Distance Running TALENT Question?

Well sort of, Bio major. AODM occurs most commonly in genetically predisposed adults who are overweight. Obesity-related AODM is a condition of insulin resistance, not insulin deficiency, and it's not a direct effect of "too much sugar." Insulin resistance develops as BMI goes up, regardless of what one eats to become overweight. Eating sugar can (or complex carbs, protein, fat, or excess calories in any form) make you fat which can make you diabetic.

Sevatonic,

Take a science class. You can't change your genes unless you mutate them chemically, and even then it would have to be directly in the few cells in your body which give rise to sperm/egg. Even then, it would be only affecting your offspring, and not you. No way it can affect both of your genes. Nothing you do changes your genes, you're stuck with what you are born with.

Back to topic, I view the ability to train hard and not overtrain or injure as half of the talent needed to succeed (the other half being speed). The best elites are those gifted in both. I know a few with awesome speed that can't do 40 mpw and so will never be great.

I on the other hand am deficient in speed so I train my butt off to try and make up for it....talent of any kind is only a starting point.

i'm so proud of you. as my great, great, grandchild you are expressing my inherently flawed logic on this messageboard. Alas, Darwin, I was right after all!!!!!!!!

In "Running With The Buffs Lear" quoted Wetmore as saying, "The 'right stuff' on this level is some combination of these four qualities: talent, durability, determination, and courage." Personally, I'm with the "durability as talent" school of thought on this part of the debate. Case in point: My roommate ran 25:30ish every race in XC his frosh year and was named ACC Freshman of the Year. I ran more like 26:30 only a couple times one year later (my frosh year). My roommate, however, now in his senior campaign, has yet to have an injury-free season since that aforementioned fall, and, thus, his production has been minimal. On the other hand, I've been healthy virtually ever since. For the year 2001 I averaged 68 miles per week, and thus far in 2002 I've averaged over 80 miles per week. I've moved up to the marathon these days, so I can't say "And now I've run 25:00 while he hasn't", but I did run sub-2:25 at Chicago last weekend. And my roommate, bless his heart, can't run 40 miles per week without getting injured. So while his Ability might make him the more talented runner, my DURAbility levels the playing field.

For those who side wholeheartedly with the "will can take you anywhere" school of thought, I will offer a quote from a movie with which most of us are likely familiar in a respectful dissent.

In the scene in "Without Limits" outside The Pad, the bar in which Pre worked for a time, Bowerman has the following lecture for the young gun:

"If you have no talent than you have no limits. It's all an act of will...I've got news for you, Pre: all the will and hard work in the world isn't gonna get one person in a million to run a 3:54 mile; that takes talent. And talent in a runner is tied to very specific physical attributes. Your heart can probably pump more blood than anyone else's on this planet, and that's the fuel for your talent. The bones in your feet, it'd take a sledgehammer to hurt 'em, and that's the foundation for your talent. So your talent, Pre, is not some disembodied act of will, it's literally in your bones so it's got its limits."

Not that several lines from a film offer THE solution to the issue, but they offer an interesting point of view nonetheless.

In the movie, Pre never sweats or sucks air at the finish

line. He must have been bionic, or the movie's full of

shit.

WAIT,

What I meant peak = when one can't grow anymore to their maximum potential. That was why I said :"BEFORE" 21-22. The real 'peak' you were saying all this time, Im sure is betweeen 17-19 for MEN when they release and produce almost 90% of their hGH, 90% of their glands capability.

OH, "please do more reading?"

Look at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1099310.stm

- Diabetes Gene Identified, written by Corinne Podger of BBC Science - 3rd January 2001

Next time, do more research.

And who is the bigtime FOS now.

karangasem.

Your article while interesting does not support your point sure they have found many things that are linked to genes, the fact is that the manifestation of the characteristics in the aforementioned "gene" is base on a variety of factors. These people maybe genetically predisposed to Type 2 diabetes, but they may or may not develop the symptoms. No matter what this does not show up out of nowhere and some one who does not have the pre-disposion to have this disease does not suddenly develop the disease.

In the article it states "While diet and environment are known risk factors for the disease, type 2 diabetes also tends to run in families. Scientists believe that less than 10 genes may be responsible."

10 genes! and some combination of these genes... and who knows what other factors (proteins and other microbiotic factors on how cells are organized) You do not change you genetic make-up in any sense - it is there and you pass it to your progeny...

don't argue with sevatonic when it comes to reading comprehension-- he's right and everyone else is wrong...

hey sev, is english your primary language???

Okay I admit I tend to be biased by minor experiments which have not been fully confirmed and proven thoroughly. So I'm a big believer in possibilities. But discoveries come from possibilities.

I did not say 'wrong'

I said 'out-dated'

'wrong' and 'out-dated' are two different things. Please take note that.

No. English is not my primary language. It's my fourth/fifth language.

karangasem.

sevatonic, science has no official language and neither does pride. from your posts it appears as though you somehow became clearly mistaken about the biological mechanics underlying heritable human traits. no big deal, man. no one expects you to know everything, so you can relax and just admit that you're wrong every now and then. take it easy, man. peace.

I wouldnt be saying things if I knew I was totally wrong geesh.

And I didnt say I'm right either.

p-o-s-s-i-b-i-l-i-t-i-e-s.

p-r-o-b-a-b-i-l-i-t-i-e-s.

karangasem.

2 miles 10 times day would not prepare one for a 2:20 or better marathon. The duration of the effort matters, too. I believe that has been proven, but I couldn't quote a source.

There are people who could never get to running 140 mile weeks continously without injury, no matter how "intelligently" they did it. I'm sure there are some who COULD do so but won't try, but they don't invalidate the "paradigm".