More like 1000 hours. How many hours had Jim Ryun run when he was 17? How many had Eli Krahn run when he ran 8;58 as a freshman? How many had had Grace Ping or Mary Cain run when they ran their lifetime PRs? If talent does not matter, women's categories would be eliminated. If talent does not matter, people would run the same times at 45 as they do at 25.
Genetics can be overrated wrote:
I'd just like to clarify that I started running age 13, and in 4 years of consistent training (minus when I was injured) my best performance was 10:09 in the 3000m. (3:23 pace) After taking a break and returning with smarter training and a better mindset I ran 3:08 pace for a distance 67% further and I'm confident I could run a 10k faster than my 3k PB. No way is that due to 'genetics'. I I won't argue against the fact that I may have SOME 'talent' but to me this is proof that genetics isn't everything.
That's because of maturity. I ran from 13-19 and returned at 23 and smashed all my best times after just a month of training with no effort at diet or sleeping.
Run 13 minutes and then you can argue your "theory".
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
hansen9952 wrote:
What he says is not true and what all world-beaters in their respective skill say. I mean, of course someone whose good at something is not gonna say it’s because he’s talented. That’s terrible marketing and bad for publicity.
Plus, chess is a skill and infinitely more nuanced. It’s not physical.
There is the 10,000 hour rule - to become great at something, you need to put in at least 10k hours. Talent gives you a head start, but in the end the ones who work harder and longer surpass the more talented ones.
Take away 10 years of running 6 miles to school and back home every day from African runners and put them in a classic US city on the standard fast food diet. Tada! Suddenly they won't be world class anymore, and would be happy to run a sub 5:30 mile.
Nope. The talented ones work just as hard. They have to compete against each other and are hardly worried about Joe 14 minutes surpassing them.
Tergat walked half a mile to school and slowly too.
I came from a family of runners. We all gradually got better then the previous family member. My uncle was a 2:48 marathoner, his son was a 2:34 marathoner, and I ran 2:23 but was probably capable of a 2:14ish. I started running random city track meets at age 9 and by 11 I ran 4:54 for the 1500m. I progressed to the following below:
Age 9:
800m: 2:48
Age 11:
800m: 2:24
1500m: 4:54
3000m: 10:27
5k: 19:47
Age 12:
800m: 2:18
1500m: 4:36
3000m: 10:00
5k: 16:56
Age 13:
800m: 2:12
1500m: 4:30
3000m: 9:47
5k: 16:48
Age 14:
800m: 2:07
1600m: 4:51
3200m: 10:41
5k: 16:34
Age 15:
800m: 2:04
1600m: 4:34
3200m: 9:48
5k: 16:00
Age 16:
800m: 2:02
1600m: 4:24
3200m: 9:19
5k: 15:19
Age 17:
800m: 2:01
1600m: 4:26
3200m: 9:43
5k: 15:31
Age 18:
Mile: 4:33
8k: 26:34
10k: 33:16
Age 19:
400m: 51
800m: 2:00
8k: 27:12
10k: 34:22
Age 20:
1500m: 4:05
Mile: 4:28
3000m: 8:53
5000m: 15:32
10000m: 32:57
Age 21:
800m: 1:58
1500m: 3:57
Mile: 4:23
3000m: 8:36
5000m: 14:39
10000m: 30:04
8k: 24:55
Age 22:
800m: 1:53
1000m: 2:30
1500m: 3:47
Mile: 4:04
3000m: 8:19
5000m: 14:17
10000m: 29:36
8k: 24:51
10k: 33:52
Age 23:
800m: 1:52
1000m: 2:24
1500m: 3:45
Mile: 4:06
3000m: 8:16
5000m: 14:19
10000m: 29:05
5k: 14:51
8k: 24:27
10k: 30:56
Age 24:
10k: 30:50
15k: 46:49
Marathon: 2:23
Age 25:
10000m: 31:14
4k: 12:52
5k: 15:01
12k: 40:17
Age 26:
5000m: 14:37
5k: 13:48
12k: 38:12
15k: 48:12
Half Marathon: 1:09
Marathon: 2:24
Age 27:
12k: 40:26
Marathon: 2:27
Age 28:
Half Marathon: 1:15
Age 29:
5k: 15:31
20k: 1:05
Age 30:
5k: 15:14
Age 31:
5k: 15:46
15k: 52:27
LAST RACE WAS AT 31 YEARS OF AGE
Hey,
Genetics plays a huge role in running potential as it does with any sport or endevour you look to achieve. Whether that is how tall you are, your bone structure, your ability to gain and lose fat.
