"Is smart training, good coaching, time, and determination enough to make someone a competitive triathlete?"

Not that I would really know, but I would think that genetics would also have to play a significant part at the top levels.

I can't tell you the number of times I've heard "yeah, well if I trained that much I could be a pro too." It's just not that way. Pros already have a great genetic makeup, and are already kicking butt overall in races before they turn pro. And there seems to be this myth that pro triathletes sit around all day and wait to train again. Again, not the case at all. Most also have full time jobs to support their training and racing. They also train more than you, work the same hours you do, and do it with less slepp than you. They are the hardest working people on the planet. The number of pros who make a totally sustainable living on their race winnings can be counted on your hands.

tommy

Id be interested in the specific facet of genetics that you all think makes the difference.

To cerveloguy and anyone else: What sort of genetics?



Ziva

not in any particular order:

1)stroke volume

2)a-vO2 difference

3)vO2 max

4)hematocrit level in the blood (NATURAL!)

5)muscle fiber makeup

6)body composition

7)lactace threshold

by no means is this comprehensive, and some of these can be improved with training, but by and large, they are dependant on genetic makeup, so thank or curse your parents

tommy

"The number of pros who make a totally sustainable living on their race winnings can be counted on your hands."

If you are specifically reffering to triathlon - this is very true. So to the original poster or anyone else, the question becomes, why would you want to turn, "pro" in triathlon? What are the real advantages?

The overall pool of money available in triathlon from both sponsors and from race winnings is not that great. You will likly have to work another job and scrimp and scramble to live on a bare minimum amount of money for an extended period of time. Is that what you want to do? Do you want to have to go to a race with the pressure of knowing you have to win some money to make it through the next month!!

Another question: Will having all that extra time to train, if indeed you can find extra time to train, make you that much better? Be honest. Often, the initial result of having total freedom to train to your heart's desire is over-training and injury.

You don't have to go too far down a theoretical world ranking list for both short-course and long course to find national champions living out of the back-seat of their car! In fact, Simon Whitfield was doing almost exactly that up until he won the Olympic Gold Medal. Of course, then his life changed forever over night and it was the classic rags-to-richs story.

My feeling is that the best training/racing set up is to have an understanding employer (or be your own boss) or a supportive spouse( many a woman pro goes this route) and train at the same time. You will have minimal amount of time for other things outside of work and training, but you will have money for travel and equipment needs. You will not have to go begging to every tri-related company for product and support.( Note: companies grow tired of this) You will be happy with what ever you can get or buy out right. Race age-group or Pro. Do this for a few years and then, and only when you can fully support yourself with solid, consistant race results and sponsorship support, think about going fully Professional.

Just my thoughts.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

The number of people that could become true professional triathletes is tiny.

"If onlys" are complete crap, there are plenty of people out there knocking out 8.30 to 9.00 hour IM's and 1.55 to 2.00 hours Olys who hold down full time jobs and by their own admission would not / could not / should not turn pro.

Now if you mean you could get your Pro card well thats all about cherry picking races.

As to the genetics I am in 2 minds about the whole thing. I think it has to play some role but then you look at the people at the top of any sport and they generally excel at whatever they turn their hands to.

Woods golf and academics.

Paula Radcliffe double language honors in french and german first class degree.

HGS business and running.

Michael Jordan basketball and business

All of them have some level of natural ability for their sports but they also all have monster work ethics and probably to some degree an unhealthy obsession with being the best.

Not that I'm racing now, but when I was, I came to a crossroads -- go pro and give up my day job (to work at something less stressful, maybe part-time) for a maybe income, or stay AG and work full-time. Basically, the two things that made the decision for me was the income, and the high injury potential of the elevated training. I had injured myself a few times training for marathons, and I had NO aspirations of doing an IM (where the real money could be had). It wasn't too long after this dcision that I moved away from multi-sport and into bike racing.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Some are born to move the world to live their fantasies...

https://triomultisport.com/
http://www.mjolnircycles.com/

I think Andrew, Fleck and Tommy are all right on! There are so many fast men and women racing that unless your consistently finishing in the top spots OVERALL in big races you should keep the day job. Even then it is still slim pickens at best. IMO it sure would stink to wake up one day in your 50's only to realize you are still living pay check to pay check. Plus all those people you used to pass and make fun of are now living large because they raced AG, kept their real jobs and are now ready to retire and race full time:)

Very interesting forum.

