I know of many runners with mediocre talent that became national caliber 10k and marathon runners. Sure, they weren’t going to win a real event, but that is what those distances are for.
I end up posting this on most threads that discuss the ol genetics v hard work thing.. While I think most reasonable people know that that they can improve their racing by doing X miles and Y workouts, there appear to be a small percentage of runners that are delusional when it comes to their top end. They think they are just one magic workout/training plan/coach away from the Olympics or whatever.
If you read many bio's or listen interviews with truly elite runners they ALL tend to play out the same. "I was on the soccer/baseball/basketball team and not doing well my friend/brother/sister told me I should try track/xc. The first year I did pretty good (finishes very high in local or state competition) then when I really trained (finishes very very high in prestigious national meet.) Then I (runs for highly competition college team)." That is not normal, but it IS normal for the top tier athletes in our sport.
Some people are genetically blessed. Call them "Super Responders" if that makes you more comfortable, but they do the same mileage, the same ol 6x8, 5x1k as the rest of us, but they run low 13 5ks as a result of it.
I am NOT saying elites do not work hard, far from it. They just get more out of it than the rest of us.
You can train yourself to be a good runner - winning local races, scoring at conference, 220s marathon, but not elite if your genetics suck.
Not everyone can train themselves to win local races. much less 220 marathons. And I'm not saying that to excuse my own mediocre results. I was able to win low key local races, but could never even train enough to enter a marathon without getting hurt, forget a "fast" pace. I'm pretty sure I could have trained for a superslow marathon without injury - maybe - but wasn't interested in the slog.
How is talent measured? I'd like to see those with the genetic explanation start to make and test predictions based on genetic measurements of youth. Put up or shut up. There are programs out there that generate incredible results for large proportions of their athletes year after year, where you take fields of 200-350 athletes, both in high school and in college, and 3/4 of the top 15 are from just two programs. The colleges recruit but most of the high schools can't, and they are taking kids more or less randomly at the lower level. There wasn't some special genetic lottery at Newbury Park that had never existed before Brosnan and has not existed since, but which allowed 7-8 guys to go sub-9 over a few years. There isn't a genetic lottery hitting a few schools in Utah right now; places like American Fork and Herriman have great coaches. Distance running is much less like sprinting in terms of being able right away to outperform almost everyone. It is a sport that requires training, and there's a bigger training component in sprinting as well than most people credit.
And how many of the American fork kids end up being close to elite? How many break say 14:00? 5%? Better than other schools but not a great success rate.
In HS you can outwork your competition as most people are leaving 10%+ performance in the table with low mileage programs. We dominated our state for years by running 60mpw when our peers were doing 35mpw. Our top guys would be run 9:30s while theirs would be running 10:00. That’s all mileage.
But our rate of sort of elite guys (people running sub 4:05,14:00, xc AA back in the pre super shoes era) in college was no better than anyone else’s. There would be like 1 kid every 3-4 years in our like 10 member league.
For the hobby jogger, talent doesn’t matter as much as they are leaving tons of time on the board with low mileage and being fat. Want to run even moderately fast (say 16:00 for a 5k) and talent shows up in a hurry. And that is a time like 60s/mile slower than elite times…
How is talent measured? I'd like to see those with the genetic explanation start to make and test predictions based on genetic measurements of youth. Put up or shut up. There are programs out there that generate incredible results for large proportions of their athletes year after year, where you take fields of 200-350 athletes, both in high school and in college, and 3/4 of the top 15 are from just two programs. The colleges recruit but most of the high schools can't, and they are taking kids more or less randomly at the lower level. There wasn't some special genetic lottery at Newbury Park that had never existed before Brosnan and has not existed since, but which allowed 7-8 guys to go sub-9 over a few years. There isn't a genetic lottery hitting a few schools in Utah right now; places like American Fork and Herriman have great coaches. Distance running is much less like sprinting in terms of being able right away to outperform almost everyone. It is a sport that requires training, and there's a bigger training component in sprinting as well than most people credit.
