|
scrdofhites
Jan 5, 2006, 4:49 AM
Post #1 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2003
Posts: 71
|
Hey all. Just a quick question. Can genetics be a limiting factor to your upper limits of climbing. And if so, what traits would limit......Of course height and weight...... short and fat arent gonna help...... But as a 5'9, 135 pound climber, are there other factors that could limit? Do muscles have a limit to where they cant possibly get stronger for a certain individule?
|
|
|
|
|
estwing
Jan 5, 2006, 5:04 AM
Post #2 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2002
Posts: 344
|
Yes, at some point genetics will limit your abilities as a climber. Some people have more fast twitch muscle fibers, some more slow twitch. Depending on what type of climbing you hope to excel at this will be a limiting factor for your strength and endurance.
That said, you will likely never reach the true extent of your genetic potential, unless you devote yourself completely to climbing and training for climbing. To get to your maximum you will also have to develop excellent technique so as to maximize what strength and endurance you have. This is mostly a mental thing, though not neccesarily concious action.
Good luck,
Horst says you can climb 5.12 with enough work.
|
|
|
|
|
annak
Jan 5, 2006, 6:43 AM
Post #3 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 11, 2004
Posts: 191
|
Most people never get to the level when genetics starts to limit their athletic achievements. Unless you classify a lack of will power, determination, and commitment as genetic traits.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 5, 2006, 6:56 AM
Post #4 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
With the exception of those who have the misfortune of being born with a genetic disease, everyone has the genetic make up to climb 5.13.
I honestly believe that.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Jan 5, 2006, 9:21 AM
Post #5 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
I think when it comes to climbing, your ability has very little to do with fast/slow twitch, etc.
Note: I am not a physiology expert or anything, so this is all conjecture/heresay and is perhaps of little validity.
1. When it comes to strength and the human body, bigger/thicker = stronger.
2. In order to be a good climber, you need to have very strong fingers, hands, arms, and back, relative to your body weight.
3. Adding the two facts above together, you are physically limited in how hard you can climb by the relative size of your hands/fingers, and to some extent, arms. (I suppose you could have large hands/fingers, but short arms...but it's probably not likely).
Most of the forces you exert, as a climber, travel in some way through your arms and fingers...therefore, having very large hands/fingers would make you have genetics in favor of climbing hard. I think for the average person, 5.12 is very attainable with proper training/diet, and 5.13 is pushing it (training very consistently, needing sports therapy to prevent injury, very very smart training methods, flawless technique).
Two non-climbing people I know have extremely gangly, long arms, and relatively large hands/forearms, relative to their height. They are also skinny as rails, but so am I. One of them has never climbed a day in his life, and could easily do door frame pullups (He has the same wing-span as me, yet is 4 inches shorter and probably 30 lbs lighter). The other has climbed maybe twice, never works out, eats fast food regularly. He's maybe 1-2 inches taller than me, yet his forearms are much bigger than mine and hands/fingers are maybe 1.5 times the size of mine (mostly in thickness). I put him on a climbing wall, and he was having fun on a stemming 5.7, using horrible technique and cranking off of crimpers that I train to crank off of, not really stemming at all. He can also do 10 pull ups (again, no training whatsoever). After about 2 years of climbing, I was able to do 20 pull ups, and with no training (back when I was in cross country, skinny as a toothpick) I could do maybe 5 or 6.
Oh yeah, another friend of mine is like 5'6", rarely climbs, but does work out. His forearms are bigger than mine. First time I took him toproping in a gym, he onsighted a 5.10. Mind you, it's probably a somewhat juggy, overhung 5.10, requiring less technique than a slabby 5.10. The point is, he's strong by nature.
The point is: If you're not naturally gifted in terms of climbing genetics, don't worry about it. Have fun, and work hard at pushing your own limits, regardless if that is 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, or 5.15, and be happy whenever you reach a new level.
|
|
|
|
|
lostdog
Jan 5, 2006, 12:42 PM
Post #6 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: Oh yeah, another friend of mine is like 5'6", rarely climbs, but does work out. His forearms are bigger than mine. First time I took him toproping in a gym, he onsighted a 5.10.
Oh yeah, and this one time at band camp. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 5, 2006, 2:47 PM
Post #7 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious.