What it boils down to is you have to win. No win, no sponsors or prize money. With no money to live off you are not a pro anymore.

If I was young lik you, I would train and work my butt off. Save as much $ as I could and basically get to pro level. Then with accumulated savings go full time, while working part time in a "casual" job.

Training full time with no other commitments could become unhealthy.

Reading the first post, I assumed that the question was not so much about whether the 'pro-life' is sustainable/ or a wise path for someone to take, but whether someone who is fairly fast, could become as fast as the pros if he lived the right lifestyle (optimum coaching, training etc) Ie, not whether one should turn pro, but whether one could be as fast.

ie, is 'pro-speed' solely due to talent, or is it something that a person with a little talent could achieve, if the other variables where right (again, good coaching, time, smart training, accumulative skills, total commitment to speed...)

I agree with Andrew that all people who achieve the very top of their respective sports are very competitive and perfectionist, and possess an excellent work ethic, obsessive focus, patience etc

My stance on all of this is that some of the physiological variables determined by genetics can certainly be overcome by the 'speed-focused' lifestyle, and most people could become 'pro-fast' if that became their sole life's focus. However, outstandingly fast people like PR and Lance are athletes born with 2 things: 1. optimum genetic endowment for the abovementioned physiological variables AND 2. the right lifestyle, the right sport and total focus (all of optimum coaching, smart training, competitive and perfectionist personality, work ethic and the rest)

Ziva

I don't know how fast anyone is one this forum with the exception of Brent Lorenzen. He has been a very fast age grouper for awhile now and was first AG, tenth overall at Ralph's this month. That said, he was still 22 min. down on DeBoom, the winner. If you are serious about answering this question, you should find a post by him and email him for his input. I am sure he has wrestled with this question.

As for the "if I only had the time to train, I could be a pro" line of argument, in my experience it does not work that way. The few times I have taken a day off mid-week to train alongside a pro, I was thankful I had a day job that kept me from getting on the bike/in the pool/to the track the next day. And I like to train hard. The thought of spending three to four months in pre-season triaining mode as a pro is daunting. This winter, we used to joke that a few of us trained all week just to get ready for our weekend sessions struggling to stay on Steve Larsen's wheel when he was training for New Zealand. It seems to me that as a neo-pro, much of your first year would be training to train like a pro. That's a pretty big start-up cost.

"To cerveloguy and anyone else: What sort of genetics? "

As i'm not a geneticist I'll have to make my answer more philosophical. I honestly believe that there are a very small % of people born with inate abilities well above average. This could be in artistic, musical or athletic fields. What the biological basis for this I don't know, but some people have these God given abilities that the rest of simply don't. Here's an example - I have a cousin who plays piano beautifully by ear and has never taken a music lesson in his life. I couldn't play a piano even close like that no matter how many music lessons I took. Some people are natural artists who have drawn remarkable things since childhood. I have no artistic ability at all.

The same thing with athletics. Drive, training and desire is not enough for most of us to ever be great athletes. I honestly believe there is a genetic factor.

Of course great genetics by themselves aren't enough if the desire and perserverance isn't there, but if it is, that's when you get a champion.

"Is smart training, good coaching, time, and determination enough to make someone a competitive triathlete?"

-----------

I think the sentence quoted above is the gist of the original post. IMO, unequivocably no. I played ball sports, primarily hoops, growing up. After moving into endurance sports the last 3-4 years, the analogy I make to non-endurance types is: Lance is every bit the genetic freak Shaq is, you just can't tell it by looking.

Agreed, No way. Something that hasn't been mentioned is durability. Many athletes seem to have the athletic gift and the drive, but are constantly sick and injured. (at equal or smaller workloads than their pro peers) As we all know, if you're sick or injured, you can't train. Triathlon is definitely a sport that rewards consistency.

