Well, someone with NO running talent wouldn't be able to run at all.
Well, someone with NO running talent wouldn't be able to run at all.
HRE wrote:
You're describing someone who is about two steps away from being dead and what do you mean by "in shape?" If they're in shape I'd think they'd already done some training. Do you mean they've done some running but not really pushed themselves that much? Do you mean they're just generally active? And of your three qualifying conditions the only one most people will know is that they have poor speed, which probably describes almost anyone who goes out for track and ends up as a distance runner at least to some extent because if the person had any speed he'd be a sprinter. And even if someone knows their lactate thresholds and VO2 max they don't know what those things will become once they've trained hard and a lot. Similarly, you'd only know how well you've adapted to training by training so there's no way to say in advance that a particular person lacks the "talent" to adapt well to training. That's significant because if such a person puts up some decent performances people will begin to say that the person actually had a fair bit of talent after all and that the ability to train hard is evidence of that talent. Then there's the whole matter of no one having any sort of precise idea of exactly what talent for running really is.
With all that as background, I never ran any distance beyond a 440 at better than 6:00 mile pace in high school nor did I beat any other runners who actually finished a race until the next to last meet of my junior year, my third season. Eventually I worked up to doing 100-150 mile weeks regularly and got to thing like 15:33, 32:30, 2:35:21 for 5k/10k/marathon.
I am another guy who had no running talent in HS, I could not break 5 minutes for the mile, went in the military, got drafted (Viet Nam) after HS and quit running for a couple of years. Then starting running while in the military to keep my sanity and I was inspired by the high mileage runners of that era. I was advised by my girlfriends coach that it would take me ten years to reach my potential if I was serious. He was a knowledgeable coach too as my girlfriend was an olympic speed skater. Long story short he was right on the money as ten years later I ran a 2:24 Marathon, which at the time in the early 80's was no big deal, as I think I was ranked around 270th in the US with that time. I ran 120-130 miles a week (which I would not recommend), I still had no speed but was strong enough to run many marathons in the mid to high 2:20's. I think guys can run in the 2:20's with ~90 MPW, but again it takes time and dedication. It was easy for me because I loved to run, it was not a chore at all.
somewhere in between wrote:
zzzz wrote:
But they OP's question was about no talent, not average talent. So I'd interpret that as the bottom 1% or even lower, bottom 0.1%, 0.01%. That's why I answered maybe 7:00 for a mile.
The 0.1%ile would basically just be severely disabled people who aren't going to be able to run a step regardless of "hard work." Even the 1%ile is likely to consist mostly of people whose lack of running talent extends well beyond just not quite being built for the sport.
Something like 25%ile would probably be a better definition.
No, go back and read the original post. He asked for worst case scenario, so that's more 0.1% than 25 percentile. And he was looking for lowest speed, lowest VO2 max, lowest lactate threshold, lowest trainability/adaptability - but in good shape. So I take that to mean not disabled.
The OP's requirement of lowest trainability disqualifies all the examples others provided here of how fast they ran with lots of mileage and training.
A lot of people over here confuse 'no talent' with being very unfit (heavy overweight and completely untrained). Two very different things.
A lot of people over here confuse 'no talent' (the lowest level 1% of population maybe, e.g. not able to break 6 min or 8 min or whatever for one mile) with 'average talent' (a performance maybe 90 % or more can achieve if working hard, e.g. 4:50 mile more or less).
A lot of people confuse working hard (a hundred miles and more, good quality and well-directed structure of training, healthy nutrition, few alcohol, good sleep, even cutting back on work and social life...) with what they feel for them to be hard work (for someone that might be as low as jogging a few miles every other day).
So that is the reason why you get a very broad range of answers...
Exactly. You cannot get definitive answers to a question that doesn't clearly define what it's asking about. There is no such thing as a person with NO talent for running unless you're talking about someone who's crippled, born with no legs, etc. You can reframe the question as being about what someone with very little talent could do but then you run into the business of what it is you're talking about when you talk about talent. Someone may read Broken Arrow's post, see his marathon best and claim that he really had talent to be able to work that hard and run that fast. We've had people claim that the ability to hold up under a lot of miles is a talent and someone even claimed that having a work ethic is a talent. Neither of those things conform with my understanding of talent but I can't prove that either idea is incorrect. My observation is that talent is usually defined as someone whose performances are significantly better than what you think you can run.
Now this thread has got me a bit worried!
I think I'm pretty much middle of the pack (if I'm being generous) when it comes to running talent and after 2 years (not quite solid, but not too many gaps) of training my 5k PB is 20.19, 10k 46.20 and 1/2 marathon 1.45.
