park and Pipe’s Talent ID programme, she tells me: “As much as we want another Jenny Jones or Billy Morgan, we also want it inspire lots of kids to get into snowboarding.” And if that isn’t what the Olympics should always be about then I don’t know what is.

To read the rest of the Olympic Issue head here

To read more about DNA Fit head here

I also recommend David Epstein’s excellent book The Sports Gene

You may also like…

Rings Of Fire | Our Man In Rio On Why The Locals Don’t Want The Olympics

Cycle Of Success | How One Rider Shaped The Future Of British Cycling

Team Refugee | We Meet The Athletes Who Fled Famine And Certain Death To Compete In The Olympics