Is size just an excuse?

Nick Roy said:

That said, Eddie Tolan was only 5'7 and held the world record 100 meter dash of 10.4 seconds.....Usain Boly is 6'5 and he's only roughly 1 second faster

It may not seem like much, but a 1 second improvement is massive in the 100 meter dash. Any competitive sprinter would sell their mother to take a full second off their time.

Most worlds records are based on improved selection for the right body types and genetics, as opposed to better training. Michael Phelps has a set of very unique body proportions that make him extremely well suited to swimming.

Aside from size, it is demonstrated clearly and consistently that people will adapt much differently to an identical physical stimulus. It's even been suggested recently that some people's cardiac performance might get worse with cardiovascular training! If you put two people through an identical program, their results will simply not be identical.

While I absolutely agree that it's an excuse to think about these things on an individual, non competitive level. It's undeniably a factor in all levels of athletic endeavour.

I don't feel that this is something we should all be thinking and worrying about as I've often said. I commend the attitude that this stuff is irrelevant, but in doing so we cannot pretend that the reality is different than what it is.

The first example that comes to my mind is Alexander Shatilov, he is 6 feet (183 cm) and a high level gymnast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqIJmWcVhR4

thecolin said:

It may not seem like much, but a 1 second improvement is massive in the 100 meter dash. Any competitive sprinter would sell their mother to take a full second off their time.

Most worlds records are based on improved selection for the right body types and genetics, as opposed to better training. Michael Phelps has a set of very unique body proportions that make him extremely well suited to swimming.

Aside from size, it is demonstrated clearly and consistently that people will adapt much differently to an identical physical stimulus. It's even been suggested recently that some people's cardiac performance might get worse with cardiovascular training! If you put two people through an identical program, their results will simply not be identical.

While I absolutely agree that it's an excuse to think about these things on an individual, non competitive level. It's undeniably a factor in all levels of athletic endeavour.

I don't feel that this is something we should all be thinking and worrying about as I've often said. I commend the attitude that this stuff is irrelevant, but in doing so we cannot pretend that the reality is different than what it is.

I would agree that it plays a factor, it's just finding out in the end which factors really matter. At early stages genetics is negligible. Unless you come across that 1 in a million "freak" of a person

Nick I'm your height but 10 pounds heavier. I've been following foundation since 2012.

I've finally got a decent straddle FL.
I'm stuck on tuck planche. Full HLL are really hard.

I can hold a straddle Side Lever for about 5s.

I can easily climb ropes 15 ft for 5 sets, but some of the "easier" RC elements are beyond my reach.

I'm not even close to a straddle press.

I was already strong before GST. (E.g. Bodyweight snatch )

I've injured myself a few times on my GB journey( bicep tendon and shoulder strain), but I can say conclusively:
If you're heavier with longer levers, GST takes longer to achieve.

I'd love to see videos of other 225 pound people doing Straddle presses, but they don't really exist, yet.

Nick Roy said:

I would agree that it plays a factor, it's just finding out in the end which factors really matter. At early stages genetics is negligible. Unless you come across that 1 in a million "freak" of a person

The number I've seen kicked around consistently is that people are a result of 50% genetics, and 50% environment. I'm not sure where that number actually comes from, and whether it has a sound basis. But as I've said I've seen it presented consistently from various people in various fields, but I don't have anything concrete behind it so take it with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, genetics play a role at all stages. It's not really an all or nothing situation, as in you're either genetically gifted or not. Nor is it that genetics are only there to define some sort of end potential.

With cardiovascular performance for example, you genes will determine a base line level of performance, as well as a the degree to which you respond to training stimulus. An individual's response to training can vary from a 100% improvement, to zero (or in extreme cases, apparently actually make it worse!). And hypothetically, one person's base performance could be equal or greater to another persons trained maximum.

It's all too early and poorly defined to be useful. It's infinitely more productive to focus on the 50% we have control over and not worry about the rest. But it's undeniable that genetics play a fundamental role in everyone's physical capacities at all levels of ability and training.

thecolin said:

The number I've seen kicked around consistently is that people are a result of 50% genetics, and 50% environment. I'm not sure where that number actually comes from, and whether it has a sound basis. But as I've said I've seen it presented consistently from various people in various fields, but I don't have anything concrete behind it so take it with a grain of salt.

