General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Genetics determined?? Rss Feed  
Moderators: jmk-brooklyn, Ron Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 2
 
 
2013-09-06 11:15 AM
in reply to: atbaron10

User image

Master
1669
10005001002525
Rural Ontario
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
I would suggest that most people with some athletic ability could qualify for Kona. If you've been competative in sprints then you probably could KQ.
The problem is that it may take a single minded dedication that is impossible for most people - i.e. those who wish to have a 'regular' job, a family, a social life. If you quit your job but still had the funds to support yourself, if you
Conversely, there are people who are naturaly better suited to the sport. I can think of several local athletes who work a demanding job, a family and still KQ regulalrly.


2013-09-06 12:37 PM
in reply to: Leegoocrap

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by Leegoocrap
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Leegoocrap Genetics start mattering at the pointy (very...very pointy) end of the knife. Most *healthy* men/women could be winning / finishing very close to the podium of very big events if they were truly dedicated to it. After you've done years of consistent training and put in "full time" (30+ hour) weeks of training... then I'm willing to listen to someones opinion of genetic limiters.

I think your first point is a good one....which is why I said "very fast" running is genetic, fast running can be accomplished.  On your other point, you can't rule out genetics when talking about training 30+ hour weeks.....there is a reason the overwhelming majority of people can't handle that kind of load....and it also has a lot to do with genetics. 

I'm not disagreeing with you on most everything, but the reason most (again, reasonably healthy to start with) people can't handle a 30hr/wk load is not genetics. I'm also not sure I believe that drive/determination (in humans) is Nature and not Nurture.

 

That's interesting.  You know the type of kids I'm dealing with.....genetically gifted kids who are FAST.  What seems to separate them is that some of them just hate to lose.....their will to win and give of themselves toward whatever it takes is something that I haven't seen a way to teach those who don't have it.  Where do you think that comes from?  I look at it the same way I looked at field champion dogs....some you could easily run to death they had such high drive, while others had a clear breaking point in how much work they were willing to endure. You think that's taught?

2013-09-06 12:39 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Champion
6594
50001000500252525
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
no, not saying it isn't genetic... just saying I'm not sure.

That's why nature/nurture is debated.
2013-09-06 12:42 PM
in reply to: Leegoocrap

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??

Originally posted by Leegoocrap no, not saying it isn't genetic... just saying I'm not sure. That's why nature/nurture is debated.

Gotcha.....I thought maybe you had cracked a code and I wanted it.  Laughing

2013-09-06 12:53 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Champion
6594
50001000500252525
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by Leegoocrap no, not saying it isn't genetic... just saying I'm not sure. That's why nature/nurture is debated.

Gotcha.....I thought maybe you had cracked a code and I wanted it.  Laughing




????????BA ?

awww BT doesn't accept alt codes???

up up down down left right left right B A start! (but it looked cooler in code)

Edited by Leegoocrap 2013-09-06 12:54 PM
2013-09-06 1:06 PM
in reply to: Leegoocrap

User image

Sensei
Sin City
Silver member
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??

I'll throw this into the mix.  Is this conversation restricted to running?

In my formal "life" as volleyball player, I knew guys that could naturally "jump out of the gym" without any work.  I had a strict regiment of plyometrics and weight training and jump training (technique/form) and even though I was pretty good (state high jumper in HS), There were many guys that would just amaze me that could just get off the couch and have a 36" vertical.

Also, what qualifies as a "limiter"?  Are we talking peak performance?  Because I can tell you, my size (6'7") and associated weight is a limiter for triathlon ALL THE TIME.  Can I get faster with training?  Of course.  Does it limit me from going to Kona?  Maybe/probably - at least in the AG I am currently in.

BUT, even at my size, with enough training I can beat a LOT of average joes.  Also be fastest in Clydesdale.  But me be genetically tall and heavier (just more mass due to height),  I will most likely be slower than a guy 1' shorter than me all other things being equal (training, body fat, etc).

My genetic size "limits" me all the time in a lot of aspects of life.  But it's never an excuse to not try and excel.  I personally take it as a challenge at my size to beat the guys that "look" like the typical triathlete and take particular pride in doing so.

 



2013-09-06 1:23 PM
in reply to: Kido

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by Kido

I'll throw this into the mix.  Is this conversation restricted to running?

In my formal "life" as volleyball player, I knew guys that could naturally "jump out of the gym" without any work.  I had a strict regiment of plyometrics and weight training and jump training (technique/form) and even though I was pretty good (state high jumper in HS), There were many guys that would just amaze me that could just get off the couch and have a 36" vertical.

