-
My entire point here is that training is not a hugely more relevant factor in cycling ability than genetics. It all goes together with the other components like aerodynamics, weight etc. There's published evidence that supports my claim, what have you got?
Hutch makes the point in an earlier book that his genetics are so good that he doesn't get hugely better from training, and he could probably get in the top 10 in the CTT nationals without touching a bike for a year.
umop3pisdn-
If your published evidence is an anecdote in a book, I'm not convinced. I'm not, and have never, said that genetics doesn't play a part, but training is and must be the most relevant factor.
Hutch really might be one of physiological freaks I mentioned before, like Tony Martin. He might manage to keep his heart rate and muscles at peak racing condition for ages without significant upkeep. But do you really think that he would get top 10's in the nations without EVER having trained?
Because for all the claims of being genetically predisposed to be excellent at TT, I bet Hutch still trains a bunch.
MechaMorgan
My entire point here is that training is a hugely more relevant factor in cycling ability than ANY other factor, genetics, bike weight, aerodynamics, anything.
It's only at the extreme end of the wedge where natural talent might give someone an edge. For example, Tony Martin clearly has some ridiculous TT-specific blood. His competition have roughly equivalent training and equipment, but he can still outperform anyone.
Andy, are you honestly telling me that if I went and trained every day for a Hour Record attempt (for example), that someone with this completely undefined 'talent' could just hop on an equivalent bike and beat me? You lot are insane.