However, this shouldn't deter you from making the best of your natural talents. If you're into numbers/achievement, measure your accomplishments against your past achievements. Don't concern yourself with who your friends are progressing.
|
|
|
|
|
osloklatrer
Jan 5, 2006, 2:54 PM
Post #8 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2005
Posts: 21
|
when i started to climb i could do 11 pull ups, after half a year with climbing i could do 24.
|
|
|
|
|
skatedork
Jan 5, 2006, 3:07 PM
Post #9 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Posts: 71
|
Screw genetics, I am a firm believer that if one is determined, they can accomplish anything.
|
|
|
|
|
fallingrock
Jan 5, 2006, 3:12 PM
Post #10 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2005
Posts: 33
|
I believe extreme alpinism requires a genetic disorder -- insanity. But your ability to crimp at 0deg. doesn't matter all that much.
|
|
|
|
|
carrotclimber
Jan 5, 2006, 4:20 PM
Post #11 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 48
|
I truly believe that it is a combination of one's mindset and genetics. I climb more to have fun than I really hardcore train. If I really pushed myself and trained hard... I think that I could climb 5.12.... eventually. My family is NOT athletic. I played sports as a kid, because I enjoyed them, but I was always gawky and sucked. I am thin (noone else in my family is) but I don't have naturally well-defined muscles that just exist with no work, like some people I know. Some people may have to work harder to get to 5.11-5.12.... but I think that the majority of people have the ABILITY to do it. I think that 5.13 and above is something that most people maybe can't do? That might be a mental block that most people (such as myself) have though. I think that it is brain chemistry as much as physicality. I truly think that has something to do with it. Some people's brains allow them to push themselves past the limits of most other people.
Does that make sense? This is totally my only opinion... I have no hard science on hand to back any of this up.
|
|
|
|
|
fracture
Jan 5, 2006, 4:42 PM
Post #12 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 1814
|
this thread is somewhat drifting into this area of discussion...
|
|
|
|
|
climb_ian
Jan 5, 2006, 6:05 PM
Post #13 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2005
Posts: 77
|
practice enough you will climb harder than you thought you could.. im 5'7 135 pounds, and climb way harder than i used to just by doin it 4 times a weeek
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Jan 5, 2006, 6:17 PM
Post #14 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I don't think genetics are a limiting factor, until the very high levels of climbing.
I've always been a pretty average athlete, but that doesn't take away from my enjoyment, and I've managed to get up a few .12s. No special diet. No training besides lots of climbing.
Plus, the hardest climbs I've done to date haven't felt like my physiological limit, and that's exciting and motivating. I always feel like I can climb stronger.
|
|
|
|
|
acacongua
Jan 5, 2006, 6:47 PM
Post #15 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 657
|
limits are difficult to determine
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 5, 2006, 7:28 PM
Post #16 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious.
True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible.
Anyone who’s been to their high school reunion knows this to be true.
|
|
|
|
|
namoclimber
Jan 5, 2006, 9:22 PM
Post #17 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 118
|
The most limiting factor is your mind. The majority of the climbing community should by all means be able to climb into the 12s. You just need to want it and some may need to train a little harder then others.
If your over weight and you climb enough you will lose the weight.
If your weak on anything and you train specific weakness you will over come it.
simple, just climb, climb hard, enjoy the movements.
don't get mad, just get even.
|
|
|
|
|
mcfoley
Jan 5, 2006, 9:39 PM
Post #18 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 644
|
ape index...Also if you inherited genes that equal a low IQ.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Jan 5, 2006, 9:49 PM
Post #19 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
It seems most climbers who climb in the 5.14's, V10+ &c. have two things in common. They have been climbing for a long time and they train. People always say that climbing is good training for climbing but I think once you get to a point maybe ~5.12(at least for me) you need to start specific training of your weaknesses to progress. Yes, years and years of climbing can develop sick crimp strength, good footwork, pinching power and core strength but working on these things individually will help you progress much faster.
Also I think if you were not very athletic when you were younger it might be harder to progress faster because you need to build up the muscle that some people did when they were 12 or 15. I think it is possible for everyone to climb 5.14 but the time it would take certain people to climb and there age(ie. if you are 30 and it would take you 20 years your physical peak might be affected by age) might be a strong influence.
You also have to believe...
|
|
|
|
|
mcgivney_nh
Jan 5, 2006, 9:51 PM
Post #20 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2005
Posts: 421
|
In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb.
I disagree, i think that genetics plays a role in how you climb (i.e. if you are tall enough to reach something statically, you're not gonna dyno to it) but I am a strong believer in being able to do anything you set your mind to.
For some, it takes more training to climb at the same level as others, but that doesn't mean that the people who have to train harder cannot climb just as hard as the people who are more naturally gifted.