I'm aiming to get these down a bit, 5k aim is 19 (something) 10k needs work on, haven't really run a fast one recently and 1/2, dunno, maybe 1.40.
But some of these times being quoted in here (15/16 min 5k) just seem completely unrealistic for "someone like me".
If I saw someone run a 15 mins 5k, I'd think they were an exceptional runner, not a hard worker with no running talent!!
Maybe that's just me though?!
Goodlife wrote:
I think I'm pretty much middle of the pack (if I'm being generous) when it comes to running talent and after 2 years (not quite solid, but not too many gaps) of training my 5k PB is 20.19, 10k 46.20 and 1/2 marathon 1.45.
I'm aiming to get these down a bit, 5k aim is 19 (something) 10k needs work on, haven't really run a fast one recently and 1/2, dunno, maybe 1.40.
With 20:19 5k, you should be able to run a half under 1:40. If you can't, you seriously lack endurance. 19 min 5k could get you under 40 for 10k and under 1:30 for half. You are either a fast twitch type, or you don't run enough mileage.
fatbody wrote:When they use that phrase, what they mean is like the slowest person on their track team. Someone who almost assuredly has more running talent than 90% of the general population.
The slowest person on a high school track team is less talented than 90+% of kids who play football, basketball, baseball, soccer or any other ball sports. All those sports involve some running, but they chose other sports because they have more talent in other areas. The slowest kid on the track team lacks explosiveness and coordination, and therefore had no other choice.
The question is low vs high responders. Low responders just have to work harder and run more.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
With 20:19 5k, you should be able to run a half under 1:40. If you can't, you seriously lack endurance. 19 min 5k could get you under 40 for 10k and under 1:30 for half. You are either a fast twitch type, or you don't run enough mileage.
Not nearly enough, I'm sure!
Currently I'm between 30k and 50k a week.
Just don't think I have the time to fit anything else in!
But I think my point still stands :)
Like Really Bro wrote:
I've been around so many different hundreds of kids throughout HS and through coaching now. There are 17 year olds who are skinny and well proportioned, and have such an abysmal engine that it would be unreasonable for them to set a life goal of breaking 22 minutes in the 5k. Take the engines of these kids, and shove them in a shot-putters body, and you will get someone who cannot ever break 7:30 in the mile.
Those saying 4:40 are actually a special case of stupid. 4:40 are you joking me? I've seen people put in thousands of miles over the course of 4 years, doing weight room, eating healthy, doing speed work, form work, mentally toughening themselves, everything, and they can't break 5:50. Yes these kids are more on the rare side on a team, but they definitely exist. And these are just as often skinny dudes.
I would say for a reasonably proportioned person that is very untalented, something like 5:50 mile would be the epitome of their running life after many years of training. I wouldn't be surprised if its 6:50 though.
Agreed, some people’s engines are just so bad, the best they can hope for at their lifetime genetic potential os just being moderately fit.
I think we are mixing up low-baseline/high-response people with low-baseline/low-response people.
This is an insightful point. There are people in the world with national or international capabilities, but who look like nothing at all until they undertake years of training. And there are others who have the Vo2 max of a D1 XC runner while sitting on the couch. (Not many but they do exist.)
I cannot remember the fellows name but he is profiled in The Athletic Gene. Never high jumped before, wasn’t even competing, just showed up and jumped 6 feet. Within 8 months of taking up the sport was jumping at Worlds.
Or the other case - Herschel Walker was the worst athlete in his family, slow and fat. He looked nothing like a world-beating athlete. Yet he started training and became one of the greatest athletes of the last 150 years. You just never know.
My first year coaching track, the least athletic kid I had ever seen joined the team. He struggled to walk by the looks of it. We ran a timed mile on the first day of practice and he went 8:47. It was all he had.
LOL at your description. I picture a kid staggering around the halls at school, tripping over his own feet. It’s amazing, you just never know about an athlete until you actually train ‘em.
I had no talent. Well not enough to make it past school level anyways (top 6 at school for xc and top 2 for athletics) In year 3 I got 9th in school xc. In year 5 I started training to do well in school xc. After about half a month or so of training we had a class sprint race for fun ( about 50 meters) and I won 3 times in a row. After two months of training I won the school xc and made it to next level. I had the flu for the next level (zone) so didn't do well. I started going to little A's ( athletics outside of school) after about 8 months of running and won all my 800 and 1500 races by far. In the begining of year 6 I qualified for State by winning region. I qualified to go to State with hard work only a year after I started. Since then I'm getting even better.
