M
Mark Fennell
Guest
Scott wrote:
> Mark Fennell wrote:
>> Andy Coggan wrote:
>> > Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
>> > don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
>> > a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I'm certainly no Robert Chung, but aren't you simply saying that if one
>> is
>> "below" the median, then it might not be possible to make it to a
>> professional level? Since the original question was about the average
>> person, it doesn't seem like you're disagreeing too strongly.
>>
>> btw, my opinion is based only on comments from people who have made it to
>> that level and credit hard work, not superior genetics, as well as
>> observing
>> the correlation between training commitment and success of many people
>> over
>> a long time. So, totally empirical. Are there studies that address this
>> issue? In particular, quantifying the response to significant training
>> over
>> many years?
>>
>> Mark
>
> Of course they credit to their own hard work. Nobody wants to admit
> that they are 'naturals'.
Scott and Curtis, you make good points, and you might be right. And Andy is
Andy--he might be right too! However, in true rbr spirit, I can't concede
just yet... Humor me and consider the following: suppose a hypothetical pro
"retires" from pro-level bike racing at the age of, say, 29, and then simply
rides 6-8 hours a week, which might be typical for a category 3 racer. If
said rider then only performs at an average category 3 level, wouldn't that
suggest that he doesn't possess any superior genetics (at least compared to
other cat 3 racers)? Or will you suggest that there is already some
filtering that has occurred by that level too?
Perhaps my argument above is flawed... Could it be that rider A and B
respond identically to 8 hours training per week, but at 20 hrs per week,
rider A sees much greater improvement than B? Why would that be?
As an aside, two real-world examples... one guy in town who recently retired
from domestic pro racing to get a real job, but is still riding a few hours
a week. Although he is nowhere near his prior fitness, he still crushes a
lot of other hacks training about the same amount. Could that be genetics,
or is it residual fitness? Or a learned ability to suffer? How long does it
take to de-train from a professional level? If Lance comes out on our group
ride, will he get dropped? Second example: a current pro who is very good
now but remembers when he didn't train as much he wasn't so far above
average. Maybe he is rider A in the above example?
Mark
> Mark Fennell wrote:
>> Andy Coggan wrote:
>> > Sorry, but I must disagree: no matter how dedicated you might be, I
>> > don't think you can become even a domestic professional unless you have
>> > a genetic "leg up" over >50% of the population.
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I'm certainly no Robert Chung, but aren't you simply saying that if one
>> is
>> "below" the median, then it might not be possible to make it to a
>> professional level? Since the original question was about the average
>> person, it doesn't seem like you're disagreeing too strongly.
>>
>> btw, my opinion is based only on comments from people who have made it to
>> that level and credit hard work, not superior genetics, as well as
>> observing
>> the correlation between training commitment and success of many people
>> over
>> a long time. So, totally empirical. Are there studies that address this
>> issue? In particular, quantifying the response to significant training
>> over
>> many years?
>>
>> Mark
>
> Of course they credit to their own hard work. Nobody wants to admit
> that they are 'naturals'.
Scott and Curtis, you make good points, and you might be right. And Andy is
Andy--he might be right too! However, in true rbr spirit, I can't concede
just yet... Humor me and consider the following: suppose a hypothetical pro
"retires" from pro-level bike racing at the age of, say, 29, and then simply
rides 6-8 hours a week, which might be typical for a category 3 racer. If
said rider then only performs at an average category 3 level, wouldn't that
suggest that he doesn't possess any superior genetics (at least compared to
other cat 3 racers)? Or will you suggest that there is already some
filtering that has occurred by that level too?
Perhaps my argument above is flawed... Could it be that rider A and B
respond identically to 8 hours training per week, but at 20 hrs per week,
rider A sees much greater improvement than B? Why would that be?
As an aside, two real-world examples... one guy in town who recently retired
from domestic pro racing to get a real job, but is still riding a few hours
a week. Although he is nowhere near his prior fitness, he still crushes a
lot of other hacks training about the same amount. Could that be genetics,
or is it residual fitness? Or a learned ability to suffer? How long does it
take to de-train from a professional level? If Lance comes out on our group
ride, will he get dropped? Second example: a current pro who is very good
now but remembers when he didn't train as much he wasn't so far above
average. Maybe he is rider A in the above example?
Mark