4 ms·

I raced as a Category 1 USCF racer and worked on increasing a lot of thresholds as I climbed up the ranks. I would get my VO2 max tested every year and saw some

I raced as a Category 1 USCF racer and worked on increasing a lot of thresholds as I climbed up the ranks. I would get my VO2 max tested every year and saw some improvements based on training, but I hit a limit. Other teammates also hit limits, but their initial test values were just higher than mine and I wasn't going to train myself into those higher levels. Improving my lactate threshold, losing as much weight not related to cycling muscle mass and periodization kept me competitive. Training smart, sticking to a game plan, avoiding fast paced group rides, good sleep and nutrition was also vital. The reality is that you can build upon your genetic platform, but you are going to get to level where you simply can't compete against someone who is doing everything you are doing, but just have better genetics. Sadly, this is why a lot of elite athletes turn to doping, even in the amateur ranks. They are training just as hard as you in addition to the EPO, steroids, HGH and who knows what else.

nradov 5y ago
It's pretty obvious when you look at amateur endurance races that a lot of those age group guys are heavily geared. There's no testing out of competition at all, and hardly any in competition either.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  How is it obvious when you look at them? I mean, it is obvious that people cheat, because people cheat everywhere, but what does looking at them have to do with anything?
  - bojo 5y ago
    In bodybuilding heavily rounded shoulders is usually a sure sign of steroid use, as an example.
    - redis_mlc 5y ago
      Well ... - what you're referring to is called 3D shoulders at the Mr. Olympia level - most bodybuilders are on roids, but they're also doing an extreme number of sets, often 10 sets, so that's the main reason for the 3D effect. I was huge (couldn't walk through doors normally) but natural, not quite 3D, though natty pros used to stare at me, especially when I worked in on their sets. Mostly I slept a lot and ate about 3,500 calories a day. I did a lot of Arnold's bicep concentration exercises (nobody else did that at Gold's) and maxed out all the upper body machines. I was planning to do the Thomas Inch lift (only roids have done that), but never got around to it. I recommend if you're an engineer, stay small since nobody needs otherwise in the office. You can learn a lot from watching Youtube videos by the Mr. Olympias - they're PhD level on lifting and nutrition, but stay small.
  - diskzero 5y ago
    We can "look at" a variety of factors and I am pretty sure that is what the poster meant. Not so much their physical appearance, but the overall visibility of their results. Cycling, for example, is an endurance sport, and gains usually take several years to manifest. Yes, you have some gifted juniors who get to Cat. 1 very quickly. In the masters levels, if a competitor has performed very poorly for several seasons and then is on fire all of a sudden, we tend to be suspicious. There were several masters level racers who did get tested at state and national level events and they got caught. All of this just for an amateur state champions jersey! We have also had older cyclists die as a result of doping. I have no compulsion to pack my blood with cells to boost my hematocrit percentage to 60% and have a heart attack, but it has happened several times to other cyclists.
6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> The reality is that you can build upon your genetic platform, but you are going to get to level where you simply can't compete against someone who is doing everything you are doing, but just have better genetics. This is the hardest thing for us to admit, culturally, even though there are some glaringly obvious examples, like height. That said, I think most people can generally train themselves to compete at high levels, just not not elite levels. For example, you see a good variety of people competing on decent college teams in all sorts of sports. It's just at the elite college level and above that you see people's shapes become more uniform.
- typon 5y ago
  It's also overstated, culturally, especially in online circles. Most people will never be elite in anything in their lives, so these genetic limits don't impact most people. They're sometimes used as a crutch to justify not working harder.
  - theknocker 5y ago
    Yeah and also, culturally, sometimes there are hardasses who go around using that as an excuse to ignore individual differences when they're making demands of people or postulating how much credit they should receive for accomplishments that already benefit them.
- elric 5y ago
  > This is the hardest thing for us to admit, culturally Is it? It seems pretty obvious. And unless you're aiming to be an elite in whatever field, it's pretty much irrelevant. Barring serious defects, most people can do reasonably well in most disciplines (physical & mental) if they apply themselves. Of course, if everyone were to apply themselves equally, the genetic lottery would still win out, but that's not something that seems to happen?
  - throwaway675309 5y ago
    Sure but you could argue that the ability to "apply oneself" is fundamentally just another neurological character trait also rooted in one's physiological characteristics which stem from your environment (family, socioeconomic background, etc) and your genetics... neither of which you had any control over.
albertgoeswoof 5y ago
Does chess really require high max V02?

