General Discussion Triathlon Talk » (more on) genetics ? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2009-10-26 10:06 AM
in reply to: #2479408

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?
bryancd - 2009-10-26 10:44 AM
KathyG - 2009-10-26 7:20 AM Funny, my coach and I had a discussion about this topic with real life example. He had two women trained for same IM, both did almost exactly same training, one KQed and other was hour or two slower.
But in there training, was one consistantly faster than the other? I can do the exact same amoutn of "work" as someone else, but if I do that "work" at a much faster avregae pace, I'll finish ahead of them. I'm not sure genetics can be the culprit as there are so many variables to consider.


Of course one was faster training but they were working within their own training zones...so if both did an 80 mile ride in their zone 2 they had same training stress difference of what their zone 2 was made the difference how fast they were.

It was no surprise the outcome on race day.

But in training they had both covered same distance training within their unique zones and had very similar training stress.


2009-10-26 10:22 AM
in reply to: #2476325

User image

Pro
4824
20002000500100100100
Houston
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?
I bought into the athletic gene recently after watching my husband.

Mr. KeriKadi used to go mountain biking about once a month - 8-9 years ago.
He used to work out in the gym about 45 minutes 3X a week doing ZERO cardio but stopped doing that a few years ago.
He had/has a very impressive physique - at least I think so Wink
He started running about 6 months ago, almost always 3 miles and has run in one 5K.

He got his very first road bike 6-7 weeks ago.  His second time on the bike he went 83 miles with two guys that have been riding for a while - one for months, the other for years and had no issues keeping up with them.
His 4th or 5th time on the bike he went 103 miles at Purgatory which is hilly, had no problem keeping up, pulled for quite a while and came home refreshed. Laughing
His first multi sport race was a Du and he came in second as a clyde (barely a clyde) and would have been 3rd or 4th in his A/G.

As his wife it is both wonderful and frustrating that he has made such strides so fast!  He gets on the bike once a week and after 6-7 weeks he has been on the bike that many times. 
2009-10-26 10:25 AM
in reply to: #2479456

User image

Champion
10018
50005000
, Minnesota
Bronze member
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?

I don't think we can assume that Trishie (or anyone agreeing with her) said that she was using this as an excuse.   At least to me, folks are maybe reading into this a little bit too much.

I am not a scientist and which I understood this more, but does not genetics play a role in the makeup of human beings?  More than just eye color, etc?  Until this debate, I assumed that humans were everything based on genetics.  Obviously this is the nature v. nurture argument.

Long ago I suggested that qualifying for the Boston Marathon was not something I was likely ever going to do, at least not before I became a senior citizen (and then even probably not), but several folks here in BT said I could do it if I trained for it.  Fine, even if that's true, why would it take me 3 years of dedicated work compared to another person only taking 1 year?  Is that not affected by genetics?  Let's assume I hire the best running coach, do what I'm told, etc.  The variations in success with certain things are caused by something.  If it's not my genes, what is it?

I think I'm smarter than average and would beat more than half of you on an IQ test.  What causes that?  Did you not try hard enough in school?   Don't you believe in yourself?    Or is it simply part of your makeup?  And what is that makeup - if not genetics? 

2009-10-26 10:34 AM
in reply to: #2479504

User image

Runner
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?

BikerGrrrl - 2009-10-26 11:25 AM

I don't think we can assume that Trishie (or anyone agreeing with her) said that she was using this as an excuse.   At least to me, folks are maybe reading into this a little bit too much.

I am not a scientist and which I understood this more, but does not genetics play a role in the makeup of human beings?  More than just eye color, etc?  Until this debate, I assumed that humans were everything based on genetics.  Obviously this is the nature v. nurture argument.

Long ago I suggested that qualifying for the Boston Marathon was not something I was likely ever going to do, at least not before I became a senior citizen (and then even probably not), but several folks here in BT said I could do it if I trained for it.  Fine, even if that's true, why would it take me 3 years of dedicated work compared to another person only taking 1 year?  Is that not affected by genetics?  Let's assume I hire the best running coach, do what I'm told, etc.  The variations in success with certain things are caused by something.  If it's not my genes, what is it?

I think I'm smarter than average and would beat more than half of you on an IQ test.  What causes that?  Did you not try hard enough in school?   Don't you believe in yourself?    Or is it simply part of your makeup?  And what is that makeup - if not genetics? 

I cannot speak for others, but I was not meaning to imply anyone was using anything as an excuse.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter.  We are ultimately discussing an unquantifiable, unknowable thing.  No one here knows what their genetic limitations are.  Additionally, as I mentioned in another post, the genetic argument is only about half the picture.  Does genetics play a part?  You bet.  But no one here can definitively say how much, or even what part it does play.

So why worry about it?  What good does it serve us?

2009-10-26 11:02 AM
in reply to: #2479520

User image

Extreme Veteran
751
5001001002525
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?
Scout7 - 2009-10-26 11:34 AM

BikerGrrrl - 2009-10-26 11:25 AM

I don't think we can assume that Trishie (or anyone agreeing with her) said that she was using this as an excuse.   At least to me, folks are maybe reading into this a little bit too much.

I am not a scientist and which I understood this more, but does not genetics play a role in the makeup of human beings?  More than just eye color, etc?  Until this debate, I assumed that humans were everything based on genetics.  Obviously this is the nature v. nurture argument.

Long ago I suggested that qualifying for the Boston Marathon was not something I was likely ever going to do, at least not before I became a senior citizen (and then even probably not), but several folks here in BT said I could do it if I trained for it.  Fine, even if that's true, why would it take me 3 years of dedicated work compared to another person only taking 1 year?  Is that not affected by genetics?  Let's assume I hire the best running coach, do what I'm told, etc.  The variations in success with certain things are caused by something.  If it's not my genes, what is it?