---

"The more you sweat today, the less you bleed tomorrow"

I think any body can turn pro as a result of extreme hard work and dedication to their racing and training regardless of their genetics. Now if you don't have the genetics then you will not win Hawaii or the Olympics.

This is an interesting thread. I get the chance to meet and work with athletes at both the Elite level and serious age groupers trying to get to that level. It seems to me there are two types of people that rise to the top of the age group ranks. I separate them into the sufferers and the gifted. You have probably seen them both on any big group ride. The sufferers are the guys who will never get dropped, but you fear for their well being based on their labored breathing and the fact that their eyeballs are bulging out of their head from the effort. These guys dont have the most natural talent but an unbelievable competitive drive, super high pain threshold and work ethic. The second group is made up of the guys that never look like they are working hard, carrying on conversations while accelerating up the steepest climbs, bridging effortlessly up to breakaways etc. These are the guys who debate turning pro.I think for the most part the sufferers know they are as good as they are going to get based on how hard it is for them to be at their current level. My theory is that the true " elite level pros" Lance, Macca, etc. are a combination of both. All the God given ability of the gifted guys but also possesing the drive and pain threshold and work ethic of the sufferers. I also believe that the ability to suffer and train like a dog day after day, rain or shine, is as much a gift as the more easily measured physical gifts they are born with. That is what the gifted amateurs dont understand. Having all day to train wont necessarily get them there.

Thats a pretty good summary.

I also dont think that anyone can quite appreciate the level that pro's train at, even top AG'ers and Cat 1/2 cyclists.

It is a completely different level.

Its the difference between being a good marathoner, say 2.22 B standard for the Oly trials and 2.05 the WR......the gap is huge.

those that think they might have the potential won't know unless they try. It is not particularly hard to be "good", almost anyone can do it. It is very very hard to be very good and very few can do it. Two things for certain. No one knows ahead of time what is achievable and if you don't try it is impossible to achieve anything.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Another aspect of being "gifted" is choosing your sport wisely. The Olympic Champion 100 meter sprinter would be the Olympic Chump marathoner. We are all potentially "gifted" for something, the trick is finding it.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Well said!

Even the guys that do have the great abilities you mentioned still need time to develop themselves. Tim Deboom said it took him 6 years of training just to be able to train like he does now. Now that is a serious investment in both time and money to live the dream. You better know somewhere deep down inside that you really do have a shot.

I spend some of my training days with some top AGs and Cat 1/2/3 cyclists. There is a mix of naturally gifted altheletes and shear determination. My cat 2 friend only trains one hour a week. Do not get the idea he is not performing well either, he is in the top 10 in 90% of his races.

I think it is a good mix of determination and talent. I have only been training for a few months and I am doing my first tri and long course (Wildflower) this weekend. We will see how my talent stacks up against seasoned athletes in my agegroup.

Reverend Dr. Jay

I think you missed my point. There is a huge difference between coming in lets say in the top 10% and the top 1%. The difference from the top 1% to the top 0.1% is even greater.

A 2.18 marathon is not bad for a guy, puts you in about 30th in a major marathon overall.

It is 13 minutes slower than the mens WR and 3 mins slower than the womens.

PR qualified for the mens A standard for the trials, totally not a knock on Brentl who posts here I dont know him from adam, as an obersvation he wicked fast, first AG'er and 10th overall at the Calilite and 22 minutes behind the leader I think someone noted. Thats a huge gap, be good if he posted as to whether he thinks he could bridge it or his thoughts on how great that gap really is.

There is no comparison between being a Cat 1 and a professional cyclist.....

I did understand your point. I am saying that there are some that do not even try and are in that top percential.

All the elite athletes and top AGs get my respect no matter how they got there.

Reverend Dr. Jay

no, thats where we disagree, there's no one there that did not try. some just make it appear easier than others. Lance makes it look ez, HGS makes it look simple as does KK, others look plain ugly but they all work the same PR makes it look horendous.......