Many people claim that only certain people can run a certain time due to talent and genetics for example 1% of population can go sub-4 mile, other people say you can get to the level of success with the right training, nutrition and attitude.
Many people claim that only certain people can run a certain time due to talent and genetics for example 1% of population can go sub-4 mile, other people say you can get to the level of success with the right training, nutrition and attitude.
Genetics and environment set your peak fitness (best your body can physically do), training decides how close you will get to that peak. Obviously a sub 13 minute 5k is just out of reach for most people no matter how hard they train. That said if you are in an environment where you run to school every day, that seems like more of a factor than pure gentics. So I'd say environment>genetics>training when it comes to how fast you will be (assuming the person is training on a decent program... If you never run then lack of training will hold you back, not genetics)... Just my opinion, there's not even really a question here, hard training and genetics are both important. If you're just using the sub 4 mile, my guess is more people than you'd expect could do it with hard training
Some people will never run fast, no matter the training. You can just look at people. Squatty, high body fat, cankles = will only be able to shuffle around and the fundamentals of their build won't change.
details wrote:
Genetics and environment set your peak fitness (best your body can physically do), training decides how close you will get to that peak. Obviously a sub 13 minute 5k is just out of reach for most people no matter how hard they train. That said if you are in an environment where you run to school every day, that seems like more of a factor than pure gentics. So I'd say environment>genetics>training when it comes to how fast you will be (assuming the person is training on a decent program... If you never run then lack of training will hold you back, not genetics)... Just my opinion, there's not even really a question here, hard training and genetics are both important. If you're just using the sub 4 mile, my guess is more people than you'd expect could do it with hard training
I'd swap the influence you give to genetics and environment, but otherwise agree. Even environment as a pure factor is arguable as it could be considered an aspect of training, i.e. the where and the when, but that's only from a purest point of view.
Back in the day a person would use a horse and buggy as transportation. Those horses were not the first choice for racehorses.
Running to school is not a source of talent.
justyouraveragerunner wrote:
other people say you can get to the level of success with the right training, nutrition and attitude.
You never hear of these people in the real world though. They just lurk on message boards spouting this nonsense.
Genetics is more important to athletic talent than environment is to psychological contentment.
Genetics is a huge, huge, huge piece of running success.
I've seen a guy go from nothing for 3 months, 3 months training, and run a 1:45 800.
He was a lazy ass trainer, and barely ran a step every summer after competition. He had glass ankles, and could run a 1:46 on 12 weeks training regularly in college.
And he was the same lazy ass in high school. He didn't have any massive background of training in high school to rely on.
Genetics over hard work, EVERY time.
It's not even worthy of debate.
In HS hard training can overcome genetics. MANY genetically average runners have had HS success. I laugh at those who say a successful HS athlete who does not excel in college must have been burned out by their HS coach; the reality is most successful HS athletes achieved success at the only level they were capable. If you have the chance in HS to be a champion through hard training and you have the desire to do it then go for it.
Beyond HS you really have to have genetics + hard training, and this becomes even more the case for national class, world class, and world champion runners.
It's neither. Genetics don't matter, training doesn't matter. Life is just one big crapshoot.
no talent mofo's wrote:
justyouraveragerunner wrote:other people say you can get to the level of success with the right training, nutrition and attitude.
You never hear of these people in the real world though. They just lurk on message boards spouting this nonsense.
I'll be the one "spouting nonsense". I believe in hard work over genetics because of my story. 4:53 miler as a freshman in high school, 4:26 as a senior, and now I'm sub 4:00. Nobody would have ever guessed I'd be sub 4:00. It's consistent hard work.
People who say genetics are everything are stuck in the 80s where that was the popular belief and/or are runners who never improved because they didn't try hard enough or do the right training.
You are full of it... wrote:
no talent mofo's wrote:You never hear of these people in the real world though. They just lurk on message boards spouting this nonsense.
I'll be the one "spouting nonsense". I believe in hard work over genetics because of my story. 4:53 miler as a freshman in high school, 4:26 as a senior, and now I'm sub 4:00. Nobody would have ever guessed I'd be sub 4:00. It's consistent hard work.
