Is your ability as a cyclist pre-determined?

michaelm

I'm not sure if this question will make sense - but here goes. I'm wondering to what extent one's ability as a cyclist is "nature or nurture". I have a feeling it is almost entirely the former. Let me explain: I have been cycling regularly for a number of years now and while I have improved a little in terms of distance and average speeds to be honest it hasn't changed an awful lot. If I do a trip of say 60 or 70Km on my own I will be very pleased if I can average 25Km/hr. At this stage of my life there is no way that I can ever see that figure changing dramatically so I'm proposing what I suppose is a hypothetical question: If I was to train as a pro for the next year I would
expect my average speeds to increase, but is the amount by which it could increase already, to a large extent, pre-determined due to my genetic make up? If we accept that this is the fact is there any quick way of finding out what your ultimate ability could be? Has anyone any real experiences of this? Developing this further - are there tests that could then reveal the potential of say a 12 or 13 yr old to become a world class cyclist? Does one's VO2 max, power to weight ratio (or whatever it's called) as a child give an indication of one's future ability?

This post has been inspired by a very wet weekend in the mid-west where I have been stuck inside most of the time!

DJsail

I sincerely hope not otherwise I may have to think about starting a for sale thread!

niceonetom

You can't turn a donkey into a race horse.

You might be able to make a donkey into a slightly faster donkey though.

I'm sure some day (probably not that far away as it happens) we'll just be able to extrapolate a person's every potential from their DNA, but until then the only way to know your potential is to reach it. Keep training.

Lumen

michaelm wrote: »

If we accept that this is the fact is there any quick way of finding out what your ultimate ability could be?

Blood and V02max tests will give you most of the answers.

However, unless you have some sort of underlying medical condition or are over 70, you are likely to be operating well below your potential if you're cycling at 25kph. You may just enjoy cycling at a pleasant but physically undemanding pace, and have become stuck in a rut at this level.

If you want to go faster, set some goals, put together a training plan and just do it.

Captain Havoc

There is an element of natural ability, such as having a large heart, VO2 max, lactic threshold and other things. First of all with most long distance athletes such as cyclists, marathon runners etc. they don't reach their peak until their late twentys.
From my own personal experience, I thought I was great cycling 40k twice a week now and again go a bit more adventurous and do 100k. Since I've joined my local cycling club I've improved a lot. My advice: join your local club. Oh I know a lot of people come up with, I haven't got time yada yada yada but you do.

Chips Lovell

michaelm wrote: »

I'm wondering to what extent one's ability as a cyclist is "nature or nurture".

Unless you're near the top end of the sport, I'd say it's around 95% the latter. It's unbelievable the improvements people can make with training. If you find yourself stuck at the same level, I think it's time to take a look at your training plan. You won't gain speed unless you train for speed.

blorg

What Tonto says. At the very top level I think genetics come in to play in a big way but at the amateur level I think you can make big improvements from training. Lumen is not the cyclist he was only a few months ago!

Also, you need goals, competing against other people tends to help with that.

blorg

Also- you need to consider what your goals are with cycling. Does it matter if you don't improve if you can get out on your bike and do X km in a spin? You enjoyed it, right?

Beyond that- you need to set goals. Do you want to race? E.g. shorter distances at high pace against others? Or do sportives- flat/hilly 100/200km events... or longer audax events which go 200-300-400-600-1200km... there it is about the distance and just managing it, for most people. I hope to do Paris-Brest-Paris (a 1200km event) myself in 2011 but this is nothing about "going faster" but about managing the distance...

Caroline_ie

niceonetom wrote: »

You can't turn a donkey into a race horse.

You might be able to make a donkey into a slightly faster donkey though.

I am not a donkey ... I'm a poney ...
I hope with training I can be a racing poney ...

Big Mig

Just thought I would add my thoughts for what they are worth...

My Da was a very very good cyclist (back in the day), we are talking near Olympic level....he was national road race champion back in the 50's...!

I on the other hand am quite a mediocre cyclist...certainly with time and the right training and coaching I could get better but I will (unfortunately) never get as good as some of the others....

Indeed when I was training and racing I went for one of those tests in Trinity where they measure all that needs to be measured...and I came out only average!!!

So for my opinion I believe it has got an awful lot to do with genetics...

