Athleticism- trainable or inborn?

Dan Austin wrote: Sled dog racing.

was thinking EAsports. but this one is fine.

It seems its both.

Sharma didn't start cranking away at 5.14 his first time out, yet Sasha DiGulian supposedly scampered up a 5.13 gym route at her older brother's birthday party...

What I know of brain biology states that, when it comes to the mental/academic side of things, our capacity to perform is definitely fixed - we will only be able to become x amount smarter - our IQ/other variables do determine total available learning capacity. But within these limits is flex and stretch offered through training.

I was listening to n interesting Mountainmeister podcast just this morning with Hazel Findlay where they were waxing about this exact topic. It would be fascinating to discuss this with climbers of old long-since passed, because to them, 5.9+ was absurd and unheard of. Nowadays 5.16 holds the same merit.

I deduce that climbing is personal and within each individual is a fixed capacity to become x amount strong, etc. Some will only ever be able to climb 5.x while their friend might be able to possess capacity to climb a grade harder no matter how dedicated training is. That said - I know that without training - most people aren't sending much harder than 5.11 something.

A wise man once said "You miss %100 of the shots you never take" -- Derek Zoolander.

Mike Lane wrote: This has a ton to do with how successful one is in any particular physical pursuit. You can try real hard but overcoming a body type disadvantage will restrict your amount of success. No matter how much success you have, defying your genetic predisposition will by definition mean you have limitations.

Then Udo Neumann was lying to use with his three different/distinct characters in Performance Rock Climbing???

JNE wrote: Actually, according to bodybuilder.com, the best bodybuilder genes are 1). I imagine 3) is the body type which is best for enduring long cold winters with a dearth of available food, whereas 1) is the body type that develops when there are plentiful resources around (so in tropical regions or where agriculture has been around for a long time). Thus fast twitch muscle fibers are most prevalent in 1), and least prevalent in 3). If I had to guess, I imagine the best endurance athletes are 2) and the best power athletes are 1), but that is just a guess.

The best bodybuilders are ectomorphs? Maybe in featherweight class. These men and women tend to be "hard gainers" - I've trained a few. They certainly do not make up the heavyweight champions.

A pure mesomorph (not that it exists) would provide good bodybuilding genes, possibly the best. They gain muscle easily but usually can control adiposity.

For body weight dependent sports, ectomorph phenotypes are helpful, particularly for endurance activities. I have never heard of fiber type being associated with phenotype. In fact, many power lifters have very, very high percentage of fast twitch fibers yet are more endomorphic than the average population.

Again, no one is a single phenotype. We are all blends of all 3 types. Each person's percentage can be calculated but it requires rigorous metrics that include height, weight, body fat, various bone breadths across the body, and various body segment circumferences. A mathematical formula can then be produced with a break down.

I've always been a crappy athlete. I started climbing in my 40's, and despite going to the climbing gym twice a week and working hard, am still mediocre (I can complete a 5.11+ clean on a good day).

My main climbing partner has always been a gifted athlete, did some pro sports for a while, also started climbing in his 40's, but...after under a year he had caught up to my 5 years of climbing.

I've climbed with younger people and seen many of them pass me, sometimes in just 6 or so months of effort.

My conclusion based on my limited experience:
- Starting early helps a lot.
- Some people are indeed naturally better at sports in general.
- I'm glad that I climb for the fun of it, and not to be great, because I'm never going to be great.

Aerili wrote: Mark, how would you measure body awareness in a way that predicts "athleticism", whatever that is?

Good question, and maybe I am pursuing a chimera.

But don't you find that some climbers are better able to predict how a move will go? And seem to naturally find the best sequence? That's the skill I'm thinking of. And would like to emulate.

Aerili wrote: Athletes are athletes; they just come in different flavors...If there is a bias it's probably yours.

Right, it's only my bias, which is why the Google bigram probability for "endurance athletes" is almost 10 times higher than "power athletes" or "ptrength athletes":

books.google.com/ngrams/gra…

Aerili wrote: The best bodybuilders are ectomorphs? Maybe in featherweight class.

