Steve this topic is interesting.

It is amazing how so many love to judge others based on their genetics.

So put their energy trying to focus on their genetic weaknesses others focus on their strengths.

Even though dan, frank, and others call a dumb engineer they can be blinded by their genetics. I was very succesful using my gifts to be able to see things in the future others could not see. I would get attack for this, just like on st, because they could not see or understand what I could.

Now one reason i did so well in my qa type focus was because of these skills. But when it came to focus on the details on why or how to fix i let others do this since i knew i did not have the genetics slash skills to do this. But many like to attack using their prism and say i am not a engineer.

No different than crank and bike fit stuff. I have zero interest or knowledge about the details, the technical of the science. Yet dan, frank and others attack me saying i am dumb. Well how many of these same folks could do the focus like i have testing everyday for months? I saw many just want to take short cuts. How many can train 3 hours a day, 7 days a week for years? But again folks love to judge by their genetics, their prism.

75 degrees here at Disneyland. Love being with my family

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I don't think genetics is overrated per se. But I think a lot of people fall back on genetics when really they just don't want to do the work needed.

I'm never going to be Michael Phelps due to genetics, but I'm reasonably certain that if I put in the work I could be a competent swimmer. But I don't want to.

Likewise I'm limited as a runner but I enjoy the heck out of it and have worked tirelessly doing it and have come pretty close to my genetic potential at it.

I think most people have a genetic limit that's a lot faster than they want to believe. But instead of putting in the correct work, they say they aren't good genetically or look for shortcuts. I see it here all the time when people ask running questions and my response to do strides all the time is constantly met with crickets. But guess what, if you're an adult onset runner with messy form you'll always be limited unless you do the work and strides are a massive part of the work.

---

https://markmcdermott.substack.com

I agree with this, on race day, everyone wants it, everyone is willing to suffer to their fullest, which is always 100%

The real mental toughness that separates people is from the day to day grind. Some are more likely to put in more effort each day to get that last interval of quality in. When race day comes, the person who is more focused day to day will be more physically fit than the other during the race. That is also the "mentally tougher" individual

I find it hard to believe that people don't want to do the work. Hell, I would have gladly trained 40 hrs/wk if it meant I'd eventually be a low level pro. Is this unusual? I also have never had a problem leaving 100% out on the road in a race, ever.

Problem is I can't train very much without getting sick, and even well before I get to that level of negative returns, extra training seems to have no beneficial effect on fitness. If that isn't genetic, I'd like to know what it is. Some people seem to have a much better aerobic engine, *and* the ability to train large volumes to maximize it.

 
Genetics just determine your ultimate ceiling of performance. Everything else determines how close you can get to that ceiling.

Since most of us are plus/minus average, it comes down to everything else and not genetics. But when you have one of the genetic freaks in the mix, you see the difference. Even if everyone did the same workout, diet etc, the freak quickly leave everyone else in the rearview mirror.

If you read the entirety of what I posted, you could have left off your entire first paragraph. I explicitly said genetics will determine whether someone can be a pro. But the rest of my comment centered around whether people are willing to work hard enough to hit their genetic limit. I think in many to most cases the answer is no. And, in regards to what I bolded, volume isn't always the missing ingredient.

---

https://markmcdermott.substack.com

I've always had plenty of intensity. No issue there (except for too much?). Twice when I've started from a pretty much untrained condition, it's only taken ~4 months to hit my FTP ceiling, although there was still gradual improvement at longer efforts.

It seems odd to me that people downplay genetic differences. I see far *less* difference in determination and work ethic than in natural gifts. The mental/emotional part in competition I'm not so sure about. I've known plenty of athletes who struggle with that, just like in the regular population.

Being that I am unable to admit that somehow I won the genetic lottery from my obese parents, one of whom died at the age of 42 from breast cancer, I would actually choose to have the ability to carry a heavier training load. I don't believe that almost any of us actually train enough, and correctly enough, to actually reach our genetic ceiling. That doesn't make any of us bad or lessor or lazy people, it just means that there is probably room to elevate ones performance without hitting their ceiling. I believe this applies to most, the 3/5 center of the bell curve.

