What are some of the biggest misconceptions or cliches that high schoolers and College runners have?

jdmd wrote:

That things like genetic limitations or natural talent exist. Or at least thinking that those things are why you aren't faster. You aren't faster because your training sucks.

I think that to an extent this is true, but at a certain point genetic differences play an enormous role. Just because a runner works hard and has good training doesn't mean he will be the best runner on a collegiate level team if the natural talent isn't there.

1. That tall runners will do better in 400m/800m than short runners cause their stride is longer.

2. That applying ben-gay (or similar substance) will improve your performance or replace a warm-up

3. That having a aesthetic-looking stride will make you faster and is thus something to strive for

4. That "relaxing" your stride will make you run faster

5. Too much emphasis (college particularly) on hard day followed by easy day, like as if having two consecutive hard days will hurt you

college track/XC was awesome, but it can never compare to high school teams. it just won't.

your college coach will always be concerned with recruiting the next class. he/she may be an awesome coach who is totally committed to you as an athlete, but it's amazing how much of their thoughts/time/energy/stress is devoted to the next big class. this is bad if you like the attention of a coach, good for you to keep improving because some new, wide-eyed high school stud is coming in next year and wants your spot

That a 4:29 miler will get money at a DI!

jdmd wrote:

That things like genetic limitations or natural talent exist. Or at least thinking that those things are why you aren't faster. You aren't faster because your training sucks.

...really? You are insane if you don't realize that biomechanics/talent are by far the biggest determinant of how good you will be.

jdmd wrote:

That things like genetic limitations or natural talent exist. Or at least thinking that those things are why you aren't faster. You aren't faster because your training sucks.

lawguy wrote:

...really? You are insane if you don't realize that biomechanics/talent are by far the biggest determinant of how good you will be.

this^

lawguy wrote:

jdmd wrote:

That things like genetic limitations or natural talent exist. Or at least thinking that those things are why you aren't faster. You aren't faster because your training sucks.

...really? You are insane if you don't realize that biomechanics/talent are by far the biggest determinant of how good you will be.

To you and BigTimeRun,

I'm not insane at all. There have been no findings that "talent" or "running genes/genetic limitations" exist. So, you cannot use phrases like "by far" or "insane".

The biggest determinant is definitely not talent. The biggest determinant is training. Even if Bekele has such genes, he was not born a 12:37 runner or even a sub 18:00 runner. He had to train to break 5 in the mile just like all of us. He had to put in the actual training to get to the world record (or, from your perspective, to maximize the talent he was born with).

jdmd wrote:

lawguy wrote:

...really? You are insane if you don't realize that biomechanics/talent are by far the biggest determinant of how good you will be.

To you and BigTimeRun,

I'm not insane at all. There have been no findings that "talent" or "running genes/genetic limitations" exist. So, you cannot use phrases like "by far" or "insane".

The biggest determinant is definitely not talent. The biggest determinant is training. Even if Bekele has such genes, he was not born a 12:37 runner or even a sub 18:00 runner. He had to train to break 5 in the mile just like all of us. He had to put in the actual training to get to the world record (or, from your perspective, to maximize the talent he was born with).

Then how do you explain how 2 guys on the same team and on the same training can be minutes apart?

jdmd wrote:

lawguy wrote:

...really? You are insane if you don't realize that biomechanics/talent are by far the biggest determinant of how good you will be.

To you and BigTimeRun,

I'm not insane at all. There have been no findings that "talent" or "running genes/genetic limitations" exist. So, you cannot use phrases like "by far" or "insane".

The biggest determinant is definitely not talent. The biggest determinant is training. Even if Bekele has such genes, he was not born a 12:37 runner or even a sub 18:00 runner. He had to train to break 5 in the mile just like all of us. He had to put in the actual training to get to the world record (or, from your perspective, to maximize the talent he was born with).

Not sure if you are a troll or not, but it does amaze me that there really are people this stupid that believe what you have written. By the way, there are literally hundreds of studies that show the difference in natural talent between runners.

I rarely see girls wear shorts over tights.

