Training vs Genetics

[Chubba]

Training vs Genetics

 

 

Is it genetics or training/attitude that determine who will be a world class cyclist. We know that riders in the Tour de France come in all sizes. The average Tour competitor (all males) is about 5-foot-9 and 150 pounds. However, as a bike equalizes physical differences to a great degree, elite cyclists vary in size more than elite runners. The tallest rider in a recent Tour was 6-foot-5 and weighted 190 pounds. In contrast, the shortest rider was 5-foot-4, and the lightest was 116 pounds.

 

I put the following question (from one of this websire’s readers) to an online coaching forum and will summarize the answers below.

 

Question: I am a 20 year old competitive middle distance track runner, but I am considering the possibility of becoming a cyclist. I have biomechanical problems of the feet that I feel will make it impossible for me to compete at the very highest level as a runner. My question is what sort of physiological/anatomical characteristics does it take to be a world class cylcist, and how do I tell if I have those features? I have a good aerobic system with a H.R that does not rise easily in training, plus I have good short distance sprinting speed. Could these be transferred effectively into cycling? Also is it necessary to have naturally large quad musculature to be an elite cyclists?"

 

Answer: There was a general consensus that almost anyone, of normal stature and physiology, could become a world class cyclist if they were willing to make the physical and mental commitment necessary AND they choose their event (sprint versus endurance) wisely based upon their personal physiological characteristics. That fact that there are multiple event options is one reason that cycling is a sport in which people of all sizes and builds can participate and be very competitive.

 

Although genetic factors come into play and may have a significant affect at the very highest level of competition, most people are so far from their personal physiology limits that it's more an excuse than anything else. The biggest single factor affecting performance is ATTITUDE with TRAINING close behind. Benefits of good genetics pertain mostly to sprinters and much less to those events requiring endurance. The bottom line is that genetics brings predisposition, but an athlete's environment (training, diet/nutrition, attitude, etc.) dictate outcome.

 

VO2max

 

The one measure most often quoted as a valid measure of a world class ability endurance cyclist (ie the Tour De France) is a minimal VO2 max of 80ml/O2/kg/min. Sprinters tend to be just under the 80 mark.

 

There was general agreement that if VO2 max testing has any utility it is in identifying those athletes that have more potential than has been recognized through other means. Low VO2 max testing, on the other hand, does not make it impossible to develop a high level of performance.

 

How much can VO2max be improved with training? Several panel members felt that a 10% increment might be the most that could be trained. While others, based on personal experience, felt that over the years maximal oxygen uptake could increase significantly more than 10%.

 

And there was consesus that training not only increases the VO2max, but improves technique. And the effective translation of the VO2 into useful work is the result of training those skills. Which is why someone with slightly lower VO2 can beat those who "test" higher.

 

The following question, from the online ezine www.roadbikerider.com concurs:

 

Q: I'm 41 and have been seriously riding for two years. I did three centuries last year along with several 40- to 60-mile rides and my usual daily 25-miler. The problem is that I can't boost my average speed past 16-17 mph. I huff and puff to keep up with riders in my club. I know that someone has to be at the back of the pack, but I'm tired of it always being me. Do you have any suggestions? -- ES.

 

A: The short answer is: Get in better shape! But as you've learned, it's more complicated than that. Our cycling performance is dictated in large part by our heredity. Studies show that some people can improve endurance performance by 40% when they undertake a 12- week program of interval training. But other people on the same program don't improve at all. They mainly get tired.

 

So your ability to ride fast at low heart rates -- or put another way, to ride fast without working very hard -- is partially dictated by how well you chose your parents. That said, training does help most people improve. Very few individuals are at either end of the bell-shaped curve just described. Most people improved 15-20%. This means that chances are good you can get the speed increase you crave if you train more effectively.

 

You've been riding for only two years. That's usually not enough to reach your potential. For instance, it generally takes racers five years of training and competition to find out if they have enough talent to succeed. Continue riding. I'm sure improvement will come if you make some basic changes to the way you are training each week. Good luck. And remember that no matter how much you're able to improve, you'll still be reaping fitness and enjoyment from riding.

 

 

Q: And from one of my readers: Almost any published trainer Sleamaker, Burke, Friel, Carmichael and even Janssen advocates a period of lower intensity to re-establish the aerobic system with all of the supposed physiological benefits of the oft heard fat oxidation, glycogen sparing, mitochondrial proliferation, capillary density, enzymatic changes, increasing slow twitch muscle fiber, changing some fast twitch muscle into slow twitch etc. that are a result.

 

I tried this method (Rob Sleamaker's "Serious Training for Serious Athletes") 13 years ago when I first decided to race my bike. Others who trained differently (mostly fast group rides) did not do nearly as well. I never once came even close to getting dropped and consistently was in the top 10-20% of the races I did. I was a fifty one year old Cat 4 racing against guys 20-30 years younger- and these were big fields. I was and am a believer.

 

If you take all the recommendations of intensity (from the trainers mentioned) they come out the same. Whether you base it on Max. HR or a 8 min. all out test- they are all the same. Recently a friend of mine and myself took a lactate test from a new Performance Lab in our area. Our Lactate numbers (the ones that are important in training the aerobic system L2 and L4) resulted in training recommendations from the coach (at the lab) to be the same as the books. I'm not talking about pretty close- I'm saying that all of it is the same. I have friends that disagree with all of this and their idea of base training is one (maybe two) rides where the group "talks" about going slow and doing some base miles, but within 20- 30 min.- it's the same old stuff. The coach (at the lab) has us staying in this very low and very narrow zone for a very long time- 12 weeks, then another test- the numbers go up and another 12 weeks at the new range- Exactly what janssen prescribes in "training lactate pulse rate". What are your thoughts and comments on all of this- the test, the books and what seems to me to be a NO BRAINER on the subject. Why, when you go to a site (such as yours- and others) don't they all say the same thing. Doesn't the science out there prove that before you start training the anaerobic system that you should first re- establish and maximize the aerobic system. - DS

 

A.Dave, thanks for your questions(s) as there are severla parts here.

 

* #1 When you did well against the group, some of it was training, but I think that as you have read above, it is your genetics that, all else being equal, is the deal breaker. You should thank your parents as much as any specific training prgram.

* #2 Most training programs ARE pretty similar. Over the years all coaches have rediscovered that it is the same basics that work. Thus all come back to the same general approach (with, of course, just enough difference to sell a few books or coaching sessions).

* #3 Base training is important. I don't personally think it has anything to do with training the aerobic system, but has everything to do with getting the base miles on your musculoskeletal system to avoid the types of injuries that keep one from riding. But that said, it is also important to avoid burn out/overtraining - you need some slow times at the start of the season as well as during each riding week. Think about it, if you were riding beyond your cardiovascular capacity - the same on week 2 as week 8 - you would be excessivbely tired for the same amount of work done and thus approach overtraining that much more quickly. Does it have to be 12 weeks?? I doubt it, but you'll never prove that a few extra weeks did any harm either.

* And in conclusion, I think all these systems do say the same thing. Get in a base, then add in stress (intervals), and be sure you keep the weekly mileage appropriate for the distance you will ride competiviely.

 

http://www.cptips.com/trnvgen.htm