(Perhaps my kids might have got some of his genes!!:))

nitrogen

Firstly our genetic make-up isn't designed to sit on an aluminium/carbon frame for four hours. So to say a person's ability at a sport is predetermined from birth is a gross misunderstanding of human evolution. We were hunter-gatherers for 99% of our existence, and that's what we still are, caveman wandering around in bedazzlement in this technological age.

However certain body characteristics have obvious advantages at different sports. Like playing the violin, computer programming or becoming an athlete, thousands of hours are needed for practice, making it more about nurture than nature.

I'd also agree with what others have said about the professionals, at the top of their game, DNA might then play more of an important role.

leftism

This is a very interesting question and so i'm gonna throw my 2c into the hat...

I'm new enough to cycling, but i'm currently doing research for a Phd in exercise physiology. Askar Juegendrup wrote a book called High Performance Cycling

http://books.google.ie/books?id=7MZu1ZTZL_kC&dq=asker+jeukendrup+cycling&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=_UMjwNuOAM&sig=d8TZkAOyKltJTqpQELuqXiyGk_k&hl=en&ei=7nR3SuLNCZ-6jAebqpW9Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Its well worth a read if you're serious about your cycling. He was the chief physiologist with Rabobank back in the 90's and has done more research in the sport than practically anyone else in the world.

Anyways, having done some research and read some of his stuff, i would say that cycling is not a sport where pre-determined anthropometrics, genetics or physiology play a major part. Sure it can help, but it is not a critical factor in the high-performance end of it. All you need to do is look at the peleton and you will see big guys, small guys and all in between. They will all have physiological traits in common such as extremely low body fat, a higher proportion of slow twitch oxidative muscle fibres, and high VO2max scores. However these physiological properties are for the most part a result of years upon years of sports specific training.

Sports like swimming, rowing (especially heavyweight) and running would be much more biassed in the selection of elite athletes. The main reason for this is biomechanics. Cycling is one of the most basic biomechanical movements there are in sport. The propulsive movements are entirely restricted to 360 degree cyclic actions around the crank. So basically all cyclists perform exactly the same action. Cyclic movements with a radius of roughly 170 mm (depending on your crank length). Everything is determined by the crank. You can have variations in the upper body position in order to reduce drag coefficients, but the propulsive movements remain the same.

The same is not true of swimming, running or other sports. In swimming for example, propulsion is created by the hands and feet. Apparently, the Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) has recently began to talent identify pre-teen children who show above average anthropometrics in terms of hand and feet size (they do the same in rowing for femoral and tibial length). The bigger the hands, the faster you'll swim. The bigger the feet, the faster you'll swim. No amount of training will change this. Thorpe has size 17 feet, and Phelps has size 14 feet. The joke in swimming is "the bigger the feet, the larger the trophy cabinet"

Cycling is different. Long or short legs will not change the propulsive movement around the crank. Of course if you want to win the yellow jersey in the Tour, you've got to be able to climb, and small extremely light guys will for the most part climb better. But big guys win the Green jersey and are hugely successful too. Size might determine what kind of a cyclist you're gonna be (sprinter, climber, TT, track etc) but size won't get you there.

The bottom line with becoming an elite athlete in any sport is training, and time. Time is critical! If you start a sport before you hit puberty, then you have a massive headstart in terms of physiological adaptation. Muscle hypertrophy, bone structure, even metabolism are all affected during puberty and if you're training right in this period, you will adapt in the correct way for your specific sport. If you're starting after puberty it becomes more difficult to adapt. Difficult but not impossible by any means! But the vast majority of Olympic champions in all sports started training properly at a young age....

michaelm

leftism wrote: »

Muscle hypertrophy, bone structure, even metabolism are all affected during puberty and if you're training right in this period, you will adapt in the correct way for your specific sport. If you're starting after puberty it becomes more difficult to adapt. Difficult but not impossible by any means! But the vast majority of Olympic champions in all sports started training properly at a young age....

Very interesting point. I'm a teacher myself and find it frustrating that as a rule in Ireland we fail to expose kids to a variety of sports. Even though I was a GAA player I have often suggested that the last sports needed in most schools are hurling and football as these are already well catered for in the community (you can imagine the reaction). I would love to see a modular system where everyone gets the chance to try out a variety of sports to allow them find something they are comfortable with. If they show promise there is a greater chance of them continuing.

