But let’s not pretend that pro was crap or mediocre at best as a kid when they started. They were likely doing pretty well, managing top 10 even before they had years of training and racing in their body.
But back in real world where there are volume limits, let’s say 10-12 hours a week. You see real world differences between two riders who have no special dietary differences to distinguish them. Whilst a rider may not be at their genetic limit they might be at their limit given the constraints they have.
I think activity history is a huge driver (maybe even more so than genetics), some kids are just very active from very young and just build on that through their teens.
My teenage lad has played rugby for 10yrs, he enjoys it and is quite fit. However one of his mates is alot more driven and does alot more training outside of Rugby, unsurprisingly he is alot fitter and stronger and therefore a much better player, it would be easy to just put this down to geneics when actually it’s just hard work.
This particular guy who became pro and went to the Olympics rode on a local team with a lot of people I know. They all trained the same. He was the only one that went on to win all the local races, ride the Giro and compete in the Olympics. He did not out optimize his competition (eat better, train better, etc) to get to the top.
I think intrinsic motivation and the ability to endure pain/suffering has a lot to do with it as well. If every workout someone puts a little more effort, holds intervals 10 seconds longer, 5 more watts, etc etc, they will eventually outdistance the people not doing that, all else being equal.
We all know mindset is huge in one workout/race. Add that up over years, and it’s a HUGE impact.
For me getting there was pretty straight forward, just a lot of volume and general riding. The weight dropped and the power increased. Having said that staying there is a lot harder than getting there, especially with winter breaks, holidays and general training fatigue.
I am currently 37, hovering around 74.5 kg @ 20% bf and I’m 171cm with an FTP of 255 so puts me roughly 3.4 w.kg. I do plan on getting to 4 w/kg again. Its a tough slog
But as many people have mentioned here…YOU CAN DO IT!!! The effort will pay off!
I am hoping on the train to 4 w/kg town too so lets get there together
I quite liked the podcasts take on w/kg. Having a reasonable w/kg myself its something I know too well, folk with a lower w/kg will trounce me as they use it better 
This has popped up a few times now, and I’m not sure it’s the key to unlock new cycling metrics you think it is. There might be a correlation, but the spread could be huge, which would make it a poor proxy for…lean body mass I guess? I think any metric that makes a couple of logical jumps (height → lean body mass → FTP) really, really needs a more precise correlation than you’re likely to get with the height to weight. Something like this might be useful if you’re dealing with a smaller population, a group of competitive racers, for example. But guys like me, carrying around many kg of extra fat, are going to screw up your FTP/h^2, just like guys who hit the gym screw up BMI.
I looked around for a source of the height to weight correlation, and the best I found that looked like it may have come from actual research was this:
(link)
Linear correlation? Yeah, probably. Useful as a predictive tool? Unlikely.
Whilst I agree that it can be insulting for people to blame your genetics for your ability as opposed to acknowledging the hard work you’ve put in. I would say it’s equally, if not more common, for athletes with good genetics to not acknowledge that they are starting from a higher place.
As an example, I ride a shit load, and have ridden with Pro’s, and just talented amateurs. Some doing less can still wipe the floor with me. Some are very self-aware and are usually the best people to talk to about training, I’ve met more than a few completely ignore the fact. I have decent genetics, I haven’t reached my limit, but I’ve done the same plan as others who have progressed to 5-6W/kg.
I kind of lost where I was going. But genetics can make a huge difference all else being equal.
I get it that genetics can play a part, I just don’t think it is productive at all to even think about it. It doesn’t really do any good to focus on these things. Is Pogacar or Wout van Aert genetically gifted? Pidcock? Should they even try to fight with Pogacar if he is just genetically “Better”?
Everything is relative. I have just found in life that its better to not concern yourself with the things you cannot change. Recognizing weaknesses and improving on them is something productive, but associating every gain to genetics is counterproductive.
Its like that joke: Everyone that drives slower than me is stupid, and everyone that drives faster is out of control. I am going the perfect speed.
“Everyone who is faster than me with the same training is just more genetically gifted and there is nothing I can do about it.” I dont see the productivity in all in this statement, it is simply self limiting.
