Alan Couzens, MS (Sports Science)
I’m currently reading David Epstein’s book “The Sports Gene”
(pictured above) – A really interesting read that outlines the complexity of
the factors that come together to produce great athletes. One of these factors
that Epstein covers is the ‘talent of trainability’, i.e. the ability of some
athletes to respond more quickly to a given training load than other athletes.
A specific example is given in the book of Jim Ryun, the legendary track
athlete who improved over the course of his first year of training from a 5:38
mile to a 4:10! And of course, eventually to the point of becoming the first
sub 4 minute high school miler in US history.
In physiological terms, assuming an economy of 210ml/kg/km,
Ryun went from a VO2max of ~4.3L/min to 5.7L/min over the course of 1 year of
training (1.4L/min). This is clearly not a normal rate of improvement! Claude
Bouchard has conducted considerable research on training response
(specifically, the genetic impact on training response) and has found that the
average improvement in aerobic capacity over the course of 20 weeks of training
is 0.4L/min. Ryun’s rate of improvement is almost double this!
Indeed, within my own sample of unknowing guinea pigs, I
track and witness a large variance in training response for a given load. The
following chart outlines this response as change in FTP (w/kg) per 100hrs of
training for a random sample of 15 athletes.
The data bears a striking resemblance to the histograms in
Bouchard’s HERITAGE genetic study.
Clearly the data is normally distributed with a lot of folks
falling within a response rate of 0.44-0.48 w/kg per 100hrs of training BUT,
like the Bouchard data, the range of
response is large, with the fastest responder getting more than double the
benefit of a given dose of training than the slowest responder! Think about
this for a second, the slowest responder in the group could put in the same
amount of work as the fastest responder and improve half as much. It is not
surprising that there is an element of natural selection in endurance sports.
Similar to the pattern of the Bouchard study, there is a small
% of ‘outliers’ at the top that jump above the normal pattern of distribution.
There is something going on here that moves from a pattern of ‘different shades
of grey’ to that of black or white. The jump in the 0.65+ers suggests that they
have something that the average bear doesn’t. I’ll leave it to the genetic
researchers to define it (whether a mutation of the RUNX1 or something entirely
different) but clearly, a certain percentage of folks seem to have an advantage
when it comes to aerobic training response.
Non genetic factors in training response.
As a coach, I’m in a unique position when I look at data
like this because each bar on the chart isn’t just a number. I’m able to see
these differences in training response in the context of the different athletes’
personalities & the way they live their life. While perhaps not totally explaining
the ‘outliers’ this looks to play a large part in determining where a given
athlete falls within the ‘grey area’ and also, I believe, is a factor in
explaining the ‘low responders’.
While Bouchard’s studies have shown a familial link in
training response, they’ve failed to account for the impact of common
personality traits/stress seeking behavior that may impact training response
above and beyond any physiological similarities. For instance, do siblings
exhibit similarities in sleep patterns that may come into play? Are their
similarities in basal stress hormone levels within members of the same family
which may be a factor in the results?
I’ve certainly seen a tendency toward this, i.e. that
athletes who have the most stressful lives, with poorer sleep habits and poorer
nutritional choices tend to fall towards the bottom of the chart in training
response. This relationship was actually the subject of my thesis, & even
among young athletes without the normal life stressors of your typical ‘grown
up’ AG triathlete, I found stress to have a marked impact on the athlete’s
adaptation to the training program.
On the flip side, for a given athlete, when life stress
changes, training response can markedly improve. I’ve seen this time and time
again in athletes who transition through a stressful period in their work or
home life. Therefore, we shouldn’t see training response as 100% genetic. There
are many factors at play here, a number of which the athlete has significant
control over.
How important is it to be a “high responder”?
When I look at the athletes at the top of this list, a fast
training response clearly infers some advantages. Athlete number 11 for
instance was able to move from low volume training in the midst of a full time
stressful job to 2nd at the Ultraman World Championships within the
space of 4 months! Number 13 is one of the top ITU athletes in the country, a
competition schedule that DEMANDS athletes be quick training responders!
However, a fast training response is not
the end of the story.
Every year, I see less ‘talented’ athletes out-perform more
talented athletes by simply out working them. A part of this may also be
genetic, as in the physical capacity to absorb more work, but a larger part of
it is continuing to ‘take your medicine’ during the toughest times of a
training preparation when you simply don’t feel like it. It is here that I’ve
seen ‘slow responders’ perform above and beyond their genetic station. For
example, Number 3 in the above chart is a multiple Kona qualifier with a PR under 9:20 (despite his ‘slow’ training response!). Number 9 is a former open national Ironman record
holder! These are some of the hardest working, most consistent athletes that I’ve
come across in my years of coaching.
The success of the above athletes (despite their categorization as ‘low
responders’) speaks to one very important point: It’s one thing to be a fast
responder, it’s entirely another to ‘take the medicine’ that you need on a
consistent basis over a period of years, to elicit the response!
Yes, perhaps Ryun had a better physiology than most, but the
dogged determination that he exhibited both in track & towards his young dream
of becoming a major league baseball player (a sport at which he exhibited no
talent) suggest to me that there was also something different about Ryun that
existed a long ways from the mitochondrial signalers in his legs! I would make
a similar argument for the success of Chrissie Wellington, a combination of a
very strong physiology with a perhaps even more unique mindset, a unique passion
to discover their full potential that
will not quit.
I’m yet to personally witness the ‘perfect storm’ of talent,
drive and capacity. I’ve been around some very high performing athletes (World
record holders, Olympians etc) and, even among this group, it always seems that
one or 2 of these traits (in extreme measure) dominate the athlete’s success.
Perhaps there is a little fairness in the genetic lottery after all.
Train smart,
AC
No comments:
Post a Comment