Another look at "Body Type" (Page 2)

I'm 5'6'' and quit playing basketball a long time ago.

In college, I played Water polo and was barely surviving playing defence. I showed up at the training camp for the University team the next year, and not one single guy was below 6'2'' with that swimmer's body I could only dream about. When the coach asked me if I had gotten lost, and knew where I was, I had a feeling no amount of dreaming would help.

I ended up joining the Rugby team  

My opinion is that it would be much easier for a large framed person to adapt to endurance sports than a small framed person to adapt to strength sports.  Not only on BT but on other sites such as Runners World there are many people that have gone from a solid football type body to a competitive AG endurance athlete.  Could a fit 6'4" 250 pound person get down to a size that could compete at the top levels in endurance sports? Possibly, but not without years of hard work.

Conversely, I played WR and Safety through 10th grade.  At the start of 11th grade I was 5'7" and 120 lbs., because of my metabolism I could not gain weight and with weight training got very cut but did not gain much mass.  After the first practice in 11th grade it was obvious that because of my size that my future was not in football.

Genetics tend to play a greater role in ultimate potential than actual performance.  Regardless of genetics, most people never achieve even a fraction of what they're capable of.  They could achieve much greater performance than they do if their training, nutrition, recovery, and psychology were optimized.

Before blaming genetics for unsatisfactory results, first look to these other factors (opportunities!) for improvement.

An easier solution is to just do triathlons to justify the purchase of nice toys.

I will agree that genetics does play a difference.  To level the playing field you need to train harder, longer and smarter.   During your next race look at the person who is right in front of you and find some reason that you need to pass them, the brand of bike etc... unless of course your in my AG and it is me then of course my genetics are better so just give up.

One of these things is not like the other . . . .

Top American (and 4th overall) at Boston was 6'3" Jason Hartmann.  Oh, and remember the unreal heat that day?  I'm thinking "body type" isn't a limiter.

Well . . .

Calorie deficit.  You don't just lose fat.  You lose muscle, as I said above.  Your body will consume muscle as fuel in a state of calorie deficit.

Try it.  Begin a diet.  You will lose some fat to a point, but not just fat.

Take a baseline measurement of your biceps with a tape measure.  Repeat the measurement 3 times and average to account for slight variations in your technique.

Then diet for 3 weeks measuring your weight loss.  At the end of the 3 weeks measure your biceps again.

If you are serious (and he was too), then one of the head cardiologists at NYPres Weill Cornell was being an idiot at that time.

The thread has morphed to those at the very front of the pack in races.  Yes, most of them tend to share the same body type (to greater/lesser degrees).  Partially this is genetic.  But partially, this is driven by their chosen specialization.  You want to run, and do it well, you become very lean.  You want to play in the NFL, you bulk up (even if you start as a 'skinny' kid).  Not everyone that chooses to do those things will be successful at the highest levels.  Others, who do have some genetic advantages, may also choose to do so.  It's always better to be talented and hard working than merely hard working.  But the latter can often overcome talent that hardly works.

Yes, you can lose that muscle mass that is not used for running.  But it does not happen overnight.  If you had built it up over years and now decide to become a runner, don't expect to see the same results as the guy who ran in HS, got out of shape once he left college, and decided to return to running.  Odds are, it is likley to take you longer to get to the same place as he will in a shorter time with the same training regimen.  Simply because it took you hard work to get to a 48min 10k does not mean you can never get to 42 or 40 or 38.

I think Tom's quote from Clarke phrased it well.  You have created your own reality and, therefore, it is so.  But your version of reality simply does not apply to many others.  And you can change yours if you so desire.

A bit of a slant to this but I think it's related.  Just curious, for the other sturdy folks out there who have been successful, how is your run?

I'm age 42, 5'9", and I'm down to 176 after about 3-4 years of tris.  I've recently placed 20 AG in a very large HIM and 5 AG (2 on the bike) in a small OLY.  I feel like I'm just on the cusp of finishing right up there (which I never thought I'd do).  But the guys ahead of me are rocking low to mid 7 min or even sub 7 run paces (depending on the distance) AND they're no slouches on the bike and swim.  I do feel like a low 7 min run pace is unattainable.  Primarily because I'm wary of training the run more, and speed run training specifically, due to the injury risk.  BTW, I am poking around for coaches to help out.

So in other words, for those of you in this thread who have had success, has it been through being uber-fast on the bike and swim or have you been able to be as strong on the run?

