It is none of the above. The correct answer is desire and motivation. All the others are contributors, but if someone has desire and motivation, that drive will overcome any gaps and maximize potential. Someone with all the gifts in the world will fall short without the desire and motivation-- you see this everywhere in life, not just sports.

I took desire and motivation as a given.

For me I chose genetic gifts but had financial means as a close second.

Realizing this is not a scientific study, but first let's define "success". Winning, having fun, being healthy... Those will change your answers drastically. My answer is based on the assumption that success = winning. Thus, if you don't have the genetic make up for that no amount of everything else will matter. I could never win Kona. I'm not saying genetics alone makes it possible, but it is an impassible roadblock at some level for nearly everyone.

---

Brian

You beat me to the point - the question is ambiguous on how one defines "success". At 55 years old, I will win Kona if I am the only competitor. And even that would be a challenge.

Three things. Unless you are anorexic already lose more weight, run more just keep running as there are no junk miles in tri training, finally don’t try to defy the laws of physics on the bike.

Really on the last one. Read up in here you can have a great setup and position for cheap and you’ll school a ton of people who seem to think physics don’t apply to them.

I took it as:

Work Ethic ~ Motivation
Emotional Stability ~ Desire (and a few other things).

Anybody else notice the % numbers don't add up (30 votes adding up to 280%) :

100%
Genetic gifts
107%
Work Ethic/Emotional Stability
10%
Financial means
3%
Technical grasp of sport
47%
Specific training regime
3%
Physical training location
3%
Access to training partners
3%
Youth sports background
7%
Other
0%
Other

I guess giving 100% isn't enough work ethic. 103% is where I need to be.

I think consistency (no real off season - just time to focus on a limiter) and the ability to minimize injury (listening to your body, taking a few days easy if something feels off, etc) are two big ones as well.

---

Blog: http://262toboylstonstreet.blogspot.com/
https://twitter.com/NateThomasTri
Coaching: https://bybtricoaching.com/ - accepting athletes for 2023

Haha, because you need to give it 110% to be successful.

I considered Work Ethic/Emotional Stability as consistency in training

Exactly my thought. Consistency year by year is the biggest factor.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

Triathlon is a physical point a to point b endeavor. As such, genetics are the biggest factor in getting there fast.

The math on this poll is amazing! Too bad they don't write tax software. Deductions under this math would be amazing. Unless this is the new common core math....

---

Hillary Trout
San Luis Obispo, CA

Your trip is short. Make the most of it.
https://www.slogoing.net/

I read the question to be broader than the ability to win Kona. I picked work ethic/emotional stability, although those two are certainly not always related. I think the large majority of athletes who have success in long-distance triathlon enjoy training a lot and/or need to train a lot.

If you enjoy training a lot do you have a strong work ethic or a strong play ethic?

If you have a strong need for success (especially external) or need to train a lot even if you don't enjoy the training, are you emotionally stable?

I gather that you voted for "genetic gifts"???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Financial at the 70.3 level and above.
M Dot branded entry fee. The ST mentality of having a bike worth more than most cars. Buying speed (bike, wheels, wetsuits). Opportunity costs for investing time & $$$ for the training. Doubtful one will tackle a 70.3 if you're a member of the working poor.

---

#swimmingmatters
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
The Doctor (#12)

Yup. I am pretty sure that once upon a recent time ago, Slowman said something like: “you either have it or you don’t” when it comes to running. At my skinniest my calf circumference is 15.5”. I’m pretty convinced that calf circumference is inversely related to running speed. And that is genetics.

---

Hillary Trout
San Luis Obispo, CA

Your trip is short. Make the most of it.
https://www.slogoing.net/

Ya, I'm in total agreement. I think it's obvious if you just look at any 9th grade gym class: some people can run very fast but short, some can run long and a little slower but still fast, and some can't run worth sh*t. Same goes in swimming: you can look at any group was 7 yr olds just starting in their first summer of swimming and within a week you can tell who's catching on and who's not.