-Sean
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 5, 2006, 9:51 PM
Post #21 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible.
How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent.
We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin.
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Jan 5, 2006, 10:03 PM
Post #22 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent. We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin.
Ok say there are genetic differences that help peope climb 5.14 but think about it, the amount of people that climb V10+ and 5.13+ compared to the number of climbers in the world would invalidate that statement.
The chances someone who is genetically determined to be a better climber who actually climbs and enjoys it to the point of trying to climb hard would be so small. Either that or the "good climbing" gene runs rampant in the population of the world.
Just for arguments sake we will say that you are a "hard" climber. if you have brothers most likely they have the same gene, unless we are talking about abonormalities and chiasmata but that is high unlikely to occur so often. Say your brothers don't climb. Well if you have the gene it had to be passed down, how many men are in your extended family, do any of them climb? The chances that someone has the gene and climbs is highly unlikely.
How come no one ever correlates a ~2 hour marathon runner to genes? the odds of the billions of runners in the world to ~2 hour marathoners seems more plausible to be genetic than the 1000's of 5.13+ climbers to the couple million climbers in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
musicman1586
Jan 5, 2006, 10:11 PM
Post #23 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2005
Posts: 488
|
I think genetics does play a role into how you climb, but it's something you learn to overcome with time. A story that I like that illustrates this point come from a competition the gym I go to held. The problems were rated in points values, no V scores, as to make it easier for beginners to understand, however the people that set the problems were all very tall people with very long reaches. One of the easiest problems they had scored turned out to be near impossible for anyone that had an arm length the same or shorter then myself. Everyone did the moves exactly the same, it's just that some could reach the next hold without a problem, others couldn't no matter how we shifted our body. However, on the counterpoint, the only "short" person to land this low-marked problem was the one who had the skill and technique to make the horribly awkward dyno to that out of reach hold. He's 5'5" somewhere around there, and easily one of the strongest climbers I know, despite his shorter stature and reach, he's learned to compensate.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 5, 2006, 10:25 PM
Post #24 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: With the exception of those who have the misfortune of being born with a genetic disease, everyone has the genetic make up to climb 5.13. I honestly believe that.
It takes a lot of hard work, mental focus and a gift to become the Michael Jordan's, Wayne Gretzky's and Tommy Caldwell's and Mozart's of the world. Not everybody can do everything.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 5, 2006, 10:37 PM
Post #25 of 42
(7159 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent. We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin. Ok say there are genetic differences that help peope climb 5.14 but think about it, the amount of people that climb V10+ and 5.13+ compared to the number of climbers in the world would invalidate that statement. The chances someone who is genetically determined to be a better climber who actually climbs and enjoys it to the point of trying to climb hard would be so small. Either that or the "good climbing" gene runs rampant in the population of the world. Just for arguments sake we will say that you are a "hard" climber. if you have brothers most likely they have the same gene, unless we are talking about abonormalities and chiasmata but that is high unlikely to occur so often. Say your brothers don't climb. Well if you have the gene it had to be passed down, how many men are in your extended family, do any of them climb? The chances that someone has the gene and climbs is highly unlikely. How come no one ever correlates a ~2 hour marathon runner to genes? the odds of the billions of runners in the world to ~2 hour marathoners seems more plausible to be genetic than the 1000's of 5.13+ climbers to the couple million climbers in the world. |
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 6, 2006, 1:55 AM
Post #26 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent.
Exactly. Eventually it all comes down to eating habits and how well you train and treat your body.
The only time in your life that this isn't so is when you’re a child. We all remember the kid in elementary school who ate heaps of food, never trained, but always managed to kick ass in gym class.
Your genetics will only get you so far, and eventually as we age we all reach a common ground where the only thing stopping us at being a better climbers are how well we treat our bodies.
I find the argument of "That guy's a better climber then me because he's been blessed with better genetics" is all B.S and is just sour grapes.
Somewhere out there, there’s a 5.13 climber just waiting to reach their potential, and that climber’s you.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jan 6, 2006, 2:00 AM
Post #27 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Most people never get to the level when genetics starts to limit their athletic achievements. Unless you classify a lack of will power, determination, and commitment as genetic traits.
Wow! Nicely said.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 6, 2006, 2:08 AM
Post #28 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: I have read a study on various running events and the people who win them. The study was in the Globe and Mail (Canadian) a few years back. The study found that the winners of certain events were almost always from the same areas or could trace their ancestral history back to those areas. I will try to find this study and post it. Do you think the guy who became a world class power lifter could have taken up track and field and won the marathon if he wanted to?