I am 42.  6'2" & generally ~187-192--it is rare that, at first glance, someone would identify me as a runner.  I have run a 3:13 marathon, 1:30 hm and low-19 5k.  My best 10k in a tri is ~42min and in an HIM best run is ~1:36 or so.  I am nowhere near as fast as I can be because (1) I can weigh less and (2) I can run more.  There still may be people who I can never catch in my AG becuase they have some combination of greater 'talent', stronger background in running or train more than I am able/willing.  But I have more room for improvment than those at the very front.  So, at a minimum, I can narrow the gap over time.  I am going to guess the same generally lies true for you.

How much do you run now?  How long have you been running that much?  You should mostly be leery of running too much, too soon.  Not running more, generally.

I'm 41 (will be 42 in 3 weeks), 5'9", and 172 lbs.  This is my 5th year of racing tris.  Before that, I focused primarily on strength training, and sports such as skiing and volleyball.  I was nearly 200 lbs when I started racing.

Here is the race report from my first race this year, which was a small sprint with 29 guys in my AG:  http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=435428

My run pace was 7:14.  I won my age group with splits that were 2nd or 3rd fastest in each of the 3 legs, so I don't feel that I'm any weaker on the run than the swim or bike.

Well said, Johnny!

I would definitely agree that individuals have different levels of talent or ability specific to each of the three disciplines of triathlon.  I'm not as accomplished as you, but I can usually hang in the MOP of my AG in the swim and bike, but get left in the dust in the run.   

Because the run was my glaring weakness, I've tried to focus on it over the last couple of years.  I've seen improvement, though I'm still relatively slow.  I think my run improvement has been due to two primary factors:  1.) maintaining consistency in my training & 2.) losing twenty pounds.

Some of my weight-loss has been from muscle loss that was non-essential to triathlon, i.e., upper body muscle that I was just hauling around.  I think the weight-loss thing goes to the "reinventing your body" comments that have been made previously.  Even now nobody takes me for a runner, but my physique has evolved to become relatively more suited for running than it was a couple of years ago.

Prior to my triathlon days I was an avid weight-lifter.  I still get to the gym a couple days a week, but now my focus is more on moderate weights/high rep circuit routines.  I'm also at an age (59) where I'm trying to offset muscle loss due to age. 

Age is also becoming a factor in terms of the total volume of training I can handle vs. needed recovery time and the avoidance of injury.  It's a matter of trying to make sure my training stresses quality over quantity.  That's also the reason why I've adopted the Galloway r/w for my long runs; it reduces the wear and tear on my increasingly fragile joints.

I really don't have the desire to do an Iron-distance race, but even if I did, I'm not sure that my body would hold up to the volume of training required at this point.

Mark

This is always in interesting discussion because the ones that lead the pack are typically quick to suggest that it just takes hard work and dedication while those of us in the middle or bringing up the rear would argue it's in the genes.  It's almost as if the fast folks are offended by the word talent as if it suggest they are somehow lacking work ethic but get by on talent.  Or those of us with little to no talent just need to set our minds to it, work harder and go do it.

Because I fall into the "little to no talent" framework it's silly to suggest that I just need to work harder and I too can win my AG.  I am OK with not winning or reaching the podium, I am not OK with just finishing.  So while I will continue to work within my constraints to reach my maximum potential it will likely never include a podium spot unless nobody shows up.  

I would argue as well that the range of Talent is broad.  Not even those that were bathed in talent and work ethic can be elite in their discipline.  How many super stars did you watch in college that can't even make a roster in the NBA?  

ETA:  If you are overflowing with talent, be proud of it.  While I am not the greatest athlete I am pretty good at my job and it's put me at the top of my profession and I am damn proud of it.

It is very important to distinguish between 2 completely different issues.  The OP was speaking about changing his body weight, mainly his muscle mass.  Muscle mass is completely within our control and personal genetics will change how easy it is, but not whether or not it can be done.

So you can have short, stocky people who are great runners and you can have tall, slightly heavy runners who are great.  But what we all need to realize is that body morphology is actually a small part of a distance runner's success or lack thereof.  The lions share of a person's success at distance running is determined by their VO2 max.  If a person has that aerobic talent, they can get light and then be fast.

I've seen equally fast 6'5" 170lb guys and 5'8" 170lb guys.  But if you are 170lbs, you have to be that much better (aerobically) than a 150lb guy simply due to physics.

But in this scenario, both of those 170lb guys could be 150lbs...but for the 6'5" guy it may be super unweildy to be that thin and he could theoretically get slower at that weight due to being too weakened from the work it takes to get that light.