As for one extreme example, there's a girl who swims a little bit on occasion at the pool i swim at, but she's mainly a runner. And a GREAT runner too: last June she was the #1 ranked distance running recruit of girls just finishing their junior year in HS. IIRC, last spring she ran 4:40 for the mile and 10:05 for 2 miles. I saw her about 2 months ago and, in the course of our conversation, she mentioned that she had been swimming on her summer league team since age 7 or 8, which kind of shocked me b/c this girl just does not swim fast at all. Maybe, if she were going off the blocks in a meet, she might be able to 39.9 for a 50 yd free, but that is the best I think she could do. Now obv just swimming summers won't make you an Oly Trials swimmer but, for a 50 free, a person over 10 summers can get down pretty close to their best speed, within say 3 sec or so of what they could do if they swam year-round. I seen guys go 23.X off of strictly 7-8 yrs summer league. But this girl is your classic runner: very thin with legs that go on forever. She's prob 5'6" and maybe 105 lb at most. She just has very little muscle in her upper body to power her through the water. Thus she is kind of your mirror image: a great runner who can't swim very well, at least relative to her running ability. So, feel consoled that at least you were an outstanding swimmer; most tri-geeks are not great at any of the three. :)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I wonder why "youth sport" is only at 3%. I'm talking about swimming.

Edit: probably because there's only one answer possible in the poll

Work ethic. To me, "success " is making the most of what you've got with the resources available. You can be successful and finish dead last.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Genetics.

Change the sport to "competing in the NBA dunk contest" and take the poll again.

Success =/= winning.

Success could be winning, or setting a PB, or finishing, or even just getting to the start line.

Genetics matters for winning, particularly the higher up you go in the performance ladder. For PB's, not so much...

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Spud Webb and Michael Jordan are my two examples that drive and motivation trumps genetics. There were others with better physical genetics than those two, but it was their sheer will that enabled them to succeed. Spud Webb won the dunk contest at 5-7. Jordan's Flu Game in the NBA finals is one of the NBA's most legendary individual games. Jordan carried that game by sheer will.

You think a 5'7" person being able to dunk is not related to genetics?

To me, that's the BEST example of genetics.

i can assure you that athletes that are ''successful'' in the long term take a real off-season.

Another +1

Insert nearly any endurance ("aerobic"; eg, not golf) sport where Dan indicated running. If one does have a VO2 >70ml/kg/min (maybe >60 for women) and one is pursuing excellence—winning—in an endurance sport, one is already at a disadvantage compared with those that can process oxygen more efficiently.

It's all about the engine, at every distance.

So, even with 15.5" calves (uh, wow! race bikes on the track, much?), if you have a massive chest cavity—and the lungs to fill it—you may have the physio potential to crush other, more-puny humans.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Work Ethic, Emotional Stability, Attitude.

With that you can reach 100% of your genetic potential.

I would say that the top pros in any sport, are separated by less than 1%, and it's a combination of genetics and work ethic. A person who hustles harder and grinds it out to 100% of their potential can out perform someone with superior genetics, but it only at 99% of their potential.

Work ethic also helps you get through financial hardship, and/or find sponsors etc.

Work ethic will help you follow your training plan and find training partners, etc.

Work ethic, not only gets you to 10,000 hours of focused training, but it makes you want to train, and get the most out of that training.

Missing the most crucial for me . Time.
When I had more time I was faster. Kids destroy spare time.

---

NCCP certified Comp coach

Totally, utterly disagree here.

A MOP genetics person at 100% of potential still won't touch a top-genetic-pro who's at even 75% of potential.

Dude, a top Kenyan marathoner runs 26 miles at freaking 4:45min/mile. The typical AG can't even do that for a single lap, and a GREAT AG runner will at best hold that for 3 miles.

There is no friggin' way that MOPer even sniffs 2:30 for the marathon, let alone a 2:05. Heck, that MOP probably wouldn't even crack 3 hours on BEST training at 100% of capacity, which is a whole hour slower for a mere 3 hour race. Not even close.