The cold, hard reality of it though, is that most folks will reach the vast bulk of their triathlon performance in up through HIM distances with a measly 7 hrs/week of dedicated, serious triathlon training. If you're not a contendor after you're doing a block of legit hard training at that volume, you're unlikely to up it 2-3 levels by amping up your volume to 14 hrs per week.

There are a few pros / elites here that like to regale us with stories of how they spent several years as MOP no-name AGer, but it was invariably on very subpar training, usually with no goal in mind. The moment they did a 'real' training cycle, even if it was very far from maxxing out their potential volume, they were crushing the AG field.

As said previously though, if you're really out of shape and carrying a lot of weight, it can take quite a long time, even years, to get to a point where you can train hard for 7hrs/wk. To me, that's not years of training, that's years of reversing your deconditioning.

https://www.facebook.com/...s/10156849228409278/

I think this a solid talk

I guess I'm not being clear in my point. My point isn't that genetics don't matter. They do. Wherever our ceilings are is because of genetics. But many/most people never come close to their ceilings, they're not willing to work hard enough. I know when it comes to being on a bike or in the pool, I'll never put in the work to even come close. I don't really enjoy doing it.

So to use your example: while I highly doubt you're close to your potential after 4 months, let's assume that you train for 4 months and your FTP is stuck at whatever it's limit is. Well then, how's your cornering? How are your descending skills? How is your position? Is everything maximized? Probably not. Heck, there's a lot of people here who say they only ride outside when they race...they're admitting their bike skills are leaving time on the table. And back to your FTP issue? Is it really stuck? You've maximized your diet and workout nutrition? You've maximized gains to be made by periodization and workout mix? You're maximizing gains to be made through proper recover and sleep? Probably not. None of use are at the amateur level. (and that's ok!) And we shouldn't be using genetics as a crutch on why we finish in 10:11 instead of 9:59.

---

https://markmcdermott.substack.com

Well said.

4 months of SOLID training is enough to tell you your potential, or close to it. Again, note that if you are horrendously out of shape, overweight, it can take a few years even to get to this level of fitness (where you're not just rehabbing.)

It's very easy to draw the graph of exponentially smaller gains with time and effort, and you can fairly quickly get at asymptote or close to it of your expected peak performance, even if you never hit it on the nose. For AGers, this is enough to know roughly what ballpark they are in - whether they will be at best a FOMOPer, or a true OA winner.

As most folks know, doubling training volume doesn't even remotely come close to doubling performance, and for many AGers, comes at so high a cost of intensity (since their body cant handle it) that they might as well train a lot less, but with higher quality (been there done that.)

Again, a good coach should be able to eyeball your last year or two of race results provided you haven't been totally slacking off, and give you a VERY realistic expectation (or reality check) of your potential. It's extremely unlikely that MOPer for 2 years is going to have elite potential, or close to it, and they might at best be a barely podium finisher in a local AG.

I don't think you're interested in understanding what I wrote. Have a good one.

---

https://markmcdermott.substack.com

I understand perfectly well. I'm saying all those little extraneous factors are little, compared to the big bulk factor, which is your genetically determined response to training.

And you do NOT have to hit your max training to 'prove' it. You can extrapolate very well at the AG level of what your theoretical upper ceiling is. (For pros, you can still extrapolate, but given that tiny % of performance differences may dictate winning Kona vs being off the podium, that extrapolation isn't as helpful as compared to the gulfs of perfomances in the AG categories.)

Seems like it was pretty well stuck. Many years of trying different things to no avail. Plenty of sleep. Even quit work for a couple years so I could focus on it (training up to 20 hrs/wk for awhile), but that didn't help. The gains I made in that first 4 months "off the couch" were impressive. I thought I'd have a higher W/kg than Greg Lemond (yes it was that long ago) inside a year, and it would have been if I'd kept improving at even half that rate. The change in rate of improvement went from impressive to nothing pretty quickly.