 

Unfortunately, genetics play a role at all stages. It's not really an all or nothing situation, as in you're either genetically gifted or not. Nor is it that genetics are only there to define some sort of end potential.

 

With cardiovascular performance for example, you genes will determine a base line level of performance, as well as a the degree to which you respond to training stimulus. An individual's response to training can vary from a 100% improvement, to zero (or in extreme cases, apparently actually make it worse!). And hypothetically, one person's base performance could be equal or greater to another persons trained maximum.

 

 

Unfortunately, this sort of thing can never be proven, nor can it ever be tested empirically.

1. Even if it were true that genetics were a factor, we have to deal with what type of genetics, because one's performance in various sports not only hinges on disciplined training of the muscular/skeletol system, but also the mind -- in all its nuances.

Classic cases-in-point in this regard are tennis, golf, formula-1, and others, where the ability to choke under pressure makes a huge difference between those who consistently win and those who "lose it."  Greg Norman's disaster in the 1996 Masters is a good illustration of this.

2. Worse still, there has never been a single gene identified as being "50% responsible" for an athletes performance, nor has that gene (which has never been seen or identified) been put through rigorous scrutiny to validate its efficacy.

3. Nor have there been any epigenetic factors examined, as most scientists now agree that the environmental factors are more important because they can determine which genes get "switched on or off" in a given scenario.

All this is a long way of saying talk about genetics is nothing but wild speculation by a bunch of people with absolutely no basis in fact. Even when somebody finally isolates a specific gene that  allegedly determines an atheletes performance, there'll be the added problem of testing it scientifically to determine causality, and this cannot be done.

~Atticus said:

...nor can it ever be tested empirically.

Here you go:

 

It is widely recognized that individuals can respond quite differently to a given intervention, such as drugs, diet, or exercise. For instance, there are considerable individual differences in improvement in maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max; measure of aerobic endurance capacity) with aerobic training.

Studies conducted with young or older adults have typically reported gains in VO2max ranging from almost 0% to 50%, even though all the subjects completed exactly the same training program under close supervision. Scientists had previously assumed that these variations result from differing degrees of compliance with the training program, i.e., good compliers have the highest percentage of improvement and poor compliers show little or no improvement. However, it is now clear that even when there is full compliance with the program, substantial variations occur in the percentage improvements in VO2max values of different people. The same principle is also thought to apply to other physical activity-related phenotypes, including differences in response of the various risk factors for cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes.

Moreover, previous studies conducted with identical twins have suggested that heredity plays a major role in determining to what degree the body adapts to an intervention such as an exercise training program. All these data were available by the late 1980s primarily as a result of the research of C. Bouchard and his colleagues at Laval University in Quebec City when the planning for the HERITAGE Family Study began.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.pbrc.edu/heritage/

It's far from impossible to test.

Here are some more things to read:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/why-some-people-get-fitter-than-others/?src=me&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Most%20Emailed&pgtype=article

 

Anyone who closely examines the results of exercise-related experiments will notice that some participants get more physical bang from exercise than others. The range of response can be startlingly broad.

This is a fascinating book:

http://thesportsgene.com/

~Atticus said:

 

2. Worse still, there has never been a single gene identified as being "50% responsible" for an athletes performance, nor has that gene (which has never been seen or identified) been put through rigorous scrutiny to validate its efficacy.

Nobody claims that there is a single magical gene that determines athletic performance. This is the flawed view that you either have good or bad genetics, when in reality it's a combination of factors working together.

~Atticus said:

 

3. Nor have there been any epigenetic factors examined, as most scientists now agree that the environmental factors are more important because they can determine which genes get "switched on or off" in a given scenario.

Not even remotely agreed upon yet. Nor can you promote expression of genes you don't have. While epigenetics is clearly important, it has given some people the incorrect idea that environment overrides biology.

~Atticus said:

Even when somebody finally isolates a specific gene that allegedly determines an atheletes performance...

Never going to happen, nobody thinks this is going to happen.

~Atticus said:

..talk about genetics is nothing but wild speculation...

Not even remotely, but if only I had the intellectual honestly to state clearly when I was being speculative...

thecolin said:

I'm not sure where that number actually comes from, and whether it has a sound basis. ...but I don't have anything concrete behind it so take it with a grain of salt.