Some ppl with natural talent don't work hard but those with no talent who work really hard get used to running and can achieve anything. So if you are really motivated you can achieve anything by working hard.
Cathy loves to run 13 wrote:
I had no talent. Well not enough to make it past school level anyways (top 6 at school for xc and top 2 for athletics) In year 3 I got 9th in school xc. In year 5 I started training to do well in school xc. After about half a month or so of training we had a class sprint race for fun ( about 50 meters) and I won 3 times in a row. After two months of training I won the school xc and made it to next level. I had the flu for the next level (zone) so didn't do well. I started going to little A's ( athletics outside of school) after about 8 months of running and won all my 800 and 1500 races by far. In the begining of year 6 I qualified for State by winning region. I qualified to go to State with hard work only a year after I started. Since then I'm getting even better.
Some ppl with natural talent don't work hard but those with no talent who work really hard get used to running and can achieve anything. So if you are really motivated you can achieve anything by working hard.
So if I work really really hard I will run a sub 3 mile?
Let's try search and replace.
"Donald Trump the fattie who has no running talent- how fast can he get through hard work?"
Of course, he won't improve. He'd just collapse.
broken arrow wrote:
HRE wrote:
You're describing someone who is about two steps away from being dead and what do you mean by "in shape?" If they're in shape I'd think they'd already done some training. Do you mean they've done some running but not really pushed themselves that much? Do you mean they're just generally active? And of your three qualifying conditions the only one most people will know is that they have poor speed, which probably describes almost anyone who goes out for track and ends up as a distance runner at least to some extent because if the person had any speed he'd be a sprinter. And even if someone knows their lactate thresholds and VO2 max they don't know what those things will become once they've trained hard and a lot. Similarly, you'd only know how well you've adapted to training by training so there's no way to say in advance that a particular person lacks the "talent" to adapt well to training. That's significant because if such a person puts up some decent performances people will begin to say that the person actually had a fair bit of talent after all and that the ability to train hard is evidence of that talent. Then there's the whole matter of no one having any sort of precise idea of exactly what talent for running really is.
With all that as background, I never ran any distance beyond a 440 at better than 6:00 mile pace in high school nor did I beat any other runners who actually finished a race until the next to last meet of my junior year, my third season. Eventually I worked up to doing 100-150 mile weeks regularly and got to thing like 15:33, 32:30, 2:35:21 for 5k/10k/marathon.
I am another guy who had no running talent in HS, I could not break 5 minutes for the mile, went in the military, got drafted (Viet Nam) after HS and quit running for a couple of years. Then starting running while in the military to keep my sanity and I was inspired by the high mileage runners of that era. I was advised by my girlfriends coach that it would take me ten years to reach my potential if I was serious. He was a knowledgeable coach too as my girlfriend was an olympic speed skater. Long story short he was right on the money as ten years later I ran a 2:24 Marathon, which at the time in the early 80's was no big deal, as I think I was ranked around 270th in the US with that time. I ran 120-130 miles a week (which I would not recommend), I still had no speed but was strong enough to run many marathons in the mid to high 2:20's. I think guys can run in the 2:20's with ~90 MPW, but again it takes time and dedication. It was easy for me because I loved to run, it was not a chore at all.
Someone who claims that he hasn´t any running talent and then runs 2,24 is arrogant beyond belief. I have friends who have put in 10+ years of hard work and can´t break 3,15. Most posts on this thread are silly.
Cathy loves to run 13 wrote:
I had no talent. Well not enough to make it past school level anyways (top 6 at school for xc and top 2 for athletics) In year 3 I got 9th in school xc. In year 5 I started training to do well in school xc. After about half a month or so of training we had a class sprint race for fun ( about 50 meters) and I won 3 times in a row. After two months of training I won the school xc and made it to next level. I had the flu for the next level (zone) so didn't do well. I started going to little A's ( athletics outside of school) after about 8 months of running and won all my 800 and 1500 races by far. In the begining of year 6 I qualified for State by winning region. I qualified to go to State with hard work only a year after I started. Since then I'm getting even better.
Some ppl with natural talent don't work hard but those with no talent who work really hard get used to running and can achieve anything. So if you are really motivated you can achieve anything by working hard.
Another idiot post. You had great talent, no matter what you say.
To run a sub 3 mile you'd have to run each lap under a minute. Well 45 seconds actually. I think if kids start training from a very young age then it could be achievable.
The 400 WR is 41 so it is possible but you need lots and lots of training