It’s a real bummer to see Chloe Dygert crash out of TT worlds this morning.
Looking over her recent strava files, it’s interesting the last few days coming into the race. She doesn’t seem to be doing any clear “openers” like some might think (Monday through today), just some 1-2 hour easier endurance rides coming into it.
I don’t have a file viewer for this, so apologies in advance, but this is what appears (?) to be her warmup this morning
About 90% (more actually, IIRC) of mitochondrial genes have migrated to the nucleus. There are only about 30-something genes maintained in mitochondria, the prominent ones are for a cytochrome and one for an ATPase. Almost all have migrated to the nucleus, which means there is approximately equal necessity to have “world class genes” from parents. Even that doesn’t guarantee world class performance, as a mutation in a handful of genes may not make it to progeny, depending on lots of stuff like gene location, crossover points, and plain old luck of the draw, but it does much better the odds.
How about saying that the higher the level of competition in cycling, the further genetic outliers those athletes will tend to be?
I’ve heard it said, and I’d agree that VO2max (ie. genetics) has more to do with getting you to the start line (ie. level of competitiveness). All the other intangibles (environment, hard work, opportunities, luck, mental toughness, time availability, lifestyle priorities, injury avoidance, etc.) will determine your success from there. At the top-end, those athletes aren’t just genetic outliers, they’re outliers in all of those factors.
I also don’t think a ‘genetic ceiling’ is relevant to anyone but those top professional outliers. I think nearly all of us, from recreational to amateur pro are more likely to encounter a ceiling in any of those other factors, before we approach our genetic ceiling. So maybe it’s worth spending more time thinking about how our ‘lifestyle ceiling’ or ‘opportunity ceiling’ affects our capacity to train, adapt, and get fitter, than a genetic ceiling? edit: and which of those factors (a) we can change, and (b) we want to change, meaning de-prioritize other things, in pursuit of more fitness.
The whole discussion of genetics is flawed as long as you believe the old cartesian argument of a distinction between „you“ and „your genes“ i.e. mind and body. Body and mind are ultimately two sides of the same medal.
I would also like to add that, from my experience in one of the top european countries, the coggan chart for professional power is largely flawed and creates lots of misunderstandings.
You definetely need more than 6w/kg for 20min to even finish top 10 in a mountain finish at under 23 level (it will probably get you a podium at amateur races).
I think you need both hard work and at least slightly above average genes. I wonder how much training since you were a kid makes a difference.
Also wonder what’s the level for non-european conti/semi-pro teams
This is an interesting point, and one that I could stand behind.
You made a good point about the Coggan chart. It most certainly does create misunderstandings and results in lots of cyclists pursuing the wrong adaptations. Not only the example of 6w/kg for the mountain finish, but also realizing that w/kg really isn’t everything. You could have a 6w/kg FTP but only 30min TTE and a crappy sprint, and you’d be stuck where you are.
One of the biggest parts of training and “hard work” is that is needs to be the right type of hard work. You need to know what works for you and take advantage of it.
I am obviously not denying that he has poor or average genetics, but I was talking with James Piccoli, who started racing in his 20s and became a world tour rider this year at 28yo. He mentioned that for a while, he was doing too much intensity and the wrong type of training. It wasn’t until he found precisely what worked for him when things really started to work. Just how many people are out there doing the wrong thing and slowing down their development because they don’t know any better? A lot, I would argue.
Most people self coach as hard as they can using other people’s theories or get matched with a coach that doesn’t truly personalize things for them.
With that being said, I suppose “hard work” should be mentioned that it includes the right coach for your abilities and it’s a lot harder work on and off the bike than what people do when they claim they weren’t able to make it very far “even though they tried as hard as they could”.
I’d love to be corrected here if research suggests otherwise, but from what I have heard and briefly read, is that training since you were a kid has a strong relationship with the downstroke power, “possibly as a result of muscular adaptations stimulated by more years of endurance training”. So the younger riders’ years of muscle development and fiber recruitment is what really makes a big difference when they are older
The story of the kid with the highest recorded vo2max is interesting.
In the end, it sounds like he was missing the psyche to suffer through the life that is professional bike racing. The tactics would have probably come with more experience.
Although I think we are going off-topic since it is not pro rider training related all this genetic and early start questions were discussed in The real science of sport Podcast with Ross Tucker. The episode was called how to make a champion if I remember correctly.
The reality is and bottom line is that it is not a question of hard work or genetics, both are actually needed.
But definitely get the wrong genes and no matter the hard work you wont make it to the pro level.
Also in this podcast the idea of an advantage due to early start of a sport is completely dismissed. Many sportsmen have reached top level starting in their late teens early twenties.
If you have the genes you have them lets not be ridiculous, the same as if you are born in Sierra Leone you are at a disadvantage in life.
This is very interesting.
I feel like I have something similar going on, too much and too high intensity.
Would you mind giving a bit more details about Piccoli’s training adjustments (like brief examples of before and after would be awesome).
