Genetic potential

[tmcnulty]

You could model the concept of training advancement as logarithmic growth--diminishing returns, but unbounded, given access to the right resources. And you could model aging as exponential decay, putting ever more stringent limits on your performance. You'd end up with a model similar to the attached graphic, which is my mental model for "genetic potential."

I made a figure to express the idea more clearly:



(Direct link in case the upload fails)

[quad]

'The spectrum of human performance is an example of the Principle of Diminishing Returns, commonly observable in countless examples from nature and human experience. Approaching the speed of light, learning to play the piano, and building a faster car are examples of things that start off easy and eventually become so difficult and expensive in terms of energy, time, or money that approaching their limit is essentially impossible'. (PPST3, p.4)

Even guys like Mike Tuchscherer haven't reached their genetic potential. Well over 99.99% of trainees are never going to get close.

Mike Tuchscherer is way beyond is genetic potential

[Mark Rippetoe]

You could model the concept of training advancement as logarithmic growth--diminishing returns, but unbounded, given access to the right resources. And you could model aging as exponential decay, putting ever more stringent limits on your performance. You'd end up with a model similar to the attached graphic, which is my mental model for "genetic potential."

I made a figure to express the idea more clearly:

You are suggesting that there is no limit to potential increase? This does not comport with our understanding of the process or with historical observation.

Mike Tuchscherer is way beyond is genetic potential

Jesus, quad. Explain yourself.

[quad]

Jesus, quad. Explain yourself.

He will lift for sure more in the future but it can't be his genetical potential because he made "drastic steps" to get there.

[Karl Schudt]

Mike Tuchscherer is way beyond is genetic potential

Quad always gives 110%.

[tmcnulty]

You are suggesting that there is no limit to potential increase? This does not comport with our understanding of the process or with historical observation.

No, I'm not suggesting that at all, so I'll clarify. I'm attempting to reconcile the two notions under discussion: that (1) you can "never reach your genetic potential," and (2) as we age, our performance ceiling decreases.

We all agree that as a trainee ages, his or her strength levels will eventually level off, then fall. However, his or her level of training advancement--the length of the stress/recovery/adaptation cycle--continues to progress. Performance is a function of these two phenomena.

In my graph, the blue dotted line, "Training Advancement," indicates progress on the novice/intermediate/advanced scale, as outlined in your literature. The red dashed line represents the notion that our absolute potential is driven downward as we age. "Asymptote" isn't the right word. Maybe "performance envelope."

My black dotted line and solid gold line are your "Individual Genetic Potential" and "Strength Performance," from Practical Programming. You've mentioned that if the graph were continued in time, performance levels off, then decreases steadily (in line with observation--nothing new here). Simple asymptotic growth can't fulfill those requirements, so I tried something else.

[Mark Rippetoe]

He will lift for sure more in the future but it can't be his genetical potential because he made "drastic steps" to get there.

This is your typical gibberish, quad. Read more, type less.

Quad always gives 110%.

In his own little way.

I'm attempting to reconcile the two notions under discussion: that (1) you can "never reach your genetic potential," and (2) as we age, our performance ceiling decreases.

We all agree that as a trainee ages, his or her strength levels will eventually level off, then fall. However, his or her level of training advancement--the length of the stress/recovery/adaptation cycle--continues to progress. Performance is a function of these two phenomena.

The level of training advancement is a very tenuous theoretical construct AFTER you approach the limit as closely as you can. The limits of physical potential are always controlled by more than just optimum expression of genotype, which essentially never occurs -- note the discontinuation of the term "genetic potential" in PPST3. Afetr 20 years of training, injuries, aging, and the assumption of different priorities, it's difficult to say that post-advanced physiology is predictable in the same way the novice/intermediate/advanced progression is.

In my graph, the blue dotted line, "Training Advancement," indicates progress on the novice/intermediate/advanced scale, as outlined in your literature. The red dashed line represents the notion that our absolute potential is driven downward as we age. "Asymptote" isn't the right word. Maybe "performance envelope." My black dotted line and solid gold line are your "Individual Genetic Potential" and "Strength Performance," from Practical Programming. You've mentioned that if the graph were continued in time, performance levels off, then decreases steadily (in line with observation--nothing new here). Simple asymptotic growth can't fulfill those requirements, so I tried something else.

In your graph, the blue line does not approach a limit. Thus my earlier comment. Your red dashed line is a reasonable representation. Your black line will never be contacted by your gold line in a real-world situation, since it is a limit/asymptote relationship, as discussed.

[tmcnulty]

The level of training advancement is a very tenuous theoretical construct AFTER you approach the limit as closely as you can. The limits of physical potential are always controlled by more than just optimum expression of genotype, which essentially never occurs -- note the discontinuation of the term "genetic potential" in PPST3. Afetr 20 years of training, injuries, aging, and the assumption of different priorities, it's difficult to say that post-advanced physiology is predictable in the same way the novice/intermediate/advanced progression is.

In your graph, the blue line does not approach a limit. Thus my earlier comment. Your red dashed line is a reasonable representation. Your black line will never be contacted by your gold line in a real-world situation, since it is a limit/asymptote relationship, as discussed.

Thanks for the feedback. I didn't know that extrapolating past the advanced stage was so tenuous, but that makes sense. If I use an asymptotic exponential growth for the blue line, it looks like this:



(Direct link)

It seems nothing is lost by assuming a "limit" to training advancement, and conceptual clarity is gained. I have a better appreciation now for why you've use this model in your work.

[Eric Larousse]

how do lifters that do reach their potential more or less such as yourself train knowing that they will be losing the peak level of strength they attained at a younger age? do you just train to maintain as best as you can or what?

[Kundahli]

Excuse my pedantry, but is not Genetic Potential and Performance Ceiling one and the same? If not, should not genetic potential still be a function of time? That is to say our genetic potential at 20 years of age is different from our genetic potential at 40 years of age. Strength genetic potential would be like hearing, VO2 max, and various other physiological parameters whose maximums decrease with age.