So what?

Does that make the 2:30 marathoner any less successful? Success is relative to one's goals. the 2:10 marathoner could be less successful if their goal was to win Olympic gold, but the 2:30 marathoner might have a goal to qualify for Boston, which would make them wildly successful.

suc·cess
səkˈses/
noun

1. 
   the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
   "the president had some success in restoring confidence"
   synonyms:favorable outcome, successfulness, successful result, triumph;
   Hollywood ending
   "the success of the scheme"
   
   • 
     the attainment of popularity or profit.
     "the success of his play"
     synonyms:prosperity, affluence, wealth, riches, opulence
     "the trappings of success"
     
     
   • 
     a person or thing that achieves desired aims or attains prosperity.
     "I must make a success of my business"
     synonyms:triumph, bestseller, blockbuster, sellout; More
     
   
   

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Slowman also said that almost all men have the ability to run at least a 37 min 10k, don't remember if he posted any number for women but it would likely be around 40 min, so question is, what's your pr, and what was your mileage leading up to that?
Genetics won't be a inhibitor until you reach that ceiling, and for most people I would say that they reach that ceiling at anywhere between 60-100mpw.
The real key to success is hard work. Running 50+mpw while still biking 6+h/week and swimming 15+k/w is hard and doing it consistently year after year is even harder.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Fair enough. But in terms of sheer performance of albeit not success, which is to vague a term to be used with any consistency, in terms of absolute speed, Talent is probably the biggest Factor once you are training 'for real'.

I will say that slow man is utterly, totally wrong about that 37 minute 10k results. Slow men also said that most men have the ability to run Halo 4 minute or mid 4-minute mile which is also ludicrous.

The key thing to remember here, is that slow man himself was able to run a low 4 minute mile, and that five minute miles were probably not that difficult for him. He started with a significant level of run talents, and that is where he is judging people by.


This is a rampart error folks make here and elsewhere- assuming what's easy for them is same for everyone. What you should be looking at for average ability Talent, is how many people actually are running those 37 minute or below 10ks or how many people are coming legitimately close to an unreasonable training. In reality, Only a minority of the general average American populace comes that close even amongst Health emails, and you can even see that 37 minutes will be physically impossible for most of them just by looking at them after basic serious training.

I haven't seen any post about a mid 4 min mile but I agree that is nowhere near true. Most men could however break 5 for the mile, but some will have to work a lot harder for it than others.


"This is a rampart error folks make here and elsewhere- assuming what's easy for them is same for everyone. What you should be looking at for average ability Talent, is how many people actually are running those 37 minute or below 10ks or how many people are coming legitimately close to an unreasonable training. In reality, Only a minority of the general average American populace comes that close even amongst Health emails, and you can even see that 37 minutes will be physically impossible for most of them just by looking at them after basic serious training. "
How many people in the american population do you think runs 60+mpw?? It is totally uninteresting to look at what the average population does as they do not run smart enough, or as much as is needed to reach your ceiling. If you were to take 100 healthy 25 yo males, have them build up to 60-100 mpw with a good structured system over a couple of years you will se a few running low 30s, most running mid to high 30s and a few running high 30s. I am confident in that the average result would be 37>

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Holy macaroni. A 10k in 40 minutes is a 6:26 pace. Not a chance in hell could I hold that! I did a major running focus in my early 30s thinking that I could bully my way into running speed. I got faster, yes. But couldn't touch this. My legs just don't push me forward enough. My best 5k at that time was 24:02 (no, I did not break 24. Damnit.). With 20-30 miles/week training at my average weight (race weight + 7%) I'm around a 9:00 mile. But I can go for a really long time.

Give me a month of consistent swim practice (from nothing) and I can get my 100y down to 1:00.0.

---

Hillary Trout
San Luis Obispo, CA

Your trip is short. Make the most of it.
https://www.slogoing.net/

Here's a thread for letsrun on the subject of HS boys breaking 5-minute miles.