A HS runner that can dominate in XC and has the speed to run 4:00,is a rare human being. In the Sacramento area, which is where I’m from, German Fernandez is the only one. Outside of Newbury Park, there have been less than ten in the entire country. Brosnan having 5 of them, makes him by far the luckiest coach in any HS sport in history.
you forgot to tell Gerry Lindgren that he cannot go from the worst to the best just by putting in miles.
Or Jim Ryun that doing all those intervals cannot take him from being cut (slow JV runner) to the best in the world.
Millions of regular guys try high mileage and/or intervals. Going back 60 years to find two exceptions to the rule doesn't prove anything. They were genetically able to respond to the workload in a way that 99.99% or higher simply can not.
you forgot to tell Gerry Lindgren that he cannot go from the worst to the best just by putting in miles.
Or Jim Ryun that doing all those intervals cannot take him from being cut (slow JV runner) to the best in the world.
Lindgren was never the worst and I believe he would have been just as good running 100-120mpw. Crazy mileage wouldn’t have given him the speed to run 4:01.
At the time, Ryun was the most talented miler on the planet.
Face the fact , genetics play a huge role in performance and aging. Age 68 and yeah I can still kick. Maybe this polymorphism plays a role?
rs1815739(C;C) Better performing muscles. Likely sprinter. This genotype indicates better performing muscles, particularly for sprinting and power sports. Fast-twitch muscle fibers are able to produce alpha-actinin-3. Professional sprinters usually have this, although it is less common for endurance athletes. This SNP, in the ACTN3 gene, encodes a premature stop codon in a muscle protein called alpha-actinin-3. The polymorphism alters position 577 of the alpha-actinin-3 protein. In publications the (C;C) genotype is often called RR, whereas the (T;T) genotype is often called XX. According to (T;T) is under-represented in elite strength athletes, consistent with previous reports indicating that alpha-actinin-3 deficiency appears to impair muscle performance. However in 2016 failed to replicate casting some doubt. The most common nucleotide at this position, (C), encodes an arginine (amino acid code R), the alternative T allele encodes a stop codon (X). Hence, the SNP is referred to as R577X, with homozygotes being either RR or XX and heterozygotes being RX. XX individuals completely lack the expression of alpha-actinin-3. One of the earliest report studying a relatively small number of Australian elite (i.e. ~Olympic) athletes found that, at least in females, the R allele (ie...
The sports scientist quoted in this piece states that you cannot train yourself to elite levels, if the genetics aren’t there.
For health and longevity, average levels, achieved with reasonable training, can be achieved, with consistency.
So one question for all the runners out there, not earning a scholarship, or a living from the sport, putting in mega miles and hours of workouts, hoping to find the magic bullet that will help them turn the corner towards huge improvements…Why?
Did you set out to define the either-or (false dilemma) fallacy (thread title)?
In asking “why,” did you consider that health and longevity are one part of the equation for many runners but not the sole one? Maybe there is a bit of competitive fire or desire to push oneself that exists outside the parameters you define?
Yeah, we know we’re not elite.
I’m also not going to be a billionaire, a superhero, or a saint. Nevertheless, striving is integral to my understanding of a well-lived life. For you, running may be nothing more than a path to fitness and longevity. Cool. I love living in a world where people can have different yet still reasonable and fulfilling goals for themselves. Best wishes to you.
Perhaps it's not the same in the US, but there are lots of tiers between "mediocre" and "elite" - in which an athlete can strive for some sort of achievement - at least there is in Australia.
Aside from the personal pleasure one derives from improving oneself (especially while doing the thing they love), there are also regional championships, state championships, local track, cross country and road races. Then there's qualifications for larger races, representing one's state, competing at a national championships and so on. No one would describe athletes at these levels elite, nor is there any real money to be made, but there's still a sense of satisfaction to be had through progressing to new levels of achievement (much more so than spending an extra few hours in the office every week).
In the US we have the Boston and Olympic Trials marathon qualifications for something non top level runners can shoot for. Olympic trials qualification is much, much closer to top level, but 2:18 isn't quite world class. Between 2:18 and about 2:50 for men under 35 there isn't anything tangible to shoot for that I'm aware of.
Any body who has run a marathon between 2:18 and 2:50 understands the difference between a 2:25 and a 2:45. That's enough for me. Signed a 2:42 marathoner.