nradov 5y ago

It's pretty obvious when you look at amateur endurance races that a lot of those age group guys are heavily geared. There's no testing out of competition at all, and hardly any in competition either.

gameswithgo 5y ago
How is it obvious when you look at them? I mean, it is obvious that people cheat, because people cheat everywhere, but what does looking at them have to do with anything?
- bojo 5y ago
  In bodybuilding heavily rounded shoulders is usually a sure sign of steroid use, as an example.
  - redis_mlc 5y ago
    Well ... - what you're referring to is called 3D shoulders at the Mr. Olympia level - most bodybuilders are on roids, but they're also doing an extreme number of sets, often 10 sets, so that's the main reason for the 3D effect. I was huge (couldn't walk through doors normally) but natural, not quite 3D, though natty pros used to stare at me, especially when I worked in on their sets. Mostly I slept a lot and ate about 3,500 calories a day. I did a lot of Arnold's bicep concentration exercises (nobody else did that at Gold's) and maxed out all the upper body machines. I was planning to do the Thomas Inch lift (only roids have done that), but never got around to it. I recommend if you're an engineer, stay small since nobody needs otherwise in the office. You can learn a lot from watching Youtube videos by the Mr. Olympias - they're PhD level on lifting and nutrition, but stay small.
- diskzero 5y ago
  We can "look at" a variety of factors and I am pretty sure that is what the poster meant. Not so much their physical appearance, but the overall visibility of their results. Cycling, for example, is an endurance sport, and gains usually take several years to manifest. Yes, you have some gifted juniors who get to Cat. 1 very quickly. In the masters levels, if a competitor has performed very poorly for several seasons and then is on fire all of a sudden, we tend to be suspicious. There were several masters level racers who did get tested at state and national level events and they got caught. All of this just for an amateur state champions jersey! We have also had older cyclists die as a result of doping. I have no compulsion to pack my blood with cells to boost my hematocrit percentage to 60% and have a heart attack, but it has happened several times to other cyclists.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago

> The reality is that you can build upon your genetic platform, but you are going to get to level where you simply can't compete against someone who is doing everything you are doing, but just have better genetics. This is the hardest thing for us to admit, culturally, even though there are some glaringly obvious examples, like height. That said, I think most people can generally train themselves to compete at high levels, just not not elite levels. For example, you see a good variety of people competing on decent college teams in all sorts of sports. It's just at the elite college level and above that you see people's shapes become more uniform.

typon 5y ago
It's also overstated, culturally, especially in online circles. Most people will never be elite in anything in their lives, so these genetic limits don't impact most people. They're sometimes used as a crutch to justify not working harder.
- theknocker 5y ago
  Yeah and also, culturally, sometimes there are hardasses who go around using that as an excuse to ignore individual differences when they're making demands of people or postulating how much credit they should receive for accomplishments that already benefit them.
elric 5y ago
> This is the hardest thing for us to admit, culturally Is it? It seems pretty obvious. And unless you're aiming to be an elite in whatever field, it's pretty much irrelevant. Barring serious defects, most people can do reasonably well in most disciplines (physical & mental) if they apply themselves. Of course, if everyone were to apply themselves equally, the genetic lottery would still win out, but that's not something that seems to happen?
- throwaway675309 5y ago
  Sure but you could argue that the ability to "apply oneself" is fundamentally just another neurological character trait also rooted in one's physiological characteristics which stem from your environment (family, socioeconomic background, etc) and your genetics... neither of which you had any control over.

albertgoeswoof 5y ago

Does chess really require high max V02?