Also, what qualifies as a "limiter"?  Are we talking peak performance?  Because I can tell you, my size (6'7") and associated weight is a limiter for triathlon ALL THE TIME.  Can I get faster with training?  Of course.  Does it limit me from going to Kona?  Maybe/probably - at least in the AG I am currently in.

BUT, even at my size, with enough training I can beat a LOT of average joes.  Also be fastest in Clydesdale.  But me be genetically tall and heavier (just more mass due to height),  I will most likely be slower than a guy 1' shorter than me all other things being equal (training, body fat, etc).

My genetic size "limits" me all the time in a lot of aspects of life.  But it's never an excuse to not try and excel.  I personally take it as a challenge at my size to beat the guys that "look" like the typical triathlete and take particular pride in doing so.

 

I like your last paragraph the best.....I think that's spot on.  But unfortunately, when it comes to being really fast at running or triathlon you were dealt a bad hand.  It doesn't mean anything except you will never beat the guys winning the races.

One of the things I don't like about these kinds of discussions is that most people aren't willing to say, "so and so just won't ever be as fast as he thinks he will" when it comes to triathlon.  I think it leads some really good triathletes into burnout.  In 3 decades of triathlon I have seen some fast guys just walk away after spending thousands of dollars pursuing a dream of being a pro, or very competitive triathlete.  The story always looks the same.  They find triathlon, after a few years they are winning their AG on a local level and they think with more work, better equipment, etc. they will have a chance at the next level.  That next level is a very different animal than most of us realize.  It is full of folks who were "born on 3rd base" as another poster said.  I would rather see those folks who are not at that level stay around and make it a lifestyle.....because that's all it is for almost all of us....the best we can be.  The more folks who stay involved, the bigger our sport grows.  It's a participatory sport.......and we sometimes get to line up with those genetic lottery winners.... but we're not them.  We're Sunday evening beer league softball compared to Derek Jeter if we are all "ballplayers".

2013-09-06 1:47 PM
in reply to: Rogillio


1293
1000100100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by Rogillio

Can't think of the BTer who KQ'd a few years ago but he posted one time that he knew genetically he was 'born on third base'. Using that metaphor, I figure I was born in the parking lot outside the locker room.

I think most healthy people could, if they worked hard enough, probably KQ. The diffence in the genetically gifted and the rest of the herd is that the rest of the herd has to work harder, train harder/smarter/longer for the same results as the guy that was born on 3rd base.

I don't think genetics is as big a factor in triathloning as in other sports. Very few people in the world were born with the ability to hit a major leage fast ball....no matter how much they practice they simply were not born with the right muscle-nerve-eye-brain connectitivity.


I don't think this 'anyone can KQ' is true anymore. It definitely used to be, a bunch of years back, but now it's so competitive that the AGers are overlapping with the pro field in terms of finishing times.

I don't know anyone who started as a BOP triathlete in their first two years and then worked their way to KQ-level competition.

Furthermore, a lot of the people who KQ year after year, don't train insane amount of hours. Just go onto ST.com and check out any of the 'who's going to Kona' threads, and people will drop here and than how much training they're doing - the numbers are remarkably unremarkable for the vast majority - like 12-15 hrs on avg. Genetics absolutely plays a huge role in it (as does training.)

The pointier the field gets at the front, the more the genetics matter. Although it is true that in endurance sports, and particularly triathlon, you may be able to compensate for genetic deficiencies more than some other sports, as there are 3 different sports to potentially improve, and all of them are complex enough that there's usually no game-ending physical characteristic (unlike trying to be an mens NBA basketball player if you are 4'11".)
2013-09-06 2:01 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Champion
6594
50001000500252525
Knoxville area
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by yazmaster


I don't know anyone who started as a BOP triathlete in their first two years and then worked their way to KQ-level competition.



I think I still need another year
2013-09-06 2:07 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??

