Could you become a professional/Olympic level athlete (making the Olympics finals of an event) through average genetics?

You do know that physiologically the mile and the marathon are completely different races, right? There's your explanation right there; Daws' genetic potential was in the marathon, not the mile.

Frank Shorter never broke four minutes for the mile either, likely because he lacked the fast twitch muscle fibers to do so. Yet he excelled at the marathon. Muscle fiber type is an inherited trait, and is therfore a genetic trait.

The fact is that through research we do know that muscle fiber type plays a large role in running ability and performance, in addition to other hereditary factors such as VO2 Max, body type, etc.

Please do some bio research before you dismiss the role of genetics in running ability.

He is not spot on, and neither are you. If it was simply a matter of will and hard work, then everyone who wanted to break four minutes and put in the "effort" in the mile would do so. You think the reason Frank Shorter never broke four minutes in the mile is a because of a lack of hard work? You think the reason that Bob Kennedy is the only American born runner to break 13 in the 5K is because no one else wanted to put in the work? That's ridiculous.

I'm not saying to not work hard and maximize one's potential, but to tell people that you can acheive anything if you work hard enough is utter bull shit and sets people up for failure when they don't reach some unrealistic expectation.

Apparently you didn't not understand my comments. I never said success was only a matter of hard work and effort. I said its genes plus environment and that the interaction between the two is complex. I also never said that anyone can achieve anything if you work hard enough.

What sets people up for failure is thinking you have no chance for success.

"you can acheive anything if you work hard enough .."

Yes, people will argue against this idea, and it's ingrained in us as Americans, that if you work harder you will succeed. It's in our books, our movies, every coach preaches this, but in reality it's not true.

Genetics play a huge role in whether you are a successful (if we are defining success as Oly Games/WC type) runner.

I'd be willing to bet that on most HS XC teams the #6 & 7 runners work hard, but they'll never be the #1 runner, no matter how hard they try.

To get to an Olympic final, take up sailing, or equestrian, or any number of other events that are based more on skill/practice than physical ability.

HRE, I'm with you on this one. The best runners have certain personality traits that make them better runners. These factors definitely have a considerable genetic component, but not genes that have been identified.

I have noticed that sometimes it is easy to fall into a trap of trying too hard, I definitely agree with you there. As for the pain barrier, surely the best time to push through it is when we are really flying?

You make a lot of good points, but these points offend a lot of people it's clear. Public opinion likes to categorize people, put them in a box and refuse to see the whole personality and development of inate ability.

Sara B. wrote:

(for example, Geb ran 10k to school and 10k back every day according to him).

No way, that is too much for just a kid, he'll get injured, hate the sport and quite long before he even gets to high school. His paranets should be put in jail for trying to live out their dreams through him.

The poor kid doesn't even have a chance at a decent life. He through.

... Oh wait, did you say Geb.

[quote]Mr. Mediocrity wrote:

"Apparently you didn't not "

Sorry about the typo - just ignore the "not"

I never said that anyone can achieve anything with enough hard work. I said that people toss the term "genetics" around to explain things for which they have no other explanation.

Consider the casually training 16 minute five km guy and the hard training 17 minute five km guy that someone used as examples. As presented, the suggestion is that NO OTHER explanation works there but genetics. Leaving aside the matter that no one can identify specifically what genes are involved, the explanation is still overly simplistic. Of course we all come with some basic physical attributes that affect how well we can do things. But those attributes play out against a myriad of factors.

Suppose Mr Easy 16 was a very active kid, always running and biking places and Mr. Hard 17 was introverted and sort of bookish as a kid ad hung around the house a lot. He's likely to have less aerobic fitness when he starts running than Mr. 16 and that's not going to change right away. But it's entirely possible, though far from certain, that if Mr. Hard 17 keeps doing more running than Mr. Easy 16 he'll eventually get better. It's also possible that Mr. Easy 16 has some inborn or acquired ability that Mr. Hard 17 doesn't that Mr. 17 will never overcome and that ability may be based in genes or in some other complex combination of factors.

