There are a lot of factors that are being referred to when using the term "genetic advantage".

This thread at ****** explains some of them, there are probably scholarly articles that can elaborate further-

https://www.******.com/r/Velo/commen...s_and_cycling/

The biggest single factor there is VO2 max, or how quickly your body can metabolize oxygen. Training can only impact that factor so much, and it is critical to recovery and maximum sustainable output.

Edit: Lol at that other extremely popular online forum being considered foul language here.

I pretty much doubt it. :)

Given that Bolt is arguably the most recognized athlete in the world, I'd hardly call the 100m dash a non-mainstream sport.

Quite simply, you're wrong. People who are naturally good at something are far more likely to do it than the general population as a whole. Even in the USA I'd bet far more than 1% of gifted cyclists end up competing. In Europe, this isn't even close to true.

I agree, provided that he had the natural talent for it. Ride on!

Of course they aren't. LeMond is 5'10 and raced at 148lbs. Merckx was over 6' and raced at 160. One you didn't mention, Bradley Wiggins, won the TdF at 6'3" weighing 168. Average build for their height?



It means a stratospheric VO2 max for their weight, and an astonishing power/weight ratio that allows them to put out well over 5 watts per kilo for extended periods. I promise you, that is not trainable for most people.

You grossly underestimate the amount of time and dedication amateur riders put into their training. Many train much more scientifically than the old pros could, and they spend, I promise you, 12, 15, 20 hours a week doing it. If it was possible to get pro level power on hard work but average physiology, we'd all be doing it.

why are you so stuck on aerodynamics and drafting?

how much faster is the pro average ride speed is not germane. WHY their ride speed is faster is the crux of the argument.

to start off... aerobic capacity and metabolic efficiency

I aim to start racing next year.

I played basketball, football and ran the 400m growing up and never once considered cycling as a sport.

I started cycling after I had kids, but the kids took so much of my time, I put it on hold for about 8 years or so.

I started back this year now that they can ride with me (9 and 11 years old). My 11 year old decided he wants cycling to be his Spring/Summer sport.

He raced the state TT at the end of this Summer and had a blast (took 3rd). I told him if he wants to win, he will need to ride year round. He chose not to give up football or basketball to win bike races...

They have motors hidden in their bikes of course

Read the book I linked to in my first post here. There are numerous endurance specific genetic adaptations discussed there. Off the top of my head:
Bone structure
VO2 Max
Ability to tolerate suffering
Fast vs slow twitch muscle fiber
Red blood cell count (there was a guy in Finland IIRC who won multiple gold medals at skiing who's skin is now bright red due to some blood condition that causes him to naturally have more red blood cells than normal for instance).
The ability of your body to stay injury free

all have a genetic component. Furthermore, your ability to respond to training has a large genetic component. Two people doing the exact same training plan will make different amounts of progress. Even "dedication" has a genetic component.

He seems to be under the impression that amateur racers don't draft...

Froome was raised on a mountain so he adapted to low oxygen concentrations that High up .

If they were not Poor and had no Fancy Bicycles the Bolivians and Nepalese could be as good as the Columbians.

I think that there's a big overlap between training and genetic ceiling for pros in any sport. Or profession. For the elite pros, of course all of the stars have to align correctly. All of the talent, the dedication and perseverance, the opportunity, all together in one person. But to cross that first boundary, to become the pro who will never have what it takes to scale the ladder up the ranks, that's a different story.

We tend to think of specific attributes for success in a given sport, and then we try to guess where those attributes fall in the distribution of humans, supposing everyone had an opportunity, and try to build up a mental image of the genetics "required" for a pro. We conclude that they are genetically gifted, different from "us". Perhaps this is the completely backwards way to view it. Perhaps, the entry level to "pro" is determined by social dynamics: it is a level of skill and facility that most people cannot or will not achieve. Imagine a Bell curve of the population plotted against the skill - the point on that curve for "pro" will float according to the desirability of engaging in the sport as a pro, which depends on the remuneration at the lowest levels, the commitments required, long-term and short-term physical repercussions, and other variables pertaining to the sport.

My opinion, which I'm sure is unconventional, is that the point is set similarly to how supply and demand sets prices, or free market forces control the Stock Market. In other words, demand for athletes vs supply of people willing and able to do it, which has little to do with genetic limitations at the elite end. I strongly suspect that if you really could isolate the genetic potential for a given sport and compare it to the general population, that one or two standard deviations from the median would, perhaps across all sports, be sufficient to become a pro IF the individual were also willing and able to devote the maximum time and effort of best-practices training. Or conversely, the very best genetic specimen could become pro with only a minimum of training. I think that sociological factors will set this point, and not the particular physical demands of a particular sport.

Good for him. 11 years old is no time to limit yourself to a single sport.

Not in a pack of 200 they don't.

I've raced in Masters fields of well over 50 riders. That's far more than enough to get well hidden from the wind.

The reason pro riders are faster is that they are much stronger. Ride with one for two minutes and you'll see the difference between him and you does not depend on his drafting you, or having an aero bike.

This. And they're still pretty damn fast when they stop riding for a living, but still turn up for Masters races.

TdF stage one, individual TT... Winner's average speed was 55.4 kph over 13.8km.

As I said before, I never suggested drafting was the only factor. I simply stated it was a factor that had not been mentioned up to that point.

I'm curious as to what the time might be for a Cat1 racer with the exact same equipment and course, assuming no PED's were involved. A big if.

So are you an elite racer?

... Was a mere hard working Cat 2.

And you don't think that if you trained full time (no other commitments) that you could reach a pro peloton?

Most all of the equipment ridden on the pro tour is accessible to the public within a calendar year. Just curious, but do you figure anyone who runs enough can win the Boston Marathon? This is pretty basic sports science we're talking about. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding why anyone would think that "just doing it" might be enough to ride the world tour. The natural talent pool is small and immediately evident. If someone starts racing and within a couple of seasons is racing Cat1, then they might have the stuff. Maybe.

Being that the 2015 stage 1 was flat as a pancake and short I'd imagine that plenty of amateur racers could rival many of those times (except Rohan's time). It just takes someone powerful and slippery to TT a flat course well, regardless of cat.

69chevy what state do you live in?

Yeah.... No. That's 34.4 something MPH. Give that a whirl for even a couple miles your next ride.