Is there any science behind "talent"?

What is Talent? wrote:

Obviously it doesn't help to worry about genes, but that is my question, is talent just a matter of good genes? Is there a way of over-riding genes that might be holding you back(-Example-If you have a "lazy gene" but a coach or other outside force gets you to train)

No one knows what genes they have so it's a meaningless question. How can you "over-ride" something that doesn't exist?

This one is not very difficult to figure out. If a person isn't very motivated, just how far along the spectrum of excellence do you think they can go? I've coached plenty of kids over a 20-year span. Some come to the program with their own built-in passion, others develop it within the program, and others don't really want to put in an honest effort. Which one are you?

Body parts are nice wrote:

Not trolling. Just saying that the gene argument is useless unless you know which genes you're talking about and if you have been tested to see if you have them.

Ps - the Samoan statement makes no sense. And why can't a basset hound outrun a greyhound?

That's why you see a lot of basset hound racing, huh? Why don't you buy a basset or a dachshund or a chihuahua and take it down to a greyhound track some weekend and bet your life savings on it. I'm sure they'd be happy to take your money.

While you're at it, why not buy a nice Percheron draft horse and take it down to the local thoroughbred track. I'm sure if you train it enough and give it enough treats to motivate it, it will win every race. Go for it. It has nothing to do with breeding, nothing at all, right?

You'd go far in the racing world, my friend.

If a basset hound truly believes in himself and refuses to accept the the psychological limitations imposed on him society, he can run faster than a greyhound. It's all about heart.

For proof, see every Hollywood sports movie ever made.

Body parts are nice wrote:

What is Talent? wrote:

Obviously it doesn't help to worry about genes, but that is my question, is talent just a matter of good genes? Is there a way of over-riding genes that might be holding you back(-Example-If you have a "lazy gene" but a coach or other outside force gets you to train)

No one knows what genes they have so it's a meaningless question. How can you "over-ride" something that doesn't exist?

Is your arguement that since you don't know much about genes then they don't exist? That's f'in stupid.

1/10

No, my argument is that your lack or presence of "running genes" does not exist unless you know what genes you have.

I just asked why can't a basset hound be faster than a greyhound. I didn't say that it could or could not. I asked why. Your response doesn't answer the question.

short fat legs my man.

Build an "aerobic house" (as renato canova puts it) over a period of years, avoid the pitfalls of over-training (this one is key), and you will improve. Everything else is bullshit.

Also believe in yourself and stop listening to the idiots on this thread who cry about genes, which is something that is just applied after the fact anyways, to explain what must have been there.

thread over.

It's so reassuring to know that we can all expect Jillian Camarena Williams to burn a sub-31 10,000m the moment she starts "believing" in herself. That and an aerobic base and she'll be running right on Shalane's shoulder.

http://tinyurl.com/6jl326m

Animal breeders have selectively bred animals for centuries and probably millennia based on observable traits, with absolutely no knowledge of genetics or genes or DNA. It is not necessary to know the name of genes to select for traits. Horse breeders breed winners with winners, don't always succeed, but sometimes do. Dog breeders can select for obvious things like leg length or coat color, or intangibles like temperament. Or they can select for racing speed, without even knowing what contributes to it. No knowledge of genetics is needed.

Presumably you are doing the same thing, whether consciously or not, when you select a mate. You also presumably try to influence your progeny's choice of mate.

Selection of human phenotypes in many parts of the world has now, of course, divorced itself from natural selection, at least in our short view of the world. But those selection pressures still exist in some areas, and certainly existed within historical memory.

So, yes, I would say there is definitely science behind natural talent. Knowing names of genes is not important. Observing phenotypes that differ in obvious traits such as performance is obvious. The thoroughbred or greyhound breeder does not need to know which gene to select for, or even which physical aspect of the animal contributes to its success, whether it is leg length or something else. He can simply select for which animal runs fastest, and breed it with another the runs fast. Whatever traits contribute to this will most likely be transmitted.

Hopkinton wrote:

It's so reassuring to know that we can all expect Jillian Camarena Williams to burn a sub-31 10,000m the moment she starts "believing" in herself. That and an aerobic base and she'll be running right on Shalane's shoulder.

http://tinyurl.com/6jl326m

Your post makes no sense. What is your point?

Of course there is such a thing as talent.

