Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter?
Quote | Reply
I thought this could be interesting discussion and I'm sure it's been done before. I'm curious as to what folks feel is a goal MOST endurance athletes can reach. I'm no coach, but have been in endurance sports (running mostly) all my life. We'll talk about quality training, but not professional level training.

I'll throw out some numbers for men. It's a number I'd think maybe 80% of endurance athletes (not entire population) can reach.

19 flat 5K
3.75w/kg
6:30 for 500scy

I'm interested in others' thoughts. I've seen some folks go from pretty "average" to what I'd consider pretty fast, but curious to where genetics seems to be the limiter MOST of the time.

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The figures I calculated were nearly identical to yours. I'd say about 70% of adult males under 35 could obtain this:

~4w/kg cycling
~19:15min 5k
~6:45 500
Last edited by: Nick_Barkley: Jan 16, 14 11:57
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [Nick_Barkley] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Those numbers look pretty good. I'm fairly certain at 43 I can reach the cycling and swimming numbers with appropriate training. After my broken leg the running could be pretty tough for me. It sucks because that was my endurance background and up through my mid 20s was running consistently in the low/mid 16s for 5k and still sub 20 into my 30s on minimal running.

Formerly DrD
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
    Numbers need to be age quantified. As I'm in the 60-64 AG, those aren't applicable to me. Well, if they are I can tell you I'm not at that stage but it would be nice to think that I could get there.

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [BCDon] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Valid point, but I was originally thinking....but did not note....that it would be at out peak age fitness.

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just looking at 'the engine' simplifies things too much, IMO. You can have a large engine, but sub-optimal form/technique. Watts/kg on the bike may be the closest/best, as with enough training/discipline (almost) anybody can reach (or get close to) a reasonable target (age-adjusted). The question then becomes how long can they sustain riding at threshold, or at 90%/80%/etc. At that point form/technique comes into play, as sub-optimal technique will waste energy and/or lead to pre-mature fatigue. In running, and swimming especially, form/technique are even more important. The largest engine only does so much if your technique/biomechanics are sub-optimal (or worse), as most of the energy produced will be wasted to overcome unnecessary drag/resistance (I'm not talking about position/fit on the bike).
The path to the hypothetic targets you give I think would be different for everybody .... some may just have to work on 'the engine'. Others may already be at or near max 'engine' capacity and would have to work on form/technique, or lose weight, or ... ?

Just a different point of view.

- S
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think a different type of genetics has an effect as well. My wife and I agree - the very best of the endurance athletes are generally (according to the general populace) - not right in the head.

In my younger years (runner, biking) - I could beat those numbers (didn't swim till last year). Over the course of my amateur athletic career, I've noticed that I get many funny looks and comments when I attend "general exercise" classes. Spinning was the worst; the instructor would say "Okay, no go all out!" - so I would. I got a lot of funny looks at the end of those intervals, as I sat there heaving my way through a recovery with my sweat puddle creeping across the floor. (I bought my own spin bike & Sufferfest videos; problem solved)

This is absolutely NOTHING in comparison to the state of mind of Tyler Hamilton, as an example, who rode a Tour de France with a broken collarbone. Clearly - the engine kept him competitive, but the ECU kept him in the race.

I doubt very much that I'm alone in this regard- especially on this board. Those at the top - its not just the engine, but the ECU that's getting the job done. Likewise, I think a proper ECU can compensate for the engine.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cmscat50 wrote:
I thought this could be interesting discussion and I'm sure it's been done before. I'm curious as to what folks feel is a goal MOST endurance athletes can reach. I'm no coach, but have been in endurance sports (running mostly) all my life. We'll talk about quality training, but not professional level training.

I'll throw out some numbers for men. It's a number I'd think maybe 80% of endurance athletes (not entire population) can reach.

19 flat 5K
3.75w/kg
6:30 for 500scy

I'm interested in others' thoughts. I've seen some folks go from pretty "average" to what I'd consider pretty fast, but curious to where genetics seems to be the limiter MOST of the time.

One question, one comment:

3.75 w/kg for how long? That seems like a much higher bar than a 19min 5k.

The swim is highly experience/form dependent. There are lots of 15min 5K guys who would struggle to go sub 1:30 pace for 500m in the pool, even with a year of training/coaching.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well crap, I have been trying for years to hit all these numbers and haven't yet....as someone who will be 50 this year

The bike at 3.75w/kg is the only one I will hit. Finnally training with power, learning what hard is, learning to ride with a purpose, this one is most doable from most folks because you can ride relatively hard without getting hurt.

Running, if I could ever stay healthy I think I might have a chance but once I start doing too much hard running, I get hurt. Best 5K was 19:55 at 27, now I can run about 21:30...its hurts too much to go faster. I am doing the 100 run challenge, but its all slow stuff.