Body type is something that you do not have control over, however it is best not to focus on what you can't control. Instead, focus on your training and being the best athlete you can be.
Don't bog yourself down with what potential other athletes have and focus on what you can achieve as this may even take into account your lifestyle and what you are willing to sacrifice.
I have a blog that has a ton of relevant information for you to read up on if you are interested:
Thanks
Paul
For those in the Gene Don't Matter camp....
Do you ever look at the Olympic finals of any track meet and notice how all the athletes look similar? It's because certain body types are best suited for some events. Sure there are outliers, but overall the bodies will be very similar.
Genes aren't JUST the mix of muscle fibers and such, we're talking about weather you are a large big boned heavily muscles person vs a thin, short person.
There's never been a midget place in the Olympics. Genese matter.
GenesMatter wrote:
For those in the Gene Don't Matter camp....
Do you ever look at the Olympic finals of any track meet and notice how all the athletes look similar? It's because certain body types are best suited for some events. Sure there are outliers, but overall the bodies will be very similar.
Genes aren't JUST the mix of muscle fibers and such, we're talking about weather you are a large big boned heavily muscles person vs a thin, short person.
There's never been a midget place in the Olympics. Genese matter.
Solinsky was claimed to have been big-boned, and I think he did quite well over the 10k. There are different body types in ANY race.
Lemaitre is not a heavy guy, but still one of the best sprinters in the world.
Wariner was not big boned/heavy, but still ran 43s 400m.
Solinsky/Mottram etc ARE heavy/tall, but still run sub 13 (Solinsky sub 27 too).
If genes matter, it's due to other factors, like having a maximum VO2MAX around 80-85 when the average person fully trained for 10+ years can only get up to the 60s. Or the ability to handle 100 mpw at average pace of <6 min/mile after few years of training, when the average person would already get stress fractures at 70 mpw at ~7 min/mile average pace with same training age.
"Some are mentally stronger, and really able to push to their limits whereas others give out at the smallest amount of discomfort."
Training for distance running is not that difficult. For someone with 15:00ish ability, over distance runs at 7:00 pace are nothing at all. We used to run 6-8 miles at that pace and we would chat the entire way. Frank Shorter said that 95% of his training was easy.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
GenesMatter wrote:
For those in the Gene Don't Matter camp....
Do you ever look at the Olympic finals of any track meet and notice how all the athletes look similar? It's because certain body types are best suited for some events. Sure there are outliers, but overall the bodies will be very similar.
Genes aren't JUST the mix of muscle fibers and such, we're talking about weather you are a large big boned heavily muscles person vs a thin, short person.
There's never been a midget place in the Olympics. Genese matter.
Solinsky was claimed to have been big-boned, and I think he did quite well over the 10k. There are different body types in ANY race.
Lemaitre is not a heavy guy, but still one of the best sprinters in the world.
Wariner was not big boned/heavy, but still ran 43s 400m.
Solinsky/Mottram etc ARE heavy/tall, but still run sub 13 (Solinsky sub 27 too).
If genes matter, it's due to other factors, like having a maximum VO2MAX around 80-85 when the average person fully trained for 10+ years can only get up to the 60s. Or the ability to handle 100 mpw at average pace of <6 min/mile after few years of training, when the average person would already get stress fractures at 70 mpw at ~7 min/mile average pace with same training age.
Genes matter a lot with big guys who run very fast. Paul McMullen was huge (6-2, 165-170) for a world-class miler with a 3:54/3:33 PB and an Olympian to boot (and he was starter on the football team in HS!). To run that fast at that size he's going need freakish VO2max. And I don't think he was a high-mileage guy either. When I played HS football years ago the average size of our WRs, safetys, QBs was around that 6 ft + and 170 lbs, but none them could run a mile faster than 8 mins! Lol.
https://michiganrunnergirl.com/olympian-paul-mcmullen-is-inspiring-young-michigan-runners/LateRunnerPhil wrote:
GenesMatter wrote:
For those in the Gene Don't Matter camp....
Do you ever look at the Olympic finals of any track meet and notice how all the athletes look similar? It's because certain body types are best suited for some events. Sure there are outliers, but overall the bodies will be very similar.
Genes aren't JUST the mix of muscle fibers and such, we're talking about weather you are a large big boned heavily muscles person vs a thin, short person.
There's never been a midget place in the Olympics. Genese matter.
Solinsky was claimed to have been big-boned, and I think he did quite well over the 10k. There are different body types in ANY race.