I think I'm smarter than average and would beat more than half of you on an IQ test.  What causes that?  Did you not try hard enough in school?   Don't you believe in yourself?    Or is it simply part of your makeup?  And what is that makeup - if not genetics? 

I cannot speak for others, but I was not meaning to imply anyone was using anything as an excuse.

What I am saying is that it doesn't matter.  We are ultimately discussing an unquantifiable, unknowable thing.  No one here knows what their genetic limitations are.  Additionally, as I mentioned in another post, the genetic argument is only about half the picture.  Does genetics play a part?  You bet.  But no one here can definitively say how much, or even what part it does play.

So why worry about it?  What good does it serve us?




Don't worry about it at all. Tis what it is...at this point. Hopefully one day when we understand what our individual phenotypes are we will be better able to craft exercise/training that maximizes VO2 max etc etc.

For now any new data/information is merely entertaining knowledge...good for those of us that like to ruminate about this stuff without attaching too much significance to it. I find it kinda cool. We all know re Lance Armstrong's good physiology...but what gives the work ethic? Another gene? Personal life experiences?
2009-10-26 11:21 AM
in reply to: #2476325

Master
2460
20001001001001002525
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?
The role of genetics in sport is real and undeniable.

One look at 7 foot tall basketball players, 400 lb sumo wrestlers, and tall lanky swimmers shows some obvious examples of genetic gifts that are easy to visualize as a real advantage.

In triathlon/endurance sports, genetic potential may be harder to assess visually, as the VO2/aerobic abilities are non-visual and internal, but they are definitely there and have been scientifically measured - VO2max in particular is highly genetically determined, with training effects having almost no improvements once you're near your VO2max. (Fortunately, VO2 is only one piece of the genetic puzzle for endurance sports.)

Despite this, I'm with the folks above who say "don't worry about it" and just train as hard as you can. At the nonelite level, you can almost definitely get to the FOP if not AG platform in local races buy sheer hard work, even with limited genetic gifts.

In triathlon, unless you really have built up for years to 18+ hours per week with a professional coach guiding most of that training, you're nowhere near your genetically determined maximum potential in this sport. I'm not saying you have to do this to be happy with your performance, but I've heard way too many folks moan and groan about their genetic limitations rather than looking at their training for results.


2009-10-26 11:34 AM
in reply to: #2479587

User image

Champion
6056
500010002525
Menomonee Falls, WI
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?
Do we all start on the same floor? Nope.
Can we all build on our foundations at the same pace? Nope.
Can we all raise our ceilings? Yep.

We can all reach to the sky, but only a few can be skyscrapers.
Most can be decent-sized office buildings.
Some can only be sturdy cabins.

I've trained consistently for seven years and recently completed my first IM in an OK time (and I know I could've done much better on a different day.) I trained hard. And one thing the training has taught me is my limitations. One of which is there's no way on God's green I could qualify for Kona. Or for that matter, finish Top 10% in an Oly. It's just not going to happen. And I'm OK with that.

I also know the skyscrapers out there have no idea what it's like to be a cabin. How could they? They began on the 10th Floor.

Yes, with hard work everyone can improve, but how fast and how high we rise is genetically predetermined. It's no different than with any other sport or talent.

As long as I keep improving, how I compare with the field doesn't matter much to me. It's what I love about this sport.




Edited by scoobysdad 2009-10-26 11:35 AM
2009-10-26 12:57 PM
in reply to: #2479661

User image

Not a Coach
11473
5000500010001001001001002525
Media, PA
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?
I've trained consistently for seven years and recently completed my first IM in an OK time (and I know I could've done much better on a different day.) I trained hard. And one thing the training has taught me is my limitations. One of which is there's no way on God's green I could qualify for Kona. Or for that matter, finish Top 10% in an Oly. It's just not going to happen. And I'm OK with that.


Consistency is a great first step.  It's the key, really, in endurance sports.  But, no offense, the actual amount of training you've done wouldn't even get you a glimpse of where the peak of your mountain lies (a like a mountain analogy better than the cabin/skyscraper one).  You may have limitations on just how much you can actually train, but those are largely self-imposed (i.e., not genetic).  As are the ones you impose on yourself by declaring a "cap" to your physical potential.
2009-10-26 1:56 PM
in reply to: #2479833

User image

Expert
1379
1000100100100252525
Woodland, California
Subject: RE: (more on) genetics ?

JohnnyKay - 2009-10-26 10:57 AM
I've trained consistently for seven years and recently completed my first IM in an OK time (and I know I could've done much better on a different day.) I trained hard. And one thing the training has taught me is my limitations. One of which is there's no way on God's green I could qualify for Kona. Or for that matter, finish Top 10% in an Oly. It's just not going to happen. And I'm OK with that.


Consistency is a great first step.  It's the key, really, in endurance sports.  But, no offense, the actual amount of training you've done wouldn't even get you a glimpse of where the peak of your mountain lies (a like a mountain analogy better than the cabin/skyscraper one).  You may have limitations on just how much you can actually train, but those are largely self-imposed (i.e., not genetic).  As are the ones you impose on yourself by declaring a "cap" to your physical potential.

Agreed.  While it is very likely that genetics play a part in how much and how quickly someone can improve, I don't believe it's worth really thinking about.  For the 99.9% of the population who never realizes their full training potential (for whatever perfectly valid reasons, life circumstances, etc) worrying about genetics is just another excuse for not realizing that potential.

New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » (more on) genetics ? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 2