The #1 factor determining your running ability is....

My humble opinion is:

Desire and then the capability to actually get better. The absolute worse thing is potential

Emil Zatopek

naturally gifted at running? no

work harder than anyone else? yes

good? several world records and winning the 5000m, 10,000m and marathon in the same Olympics (and it was his first marathon ever!) says yes

as good as east africans today? no

better than who he needed to beat? yes

Time is the #1 factor. Anyone with an unlimited amount of time can do what they need to do run under 4 or whatever you want. I mean time in terms of daily and weekly training sessions (time to get the quality workout, properly recovery etc.) and in years ( think of improvement year after year 4:10 one year, 4:05 the next,better break 4 before your bottom starts to break down).

Your genetics is the main thing that gives you the ability to reach the high standards. But, you must have the nurture, training, psychological base, and the desire to perform at the best of your ability to become the best.

Many hard working runners will out do many talented runners because of their psych and desire to pursue excellence through training and learning the art of running and racing.

cabana wrote:

True a persons' general health has a large genetic component. But you are completey wrong to say that having the right genes will make you an Olympic champion.

You have to do the right training in the right environment and run the right races. Those are factors which put most American distance runners at a distinct disadvantage. How do you get into the right environment? How would a young runner even know where that location would be? How to develop the right mindset etc? It's a lot more than a genetics lottery, there are opportunities available, but how can a young runner know where and when to find them? That mostly comes down to luck.

Yes, everyone has to train to an absurd level and have a bit of luck on their side. But genetics is the determining factor. It's what separates the Olympic champion from the shuffler at the local high-school track. No one will argue that Hall trains at the highest level and has a perfect environment in which to train. Probably a better environment than 90% of those he'll compete against. But it's safe to say he won't win gold at the Olympics. Once again, If you want to be awesome you have to have the right genes.

Your heart. Literally and figuratively.

superawesomeness wrote:

Emil Zatopek

naturally gifted at running? no

work harder than anyone else? yes

good? several world records and winning the 5000m, 10,000m and marathon in the same Olympics (and it was his first marathon ever!) says yes

as good as east africans today? no

better than who he needed to beat? yes

What you don't understand is that natural talent extends to the ability to work hard. There are hundreds of examples of runners who where very gifted and had a great work ethic but through biomechanical flaws or inability to recover from that hard work were never able to translate early low mileage success to something greater.

Also by definition if you are an Olympic champ at running you are naturally gifted. Remember though Zatopek also benefited from a much much much smaller pool of runners then today.

the rocket. wrote:

Your heart. Literally and figuratively.

A lot of people in here are capable, or were capable from birth, of breaking the 5000m world record, but they don't believe it.

genetics genetics genetics

natural ability and resilience to injury are both largely determined by genetics

Troll post. Deserves a 0/10, yet seems to be getting such a strong response.

NitrousMike wrote:

A lot of people in here are capable, or were capable from birth, of breaking the 5000m world record, but they don't believe it.

Again, believing you can accomplish something like breaking the 5000m wr is largely based on early success which is based on genetics (I'd also argue that believing in oneself is largely determined by genetics). And I would also have to argue with "a lot." To break Bekele's record you have to average under 60 sec per lap (it almost seems impossible). There have been thousands upon thousands of extremely talented, dedicated athletes, but only one has run 12:37 for 5,000. That type of talent is rare. No matter how hard you believe it it's not going to happen unless you're extremely talented. And Bekele is an extremely rare talent so it makes sense that he would have the wr.

DevilStyle wrote:

Time is the #1 factor. Anyone with an unlimited amount of time can do what they need to do run under 4 or whatever you want. I mean time in terms of daily and weekly training sessions (time to get the quality workout, properly recovery etc.) and in years ( think of improvement year after year 4:10 one year, 4:05 the next,better break 4 before your bottom starts to break down).

That is such an idiotic answer. You honestly belive that anyone can run under 4min???