Lemaitre is not a heavy guy, but still one of the best sprinters in the world.
Wariner was not big boned/heavy, but still ran 43s 400m.
Solinsky/Mottram etc ARE heavy/tall, but still run sub 13 (Solinsky sub 27 too).
If genes matter, it's due to other factors, like having a maximum VO2MAX around 80-85 when the average person fully trained for 10+ years can only get up to the 60s. Or the ability to handle 100 mpw at average pace of <6 min/mile after few years of training, when the average person would already get stress fractures at 70 mpw at ~7 min/mile average pace with same training age.
Lol. did you even read the part where he says “sure there are outliers”?
Solinsky is only considered "big" compared to other distance runners!
Anywhere else he would be called a skinny /thin.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
Lemaitre is not a heavy guy, but still one of the best sprinters in the world.
Wariner was not big boned/heavy, but still ran 43s 400m.
Your association of sprinters and big, heavy is wrong.
LateRunnerPhil wrote:
GenesMatter wrote:
For those in the Gene Don't Matter camp....
Do you ever look at the Olympic finals of any track meet and notice how all the athletes look similar? It's because certain body types are best suited for some events. Sure there are outliers, but overall the bodies will be very similar.
Genes aren't JUST the mix of muscle fibers and such, we're talking about weather you are a large big boned heavily muscles person vs a thin, short person.
There's never been a midget place in the Olympics. Genese matter.
Solinsky was claimed to have been big-boned, and I think he did quite well over the 10k. There are different body types in ANY race.
Lemaitre is not a heavy guy, but still one of the best sprinters in the world.
Wariner was not big boned/heavy, but still ran 43s 400m.
Solinsky/Mottram etc ARE heavy/tall, but still run sub 13 (Solinsky sub 27 too).
If genes matter, it's due to other factors,..
So as a coach you wouldn't know who to recruit on to your HS XC team if you have a scrawny kid that looks like Galen Rupp vs a hulking man-child that looks like Shaq.
To you they are both equally equipped to be successful distance runners? It's just a matter of training?
Genetics are the biggest determinant of how fast someone can get. Take a group of people and put them through the same training and have them get all the little things right (nutrition, recovery, running form) and in the end, the one with the best genes will be the fastest.
Good genetics + hard work = world records and elite times
Good genetics + laziness = fast times or sub-elite
Average genetics + hard work = respectable times, maybe slightly above average (e.g. 4:30 mile and 16:00 5k)
Average genetics + laziness = slow but not bad for someone who doesn't train (baseline mile fitness is probably 7-8min)
Bad genetics + hard work = slow times considering the training they put in (would be lucky to break 20:00 for 5k)
Bad genetics + laziness = any kind of running is too hard (struggle to run a 10-12 minute mile)
I find it funny that guys with fairly high talent who make a bit of progress are the ones who rant loudest about talent not mattering.
Pretty much everyone makes fairly sizable drops with training but for some reason their 17-15 drop tells some secret and they are the ones with '"zero" talent.
Itisafactor wrote:
Age 11:
800m: 2:24
1500m: 4:54
3000m: 10:27
5k: 19:47
Age 12:
800m: 2:18
1500m: 4:36
3000m: 10:00
5k: 16:56
That's impressive how you improved so much at such a young age. Thank you for sharing your times.
I'm an amateur that cannot run the times that you already did at 12, so this is all very fascinating.
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20838762/study-calves-of-elite-kenyan-runners-have-greater-elasticity/"The Kenyans had much longer Achilles tendons than the whites."
"The Kenyans were able to hop with a shorter 'contact time' yet with more height and power."
There was a documentary which showed people studying Kenyans. It turns out they have smaller calves. This reduces weight and makes running easier. I forget the name of the video. Does anyone remember or have a link to it?
sticks in craw wrote:
I find it funny that guys with fairly high talent who make a bit of progress are the ones who rant loudest about talent not mattering.
Pretty much everyone makes fairly sizable drops with training but for some reason their 17-15 drop tells some secret and they are the ones with '"zero" talent.
I've read every post on this entire thread and not a single person has claimed that "talent doesn't matter". They/we are arguing against the comoletelt nonsensical suggestion that a guy with 'poor genetics' couldn't break 18 in the 5k. That's an idiotic statement and you know it, you're just trying to change the subject because you've realised it's wrong.
Completely*
He says Kenyans have small calf muscles.
There was another video of people going to Kenya and measuring their calves. Does anyone remember it?
It looks like Rupp has long tendons, but then in the same picture, Bekele's tendon is even longer in proportion.