Originally posted by yazmaster
Originally posted by Rogillio Can't think of the BTer who KQ'd a few years ago but he posted one time that he knew genetically he was 'born on third base'. Using that metaphor, I figure I was born in the parking lot outside the locker room. I think most healthy people could, if they worked hard enough, probably KQ. The diffence in the genetically gifted and the rest of the herd is that the rest of the herd has to work harder, train harder/smarter/longer for the same results as the guy that was born on 3rd base. I don't think genetics is as big a factor in triathloning as in other sports. Very few people in the world were born with the ability to hit a major leage fast ball....no matter how much they practice they simply were not born with the right muscle-nerve-eye-brain connectitivity.
I don't think this 'anyone can KQ' is true anymore. It definitely used to be, a bunch of years back, but now it's so competitive that the AGers are overlapping with the pro field in terms of finishing times. I don't know anyone who started as a BOP triathlete in their first two years and then worked their way to KQ-level competition. Furthermore, a lot of the people who KQ year after year, don't train insane amount of hours. Just go onto ST.com and check out any of the 'who's going to Kona' threads, and people will drop here and than how much training they're doing - the numbers are remarkably unremarkable for the vast majority - like 12-15 hrs on avg. Genetics absolutely plays a huge role in it (as does training.) The pointier the field gets at the front, the more the genetics matter. Although it is true that in endurance sports, and particularly triathlon, you may be able to compensate for genetic deficiencies more than some other sports, as there are 3 different sports to potentially improve, and all of them are complex enough that there's usually no game-ending physical characteristic (unlike trying to be an mens NBA basketball player if you are 4'11".)

Bugsy hates you. Laughing

2013-09-06 2:09 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Extreme Veteran
1386
1000100100100252525
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??

In the intro to "Daniels' Running Formula" specifically talks about ingredients to success. 

"There are four key ingredients for success in distance running - or for any other pursuit in life, for that matter.  They are in, order, inherent ability, motivation, opportunity, and direction."

Genetics definitely is important, but it doesn't have to be the end all be all.  I don't think KQ is impossible for me, but the level of training and dedication that it would take to get myself to that point isn't worth it to me.



2013-09-06 2:25 PM
in reply to: msteiner

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by msteiner

In the intro to "Daniels' Running Formula" specifically talks about ingredients to success. 

"There are four key ingredients for success in distance running - or for any other pursuit in life, for that matter.  They are in, order, inherent ability, motivation, opportunity, and direction."

Genetics definitely is important, but it doesn't have to be the end all be all.  I don't think KQ is impossible for me, but the level of training and dedication that it would take to get myself to that point isn't worth it to me.

Curious.....what would make it worth it?  I'm interested in where triathlon is headed in this country is the reason I ask.

2013-09-06 2:31 PM
in reply to: Left Brain

User image

Extreme Veteran
1351
10001001001002525
Maryland
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by msteiner

In the intro to "Daniels' Running Formula" specifically talks about ingredients to success. 

"There are four key ingredients for success in distance running - or for any other pursuit in life, for that matter.  They are in, order, inherent ability, motivation, opportunity, and direction."

Genetics definitely is important, but it doesn't have to be the end all be all.  I don't think KQ is impossible for me, but the level of training and dedication that it would take to get myself to that point isn't worth it to me.

Curious.....what would make it worth it?  I'm interested in where triathlon is headed in this country is the reason I ask.

I think what makes it "worth it" is an inner competitiveness. I have always had that in me. I hate losing and I love winning. It eats me up inside when people beat me. My sister couldn't care less whether or not people beat her in things, she does things because she likes to do them.

2013-09-06 2:56 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Extreme Veteran
887
500100100100252525
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
As I mentioned yesterday I think that it is a combination of both genetics and determination to KQ, BQ.... Size and body shape can definitely be limiters.
Running had always come easy for me. Why? I am 5'9", 150 lbs. with a 33 inch inseam. Michael Phelps is 7 inches taller than me and I wear a larger size in pants. I "glide" more on the road while he "glides" more in the water.

Based upon their Genetics some people have it easier to reach athletic goals while for some people it much harder to reach them. I have a friend that trains twice as hard as I do in distance running. He has run over twenty marathons and has not come close to a BQ, he may be able to BQ as he gets older but maybe he won't based upon his genes.

Do I think that a BOP'er can KQ with a good and consistent training plan? Maybe, but the odds are against it. Do I think that a MOP'er can KQ with a good and consistent training plan. Again maybe, but I think that they have a better chance than a BOP'er because most MOP runners, triathletes, etc.. start out at the MOP without good and consistent training.
2013-09-06 3:18 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Extreme Veteran
1386
1000100100100252525
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by dmiller5
Originally posted by Left Brain
Originally posted by msteiner

In the intro to "Daniels' Running Formula" specifically talks about ingredients to success. 

"There are four key ingredients for success in distance running - or for any other pursuit in life, for that matter.  They are in, order, inherent ability, motivation, opportunity, and direction."

Genetics definitely is important, but it doesn't have to be the end all be all.  I don't think KQ is impossible for me, but the level of training and dedication that it would take to get myself to that point isn't worth it to me.

Curious.....what would make it worth it?  I'm interested in where triathlon is headed in this country is the reason I ask.