People who say genetics are everything are stuck in the 80s where that was the popular belief and/or are runners who never improved because they didn't try hard enough or do the right training.
Nah, that's just good progression with good genetics. It's not like you were a 6 minute guy. The nonsense spouters believe that's possible.
All very good runners 100 metres to Marathon are more similar than dissimilar. Height to weight ratios are similar. Percentage of body fat are similar. Inseam to height ratios are similar. Strength to weight rations are similar. Yes, great runners 10000 metres to Marathon tend to be shorter than 100 metres men. All sub-10.0 100 metres men are sub-54 400 metres men. All sub-2:07 Marathoners are sub-54 400 metres men. All sub 54 400 metres men and all sub 2:07 Marathoners are sub-26 200 metres men. Not all people can run sub-26 200 metres, even with a great attitude and good nutrition.
Genetics is a convenient excuse for failure for runner who either aren't really serious.
You don't say to a young law student or a young medical student "Your chances of success are nil if you don't have the talent" People make a decision about what they are going to do with their lives, and they do it.
no talent mofo's wrote:
You are full of it... wrote:I'll be the one "spouting nonsense". I believe in hard work over genetics because of my story. 4:53 miler as a freshman in high school, 4:26 as a senior, and now I'm sub 4:00. Nobody would have ever guessed I'd be sub 4:00. It's consistent hard work.
People who say genetics are everything are stuck in the 80s where that was the popular belief and/or are runners who never improved because they didn't try hard enough or do the right training.
Nah, that's just good progression with good genetics. It's not like you were a 6 minute guy. The nonsense spouters believe that's possible.
He was a 6 minute guy at some point in his life.
what it is wrote:
Genetics is a convenient excuse for failure for runner who either aren't really serious.
You don't say to a young law student or a young medical student "Your chances of success are nil if you don't have the talent" People make a decision about what they are going to do with their lives, and they do it.
That's why there are levels of being a Lawyer and a Doctor too.
Int. value thm. wrote:
no talent mofo's wrote:Nah, that's just good progression with good genetics. It's not like you were a 6 minute guy. The nonsense spouters believe that's possible.
He was a 6 minute guy at some point in his life.
Yep, and at the same point the no talents were probably unable to even run a mile.
You are full of it... wrote:
no talent mofo's wrote:You never hear of these people in the real world though. They just lurk on message boards spouting this nonsense.
I'll be the one "spouting nonsense". I believe in hard work over genetics because of my story. 4:53 miler as a freshman in high school, 4:26 as a senior, and now I'm sub 4:00. Nobody would have ever guessed I'd be sub 4:00. It's consistent hard work.
People who say genetics are everything are stuck in the 80s where that was the popular belief and/or are runners who never improved because they didn't try hard enough or do the right training.
Freshman year is kind of a crapshoot because guys may not have grown yet, but 4:53 is definitely good. It doesn't show that you'd go on to sub-4, but it does show that you have talent.
I don't know.
You are full of it... wrote:
no talent mofo's wrote:You never hear of these people in the real world though. They just lurk on message boards spouting this nonsense.
I'll be the one "spouting nonsense". I believe in hard work over genetics because of my story. 4:53 miler as a freshman in high school, 4:26 as a senior, and now I'm sub 4:00. Nobody would have ever guessed I'd be sub 4:00. It's consistent hard work.
People who say genetics are everything are stuck in the 80s where that was the popular belief and/or are runners who never improved because they didn't try hard enough or do the right training.
So if a 5:53 miler as a high school freshman worked as hard as you did, how fast would he be now? How much harder would he have to work to match your current time?
You are full of it... wrote:
no talent mofo's wrote:You never hear of these people in the real world though. They just lurk on message boards spouting this nonsense.
I'll be the one "spouting nonsense". I believe in hard work over genetics because of my story. 4:53 miler as a freshman in high school, 4:26 as a senior, and now I'm sub 4:00. Nobody would have ever guessed I'd be sub 4:00. It's consistent hard work.
People who say genetics are everything are stuck in the 80s where that was the popular belief and/or are runners who never improved because they didn't try hard enough or do the right training.
So could you have gone 3:49 with harder training?