Would I be correct in saying that the majority of members of this forum came to cycling after they left school?

Jawgap

michaelm wrote: »

Very interesting point. I'm a teacher myself and find it frustrating that as a rule in Ireland we fail to expose kids to a variety of sports. Even though I was a GAA player I have often suggested that the last sports needed in most schools are hurling and football as these are already well catered for in the community (you can imagine the reaction). I would love to see a modular system where everyone gets the chance to try out a variety of sports to allow them find something they are comfortable with. If they show promise there is a greater chance of them continuing.

Would I be correct in saying that the majority of members of this forum came to cycling after they left school?

Without getting into a big debate about the GAA, they are, I think, a
phenomenal sporting body when it comes to organisation at the grass roots level - which is something other bodies would love to emulate but find it impossible to muscle in on "their" territory.

The other aspect to consider is pure luck - reading the stories of a lot of sports stars / top athletes, it's amazing the amount of time luck intervenes - they find themselves in exactly the right place at the right time, or meet the right person or generally get a break that many don't.

Where would Contador be now if his brother hadn't introduced him to cycling?? He'd probably still be a top athlete, but perhaps in a different discipline.

Jawgap

leftism wrote: »

Everything is determined by the crank.


...

Time to go shopping.........:)

leftism

michaelm wrote: »

Very interesting point. I'm a teacher myself and find it frustrating that as a rule in Ireland we fail to expose kids to a variety of sports.

This is undoubtedly the biggest single factor in Ireland underperforming at the Olympics every 4 years! Physical Education in Ireland does not cover a broad enough spectrum of sports at an early age. My memories of PE were being handed a football and told to go out and kick it around for an hour.

The Athens review stated that based on our socio-economic background, and population size we should be achieving similar results at the Olympics as New Zealand. We consistently fall way short of that target. The reason is that about 80% of our talent pool is swallowed up by the GAA, the rest end up playing soccer or rugby. Only a tiny fraction ever find there way into minority sports like cycling or running and this is either because the parents have an interest or by sheer fluke. Often they start these sports too late. You cannot consistently win medals with such a small talent pool.

I love GAA, i'm a big Kildare fan and very proud of our sporting culture. But its place in Irish society seems almost sacrosanct! Thou shalt not question the GAA. I encounter similar responses when i suggest that minority sports should be given greater priority in childrens physical education. People look at me like i'm a secret MI6 agent, sent by the queen to dismantle our Gaelic games from the inside....

Jawgap

The GAA used to promote cycling - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_Ireland

I seem to remember seeing pictures somewhere of bike racing taking place in Croke Park.

I think there are many reasons why we under-perform across the wide spectrum of sports. NZ sports are dominated by rugby in much the same way as we are by the GAA, but they still turn out decent athletes in a range of sports.

Captain Havoc

+1. Whilst I think you have to admire the GAA for what they do, it does leave other sports with a lesser pool. Can you imagine what it's like for school kids here in Kilkenny that are very good hurlers? They are discourages from doing anything else. My secondary school was very good for P.E. in that we played a variety of sports but unfortunately the only sports available to play for the school was hurling and gaelic football. This has since changed as they have a soccer team and they definately had a rugby team as Ian Dowling played on it.
My da being a hurling nut definately didn't encourage me to take up soccer and wonders what the f**k I do on the bike, he thinks I'm nuts. I don't think he's alone as a lot of rural people in Ireland can't see anything outside the GAA.
Soccer is very popular because Irish players are doing well in England, Rugby could be new soccer with recent Munster and Leinster Heineken cup wins and the national team winning the Grand Slam, in golf we have one of the best in 3 time major winner Padraig Harrington, Boxing WBA super bantam weight champion Bernard Dunne. The forementioned sports are hugely popular and due to success become even more so. I think having Dan Martin and Nicolas Roche (neither born in Ireland and both their parents were cyclists) riding is making the sport more popular but unless a TdF win or podium finish comes, it will remain a niche sport. This of course applies to all sports. There are so many sports I think are great suck as hockey, olympic handball, cricket, volley-ball and more that will remain second class sports.
The fact is we don't have enough people in this country to have every sport popular. Whilst we're not successful at the Olympics we are in other areas. I would say that certainly if you don't like having a ball come at you at 100 miles an hour or enjoy having various parts of your body smacked or crushed then there should be an alternative.

thebouldwhacker

@leftism, I think your first post was possibly one of the best posts I have ever read on boards...

thebouldwhacker

nitrogen wrote: »

Firstly our genetic make-up isn't designed to sit on an aluminium/carbon frame for four hours. So to say a person's ability at a sport is predetermined from birth is a gross misunderstanding of human evolution. We were hunter-gatherers for 99% of our existence, and that's what we still are, caveman wandering around in bedazzlement in this technological age.

