How much does genetics affect running?

Genetics are important but EPO makes them world beaters.

Back before EPO did you ever see a picture of a Kenyan beating Frank Shorter?

No, because there are none.

I'd like to express an unpopular opinion here:

I don't think genetics is as crucial as people make out. Obviously, genetics clearly plays a role in running ability but there are many other factors involved.

Here's an example: Let's say two boys start running age 12. They train together, run the same sessions together and live in the same town. However, by age 18 boy A is running sub-15 in the 5k while boy B can't even break 17. Boy B will say "Wow, you're a genetic freak! I could never be as good as you!" In reality these two boys have very similar genetic ability. So why is boy A so much faster?

- Boy A eats a healthy, balanced diet and gives his body the nutrients it needs. He also sleeps for 9+ hours almost every night so he recovers very well.

- Boy B doesn't eat enough and most of it is junk food, his body struggles to recover and on top of this he sleeps just 7 hours per night. He also plays Basketball in the park with his friends on a regular basis, further hindering his ability to recover.

- As a result of his lack of recovery, boy B's body is pushed too hard, leading to fatigue and overuse injuries. While he's injured, boy A is still training and improving. When boy B returns, he pushes himself too hard to keep up with boy A and gets himself injured again.

- Boy A also has a better mindset. When it comes to raceday, he runs much more relaxed and can handle a bit of suffering much better than boy B, leading to better performances.

The reason I believe things like this happen is due to myself. I always thought I had no talent at all. I started running age 13 at 17 I still couldn't break 10 in the 3k. I took a couple of years off running but eventually returned age 21, full of much more knowledge on how to train. My previous 5k best of 17:XX got smashed to pieces and I'm now a sub-15:30 5k guy after less than a year of training smarter, taking better care of my nutrition and sleeping more.

I fully believe that genetics separate the top 20 guys in an elite race, but I think your lifestyle and methods of training are 90% of what matters for anyone short of being an olympic contender.

So why do many families have multiple elite siblings?

Well I'd say it's pretty obvious. They share a similar healthy lifestyle, the same training methods and are raised to have a positive mindset towards their chosen sport.

Mo Farah's brother does not have these things going for him so I personally believe that if he trained for a year, we'd be surprised by how slow he is.

You are clueless. Everyone knows a teammate who ate junk food and got no sleep and got drunk and cut workouts short yet was the fastest guy on the team. I was that guy. I never trained but ran 4:12 in high school while my teammates struggled to run 4:35. I had teammates who did everything possible to get fast and they graduated with PRs of 19 minutes for 5k. I never did a long run in college and always managed to convince the coach that something was hurting so that I could get out of hard workouts, I probably averaged 20 MPW in high school and 35MPW in college but I managed to run 4:05 and 14 flat. I had teammates who were religious about sleep and diet and they put in 80MPW and they hated me. Some of these guys ran 15:30 and some ran 14:30 and some ran 14 flat.

talent beats training wrote:

You are clueless. Everyone knows a teammate who ate junk food and got no sleep and got drunk and cut workouts short yet was the fastest guy on the team. I was that guy. I never trained but ran 4:12 in high school while my teammates struggled to run 4:35. I had teammates who did everything possible to get fast and they graduated with PRs of 19 minutes for 5k. I never did a long run in college and always managed to convince the coach that something was hurting so that I could get out of hard workouts, I probably averaged 20 MPW in high school and 35MPW in college but I managed to run 4:05 and 14 flat. I had teammates who were religious about sleep and diet and they put in 80MPW and they hated me. Some of these guys ran 15:30 and some ran 14:30 and some ran 14 flat.

What a plausible, believable story! Clearly you are telling the truth and not exaggerating in any way. I am sorry that I angered your vastly superior self! I will have to take my cluelessness elsewhere...

talent beats training wrote:

I probably averaged 20 MPW in high school

A 4:12 mile with only 20 miles per week? That's insane.

It sounds like you could have gone sub-4 with better training.

Why were you so unmotivated? Did your parents make you run?

What physical differences do you have? Are your legs long?

"In Phelps' case, a photo study shows that quotient to be more than 1.7. He buys pants with a 34 waist and 32 length, and his inseam is shorter than that of Hicham El Guerrouj, the world-record holder in the mile. The Moroccan stands a shade over 5-9, but is all legs. Phelps has relatively short legs and a long trunk, an advantage in the water."

It's also possible some people have a slightly different metabolism where they convert fat into energy faster or something.

I would be very interested for you to layout your high school and college training and times and those of your teammates. I know that you won't though because it will ruin your theory.

UltraDude wrote:

There was a book out a few years ago called The Sports Gene by David Epstein that examined the importance of genetics in sports. Spoiler alert: genetics is really important.

I know! I read it & it was quite good, although a bit crushing to know that many of us have upper potentials nowhere near world class runners no matter what we put into it.

talent beats training wrote:

I would be very interested for you to layout your high school and college training and times and those of your teammates. I know that you won't though because it will ruin your theory.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that exactly what training you're doing is irrelevant. If I ran a session of 10*400m and my friend ran the same session, how do you know if I'm putting in the same effort as him? I might be pushing myself too hard and causing an overuse injury, or I might be putting in 0 effort and therefore getting no benefit from the session.