Some decent stats are thrown out on this thread. Looks like farrrrrrrrrrrr fewer than 50% of HS males even in x-country, can break 5 for a mile.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7504883&page=2

If you could take ALL 25 year old males you coached and get them all sub 35, let alone 30-32, you would literally be THE best running coach in America, by far.

And you don't even need 25 yr old males to do this - you know how many men run the Boston marathon and have trained for decades/years at 70mpw? Thousands. Just do a WAVA-table extrapolation from their current fastest 10k PRs backwards to their age 18-25 results, and you'll find they are nowhere near 30-35 min 10ks as a whole. Not even close.

I used to believe this sort of stuff when I was 25, and the sky seemed like it was the limit since I was never coming close to maxxing my training. Now that I've seriously overtrained several times, and have literally SEEN the asymptote (upper theoretical limit) of my performance, I now understand that those 'possible sub 35min 10ks' were a pie in the sky compared to the hard reality check of my ability - and I'm running 10ks sub 40, so I'm faster than most AG runners.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I could coach everyone to sub 35, I said most will run mid to high 30s ie 35-37.
You will always have outliers in both directions, both faster than average and slower, but around 37 min 10k is not unreasonable as an average.

Please show me the thousands who run 70mpw at Boston and whom are nowhere near 37 min 10k. Since you need around a 3:03 for a spot, that translates to a 38 min 10k so def not unreasonable that they could run a min faster with focus and better training.

Now if we are talking sub 35, then yes you need talent, my point is most AGers are nowhere near that since they don't run enough. Even in running races most don't run enough, just look at the placements. Take a 45 min 10k and a 37 min 10k runner and check their strava, one of them is going to be running a lot more than the other.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

3:03 is friggin' fast.

I guarantee for every guy running a 3:03 BQ, there are at least 5 who have run 50-70+mpw (I am one of them) who isn't BQing. (I did Pfitz 18/70, several times, so structured program too.)

It's utter fantasy to think that over half the men under 30 could train their way to a 3:03 marathon, or 37min 10k if that's the equivalent performance.

It's not like people languish at 45 min 10ks while running 25-30mpw, then become 37 min run studs once they double their mileage - they bump in speed is real, but a lot smaller than expected. Guys who can run 37 min 10ks should already be on the faster side (like low-40s in not 40:xx) once they are actually off the couch and running 15-20mpw regularly with sprinkled intensity.

I'll revise my prior statement and say you would still literally be the best running coach in America if you could take 50% of American males at random and consistently train all of them to run 37-39 min 10ks. Heck, you'd make a fortune making a TV show about, on how you'd coach randoms with the typical BOMOP performances to winning their AG consistently, and then make a 2nd fortune on the methods to do so.

Sure, but that's not the poll question, is it?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

LH - agree with you 100%. Your "average runner" might, if he could run 70 mpw w/o injury, might get down to a 22 min 5K or 46 kin 10K, but I'd say that would his ceiling. For women, maybe a 24 min 5k and 51 min 10K. Actually though, I doubt that the "average runner" male or female can actually tolerate 70 mpw w/o injury, even if they were down to their "ideal weight".

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

So you are running sub 40, then you should at least be sub 3:15 for the marathon. If 60 Moa isn’t enough to get you to 3:03 then maybe 70,80,90 or 100 works better for you. You can’t say you’ve maxed your potential in the marathon if your averaging 60mpw and peaking at 70.

I think you can see similarities with cycling, according to ST’s fav Dr.Coggan, the average male can get to 3.9w/kg. Now even if you would take the average male on ST, most would not have 3,9 but quite a bit lower since they are not willing to put in the work necessary to get their.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Why do we have to click one more time to see the results? Does Dan get something for this extra click?

Number one contributor to success: Dedication to using foam roller every day. Even when you don't feel like you need it.

I'm sub 3:15 (3:11, actually.)

Still a long way to go from 3:03. And compared to the average American male (not the average STer LOL) I'm probably considered on the 'advantaged' side to running, as I'm smaller, lighter, and can tolerate actually running 70-90mpw without injury.

