How fit can I be?

Peddle Up!

No, not like that! :roll:

I'm just curious if an individual's potential maximum fitness can be assessed - i.e. for any age and starting condition you could be x% fitter (whatever that means). I'm thinking of all-round fitness taking in running, swimming, gym work and not just cycling.

As it's such a wooly question, I'm posting it here so it can get the derisive replies it deserves.

alihisgreat

Not sure you can reliably assess the maximum potential of an individual... i think you actually have to reach the point before you know its possible.

I think part of it is genetic though, so you can take a look at DNA to see whether people possess the key genes.

pinno

Genes, VO2 max and all that aside, a persons pain barrier can have a huge influence. If your willing to suffer more than the bloke/woman next to you, then you'll probably go farther.
I watched Regrave in a documentary prior to his 4th Gold, he 'killed' himself on a dailly basis. Same with Chris Hoy - watched him on a Turbo Trainer session (a pre-olympic games short film), they had to lift him off the bike afterwards.

tim_wand

All physiological improvements made through training ( Genearal adaptation Syndrome) are limited by Genetics.

Everyone will make gains/ adaptations due to training , but there are others who will make more significant gains purely down to their genetics , rather than the intensity and load of training,

This syndrome is commonly referred to as "Trainability" and has been cited by many sedentary academics as to why there actually isnt a point to training hard.

There was a documentary on the BBC not long back where a guy basically did 3 minutes maximal on a static bike every day for 2 weeks, and because of his limit of Trainablilty this was as effective for him as hours of submaximal aerobic exercise in loosing weight. (i,e both methods were limited/ equally as good, due to his genetic dispostion)

Simple fact is good Genetics or not , someone who trains hard and trains smart will always outperform those who dont. (although the BBC documentary supposed otherwise)

A combination of Both, Hindurain for example is the golden ticket.

rjprey

I can't remember where I read it, but someone's blog brought up the subject of genetic potential vs lifestyle potential. For any specific sport discipline, you are far more likely to reach the limit of how good you can be because of your job, kids, amount of free time etc. rather than your genetics. This is of course turned on it's head when talking about professional athletes.

Peddle Up!

Stealth price increases by the reduction of contents of boxes, packets etc. :x

Duh! Wrong thread.

Frank the tank

What IS fit?

Is it defined as ones ability to recover from exercise, or is it how much exercise one is capable of?

Credit to the OP they did say it was a "wooley" question though.

chrisaonabike

Frank the tank wrote:

What IS fit?

Is it defined as ones ability to recover from exercise, or is it how much exercise one is capable of?

I tend to think of it in terms of an elapsed time, or an average speed, over a course I know well. So, how much have I improved by - and hence, as the OP muses, how much am I still capable of improving?

Much as I try to stay as firmly in denial as I can, I can't escape the fact that at 50, I have less potential now than I did when I was 20.

So knowing what I'm capable of would certainly help choose my objectives.

dynamicbrick

rjprey wrote:

I can't remember where I read it, but someone's blog brought up the subject of genetic potential vs lifestyle potential. For any specific sport discipline, you are far more likely to reach the limit of how good you can be because of your job, kids, amount of free time etc. rather than your genetics. This is of course turned on it's head when talking about professional athletes.

Did you see Michael Johnson's interesting documentary just before the Olympics - he set out to establish why Afro-Carribean (and decedents thereof) dominate power sports (basketball, American football, sprinting, etc).

The basic conclusion was that although African heritage (i.e. just being black) did not provide any genetic advantage, there is thought to be some genetic advantage in being of Afro-Carribean descent. The theory is that the living hell of the slave ships and then subsequent back-breaking plantation slavery were a form of super accelerated natural selection - literally only very strongest survived, and were then placed in an isolated environment with other survivors so the gene pool was narrowed to a more specific type.