Spinning off of the “RHR as indicator of genetic talent” post, here are some of my thoughts regarding "genetic expression" and “genetic potential”:
1. Man alone of all the animals is no longer universally subject to the law of survival of the fittest. The more affluent the individual and her society, the less applicable the law. So, even though there are increasingly a lot more people around spreading their genes who, in the wild, likely would not have survived long enough to do so, this flouting of natural law is a relatively recent phenomenon that started to kick in with industrialization about 200 years ago - an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.
2. In the animal realm, where survival of the fittest is king, AFAIK there are not a whole lot of fat or slow gazelles or lions or swallows. The performance differential among these species is, AFAIK, very small. It exists, but it is small.
3. Looking at our cousins in the animal kingdom leads me to conclude that environmental and other non-genetic factors *have* to be more significant than genetic raw material in explaining the drastic differences in physical condition and athletic performance ability among members of our own species. This has to be true for all but those who are descended from a long line of runts who were only able to pass on their genes through luck and social support.
4. Take me, for example. I am what I would call an average to above average athlete. IOW I’m not the son of an unbroken chain of mewling runts nor do I come from a family of all-american athletes. Im the kid who made varsity, even all-conference, but certainly never had the pro scouts sniffing around. If I were a bull I would not be champion breeding stock, but neither would I be made into glue.
Now I mentioned in another post that, even though I have unlimited time to train at the moment, I have found it quite challenging to be able to train like a pro - to put in those hours at that intensity and consistent quality. But I did not say I felt genetically and permanently unable to make that transition. Indeed, I have noticed huge gains moving from 10-15hpw of training to 20-25hpw training, especially when the remainder of my week is devoted 100% to recovering for my next training session. 2 years ago I could not break into a run without my HR leaping to 155+bpm. My “steady” pace (i.e., not walking) was around 9mins/mile. Now my steady pace is 8mins/mile at ~150bpm. A slow jog for me now is 8:30-8:45/mile at a HR of 140-45. I know that this is nothing compared to pro performance, but most pros usually get started on this training regime at an incredibly young age so, regardless of genetic makeup, at the moment I’m like a 5th grader trying to play on the varsity team. Now I may never be able to cruise aerobically at 6:30/mile but I could see 7:30. If I got to 7:30, could I then see 7:15? And remember that genetically I am by no means a "natural" distance runner - I am more of a linebacker - and yet my body and its genes have the elasticity and potential to change in response to training load over time. The difference I feel is even less in the water and on the bike. I have only been swimming for 2 years and already I am in the 1:0x ballpark for 2.4mile TT. I could definitely see reaching 0:5x if I continued my present efforts over the next 2-5 years. I could imagine similar gains on the bike – Again, not reaching top pro performance, but not falling far off, either. Kind of like the small but distinct difference between the average deer in the herd (me) and the speedy alpha buck (cam brown).
4. I recognize that in any group of people with similar backgrounds – say a class of 12th graders - you will have the “natural” athletic standouts, the average dudes, and the “hopeless” athletic rejects. But are those weaker players genetically doomed to inferiority? Or do they just prefer to play chess or eat Doritos than to wear speedos and run Yasso 800s? Or do they just have a (not illogical) aversion to hard physical work and pain? I just don’t think humans have been flouting the law of survival of the fittest for long enough for genes to be the central culprit in explaining difference in athletic ability. If you ever are unable to shake the depressing thought that maybe "you didn't choose the right parents", think of what an absolute miracle it is that you are even alive to have this thought at all. Every one of your ancestors through time back to Adam or the primordial ooze was fit enough, smart enough, and lucky enough to win the race of life and propagate their genes. Every one of us represent the sum total of millions of years of uninterrupted success.
5. I accept that it will be easier for the ones who, for whatever reason, show exceptional talent an early age to become a world-class athlete, and it may even be safe to assume that they will have more top-end potential than more "ordinary" or “less-gifted” bretheren. But I think that the difference at this top end of human athletic potential (i.e., the combined limit of our genetic structure and environment and desire) is a LOT less than commonly assumed. It is simply the case that very few people in modern society ever unlock even a tiny fraction of their true genetic potential. Here I go back to the image of the herd of deer or flock of swallows - Yes there will be the studs and the stand-outs in the group – but where fitness and physical performance is a matter of life and death it seems that every member of the herd can develop to an exceedingly high level the amazing machine that is the animal body.
6. To co-opt a quote from Henry Ford: "If you think that you are unalterably genetically inferior to other people and that what is holding you back is your genetic makeup or if you think that you are not genetically inferior and that what is holding you back is insufficient persistance, hard work and determination, you are probably right." I just don't see any cash value in adopting or espousing genetic determinism.