Ahem..................

Lumen

jerseyeire wrote: »

Can you imagine what it's like for school kids here in Kilkenny that are very good hurlers? They are discouraged from doing anything else...Whilst we're not successful at the Olympics we are in other areas. I would say that certainly if you don't like having a ball come at you at 100 miles an hour or enjoy having various parts of your body smacked or crushed then there should be an alternative.

In my own experience (English comprehensive school education) the situation is not helped by PE teachers being a bunch of complete ****, whose interests vary from coaching ball sports to ogling teenage girls to coaching ball sports.

I've discovered through cycling that whilst I may have the hand-eye skills of a drunken toddler, my body shape is quite well suited to cycling (narrow, skinny, slow-twitch) and whilst I'll never win any medals I may (with a lot more hard work) become fast enough to at least qualify for "cat3 packfill", and therefore enjoy a competitive sport for the first time in my life, on the wrong side of 35.

However, at school the only thing that mattered was how strong and tall you were and how well you could chase a ball around. A few people were "allowed" to do cross country running, but were considered freaks and generally shunned.

TBH I'm less bothered by medal counting and more by the idea that there are loads of people out there who been turned off amateur sport for life by a poor system run by ignorant tossers.

Bitter? Me? No :pac:

Jawgap

Lumen wrote: »

In my own experience (English comprehensive school education) the situation is not helped by PE teachers being a bunch of complete ****, whose interests vary from coaching ball sports to ogling teenage girls to coaching ball sports.

I've discovered through cycling that whilst I may have the hand-eye skills of a drunken toddler, my body shape is quite well suited to cycling (narrow, skinny, slow-twitch) and whilst I'll never win any medals I may (with a lot more hard work) become fast enough to at least qualify for "cat3 packfill", and therefore enjoy a competitive sport for the first time in my life, on the wrong side of 35.

However, at school the only thing that mattered was how strong and tall you were and how well you could chase a ball around. A few people were "allowed" to do cross country running, but were considered freaks and generally shunned.

TBH I'm less bothered by medal counting and more by the idea that there are loads of people out there who been turned off amateur sport for life by a poor system run by ignorant tossers.

Bitter? Me? No :pac:

They say those that can, do.

Those that can't, teach.

An those that can't teach, teach PE!

Unfortunately that's quiet true. We had a brilliant PE teacher - Liam Moggan - who proved the point (the exception that actually proves the rule!!!). He was far too good to just teach PE and is now an internationally respected sports psychologist.

In a school dominated by GAA, he introduced a whole range of sports (not soccer or rugby though!!!) his idea was pretty much everyone is capable of doing something well, you just need to find the something!!

petethedrummer

I dunno, our school wasn't particularly sports minded but we had Soccer, GAA, Hurling, Basketball, Golf, Running and (occasionally) a Cycling team. Though running and cycling were due to the kids being members of clubs outside of school. We also had to do Gymnastics, volleyball, badminton and a few other sports as part of PE, but all most of us wanted to do was play 5-A-side.

There's only so much schools can do and only a limited number of teachers you can expect to put in the extra effort to organise a team.

niceonetom

I'd like to see the reaction from the parents if the word went out that their beloved little offspring would be taken cycling, in groups, on public roads. They're cycling two abreast!!!

These days kids aren't even encouraged to cycle to school.

Jawgap

niceonetom wrote: »

I'd like to see the reaction from the parents if the word went out that their beloved little offspring would be taken cycling, in groups, on public roads. They're cycling two abreast!!!

These days kids aren't even encouraged to cycle to school.

.......without helmets!!

I don't think you'll ever see cycling in schools on a routine basis. Last year my two did a kind of "cycling profciency" course in school which was to do with road safety and cycling sensibly. It was a start.

