The Two Types of Training

[chgoss]

MIKE!!! 2:26 marathon
wow, thats really fast fella! A whole world faster than 2:50

[jliddil]

We are talking world records

Why?

Genetic endowment is partial and indirect.

Human reproduction is not mitosis!

The number of world record holders with parents who set world records in the same sport, I would presume, is _very_ small.

ranger

What now you are a molecular geneticist?

[bloomp]

Ok not to offend you, but you're using the word 'genetic' very loosely. Did Mike vB have parents, uncles or grandparents that were exceptional athletes? And as smart as Rich's father was, he was not a superb athlete.

I'm not offended at all at least you will have discussion and not use a bunch of if/maybe/might...

Yes I am using genetics very loosely. If we go back to basic pop psych 101. There are two components which largely influence our development. Genetics and environment. You are born with a given set of genes which control how you develop. It is why I'm 6'5" and others are height challenged. Unless I cut you legs and insert jacks to part the bones slowly so new osteoclasts grow you aren't going to be as tall as I am.

The same "general"principle applies to your physiological abilities. Take thirty kids, train them all the same way etc. They will not all be great at sport X. Again it is how the soviet block, east germany china did it for years for their athletes. And while we are at it lets practice eugenics. (ok a joke if you take offense)

Regarding mike we would need to do genetic analysis of mike and his living relatives. They may have not been great athletes but maybe they never trained to develop the skills. Maybe they were poor working class folks? Since I'm also into genealogy it would be easy enough to have a place like ftdna analyze dna and look across families.

My point being that despite what some may say you can have a will of steel and train as smart as you can and you aren't going to be lance.

Exactly. So some people *may* have that genetic advantage. But by the time you are Rich's age, it wouldn't matter (as much) and it would be impossible to tell. Having 30 years of training also means 30 years of seeing your peers who were better than you quit.

What is entirely right about your statement is that genetics determines important exercise relevant characteristics. Muscle composition? Tendon elasticity? Bone density? All genetic, and nowhere near unique between two individuals. That's why a) specificity reigns when training for an event and b) why specificity even exists because some people are more naturally inclined for a certain action. Just because there is a difference does not mean their ancestors were any more fit or better athletes, it just means you happened to find it in that person. Let's not even get into genes that are turned off and on at various points in life because that could have a huge performance impact!

It may be that Mike's family never trained and found their potential. But that also goes back to the fact that athletics has exploded as an avocation over the last few decades. In the 18th century and before, physical labor and exercise was deemed a lower class activity and we had a lot of fat cats. Now, we know better and encourage it among everyone and the wealthy have an advantage from a young age.

To really study this, we would need to find the genes that code for a few things: muscle fiber composition (fast, slow), mitochondrial efficiency, efficiency in the breakdown of glucose and fatty acids, enzyme production, efficiency in oxygen binding to hemoglobin, porousness of the alveoli, hemoglobin levels, etc... I think that list could be narrowed down to just muscle composition, cellular respiration, and gas transfer in the lungs. From there you could just test lots of people and see if they had a marker for that gene or not (assuming it's a mutation that is additional, not a knockout).

Or, you could find genes that would be beneficial to be removed. Anything that inhibits leptin production, nociceptor differentiation, chemoceptor differentiation...

[jliddil]

http://jp.physoc.org/content/586/12/3017.long
http://jp.physoc.org/content/586/1/113. ... f_ipsecsha

Both full text. Sort of covers many of the variables.

[bloomp]

http://jp.physoc.org/content/586/12/3017.long
http://jp.physoc.org/content/586/1/113. ... f_ipsecsha

Both full text. Sort of covers many of the variables.

I have to finish editing this paper before class in an hour, but I will read them ASAP.

[chgoss]

My point being that despite what some may say you can have a will of steel and train as smart as you can and you aren't going to be lance.

I would say that is true for sure... I have no education in physiology at all, but I have seen some folks that start rowing with us on RowPro (basically my same age/weight), initially are slower, then over 3-4 months zoom right past me to flatten out at a much faster pace. Others I have seen, workout with us, and basically flatten out at the same level as me..
The folks that surpass always seem to have some sort of "oh yeah, I was a nationally ranked triathlete/basketball player/alpine skiier/runner in the early 80's" story, some other history of doing really well athletically.
The folks that basically get as good as me, have a similar history to me, been participating in various sports for 40 years, but never really excelled at anything..

[ausrwr]

Nay-saying for which I don't have any evidence? How about the fact that you've failed to rank a time for anything other than 2k since 2002? And that some of your lightweight performances are doubtful to say the least, according to FISA rules.

Rich, you're the one who's saying all your performances are a lock and that you're heading for a 16:40 5k. Utter bullshit. You won't get within a minute of that.

You've failed to provide any evidence. You can provide evidence. You don't.

You can keep telling me I'm a naysayer and I know nothing, but if you're so good - show us. After all your statements, the burden is upon you. Much like Henry's bet, it's a burden you'll shirk.

Oh, and age, height, and weight. 32. 6'5". 215 lbs of pure fat at the moment.
Recent speed: 6:04 2k a week ago, 16:04 5k about a month ago.

[nysaag]

Has Ranger paid his debts yet?

[Nosmo]

I didn't even know what a "pace" on the erg was.

well judging by this you still don't:

pace = rate x SPI

Or maybe you do know what pace is and you don't know what power is.

[snowleopard]

If ranger's fitness cannot be improved then, ipso facto, he is fully trained

[ranger]

If ranger's fitness cannot be improved then, ipso facto, he is fully trained

True, if rowing is a sport that involves no particular skills, imposes no sports-specific physical demands, and is not best mastered by certain training methods.

ranger

[ranger]

If ranger's fitness cannot be improved then, ipso facto, he is fully trained

Yes, this is what many on this forum think.

oh, oh, oh

How wrong you are.

ranger

[ranger]

How about the fact that you've failed to rank a time for anything other than 2k since 2002?

Many of the WR-breakers didn't, and still don't, rank their times for other distances--Eskild E., Mike C., Paul Hendershott, Andy Ripley, etc.

Ranking times for other distances has nothing to do with overcoming your weaknesses, which is what good training is all about.

Ranking times for other distances is about parading your strengths, which is just self-congratulatory avoidance of your weaknesses, something that will never make you better.

ranger

[ranger]

MIKE!!! 2:26 marathon
wow, thats really fast fella! A whole world faster than 2:50

Running and rowing are only distantly related, as are running and swimming.

Rowing and swimming are more closely related.

As I understand, many college swimmers who take up rowing are instant sensations.

Most runners, I suspect, can't row worth a damn.

ranger

[ranger]

So some people *may* have that genetic advantage. But by the time you are Rich's age, it wouldn't matter (as much) and it would be impossible to tell. Having 30 years of training also means 30 years of seeing your peers who were better than you quit.

As far as rowing goes, there is no evidence that any of my peers were ever better than I was.

As a kid and young adult, I didn't row.

On the the hand, if I pull a 6:16 2K on the erg at 60, it meets the lightweight qualification standard for the US National Team.

And none of my peers have pulled better than 6:42.

The 6:16 would equal what Eskild E. pulled this year at 37 years old.

Eskild hasn't quit at all.

He is the 30s lwt hammer for 2010.

Because of age, his times have fallen off 14 seconds, though, over as many years.

I am 22 years older than Eskild.

ranger