Jamie S. wrote:
Point two: The rest you can do something about. But guess what? Of all the ways to train for distances (long slow runs, short faster runs, tempo, mid or long intervals, fartlek, hills, etc. etc.) the difference in effect is really negligible (sp?) except other factors such as potential for injury.
False.
Why do you think there is such a disparity in quality of teams that get comparable recruits?
EH HEM...
WHAT ARE YOUR TIMES, WELLNOW?
I agree that your focus has to be on personal improvement, because at the end of the day you can't trade in your body for a leaner, more talented one. From that perspective, telling yourself that anything is possible is perhaps a valuable mental trick, similar to an infantry soldier telling himself he's bulletproof before charging an enemy line.
However, you need to wake up and look at the facts. There are countless examples of talented runners beating less talented, harder training athletes. Saying that those athletes, who might have worked extremely hard, don't have "the right mental attitude" is bullshit. Of course, for someone who doesn't even understand what VO2 max is, I guess everything is hard to comprehend.
Why can't you beat Haile, Bekele, Webb, Ritz, etc? Because you don't train as hard? What if Haile sat on his ass for 2 months and then raced you in a 10 miler? Would you beat him then? What if he trained 30 miles a week while you pounded out 120 mile weeks for a year? Would you beat him then? Oh that's right, he's using the power of his mind to defeat you. Maybe after you break some world records and conquer track, you can move on to telekinesis.
Still waiting on those PR's, by the way...
there is one important thing left out so far in terms of genetics. and that is male vs. female. That is certainly based on genes. If your athletic ability had nothing to do with genetic advantage then women should be able to run just as fast as men. However, due to genetics, women have wider hips (which is a geometric disadvantage in terms of running efficiency), smaller hearts, smaller lungs (less oxygen carrying capacity), and a higher body fat percentage (dead weight). that is surely based on genetics. keep in mind these are examples just to show that genes do dictate how "fast" you can be based on extremes. Take into consideration someone who is a midget. Their height was dictated by their genes which puts them at a large disadvantage for running capacity. regardless of extreme examples genes play a role and limit your abilities regardless of your determination or will power, or training. genes control your bodies geometry and physiology, and that is what limits your abilities. (remember, they can be pushed very very though, but not broken)
there is one important thing left out so far in terms of genetics. and that is male vs. female. That is certainly based on genes. If your athletic ability had nothing to do with genetic advantage then women should be able to run just as fast as men. However, due to genetics, women have wider hips (which is a geometric disadvantage in terms of running efficiency), smaller hearts, smaller lungs (less oxygen carrying capacity), and a higher body fat percentage (dead weight). that is surely based on genetics. keep in mind these are examples just to show that genes do dictate how "fast" you can be based on extremes. Take into consideration someone who is a midget. Their height was dictated by their genes which puts them at a large disadvantage for running capacity. regardless of extreme examples genes play a role and limit your abilities regardless of your determination or will power, or training. genes control your bodies geometry and physiology, and that is what limits your abilities. (remember, they can be pushed very very though, but not broken)
Oh my God, I hope your not a coach or giving advice on running to anyone, especially kids!
biomechanical efficiency
muscle composition
oxygen uptake
protien synthesis (ability to recover)
mitochondrial prevelence
wellnow, reality. reality... wrote:
EH HEM...
WHAT ARE YOUR TIMES, WELLNOW?
I agree that your focus has to be on personal improvement, because at the end of the day you can't trade in your body for a leaner, more talented one. From that perspective, telling yourself that anything is possible is perhaps a valuable mental trick, similar to an infantry soldier telling himself he's bulletproof before charging an enemy line.
However, you need to wake up and look at the facts. There are countless examples of talented runners beating less talented, harder training athletes. Saying that those athletes, who might have worked extremely hard, don't have "the right mental attitude" is bullshit. Of course, for someone who doesn't even understand what VO2 max is, I guess everything is hard to comprehend.
Why can't you beat Haile, Bekele, Webb, Ritz, etc? Because you don't train as hard? What if Haile sat on his ass for 2 months and then raced you in a 10 miler? Would you beat him then? What if he trained 30 miles a week while you pounded out 120 mile weeks for a year? Would you beat him then? Oh that's right, he's using the power of his mind to defeat you. Maybe after you break some world records and conquer track, you can move on to telekinesis.
Still waiting on those PR's, by the way...
So you think that the best athletes don't lose much fitness during time off? Well they do, massively.
As for my PR's? I'm doing just fine, don't you worry about that, like I said, I practice what I preach, and you know what? it really works.
Yes there is considerable genetic difference between men and women.
The physically inferior Paula Radcliffe has run 2.15 for a marathon, but that's a lot faster than the men on this thread whining about their own supposed physical inferiority isn't it?
XY wrote:
Oh my God, I hope your not a coach or giving advice on running to anyone, especially kids!
So you want me to tell the slower kids to give it up, they will never beat the faster kids?
Take your own advice fool, and please don't coach.
Narrow, high shoulders. Look at any elite runner, especially east africans. They have narrow, high shoulders.
What else? High % of slow twitch muscle fiber.
Long legs, narrow pelvis, short torso.