This smells like the same load of crap that suggests that black people are genetically superior athletes and the proof of this is found in the fact that so many sports (basketball, foot ball, long distance running) are all dominated buy people who are black.
What these studies fail to notice is that these people don't just share similar genetics but are also subjected to the same economic poverty.
So what's driving the guy who gets drafted buy the NBA or wins the Boston Marathon? Is it his genetics or is it his desire to release his life from living in some inner city ghetto or mud hut starving on the plains of Africa.
|
|
|
|
|
slavetogravity
Jan 6, 2006, 2:13 AM
Post #29 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 1114
|
In reply to: In reply to: Most people never get to the level when genetics starts to limit their athletic achievements. Unless you classify a lack of will power, determination, and commitment as genetic traits. Wow! Nicely said. Jay
I'll second that.
|
|
|
|
|
porcelainsunset
Jan 6, 2006, 2:24 AM
Post #30 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2005
Posts: 289
|
I just read an interesting article in Outside Magazine that talked about two genes and their relation to being an adrenalin junkie. It's actually the same gene, represented twice. In lab experiments with hamsters or some other unfortunate animal, they found that those having the gene only represented once where far more likely to put themselves into harms way. It appears that the gene helps create a protein that acts as an enzyme that triggers some sort of emotional sense of danger and respect for body. It is highly unlikely that a person would have only one gene represented, but it is possible that some my have less of the enzymes. Thus, making them more prone to do dangerous things or put their bodies into harms way. This of course, could give you a slight advantage in climbing, making you more willing to push through scary cruxs with more confidence while leading or something like that. However, it could also prove to be a great disadvantage, leading to an untimely death for those with to much balls, and not enough common sense or brains to keep themselves safe.
Just something that I though was related and interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Jan 6, 2006, 2:45 AM
Post #31 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
Some people are injury prone and I'd bet that in addition to biomechanics there is a genetic component to injury susceptibility and also to recovery from injury.
How many elite athletes are held back by injury?
|
|
|
|
|
organic
Jan 6, 2006, 3:13 AM
Post #32 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2003
Posts: 2215
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent. We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin. Ok say there are genetic differences that help peope climb 5.14 but think about it, the amount of people that climb V10+ and 5.13+ compared to the number of climbers in the world would invalidate that statement. The chances someone who is genetically determined to be a better climber who actually climbs and enjoys it to the point of trying to climb hard would be so small. Either that or the "good climbing" gene runs rampant in the population of the world. Just for arguments sake we will say that you are a "hard" climber. if you have brothers most likely they have the same gene, unless we are talking about abonormalities and chiasmata but that is high unlikely to occur so often. Say your brothers don't climb. Well if you have the gene it had to be passed down, how many men are in your extended family, do any of them climb? The chances that someone has the gene and climbs is highly unlikely. How come no one ever correlates a ~2 hour marathon runner to genes? the odds of the billions of runners in the world to ~2 hour marathoners seems more plausible to be genetic than the 1000's of 5.13+ climbers to the couple million climbers in the world. I have read a study on various running events and the people who win them. The study was in the Globe and Mail (Canadian) a few years back. The study found that the winners of certain events were almost always from the same areas or could trace their ancestral history back to those areas. I will try to find this study and post it. Do you think the guy who became a world class power lifter could have taken up track and field and won the marathon if he wanted to?
http://encarta.msn.com/...arathon_Winners.html
Do a search on any marathon and you are likely to find similar results. Nice try buddy. Though in some kenyans have dominated in recent years it is hardly epidemic in the marathons histories. The winners are as diverse as you can get.
I proved you wrong...
|
|
|
|
|
alexnees
Jan 6, 2006, 3:13 AM
Post #33 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2003
Posts: 78
|
Come on...of COURSE genetics are a limiting factor. Note that the OP said "a" factor, not "the" factor. The points raised by many about training, diet, dedication, and head game are all valid and very true. Many things determine your climbing ability, and thankfully we can affect most of them.
But... given the same amount of training, the same diet, etc, two climbers can still end up in very different places. Biomechanically, the slightest variations can make large differences in performance. We all know that one skinny guy who looks like a rail, but can still pick up a fridge or throw a baseball out of the park. I've read *anecdotal* reports that emphasize the importance of variation in the location of muscle attachment points. Makes sense, right? Slightly different muscle orientations can increase or decrease the torque applied by a lever (say, a finger) for a given force exerted. If my fingers apply more torque for a given force than yours, than I will be a stronger climber, all else being equal.