The older (read:sensible) one still checks his bike over before every spin even if he's only going to the shops and he criticises me for my ill-fitting helmet. The younger one would jump his bike off the garage if I let him!

Maybe Cycling Ireland (or some other body) could do short courses with kids (like the golf and tennis crowd do) to give them a taste of the sport and some elementary coaching and see if that sparks an interest in them

L'Enfer du Nord

michaelm wrote: »

Very interesting point. I'm a teacher myself and find it frustrating that as a rule in Ireland we fail to expose kids to a variety of sports. Even though I was a GAA player I have often suggested that the last sports needed in most schools are hurling and football as these are already well catered for in the community (you can imagine the reaction). I would love to see a modular system where everyone gets the chance to try out a variety of sports to allow them find something they are comfortable with. If they show promise there is a greater chance of them continuing.

Would I be correct in saying that the majority of members of this forum came to cycling after they left school?

I went to primary school in Belgium and also started secondary there. My school probably wasn’t typical because it was run by the EU and had several different language sections. However I do remember in primary we had at least 1 hour a week during class time for PE, which was mixed and had a variety of indoor and outdoor stuff. Sometimes ball games, sometimes track and field stuff, sometimes gymnastic stuff, we also had swimming once a week for one term a year. Also after school you had a wide choice, including Judo, Yoga, Soccer and on Wednesday which was a half day you could do 2.5 hours of ‘sport’ in the afternoon. This again was a mixture of stuff, with different ages mixed in together. In primary none of this stuff was very competitive, except there were inter-class tournaments at the end of the summer term. In secondary we had 3 sports classes (45 mins) a week 1 single and 1 double, you actually got a grade for sport and you could fail! I think it was based on enthusiasm and participation. Any way when I moved back to Ireland, you were practically forced to play rugby up to Junior cert, and it was all about beating other schools. Some of the coaches were decent but at the end of the day if you weren’t into Rugby you’d probably give up sport altogether. Other sports were allowed but they weren’t exactly encouraged. Overall I think Ireland and Irish schools are primary interested in competitive team sports. What’s the upshot of this? I think people who aren’t particularly competitive, athletic or skilful just give up sport. It’s all about playing and winning or else watching which is very popular in Ireland (viz the wall to wall GAA on telly this summer (I only have 4 channels, so I couldn't help noticing)).

ROK ON

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

I went to primary school in Belgium and also started secondary there. My school probably wasn’t typical because it was run by the EU and had several different language sections. However I do remember in primary we had at least 1 hour a week during class time for PE, which was mixed and had a variety of indoor and outdoor stuff. Sometimes ball games, sometimes track and field stuff, sometimes gymnastic stuff, we also had swimming once a week for one term a year. Also after school you had a wide choice, including Judo, Yoga, Soccer and on Wednesday which was a half day you could do 2.5 hours of ‘sport’ in the afternoon. This again was a mixture of stuff, with different ages mixed in together. In primary none of this stuff was very competitive, except there were inter-class tournaments at the end of the summer term. In secondary we had 3 sports classes (45 mins) a week 1 single and 1 double, you actually got a grade for sport and you could fail! I think it was based on enthusiasm and participation. Any way when I moved back to Ireland, you were practically forced to play rugby up to Junior cert, and it was all about beating other schools. Some of the coaches were decent but at the end of the day if you weren’t into Rugby you’d probably give up sport altogether. Other sports were allowed but they weren’t exactly encouraged. Overall I think Ireland and Irish schools are primary interested in competitive team sports. What’s the upshot of this? I think people who aren’t particularly competitive, athletic or skilful just give up sport. It’s all about playing and winning or else watching which is very popular in Ireland (viz the wall to wall GAA on telly this summer (I only have 4 channels, so I couldn't help noticing)).

I find the point you make re competitivesport at a young age very interesting. I played a hell of a lot of rugby from about 7 years up to 20yrs. The team was pretty successful, but by our early 20's a core gourp of about 12-13 players were all completly burned out, exhausted, disenchanted or actually persistently injured. The focus was all about win at all cost, rather than skills development. In the 13 or so years I played hooker and blind side flanker - thats it. I have no idea how to kick a ball for example. Surely society would be better served by teaching people athletic sills, with a gradualy increase in competitive ativity as skill and age allow.
Now in saying that I was lucky in that at school, (a local CBS) we had excellent sports facilities and tried a lot of sports (swimming, gym work, gymnastics, basketball, handball, as well as the usual ball sports and GAA).

