Someone with no running talent- how fast can they get through hard work?

no es talentoso wrote:

If you had them training high mileage from a very young age (like 5-8 years old) and putting them through 100+mpw and heavy speedwork sessions when they are older, I'm sure they'd eventually be able to break 5 minutes or faster for a mile even with very little talent.

If they maybe started running in their 20s/30s and went through similar hard training, even the most untalented would be able to go sub-6 for the mile or 23min 5K.

Agreed. In college I showed no athletic talent at all., and had always been a fattie. Heck, I couldn't even break 15 for 100 with questionable timing Then in my late 20s, I started taking up running. I couldn't even run a 10k at that time. Fast forward to now With 2 years of consistent training at 60 mpw, I have got my 10k time down to 35 minutes on the road and I also have a few friends from a similar background who have similar PRs. 16:00 is definitely possible even for the guy with no talent, but hard work and discipline are required.

No. You are just too dumb to understand you have some basic talent. These threads are always filled with personal antidotes of people who have basic to above average talent.

Go coach a large high school team for several years and get back to us.

Yeah, I agree with this guy that we are defining the parameters of who has "no talent" very incorrectly, as I was once said person who was slowest on the track team. But the only reason I was there in the first place was because I saw that I made significant gains as I trained for the sport. And currently, I am trying to train myself to the point where I am competitive on a state level in high school. Sure, I am relatively untalented compared to the competition I pit myself against, but I am definitely not untalented compared to the general population, especially in terms of durability, hard work, and most importantly ability to increase with training.

I think we are mixing up low-baseline/high-response people with low-baseline/low-response people. These are two separate camps. Sure, neither of them are truly competitive with high-baseline/high-response people, but one can become quite good, but the other is stuck in mediocrity forever due to the physiological fact they are not meant to improve. Those times you list, while may be looked down upon by some, are times of good highschoolers and average (all divisions) collegians. Those are not times run by below average people working hard. Maybe average, that's debatable. But no talent is not average. It is way below average.

There is no definitive answer. You can't say because you can't measure talent. Work ethic is more than 50% of the equation for creating distance runners, so if they can train consistently without injury then they could potentially run really well in those upper range events like 10k or further. Besides, why put a cap on what someone is capable of. If you enjoy it and you're making progress then just keep it up and have fun with it.

.his speed was clearly not that bad and having good endurance or speed endurance is s talent

The op said no talent not no leg speed

It's a stupid how long piece of string question anyway

[3.1]Miles Davis wrote:

There is no definitive answer. You can't say because you can't measure talent. Work ethic is more than 50% of the equation for creating distance runners, so if they can train consistently without injury then they could potentially run really well in those upper range events like 10k or further. Besides, why put a cap on what someone is capable of. If you enjoy it and you're making progress then just keep it up and have fun with it.

Work ethic is part of talent.

They could always do ultras. Hard work is the only requirement. Talent is not.

Generally no more than a few nanoseconds.

HubyJugy wrote:

Worst case scenario: Let’s say someone (who is in shape) has no running talent. No talent as in a very low natural vo2 max, low lactate threshold and poor speed. Also, poor trainablity/adaptability to training.But let’s say they are very motivated and very durable so they don’t get injured, what times could they run (800, 1600, 3200, 5k, etc) with 4 years of consistent, smart and hard training?

In my opinion, someone with no talent who works hard can get down to 4:40 maybe 4:30 for the mile and 16:20ish for the 3 mile.

My first year coaching track, the least athletic kid I had ever seen joined the team. He struggled to walk by the looks of it. We ran a timed mile on the first day of practice and he went 8:47. It was all he had. That was his sophomore year. He wound up getting down to mid 6:00s by the end of the season. We also tried him in the 4x400 at a late season meet and he showed *some* potential for shorter stuff, but not much. He split a 68.

Fast forward to his senior year and he went 56/2:08/4:58. Stories like his are not all that uncommon.

GBohannon wrote:

My first year coaching track, the least athletic kid I had ever seen joined the team. He struggled to walk by the looks of it. We ran a timed mile on the first day of practice and he went 8:47. It was all he had. That was his sophomore year. He wound up getting down to mid 6:00s by the end of the season. We also tried him in the 4x400 at a late season meet and he showed *some* potential for shorter stuff, but not much. He split a 68.