Just quoting the website, though I would argue a quick peek at any group of high end power athletes would reveal a high amount of ectomorphs, including people with large musculatures such as Usain Bolt . It does not surprise me that it would be hard to make these people grow more muscles, since power has IMO a basis in the general energy level of the system, and so without increasing energy availability no growth can happen, and that when it does happen the muscle only needs to grow a little bit to overcome the environmental stress. Out of curiosity, have you ever trained a group of ectomorphs to build the largest muscles possible, irrespective of any kind of muscular performance, while simultaneously increasing their metabolism?

Aerili wrote:A pure mesomorph (not that it exists) would provide good bodybuilding genes, possibly the best. They gain muscle easily but usually can control adiposity.

This would be my intuition. But bodybuilder.com...

Aerili wrote:For body weight dependent sports, ectomorph phenotypes are helpful, particularly for endurance activities.

I would bet this holds true all the way up to the true endurance sports. For example: ironman winners and 100m ultrammarathon winners

Aerili wrote:I have never heard of fiber type being associated with phenotype.

I think this because it explains why that skinny design can persist, especially from 5000+ years ago, and why this is the design which dominates in tropical areas, where there would be a history of plentiful resources year-round.

Aerili wrote:In fact, many power lifters have very, very high percentage of fast twitch fibers yet are more endomorphic than the average population. Again, no one is a single phenotype. We are all blends of all 3 types. Each person's percentage can be calculated but it requires rigorous metrics that include height, weight, body fat, various bone breadths across the body, and various body segment circumferences. A mathematical formula can then be produced with a break down.

For one, we are talking population averages, so to find power lifters with a thicker body type and loads of fast twitch would be unsurprising. The surprising thing would be to find this body type dominating power lifting (unless it is simply because these people are larger and by that alone can have more total volume of fast-twitch fiber, in which case one would expect the heavier classes to be increasingly dominated by non-ectomorphs), or any other power sport. Also, for your method of measuring ratios, I assume they developed this on cadavers? If not, how so? Also, what is the standard deviation for the prediction it spits out?

As a USAPL powerlifting coach and competitor, I would love to chime in on this.

First, climbing is my number one passion, and I have spent ample time training, following different protocols. My most success came from the Rock Climber's training manual, where I sent a V9, and my highest sport grade is 12d. BTW, I have been climbing for 15 yrs, and very consistently for the last 7.

With lifting, I started back lifting again after a 13 yr hiatus in 2011, and in 2014 was rated in the top 20 in the nation in my weight category for bench press for all federations , including non drug tested feds.

My point being, that with little effort, I was one of the best in the country in bench, but with tons of effort, I am a decent climber, but no where near elite level.

I say genetics are the cause.

Aerili wrote: Interestingly, research has shown that there is no difference between pro's and amateurs when it comes to measuring the components of skill - things like reaction time and hand/eye coordination for instance (among several things). Also, interestingly, world class athletes come from all combinations of genetically determined baseline fitness and response to training: i.e. high baseline/low response, high baseline/high response, low baseline/high response, etc.

I doubt you'll find many world class athletes who are low baseline/low response though.

Mark E Dixon wrote: It's funny- 15 years ago you'd probably have to be athletic (in my sense) or just adapted genetically to climbing to reach 5.13. Now it's apparently just a beginner/intermediate accomplishment.

Really 5.13 is a beginner accomplishment? How many beginners do you know that climb 5.13?

I guess the definition of what a 5.13 climb is changed. I got on 5.13 climbs put in the 80's 90's 00's and it is a big difference in difficulty and style of climbing. Also, I remember reading in one of the climbing magazines that some of new "hardest" climbs are rated softer because they want climbers/sponsors want the press.

Anyway, Mark you should try the new white 12+ at BRC just as you enter in the gym. It is a good route not to mention that there is no move harder than 11d.

JulianG wrote:I got on 5.13 climbs put in the 80's 90's 00's and it is a big difference in difficulty and style of climbing.