Based on my own experience and observations, I've come to believe that some people are just better able to do certain activities - running or lifting comes to mind. Also that some people do respond better to exercise than others for whatever reason. I seem to be one of the low responders. Exercise is more of a faith based activity for me. I just keep working at it and have faith that someday there will be an improvement.

The Colin,

So are people supposed to have the same V02 Max?  And does that answer the claim that differences in sports performance have been shown to be 50% genetics and 50% environment?

Finally, for about 100 years, different commentators have studying what drives sports performance and if you look back over the decades the theories proposed they now look preposterous.

It is good to see that there are many professional sports teams hiring sports psychologists today, because my view is that most of the accomplished athetes -- no matter the sport -- have an extraordinary command of the mental aspect of their sport.

And when they lose their "mental edge" their performance starts to slip.

For the record, I have very little regard for the genetics theorists, though I believe that some people may have some slight advantage because of their body shape or muscle type, but the mastery of the mind makes up for that.

Without a strong mind good genes will go to waste... The kind of mind that says I can do what others think is impossible, instead of finding excuses to not even try. So back to the original topic, if size turns out to be an excuse/real factor, it's still not an excuse to not try, cause you could still beat some genetic freak that has phoned it in.

plus, you know...   even if height prevents you getting a full planche, at least you can still reach the top shelf without a ladder.   That's way more functional anyway.

Not sure if what I'm about to say relates in full to the topic but I know some of it does.

I'm an endomorph body type, yes, I have a gut. I'm short and stocky and really have no business being involved in anything gymnastics......but guess what? I can now hold an advanced tuck planche for a few seconds (a real one, you know with locked out arms and hollow-body).

Sure planche training has led me to look like a freak meaning my back, shoulders, and lats are much bigger than every other muscle on me but I don't mind.

I think size is an excuse for sure. I've been training plan he seriously since the beginning of 2013 and it has been a very frustrating road to the point where inwqs wondering if my bodyweight had anything to do with progress.....watching you tube videos didnt help as MOST of the videos show the person doing them wrong ......so much incorrect form. Even on this forum I couldn't get all I needed. Just had to really experiment, just by slightly adjusting hand position and modifying my workout....i made a lot of progress.

I like doing things that are out f the norm for me. People look at me as just a weight lifting dude she. The truth is ever since getting into gymnastics, I only do bodyweight exercises. Jack Lalanne pushups were my most recent accomplishment (3 sets of 10 reps on finger tips).

So yeah, its an excuse - I'm well on my way to a straddle planche and will post pics of it here (its gonna be a while) when I'm done. You will wonder how I was able to do it with my body type for sure. Oh also, I think you can see I no longer care about my weight issues either....I don't look like crap and have never felt better in my life (I'm almost 40).

~Atticus said:

... For the record, I have very little regard for the genetics theorists, though I believe that some people may have some slight advantage because of their body shape or muscle type, but the mastery of the mind makes up for that ...

- Atticus, you are most definitely wrong my friend.  What you espoused is indeed a popular public opinion, it does not however have any basis in fact which anyone who has worked extensively with athletes at this level can tell you.  Genetics matter and they matter huge.

Olympic Champions are the cream of the genetic crop.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

so someone with bad genetics cannot be eilte?

GenericGymnast said:

so someone with bad genetics cannot be eilte?

As I've said, there's no such thing as 'good' or 'bad' genetics. Just people who are more or less adapted to different activities.

But as to the essence of your question, pretty much, yes.

There's also no test in the world right now that can tell you what your chances are of being an elite athlete. The only way you'll know is to work hard and see how far you get.

That may seem like a road to disappointment, but focusing on fixed end goals is usually doesn't lead to much satisfaction. In my experience, the only thing that counts in life is looking hard into the mirror and being honest with what you need to do and trying to do it a bit better today than you did yesterday. It's the most important thing in life, everything else is just noise. With an exception if you're Conan, of course.

By any statistical measurement, most people are average.

https://annejosephson.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/dont-freak-out-but-chances-are-your-child-is-not-going-to-be-an-olympian/

GenericGymnast said:

so someone with bad genetics cannot be eilte?

nope. hard work beats talent when talented people do not work. but in gymnastic the selection of talent is made early in the development stage of the gymnastic team. as a example I had different kids, when we work on basic strength they had improvements but only 2 of them had a very great maximal strength  to power conversion. the other maintained they jump height, 2 of them increased it of 12 cm in one year. same work, different response. it is genetic. fiber types, fibers adaptations, intra and extra muscles best communication. 

from wich height are you considered as "tall" in a gymnastic POV ? everything over 5'7'' ?