Sorry, you are wrong. Genetics plays way way higher a role than training. You are the one who needs to put up or shut up to defend the contrary, not the other way round. There is no dearth of any number of wannabe athletes who give it their all but can’t ever crack 15’ for 5K, a fantastic time for the average guy but utterly mediocre for an elite. I can go into the physiological reasons but the empirical evidence is already too strong.
Take a random sample of young boys and get the majority of them to crack 14’. You will fail. Even a quarter of them, you will fail. 10%, you still fail.
2 people I knew:
1. Lazy, barely ran in summer (~25 mpw), didn't finish half of workouts. Ran ~40 mpw during the year. Ran 15:30 on a mostly flat (pretty fast) true 5k xc course.
2. Ran 65 mpw consistently and would work hard. Couldn't break 17:30 on the same course.
You only make this kind of post if you are a miserable person. Are you just seeking to discourage others from pursuing a meaningful goal? VO2max is trainable, and not even the primary factor for genetic potential in distance running. Anyway, a person shouldn’t worry about their potential. Potential is a thing which can be properly assessed only in hindsight. Which means you have to actually go after it with everything in you in order to know. Even Jakob has not reached his potential, despite his methodical training approach and many years of training. Instead of whining about your terrible genetics, maybe apply yourself and stop thinking you know everything about how to train and recover. It’s likely a mental block which is preventing you from making meaningful progress. Humble yourself and encourage others. There is nothing to be gained from spreading negativity.
This post was edited 16 seconds after it was posted.
Sorry, you are wrong. Genetics plays way way higher a role than training. You are the one who needs to put up or shut up to defend the contrary, not the other way round. There is no dearth of any number of wannabe athletes who give it their all but can’t ever crack 15’ for 5K, a fantastic time for the average guy but utterly mediocre for an elite. I can go into the physiological reasons but the empirical evidence is already too strong.
Take a random sample of young boys and get the majority of them to crack 14’. You will fail. Even a quarter of them, you will fail. 10%, you still fail.
2 people I knew:
1. Lazy, barely ran in summer (~25 mpw), didn't finish half of workouts. Ran ~40 mpw during the year. Ran 15:30 on a mostly flat (pretty fast) true 5k xc course.
2. Ran 65 mpw consistently and would work hard. Couldn't break 17:30 on the same course.
I know more extreme examples than this. I know a guy who trained < 50 miles total (not per week) all winter & still ran a 4:12 mile by June. And I know a couple of DIII C team guys who ran 70 mpw and couldn’t break 32 for 8k. But I also know guys who couldn’t break 17 in high school, went to college, walked on, ran 100 mile weeks for 5 years, and eventually scored on college teams. Talent and work ethic *both* matter, especially the higher you go.
How is talent measured? I'd like to see those with the genetic explanation start to make and test predictions based on genetic measurements of youth. Put up or shut up. There are programs out there that generate incredible results for large proportions of their athletes year after year, where you take fields of 200-350 athletes, both in high school and in college, and 3/4 of the top 15 are from just two programs. The colleges recruit but most of the high schools can't, and they are taking kids more or less randomly at the lower level. There wasn't some special genetic lottery at Newbury Park that had never existed before Brosnan and has not existed since, but which allowed 7-8 guys to go sub-9 over a few years. There isn't a genetic lottery hitting a few schools in Utah right now; places like American Fork and Herriman have great coaches. Distance running is much less like sprinting in terms of being able right away to outperform almost everyone. It is a sport that requires training, and there's a bigger training component in sprinting as well than most people credit.
Ha, well. Genetically speaking, Newbury Park had the Youngs and Sahlmans. Brothers.
It takes exceptional talent and hard work to be able to run a sub-9:00 3200m in high school and a sub 9:00 3200m is also not necessarily hitting the genetic lottery. I would say running two miles under 8:30 starts to enter into genetic lottery territory
The sports scientist quoted in this piece states that you cannot train yourself to elite levels, if the genetics aren’t there.
For health and longevity, average levels, achieved with reasonable training, can be achieved, with consistency.