What about those NFL linemen? A guy is born and ends up 6'6 weights 300+, you think that a person built like that would ever run 4 mins a mile?

Why do u think there's a #1 runner on the Xc team, it's not always because he's the kid that works the hardest. get real folks.

genome wrote:

genetics genetics genetics

natural ability and resilience to injury are both largely determined by genetics

Potential Ability > Natural Ability

Natural ability is great, but it doesn't mean squat if the guy who runs slower than you now can train the same as you and be faster than you.

The size of your package.

Here's the kicker, thought- how do you know if you've got no talent before you try?

Take a guy like Jenkins, who gets blasted on this board all the time. He ran like 14:30 and 30:40 in college and never even got a DII All-American award. He put in a bunch of good work and ended up breaking 2:15. Do I think Nate is gonna drop a 2:06 on us? Nah, no way. But I mean, he could have easily gotten a teaching gig and done some coaching and said "yeah, I love running, but my body is just too injury prone to maintain 100+ a week, and I have terrible basic speed, and I think 14:30 was about all I was going to get out of my genetics-cursed body."

There are lots of guys who are never going to win an Olympic medal or make a team for that matter. So what? You don't find out if you're good enough until you make a real honest effort of it and fail. Why should that be stigmatized? For a different example, Peter Snell was just one of a dozen + guys running 1:49. He didn't have great foot speed compared to other half-miler specialists and he wasn't built like a runner at all. He could have easily bombed out of the first heat in Tokyo, retired to a reasonably comfy middle-class life in NZL, and never been heard from again, other than maybe as a pretty decent club guy.

Big upsets and crazy one-in-a-million shots are always unfathomable until they happen. Then they get explained away in hindsight. Who cares what your genetic potential is?

now thats idiotic.

were those NFL linemen born NFL linemen? there was probally at least 8 years of football and lifting and power training prior to that. Perhaps if they went a different route they could be a sub 4 miler currently, but they trained to be a lineman so . . . kind of irrelevant. Could that lineman go from lineman to sub 4 miler, probably not, he would run out of time jus trying to get in shape before his body would reach a point(some call it old age) where he will see less and less return from his work.

More genetically gifted individuals can get more out out of less time invested in the sport. someone less gifted will require a lot more time to obtain the results the gifted one has obtained.

craigmac4h wrote:

Here's the kicker, thought- how do you know if you've got no talent before you try?

You don't, until you start doing awesome and pushing yourself further and further each time.

craigmac4h wrote:

Take a guy like Jenkins, who gets blasted on this board all the time. He ran like 14:30 and 30:40 in college and never even got a DII All-American award. He put in a bunch of good work and ended up breaking 2:15.

Sure, but Jenkins was genetically inclined to run 2:15. If he wasn't he wouldn't have done it. He may very well be able to run faster, but the number one reason that he's able to do it is because he has the genes to do so. Yes, he's put in a lot of hard work, believed in himself, the list goes on - but if he didn't have the genes to do it he wouldn't have done it. And you're right, who cares what your genetic potential is? But the argument isn't whether or not you or anyone else cares about your genetic potential, it's whether or not genetics is the #1 factor in determining your running ability and...it is.

So genes are the #1 factor in determining if someone can do something, and this is proven when runners do that thing?

Well, I guess there's no room in that circle of logic for dissent.

craigmac4h wrote:

So genes are the #1 factor in determining if someone can do something, and this is proven when runners do that thing?

Well, I guess there's no room in that circle of logic for dissent.

Sure, how else are you going to prove it? We can't all be hypothetical runners: "Well, I've run 3:00 in the marathon but hypothetically I'm a 2:30 marathoner." If genetics isn't the #1 reason in determining ability - what is? I remember watching Kennedy in the 96 5000 and thinking "wow, he looks really good, and he just took the lead! - with 2 laps to go." And then I quietly watched while 5 guys outran him the last lap. I doubt any of those guys trained as hard, or believed in the themselves any more than Kennedy, but...