Read someone who actually studies running and has something intelligent to say about runners... check out something as simple as Daniels book...number 1 factor in determining running success is genetic characteristics of the runnerand maybe you don't even accept that and I might be ok with that but to say that any healthy human can accomplish whatever they want in running is just plain dumb; you can stand there and say i practice what i preach but unless your name is bekele you don't practice what you preachclearly if you know the mental strength it takes you should be the world's best runner
wellnow wrote:
XY wrote:Oh my God, I hope your not a coach or giving advice on running to anyone, especially kids!
So you want me to tell the slower kids to give it up, they will never beat the faster kids?
Take your own advice fool, and please don't coach.
Your either putting us on here or possibly your just that clueless.
If your serious I can bet you've never been around or trained with any top level runners. You probably train with a bunch of joggers or HS kids who do improve but have never reached as high level of competetion, therefore you cant tell what eventually seperates atheletes- Talent. You do realize that most top runners train extremely hard, and there is a threshold to everyones training ability and talent.
I have a very weak mind and you appear to be very smart, however I'm sure at can beat you over any distance
Why am I faster than people who train harder, train more, and have trained more throughout their lives?
You are ignoring genetics and statistics.
The data and general trends clearly show that you are wrong. There is a wide range of times for beginning runners, and there are clearly statistical outliers. How can we explain this difference? According to you these differences are attributed to mental willpower. It's a great hypothesis, but there is no evidence to support this as it can't be measured.
However, it's a fact not a theory that people differ physically. Nothing needs to be proved here.
Anecdotal evidence:
In this thread Kyle says that he started running in his junior year of HS.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2361976
I also remember he ran around 9:20 for the 3200m and sub 4:20 in the mile. Something must differentiate him from other runners to allow to compete at such a high level so quickly.
I totally agree with wellnow. After all, I've taken 8 minutes off my 10K pr in the last two years.
All I have to do now is drop another 8 minutes off my pr and I'll be within seconds of the world record.
Determinants of endurance in well-trained cyclists
EDWARD F. COYLE, ANDREW R. COGGAN,
MAR1 K. HOPPER, AND THOMAS J. WALTERS
J. Appl. Physiol. 64(6): 2622-2630,1988.-
Fourteen competitive cyclists who possessed a similar maximum 02 consumption (VO 2 max; range, 4.6-5.0 l/min) were compared regarding blood lactate responses, glycogen usage, and endurance during submaximal exercise.
Seven subjects reached their blood lactate threshold (LT) during exercise of a relatively low intensity (group L) (i.e., 65.8 t 1.7% 7jozrnax), whereas exercise of a relatively high intensity was required to elicit LT in the other seven men (group H) (i.e., 81.5 k 1.8% TOM,,; P < 0.001).
Time to fatigue during exercise at 88% of VOLT, was more than twofold longer in group H compared with group L (60.8 k 3.1 vs. 29.1 k 5.0 min; P < 0.001). Over 92% of the variance in performance was related to the %VO~ mm at LT and muscle capillary density.
The vastus lateralis muscle of group L was stressed more than that of group H during submaximal cycling (i.e., 79% V0 2 mm), as reflected by more than a twofold greater (P c 0.001) rate of glycogen utilization and blood lactate
concentration.
The quality of the vastus lateralis in groups H and L was similar regarding mitochondrial enyzme activity, whereas group H possessed a greater percentage of type I muscle
fibers (66.7 & 5.2 vs. 46.9 t 3.8; P < 0.01).
The differing metabolic responses to submaximal exercise observed between the two groups appeared to be specific to the leg extension phase of cycling, since the blood lactate responses of the two groups were comparable during uphill running.
These data indicate that endurance can vary greatly among individuals with an equal VO2max,
The factors associated with a high %VO~ mm at LT were years of cycling experience (r = 0.75; P c 0.01) and percent type I muscle fibers (r = 0.55; P c 0.05).
It appears that intense cycle training performed for ~5 yr compared with 2-3 yr promotes continued adaptations that reduce muscle glycogenolysis specifically when cycling.
new purpose for this thread = predict "wellnow"s prs until he reveals what they actually are. I'm going with:
1500: 4:25
5k: 17:06
10k: 35:30
But I'm sure he defeated all the mentally weaker, physically talented runners out there.
-Low body fat % (trainable)
-Small Buttocks (somewhat trainable)
-Thin arms (somewhat trainable
-Small feet (not trainable)
-Q angle (not trainable)
-thin calves (not really trainable)
-Large Heart (highly trainable)
heres a thought wrote:
new purpose for this thread = predict "wellnow"s prs until he reveals what they actually are. I'm going with:
1500: 4:25
5k: 17:06
10k: 35:30
But I'm sure he defeated all the mentally weaker, physically talented runners out there.
I Think wellnow was about 30 lbs over weight and ran a 25 minute 5K. He then lost some weight through self training and brought his 5K time down to about 17:00 and won the age 35-39 age group at a recent 5K. Now, as he looks at his 5K trophy proudy positioned on his desk, he thinks he is GOD's gift to training! Ha Ha...what a joke!
You guys are all deuchebags and I do mean all of you with the exception of phillyrunner who just wanted somebody to help him with a simple question and Runningart2004 who actually provided helpful information.