So one question for all the runners out there, not earning a scholarship, or a living from the sport, putting in mega miles and hours of workouts, hoping to find the magic bullet that will help them turn the corner towards huge improvements…Why?
Did you set out to define the either-or (false dilemma) fallacy (thread title)?
In asking “why,” did you consider that health and longevity are one part of the equation for many runners but not the sole one? Maybe there is a bit of competitive fire or desire to push oneself that exists outside the parameters you define?
Yeah, we know we’re not elite.
I’m also not going to be a billionaire, a superhero, or a saint. Nevertheless, striving is integral to my understanding of a well-lived life. For you, running may be nothing more than a path to fitness and longevity. Cool. I love living in a world where people can have different yet still reasonable and fulfilling goals for themselves. Best wishes to you.
I actually appreciate this kind of well thought reply, even if I don’t resonate with the sentiment behind it.
I used to have this drive, but as I’ve grown older, with a life full of things to cram into a day, something has had to give. Call it a change in priorities if you will. But as I look back, I wish my priorities would have changed much sooner. Personally, I see a life focused on a singular minded goal, of knocking a few seconds off a race time, or placing in a local race, to win a plastic trophy, as being a bit selfish, when the time spent pursuing such a goal could be better spent elsewhere.
Training for health and longevity can still have the element of strive ( occasionally), progression, and fulfilment, but competing against yourself, instead of others, or some arbitrary time goals, takes a lot less time from your week, and is less stressful.
On another recent thread, someone asked how they could balance training to compete, around a busy 9 to 5 job. There were numerous convoluted solutions offered in the thread where people were balancing training around other daily activities of work and family life. I honestly couldn’t see anyone being able to do that and in a way that all areas were optimally satisfied. I tried that in my youth. Guess what? My career suffered, and I still didn’t get a pay cheque or endorsement from running. How many on this board can HONESTLY say that in their pursuit of shaving seconds off a PB, their career, family, friends or other area of their life hasn’t suffered as a result? Hey, if racing is your number one priority, then fine, have at it. But don’t be surprised when you are overlooked for promotion again, or family life goes awry.
Still I thank you for your measured answer, and for the fact that unlike others, you weren’t abusive with it, even though we don’t agree.
However from the standpoint of my new perspective, based on personal experience, I still look at those not fortunate enough to be running for financial gain and ask…why? Why so much time spent not only training, to be the best runner in the little cohort of runners around you, all with similar times, that you see again and again in your local races, who you have an unspoken personal rivalry with…but also why so much time spent on places like this, or other sites/ books / magazines, pouring through the words, agonising over the permutations and hoping to find the big breakthrough training method. From experience I know…it’s all just way too stressful.
I’d rather go out and run, regardless of my time, and then get on with the rest of my day.
You only make this kind of post if you are a miserable person. Are you just seeking to discourage others from pursuing a meaningful goal? VO2max is trainable, and not even the primary factor for genetic potential in distance running. Anyway, a person shouldn’t worry about their potential. Potential is a thing which can be properly assessed only in hindsight. Which means you have to actually go after it with everything in you in order to know. Even Jakob has not reached his potential, despite his methodical training approach and many years of training. Instead of whining about your terrible genetics, maybe apply yourself and stop thinking you know everything about how to train and recover. It’s likely a mental block which is preventing you from making meaningful progress. Humble yourself and encourage others. There is nothing to be gained from spreading negativity.
Miserable? Hardly. Since my change of perspective, I’m actually a lot happier ( see my post above). I spend less time training, but also less time thinking about training, and how I can change / modify things to eek out a bit more improvement. That is the real stressful aspect, and I see it in many threads on here, from many people, who I personally feel shouldn’t be doing it. Actually having a more relaxed approach, accepting mediocrity ( as someone has already labelled me) is quite freeing and liberating. You are not spending inordinate amounts of your day / week stressing about permutations or how you are going to juggle training around other aspects of your life, trying to balance them together and hoping that nothing will go too wrong if one aspect is allowed to slide so that training can take a greater importance.
I don’t see it as negative. I view it as being realistic. And altering my priorities has been quite positive as I’ve got older.