I think what makes it "worth it" is an inner competitiveness. I have always had that in me. I hate losing and I love winning. It eats me up inside when people beat me. My sister couldn't care less whether or not people beat her in things, she does things because she likes to do them.

Oh you got me all wrong.  I love winning.  I enter every race with not just the goal but the expectation of leaving with hardware.

To answer LB's question, Ironman distance racing is currently a rich man's game.  I simply have too many other priorities for me to invest thousands of dollars for one to two races.  Not for when I can do a full season of short course racing for a fraction of the cost (and have a more manageable training schedule to boot!).

2013-09-06 3:18 PM
in reply to: rick4657


1293
1000100100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Just my 2 cents -

I'm consistently FOP in races, and get onto the podium a decent % of the time in competitive M35-40 in Norcal. (Tough to win the AG even in local races when the world M30-35AG champion is in the field in Norcal!)

Even with my decent results, I'm an order of magnitude away from qualifying from Kona, and I've pushed myself hard enough in pure running, pure cycling, and triathlon (I've trained up to 25 hours per week, and sustained 17hrs avg per week for months in the past) to know that it's essentially impossible for me to qualify.

I think most MOP athletes really have no idea how hard it is to really gain large amounts of speed from their current levels. It's pretty common for MOP athletes to delude themselves thinking, well, I run 20mpw a week and run 8min/mile in an Oly, so if I trained and ran 50mpw, I'd be 6min/mile or similarly, when in most cases, it's not true at all. There are hugely diminishing returns for higher volume, so if you're already doing some pretty decent training and are still MOP, odds are very low (very, very low) that even if you doubled your training that you'd suddenly leap to KQ territory, even over a matter of years, at least with the current KQ standards.



2013-09-06 6:27 PM
in reply to: yazmaster

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??

Originally posted by yazmaster Just my 2 cents - I'm consistently FOP in races, and get onto the podium a decent % of the time in competitive M35-40 in Norcal. (Tough to win the AG even in local races when the world M30-35AG champion is in the field in Norcal!) Even with my decent results, I'm an order of magnitude away from qualifying from Kona, and I've pushed myself hard enough in pure running, pure cycling, and triathlon (I've trained up to 25 hours per week, and sustained 17hrs avg per week for months in the past) to know that it's essentially impossible for me to qualify. I think most MOP athletes really have no idea how hard it is to really gain large amounts of speed from their current levels. It's pretty common for MOP athletes to delude themselves thinking, well, I run 20mpw a week and run 8min/mile in an Oly, so if I trained and ran 50mpw, I'd be 6min/mile or similarly, when in most cases, it's not true at all. There are hugely diminishing returns for higher volume, so if you're already doing some pretty decent training and are still MOP, odds are very low (very, very low) that even if you doubled your training that you'd suddenly leap to KQ territory, even over a matter of years, at least with the current KQ standards.

I agree with this.....which is why I made the post I did about burnout and leaving the sport.

I had a great conversation a few weeks ago with a guy that I raced with in the late 80's and early 90"s.  It turns out that our kids are now on the same swim club.  He is an 8 time Kona racer (easier back then) and won everything there was to win locally when we knew each other. I asked him what happened to his triathlon career and he told me he went off to try his hand at elite racing to try and gain "pro" status.  He said he got his arse handed to him.  In his word, "man, those guys are freaks, there was no way".  I don't think the avg. "triathlete" realizes how big the bogeyman is at that level.......he's a monster. It's genetics.

2013-09-06 6:52 PM
in reply to: Left Brain


1293
1000100100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by yazmaster Just my 2 cents - I'm consistently FOP in races, and get onto the podium a decent % of the time in competitive M35-40 in Norcal. (Tough to win the AG even in local races when the world M30-35AG champion is in the field in Norcal!) Even with my decent results, I'm an order of magnitude away from qualifying from Kona, and I've pushed myself hard enough in pure running, pure cycling, and triathlon (I've trained up to 25 hours per week, and sustained 17hrs avg per week for months in the past) to know that it's essentially impossible for me to qualify. I think most MOP athletes really have no idea how hard it is to really gain large amounts of speed from their current levels. It's pretty common for MOP athletes to delude themselves thinking, well, I run 20mpw a week and run 8min/mile in an Oly, so if I trained and ran 50mpw, I'd be 6min/mile or similarly, when in most cases, it's not true at all. There are hugely diminishing returns for higher volume, so if you're already doing some pretty decent training and are still MOP, odds are very low (very, very low) that even if you doubled your training that you'd suddenly leap to KQ territory, even over a matter of years, at least with the current KQ standards.