Swimming, I think the qualifier is if you grew up swimming as a kid you can hit 6:30 per 500. No way in hell, I will ever swim that fast.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
3.75 w/kg FTP.

24 Hour World TT Champs-American record holder
Fat Bike Worlds - Race Director
Insta: chris.s.apex
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Do you mean capable with maximal training or do you mean capable based upon what they will do? There is a big distinction. Many amateurs are unwilling to put in the work to maximize what engine they are provided with. This means putting in the appropriate time and intensity which means a fair amount of suffering. It means carving out time to sleep 8-10 hours a night. It means maximizing a healthy diet for them. It means minimizing weight. It means minimizing stress. It means working on the psychology of enduring pain and discomfort.

I work a job where there are multiple people who are sub 2:50 marathoners, have FTP's of greater than 4.5 watts/kg, are Kona qualifiers, Leadville 100 runners, etc. The common theme is that they are dedicated to maximizing their results and all of them work their tail off to do it. I see them regularly post 4 hour trainer rides, 20 mile runs, etc on Strava.

I think if people did what was necessary to maximize their abilities the numbers are better.

18 for 5k
4.5 watts/kg
5:30 for 500

Even these numbers may not be representative and may under estimate the ability of human physiology.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cmscat50 wrote:
3.75 w/kg FTP.

That's what I figured. Feels like far more people can run a 19min. 5k than can lay out 3.75 (256W for a 150lb. biker....easily enough to go sub-1hr 40k).

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I seriously disagree with the 19 flat 5k. It takes me a lot of training even at M18-35 to just dip under 19 in a 5k.

I've seen people do the Pfitz programs religiously and train for years and not even come close to 19 even at those young ages.

To have a shot at a 19 flat 5k, you should be at least low 21s on <30mpw of pure running (not triathlon), with some speedwork thrown in there, in your very first training cycle of that.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Engine is rarely the limiter. Doing the work to upgrade from a V4 to a V12 turbo is usually the problem.
Many get to a V6, maybe even a turbo V6, some even a V8 and run out of time/motivation/insert X # of kids/careers etc.

Most people, if training 500 hours year after year and go to 650 hours they will see improvement.

In endurance sports there really is no substitute for volume.

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

Last edited by: desert dude: Jan 16, 14 14:46
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [Titanflexr] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Most mediocre high school cross country runners can run an 18 min 5k. Keep in mind that this on a cross-country course not a flat road course.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [vikingmd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Your anecdotes are perfect illustrations of confirmation bias.

HS lond distance track runners purposely seek out the sport are i would assume are at least 1 or 1.5 SD better than what a moderately active person could accomplish.

Kona KQ, leadville, now we talking at least 2 SD over the average competitor.

4.5 w/kg, this will get you to the front of a cat-3 field and in line for a cat-2 upgrade. None of the above is average
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [desert dude] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
In endurance sports there really is no substitute for volume.

But...but...but...I keep hearing that if I just do 2x20 sweet spot rides using Trainer Road I can ride sub-5hrs.

------------------------------
"Unless you have a ... GF who might put out that night and that night only ... skip it and race." - AndyPants 3-15-2007
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
As a swimmer I feel sad when I see a 19min 5k is equal to a 6:30 500scYARDS!!!
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [BrentwoodTriGuy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BrentwoodTriGuy wrote:
As a swimmer I feel sad when I see a 19min 5k is equal to a 6:30 500scYARDS!!!

I feel sad too, but it's because I've ran a 16:58 but am lucky to swim under 8:00...and I'm a cyclist.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [echappist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
echappist wrote:
Your anecdotes are perfect illustrations of confirmation bias.

HS lond distance track runners purposely seek out the sport are i would assume are at least 1 or 1.5 SD better than what a moderately active person could accomplish.

Kona KQ, leadville, now we talking at least 2 SD over the average competitor.

4.5 w/kg, this will get you to the front of a cat-3 field and in line for a cat-2 upgrade. None of the above is average

It could be selection bias, but most people that I hear saying they can't aren't limited by their genetic potential. They are most often limited by something else. That is not to say those other reasons are not perfectly valid. If someone prioritizes work or family or other hobbies, that is perfectly understandable. I have no qualms with that. However, the OP asked what the limits were for the average person based upon intrinsic limiters not extrinsic limiters. I would argue that many more people are limited by extrinsic limiters.

Your argument about averages and standard deviations is based upon what people are doing not about what they are capable of.

Take your average Joe and immerse him in intense training with progressive building of his volume over 5-7 years. Add in meticulous focus on nutrition, recovery, injury prevention and sports psychology. Most would exceed what normal people would think is possible by enormous margins.