If you have a person that is naturally big, and one that is naturally skinny, the skinny person automatically has an advantage of the bigger person. If both go into an XC season without any miles under their belt, the big person may need to put in 30 more miles per week than the skinny person just to draw even in running fitness.

Some people on my own XC team have to run more to equate to others. I run 25 miles per week and have an "okay" 5K time of 17:03 while other members on my own team do the EXACT same training (our coach doesn't have flexible workouts) and run say around 20 minutes for the 5K. It's not like I do anything more, it's just I have some favorable genes (African grandmother).

Props to people that have unfavorable genes. They have to do much more work for much less awards.

Doing the exact same training isn't evidence for that conclusion. There's much that can explain why they aren't responding to the training like you are.

Also, why would a bigger person have to run more than a lighter person? What disadvantage is there?

Whats Talent? wrote:

What does it mean when we describe some runner as "talented"?

Is talent a combination of physical characteristics/mindsets/ a product of a life of training? Can one train in a way to reveal their "talent"?

I think if you define your question, you will define your answer.

Depending on how much you want to deconstruct the individual, there are equally as many ways you can subcategorize the person and the individual elements that may or may not contribute to one's ability to succeed in sports. The simple definition of talent I've seen is the ability to perform an activity well with little or no training. When you start to look at athlete's from different angles you will get different concepts/aspects of ability, each of which may vary in its ability to be quantified easily and accurately, things get more complicated. One's physiological and physical characteristics can be quantified rather easily. But, something like longevity, durability and tenacity, all of which are key components to any successful athlete's development, are a lot harder to put in that same black box and pop out a value.

By studying the great minds of the field and developing a deep familiarity with what has worked in the past, you can speed up the process of talent identification and characterization. For instance, I think Lydiard's rule of looking at an athlete's basic 200m speed will tell you what general events to put them in. That's a rule that has been around for about 40 years. If you wanted a more accurate prediction, muscle fiber tests could help give you that information. Nonetheless, there are lots of people who have had lots of success with relatively simplistic methods in the past. Unfortunately, people who work through all that information, assimilate it and incorporate it into their own thought processes lose track of which piece of the puzzle came from where and tend to just see it as "coaching knowledge".

I find your last question to be the most interesting. Much of training is an experiment in figuring out how to maximize a given athlete's skills, abilities and experiences for greatest success. Some athletes figure this out relatively quickly, but, for those who do, the target usually moves because they are fitter the next season and what worked then needs to be refined again, this, creating a bit of a moving target season by season. That's why many athletes progress under one coach for a few years and seem to reach a plateau. Typically a coach has experience in a narrow range of abilities. Once an athlete transcends their ability range they need to help the athlete move on and find a more suitable coach. I as a coach have wrestled with this at times. As a coach you have to keep growing in order to help athletes who do in fact progress and need new challenges and new frameworks season by season.

A few cents for thought.

Greyhounds are sprinters. A basset hound would outrun a greyhound in a long distance race, but obviously not a sprint.

There are obvious genetic differences between some runners, but you are right that the argument about genes and talent are ridiculously simplistic. Many posters here are simply not intelligent enough to recognize that what they are refering to when they talk about genetics, are physiological traits rather than psychological ones. How many runners really want to make it to the top? Only a very tiny number.

Really? That's like saying a back of the pack fatty could outrun Bolt in a long distance race.

JOrzh wrote:

Greyhounds are sprinters. A basset hound would outrun a greyhound in a long distance race, but obviously not a sprint.

Let me tell you a little story about the Turtle and the Hare: the Hare was clearly faster, but the Turtle ultimately won because he had a greater VO2 max. Never mind that the Hare had peripheral vascular disease. That's a story for another time.

Florzel wrote:

Really? That's like saying a back of the pack fatty could outrun Bolt in a long distance race.

JOrzh wrote:

Greyhounds are sprinters. A basset hound would outrun a greyhound in a long distance race, but obviously not a sprint.

What does basset hound = back of the pack fatty?

Some dogs (sticking WITH the analogy) actually do better over time in spite of their appearance being less athletic. Now, switching back to the human example: ever hear of those south American tribes that do multi day long events? They are not super lean, but, they sure can run a long time. Bolt, even though he's lean and muscular would die if he tried. That is what the poster was alluding to.