I agree with this.....which is why I made the post I did about burnout and leaving the sport.

I had a great conversation a few weeks ago with a guy that I raced with in the late 80's and early 90"s.  It turns out that our kids are now on the same swim club.  He is an 8 time Kona racer (easier back then) and won everything there was to win locally when we knew each other. I asked him what happened to his triathlon career and he told me he went off to try his hand at elite racing to try and gain "pro" status.  He said he got his arse handed to him.  In his word, "man, those guys are freaks, there was no way".  I don't think the avg. "triathlete" realizes how big the bogeyman is at that level.......he's a monster. It's genetics.




Just reiterating the point you made, the triathlon world is pretty different today than it was 8 years ago, and even more vastly different during the years that guy was probably racing.

Back in those days, KQ times were eminently doable by the motivated AGer for the most part (we're talking 10 years ago or earlier).

Macca was winning everything by ridiculous margins back then (ok, not Kona for awhile, but everything else.) Now, Macca, despite not having lost any significant speed, loses short-course pro triathlon races in the SWIM, before he even gets a chance to compete on the bike and run.

The pointy end of triathlon got much, much pointier. You can see how pointy it is in situations like where Chris Lieto enters a multiday pro tour, and holds his own (nowhere close to winning, but certainly not ejected off the back).


2013-09-06 7:58 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
8198
500020001000100252525
Subject: RE: Genetics determined??
Originally posted by yazmaster
Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by yazmaster Just my 2 cents - I'm consistently FOP in races, and get onto the podium a decent % of the time in competitive M35-40 in Norcal. (Tough to win the AG even in local races when the world M30-35AG champion is in the field in Norcal!) Even with my decent results, I'm an order of magnitude away from qualifying from Kona, and I've pushed myself hard enough in pure running, pure cycling, and triathlon (I've trained up to 25 hours per week, and sustained 17hrs avg per week for months in the past) to know that it's essentially impossible for me to qualify. I think most MOP athletes really have no idea how hard it is to really gain large amounts of speed from their current levels. It's pretty common for MOP athletes to delude themselves thinking, well, I run 20mpw a week and run 8min/mile in an Oly, so if I trained and ran 50mpw, I'd be 6min/mile or similarly, when in most cases, it's not true at all. There are hugely diminishing returns for higher volume, so if you're already doing some pretty decent training and are still MOP, odds are very low (very, very low) that even if you doubled your training that you'd suddenly leap to KQ territory, even over a matter of years, at least with the current KQ standards.

I agree with this.....which is why I made the post I did about burnout and leaving the sport.

I had a great conversation a few weeks ago with a guy that I raced with in the late 80's and early 90"s.  It turns out that our kids are now on the same swim club.  He is an 8 time Kona racer (easier back then) and won everything there was to win locally when we knew each other. I asked him what happened to his triathlon career and he told me he went off to try his hand at elite racing to try and gain "pro" status.  He said he got his arse handed to him.  In his word, "man, those guys are freaks, there was no way".  I don't think the avg. "triathlete" realizes how big the bogeyman is at that level.......he's a monster. It's genetics.

Just reiterating the point you made, the triathlon world is pretty different today than it was 8 years ago, and even more vastly different during the years that guy was probably racing. Back in those days, KQ times were eminently doable by the motivated AGer for the most part (we're talking 10 years ago or earlier). Macca was winning everything by ridiculous margins back then (ok, not Kona for awhile, but everything else.) Now, Macca, despite not having lost any significant speed, loses short-course pro triathlon races in the SWIM, before he even gets a chance to compete on the bike and run. The pointy end of triathlon got much, much pointier. You can see how pointy it is in situations like where Chris Lieto enters a multiday pro tour, and holds his own (nowhere close to winning, but certainly not ejected off the back).

No doubt.....and I don't know how much time you've been able to spend watching these kids coming up....but it's about to get REALLY ugly.  Look what happened at AG nationals.....of the 6 male podium spots in sprint and oly.....2 went to 16 and 18 year olds.....a 4th place spot was gained by another 16 year old.  So go to 8 places total......3 go to 16-18 year olds?  Unheard of just a few years ago.

The last big local race of the season in our area.......4 of 6 podium spots (sprint and oly) go to FOURTEEN-SIXTEEN year old boys. (and not one of them was actually 16 yet, just race age)  Stand by for crazy fast. 14-16 year old boys beating a field of over 800??  Genetics.  You can't call it anything else....there hasn't been enough time in their lives to count anything else.



Edited by Left Brain 2013-09-06 8:00 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Genetics determined?? Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 2