Event horizon

We all know that it takes just seven days to make us a man. Unfortunately, it takes almost 10,000 hours to turn that man into a world class performer. 10,000 hours is about 10 years. Nobody in their right mind wants to wait that long, nor -we are constantly reminded- should they have to do so. These days we can get what we want, when we want it. It is called instant gratification and like greed it is one of the pillars upon which our consumer society was built.

In just seven days, I will make you a man

No doubt this is why we all look for shortcuts. Maybe we need a power meter so we can train smarter? Or perhaps we need to change our nutrition and add more micronutrients? Or analyze our sweat to see what electrolytes we are missing? Or strengthen our core so we can be more efficient?

It is also why we are so eager to correct any perceived defects. Better get to it before it gets to us is the mantra. Better drink before you are thirsty, or eat before you are hungry. Or start pedaling circles before you know how to pedal. Or correct your gait before you have developed a proper stride?

We study and analyze and we take great pride in our deep understanding of physiology. Unfortunately though, every time we test that understanding in the real world, we are -most likely- in for a big surprise. All those things that seemed so rational and logical, all those things that just had to work, turn out to be for naught. Whenever we apply our fabulous insights or clever tricks we risk doing more harm than good. The road is littered with great ideas and fool proof remedies that achieved little or nothing beneficial.

Meanwhile our friend Iljo Keisse is still on for the Zesdaagse in Rotterdam, Alberto Contador is booked for the Tour of Murcia -all these conditional on any last minute UCI or WADA interventions, and Zdenek Stybar is back in cyclocross. There, Sven Nys suffers one mechanical failure after another, while Lance Armstrong bailed out of the New Zealand Ironman race and possibly Kona?


In other news, I have discovered a great Kriek (cherry beer) for you. Earlier I introduced you to Cantillon, no doubt a very worthy brew, but one that I am sure many will find too dry and too sour. Turns out Oud Beersel, makers of authentic Gueuze Lambic, make a fantastic Oude Kriek that is full of flavor, just a tad sour, and lacks the cloying taste of most popular Krieks. Like Cantillon it is deep red. A superb beer to top off a great workout.

Authentic super kriek

More 10,000 hour rule

Two days ago I wrote about the 10,000 hour rule. Then I read a blog post by masters track world champion Larry Nolan discussing the fact that it had taken him 10 years of hard core cycling to reach the top. QED.

It is interesting to note that the 10,000 hour rule appears to apply to any physiological endeavor, be it abstract reasoning, mathematics, computer programming, playing an instrument, or engaging in something purely physical such as cycling. At first it may seem counter-intuitive that such diverse pursuits, ranging from almost-exclusively "mental" to "part mental and part physical," to almost exclusively "physical" behave so similarly. But that is entirely to be expected. All these are in fact bodily adaptations.

The brain is as much part of the body as any other organ. Contrary to what you may think, brain activity ("the mind") is no different from other bodily activities ("running"). Both require a synergy between the actions of billions of cells. The fact that such "diverse" processes behave identically is in fact quite reassuring and to us. It is an indication that there might be some truth to the 10,000 hour rule.

Let's look at some other ways to formulate the 10,000 hour rule that may make it more intuitive. The formulation in the book "Outliers" has one big problem: it focuses on exceptional circumstances. It also has another big problem but more about that later.

It is obvious to us that while it may 10,000 hours for someone to become "world class," not everyone who spends 10,000 on a given activity will in fact become a world champion. It does take innate ability to become a champion, and most who would try to spend 10,000 hours on a random venture would never become world-class. So you may ask, what is the value of the 10,000 hour rule?

Here is another way to look at the rule. When you engage in an activity you can expect to improve for at least the first 10,000 hours that you spend on it. Does that make more sense? I.e. humans have a very long learning curve and they can keep improving for a very long time. We take about 10 years to learn a language for example. Or we could turn the rule around and say that once you diligently spent 10,000 hours on something you are very unlikely to improve any further. I.e. you are at the top of your game now.