On the point of wall to wall coverage of GAA - that is simply a case of supply meeting demand. However, I take your point about the fact that we watch a lot of sport in Ireland - I was in Oz a few years back and speaking with a local about a rugby match on TV, he responded, "I play rugby, I dont need to watch it on TV."
We would, I feel, be better cultivating that attitude here. Surely it is better to be active rather than passive in life.

Caroline_ie

Same in France - i went to school from age 2 to 18 with 2 afternoon/ week of 'sport', where we did everyhing from swimming, gymnastics, ball games ( except soccer and rugby ), athletics, ice skating, with an activity change every trimestre.

We would also do other sports on wednesday afternoon or sarturday mornings, depending of the schedules, such as motocross or more iceskating for me... but cycling for me was the tour de France on telly, my mother was a great fan and used to tell me cycling was the hardest sport in the world. Noone of my class mates were cyclists.

I thought these guys were gods, so i never thought I could so it too... I wish I did. Especially as i was quite a loner when I was a teen, used to walk a lot, I wish I thought of cycling back then, but it was seen as an old people thing to do... cycling, it was for pros or retired people.

nitrogen

I can relate to everything you've said, Lumen. I seem to be a similar build to you, and always felt self conscious as a result. In school, if you didn't have a build more suited to either rugby or GAA, sport was not for you. While I even went to a school that had a pool, it was only occasionally used, and on those occasions there was no such thing as swimming lessons. I never liked team sports, and because of the options available to me, didn't do sport. It was only when I got more into cycling that I started to feel less embarrassed about my build and started to enjoy physical exercise. Ironically I was always a fan of the Tour, memories of summer are of it on the television. I wish I got into it sooner.

I'm currently in Japan, and I often pass kids with every possible type of sporting equipment, while I get shivers thinking back to my school days about a ball being tossed to the crowd during PE. Every possible sport is available for a child to experience in this country, which is only a good thing.

So what's my point? It's really to agree with leftism/Lumen and stress how bad other sports are presented as an alternative to the homogeneous dominant ones in Ireland.

scottreynolds

Genetics determines your range of ability so how good you can get ... fitness determines where is your range you are.

Lumen

scottreynolds wrote: »

Genetics determines your range of ability so how good you can get ... fitness determines where is your range you are.

Yes, however in sports like cycling and running genetic potential is largely irrelevant unless you intend to become a professional or olympic-level athlete.

I was a completely hopeless sprinter in school (over 20 seconds for the 100m as I recall) but I recently came a close second in a large field in the "daddies sprint race" at our estate fun day*, because almost all my competitors were very overweight.

I've sometimes wondered about self-selection in sport. Runners tend to have low body fat, but does running make you thin or do fat people just choose not to run?

* yes, I know

scottreynolds

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, however in sports like cycling and running genetic potential is largely irrelevant unless you intend to become a professional or olympic-level athlete.

I was a completely hopeless sprinter in school (over 20 seconds for the 100m as I recall) but I recently came a close second in a large field in the "daddies sprint race" at our estate fun day*, because almost all my competitors were very overweight.

I've sometimes wondered about self-selection in sport. Runners tend to have low body fat, but does running make you thin or do fat people just choose not to run?

* yes, I know

That would be a fair point if the question wasn't "Is your ability as a cyclist pre-determined?"

Lumen

scottreynolds wrote: »

That would be a fair point if the question wasn't "Is your ability as a cyclist pre-determined?"

That was the topic title, but a couple of lines down the OP provided the context that he couldn't cycle faster than 25kph despite having been doing it for years. Which is most unlikely to be a genetic limitation.

Raam

Lumen wrote: »

I recently came a close second in a large field in the "daddies sprint race" at our estate fun day

May I have your autograph please Mr Lumen sir?

Lumen

Raam wrote: »

May I have your autograph please Mr Lumen sir?

Sure I'll let you know when the fan site is ready.

petethedrummer

Lumen wrote: »

I've sometimes wondered about self-selection in sport. Runners tend to have low body fat, but does running make you thin or do fat people just choose not to run?

A little from column A and a little from column B.

