On an unseasonably warm and muggy November morning in New York City, Brazil’s Daniel Do Nascimento made the bold decision to attempt to run away with the annual TCS New York City Marathon. Throwing caution to the wind, the 24-year-old harrier blazed to a lead of over two minutes at the halfway mark, splitting a remarkable 61 minutes and 22 seconds, over a minute ahead of course-record pace. The running world and the thousands of spectators who lined the iconic NYC course were blown away by the audacious pace of Do Nascimento on a day when most runners would have been happy to simply survive the 26.2-mile distance.
As Do Nascimento’s lead swelled and competitors behind him began succumbing to the weather, Do Nascimento’s move began to look less foolish by the minute. Eighteen miles into the race, the Brazilian’s lead held at over 90 seconds—not an eternity in professional marathoning but still quite sizable with fewer than 10 miles of running left on a hot day. On the surface, Do Nascimento continued to look strong despite a slightly slowing pace. Second placer Evans Chebet had taken roughly six seconds per mile off the lead after the halfway point but would need to do better than that over the final eight miles while continuing to hold up against the day’s humidity.
In the war of attrition that was the marathon distance and the humidity versus the upstart runner, sadly, it was not to be.
The first cracks began to show when Do Nascimento briefly stepped off the course just past 18.5 miles to use the bathroom. By 20 miles, it was clear that everything was falling apart for the leader. He briefly slowed to a walk before managing to restart himself. A mile later, Do Nascimento’s day would be done. He crumpled to the side of the road just past 21 miles and had to receive emergency medical attention. Remarkably, it still took another 15 seconds for eventual winner Chebet to pass Do Nascimento as he laid on the ground.
Unlocking the Limits of the Human Body
To the most seasoned running fans, Do Nascimento’s mad dash through the famous NYC Five-Borough course on a hot day was an apparent suicide mission, but what if he actually knew his body better than the roadside observer? Marathon runners are extremely dialed in, able to lock into a specific pace, rarely deviating by more than a few seconds when things are going well. Their nutrition during the race is a science—an exact blend of sugars with the right number of calories to fuel a two-hour journey.
Is it possible for an athlete like Do Nascimento to know his body so well that it could inspire the confidence to run at a record-setting pace on a day clearly not suited for records? As most of the field wilted in the hot weather, would training in the sweltering climate of Brazil serve as a secret weapon for Do Nascimento?
If TCS futurist Frank Diana is correct, the answer just might be yes.
Diana envisions technology playing a major role in the future of competitive athletics—beyond the significant role it already plays in the form of biometrics, exercise science and nutrition. The human body, despite what we may think, is a closed system, not at all dissimilar to a busy manufacturing facility, power plant or transportation network. The behavior of all these complex systems can be modeled and simulated to evaluate their reaction to different inputs and variables. The human body is no different.
Digital twins, typically used to model things like bridges, power plants, manufacturing operations and skyscrapers could be applied to the human body. Athletes and their coaches who utilize digital twins can model fitness levels based on laboratory measurements, develop optimal pacing or fueling strategies, or simulate the body’s reaction to different weather conditions. Athletes do know their bodies to an extent—for example, every athlete performs differently in humid conditions or reacts to brief injections of a faster pace in the middle of a race. Fully quantifying these components of athletic performance, versus feeling them out in the middle of a 26.2-mile endurance quest, has significant ramifications for breaking the tape.
“The digital twin of the human is an interesting piece of that story,” Diana said. “How do you look at the nose and the brain and the heart and the skin and then simulate the impact of running? Taking something as complex as a digital twin, and for the general masses, helping folks really understand the possibilities, and applying it to running is a great way to have a conversation about how we can develop new ways to understand the human body.”
For the Greater Good
Athletic performance provides an easy way to center the topic of taking healthcare and understanding of the body from the traditional, physical realm to the digital world. Since the dawn of time, humans have been attempting to best each other in athletic competitions, seeking to determine who is the fastest, strongest and most agile among us. Athletics are an important part of human culture, and we devote a corresponding level of attention to them. What if, however, the technology with which we are viewing athletes could be applied to every person to improve healthcare?
“The linkage between some of the progress has been made in simulating epilepsy through digital twins, and that brain analysis that goes on that ultimately could help in the context of epilepsy is the same kind of brain analysis you could do in the context of running to try to understand what drives a human to move from the pain cave to the flow state. I think the synergies in both directions with the health and wellness pieces is really interesting,” Diana explained.
It's not just digital twins that could eventually be used to improve athletic performance and overall wellness. Diana also suggests that genetic engineering and even nanorobots and microchips could become common components of healthcare. With that, there is obviously a degree of ethics and morality that need to be evaluated. For example, how can we ensure that athletes from impoverished nations have access to the same level of technology as their competitors from economic superpowers? Is sport fair if some athletes have enough funding to inject temperature-regulating nanobots into their bloodstream while others do not? The same goes for wider healthcare applications. Is there an ethical requirement that the best and newest technology to prolong life be affordable and accessible to all—not just the uber-rich?
“If we look at what history shows us when innovations happen like these, they initially start in the context of a compelling societal challenge that we’re trying to solve. The unintended consequences follow, right? In the context of genetic engineering, when we try to solve childhood disease and/or genetic kinds of issues, parents will ultimately want to do those things, then you’ve opened the window to playing those things to things like competition and other things. It’s really a question of, of one, not just how far we take it, because it’s a big globe,” Diana opined.
Athletics may be the gateway to tapping digital technology to understand the human body, but they’re merely a jumping off point to more important applications like personalized medicine, where each of us interacts with our digital twin and tracks changes in temperature or blood pressure, and preventative care, where cancer cells can be detected far earlier than outward symptoms begin appearing and there can be improved long-term health outcomes. Humanity is on the verge of redefining the way we interact with our bodies, and the advances that come in the healthcare space using new technology—aside from breakthrough drugs—have the potential to be groundbreaking.