How do you know if you have talent?

You arent talented, high school runners with talent can run sub 5 and at least 55 without any training. I had a high jumper on my track team run 52 and 202 without ever running.

You should still try and run a lot of miles because you never know what will happen.

What if two runners have the same potential, but one is skinny and was active during the first 10-15 years of his life and one is fat and sat around playing video games. Of course the skinny dude will appear more talented, because he is much faster. The fat dude will have to work hard to catch up.

This is, in general, similar to Americans and Europeans vs Kenyans and Ethiopians.

There are many different categories of talent.

1.) Talent to run fast off of little/no training

2.) Talent to handle high mileage and intensity without getting injured.

3.) Talent to improve greatly off of training (super-responders).

Most letsrun posters seem to be overly focused on #1, but if I were a coach, I'd rather take someone who responds to training very well and can handle high mileage and intensity.

ewmayer wrote:

1.) Talent to run fast off of little/no training

2.) Talent to handle high mileage and intensity without getting injured.

3.) Talent to improve greatly off of training (super-responders).

Just to emphasize this further, one of my teammates ran a 54 second 400 off of no training as a freshman in high school. Despite year-round sprint training and plenty of motivation, he never broke 50 in his entire high school career and ended up quitting in college. Another friend jogged to a 3:50 800 and couldn't even finish a mile without stopping when he was in seventh grade. Despite this, he responded very well to training and now has an 800 PR of 1:56 and a 1500 PR of 4:03.

sieve wrote:

No talent: can't get under a 6 minute mile no matter how much you run

Average guy: 5:30 mile off of 40MPW

Moderate talent: 5:15 mile off of 20MPW

World-class talent: sub 5:00 mile without any training

So you don't have much talent, but you're a bit better than an average guy plucked from the street.

Why does everyone define talent as "how well you can run with minimal training"?

Who is more talented?

Senior Year in High School performance:

Dude A: Runs 4:20 mile on 30 miles a week in high school.

Dube B: runs 4:20 mile on 80 miles a week in high school.

College Performance:

Dude A: Runs 4:10 mile on 80 miles a week in college.

Dube B: Runs 3:58 mile on 100 miles a week in college.

So if you had been taking your 25mpw seriously do you still think you would only have run 4:50?

Your 4:50 was clearly not an indicator of your talent level as by your own admisssion you were not taking it seriously.

It normally doesn't happen that way. a 25% increase in training volume normally doesn't lead to as big of gains as a 150% increase in volume. We will ignore that volume is a poor measure of a training program for middle distance.

Surprise! wrote:

sieve wrote:

No talent: can't get under a 6 minute mile no matter how much you run

Average guy: 5:30 mile off of 40MPW

Moderate talent: 5:15 mile off of 20MPW

World-class talent: sub 5:00 mile without any training

So you don't have much talent, but you're a bit better than an average guy plucked from the street.

Why does everyone define talent as "how well you can run with minimal training"?

Who is more talented?

Senior Year in High School performance:

Dude A: Runs 4:20 mile on 30 miles a week in high school.

Dube B: runs 4:20 mile on 80 miles a week in high school.

College Performance:

Dude A: Runs 4:10 mile on 80 miles a week in college.

Dube B: Runs 3:58 mile on 100 miles a week in college.

OR wrote:

It normally doesn't happen that way. a 25% increase in training volume normally doesn't lead to as big of gains as a 150% increase in volume.

We will ignore that volume is a poor measure of a training program for middle distance.

It's a hypothetical. My point was is that it seems many people on this board determine "talent" by how fast someone runs on low-mileage.

I don't think "talent" can be determined until optimal training has occurred.

Either way, in a given race, talent isn't as important as finishing place and time.