Genetics denialists, if genetics is not more important than training, why can't elite women match elite men?

Elite running is nothing more than a showcase of the .001% genetic lottery winners (for running.).

^^you're telling me it's not their secret core routines after all?

One need only look to Dennis Kimetto to see what an extraordinary genetic advantage Kalenjin and other east African peoples have with regards to running. The guy never ran until his late 20s...two years later he's running 2:03:xx at Chicago.

1/10

ytryut wrote:

One need only look to Dennis Kimetto to see what an extraordinary genetic advantage Kalenjin and other east African peoples have with regards to running. The guy never ran until his late 20s...two years later he's running 2:03:xx at Chicago.

Blah, blah, blah.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

After all, sex is nothing but a difference of chromosomes. We can say with absolute certainty that a Y chromosome is required to run a sub-10 100m, which in turn proves that genetics governs what performance level one can achieve.

Why don't the trolls even try anymore? What is this garbage?

training denialists, if genetics is more important than training, why is Paula Radcliffe's best marathon time still better than all but a couple US men's times?

HardLoper wrote:

training denialists, if genetics is more important than training, why is Paula Radcliffe's best marathon time still better than all but a couple US men's times?

Because very, very few men are talented enough to run that time, and/or to handle the stress to build up the aerobic ability to the neccessary level

LM wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

training denialists, if genetics is more important than training, why is Paula Radcliffe's best marathon time still better than all but a couple US men's times?

Because very, very few men are talented enough to run that time, and/or to handle the stress to build up the aerobic ability to the neccessary level

whoa so it's about talent AND training? no. you have to pick one or the other. it can never ever be both.

HardLoper wrote:

[

whoa so it's about talent AND training? no. you have to pick one or the other. it can never ever be both.

The persons statement is actually wrong. Most men simply don't have the genetics to run that fast regardless of training. But we can still say that a Y chromosome seems to be an absolute requirement to run sub-2:05, so Paula doesn't prove that training can overcome genetics.

It's about trainable talent. Making greatness even better, not working yourself to death to be slightly better than mediocre.

It's not genetics or training. It's all about believing in yourself and trying really, really hard. I know because I saw it in a Disney movie.

Asdfghjkl wrote:

...We can say with absolute certainty that a Y chromosome is required to run a sub-10 100m ...

We can't say that with absolute certainty at all. Flo Jo ran 10.49. Give chemistry another 50 years, take some biomechanical freak (think a female Usain) and a sub-10 100m is definitely possible.

Hello my family member! I want to say that this article is amazing, great written and come with almost all significant infos. Id like to peer extra posts like this . edeeecdfgdefedke

A woman breaking 10 seconds is impossible with certainty.

It will not happen. That is one of the few things you can be certain of. A woman running that fast chemically would no longer be a woman.

It is much more likely that a woman breaks 4 minutes in the mile, in fact it will probably happen at some point in the next 100 years.

And flojo's 10.49 was massively wind aided, likely with something else so its already the far-extreme outlier. A sub-10 is actually impossible.

OP - if genetics is more important than training, why can't any man who lies on a couch all day match elite women?

In other words - My God you are stupid!

Lying on the couch all day is one of the keys to getting the best from your genetics.

Bag and tag wrote:

A woman breaking 10 seconds is impossible with certainty.

It will not happen. That is one of the few things you can be certain of. A woman running that fast chemically would no longer be a woman…..

It might be a little unreasonable to reduce a "woman" to "chemistry".

It wasn't that long ago that folks said a woman couldn't even run a marathon, either .. on Monday, a woman beat some of the world's top male marathoners.

HardLoper wrote:

LM wrote:

Because very, very few men are talented enough to run that time, and/or to handle the stress to build up the aerobic ability to the neccessary level

whoa so it's about talent AND training? no. you have to pick one or the other. it can never ever be both.

Crazy I know. probably goes come as a shocker to some folks round here.