One can never truly, absolutely 'max' their potential, but like in calculus, you can draw a curve with an asymptote (fancy word for upper-ceiling) that you will NEVER reach, even if you can come closer and closer and closer to it with diminishing returns as you train more. My asymptote is way below a 37min 10k, and as said, I'm almost def advantaged compared to the average male.

Seriously, if it WERE true that 50% of men under 30 could run 37s, that would def mean that we'd see a LOT more men running 40-42, which is also not true - they are very few in number at typical local races.

But have you run 70-90mpw consistently with peaks at 100? Cause the plan you mentioned averages 60mpw, just increasing to 70 can make a big difference. I ran two marathons this year and ran 5 min fast the second one and also averaged about 10-15 more mpw.

How do you know you are more gifted than the average American? Have you had you vo2 max tested?

Yes there are few running 40-42, because there are few that take their training seriously enough! You are not going to find a lot of 25-30yo fit males running 60+ mpw consistently who aren’t breaking 42.

I agree that everyone has a different ceiling and the gains are definitely deminishing, I’m saying that most people have no idea where their ceiling is since they don’t train hard enough to get there.

I’ve been running 60mpw for about a year now and have seen huge drops from when I’ve previously been at 40. Now I could say that since I have yet to run sub 35 I can’t because of my genetics, but I can’t say that for sure since I haven’t run enough to get to that ceiling.
Real training to reach you potential is hard and takes a lot from you. You need a lot of sleep, good food and a job where you can be sedentary most of the day besides when you are running. I can guarantee that most people in running races are not doing everything they can to maximize their potential and the guy running 45 min on 40mpw would most likely run sub 40 if he doubled his mileage, slept more and ate better food.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

I understand where you are coming from. When I dream of an amazing outcome for a race, a podium spot doesn't even make the dream for me. Success is reaching my goals or exceeding them.

But, as soon as you put genetics as an option, I think you are no longer looking at it on an individual level. You are looking at success compared to different individuals, which odes lend itself to comparing finishing times and/or winning. I still voted for work ethic as I do think that is more likely the intent of the poll. But if the actual intent was to determine what it takes to be successful, as in be in the pointy end of the field, genetics starts to take over. Not that you can't bridge the gap with extreme dedication. Just that some people will have what others never will.

Again, you do NOT need to run your 'max' to see your potential. You can see the declining curve of improvement as you ramp up to determine that 37 is a fantasy in my case, and in most people's cases.

Pretty much, if you're not low 40s on decent effort training at 25-35mpw, forget about 37.

I have played with a "few" professional hockey players from my years and here is the model for success that to this day is THE model:

You can be very good with hard work and effort alone.

You can be very good with zero work ethic but good genetics.

But you can never be great without having the proper genetics and a work ethic. But genetics are always required to be great.

For clarity, this is what slowman wrote. Doesn’t change the trajectory of this thread, but because a lot of people seem to be hanging on 37 mins, here it is.

How fast? I’ll be blunt. I believe just about every reasonably fit male the age of 45 has the theoretical physiological capacity to run his age for a 10k, that is, a 10k in 45 minutes. Subtract 20 seconds for every year under 45, down to the age of 25, and add 20 seconds for every year over 45. Do the math, and you’ll see that according to my formula a 27 year old ought to be able to run a 39 minute 10k, and I mean almost ANY 27 year old. Likewise, the significant majority of 54 year old men ought to be able to run a 48 minute 10k. Women add 4 minutes.

“You’re grossly generalizing,” you might say. Yes, I am. “You have no independent, peer reviewed, published data on which you rely.” No, I don’t. Furthermore, it gets worse. Assuming you have no anatomical problems that keep you from training and running regularly, my contention is that 60 percent of those reading this are able to achieve what I describe above. Twenty percent cannot, that is, you have other things you’re good at. Running is not among your skills. However, that leaves another 20 percent, and you are capable of much, much more than the modest 10k speeds I published above. One out of every five men reading this can run 38 minutes for a 10k at age-45. Subtract or add 15 seconds per mile for every year older or younger, down to 25 and up to 65.