I haven’t been cycling for long enough to have found out exactly what might work best for me but I had a long history in swimming growing up. I think this is rampant in swimming. Each coach has 20-40 kids that they are giving the same workouts too. So if that is too much or too little for you then you are kinda out of luck. And many times as you improve you will move up to the next level coach even if you current coach is perfect for you. I had a coach when I was 14-15 that I did extremely well with but then aged up to the next coach and it just wasn’t great for me. I just couldn’t handle the massive increase in volume (from ~16hrs/week to ~23hrs/week) and definitely had crazy over training syndrome for over a year.
To bring it back to cycling. It can be really hard to decide if something is working for you while you are in the middle of it. And it can be really hard to change things up and experiment with a new training regime. So many people find something that seems to work and then stick with that even if even a minor (or major) tweak could make a big difference.
And as amateurs we have the extra constraint of time. We aren’t able to do the 6 hour rides with ‘stuff’ thrown in that we see a lot of pros doing so it is hard to pull actionable changes from their training when both their training and their races look so different from ours.
Lockdown made me think I was undervaluing training consistency. More steady low intensity volume + lower and less high intensity = less severe swings in fatigue = more consistent compounding training load. I feel like I was able to get the most out of my time without compromising immune system or physical & mental health. And I stayed motivated to keep training through a monotonous few months. The regular schedule helped.
I don’t think I could have walked on to a Crit on short notice, but I was probably better optimizing long-term health + performance. Almost like base training is important… 
That’s gonna stay part of the 2021 training plan.
I’m a little surprised that genetics aren’t given more credit for cycling success. I mean…really…after an athlete has been riding 6-8 hours per week for a year or two, how much higher can their FTP go? 10% higher? 20% higher? Maybe 30% higher? If our average FTP of trainer road users is about 250 watts, what does that get you? 300 watts maybe if everything is optimized? That’s barely going to get you to state level, much less national or international level.
Look, top pros work hard, I get that, but if you aren’t born with a world class engine you can forget about being an international pro. Hate to be debbie downer here but you’d better look at other reasons for training and racing.
Have any national level athletes ever done 10 races in cat 5 before getting upgraded? Were they ever banging bars in the beginner mountain bike class for a whole season? I’d seriously be shocked if this has ever happened.
(Sorry to go off topic, I do really enjoy this thread)
(also, apologies if this is a straw man argument)
Joe
Yeah exactly my thoughts
I think I read that Phil Gaimon went from cat 5 to cat 1 in short order and he got a late start on cycling.
I’ve been involved in cycling for 40+ years. At every level I saw guys hit the wall. I had team mates stuck at cat 4, cat 3, cat 2, and cat 1. Maybe 20 hours a week of dedicated training would have got some of those guys to the next level. (Except for the cat 1 guy I knew. He was already putting in the hours. Only EPO would have taken him farther.)
Actually intended to start a dedicated thread for San Millán’s training model but I simply put it in here.
Pog is quite selective on putting rides on Strava (it appears important workouts are left out or w/o power). More data from last season.
Here is a typical base week, keep it straight at AeT/FatMax/or-whatever most of the time. A few excursions into the glycolytic metabolism.
This is a template for many weeks, even within season.
It has been mentioned that he puts this AeT/FatMax/or-whatever at around 1.3 - 1.8 mmol lactate. This is from his “metabolic flexibility” paper
I’m in Riolo Terme to follow the Worlds, this morning I went out for a ride and luckily I found the Italian national team so I followed them, hoping they would do an easy flat loop to draft them and have a good time.
Of course, this wasn’t the case and after some false flats they went on a 3.5 kilometres climb at 5% and, even though I’m in the recovery week, I decided to follow them since I wanted to see their pace and also there were other amateurs and it basically was an all out race to follow the pros.
So, what did it take to follow them? I’m 66 kg and around 280 watts FTP, moreover I was drafting the team car because it was 30/50 meters from the guys (for safety concerns I guess), here’s is the data:
The accelerations are due to the fact that the car would slow down and then suddenly accelerate to try to drop us, while the guys where climbing at a regular pace, but I managed to stay behind it until the end where the pros stopped.
Judging from my NP I’d say they were climbing at tempo, interesting since it was their pre race ride. However the rest of the ride they did was mainly flat, so they probably just did this climb slightly harder and the rest at Z2 or even less.
More on Pog, run up to the Tour. No details on training given
https://tadej-pogacar.com/training-camp-sestriere-strade-biance-and-milan-san-remo/?lang=en
but Strava offers some insights. Though, only a few rides are posted. Clearly a notch higher now. And Strade + M-SR. And then Dauphine. Racing is such an integral part of a pros prep, can’t be overlooked.
Pog daily: it seems he posts his endurance rides only. And it appears he follows this pattern:
An endurance athlete should never stop training in zone 2. The ideal training plan should include 3-4 days a week of zone 2 training in the first 2-3 months of pre-season training, followed by 2-3 days a week as the season gets closer and 2 days of maintenance once the season is in full blown.
Furthermore, this is noteworthy:
Any idea what does San Millan consider to be Z2?
Typical Coggan definition of 56 to 75 % of FTP?
did you see the TrainingPeaks article? Assuming his 2014 opinion still holds, zone2 is Coggan classic:
From the article @sryke sryke linked above: Zone 2 Training For Endurance Athletes: Build Your Aerobic Capacity
