CharlieWoo

I used to think the top riders were genetic mutations brought to success through the artificial selection process we call competitive cycling. Then I read an article in a science mag a few months back about average mutation rates in modern humans. The gist of the article was that the average modern human has between 200 and 300 "undesirable" active mutations that cause him/her to deviate from "ideal". [Paraphrasing]: 'Those deviations may cause such things as facial and body asymmetry, disproportion in certain ratios in body measurements, less-than-ideal physiological functioning as well as more serious genetic disorders.' The article stated that, in general, those persons held to be most attractive had the fewest mutations.

What got me is the 'less-than-ideal physiological functioning' bit. Maybe the top riders have no/few mutations that affect their physiology, and are functioning at the "design limit", and we have some mutation(s) that keep us down? Maybe it's both?

Discuss.

cedricbosch

Pro riders have genetic advantages and suffer day in and day out to take advantage of those. This is a moot point.

CharlieWoo

Of course they do; the question is are those advantages mutations on the genome or not.

And if the criteria for posts on BF is that they are non-moot you might as well take the whole site down.

AEO

Just some damaged genetic material through everyday living.
There's genetic variation through the entire population for survival.

That's why the physical make up of our bodies varies, they've adapted to the environment.

Campag4life

There are many physical and mental attributes that make up a pro cyclist. These gifts aren't mutations per se...simply an amalgam of attributes on the Gaussian curve that make them exceptional relative to more ordinary cyclists. You may have one or two yourself but likely not the full collection. You may have tremendous quad or glute strength for example...or lung capacity...but genetically lack heart stroke volume. Or perhaps you have all these attributes but just smoked too much crack which reduced your desired to suffer.

CharlieWoo

YOu mean smoking crack is bad for riding?

gregf83 

Ideal is a subjective term. I don't think humans evolved over time to be great cyclists. They evolved at one time to be sucessful hunter-gatherers so that is more likely to be your "ideal". I would consider top cyclists to be a branch with selected physical and mental characteristics that are helpful for cycling.

Campag4life

Actually...snorting EPO is better.

Industrial

I don't think labeling all genetic variation as mutations is necessarily fair. There are some valid mutations yes, but there is also alot of normal natural variation. Ideal for swimming would not necessarily be ideal for cycling so are the swimmers mutants or the cyclists mutants? Neither, they are just natural variants.

People like Michael Phelps are freaks of the Olympic genetic gene pool. Elite athletes are naturally attached to like minded athletes(especially when they are massed together at sporting events in their youth) and more and more of these freaks will emerge in the future. There will be a time in the future where if your parents weren't elite athletes, you will not be able to compete at the highest levels of most sports. Right now, it just helps alot.

hrt4me

Michael Phelps is an example of a freak of nature built for swimming (e.g. if you had to build the ideal swimmer, then Phelps would be it). Phelps has the ideal swimmer’s physique - tall, broad shoulders, and narrow hips. Along with these classic traits, he has a long torso and short legs (his inseam is only 32 inches). Having the legs of a shorter man and the torso of a taller one is ideal for swimming because his shorter legs give him a more powerful push off the wall. Phelps' height/leg ratio serves to his advantage because the lower body is what causes resistance or "drag" when swimming. Phelps also has a very long wingspan (measured from fingertip to fingertip), which is 3 inches longer than his height of 6'4". Most people have identical height and wingspan length. Last but not least, Phelps is double-jointed so his body is hyperflexible. This hyperflexibility in his elbows and knees allows Phelps to flex his size 13 feet approximately 15 degrees further than the average person, turning his feet into powerful "flippers." He has "dinner plate"-size hands which obviously help him move through the water faster.

Industrial

Yeah exactly, now imagine if during an olympic orgy he knocks up say...Natalie Coughlin? Can you imagine the children? They wouldn't be mutants but...we could say they'd be genetically ideal for swimming.

Ryleeryno

I'm genitically awkward.

I've always had uber-wide thighs and strong legs with limited upper body strength. Example? I wear size 33 jeans and anways have to get wide leg or carpenter fit because my fat legs fill my jeans snuggly. The benefit...? At 180lbs I can climb quickly and keep up with most riders without straining myself with limited cramping.