The world's greatest off-road triathlete weighs 180lbs BTW.

For the OP, he doesn't have freaky aerobic genetics or he'd be running fast at his current weight.  But without being any better in oxygen processing he can drop 10lbs and be 30 seconds per mile faster.

I totally agree with this! I am 5'6", muscular and 125 lbs. Some of my heavier friends go so far as to call me "tiny". I look like I should be able to swim 100 in 1:20, run a mile in 7 and bike at 20 mph all day. So much for looks! I am such a mediocre athlete, I crack myself up. I started training at all three sports from scratch 2 months ago and it's all I can do to even run 5k at all, let alone run it at a good pace. I learned quickly not to judge books by their covers when I started training and observing those around me who might look less "in shape" but could absolutely crush me in competition! 

Does body type help? Yes. Maybe. Do I believe there are "naturals" out there? Yes. And maybe it's easier to haul around 125 lbs than it is to haul around 175 lbs. But I really think it's attitude and hard work over a long period of time that can really overcome perceived limits.

During HIM training I run high 20s per week.  This spring I am only doing olympics because of work obligations so I'm around 20.  I generally shoot for 1 interval workout, 1 mid-length tempo run, and 1 endurance run each week.  I have had some chronic hip pain so I watch out for combinations of too much speed or too much distance.  I'm sure I would benefit from some targeted core and leg strength training.  Oh yeah, and I could definitely still drop 10-15 lbs.

Johnny, what's your running MO?

Run as much as possible.  This means frequently.  Four times per week is better than three.  Five is better still.  As is six.  Seven can be very good at times too, but no reason not to take a day off when you need it.

Don't do a lot of 'speed' on the run.  Some strides, some hill work (I don't do hill repeats, but run hilly routes) and a tempo run now and then can go a long way.  Race a 5k every now & then to push myself (haven't done enough of these of late).  I try to stay in the 25-35mpw range as much as possible--regardless of what distance race (if any) I have at the time.  If I could figure out a schedule that allowed it, I would aim for 35-45mpw year-round (more if I was truly run-focused, but I do want to swim & bike, as well).

There's really not much secret to running.  Most people think running less often will keep them from injury.  But most people would be better off running more frequently (just running shorter durations and less intensity), as this generally leads to allowing you to do more total work over time and build better 'durability'.  And it takes consistency over a long time.  Longer for some than for others.  Many simply don't have the patience (often measured in years, not weeks or months).  Or just don't really want to make a large enough committment for a variety of reasons (nothing wrong with that, but then they DO have to recognize that their performance will be limited relative to others).

I have said this about my profession but I suppose it applies to triathlon as well.  Those who work hard will succeed, those with just talent (read body time) but don't work hard have great potential are likely not to succeed, and those who have both the talent and work hard will lead the pack. 

While I agree that the training is the most critical ingredient, there are certain physical attributes that benefit the triathlete, or someone in any sport for that matter.  Indeed, some of these can be overcome with hard work, but most of us can recognize when we have genuine physical limitations and not feel defeated by owning up to them.  I am a very strong swimmer but a lousy runner.  While I am among the first out of the water, I am a MOP AG triathlete.  Can I get faster? Certainly.  Can I win my AG? perhaps.  Am I crushed if I can't win? Hell no.  I enjoy the training and see the races as a chance to commune with fellow kindred spirits.  I would like to win, but honestly, I am not there for that.

Here is a description of Hunter Kemper's (US Olympic Triathlete for those not following) training routine from ESPN:

http://espn.go.com/blog/olympics/post/_/id/2629/kempers-training-routine-not-for-the-timid

Part of the reason some of the Elites get defensive is because they train 32 hours a week, working hard every session, and an AGer comes along and says the only reason they're as fast as they are is because they had "the right" parents.

Those who are successful triathletes (and in any sport) are those who bust their a$$ day in, day out. Training as much as the rest of us work is what gives them all the same body type - Because they're all doing the same thing and developing the same muscles.

I bet with enough time to train, most of us could reach elite status but don't because we simply don't have enough time to even come close to our potential (as others have said). Genetics play a roll when you're talking about the Armstrongs or Scotts or Maccas, but for most of us at the AG level the time we spend training is our biggest limiter.

Train more, and you WILL get faster.

JohnP - I didn't mean to call you out on this, so please don't take offense! It's something I've heard time and time again both on these boards and with folks I meet at local tris. The implication that it's "easy" to be an elite (the implication of blaming the right parents") is simply untrue.