Yes, I’m saying one out of every five of you can run a 33-minute 10k at age-25, or a 35:30 at age-35. That, or faster. Women add 3:30 to this. Yes, this means one out of five women reading this can run a 39-minute 10k at age-35. You can still do something very few women achieve: run under 40 minutes past age-40.

Thanks for this!
Was apparently wrong about 37, but my general point is the same!
Here’s to hoping I fit in that 1/5 ;)

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

None of those........I'll enter mine that may have been said also above.........."the ability to endure great suffering".

It is integral to endurance sport. How you endure it. How you may even at times enjoy it or even NEED it. How you show it on your face.

my history (I'm in my early 30s):
~10mpw: HM in 1:45 (early 20s)
~20mpw: HM in 1:36 (mid 20s)
~40mpw: HM in 1:28, marathon in 3:06
~60mpw: HM in 1:23
Four more years of ~60mpw (averaged over the year, so plenty of weeks at 70-80): HM in 1:18, marathon in 2:46

37 is a damn fast 10K. That is right around 6min/mile. At that pace you are right around a 1:20 HM and a 2:50 marathon. I have run way more than 10,000 miles over the last 7 years to be able to comfortably break 37.

interpret this data point how you will.

For true success ... genetics will always win out (and for the top level, a good chemist).

The simple fact is this, genetics beat everything else, as long as they are working for it. Granted, you can't take the best athlete in the world and have them win if they are a couch potato, however, if they are training the genetics will overcome better training 99% of the time.

Think of it this way ... A top professional triathlete will never ever be a top pro lineman ... but at the same time a top pro lineman will never be a top triathlete. It's just not going to happen because of genetics, regardless of how hard they work out, how good their training programs are and how much desire they have.

Genetics rule all ... when genetics are equal ... then hard work, smart training and desire make the difference.

37 min 10k is not equal to a 1:20 hm, more like 1:23.
1:20 is two 38 min 10ks strapped together so you will need to be closer to 36 or under.
Overall your data I believe supports Slowmans theory.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Number 1 contributor to success is the desire to solve The Puzzle:

Swim: Technique/power/endurance: How can my skinny 12yr old daughter swim a 1:12 100m and i can only do it at 1:40, but i can do a 33min 70.3 swim? and how the hell are 1000 people out of the water in front of me?
Bike: Strength/endurance/aero/handling: lots of various ways of training and various outcomes, but i've got this one boxed ticked (Thanks to TR)
Run: How to run enough miles to get to full potential without constant injury?
Nutrition: Day to day, week to week, recovery, protein, race nutrition. GI problems mid-race anyone?
Time management: how to fit it all in around work/family/sleep/commuting... this is a real puzzle.
kit: what you need, what you just want and what is a waste of money.
and how to pay for it all with a good job that also allows you enough internet browsing time to mess about on forums and strava while at your desk :)

None of them as a first. and "successful" person in any form of sport or business will tell you, word hard, and be consistent. The two main factors for success in life in general.

Bingo! In every sport.

Work ethic paired with emotional stability? lol. They are often inversely proportional.

Exactly. In somewhat of a bastardization of the Pareto Law...

genetics alone can get you 80% of the way there.

hard work alone can get you 80% of the way there.

that last 20% requires both of those things, plus a whole lot more.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

The way these genetic gift/work ethic debates go is that the people who don't work that hard/consistently say "it's all genetics" and the people who have worked hard tend to say "genetics plays a role but not without hard work."

I started out as a 24 minute 5k runner running 2-3x/week for 15-20 miles/week and getting injured all the time. Nobody ever accused me of having superior genetics. Over 5 years I slowly ramped up my mileage and maxed out at 90 mpw. I lost 50 lbs in the process. Got my 5K down to 16:58, and had many people who hadn't ever run more than 15-20 mpw and were overweight tell me I was lucky to have good parents.