I'd say you're considered tall before that in gymnastics.

GenericGymnast said:

so someone with bad genetics cannot be eilte?

This is a symptom of a rather large problem in modern society.  Namely, "if I cannot be the best at something, it's not worth doing."  I see this all the time.  Parents will bring in their kids for martial arts classes.  Many stay and watch, and many say how fun everything looks.  If I ask them to try a class, the number one response is, "Oh, it's too late for me."  In this worldview, one peaks at 24 and it's all downhill from there.  Don't even bother trying something new.

I consider this unbelievable.  If you start martial arts or gymnastics or anything at 40 instead of 4, no, the odds of you becoming elite are pretty nill.  BUT YOU WILL BE 100% BETTER THAN YOU ARE NOW!  People are so focused on some abstract absolute, being 'elite' or 'the best,' that they completely dismiss the relative, namely, becoming a better person of themselves.  In fact, if you did start at 40 and consistently stuck with martial arts for 10 years, you WOULD be elite.  You would be in the top 5% of 40+ martial artists, because virtually no one does it.  Most of it are former wunderkinds who rely on past accomplishments rather than current training and effort.

Don't worry about becoming elite or the best or any other thing like that.  Do your training every week, push your limits, celebrate your small victories and in ten years you won't recognize yourself.

Sensei JP said:

This is a symptom of a rather large problem in modern society.  Namely, "if I cannot be the best at something, it's not worth doing."  I see this all the time.  Parents will bring in their kids for martial arts classes.  Many stay and watch, and many say how fun everything looks.  If I ask them to try a class, the number one response is, "Oh, it's too late for me."  In this worldview, one peaks at 24 and it's all downhill from there.  Don't even bother trying something new.

 

I consider this unbelievable.  If you start martial arts or gymnastics or anything at 40 instead of 4, no, the odds of you becoming elite are pretty nill.  BUT YOU WILL BE 100% BETTER THAN YOU ARE NOW!  People are so focused on some abstract absolute, being 'elite' or 'the best,' that they completely dismiss the relative, namely, becoming a better person of themselves.  In fact, if you did start at 40 and consistently stuck with martial arts for 10 years, you WOULD be elite.  You would be in the top 5% of 40+ martial artists, because virtually no one does it.  Most of it are former wunderkinds who rely on past accomplishments rather than current training and effort.

 

Don't worry about becoming elite or the best or any other thing like that.  Do your training every week, push your limits, celebrate your small victories and in ten years you won't recognize yourself.

Beautifully stated.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

In a few more years some of us who started Foundation later in life will be proof that finishing Foundation is possible for the 40+.

Initially my goal was to be able to do hollow body rocks, Russian dips, Planche push ups, Single leg squats, handstand shoulder taps and hanging leg lifts. I can now do all these and will be turning 40 in July. I am a better version of myself and am now past the beginner beginner level. I am not elite compared to an Olympian but I am far better than the average 40 year old.

It definitely can be an excuse. The heavyweight on my wrestling team who is 240lbs and state ranked performs BW exercises instead of lifting. Not sure what he does but from what I seen lots of wall HS, tuck PL, single leg squats. He has better coordination than all the other heavyweight wrestlers.

Hi!

Greatings from hungary! I'm new here and glad to find this topic. I used to be a competitive volleyball player for 15 years (now I'm 24). I played in the junior national team of our country and the adult first class league. After final exams in the high school I gave up competitive sport and started going to gym, I did bodybuilding type training for years. Unfortunately my back couldn't handle the big load that caused by heawy weighted squats, deadlifts, kettlebell swings etc. I got a herniated disc 2 years ago. After the rehab - I didn't need a surgery - I started doing bodyweight training. Last summer I've met a gymnast and he became my training buddy. Now I can do back lever on rings, human flag on wall bars, L-sit (that's my profile picture) and some other great exercises like rope climbing without leg assistance. I'm 6.4 feet tall (195 cm) and I weigh 253 pounds (115 kg). I don't want to be a gymnast, I just want to be stronger.

Otherwise my favorite exercise is back bridge. This helped me a lot when I had back pain. Let me share my bridge with you:

^ Damn Son lol