Fast forward to his senior year and he went 56/2:08/4:58. Stories like his are not all that uncommon.

yeah it's wild that some young guys all of a sudden become faster over 3 years

Ummm no its not. You aren't born with a good work ethic.

My first 10K was in about 50 minutes. Unbelievably off of that great start I ran for a small D3 university and after 4 years of training got down to a blazing 36 minutes for 10K. After university when I finally figured out how to be dedicated and train I got down to 32:10.

ever heard of puberty? wrote:

GBohannon wrote:

My first year coaching track, the least athletic kid I had ever seen joined the team. He struggled to walk by the looks of it. We ran a timed mile on the first day of practice and he went 8:47. It was all he had. That was his sophomore year. He wound up getting down to mid 6:00s by the end of the season. We also tried him in the 4x400 at a late season meet and he showed *some* potential for shorter stuff, but not much. He split a 68.

Fast forward to his senior year and he went 56/2:08/4:58. Stories like his are not all that uncommon.

yeah it's wild that some young guys all of a sudden become faster over 3 years

Interesting thought. I’ve never noticed the effects of puberty as a MS teacher and MS/HS coach. You have enlightened me.

Or maybe I have noticed and the improvement noted above was still remarkable and relevant.

Either way.

ever heard of puberty? wrote:

yeah it's wild that some young guys all of a sudden become faster over 3 years

Almost forgot - sophomore year to senior year is 2 years, not 3. Dummy.

That is awesome Sledge Hammer! keep it up ! A guy like you would make a good coach because you know exactly what it takes to get from "A" to "B" - I'm pulling for you to get the 10K down to 33 - best of luck to you

Sledge_hammer wrote:

From my experience, the best someone with no talent can get to lies somewhere between 15:00-16:00 for the 5k.

Yes, and that's where we need a qualifier in this thread.

There are NO TALENT guys in the world of competitive running, then there are NO TALENT guys outside this world. Two different worlds, with two different measuring sticks.

I think when people here ask this question they usually mean NO TALENT in the world of competitive running. Those guys can get down to 15:xx if they are tough and train hard.

But if the guy across the street who has calves like tree trunks and is super top-heavy trained hard and was mentally tough, he might hope to run 18:xx.

The answer is a 6:45 mile for guys.

How do I know this? Allow me to tell you all the story of a young man we'll call M who was a runner on my team's JV squad (I mostly coached the var boys that year so I will be as objective as possible).

An earlier posting on this thread referenced a sort of "eye test" which one might use to identify basic to even above average distance running talent. Ideally, you're hoping for someone with proportionally long legs with small, high calf muscles as well as an overall lean build. In some sense, you're looking for a guy that can build strength and eat a lot without getting much bigger, as well as someone with a naturally high lung capacity.

Our friend Mr. M was literally the antithesis of what you are hoping you get as a coach. He wasn't particularly short at first but basically stopped growing by his sophomore year, topping out at 5' 6". His legs, though they got stronger with training, remained both heavy and puffy and were proportionally short even as compared to his shorter overall height. On his first day of summer practice, he needed a break every 10 minutes (low natural conditioning) of easy running. He was pudgy to begin with and was never able to lose the excess weight, a rarity in our program.

The one thing this kid had going for him athletically was very good footspeed. Of course, he was rather uncoordinated below the hips and was also a noisy heelstriker, so this kind of negated his one glimmer of promise.

By the end of his senior year he had run a 6:45 mile.

I would suggest that this kid didn't train very hard or wasn't very tough in terms of pain tolerance. I've coached boys like him as well. And sometimes they've gone on to run at least 5 min flat in the mile. That seems slow for a senior, but some kids are so low on talent. My boys who have done this engaged in high mileage hill training to get that fitness because they couldn't even break 70 in the 400.

Obviously I had very little talent - not none, but I got injured along the way - base mile PR with no training, post puberty was

9 minutes.

got down to 4:41 in 4 years.

That said, there are people less talented that work harder, and barely broke 5:20.