Thoughts on training and Individual Limits

I think two parallel things are being argued here. The potential of an “average” climber and the genetic potential of a new climber. We wouldn’t measure the potential height of a human midway through their life since nutrition already affected the outcome. The OP statement was about genetic potential which Ryan Moser pointed out would be measured with the fewest variables.

slimwrote:

how do you know these people are average?  in a similar notion, a lot of folks from boulder point out that their "average" friends climb 5.14. boulder isn't a realistic slice of "average" america. spend some time hanging out in mid-western america and report back about "average". 

another thing to keep in mind is that the "average" person probably has an "average" mental game.  that could be the genetic limit for a LOT of people. i have met a shit-ton of people who have said something along the lines of "i could climb 5.13 if i tried." no they can't. they don't have the discipline, motivation, etc to do it.

Mental game is part of genetics. It's the whole package. Your friends who just worked hard for a couple years while having multiple other obligations are genetically gifted. Whether you or they want to admit it, it's the truth. I've been to Ceuse and it attracts the best of the best. There are so many crushers there, but multiple times as many climbing 5.12 and below. The person I visited there is a v12 boulderer and 13+ climber. She was climbing 12d in her first year. I asked her how, and she plainly said "I'm just genetically gifted". Ben Moon was asked what the most important thing involved in hard climbing was, he replied "Genetics".

The more time you spend climbing and the more you see certain people excel with little effort, while others struggle even though they are so dedicated, it becomes blatantly obvious. 

It's like saying to an average 5'9" male. Just work hard and you can make the NBA little buddy! Sure a couple have, but they were so genetically gifted in other ways that it made up for their height deficiency. 99.9% of nba players need to have the proper genetics just to be considered. 

Climbing is no different. It's just not as noticeable as being tall and able to jump out of the gym.

So what is my genetic max grade?  What’s yours?  

Calebwrote:

So what is my genetic max grade?  What’s yours?  

It's different for every individual. No one can tell you that. You just have to do your best and see how far you can push your personal limits. 

I do believe just about anyone without some sort of below average genetics can climb 5.12, and possibly sniff 5.13 if they start young enough and are dedicated.

saign charlesteinwrote:

It's different for every individual. No one can tell you that. You just have to do your best and see how far you can push your personal limits. 

I do believe just about anyone without some sort of below average genetics can climb 5.12, and possibly sniff 5.13 if they start young enough and are dedicated.

I don’t know what my genetic limits are.  I don’t even know what is genetically determined.  Do I have small muscles from junk chromosomes or from childhood malnutrition?  Do I have a self defeating attitude from inherited brain chemistry or from my friends telling me I suck?  The Nature vs Nurture argument is pretty important here.  

I asked if other people knew their genetic limits.  I would be surprised if many people would jump to answer with a specific metric.  And if they did,  I would be curious how they came to a credible determination that didn’t draw in factors of life circumstance.  

A rough statement like “I’ll probably never climb 14a considering my current ability and the amount I can dedicate myself to improvement” makes sense.  “I’ll never climb 14a because my whole family has big feet” seems less credible.

In the same vein that it’s hard to determine my own genetic limits, the genetically average climber is hard to identify as well.  With effort one could compile a database of physical traits (weight, height, specific muscle sizes, hormone levels, VO2 max etc.), average them, and compare them to grades climbed but it’s still very difficult to reverse extrapolate that to an individual who will be closer and farther from specific metrics.  And the “grades climbed” side would still not be controlled for external factors like diet, rest, stress, weather, etc.  It’s a dissertation level research project at least.

John Tuttlewrote:

The kid with the worst technique I ever saw walk into the gym and very briefly on my climbing team at Pacific Edge in Santa Cruz was Chris Sharma. Just appalling foot technique and I can still see the same jerky style when he is struggling. But he could campus the foot holds on overhanging 5.11 that very first day...

Spot on, and yeah it's so eye opening to see those kids. I distinctly remember one girl one-arm hanging on her fingertips on her very first day climbing. (Her mother insisted climbing was not going to be her thing; she was a gymnast.) But climbing really is a combination of skills and capabilities many of which are trainable (head game, tactics/planning, certain kinds of flexibility and strength, etc.), and the ceiling for most people is probably much higher than they think.

Frank Steinwrote:

Oh, and about Ceuse not being crowded (Dr. Tuttle). Sector Biographie on a rainy weekday looking like a Saturday afternoon at the Gunks. 

That's 10 people at a crag that is world famous for 5.14.

There are an estimated 25-30 million climbers worldwide. To be fair I have no idea how accurate that is.

Dan Schmidtwrote:

Spot on, and yeah it's so eye opening to see those kids. I distinctly remember one girl one-arm hanging on her fingertips on her very first day climbing. (Her mother insisted climbing was not going to be her thing; she was a gymnast.) But climbing really is a combination of skills and capabilities many of which are trainable (head game, tactics/planning, certain kinds of flexibility and strength, etc.), and the ceiling for most people is probably much higher than they think.

Not going to argue that people don't know their limitations at all without focused training and dedication to explore them.

The OP has no intent to shut down people's personal efforts to improve, it in fact is to encourage them. 

The argument I truly want people to grasp is that the beauty of climbing is that the numbers are meaningless past 5.0 and if your "5.15" (genetic limit of world class athletes) is only 5.10 (your genetic limit) then it still has the identical worth. Search and train for your personal best, that is the only summit worth achieving and don't think any less of it than Ondra's latest project not the least because another's climbing has nothing to do with your own. They accomplishments are the same by objective measure other than the size of the holds (risk, physical limits explored, techniques etc).

The same can be said for any sport but most exist in a competitive framework that make this sort of subjective perspective on achievement very difficult.

John Tuttlewrote:

Not going to argue that people don't know their limitations at all without focused training and dedication to explore them.

The OP has no intent to shut down people's personal efforts to improve, it in fact is to encourage them. 

The argument I truly want people to grasp is that the beauty of climbing is that the numbers are meaningless past 5.0 and if your "5.15" (genetic limit of world class athletes) is only 5.10 (your genetic limit) then it still has the identical worth. Search and train for your personal best, that is the only summit worth achieving and don't think any less of it than Ondra's latest project not the least because another's climbing has nothing to do with your own. They accomplishments are the same by objective measure other than the size of the holds (risk, physical limits explored, techniques etc).

The same can be said for any sport but most exist in a competitive framework that make this sort of subjective perspective on achievement very difficult.

If you try as hard as a pro athlete I would agree.  I don’t think the normy climber is doing that.  I don’t think the obsessive Boulder grade chaser is doing that.  The effort that a pro climber brings to bear is staggering.  It’s not just genetics.

Calebwrote:

If you try as hard as a pro athlete I would agree.  I don’t think the normy climber is doing that.  I don’t think the obsessive Boulder grade chaser is doing that.  The effort that a pro climber brings to bear is staggering.  It’s not just genetics.

There is a genetic basis to behavior and the monomaniacal drive of any world class athlete is based on a very complicated genetic makeup (albeit one we are just beginning to explore) as well as their environment, to a lesser degree (assuming they have the opportunity and resources to get into climbing in the first place).

The effort a pro climber brings is because they are genetically (both mentally and physically) suited to both. Climbing "clicks" in both the body and mind.

John Tuttlewrote:

There is a genetic basis to behavior and the monomaniacal drive of any world class athlete is based on a very complicated genetic makeup (albeit one we are just beginning to explore) as well as their environment, to a lesser degree (assuming they have the opportunity and resources to get into climbing in the first place).

The effort a pro climber brings is because they are genetically (both mentally and physically) suited to both. Climbing "clicks" in both the body and mind.

Are you saying personal agency does not exist and behavior is just circumstance and chromosomes?

Calebwrote:

Are you saying personal agency does not exist and behavior is just circumstance and chromosomes?

I won’t speak for John Tuttle, but the understanding and application of personal agency is likely determined by genetics and epigenetics.

Genetics sets the lower and upper level for potential, and epigenetics accounts for where along the genetic spectrum an individual will fall. 

Another NBA analogy: Look at Kobe Bryant, many would argue he's one of the greatest of all time. What made him great was the whole package. There are hundreds of NBA athletes that were more physically gifted than him, but he had the mental game, the drive, the competitive nature, the work ethic that separated him from his peers. 

There are so many factors that come into being genetically gifted for your specific activity, and they all have to align to be the best of the best.

 Do you think Adam Ondra would be good at basketball? He's one of the goofiest, and uncoordinated looking humans I've ever seen...until he starts climbing. Then it looks like he was bred to be the best of the best. With the mix of his length, wiry frame, finger strength, flexibility, and obsession, he really has the whole package. That's why he's the best of the best.

Hi Caleb,

You put your finger on what is perhaps he most interesting part of this discussion. I was wondering if this would come up. 

We all accept that a trait like height is highly heritable.  Researchers estimate that height is about 70-90% heritable, so our height is determined largely by our genes, but can be influenced by epigentics, nutrition, experiences, and so on.

It's much harder for people to accept that other traits, such as personality, focus, patience, determination, work ethic, and so forth are also hertitable.  

We like to believe that these things are under our control, but they are highly heritable as well.  For example, the "Big 5" personality traits (Openess, Concientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) have an estimated heritablity of 40-50%.  So these traits have a strong genetic component.  

As our knowledge of genetics grows we will face some important questions.

Here, we are simply pointing out that the desire to train, and the focus, patience, and determination required to do so have a genetic component.  But how will the world change if we discover that personal agency or free will are an illusion?  

There are reputable neuroscientists who question the idea of personal agency and free will, something which has huge consequences for society, for example, for our sense of self, or for the justice system.

Anyway, it’s a hugely interesting subject that goes far beyond climbing.

Bruno Schullwrote:

It's much harder for people to accept that other traits, such as personality, focus, patience, determination, work ethic, and so forth are also hertitable.  

We like to believe that these things are under our control, but they are highly heritable as well.  For example, the "Big 5" personality traits (Openess, Concientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) have an estimated heritablity of 40-50%.  So these traits have a strong genetic component.  

The error here is the belief that these traits can be totally controlled. It seems more likely that the awareness of these traits, and patterns developed by acknowledging inherited dispositions, can steer these traits in one’s preferred direction.  Thinking about thinking is the gateway to an internal locus of control. 

I think some of you are confusing nature with nuture.  While behavior can be genetically determined, it is overlaid with a critical component of nuture, or how the organism is raised.  Regardless of the genetic components, these factors overlay base genetic predisposition and become the primary driver for behavior.

This same nuture vs nature argument can be shown easily in real life.  If you take identical twins, one hangs out with some 5.8 adventure climbers, and the other with professional climbers, we all know what will occur.  If you take someone with a pre-disposition for excess weight and get them into endurance cycling, they will naturally offset their pre-disposition better than if they played football.

What I really want to know is why is it that almost always it's middle aged men and women who are past their prime that are talking about genetics.  So many people are unwilling to accept that their   lazy habits, and the twenty pounds of abdominal fat they carry around have a much bigger effect on their performance than their genetics.  If genetics played such a big role in climbing, then we would see athletes only performing their best in their athletic prime.  We would see a direct correlation between finger strength and climbing ability.  Finally athletes would NOT be achieving their absolute hardest climb ever while in their 50's and 60's.  

Genetics are the excuse of the weak minded.  

Kevin Strickerwrote:

Genetics are the excuse of the weak minded.  

Thats not the argument. The argument is that there is no world where you personally could throw a 100mph fastball, deadlift 1000lbs, or climb 5.15d. Even if you trained from birth. 

This seems very challenging for you to grasp so you are lashing out and calling everyone lazy. 

grug gwrote:

Thats not the argument. The argument is that there is no world where you personally could throw a 100mph fastball, deadlift 1000lbs, or climb 5.15d. Even if you trained from birth. 

This seems very challenging for you to grasp so you are lashing out and calling everyone lazy. 

Honestly everyone is right in this discussion. The only debate is where is the line drawn and there are too many factors to give an anywhere close to accurate answer. I do agree with Mr. Sticker that bringing mental game into the it's pure genetics argument is silly, dismissive and ignorant. Sure it's a part, but one that can be overcome versus height for example.

As my college professors were want to say, "it's multifactorial and poorly understood."

Kevin Strickerwrote:

What I really want to know is why is it that almost always it's middle aged men and women who are past their prime that are talking about genetics.  So many people are unwilling to accept that their   lazy habits, and the twenty pounds of abdominal fat they carry around have a much bigger effect on their performance than their genetics.  If genetics played such a big role in climbing, then we would see athletes only performing their best in their athletic prime.  We would see a direct correlation between finger strength and climbing ability.  Finally athletes would NOT be achieving their absolute hardest climb ever while in their 50's and 60's.  

Genetics are the excuse of the weak minded.  

Hate to tell you, there is a direct correlation with grades and finger strength.  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12479556/.  

https://latticetraining.com/blog/lattice_data_finger_strength_grades?srsltid=AfmBOoozajAlGcqONsdbvKuV5QPLRWg74A2o5u7rQARkFMQj_6kOkUtd

And the only people who are achieving their absolute hardest climbs in their 50's and 60's are genetically gifted.

  “If genetics played such a big role in climbing, then we would see athletes only performing their best in their athletic prime.  We would see a direct correlation between finger strength and climbing ability.  Finally athletes would NOT be achieving their absolute hardest climb ever while in their 50's and 60's.”

There are literally no climbers anywhere near the current limits of the sport doing their “absolute hardest climb” in their 50s, let alone their 60s. Numerous studies point to a very close correlation between finger strength and climbing ability, especially bouldering and sport climbing.

That said, you miss 100% of the shots you never take and claiming that “genetics” is holding you back from the next level is not taking that shot. Hard materialistic determinism is a dead end in all aspects of human life and achievement and its existence and potential implications are best left to the philosophy department to consider.

I am persuaded that there are relatively straightforward and time-efficient ways for virtually any climber to make real improvements in their abilities without sacrificing a normal life and that “genetic” limits are nothing compared with the self-imposed limits that hold back most of us.