Note that 10,000 is a convenient number. It is not to be taken literally of course. It gives us a range, a ball park figure. We can say it takes 10,000 hours give or take a few thousand. Or we can say that it takes more than a couple thousand, but far less than 50-100,000. And that is a good thing, given our lifespan.

Note that 10,000 is remarkably close to the time it takes humans to grow up and become adults. That too is not surprising because an adult is a person at the top of their game. Growing up is, after all, the quintessential physiological process.

It should therefore come as no surprise that they key theme of the book "Outliers" is flawed. What the author is trying to prove in that book is that genetic or inborn traits are not what determine our success as individuals.

And part of that is certainly true. It does make a difference where or when you are born. That is what evolution is all about. Changing traits continuously to adapt to the changing environment.

What is flawed is the idea that some sort of independent dedication and hard work are needed to cash in on genetics. As if such behaviors are unrelated to your genes. As if dedication and hard work are attributes of a person that exist in a vacuum. Maybe they are part of your "soul?"

That is nonsense of course. If anything is important in evolution and natural selection, it is precisely that, behavior. Much like physical traits such as a big brain, a big heart, or big lungs, a tendency to work hard, or be dedicated to achievement is a genetic trait.

And so are great interpersonal skills, another trait the author deems outside of genetics. Surely one has to learn to interact with others. But to say that there is no genetic basis to how well you will end up doing that is the same as saying there is no genetic basis to how well one will end up running.

8.75 mile run in the hills (same as last Wednesday) in ultralights.

10,000 hours

In his book "Outliers" Malcolm Gladwell introduces the 10,000 hour rule. It isn't his idea but he devotes a whole chapter to it so he deems it very important. The long and short of it is quite simple: To become world class in any field, be it violin playing, computer programming, hockey, basket ball, piano, mathematics, or what have you, about 10,000 hours of practice is required.

10,000 hours is a lot of practice.

And what's more he says, in study after study, authors never found any "naturals," i.e. individuals who can get by with a lot less, nor "grinds," or individuals who worked a lot harder than everyone else but never made it to the top. All of that makes a lot of sense.

I do want to point out that there is such a thing as innate talent. Although a lot of practice is required to become good at something, it does matter where you start from.

Some people are born with the innate ability to run 5:30 miles, while others are clocked at 7 and up. The same applies to reading skills, mathematical ability, hand-eye coordination, dexterity, and musical ability. There are differences that matter and these differences have a genetic basis. There is such a thing as natural selection.

Although Gladwell appears to agree with that statement, he tends to underestimate its weight. Partly that is because he has an individual-centric view. He wants to stress how important an individual's environment and timing is for that person's own success. It does matter when you are born -great cycling talent did not do anyone much good before the invention of the bicycle. It even matters what time of year you are born -hockey players tend to be people born in January and February. And it does matter where and how you grew up and how well your parents took care of you.

These conditions are not mutually exclusive. It still takes a lot of training and good luck for the gifted to make it to world class. From a gene perspective this does not matter much. There are several individuals to pick from. Each is a role of the dice. But I digress.

For you as an individual, it is good to know that no amount of training is going to get you from being a natural slowpoke to becoming a world class runner. All we can do here is invoke the property of self-similarity at scale. If you are a natural 7 minute miler, practicing for 10,000 hours will get you to the top of your (innate 7 minute miler) class. It won't get you to challenge Gebrselassie.

Which brings me to triathlon and swimming. It is true that I have achieved much in this discipline although I never qualified for Hawaii. I would have loved to qualify for Hawaii. But it isn't going to happen without a major improvement in swimming. And although I have swum a lot since 2004, I am light years away from 10,000 hours of swimming. It would take me 2 years almost non-stop swimming to get even close to half that level. And that is not something I want to do now. It is not something I enjoy all that much in any case.

Instead I plan to focus on distance cycling. That is the sport I truly like and enjoy. It is the sport that I want to devote my energies to. That is another reason for building my KOM.

Today I rode 1:10 on rollers. I burned 1,221 calories. It is raining outside (again).