Another (personal) example: my left elbow is weird...always has been. It's like it isn't attached quite right. The joint hyperextends slightly, and my left forearm projects at an odd angle relative to my upper arm. It's subtle, but noticeable. Is this biomechanically more efficient than the standard orientation? I doubt it. Is it why I constantly struggle with soreness in that elbow, and have to take time off from climbing frequently because of it? I wouldn't bet against it. A roll of the genetic dice has definitely impacted me and my performance there. Can I train hard and rise above it? Of course...but someone training equally hard will see greater performance gains in a given time period.
I have to agree with most of the posters, though. Almost no one is actually pushing directly against their genetic ceiling. The pros keep climbing harder routes, right? Dedication will take you as far as you need to go.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 6, 2006, 3:21 AM
Post #34 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have read a study on various running events and the people who win them. The study was in the Globe and Mail (Canadian) a few years back. The study found that the winners of certain events were almost always from the same areas or could trace their ancestral history back to those areas. I will try to find this study and post it. Do you think the guy who became a world class power lifter could have taken up track and field and won the marathon if he wanted to? This smells like the same load of crap that suggests that black people are genetically superior athletes and the proof of this is found in the fact that so many sports (basketball, foot ball, long distance running) are all dominated buy people who are black. What these studies fail to notice is that these people don't just share similar genetics but are also subjected to the same economic poverty. So what's driving the guy who gets drafted buy the NBA or wins the Boston Marathon? Is it his genetics or is it his desire to release his life from living in some inner city ghetto or mud hut starving on the plains of Africa.
I do agree that socio-economics will play a large part in things, but I still think that genetics plays a larger part.
|
|
|
|
|
milominderbinder
Jan 6, 2006, 3:59 AM
Post #35 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2005
Posts: 84
|
In reply to: Come on...of COURSE genetics are a limiting factor. Note that the OP said "a" factor, not "the" factor. The points raised by many about training, diet, dedication, and head game are all valid and very true. Many things determine your climbing ability, and thankfully we can affect most of them.......... ...
Ah, thank you, that was very well put, I'll agree with you on every point, i believe.
Genetics is a limiting factor (one of them), that is pretty much undeniable. Not all people are created equal. If genetics are going to be responsible for variations in young children, they are going to remain an inherent difference for life....Genetics do not change in a single person, the decisions you make in life just sometimes mask those differences.
It is still apparent in highschool, very easily, and surely farther on. There is always someone that doesn't train, or practice, yet is naturally good at some sport or another. I've seen them. And I always trained more than most in highschool (more weights and cardio), cos I'm pretty scrawny, and ate more than most, but I never could (and still can't) build muscle mass (which ultimately, has its advantages in some things), where others can. That's because I'm genetically predisposed to a certain body type.
There are these considerable variations, but there are also more subtle differences in how your body grows to be that are vital to how effective a climber you can be. Just cos you cannot see a difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As was said, muscle locations have an effect. Some people are genetically predisposed to have a stronger grip. This tends to make a better climber. They can further improve it through training, more than the average person can.
All of these things have to do with genetics, and they effect how well you can climb. Odds are, not matter how hard most of us train, we'll never be Sharma, or Caldwell, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
boardline22
Jan 6, 2006, 4:12 AM
Post #36 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2005
Posts: 652
|
In reply to: Somewhere out there, there’s a 5.13 climber just waiting to reach their potential, and that climber’s you.
corny :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
goob3r
Jan 6, 2006, 4:16 AM
Post #37 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2006
Posts: 219
|
Don't listen to what anyone on here has to say about physiology or muscles this and DNA that. You'll know you're at your limit when you fail a problem, can't run any higher and have to call it. But that's the beautiful thing about failing, you just gotta get back up and try again... and that's all anyone should worry about when competing against gravity.
I don't think genetics has much to do with limitations (other than morbid obesity and muscular dystrophy per se) in climbing as much as it does in other sports or facets of physical activity. I've seen old ladies climb v-2's and 12 year old shrimps scale v-5's.. and yawn at the top.. it just depends on when you decide to call it quits.
|
|
|
|
|
thorne
Deleted
Jan 6, 2006, 1:26 PM
Post #38 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: I have read a study on various running events and the people who win them. The study was in the Globe and Mail (Canadian) a few years back. The study found that the winners of certain events were almost always from the same areas or could trace their ancestral history back to those areas. I will try to find this study and post it. Do you think the guy who became a world class power lifter could have taken up track and field and won the marathon if he wanted to? This smells like the same load of crap that suggests that black people are genetically superior athletes and the proof of this is found in the fact that so many sports (basketball, foot ball, long distance running) are all dominated buy people who are black. What these studies fail to notice is that these people don't just share similar genetics but are also subjected to the same economic poverty. So what's driving the guy who gets drafted buy the NBA or wins the Boston Marathon? Is it his genetics or is it his desire to release his life from living in some inner city ghetto or mud hut starving on the plains of Africa.
Some people are so open minded their brains fallout. Your perspective on blacks in pro sports is pure fantasy. :roll: Think Spud Webb. He could leap (vertically) over 60% of height.
http://www.spudwebb.net/spud1.jpg
I'm not saying any of ever reach our limits. I believe we're all capapble of much more then what we think is possible. But ignoring the fact that genetics plays a role in athletics(sp?) is just nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 6, 2006, 7:05 PM
Post #39 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: I have read a study on various running events and the people who win them. The study was in the Globe and Mail (Canadian) a few years back. The study found that the winners of certain events were almost always from the same areas or could trace their ancestral history back to those areas. I will try to find this study and post it. Do you think the guy who became a world class power lifter could have taken up track and field and won the marathon if he wanted to? This smells like the same load of crap that suggests that black people are genetically superior athletes and the proof of this is found in the fact that so many sports (basketball, foot ball, long distance running) are all dominated buy people who are black. What these studies fail to notice is that these people don't just share similar genetics but are also subjected to the same economic poverty. So what's driving the guy who gets drafted buy the NBA or wins the Boston Marathon? Is it his genetics or is it his desire to release his life from living in some inner city ghetto or mud hut starving on the plains of Africa. Some people are so open minded their brains fallout. Your perspective on blacks in pro sports is pure fantasy. :roll: Think Spud Webb. I'm not saying any of ever reach our limits. I believe we're all capapble of much more then what we think is possible. But ignoring the fact that genetics plays a role in athletics(sp?) is just nonsense |
|
|
|
|
jred
Jan 6, 2006, 7:17 PM
Post #40 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2003
Posts: 750
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Yes, genetics plays a major role in how well you climb. To anyone who participated in sports during their childhood, inherent differences are obvious. True, when your a child your genetics play a great role in how well you perform in sports. But as you age the role of your genetics becomes negligible. How do you know this? Your bit about high school reunions is more about inactivity and eating habits, not natural talent. We all have genetic differences. Just ask Chuck Darwin. Ok say there are genetic differences that help peope climb 5.14 but think about it, the amount of people that climb V10+ and 5.13+ compared to the number of climbers in the world would invalidate that statement. The chances someone who is genetically determined to be a better climber who actually climbs and enjoys it to the point of trying to climb hard would be so small. Either that or the "good climbing" gene runs rampant in the population of the world. Just for arguments sake we will say that you are a "hard" climber. if you have brothers most likely they have the same gene, unless we are talking about abonormalities and chiasmata but that is high unlikely to occur so often. Say your brothers don't climb. Well if you have the gene it had to be passed down, how many men are in your extended family, do any of them climb? The chances that someone has the gene and climbs is highly unlikely. How come no one ever correlates a ~2 hour marathon runner to genes? the odds of the billions of runners in the world to ~2 hour marathoners seems more plausible to be genetic than the 1000's of 5.13+ climbers to the couple million climbers in the world. I have read a study on various running events and the people who win them. The study was in the Globe and Mail (Canadian) a few years back. The study found that the winners of certain events were almost always from the same areas or could trace their ancestral history back to those areas. I will try to find this study and post it. Do you think the guy who became a world class power lifter could have taken up track and field and won the marathon if he wanted to? Do a search on any marathon and you are likely to find similar results. Nice try buddy. Though in some kenyans have dominated in recent years it is hardly epidemic in the marathons histories. The winners are as diverse as you can get. I proved you wrong...
This view is not necessarily mine, as I have said before I just found it interesting and it seemed to be related to the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
goob3r
Jan 7, 2006, 7:36 AM
Post #41 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2006
Posts: 219
|
you're all racist, get over it :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
lostdog
Jan 7, 2006, 1:05 PM
Post #42 of 42
(3677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: you're all racist, get over it :lol:
Cartman: I don't hate black people. I hate hippies. :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
|