High Skooler wrote:

I don't know about high school misconceptions, but for some reason older runners think it is okay to wear tights without shorts over the top! Can you believe it?

BigTimeRun wrote:

Then how do you explain how 2 guys on the same team and on the same training can be minutes apart?

1. Just because I disagree with the genetics/talent argument doesn't mean that I know or can explain it with another argument. It's ok to simply not know something. You don't HAVE to jump to a conclusion. I don't understand why so many people want to immediately jump to an unfounded conclusion that says there's nothing that they can do to improve. Don't you WANT to improve?

2. Just because 2 guys are on the same team on the same training doesn't mean that they should be running the same times. There are plenty of variables that can contribute to the difference in performance - diet, sleep, stress, psychological states, physical activity throughout childhood, starting shape freshman year, etc. Think about it - 14 years of even tiny differences can really add up.

And if they are doing the same training but are minutes apart, that seems like the slower runner might be training too hard. Minutes apart indicates that his race pace is likely the faster runner's easy day pace. That is not the same training at all if they are running together during practice. One is doing high intensity and the other is doing lower intensity. Not the same training at all.

Oswald wrote:

Not sure if you are a troll or not, but it does amaze me that there really are people this stupid that believe what you have written. By the way, there are literally hundreds of studies that show the difference in natural talent between runners.

The only thing that I said I believed was that training is the most determining factor in how fast you will be. And you also believe this too unless you believe Bekele was born in 12:37 shape. He was not.

What exactly do these studies say about "natural talent"? How are they quantifying and qualifying this?

aloha warrior wrote:

High Skooler wrote:

Ugh, it was a joke. Just trying to point out the misconception among high schoolers that shorts over tights is okay.

Too obvious?

It wasn't obvious. When you have to explain it, then you screwed the joke.

Obvious if your around here a lot and have a memory. Good joke. I got it.

this^

frank reynolds wrote:

this^

Mr Frank

How about you back up your opinion instead of saying "this". Maybe you can use words or even show some links to these alleged hundreds of research papers about natural talent. I am doubtful that these papers even exist because "natural talent" is no way a scientific nor a precise phrase.

The only thing that I said I believed was that training is the most determining factor in how fast you will be. And you also believe this too unless you believe Bekele was born in 12:37 shape. He was not.

What exactly do these studies say about "natural talent"? How are they quantifying and qualifying this?[/quote]

Found this below excerpt here,

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/03/10000-hours-vs-training-debate-no.html

I copied the portion relevant to the effect of genetics on ability as a distance runner, but feel free to educate yourself by reading the rest.

Prospective studies have been done. Most notably, Bouchard published a study in 2011 (reference below) in which he found that the response in VO2max (a measure of aerobic capacity and adaptation to training, and ultimately performance) of a large cross-section of the population to a standardized training programme was enormously varied. Some individuals improved by less than 5%, others improve by 30%. And here's the key point - it is possible, using genetic techniques, to identify which genetic polymorphisms (think of them as variants of genes) are responsible for this huge difference.

It turns out that Bouchard's work has provided some pretty important findings:

About 50% of an individual's starting VO2max and 50% of the "trainability" in VO2max is heritable

21 Genetic polymorphisms have been associated with 50% of the training response to VO2max

If a person carries NINE OR FEWER of these genetic variants, then they are low responders and improve VO2max by only 200 ml/min.

If a person carries NINETEEN OR MORE of these variants, then they are high responders and improve VO2max by over 600 ml/min

Good post. People get so hung up on this mythical concept of "talent" and essentially use it as an excuse for why they aren't as good as they could be.

It's a sad state of affairs. There is a certain mentality that is lacking when someone chocks up someone else's success to "talent" while bemoaning that they don't have the same.

You said you'd post the relevant bit but none of the above is really that relevant.

VO2max in and of itself means absolutely JACK. NOT a predictor of performance, NOT a predictor of potential, and NOT a reflection of prior training.

That guy's first preface says that he agrees that no genetic proof has been found. All they have are likelihood and correlation findings. That means that even those ploymorphisms might not be correct. Never mind the fact that v02max isn't but one of many many factors that might affect running.