by cactuspete » Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:48 pm
surfsteve: I think it's a matter of how you frame the discussion. If you are talking about a group of athletes who all train hard, follow training regimes which are known to be effective, eat nutritious diets, are all extremely motivated, etc., then it is fair to say that most of the differences in their level of performance can be attributed to genetics. Assigning a specific number such as sixty or eighty percent is just a crude estimation and isn't meant to be taken completely literally. No one is arguing that nutrition doesn't play a role or that different workout approaches don't make a difference. But genetics will have an effect on being prone to injury which in turn will have an impact on motivation and the types of workouts an individual can endure. Similarly genes which control the ratio of slow twitch to fast twitch muscles will more or less determine whether or not an individual will have the potential to jump high or have great endurance as compared to other individuals. There are thousands of genes which are relevant in one way or another to athletic performance and some individuals simply will never perform in the top twenty percent no matter the composition of their diet or exercise regime. Many have said that genetics is destiny and to a huge extent that's true. Individuals who did not win the genetic lottery in one way or another have reduced potential, but in order to reach whatever degree of potential they have depends on dietary and other behavioral decisions which they make. So, if the discussion is framed in terms of reaching one's individual potential, then the focus is on behavior. If the discussion pertains to why some individuals have greater potential than others, then the focus is on genetics.