I was 6' and 150 pounds. Nothing out of the ordinary except that I could run. I suspect that guys like Dashbach and Culpepper could run 4:05 on 20MPW if they had decent workout or draced into shape. That's more than you realize on 5 days per week. I usually had 2 meets per week in which I ran 1600-800-4x4 quite often. I liked racing but not running. None of my college teammates who ran 14 flat did any running after college. My perception is that 75% of D1 runners walk off the track at their conference meet and never run again.

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

The reason I believe things like this happen is due to myself. I always thought I had no talent at all. I started running age 13 at 17 I still couldn't break 10 in the 3k. I took a couple of years off running but eventually returned age 21, full of much more knowledge on how to train. My previous 5k best of 17:XX got smashed to pieces and I'm now a sub-15:30 5k guy after less than a year of training smarter, taking better care of my nutrition and sleeping more.

Do you realize how many people cannot run 17:xx 5k with lifetime of optimum training and lifestyle? That number starts with a "B"...

Nonsense! I was by far the slowest guy in my training group, I had to train with the guys 3 or 4 years younger, or sometimes even the girls! And I started pretty young too. I just lived a very unhealthy lifestlye and got injured a lot. If I can run 17:XX, any able bodied young male can.

The number even starts with a "B" of how many can't break 20 minutes.

Gregor Mendel wrote:

Kvothe wrote:

Then you have Chad and Ryan Hall, the Ingrebristens. More father/mother and child pairs (the centros, the spences, etc.) than you can shake a stick at. The key to running really fast is picking the right parents.

You can see evidence of familial generic superiority like this in all sports: The Alou and DiMaggio brothers in baseball, Leon and Michael Spinks in boxing, the Gracie clan in MMA, Eddy and Axl Merckx and Matthieu Van Der Poel (Son of Adri and grandson of Raymond Poulidor) in cycling, and in hockey there was Phil and Tony Esposito and the Sutter family, which sent a staggering six brothers to the NHL. And that's just to name a few

There were some differences among the DiMaggio brothers. Although he made the majors, Vince sucked as one, Dom was a good centerfielder with no pop and Joe was a legend.

genetics certainly matter more than diet and sleep lmao

SDSU Aztec wrote:

There were some differences among the DiMaggio brothers. Although he made the majors, Vince sucked as one, Dom was a good centerfielder with no pop and Joe was a legend.

Reminds me when Gjert Ingebrigtsen was talking about 3 kids all having different talent levels and strengths.

- Filip was the most talented one according to him. But despite that, he is not the fastest/best runner of them.

- Henrik apparently was the least talented, but he said he is the strongest mentally. Henrik always amazes him by how well he is racing despite being quite a bit behind his brothers in VO2MAX and lactate threshold tests.

- Jakob is between the two, but by that point he has refined his training methods and knows what works the best. Due to perfect development starting from young age, he as able to surpass both his brothers.

But saying the 3 Ingebrigtsen brothers are not equally talented is still just pointless in this discussion, as every single one of them was measured at 80-85 VO2MAX. So maybe one is 81 and one is 84, simply all of them having a VO2MAX in the 80s is already a sign how much talent matters and that it's inherited to a large degree.

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

talent beats training wrote:

I would be very interested for you to layout your high school and college training and times and those of your teammates. I know that you won't though because it will ruin your theory.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that exactly what training you're doing is irrelevant. If I ran a session of 10*400m and my friend ran the same session, how do you know if I'm putting in the same effort as him? I might be pushing myself too hard and causing an overuse injury, or I might be putting in 0 effort and therefore getting no benefit from the session.

You're only making the point that you have no idea yourself. You write nice theoretical stories though.

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

Nonsense! I was by far the slowest guy in my training group, I had to train with the guys 3 or 4 years younger, or sometimes even the girls! And I started pretty young too. I just lived a very unhealthy lifestlye and got injured a lot. If I can run 17:XX, any able bodied young male can.

Like that. 14 minute guys say the same thing.

So you agree with me then, that anyone could run to a high standard (e.g. lsub 15, maybe even faster) if they have the right training, mindset and lifestyle. I TT'd 15:24 last week and my training is far from optimal and hasn't been going on very long either so I certainly believe such a time is achievable, even for a talentless loser such as myself. People who can't break 18 and blame their genetics are just making excuses for their poor training habits IMO.

I'd just like to clarify that I started running age 13, and in 4 years of consistent training (minus when I was injured) my best performance was 10:09 in the 3000m. (3:23 pace) After taking a break and returning with smarter training and a better mindset I ran 3:08 pace for a distance 67% further and I'm confident I could run a 10k faster than my 3k PB. No way is that due to 'genetics'. I I won't argue against the fact that I may have SOME 'talent' but to me this is proof that genetics isn't everything.