Creakyknees

see: Phinney, Taylor.

Jazzer

Think of his swanstucke (sp?).

He's going to be very popular.

Woof.

CharlieWoo

No study has ever shown a correlation.

cedricbosch

...


YES.

uke

Despite all of these enhancements, he is still only a few hundredths of a second faster than a given olympic swimmer, and only a few full seconds faster than a top high school-level swimmer at short distances. In the end, humans are still notoriously bad swimmers--yes, even Michael Phelps. We've become so attuned to our inabilties as a species in the water that the ability to swim faster than a five year old can walk has become something worthy of medals and fanfare. The fact that any reasonably fit teenager fitted with a monofin could beat the fastest olympic swimmers easily should be an indication that our virtues as humans lie not in our athletic (dis)abilities but in our engineering talents. We're relatively poor runners, so-so climbers, and horrifically bad swimmers, despite the fawning we devote to those members of our species able to flop through the water at 6.2 vs 6.1 mph. If Michael Phelps is "built for swimming", I'd hate to see how we'd describe the fattest bottlenose dolphin at Sea World.

Industrial

The fact that he can win 8 gold medals against the best swimmers the world has ever seen, yeah no big deal. I guess I should take down my L.A. posters too. A fat kid on a moped could beat him up Alp d'huez so winning 7 tours in a row is no big deal since he didn't win by a margin of victory you approve of(or do you?).

uke

I knew some folks would react defensively to my post. Perhaps I should reiterate: I have nothing against Phelps or any other swimmer on earth. Please leave out the strawmen. But the point remains that as a species, we aren't cut out for swimming, which leads us to spend a lot of time delineating thousands of a second differences between people propelling themselves through the water at a walking pace. Once again (in case someone's already typing up an angry response), this takes away nothing from the accomplishments of swimmers. But I do find it interesting how unwilling so many people are to accept that the trivial differences between an average swimmer and a world-class swimmer are dwarfed by the much more significant differences between our abilities in the water and our abilities in other fields. I've noticed this need for distinction elsewhere, but it's always neat to see where else it pops up. And yes, I still find it amusing to see how eager we are to magnify minute differences into grand statements about this or that person being "built for running" or "born to swim" or...and so on.

And another strawman. See above.

Buglady

I don't know, I think all cyclists, pro or not, have some degree of desire to suffer.... witness the exchange between The Boy and me, on my return from a century in the mountains today:

Me: "Hi honey, I'm home and I didn't die!"
He: "Yay, you're back! Did you have fun?"
Me: "No, I spent a lot of the time thinking I was going to die actually. Then I kind of started to wish that I could because I was 75 km away from the car and if I died then I wouldn't have to ride back."
He: "wait, what? why did you do it then????"
Me: "So I could say I made it and didn't die, of course!"
He: "You're nuts. Have some pizza."

Industrial

Defensive? Your post was stupid. This is a thread about genetics and top athletes. You chime in with stupid commentary that misses the point of "sports" in general. I don't think you understand competitive sports or you simply do not like it.

uke

Yeah. You seem to have a lot of anger. Have fun hashing it out on your own.

Back to the thread topic: the idea of a "design limit" is inaccurate, as the concept of the ideal human is impossible to define. It's like rock-paper-scissors; if there were an ace that trumped all options, there wouldn't be a point to the game anymore. Human beings aren't like a set of dice, where the highest scores are universally understood and readily described. Rather, we're more like a set of dice, each with millions of sides, each numbered in an unintelligible script, with essentially limitless combinations. Some combinations result in slightly more positive or negative outcomes in given situations. That's about as clear as it gets.

enjoi07

so good looks means you have better genes and are better at athletics...tell that to Bernard kohl

Duke of Kent

Speak for yourself.

I've run down a deer.

Literally.

uke

Congratulations. This doesn't change the fact that humans aren't generally good runners any more than someone outswimming a shark would counteract the fact that humans are generally poor swimmers.