We had a weekly TT here for 6 years, Mar-Oct. Once I got in shape for the season (usually early May), my AP wouldn't vary more than ~3W the whole rest of year. No change from year to year either. That's pacing by feel. A 100% effort (totally spent at the finish) always ended up the same AP.

Anyway, enough about me. The point is that it seems like the range of performance between people with similar mental constitution and training is massive. I was above average in natural gifts, but no way in hell was I getting to pro level. The guys I knew and rode with had a similar experience. And at least IME, the amount and type of training and nutrition have a very small effect on the bottom line, once you've gotten to "adequate".

I guess it's a popular meme that all you need to do is put in the work and do the right things, but is there really any evidence for that?

My thoughts exactly on this. As a professional cyclist I know my success is a combination of genetic predispositions glued together by my choices and force of will. My VO2 max is in the mid to high 80's because it was meant to be pushed there (my maternal grandfather was Canadian 5 mile record holder for awhile).

The fact that I did push it there, and push myself to attain the other requisites to sporting success is down to my genetic psychology. I can fixate on a goal completely, I could ride a trainer for 4 hours when I was 17 with no orders from a coach, I could watch the same Floyd Landis tape a hundred times and still get fired up for an interval. That obsession has been a blessing and a curse and is mostly beyond my control. It has been hard work but I have needed to do it and that is in my DNA somewhere.

---

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

DNA is probably part of it, but don't discount your experiences growing up, nature (genetics) and nurture (experience) are rather hard to separate. High motivation is often a response to childhood trauma, e.g. the perception that one needs to earn mommy's love. That link between pathology and performance is part of the reason why a lot of high performing people aren't very pleasant to be around (present company obvious excluded, I'm sure we're all summer breezes and ice cream sundaes :). That kinda puts a different gloss on those feelings of superiority us more highly motivated people like to bask in, doesn't it?

This could be why I don't have training partners. If I've done my 10 000 hours of training to achieve some measure of my potential, 9300 of them have been by my nasty self.

---

Professional Athlete: http://jordancheyne.wordpress.com/ http://www.strava.com/athletes/145340

Coaching Services:http://www.peakformcoaching.com/

Ha, I hear you. I'll confess to an abiding fear that if I work through my emotional baggage, I'll lose some of the motivation that's served me well in a lot of respects.

I do 100% of my training on my own. Never found anyone with my same commitment level

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Then again, Forrest Gump also just kept on running ...

Thanks for the honor

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Sure, people will point to genetics as a limitation. And as you accept yourself, it is one.
However, you seem to be taking the position that genetics can only be held responsible for the difference between a person's max potential ability and someone else's maximum potential ability.
This is where I think you're missing a crucial element of this....

Correct me if I'm wrong but if I understand your position, you feel genetics may be responsible for stopping you going under 9hrs in IM for example, but if you only do 10hrs and comment on your genetics it's just an excuse...since you could have done 9hrs with enough work and commitment? Now look at Dan's top 2 factors. Work ethic and training enclaves. IMO, these are very important but they do not stand in isolation. If you believe you have not got the genetic potential to ever really compete, do you really think most people will still find the will to do the work? An enclave of elites works because they are in competition. Work ethic is largely motivated by belief and hope. If you have neither, both of these factors are undermined. This is why I don't like the way this poll is set up (not that I have a better solution!). It suggests that these factors can be separated but many are actually closely linked.

You speak of Phelps. The shape of his body alone is a big advantage. Anyone with small hands and feet, long legs and a short torso, is at a huge disadvantage in the water. When it comes to running, some people (like me) have enormous calves. I haven't cultivated them, that's just the way they are and have been for over 40 years. Strong? Yes. Efficient for running? Absolutely not. Of course I could still push to achieve my potential. But the incentive is much less than for someone who can hope to be truely competitive. That's just going with some obvious physical differences. The cardiovascular elements are probably more important but less easily compared.

Another question is do folks focus on weaknesses or strengths? No matter my mental will or training i was never going to compete at basketball being too short and skinny. That is the reality of my genetics.

So it is very pc to say genetics do not mattet but facts are facts.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep