Gym & Misc General Health and Fitness Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Drumroe said:
I'd agree with them. Genetics do play a big part. You can't just be a hard worker and become an expert at something. Similar to how 10,000 hours has been debunked. However hard work can be difference between average and good, good and great etc
Click to expand...
So you think genetics are the main determining factor?
 
Drumroe said:
I'd think so yeah.

As Dan Baker would say, you can't make jam out of pig s**t.
Click to expand...
Most studies suggest there is Genetic markers for vo2 max, and muscle fiber distribution, but can't find any suggesting that skill is related to genetics. I don't think genetics are the major determining factor in skill.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Genetics definitely do play a role in skills - otherwise every kid that picks ups guitar, cricket bat, skateboard, football etc for the first time would be on the same level of skill but they never seem to be
 
I think every is mistaking my point
Genetics play A Part, but they are not the main determining factor
 
BrockBlitz said:
Genetics determine your potential, the hard work is realising it.
Click to expand...
I think more people have potential than realise it though. The argument seems to be that most people couldn't become afl players no matter how hard they worked and how much they trained (from childhood)
 
DemonTim said:
I think every is mistaking my point
Genetics play A Part, but they are not the main determining factor
Click to expand...

For most sports I'd disagree - were you and I ever a chance to become an Olympic sprinter?
Even an activity like darts, archery or snooker some people would just never be capable of mastering
 
Aeglos said:
For most sports I'd disagree - were you and I ever a chance to become an Olympic sprinter?
Even an activity like darts, archery or snooker some people would just never be capable of mastering
Click to expand...
Yeah that's why I mentioned vo2 max and power
I'd say for most sports most could master them if they devoted sufficient time. Countless stories of it happening
 
DemonTim said:
I think more people have potential than realise it though. The argument seems to be that most people couldn't become afl players no matter how hard they worked and how much they trained (from childhood)
Click to expand...

i would agree with that statement.

The could probably get to state level. But not AFL
 
But again it's a flawed argument, if you assume everyone tries at the same level, every afl team would look drastically different. There are plenty of blokes running around in amateurs who never got fit and like beers and darts too much that could be AFL players. Not everyone has the drive, take Nathan Ablett for example to get the most out of their genetics.

A lot more people have the genetic capabilities to be an AFL player than are in the AFL. It's still a small percentage in the scheme of things though.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

To all SA posters, the gym shop at gepps x homemaker centre over near subway side have Olympic colored plates at 2.80 a kilo..Torros brand
I grabbed 4 of the 5kg which were orange....for some reason black were not on sale
They are the thinner, bigger diameter (more on the bar etc)
Went in there to get some decent spring clips and got the bigger handled ones that fit into the palm better for $2 each they were $15 a pair apparently...reckon i got the last six
 
it plays A part but you still gotta do the work, it just means you can do more work in a specific area (speed, endurance etc) which can set you apart because when there's 2 players to choose from and one is faster or has greater endurance, then they will get picked
 
IMO it is very hard to train/learn elite hand/foot eye coordination. i have had a bit to do with junior cricket and soccer, from my experience the kids that make it were very very good very early, you could tell at a young (7-10 years old) age that they had something.

things like fitness, flexibility, strength can be improved a fair degree but the intangibles ie. vision/game sense/hand eye coordination can only be improved marginally at best IMO.

when you research the childhood of elite athletes in most cases you will find that they had that something special at a very young age before any regimented training regime was put in place. that genetic advantage is not enough though, you must have that inner desire to succeed as well.

the best junior cricketer (batsman) i ever saw only played a handful of 1st grade club games while a couple of his contemporaries played shield cricket because he didn't have that desire to improve, once you move from juniors only playing against your own age group or a year or two above to competing against everyone that is where desire comes into its own.
 
DemonTim said:
I think every is mistaking my point
Genetics play A Part, but they are not the main determining factor
Click to expand...

What's the main determining factor then?

I think you're over selling the training aspect and under selling the genetics aspect.

Personally I'd say genetics are the overriding factor, or else everyone would be good at everything. But hard work, training etc perfect the skills from the good genetics you have been given.

I'd say genetics are what separate the good from the rest, hard work and training is what separates the best from the good.

I was shown a 3 min clip at footy training the other week on Steph Curry, at his training camp during college he would practice shooting hours before and after training. For mine a perfect example of genetics and hard work coming together to make a great athlete.
 
saj_21 said:
What's the main determining factor then?

I think you're over selling the training aspect and under selling the genetics aspect.

Personally I'd say genetics are the overriding factor, or else everyone would be good at everything. But hard work, training etc perfect the skills from the good genetics you have been given.

I'd say genetics are what separate the good from the rest, hard work and training is what separates the best from the good.

I was shown a 3 min clip at footy training the other week on Steph Curry, at his training camp during college he would practice shooting hours before and after training. For mine a perfect example of genetics and hard work coming together to make a great athlete.
Click to expand...
I'd say the amount of work put in is the determining factor. How many people do you know who work on their sporting ability every night/day and are still rubbish at it? Genetics determine the peak level, and how much work is required, but people like to claim they could never make it because "genetics", how would they know? Did they put in the hours that a Michael Jordan did as a child to improve?
Also, what exactly do the genes control? Is there a gene for generic sporting ability? or is it sport specific? Aeglos mentioned darts as being something that is most likely genetic, would these guys be good at say, basketball if they played?

Glenn Maxwell is a good example, people say he is a natural cricketer, yet the bloke used to go to the indoor cricket centre at 4am (my mate would go in early to open up for him) to train before school to practice for 3 hours, every day.

If genetics determined more than 50% of ability, we would be seeing the major sporting clubs trying to find out exactly what gene they need to look out for
 
DemonTim said:
I'd say the amount of work put in is the determining factor. How many people do you know who work on their sporting ability every night/day and are still rubbish at it? Genetics determine the peak level, and how much work is required, but people like to claim they could never make it because "genetics", how would they know? Did they put in the hours that a Michael Jordan did as a child to improve?
Also, what exactly do the genes control? Is there a gene for generic sporting ability? or is it sport specific? Aeglos mentioned darts as being something that is most likely genetic, would these guys be good at say, basketball if they played?

Glenn Maxwell is a good example, people say he is a natural cricketer, yet the bloke used to go to the indoor cricket centre at 4am (my mate would go in early to open up for him) to train before school to practice for 3 hours, every day.

If genetics determined more than 50% of ability, we would be seeing the major sporting clubs trying to find out exactly what gene they need to look out for
Click to expand...

You do have a point, and to be honest without really looking into it further or really having a science background I'd say it would be hard to determine which factor, genetics or hard work directs a person from being your average joe to a world class athlete. But i think you will find all great athletes have a combination of both, most would display natural abilities from a young age and they wouldn't truly know what hard work is but as their parents and or coaches around them develop their natural abilities their work ethic develops.

But you can use examples like the above about Maxwell and their plenty of stories like him around, but there is also the flip slide look at someone like Kyrigios all the talent in the world he doesn't the work ethic of a Lleytton Hewitt, but still has made it into the top 20 in the world.

I think you are over simplifying everyone should just train harder to make it as an athlete, some people will train as hard as anyone but will not have the genetic (natural) ability to make it, like wise some people who have natural ability just don't train hard enough or want it enough.

If there was a so called sporting gene and clubs tested for it, there is still no guarantee that those kids would make it to the AFL, they just may not have the drive to become an AFL footballer, there has been a few young blokes in the last 3-4 years have walked away from the game because it's just not for them. In my teens i was a a part of the u16 Northern Knights i trained bloody hard but didn't make the final squad, trained even harder the following year and didn't make the 18's squad, there are plenty of young blokes who trained even harder and still don't make it, at the end of the day they and I just didn't have enough natural ability. But also i've seen blokes who are naturally gifted, who didn't work as hard as others (but still worked hard) and made it to higher levels, but i will say that natural ability will only get you so far to be a very good AFL player you have to work bloody hard.
 
BrockBlitz said:
There is a big difference between rubbish and elite.

I also don't think you have a good grasp of genetics.
Click to expand...
The rubbish was a direct quote from a poster on the main board, he said he trained "properly" for 12 years and was rubbish at football because of his genetics.

Maybe instead of condescending you could discuss them.

saj_21 said:
You do have a point, and to be honest without really looking into it further or really having a science background I'd say it would be hard to determine which factor, genetics or hard work directs a person from being your average joe to a world class athlete. But i think you will find all great athletes have a combination of both, most would display natural abilities from a young age and they wouldn't truly know what hard work is but as their parents and or coaches around them develop their natural abilities their work ethic develops.

But you can use examples like the above about Maxwell and their plenty of stories like him around, but there is also the flip slide look at someone like Kyrigios all the talent in the world he doesn't the work ethic of a Lleytton Hewitt, but still has made it into the top 20 in the world.

I think you are over simplifying everyone should just train harder to make it as an athlete, some people will train as hard as anyone but will not have the genetic (natural) ability to make it, like wise some people who have natural ability just don't train hard enough or want it enough.

If there was a so called sporting gene and clubs tested for it, there is still no guarantee that those kids would make it to the AFL, they just may not have the drive to become an AFL footballer, there has been a few young blokes in the last 3-4 years have walked away from the game because it's just not for them. In my teens i was a a part of the u16 Northern Knights i trained bloody hard but didn't make the final squad, trained even harder the following year and didn't make the 18's squad, there are plenty of young blokes who trained even harder and still don't make it, at the end of the day they and I just didn't have enough natural ability. But also i've seen blokes who are naturally gifted, who didn't work as hard as others (but still worked hard) and made it to higher levels, but i will say that natural ability will only get you so far to be a very good AFL player you have to work bloody hard.
Click to expand...
From my readings back in uni days, and further research now, I can't really find much to suggest there's a gene that causes a person to be good at sport (especially sports with very varied skills sets like AFL, rugby, basketball). There's a lot that says power and endurance peaks are genetic, which I would agree with, and would agree that any sport that relies almost entirely on them has a much higher degree of genetics determining success.

I have no idea of Kyrgios work ethic as a kid though, I know currently, his work ethic is very average (being nice there). Maxwells work ethic now seems to have gone downhill, but i'd suggest that his ability won't dramatically decrease due to spending years training in his youth (i'd suggest this is the most important training point to reach peak performance)

I'm not saying they should, i'm saying most people probably could make it to top level of sports like these if they put in the countless hours that the elites do (and the extra hours that the less "naturally talented" put in). I think it was Jordan's biography that spoke about how he wasn't seen as naturally talented as a kid, but worked his ass off to get where he was.

The last part seems to be taking it again, that i'm saying that natural talent doesn't play a part, it does, I just don't think it is the main determining factor in who becomes elite and who doesn't. The entire original argument was that AFL players have a genetic opportunity, that the rest of us don't, so they should just be thankful for that, and not ask for more pay, because they got lucky with their genes.

Was reading when researching this about some major sporting clubs in Europe, throwing money at gene research around this, but then cutting it, because it was basically becoming a waste of money.

Interesting you mentioned Nathan Ablett, Mooney was discussing him on the radio yesterday, said that he was the most talented player he'd ever seen when he actually put in effort, but he just didn't give a s**t, so didn't try and didn't work.

There's also some interesting studies on genes and motivation, which probably relate to this
 
DemonTim said:
The rubbish was a direct quote from a poster on the main board, he said he trained "properly" for 12 years and was rubbish at football because of his genetics.

Maybe instead of condescending you could discuss them.


From my readings back in uni days, and further research now, I can't really find much to suggest there's a gene that causes a person to be good at sport (especially sports with very varied skills sets like AFL, rugby, basketball). There's a lot that says power and endurance peaks are genetic, which I would agree with, and would agree that any sport that relies almost entirely on them has a much higher degree of genetics determining success.

I have no idea of Kyrgios work ethic as a kid though, I know currently, his work ethic is very average (being nice there). Maxwells work ethic now seems to have gone downhill, but i'd suggest that his ability won't dramatically decrease due to spending years training in his youth (i'd suggest this is the most important training point to reach peak performance)

I'm not saying they should, i'm saying most people probably could make it to top level of sports like these if they put in the countless hours that the elites do (and the extra hours that the less "naturally talented" put in). I think it was Jordan's biography that spoke about how he wasn't seen as naturally talented as a kid, but worked his ass off to get where he was.

The last part seems to be taking it again, that i'm saying that natural talent doesn't play a part, it does, I just don't think it is the main determining factor in who becomes elite and who doesn't. The entire original argument was that AFL players have a genetic opportunity, that the rest of us don't, so they should just be thankful for that, and not ask for more pay, because they got lucky with their genes.

Was reading when researching this about some major sporting clubs in Europe, throwing money at gene research around this, but then cutting it, because it was basically becoming a waste of money.

Interesting you mentioned Nathan Ablett, Mooney was discussing him on the radio yesterday, said that he was the most talented player he'd ever seen when he actually put in effort, but he just didn't give a s**t, so didn't try and didn't work.

There's also some interesting studies on genes and motivation, which probably relate to this
Click to expand...

A single gene responsible for sporting ability no, but a group of genes that are advantageous to becoming an elite athlete yes.
 
like fittest athletes post going on as well, there is no definite answer here as there has been athletes with sub optimal genes and make it and those with optimal genes not make it so it can be done both ways

AFL is probably not a great example to use as there are so many qualities used that you can't nail down 1 that makes everyone successful probably except for hard, consistent work

A sprinter really has to nail 1 action for a specific period of time so to be genetically blessed in that department will help put you world class contention (as well as being Jamaican)

And at anything except world class level genetics won't play as big a part as training, recovery, preparation are so varied...at the top end everyone pretty much trains the same, is a s strong as each other etc so then it;s possibly genes that put some over the top
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top