Genetics defines the range of potential, and hard work determines where you fall in that range. In the realm of AG performances, most people's upper limit is faster than they believe if they've never consistently trained in a way required to near your potential.

I think you have to remember that diff people respond to increased work loads in different ways. I can't quote you the studies but I've read several studies that have shown that you have a range from non-responders, e.g. they don't improve their fitness at all, to high responders who improve quickly. Further, among high responders, you have a range of work loads that can be tolerated w/o getting slower, i.e. one guy might get down to say a sub-20 5K on 30 mpw but never break 19 even running 60 mpw b/c his body just can not tolerate that much exertion, but rather he either runs same speed or perhaps even slower due to overtraining. This is true in running and perhaps even more so in swimming where injury is not as big of a concern. A big part of the reason Oly swimmers swim as fast as they do is b/c their bodies can tolerate 50,000 yd/wk (sprinters) up to 100,000 yd/wk (D swimmers).

In sum, you, solitude, and oscaro are clearly "high responders" who have the ability to absorb relatively high mileage and improve over the years, vs most people who don't have this ability.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

"In sum, you, solitude, and oscaro are clearly "high responders" who have the ability to absorb relatively high mileage and improve over the years, vs most people who don't have this ability."

Again, there will clearly be a range, but very few AG athletes ever get anywhere close to the top of their range even if they think they do. The vast majority lack the patience and discipline it takes to go from the couch to running relatively high mileage without exceeding their body's capabilities along the way. I guess it's just easier for them to say "Well, I'm a non-responder...one time I bumped my mileage from 15 up to 30 mpw for a couple of weeks and nothing happened other than my knees started hurting."

Certainly, you have a valid point in that a few weeks is not anywhere close to enough time. I believe it takes 4-5 years to see what kind of results you can get.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I don’t agree but it’s a pedantic point. I find about a 10 sec/mile drop off from 10K to 13.1 . Doubt I could run a sub 36 right now and I know I can tick off 10 miles right at 600 pace. I am more of an endurance runner than a speed demon but my point is that many miles can help one to sustain an uncomfortable pace for a long period of time but may never allow them to run super fast for relatively shorter periods . I believe the longer the distance the greater the ability to overcome ones genetic limitations through sheer volume .

As great as it is that you lost 50 lbs, you clearly have run genetics that were marked by both excessive weight and undermilrage, with weight being the bigger factor.

A better question as if your results are genetic or mostly work, is if you took 100 makes out of the blue of similar age and out them thru your workouts with appropriate leadup.

Do you really think over half of them will be breaking 18:00 for 5k? If not, your genes likely helped a lot.

"Do you really think over half of them will be breaking 18:00 for 5k? If not, your genes likely helped a lot. "

I'm sure I have above avg genes, just like half of the rest of you. I'm also sure that there are a lot of people who assume they have bad genes that if they trained as hard and consistently as I did would be able to do what I did.

I believe the longer the distance the greater the ability to overcome ones genetic limitations through sheer volume . //

I hear this a lot.. But my take is that it is a genetic gift to be able to do sheer volume, it is not something everyone can do just because they want to. Just like the ability to endure pain or suffering. You can learn and/or do all of these is some regards, but I feel it is genetics in the end that still separate just about all the attributes on the poll that really make a difference. Plenty of genetically gifted people to do a sport properly and efficiently, but they don't have the gift to work hard at it, or for long periods of time. Lots of instant gratification people out there, more today than there used to be, so perhaps it is more cultural and environmental. But of course those things have. way of working into the genetics of a population too, so chicken or egg??

You are wayyy above 'average' if you can throw down a 17:xx 5k. You might like to believe that it was your sheer hard work and persistence that accounted for 90% of it, but the cold, hard reality is that if you took 100 men <40, magically gave them a reasonable base to then do 2-3 years of solid training like you did, very, very few of them would run 17:xx. Like well under 10%, possibly under 5%.

It's certainly not going to be 25,35, or 45% of the guys running this fast.

Long cranks!

