I agree, KB is probably the most genetically talented runner on the earth and (coincidence?) he is also the fastest. KB doesn't train better than a solinsky or rupp or Dathan.
I think the main thing, however, is how bad you want it.
ps does anybody have any data on bekeles initial times/results/ability?
Well it's a good thing I can run sub 48 in the in 400!
Are you describing most EA or just the ones you see on TV doing distance running? Most of the elite white distance runners look similar (i.e. look at guys like Rupp, Hall, Nenow, Porter and so on). There are also some kenyans that look bigger (granted part of that is who they are standing next too) and so on.
XY wrote:
How about your build? Seems to me East Africans and Euros are simply not put together the same way. Im talking about the ectomorphic, slim calves, flat feet, super straight bones E.A.s seem to generally have? I would put that way up there because it lends its self to biomechanical efficiency
drumroll please wrote:
Genetics. Nothing else even matters in relation to genetic potential. Certainly, you have to train to reach your potential, but all ability is potentiated by genetics.
If you want to win the Olympic Marathon, you need to pick your parents carefully -- Frank Shorter
If you do not train great genetics mean nothing, and genetics is not a singular attribute. For instance, some guys have the ability to train hard and do very well, even if they are not as inherently fast as another runner. The psychological makeup is partially genetic and runners like Pre and Salazar had an uncanny ability to push themselves, and I am sure that the Zatopeks of the world do also. Single-mindedness is important, and Armstrong might be the best example, and that is not highly genetic, it helps get you to your potential.
drumroll please wrote:
Genetics. Nothing else even matters in relation to genetic potential. Certainly, you have to train to reach your potential, but all ability is potentiated by genetics.
The problem is that genetics is directed by the epigenome which is dramatically influenced by ENVIRONMENT
If it's genetics explain Gerry Lindgren
The Waterboy wrote:
If it's genetics explain Gerry Lindgren
Yeah, skinny little dude who could run fast for an extended period of time. Same lack of genetic talent so many East Africans suffer from, huh?
Once you have a pool of naturally talented runners, then all the other factors become important in determining who is best.
The Waterboy wrote:
If it's genetics explain Gerry Lindgren
Despite his insistence to the contrary, Gerry Lindgren was genetically gifted. That's your explanation.
I'm talking first in general, builds are different among groups and secondly even among the elite runners of both the euros and lets say Kenyans are built differently also. Rupp, Hall etc are truly gifted, but not built the same. Yes both slender, but EA feet. calves, muscle attchements seem to be different also.
This comes from my observation of many guys I trained with, including Africans who have set world records, XC world cahmps, 1:42 800m etc..
genes don't matter to me because i just want to run as fast as I can
I'm okay with Africans and Ryan Hall being way faster
I have seen the studies documenting differences but they are always between 13:20 kenyans and 14:00 white guys. The question is how different are the 13:20 white guys from the 13:20 kenyans and here is the really hard part, you probably need a couple hundred of each to draw a good conclusion. After all comparing sub 27 white runners to sub 27 kenyans is going to lead you to believe white distance runners are all huge.
XY wrote:
I'm talking first in general, builds are different among groups and secondly even among the elite runners of both the euros and lets say Kenyans are built differently also. Rupp, Hall etc are truly gifted, but not built the same. Yes both slender, but EA feet. calves, muscle attchements seem to be different also.
This comes from my observation of many guys I trained with, including Africans who have set world records, XC world cahmps, 1:42 800m etc..
back to topic, The three factors undisputedly are Genetics, Training, and Nutrition. They are all codependent of each other. Meaning training can influence your genetics and genetics have impact on nutrition and training, training and nutrition...only thing that doesn't have much effect is nutrition on genetics unless you get diabetes or something. Ultimately your training is the biggest factor in how fast someone is.
How I wish it was training and nutrition. Alas, its talent.
Talent (genetics) trumps all.
Its romantic to think otherwise and I somewhat admire those of you who really believe, believe things like some can just handle more pain than others. But the truth of the world is this. You cant beat mother nature. ROJO's artilce in where J Kellogg says that good coaching is worth 4 seconds a mile demonstrates the point.
drumroll please wrote:
Genetics. Nothing else even matters in relation to genetic potential. Certainly, you have to train to reach your potential, but all ability is potentiated by genetics.