The reason "if not more common, for athletes with good genetics to not acknowledge that they are starting from a higher place. " is because these people aren’t even thinking about genetics. They are simply performing the best they can, and constantly pushing and pushing and pushing. It isn’t any easier, as Greg Lemond said.
I’m rambling at this point but the big take away is that genetics cant change so to say “I cant reach 4w/kg like other people because of my genetics” is admitting defeat before even getting started.
It’s not that riders have reached some higher sense of being, but I’ve talked to some riders about these things and sure they don’t think about it, but it’s often because they haven’t run into limits like some others, or because they have convinced themselves that it’s their hard work and dedication that’s lifted them to where they are.
I agree about your point about admitting defeat before you start. I just think there’s still people suggesting “just work harder”. That only works to a point, or at least, some 4+W/kg riders are accredited with extra hard work they haven’t necessarily put in.
I thought the general rule of thumb was 50% genetics and 50% training/effort etc.
I’m other words you can get decent regardless of genetics…but really good…you need to choose your parents well for that! Equally good parents can make up for a lot of poor training and a lot of great training and effort can make up for poor genetics!
I always thought that how good you were at sport in primary school (ages 4 - 11 or 12 ish) was good indicator of genetics because v few kids ‘train’ at that age but still huge differences in speed/endurance/strength etc…bummer I was slowest kid in my class at that age however I could run (at my slow speed for while longer than most and can now do a sub 18:30 5k run after LOT of training!
At that age, lot’s can still change depending on whether one is early or late developed.
Of course, where one is one the trajectory can have long term ramifications.
Early bloomers will likely get more reinforcement from environment and get picked for teams/coaches with access to better traing. But also have to deal with expectation and in terms learning skills, it can be a disadvantage that you learn to depend on your temporary advantage in size/power over peers.
In reality, this is an extremely complex subject.
But there still can be a big differance in activity levels at a young age;
4yr old Kid 1 taken round the shops on weekends in a push chair eating sugar
4yr old Kid 2 going long walks in the woods and climbing trees, etc.
Very quickly kid 2 will have more “fitness” and therefore enjoy sports more at school or clubs widening the gap even more.
An exreme example I know but I believe activity and lifestyle is a far bigger impact than genetics below the elite level.
Suggesting that 3.0 is average for competitive cyclists is…optimistic.
Their data doesn’t separate the genders, or filter out people with less than a few years of consistent training, or people who actually race, or people who are overweight.
The average is probably closer to 4.0 if you at the average male racer with a training history of at least a few years.
Low Protein? Why? What is “relatively low” to you?
Probably depends on the type of event and how you determine the “average”. At the local serious road race there’s probably a bit of a minimum level of entry. However at a lot of the Gravel, Gran Fondo, XCM races that are very popular (possibly make up a much larger segment of amateur racing these days) and still competitive, the average is probably pretty close to 3.
Just gut feel.
I don’t force myself to eat low protein nor do I count my macros. In many sports, there is this notion of „proteins is sports food“ and while they of course have their place, I have really strived with focusing on carbs. Especially also carbs AFTER hard sessions.
Mixed and missing sources without properly establishing relations to the data.
“only 3% of americans consume inadequate amounts of protein” after “1.7-1.8g/kg for endurance athletes”.
estimated average requirements are 0.8-0.9g/kg, which is basically at the threshold for malnutrition in that area before taking into account bioavailability of protein in what’s consumed and the detrimental effect of age.
Many regular people start their day off with Starbucks, have a carb/fat snack through the day and chips and beer in the evening. A broadly generalized “keep your protein intake low” aimed at someone who didn’t even break down their diet in this thread is likely to be detrimental. Especially someone relatively new to sports (couldn’t ride 10 miles 8 months ago)
The amount of protein you should be eating to build performance may sound low, but even at 62kg it comes out to more than 100g per day. You’re unlikely to accidentally eat that. Also see Protein for Cyclists, VO2Max, Training Stress and More – Ask a Cycling Coach 349 - YouTube TR podcast on the topic.
MVDP getting dropped on the climb today reminds me that watts/kg isn’t everything in bike racing.