Do you just have "it" or not? (Page 7)

Nah.  Just find a race that scares half the competitors away and makes most of the others drop due to hypothermia.  Makes placing a heck of a lot easier.   

Top 10% in the AG of triathlons is not as rarefied as you make it out to be.  If everybody was working with the sole goal of reaching their potential in tri, then genetics would become a deciding factor for breaking into that group.  But the reality is quite different and most people who set that as a priority goal can achieve it.  (There are certainly cases, Kona for example, where it becomes more challenging because the cut-off is much more exclusive than top 10%.  And there are more people focused on it.  So some people may not be able to overcome genetics simply through hard work.  But "knowing" that you can't before putting in years of consistent work is equally unlikely for most.)

Bad analogy again.  Body comp and running lots are the 2 biggest factors to running faster and neither is limited by being too small or too big (excluding the gross extremes).  These are controllable factors.  And BQ times simply aren't fast enough to exclude people with "poor" genetics.

Of course, nature is eventually the limiter.  But most people think that point is much closer than it really is.  For most it's the willingness and desire to do the necessary work (and just reiterating again, many have good/healthy reasons for not having that willingness or desire).

Just as another piece of info for the OP (though I have no idea about where it originally came from or its accuracy):

My sister (a distance runner for the past 10-12 years or so) told me this past weekend that it takes about 8 years of consistent running for people to realize most of their running potential.  So it can take a long time to get there, but it also makes it unwise to close the door to the possibilities early in the process.

Hey, she told me that! You just happened to be eavesdroppring btw did we ever find out how long it takes to realize one's bike potential (maybe we can get some good out of this thread )

But there is a reasonable range for each and everybodys body type.  I cant see me heading further south of low 170's tops.  What you put on that frame flab vs muscle means performance or lack there of.  I know me at 185 this year is kicking me at 185 last years azz.  Yes, there are parameters that each and everybody works with but my opinion is that too many folks accept that over the reality that there is more they could be doing and they dont for whatever reason, good or bad.  Its a lot easier for the ego to take so I can see why folks do it.  Exhaust all possibilities to meet your potential is all I am saying and I think a lot of folks sell themselves short and take comfort in that its something else too soon.

Sorry.  I may have still been a little "foggy" at the time.

There's 2 pics of me on the run and I look about like I felt.  There's 2 pics of my sister (in the lost & found) and she's smiling & waving to the camera.  On a relative basis, she's really the fast one in the family right now (2nd OA female at Harriman and 1st female AGer).  And as inspiration for the OP, I watched her run her first marathon (MCM) in something like 5:30 back in the mid-'90s.  She's qualified for Boston at least 3 times now (and put up a BQ time at Boston this year).  She was completely unathletic as a child and through college.  I told her to have her checkbook ready at IMLP this year, though realistically she may still need a couple more years on the bike before her name gets called for Kona.

My middle sister took up running a little over a year ago (also no athletcis through college).  She's really the only one in the family who you could say has a "runner's build".  She's already run a 1:45 half marathon.  She may have "it".

I'm sure you could get to 185 if you want. 

But seriously, all a person needs to do is get their BF% down.  A bigger person is going to have more power, so can carry more weight.  As long as not too much of it is "excess baggage", they could still run fast enough for a BQ.

I'm 6'2" or so and about 190.  I could get leaner, but even at this level I could BQ (with some focused training and a smart race).

You misunderstand the point I (and others) are making.  Certainly, most people can't expect, for example, to train hard and win Kona or the Tour de France.  But other goals are far more realistic like, for example, placing in the top 10% in your AG in triathlons or qualifying for Boston.  Most people (with all due respect to them) do not know themselves well enough to say they could not achieve these goals.  Because most people have not even begun to take the steps that would allow them to realize that potential--either because they don't want to or don't understand what those steps really entail.

Actually, I wasn't referring to any PEDs...just a diet high in calories.  Give him time with doughnuts, ice cream, fast food, beer, etc. and we could get him to 185 easy.  Just don't send me the medical bills later. 

I remember doing my first sprint two years ago and the move to an Ironman looking impossible.  I am not there yet, but getting there.  I am tacking a long bike ride onto a sprint next weekend whereas the sprint was the goal two years ago.  Maybe I didnt know myself as well as I thought back then to think it was impossible.  If anything, maybe this mystical 'it' is simply the dumb belief that you can in fact achieve more and trudging ahead to do that?

gsmacleod - 2007-05-25 1:17 PM

JohnnyKay - 2007-05-25 3:03 PM Actually, I wasn't referring to any PEDs...just a diet high in calories.  Give him time with doughnuts, ice cream, fast food, beer, etc. and we could get him to 185 easy.  Just don't send me the medical bills later. 

 

Been there, done that - except it wasn't 185 it was 250 and if asked, I would have told you that it was due to genetics. However, after about a year of serious triathlon training, not only did I lose weight, but my entire body comp changed. The build that I thought I had I was doomed to have forever due to genetics was entirely due to poor nutrition and inactivity. Depending on one's goals, most people can change their body comp significantly; however this may take changes that one is not willing to make such as better nutrition or less time in the weight room. Shane

I was genetically disposed to beer (drink lots!) and fish frys for years as a Wisconsinite.  I was convinced I was stuck at 2 bills for life.

This is the "it" person I was talking about.  I have friends like this (not on BT).  She probably still works hard, and I give her props and she deserves success.

Let me go forward a bit with TriMike as back-up (since he's big and can kick-azz if necessary    )  How about dunking a basketball?  There's a guy in IL (I think) that runs a clinic that GUARANTEES within x-period of time, like 7-weeks, you can dunk a basketball.  He gives you all kinds of drills, etc. to get you there.  Phenomenal success rate.

Now, I think we all understand that some people will be able to do this faster and easier than others, right?  Perhaps we can all do it as his success rate dictates.  But a sampling based on height, weight, jumping ability, age, etc. will show a disparity in success rate and effort involved, I'm sure.

Again, ALL successful endurance athletes (defined as top-10% age group and/or BQ) work hard.  However, I think the path to getting there is wide and there's disparity there.  Some have "it" and their platform, or base, starting point is a bit easier.  It took 3-years of fairly consistent, reasonable (but admittedly not maximal) effort to get a 1:44 half-mary for me. 

ALL I am saying JohhnyKay is, can we just agree that your sister has some inate biological talents that perhaps I don't have?  And, for the record, AGAIN, I am not defeatist, and will work as hard as life allows to accept future potential.  I do not use talent/lack of talent as a crutch.  As I stated earlier, my non-BT talented friends will feel me breathing down their neck one day, and hopefully soon.  I will concede that my statements regarding NEVER being able to x... were probably too strong given further thought.  But it is illogical to assume there isn't a cross-section of "talent" in the top 10% in this sport.  Not exclusive, but certainly a majority (51%+).

I never said (or meant to imply) the trajectory of everybody would be equal.  Some people may possess enough of "it" to progress very quickly and may make it to the targets we're talking about with less work than we might otherwise expect.  Their ultimate potential is also higher.  Others may have a solid enough background that they've (perhaps even unknowingly) already put in a lot more of the base work than others.  My sister, specifically, may either have "it" (genetics) or simply have benefitted from starting out at near an optimal runner's body comp.