-
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I believe that 'genetic predisposition to be good at cycling' is only really relevant in a competition between people with no training (beginners) or equivalent amounts of training (such as pro riders, for example).
When you fall somewhere between those points of training, you can be faster than someone with a 'genetic predisposition to be good at cycling' by doing more training than them.
MechaMorgan-
When you fall somewhere between those points of training, you can be faster than someone with a 'genetic predisposition to be good at cycling' by doing more training than them.
Well of course and this depends on the genetic disparity in suitability, and the training.
'genetic predisposition to be good at cycling'
An athlete is not 'good' or 'bad'. It's a lot more subtle than than.
miro_o
This is not my understanding at all. Genetics apply to everyone. Pros sit at the extreme end of a spectrum, but we all sit in that spectrum somewhere. We are talking about cyclists with some training to allow genetic traits valuable to cycling to show themselves. Can you let us know why you think this?