The problem with this is it is not provable. Even if a runner possesses the perfect genetic make-up (care to share the code with us? if we don't know what it is, how do you know it exists?) he or she still has to train. And once the runner trains and becomes a great runner it is still unprovable whether it was the training or the genetics that did it. You still have to train hard to discover if you have the proper genetic traits to be a great runner.
Until we can separate the genetic traits of a potentially great runner from what we can gain from training it will be a moot point.
No Weekend Warrior wrote:
back to topic, The three factors undisputedly are Genetics, Training, and Nutrition. They are all codependent of each other. Meaning training can influence your genetics and genetics have impact on nutrition and training, training and nutrition...only thing that doesn't have much effect is nutrition on genetics unless you get diabetes or something. Ultimately your training is the biggest factor in how fast someone is.
I kinda agree with what you say. Though I think nutrition is not that big of a factor when compared to genetics and training. Aren't Shorter and Rodgers pretty famous for lousy diets when at their peak?
AND I think genetics is a bigger factor than training. That is not to say that training isn't important but IMO genetics is more important.
Of course genetics is the number one factor, becuase there is nothing we can do about it.
Take a look at your average college team. They all do basically the same workouts, eat basically the same, live basically the same lifestyle, yet there is usually a big difference between the first runner and 7th runner. The variable? Genetics. Sure, the first runner may have a bit more drive, etc, but in my opinion it doesn't explain the gaping differences in time.
I realized this my senior year in college, and not coincidentally, this was when I realised I wanted to be done running seriously. I was training my ass off all summer and fall over the last 4 years, running 80-90 mile weeks, could break 1:50 in the 800 but not even come close to breaking a 4 minute mile and barely dipped under 25 in cross. How was it that a guy like Alan Webb could run 3:53 as a high schooler? I gurantee you the training wasn't better or harder. His diet wasn't better. I really don't think he was able to withstand more pain than me (I had literally run myself into the ground some races). He's simply much more talented than I am.
You need training to maximize your genetics, but natural ability is what determines your limits.
Slow and Steady wrote:
None of these factors matter when you are sick or injured. #1 factor: Health.
Even health, to a great extent, is determined by genetics. Also, just being healthy isn't going to make you Olympic champion - It sure helps, but it's not the deciding factor. Genetics is the #1 factor. Having the right genes will make you Olympic champion.
i think an over looked factor is your confidence. not to say its the biggest factor but defanently over looked...
im pretty sure genetics has the biggest impact..i dont know if i believe in this genetic potential..(unless there is scientific fact that i have not looked up)..i think there is a limit of genetic ability..but i also have this thought lingering around my head that its not just that but genetics make a difference in how you body reacts to the training too and how fast or slow you improve and what not ..kind of like someone said how slow jim ryun ran his first 800..just cause you are geneticly gifted doesnt always mean you are just born fast but obviously his genetics alowwed him to get better..much better than elite....but he could have just as well been fast at that time he just wasnt use to running or didnt have the confidence didnt know what fast and hard meant or something along those lines...im no scientist or coach or really anything so i could be wrong in everyway i am just a high school student but thats what my curous mind stubled apon and im sure as soon as some great coach on here proves me wrong ill learn something new..and i hope so
noord wrote:
Most people dont try hard enough or believe in themselves enough. Many East Africans are raised in an environment that forces them to "will themselves" to fast times. If you put many Americans in the same environment you will get the same results.
Who wants it bad enough!!
Good point that. The history of boxing supports that argument. The genetic/ethnic makeup of dominant boxers mirrors the assimmilation of the group into the broader culture. Irish, Jewish and Italian champs were displaced by African American champs who then had to make room for Hispanic and Asian fighters.
Soviet fighters were a threat in every weight division at the Olympics for half a century until the wall fell and they were free to make a living doing something else.
As I've said on other threads, I think that the formula for success is genetics + training + drugs. If you are short on any of these three, you are unlikely to succeed at the top levels.