1. Man alone of all the animals is no longer universally subject to the law of survival of the fittest. The more affluent the individual and her society, the less applicable the law. So, even though there are increasingly a lot more people around spreading their genes who, in the wild, likely would not have survived long enough to do so, this flouting of natural law is a relatively recent phenomenon that started to kick in with industrialization about 200 years ago - an eyeblink in evolutionary terms.
2. In the animal realm, where survival of the fittest is king, AFAIK there are not a whole lot of fat or slow gazelles or lions or swallows. The performance differential among these species is, AFAIK, very small. It exists, but it is small.
3. Looking at our cousins in the animal kingdom leads me to conclude that environmental and other non-genetic factors *have* to be more significant than genetic raw material in explaining the drastic differences in physical condition and athletic performance ability among members of our own species. This has to be true for all but those who are descended from a long line of runts who were only able to pass on their genes through luck and social support.
4. Take me, for example. I am what I would call an average to above average athlete. IOW I’m not the son of an unbroken chain of mewling runts nor do I come from a family of all-american athletes. Im the kid who made varsity, even all-conference, but certainly never had the pro scouts sniffing around. If I were a bull I would not be champion breeding stock, but neither would I be made into glue.
Now I mentioned in another post that, even though I have unlimited time to train at the moment, I have found it quite challenging to be able to train like a pro - to put in those hours at that intensity and consistent quality. But I did not say I felt genetically and permanently unable to make that transition. Indeed, I have noticed huge gains moving from 10-15hpw of training to 20-25hpw training, especially when the remainder of my week is devoted 100% to recovering for my next training session. 2 years ago I could not break into a run without my HR leaping to 155+bpm. My “steady” pace (i.e., not walking) was around 9mins/mile. Now my steady pace is 8mins/mile at ~150bpm. A slow jog for me now is 8:30-8:45/mile at a HR of 140-45. I know that this is nothing compared to pro performance, but most pros usually get started on this training regime at an incredibly young age so, regardless of genetic makeup, at the moment I’m like a 5th grader trying to play on the varsity team. Now I may never be able to cruise aerobically at 6:30/mile but I could see 7:30. If I got to 7:30, could I then see 7:15? And remember that genetically I am by no means a "natural" distance runner - I am more of a linebacker - and yet my body and its genes have the elasticity and potential to change in response to training load over time. The difference I feel is even less in the water and on the bike. I have only been swimming for 2 years and already I am in the 1:0x ballpark for 2.4mile TT. I could definitely see reaching 0:5x if I continued my present efforts over the next 2-5 years. I could imagine similar gains on the bike – Again, not reaching top pro performance, but not falling far off, either. Kind of like the small but distinct difference between the average deer in the herd (me) and the speedy alpha buck (cam brown).
4. I recognize that in any group of people with similar backgrounds – say a class of 12th graders - you will have the “natural” athletic standouts, the average dudes, and the “hopeless” athletic rejects. But are those weaker players genetically doomed to inferiority? Or do they just prefer to play chess or eat Doritos than to wear speedos and run Yasso 800s? Or do they just have a (not illogical) aversion to hard physical work and pain? I just don’t think humans have been flouting the law of survival of the fittest for long enough for genes to be the central culprit in explaining difference in athletic ability. If you ever are unable to shake the depressing thought that maybe "you didn't choose the right parents", think of what an absolute miracle it is that you are even alive to have this thought at all. Every one of your ancestors through time back to Adam or the primordial ooze was fit enough, smart enough, and lucky enough to win the race of life and propagate their genes. Every one of us represent the sum total of millions of years of uninterrupted success.
5. I accept that it will be easier for the ones who, for whatever reason, show exceptional talent an early age to become a world-class athlete, and it may even be safe to assume that they will have more top-end potential than more "ordinary" or “less-gifted” bretheren. But I think that the difference at this top end of human athletic potential (i.e., the combined limit of our genetic structure and environment and desire) is a LOT less than commonly assumed. It is simply the case that very few people in modern society ever unlock even a tiny fraction of their true genetic potential. Here I go back to the image of the herd of deer or flock of swallows - Yes there will be the studs and the stand-outs in the group – but where fitness and physical performance is a matter of life and death it seems that every member of the herd can develop to an exceedingly high level the amazing machine that is the animal body.
6. To co-opt a quote from Henry Ford: "If you think that you are unalterably genetically inferior to other people and that what is holding you back is your genetic makeup or if you think that you are not genetically inferior and that what is holding you back is insufficient persistance, hard work and determination, you are probably right." I just don't see any cash value in adopting or espousing genetic determinism.
Last edited by:
johnthesavage: Feb 1, 05 16:05