The miles you run in training, you faster you will race.
Big misconception
The miles you run in training, you faster you will race.
Big misconception
The biggest determinant is definitely not talent. The biggest determinant is training. Even if Bekele has such genes, he was not born a 12:37 runner or even a sub 18:00 runner. He had to train to break 5 in the mile just like all of us. He had to put in the actual training to get to the world record (or, from your perspective, to maximize the talent he was born with).
Umm..pretty sure Bekele would run 18 min 5k's on the way to school and back as a 12 year old. Everyone has a certain level of talent/potential, and they must train very long and hard over a period of years to get close to it.
For example, if Bekele took a whole year off, or even 2 years, and did no physical activity and gained 20 pounds - he'd still crush me over 5k.
the average male runner wrote:
The biggest determinant is definitely not talent. The biggest determinant is training. Even if Bekele has such genes, he was not born a 12:37 runner or even a sub 18:00 runner. He had to train to break 5 in the mile just like all of us. He had to put in the actual training to get to the world record (or, from your perspective, to maximize the talent he was born with).
Umm..pretty sure Bekele would run 18 min 5k's on the way to school and back as a 12 year old. Everyone has a certain level of talent/potential, and they must train very long and hard over a period of years to get close to it.
For example, if Bekele took a whole year off, or even 2 years, and did no physical activity and gained 20 pounds - he'd still crush me over 5k.
I don't understand your post. Are you agreeing with me or not? And how are you "pretty sure" about the Bekele running 18min 5ks as a 12 year old? Is this something you made up?
And that's not an example. If he took a year or two off, he would definitely be a lot slower than before. This is evident in his failed attempts at the most recent world championships and Olympics.
Your problem is that your training is inadequate.
* wrote:
Big misconception
Going to give 110%. I don't care who you are you can NOT give more than 100%.
You can NOT give more than you have to give.
High school: If I drink this soda I won't run a fast 3200 next weeks.
High school and college: Running makes me superior to others. People who jog for 20-30 minutes a day are lazy.
No, they realize there's more to life.
There is rarely a black and white side to take in running. Most issues usually have a grey-zone. Simply assuming one thing and never adding any modifiers doesn't get you anywhere. Misconceptions are misconceptions up until a point.
In response to the orignal poster, here is one that comes to mind:"PAIN IS TEMPORARY, PRIDE IS FOREVER"What A Crock!
Willy Billy wrote:
Ideas of peaking?
Mileage progression?
I ran "such and such time" without any speed work.
Any others?
Talent exists. Genetics are real. That guy is probably some idiot private coach. That guy has never ran fast and feeds that BS to kids while demanding they pay him to realize their Olympic dreams. You're a fraud man.
But back to the misconceptions, I have to agree that HSers who think spandex under your shorts is cooler than just wearing the short shorts.
The Animal Within wrote:
Talent exists. Genetics are real. That guy is probably some idiot private coach. That guy has never ran fast and feeds that BS to kids while demanding they pay him to realize their Olympic dreams. You're a fraud man.
Running genetics are NOT real. There is no evidence or proof of them. I've backed it up with scientific facts. Where's your substantiation?
jdmd wrote:
The Animal Within wrote:Talent exists. Genetics are real. That guy is probably some idiot private coach. That guy has never ran fast and feeds that BS to kids while demanding they pay him to realize their Olympic dreams. You're a fraud man.
Running genetics are NOT real. There is no evidence or proof of them. I've backed it up with scientific facts. Where's your substantiation?
Do you not believe that some people adapt better to training than others? I do, and would consider that "talent" more than any other factor. I agree that "talent" is pretty poorly understood and often used as an excuse to not train as hard as possible. Talent and genetics are real, but nobody can quantify it to any reasonably close approximation. People think talent is what you can achieve without training. I would argue that talent is what you can do with training. World class athletes have both.
That the majority of World/national class runners are clean. 99% of them are on something and most are dirty as hell.
Dirty As Hell wrote:
That the majority of World/national class runners are clean. 99% of them are on something and most are dirty as hell.
blah blah blah. you suck so you have to disparage those that don't.
we get it. you suck. don't have to showcase it any more with drivel like the above.
High Skooler wrote:
No prob. I wore shorts over tights until half way through my freshman year in college.
Why? Just why why why would anyone do this?
[/quote]
Running genetics are NOT real. There is no evidence or proof of them. I've backed it up with scientific facts. Where's your substantiation?[/quote]
You havent cited a study or fact about there being no such thing as talent in a single one of your posts on this thread. Just opinions- and you admitted you have no idea why people are better than other people.
Also its always amusing when people on here claim this- if there is no such thing is talent for distance running then heres what you should do- go break the 5k(or 10k or marathon) world record. Its just a matter of putting in the proper amount of training- there should be enough information in the archives on this site to give you the proper knowledge. Congratulating you in advance! Paul
* wrote:
The miles you run in training, you faster you will race.
Big misconception
I'm not sure what the misconception is here. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. Do you mean The more miles you run in training, the faster you will race? Or do you mean The fast you run your miles in training, the faster you will race? Please clarify.
The back and forth on genetics/talent vs. training/passion helps me understand why Ron Paul appeals to so many of the people on these forums.
hannsen wrote:
Running genetics are NOT real. There is no evidence or proof of them. I've backed it up with scientific facts. Where's your substantiation?[/quote]
You havent cited a study or fact about there being no such thing as talent in a single one of your posts on this thread. Just opinions- and you admitted you have no idea why people are better than other people.
Also its always amusing when people on here claim this- if there is no such thing is talent for distance running then heres what you should do- go break the 5k(or 10k or marathon) world record. Its just a matter of putting in the proper amount of training- there should be enough information in the archives on this site to give you the proper knowledge. Congratulating you in advance! Paul[/quote]
That's not true at all. There's a factual article that was posted in this thread as a scientific defense for the genetic argument. I pointed out that the scientist and research in that article actually says there is no proof that genes have anything to do with limiting running performance. So what are you talking about? You must not have read all of my posts.
And if there's no genes, then you suggest that I should just go break the world record? That's really dumb reasoning. Just because there might not be a genetic limitation, doesn't mean that there aren't other limitations. So your suggestion is dumb.
Also, there is no magic bullet training program anywhere on this website. So again what are you talking about? Training is very much a personal thing and your needs change over time. That's one reason why people don't get faster. Because they don't do the training that they need at a given time.
Another limitation is that training takes time and commitment. I wouldn't want to focus my life on training so I could break the 5k world record. Why would I do that? It's not even worth the money nor the little fame. I'd rather focus on the things that I currently enjoy and the things that currently make me more money.
So how about you actually provide some evidence for the genetic limitation.
I'm with you jdmd. People just don't want to admit that their training sucks compared to the best runners.
You can't possibly think that everyone in the world is capable of running a 12:37 5K given the right training.
So you think that a guy who trains hard, stays healthy, does everything right, etc., but only runs a 4:10 1500 is just as talented as a guy who can miss huge blocks of training due to injury, train for a mere 6 weeks, then drop a 3:40 1500 (i.e. German Fernandez)? Some people are better at math than others, some people are better at singing than others, and some people are better at running than others. I don't know why some people don't believe this. It's truly baffling