Is there any science behind "talent"?

BRG/253 wrote:

...I was naive enough to listen to people like Steve Prefontaine and others who insist that you can do anything if you just try hard enough.

Well, the key is to make a commitment right from the start: try very, very hard to pick the right grandparents. If you're not willing to do that, even a huge amount of commitment, effort, and self-belief--later on--probably won't erase the gap!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The "problem" in this area, I think, is that, when they go from no training to some training, most distance runners see enormous improvement in their ability. Then, when they go from some training to more training, they see even more progress. It's probably human nature to simply extrapolate that forward--but reality intervenes.

Isn't it interesting that no one (well, no one rational) suggests that any person could run under 10sec for 100m, if only he trained optimally and believed in himself? People know better. I think it's just that sprinting ability (talent) is pretty readily observable from Day One, whereas most distance running talent takes at least a *bit* of training to show itself.

But not always! When John Walker was a boy, during New Zealand's cross-country season (*highly* competitive at that place and time) he'd go to junior races on Saturdays and do no training at all the rest of the week. He always won.

When Mary Decker was 11, she and a friend saw a sign for a "cross country" race in the park. They showed up that weekend, not knowing that distance running was involved. The friend dropped out; Mary won the 3/4-mile race, against girls who'd been running in clubs for years. Talent.

To say that there's no genetic limit to running achievement is like saying that all kids, if only they were properly nurtured and educated, could have genius IQs. Proper nurturing and education may well make a child smarter than she would otherwise have been--and training will make a runner faster than she otherwise would have been--but there is an upper limit to an individual's IQ, and that limit is (largely) genetically determined.

I wish I still had one of my textbooks from physiology grad school, wherein one of the authors said that, while it might not seem "fair," a runner or cross-country skier with a VO2max of X would never win a medal in Olympic competition. And VO2max, though just one component of distance running success, absolutely has a genetic upper limit.

Sorry.

No one knows how these genes specifically might limit a person or whether or not everyone has equal potential or not. The supposed IQ limit isnt conclusive either.

There are too many possible factors involved in running success so jumping to the genetics explanation is retarding and can be a sign of weakness.

It's certainly retarding you.

I always wonder how those dreamers who believe talent doesn't matter ultimately end up doing.

Tell us your results. Where you started, where you are now and whether you are going to will yourself into becoming a skinny black dude with 50 second speed and limitless endurance.

I didn't say talent didn't exist. I said there's no way to conclusively tell what someone's limits are so there's no use worrying about it.

I'm a national level and world level athlete for what it's worth

page 3 of the paper below has some measurements of kenyan distance runners' body attributes such as calf, ankle, bmi, body fat % etc...

http://www.jssm.org/vol7/n4/12/v7n4-12pdf.pdf

Body parts are nice wrote:

I didn't say talent didn't exist. I said there's no way to conclusively tell what someone's limits are so there's no use worrying about it.

I'm a national level and world level athlete for what it's worth

Masturbation with carrots does not qualify as a sport. Sorry to burst your bubble there dude.

abc9950 wrote:

page 3 of the paper below has some measurements of kenyan distance runners' body attributes such as calf, ankle, bmi, body fat % etc...

http://www.jssm.org/vol7/n4/12/v7n4-12pdf.pdf

That paper is not conclusive at all. It's goal was to collect characteristics about those runners. Can they even be considered elite runners? Also, the authors do not say anything about whether those characteristics are genetic or nurtured (or the mentioned negative energy balance). In fact, they cite things like all of those runners ran much everyday from a young age. It also mentions a lack of several differences between them and scandanavian runners.

Body parts are nice wrote:

JOrzh wrote:

Greyhounds are sprinters. A basset hound would outrun a greyhound in a long distance race, but obviously not a sprint.

.

There is nothing obvious about why a greyhound would outsprint a basset hound. Why do you think it's obvious? Why can't a basset hound be faster? Why is a basset hound better at long distances?

***************************************

Greyhounds are bred for sprinting, they have a lot of speed but very little endurance. Basset hounds are bred for hunting, they have very little speed but excellent endurance.

In each case, the genetics of those dogs has been manipulated by humans. But which breed is more talented at running? Most people would say the greyhound, probably because the speed and agility of a greyhound is such a spectacular sight.

I have no idea where anyone got the idea that Bassett hounds have good endurance. Perhaps you're thinking of bloodhounds?

A Bassett hound is about like a 5 hour marathoner.

Better to bring in the husky as representative of a marathon runner with talent. Almost as fast as a Greyhound but with all day endurance.

Kind of like a Kenyan.