I am not arguing against the power of genetics because genetics and epi-genetics likely play giant parts in how fast an athlete progresses and what their maximum capability is. However, many people underestimate the power of simple hard work. Unfortunately, you will not find a study of unselected participants randomly assigned to 5-7 year training plans, thus, I am forced to rely on anecdote to illustrate my point.
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [vikingmd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think Coggan mentioned somewhere that the theoretical maximal bound for the average person is 4.0 w/kg, which is quite a bit less than 4.5

Also, i think distinction should at least be made btwn KQ and leadville vs 4.5 w/kg and 18 min 5k . The former two are way more of outlier than the latter two
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [echappist] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
echappist wrote:
Your anecdotes are perfect illustrations of confirmation bias.

HS lond distance track runners purposely seek out the sport are i would assume are at least 1 or 1.5 SD better than what a moderately active person could accomplish.

Kona KQ, leadville, now we talking at least 2 SD over the average competitor.

4.5 w/kg, this will get you to the front of a cat-3 field and in line for a cat-2 upgrade. None of the above is average


Yes, selection and confirmation bias are both at play here. That being said, I think it's MUCH easier to make the HC XC team (~18min 5k on grass....say ~17:30 on the track) than to get a Cat2 license.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [vikingmd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vikingmd wrote:
echappist wrote:
Your anecdotes are perfect illustrations of confirmation bias.

HS lond distance track runners purposely seek out the sport are i would assume are at least 1 or 1.5 SD better than what a moderately active person could accomplish.

Kona KQ, leadville, now we talking at least 2 SD over the average competitor.

4.5 w/kg, this will get you to the front of a cat-3 field and in line for a cat-2 upgrade. None of the above is average


It could be selection bias, but most people that I hear saying they can't aren't limited by their genetic potential. They are most often limited by something else. That is not to say those other reasons are not perfectly valid. If someone prioritizes work or family or other hobbies, that is perfectly understandable. I have no qualms with that. However, the OP asked what the limits were for the average person based upon intrinsic limiters not extrinsic limiters. I would argue that many more people are limited by extrinsic limiters.

Your argument about averages and standard deviations is based upon what people are doing not about what they are capable of.

Take your average Joe and immerse him in intense training with progressive building of his volume over 5-7 years. Add in meticulous focus on nutrition, recovery, injury prevention and sports psychology. Most would exceed what normal people would think is possible by enormous margins.

I am not arguing against the power of genetics because genetics and epi-genetics likely play giant parts in how fast an athlete progresses and what their maximum capability is. However, many people underestimate the power of simple hard work. Unfortunately, you will not find a study of unselected participants randomly assigned to 5-7 year training plans, thus, I am forced to rely on anecdote to illustrate my point.


Despite agreeing with the whole hard work thing completely, I still think you're vastly overestimating people's genetic ability at least in running.


I used to think just like you did, but it's really selection bias. Realistically, after your first year of honest serious 30mpw-ish run training, you will be within less than 3 minutes of your potential best 5k time. The elite stud runners who run 14-15 min 5ks, were not 22 min 5k runners after a year of run training, chipping away at it until they were 14-15; they were 18 minutes from the get-go with 30mpwish, if not faster, and got faster from there.

You might think all those MOPer M30-40 guys in the local HIM triathlons are just terrible at training, but it's not true. I've seen quite a few of them now with coaches, regular attendance at the weekly speedwork sessions where they run all-out, and keep solid logs of their 12+hr per week training. These guys still run 23+ minute open 5ks, and many (most) of them will NEVER run 18:xx 5ks, even with professional volume, even if some of them will be able to with that kind of training.

There's a masters swimmer on BT who had a private qualified coach, swam 12k/week at one point for quite awhile, and has raced for years, took various additional weekend coaching sessions, and said she never went faster than 2:00/100 in the POOL for distance. Some people just don't have it. Just like there's a point fast end of the bell curve, there's a slow pointy slow end.
Last edited by: lightheir: Jan 16, 14 16:42
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [vikingmd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vikingmd wrote:
Most mediocre high school cross country runners can run an 18 min 5k. Keep in mind that this on a cross-country course not a flat road course.

Actually, my impression from watching our local XC teams train is that the "average" male HS XC runner prob runs around 22-23 min for 3 miles XC. Keep in mind that most HS XC teams do not cut anyone from the team, since there's plenty of space on the course for anyone who wants to run, so you've got some slow kids out there as well as the the 18 min and under kids.


"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."
Quote Reply
Re: For the majority, when does engine size become the limiter? [cmscat50] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
cmscat50 wrote:
19 flat 5K
3.75w/kg
6:30 for 500scy

Obviously it would be a breeze for a kid/teen/college swimmer but if we're talking about adult onset swimmers then that number seems very optimistic. Top 20 in am IM swim is about as good as an adult onset guy can get and I doubt many could do 6:30 for 500scy. I'd say for that time it's more like 30% and engine has little to do with it. There are plenty of 4.5w/kg and higher cyclists/16:00 5K guys who would be happy with a 7:30 500scy.

The bike number seems very reasonable and the run also attainable but harder than the bike.
Quote Reply

Prev Next