... no, wait. Short cranks!

... a universe without powercranks or their shills.

---

Less is more.

Or, they have the capacity and the will to do the big miles/yards but they gain no additional speed or endurance from those big miles/yards b/c their bodies just can't handle that level of training. They end up swimming, biking, and running very slowly all the time, which does them no good, and they end up going slower in their races. This has been my experience more times than I care to admit. :)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Dan doesn't really define what "success" is within his poll.

Quote:

Which attribute is the most important, most often, for most people (pros and AGers), for success in triathlon at the 70.3 distance and up.

So success can mean a lot of things given one's interpretation. Are we talking about a former couch potato finishing an Ironman or are we talking about winning Kona? Both require hard work. One requires genetic gifts.


If we're defining success as doing the best one can do then hard work is the answer. Genetic gifts do not necessarily apply. If defining success as winning, it's genetics and hard work. It can't be done without the genetic component though, as Culley mentioned above.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

Exactly.

I'm generalizing here but exxxviii sees a 5'7" dude in the NBA and just sees the genetic weakness in that he's short. Yes, he is but he is a genetically gifted freak of an athlete. Sheer will doesn't get a 5'7" dude to dunk a basketball. I bet that's an impossibility for 99.9% of 5'7" people no matter the work ethic they have. He could only dunk because of his genetics.

Every NBA player is a genetically gifted human. All of them. Jordan was arguably the greatest player because he was a genetically gifted freak that had an unrivaled work ethic and killer instinct. That combination is what makes the difference between a dude filling out the roster and someone in the Hall of Fame and on the short list of best players of all-time. We was the best of the genetic freaks.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

that's my vote too.. financial is the bar to entry, fail to clear that and it really doesn't matter what your gifts or motivation are. Once you can clear it comfortably, it brings with it the ability to buy speed, plus enough leisure time to train and rest effectively. Then the gifts and motivation start to matter..

My brand new used car cost less than half a superbike..

I don't know. Most (not the very top) pro triathletes are the definition of working poor.

Work ethic and attitude will help make the sacrifices needed to live on a low budget, plus get out and hustle for sponsors, etc.

Don’t know how this can be anything other than genetic gifts. You can have all the other things on the list but youre never going to win Kona unless you’re genetically gifted.

The issue is that generally things like income, training load, frequency, volume, distribution, modulation, technical choices etc can be (reasonably) measured.

Genetics (within the context of performance) and motivation can’t currently be measured within the context of reasonable science or opinion.

So, if stuck between “motivation” and “genetics” and staring in the mirror which would you choose?

We’re all human😀

"Don’t know how this can be anything other than genetic gifts. You can have all the other things on the list but youre never going to win Kona unless you’re genetically gifted. "

I think most people (pros and AGers) would not need to win Kona in order to achieve success.

The most important element is the Element of Surprise.

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Dan....

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but did you give any thought to a category of age/position in life. By that , I don't mean "age group" or even necessarily "age", but it seems to me, the "place" (not location) you are in your life when you are serious about training has a lot to do with success. You can have all of the other things on the list but if you aren't in a "place" in your life to be able to commit to training, "success" is more difficult. Do you have young (or any) kids? Does your job require certain commitments that make training more difficult? Are there are personal things going on in your life that would make training more or less difficult?

For me personally, I am in that place now and seeing the most improvements. I suspect I am not alone as I have read threads where similar sentiments were expressed.

Absolutely.

Genetics are the start and end for any discussion about true pro/elite level performance in just any sport or any task.

Hard work does not make you a champion without the genetics.

Some people really seem to have a hard time accepting that.

Maybe but they usually have a parachute if things go wrong. If you come from a poor family and don't have much education. not likely .

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

"Genetics are the start and end for any discussion about true pro/elite level performance in just any sport or any task. "

Nobody is disagreeing with that, but the poll specifically referenced AGers as well where your statement is not true.

Learning how to urinate on the bike.

In a group.

Without making a mortal enemy.

(“while” on the bike, not actually “on” the bike)