What we do, when we talk about genes or talent, is essentially to look at early returns. A kid comes out for cross country as a senior after three years of football, wins all of his dual meets and comes in the top ten at his district meet, and everyone "knows" that this kid has talent or good genes But a kid who starts to run as a freshman, runs for an hour most days and finally cracks the varsity seven as a senior will generally be acknowledged as having bad genes or little talent. But what do we make of that argument if the second kid turns out to be someone like Daws or Brian Sell, who far exceeds what other more "talented" contemporaries do?

We just don't know specifically. The answer to the original question is that most people, by far, will not become a professional or Olympic level runner no matter how much of their life they dedicate to doing so. How big or small a role genes play in that has NEVER been demonstrated despite the desire of many people to think that it has.

But let's assume that genes actually determine whether or not you might be a professional or Olympic runner and that you can't be either of those things with "average genetics." Then why should anyone even bother getting serious about running because almost everyone, by definition, is going to have "average" genetics. You'll only find out what's posible by trying to do it.

Absolutely not. There is no need for 500 word discussions on the subject. If you are not genetically gifted, you will never be an elite athlete in any T&F event. The end.

The fact that East African runners dominate every aspect of distance running, while not a "genetic experiment", shows that genes do have a great deal of affect on whether one is going to be a good runner, or a slug.

I'm not going to debate your entire post because I believe that we have found the genetic factors and you don't, so we're not likely to change each other's mind. I will answer this question that you posed:

" Then why should anyone even bother getting serious about running because almost everyone, by definition, is going to have "average" genetics. You'll only find out what's posible by trying to do it."

The reason is that running is great in that it allows everyone to test their limits regardless of their ability. That's the reason to get serious. I'm never going to run in the Olympics, but I am still curious as to what my ultimate limits are and am interested in finding out. I also like to experiment with different training methods and see what is effective and what is not (for me). Finally, I enjoy running in an of itself as a means of testing myself. That's why anyone should bother getting serious about training.

HRE wrote:

The answer to the original question is that most people, by far, will not become a professional or Olympic level runner no matter how much of their life they dedicate to doing so. How big or small a role genes play in that has NEVER been demonstrated despite the desire of many people to think that it has.

This is ridiculous. We have over 100 years of research showing the dramatic genetic influence on pure instinct-type skills (such as running, which is not a learned skill). Quit acting like there's some unknown force out there -- when it comes to thinks like running, reflexes, taste, jumping, etc., there's not much more than genes to blame.

Yes, we understand that in the middle of the pot, nurture can get in the way of nature -- and yes, 16:00 and 17:00 5kers are somewhere in the middle -- some kids overeat, some are depressed, etc. But at the margins, pure genetic ability is >98% of the equation, so assuming that at least 8 individuals within the top 1% of the genetic pool have some of these "intangibles" that you allude to, the odds of an average genetic being making an Olympic final are, as the good Dean would say, "zero...point...zero".

No way wrote:

a Med student. wrote:

you would be surprised how little your times change depending on how much you train if you maintain the same body weight and sleep schedule.

0mpw=16:40

20mpw=16:00

40mpw with workouts=15:20

70mpw with workouts=15:00

100mpw with workouts=14:45

0mpw=16:40? Are you smoking crack? Show me one human being who can run 16:40 (for the 5K, I'm assuming?) on 0mpw and I'll show you...something else that's impossible.

are you serious? maybe for someone who does marathons and 10ks all fall but to middle distance runners thats not bad at all. i've seen average milers run 16:40 like they were jogging

crusin wrote:

The fact that East African runners dominate every aspect of distance running, while not a "genetic experiment", shows that genes do have a great deal of affect on whether one is going to be a good runner, or a slug.