Which ones (preferably in the front range)? Big differences in style? Yes. In difficulty? Probably only modest. Some climbs have gotten harder/easier over time.

JulianG wrote:the new white 12+ at BRC just as you enter in the gym. It is a good route not to mention that there is no move harder than 11d.

Gym routes aren't meant to be cruxy, even on a short wall.

Dana Bartlett wrote:Ken Dryden, Hall of Fame hockey goalie for Montreal Canadians, wrote that he and his non-athletic wife each had an informal test of hand-eye coordination and she was slightly quicker. Anecdotal, I know.

I believe there was a similar study where they took elite baseball hitters and had softball thrown at them. Everybody flunked badly. The conclusion was that the elite hitters didn't have faster reaction time; they were just very good at predicting when and where the ball will go from the throwing motion.

reboot wrote: I believe there was a similar study where they took elite baseball hitters and had softball thrown at them. Everybody flunked badly. The conclusion was that the elite hitters didn't have faster reaction time; they were just very good at predicting when and where the ball will go from the throwing motion.

It is more that their reaction time is based on something entirely different than reacting to the softball.

Not to mention that climbers have average grip strength.

The thread seems to be muddling "can anybody be athletic" with "can anybody be elite".

Personally, I believe anybody can be athletic with training. The components of athleticism would have all been necessary for basic survival before the advent of farming, and has it really been so long since then that many people could be genetically incapable of being athletic?

I suspect a lot of the components of the "athlete who is good at anything" are subtle, invisible things- they have decades of cardio. They have developed excellent dexterity. They have trained hand-eye coordination. They have a strong core. They have high recruitment from use (which is invisible). And they develop & keep these things, because they are always doing some sport.

Nivel Egres wrote: Pretty much every kid in the crowd I boulder with has sent v7 and higher within the first two years. So yes, it's definitely closer to beginners then not. I think these days "competent climber" starts at v10/5.13+.

So what do intermediary climbers climb? 5.14

"I can climb some 5.14d routes, but not others," says DiGiulian, and that doesn't make any sense. If she can climb one 5.14d, she should be able to climb them all.
I got this from here
climbing.com/news/climbing-…

Your profile says that you boulder v7. If a beginner climbs v10. How would you classily your self?

JulianG wrote: So what do intermediary climbers climb? 5.14

Yeah, these "grade standards" makes me laugh sometimes. I think I was reading the bits about how the euro climbs harder than the USA, and how over there 5.12 is like the literal minimum of competency, and just about anybody can climb 5.13. And I'm thinking, so that makes 5.15 a mildly challenging weekend project eh?

Of course, I've never climbed 5.13- maybe the difference between 5.13a and 5.13d is like the difference between 5.4 and 5.12.

This is how I see it. I do not climb anywhere near this hard by the way, I am a chuffer.

The following reflect sport grades.

Any decent weekend warrior, should, with proper training, send mid .13.

A really good weekend warrior should be able to get 14-

An aspiring elite should be at 14+

That is just the reality of today's standards, where a 12 is nothing more than a nice warmup.

Patrick Shyvers wrote: Yeah, these "grade standards" makes me laugh sometimes. I think I was reading the bits about how the euro climbs harder than the USA, and how over there 5.12 is like the literal minimum of competency, and just about anybody can climb 5.13. And I'm thinking, so that makes 5.15 a mildly challenging weekend project eh? Of course, I've never climbed 5.13- maybe the difference between 5.13a and 5.13d is like the difference between 5.4 and 5.12.

That is not true. I climbed fro years with a Italian who grew up in the Dolomites, he was barely climbing his ass up 5.10. There are a lot of strong climbers but not everyone climbs that hard.

People in Europe warm up in 5.12 but they are the few that climb 5.14. And they are doing the same thing people do in Rifle. And they do it by climbing the same climb over and over until it becomes easy.

You have to take in account the average of all the climbers on just the top sport climbers. Sure there are climbers that after one year climb 5.13. And good for them but they climb at an elite level not beginner.