-
*lol
No you wouldn't. He has a far superior V02 Max, and better efficiency, than you so even on half the training, he'd still out perform you.
By your reasoning, the rider who trains the most wins the Tour, which isn't the case.
andyp-
By your reasoning, the rider who trains the most wins the Tour, which isn't the case.
Except he isn't talking about the tour riders, he's talking about you and me. In fact he specifically stated that.
-
Can you clarify 'efficiency' for me? I'm not sure if that's relevant / a solely genetic trait.
In this example, where we are both going from a zero-training level of fitness, I don't think you're in a position to be certain that Tony Martin's VO2 Max improvement would outstrip mine. If I grant that it would, for arguments sake, would that alone ensure that he would beat me, considering the improvements in my musculature etc etc that my 2X training has provided?
I think you're oversimplifying my argument here. I'm not saying training is the only thing that matters, I'm saying it's more important than anything else. In TDF-level cyclists, they are all performing roughly equivalent amounts of training*. At that level, tactical riding, team support, form, aerodynamics and, yes, genetic talents and traits, will have an important and measurable effect on the outcome of races.
*You would hope.
Sumo
MechaMorgan
No argument with what you're saying at all, but we're talking across purposes.
What I'm saying is that if, for example, Tony Martin and myself had never ridden bicycles before, and we started training at the same time for the Hour Record, but I did twice the training, I would beat Tony Martin*.
Training > Natural Talent
*lol