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