If you want to see a fat* man run fast, look up Rupeni CauCau on youtube.

(*well maybe not fat, but he has a belly).

Chips Lovell

My Dad is faster than your Dad.

Gavin

Wait a moment. He came second ! He lost, miserably. No points for second place loser Dad. You've to hand your kids over to the winner now, he'll be a better Daddio to them

Running Bing

This is a great thread and Id just like to add a couple of points.

First of all I dont believe the importance of hard work in reaching your potential is emphasised enough at school level. The school I went to had very competitive GAA and soccer teams, every year trials would be held and the same kids would be picked for the team, the lads who were naturally very good at the games. Now I am a pretty decent football player but I was just never quite good enough to make the teams. This absolutely sapped my confidence and I was never encouraged or told that if I worked hard I could improve. Looking back I feel if I had've been encouraged a bit to put more effort in I could've made it. My fault yes but we're talking about a young kid here! Even the kids who made the team, it was the same every year and they were never really pushed to reach their potential.


Now I think this happens a lot and it leads to a lot of people blaming a lack of natural ability for their shortcomings in later life. Talent is overrated.:D I hear the excuse time and time again "Oh I couldnt run that time, I dont have the talent" or "Im not talented enough to do such and such". I think that is crap. The percentage of people who really reach their potential is absolutely minuscule. I say, unless you are competing at a very high level, forget talent! Just work hard, work your bollox off and you will keep on improving.

You might never win the Tour of Ireland or race in the Giro, but you can reach a very good level in many sports through sheer hard work alone.

scottreynolds

Running Bing wrote: »

Now I am a pretty decent football player but I was just never quite good enough to make the teams.

HUGZ -- I hope your okay now.

IMHO, if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to change your name --- The ban anything Running related.

sleapy235

Try EPO, it will work wonders in increasing your average speed and distance.

ROK ON

@Running Bing. What you say about encouragement is so true. But so is persistence and hard work. I played rugby with a bloke, whom was considered by most of his peers to be at most adequate, but not talented. He has had a very successful club career with several AIL medals to his name. When most of my peers stopped playing, he stuck with it and just got better and improved. It is amazing just how much talent is actually bloody minded perseverence and dedication.

dub_skav

ROK ON wrote: »

@Running Bing. What you say about encouragement is so true. But so is persistence and hard work. I played rugby with a bloke, whom was considered by most of his peers to be at most adequate, but not talented. He has had a very successful club career with several AIL medals to his name. When most of my peers stopped playing, he stuck with it and just got better and improved. It is amazing just how much talent is actually bloody minded perseverence and dedication.

An ad don to this being that a lot of people are not aware that not making a certain level in school means nothing for later life.
We have it drilled into us that failing to make a school team means you are not good enough, where particularly in rugby (and cycling for that matter) you will keep improving until your late 20s.

So many people who are not picked in school will find that their physical traits, particular skills etc will become sought after in a more senior setting. Plus of course hard work

amjon

dub_skav wrote: »

in rugby (and cycling for that matter) you will keep improving until your late 20s.

As Blackrock College and Brian O'Driscoll found out...

horizon26

I played lots of gaa in school I always got on the team but i really did not like much.My dad pushed me hard to play always went to the matches,even found out when training was because i used to try and skip it.I think hard work and discipline can get you a bloody long way.I even got trials for Cork and i didn't even like playing football,but i was pushed hard by my dad.(Now i wonder what could have happened if i gave 100%.)Natural talent is overrated in pro cycling genetics does play important factor.Even Lance Armstrong as good as he is ,does not have the best riding style,look what he accomplished.Determination and confidence are just as important if not more so.

witty username

petethedrummer wrote: »

A little from column A and a little from column B.

If you want to see a fat* man run fast, look up Rupeni CauCau on youtube.

(*well maybe not fat, but he has a belly).

Is this him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5bXbJitRZg

petethedrummer

witty username wrote: »

Is this him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5bXbJitRZg

Can't check youtube in work, but if you're looking at a Fijian rugby Winger then you have the right man.

witty username

petethedrummer wrote: »

Can't check youtube in work, but if you're looking at a Fijian rugby Winger then you have the right man.

hmmm, I don't think this is a Fijian rugby player... He may have eaten a Fijian rugby player at some point though. That and a whole lot of cake.