Scientists: Legit or not: Study says mental toughness is 14% of performance

It would be nice if it were peer reviewed and published. No citation in the article

No. Great races are generally run with what feels like little physical effort and even less mental effort.

SMJO wrote:

No. Great races are generally run with what feels like little physical effort and even less mental effort.

I have to disagree with this one, it all depends on the runner.

both of my main PRs ... 48.5 400m, 1:51 800... were all out mental and physical efforts that left me basically dead afterwards. After my 800 I puked and couldn't stand, couldnt feel my legs for the next 24 hours.

Realism wrote:

SMJO wrote:

No. Great races are generally run with what feels like little physical effort and even less mental effort.

I have to disagree with this one, it all depends on the runner.

both of my main PRs ... 48.5 400m, 1:51 800... were all out mental and physical efforts that left me basically dead afterwards. After my 800 I puked and couldn't stand, couldnt feel my legs for the next 24 hours.

That's after, not during.

My own anecdotal evidence says that percentage should be closer to 1.4% rather than 14%.

Letsrun.com wrote:

Any scientists out there that can read the actual study in its entirety and tell us if what you think about it.

LUDICROUS! HOGWASH!

The study is a sloppy slapped together collection of MOOSE SHIT!!!

14?!?!?

Mental toughness is CLEARLY 16% of performance.

BALDERDASH! POPPYCOCK!

Figured I would add in those for good measure.

to measure three components of mental toughness: confidence (self-belief), the sense of being in control, and constancy (concentration, determination, acceptance of responsibility, and stability of attitudes). Perceived effort, discomfort levels, use of mental skills and hardiness were also measured. Mental skills are actions like goal setting and refocusing. Hardiness is a personality trait tested in previous research.

is all psychobabble. Those things are not scientific concepts in the first place, let alone measurable.

More generally, the physical vs. mental thing is a false dichotomy. You aren't some ghost driving a machine, you are the machine, and the ghost is a needless abstraction invented by lazy people. Truly gifted athletes know this instinctively.

I have found that it is ten percent luck, twenty percent skill

Fifteen percent concentrated power of will

Five percent pleasure, fifty percent pain

And a hundred percent reason to remember the name.

Whether a study is peer-reviewed has nothing to do with its validity.

Bad Wigins wrote:

. Truly gifted athletes know this instinctively.

Humans do not have instincts.

Wincest! wrote:

Whether a study is peer-reviewed has nothing to do with its validity.

Do explain.

I think it depends on the race. An evenly paced straight up race is mostly a fitness test.

If you are running a marathon and start to cramp at 18 miles, the mental aspect can be absolutely huge. People who can stay mentally strong and confident even when the race has a downturn can far outperform equally fit opponents who get beaten down by negative mentality.

Flat World Renegade wrote:

Do explain.

Peer-review is a social convention, not a law of science that any new discovery has to stand up to, and academics regularly abuse the system to discredit and obstruct valid research whose implications threaten their own status.

I would understand this better if it were converted to a more tangible number. So if runner A runs a 15 flat 5k, what would runner B do if his performance is enhanced by mental toughness?

I think I agree with how much is being considered to make up the overall performance, because I do believe it has a significant impact--but I also think that it's actual impact on your race finish could be a wide varying range from being outkicked to the finish or 10+ sec/mi pace difference.

SMJO wrote:

No. Great races are generally run with what feels like little physical effort and even less mental effort.

The first time I broke 18 mins. in a 5k (at age 53) I felt like I was calmly running in slow motion, and that was on a hilly course. Even had a good kick at the end which was uphill. The next year I won my first race, a 10k, and that required all the mental toughness I could muster.

The fact that the runners world article has no citations means it could be a heap of bogus..

To believe research it should be in a reputable peer reviewed journal.

Although he talks about how the questionnaires were given, etc., one needs to be able to see the statistical comparisons between groups, the equation that he came up with to determine the 14% etc.

Basically all that this is telling us is what we already know- if you're more mentally tough than the person next to you with exact same fitness, you'll beat them.

Wincest! wrote:

[quote]

Humans do not have instincts.

wrong, wrong, wrong,

Wincest! wrote:

Peer-review is a social convention, not a law of science that any new discovery has to stand up to, and academics regularly abuse the system to discredit and obstruct valid research whose implications threaten their own status.

Umm...Peer Review is like democracy as according to Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

There are major problems with it (e.g. group think, nepotism, etc.) but its the best we've got.

Regarding the validity of this study: Any single study means nothing. In order to be publishable the conditions of the study have to be very well controlled such that the investigators can be sure that the result they say is real. Unfortunately this also usually leads to extremely artificial conditions which may not translate into real life.

That is not to say single studies are not valuable but rather that they only constitute the first step and a GENERAL conclusion can only usually be drawn when a single study is backed up a many more studies which validate it under many different circumstances.