They don't dominate every aspect. They're certainly not the dominant force in the women's marathon. Only one East African woman has won the Olympic marathon title, with the others being Japanese (2) or of European origin (4). The first woman under 2:20 was Takahashi, the far and away WR holder is a white woman from Cheshire, and of the eight women to have run inside 2:20, only one is East African. In the women's marathon, it is clear that women of European and Asian herritage dominate more than any other group.

crusin wrote:

The fact that East African runners dominate every aspect of distance running, while not a "genetic experiment", shows that genes do have a great deal of affect on whether one is going to be a good runner, or a slug.

Specifically, how?

HRE makes some very good points. i don't know why everyone is bashing his posts. i think people are misunderstanding him. he's not saying that genes don't play a role. he's saying that there are other factors to why someone during say one particular season or stretch of training is better than another person despite training less.

lets say two kids are training for the 5k and one kid runs slower despite training more. well maybe he's more naturally attuned to the marathon and he will excel far more at that than the currently faster kid could ever do at any event.

or maybe their coach focuses on interval training but not tempo runs and the currently faster kid responds better to intervals while the slower kid plateau's quickly with just intervals and isn't getting the needed strength work he requires to excel.

maybe the slower kid is maturing slower so he won't hit his prime until a few years after the currently faster kid.

maybe the slower kid is overtraining and running too much, but he always does that cuz he thinks he needs that to succeed.

maybe the slower kid isn't sleeping enough or eating enough. maybe he's just naturally weak and with a couple years of strength training his running would improve a vast amount.

HRE is saying that yeah genetics play a role but its not always so clearcut that you can say that if one person is doing better than another off similar or even less training then that faster person must have superior genetics.

sometimes it is pretty clear, but not always. a guy i ran with in college could run about a 2:05 800 and 4:45 mile after maybe going on a couple runs beforehand after not running for a few months. he obviously has incredible talent, much more than say someone who can't break 4:40 until they're at like 40 mpw and have been doing workouts for a month. but even then, maybe that naturally talented guy doesn't believe in doing mileage and he never runs faster than 4:20 (yes, that is what actually happened). while the much less naturally talented guy might in 5 years time with consistent hard training and consistently smarter training run a 29:00 10k (4:40 mile pace). in college you might say that guy doesn't have much natural talent, after a 29:00 10k you'd say he has plenty of natural talent.

natural talent does exist. but it is often times hard to quantify because there are so many factors at play. i think that someone who early on isn't thought of as super genetically gifted can make the olympics because people only base their idea of someone's genes on what they have done so far. maybe you train really hard and run a 14:20 5k in college. good job you have good running genes, but nobody ever expects you to make the olympics. then after college you start training on your own in a new place and you find you are suddenly improving a lot more with different training and a different environment. Four years later you are at 13:20. good job, now you have far better genes than you did in college and now might go the olympics. Now that isn't a real life example but that sorta thing does happen and it does show that when people talk about someone's genes they are really just complete guesses.

HRE wrote:

Maybe I want success too badly and try too hard, ultimately impeding my performances in massive ways. Maybe I\'m just a wussy who can\'t push himself through any sort of pain barrier. Maybe there\'s some whole other aspect of performance that we ignore.

Natural ability is what counts. I trained the summer before my high school sophomore year with a guy who was about to be a high school senior. He would run the mile that spring in 4:05.7, setting a state record, and would finish third at the Golden West that summer. I got a dose of what real talent looks like. Some people are just more endowed with running talent than others. The mental aspect is overrated. Just look, for example, at Henry Rono and Fernando Mamede. I doubt they achieved world records based on their mental discipline.

HRE wrote:

So Daws must be on the Olympic team because he has better genes than those other guys, right?

But where were those genes in high school?

Tom Laris could beat Ron Daws in the two mile running backwards. Laris ran close to 28:00 for the 10k in 1972. And he had a marathon best of at least 2:16. For Daws to beat Laris in the '68 trials, it was either b/c Laris was unprepared for it or simply had a bad day.