The sports scientist quoted in this piece states that you cannot train yourself to elite levels, if the genetics aren’t there.
For health and longevity, average levels, achieved with reasonable training, can be achieved, with consistency.
So one question for all the runners out there, not earning a scholarship, or a living from the sport, putting in mega miles and hours of workouts, hoping to find the magic bullet that will help them turn the corner towards huge improvements…Why?
It's just odd that we even have this debate. Nobody thinks that 'anybody' could become a NBA player, or a champion sumo wrestler if they just trained hard enough. You just have to look at virtually any elite runner and see their phenotype, then compare with the people you see at a Parkrun or a Turkey Trot, even the ones at the front. Then there is all the stuff inside the body that you can't see, such as VO2 max.
This is the crux of the problem with that awful Malcolm Gladwell book where he spread BS about the "10,000 hour rule" into the public domain. David Epstein came along (along with the author of the study Gladwell cited) and blew it out of the water. The sad part is that Gladwell's book was read by more people and he was widely interviewed such that the lie took hold. It added to the problem of parents getting their kids to specialize early in sports.
VO2max is a pretty good predictor of endurance performance across a large population. If you could get everyone in your town to get their VO2max measured and then run a 5K, the correlation would be incredibly high. It is loses its predictive value when you get people with a pretty narrow range. So it is useless in predicting the winner of the Olympic 5000m since their values are going to be very close.
Tinman said that there were plenty more Drew Hunters out there, and he trained another sub-4 guy after Drew (Oregon's Rheinhart Harrison). Mike Smith gets a passel of sub-9 guys and they don't all become Drew Bosley or Nico Young, but in his system, guys like Abdirahman who ran 9:20s, become great. Was that talent?
of course it is talent. If it was training tinman would have hundreds of sub4 HS runners and Smith would be cranking out sub 27 runners every year. Notice how neither happens? Do you think that is because they aren’t giving everyone the good training or that people don’t have the talent to be elite? I know where my money is at.
People respond to the same training plan differently as well. Take 100 runners and put them all on the same training plan (sounds like a big HS XC team to me). A lot will improve just because they go from doing little to nothing, but some will improve a lot and others only a little. Take those who only get a little better and give them different training and some will show big improvements. It is really, really messy!
The sports scientist quoted in this piece states that you cannot train yourself to elite levels, if the genetics aren’t there.
For health and longevity, average levels, achieved with reasonable training, can be achieved, with consistency.
So one question for all the runners out there, not earning a scholarship, or a living from the sport, putting in mega miles and hours of workouts, hoping to find the magic bullet that will help them turn the corner towards huge improvements…Why?
2) They want to get better and have no illusions of being elite.
3) They want to beat their friends!
4) You never know if you have the genes to be elite or not so you have to train as best you can to find out. As David Epstein pointed out the The Sports Gene---there is no sports gene(s).
I think that you are quoting Epstein out of context. There is not one sports gene
”There is no single sports gene. Rather, the athleticism depends on the results of thousands of interacting genes too complicated for humans to discern.
The fact that there are thousands of interacting genes makes talent even more of a factor and even more of a barrier for most. If there was just one “gene” then by logical reasoning alone, it would be easy to speculate that more people would be talented. However the fact that there is a “code” amongst the interaction of thousands of genes just demonstrates how special and rare true talent is. Plus there is a spectrum of talent. Some might have none or very little of the “code”. A good few might have a bit of it, to varying degrees. Only the elite have the full code, which they discover when they train and compete in order to unlock it.
Training matters. If you're out there tempoing, thresholding, steady stating, vo2 maxing, long running these next few weeks til the Turkey Trot and the local talent is smoking pot on the couch who will win the 1st place coffee mug?
Don't sell yourself short, believe in yourself.
Doesn’t change that talent matters more. Me and a couple dozen team mates trained for 3+ years. 90% of us got crushed by that 14 year old who came out after soccer cuts who dropped a 16:20 on a pretty difficult course after about 10 days of training.
when the local turkey trot rolls around, my money is on the ex 13:30 guy who is running 25mpw over the untalented kid who ran a 5:20 in HS but who has spent the last 10 years running 100mpw…
Define "talent"?
Your example is a little silly. Let's say that HS kid ran that in HS off really bad training or very little training and then starting running 100mpw. My question would be what did that guy run last month?
Would you tell a runner with 10:00 ability, that he can run 9:00 if he wants it badly enough?
This^
Also the danger in not setting realistic goals is that if that 10:00 kid runs 945 but he thinks he should be low 9's, he will always be disappointed, eventually he will become disillusioned and bitter about the sport.
As someone trained in exercise physiology, I am going to fall back on "it depends".
How do you know what someone's "ability" is? It can be changed with training. Some schools do a time mile run for PE. There are kids who run 10min for it off doing nothing. Some of them decide to give running a try. "Wanting it badly" can be expressed as "willing to do the work". I wanted to buy things as a kid badly enough that I worked jobs for it. I wanted to improve my times in HS (and after) badly enough that I trained for it.
Now I don't think a person who has never broken 10 is going to come back the next day and will themselves to 9 min (short of them being deathly ill or something on the first day).
Going from 10 min to 9 min is realistic depending on the time frame. One week, not likely. Over the course of a XC season, very realistic. It is a 10% improvement which at that level is well within reach of a healthy individual willing to do the training.
2) They want to get better and have no illusions of being elite.
3) They want to beat their friends!
4) You never know if you have the genes to be elite or not so you have to train as best you can to find out. As David Epstein pointed out the The Sports Gene---there is no sports gene(s).
I think that you are quoting Epstein out of context. There is not one sports gene
”There is no single sports gene. Rather, the athleticism depends on the results of thousands of interacting genes too complicated for humans to discern.
The fact that there are thousands of interacting genes makes talent even more of a factor and even more of a barrier for most. If there was just one “gene” then by logical reasoning alone, it would be easy to speculate that more people would be talented. However the fact that there is a “code” amongst the interaction of thousands of genes just demonstrates how special and rare true talent is. Plus there is a spectrum of talent. Some might have none or very little of the “code”. A good few might have a bit of it, to varying degrees. Only the elite have the full code, which they discover when they train and compete in order to unlock it.
You make a valid point. There is not one gene you can point too. There are also not two, or three, or five. In his book he points out that your height has about 1000 genes that come into play.
Doesn’t change that talent matters more. Me and a couple dozen team mates trained for 3+ years. 90% of us got crushed by that 14 year old who came out after soccer cuts who dropped a 16:20 on a pretty difficult course after about 10 days of training.
when the local turkey trot rolls around, my money is on the ex 13:30 guy who is running 25mpw over the untalented kid who ran a 5:20 in HS but who has spent the last 10 years running 100mpw…
Define "talent"?
Your example is a little silly. Let's say that HS kid ran that in HS off really bad training or very little training and then starting running 100mpw. My question would be what did that guy run last month?
Parts of talent are visible. The kid with proportionally longer legs and a great stride is, all other things being equal, going to have a big advantage over other runners.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Your genetics are also malleable. If you live a virtuous life, run hard and eat well, your children will likely have genetics which may enable them to surpass your genetic potential. If you are a lazy slob who doesnt take care of their body or fills it with drugs and alcohol, your children will likely have limited athletic potential.
Take solace you fools. Distance running is arguably one of the most trainable sports out there. Look at basketball or football - you're completely screwed without a certain build.
Hell even baseball heavily favors genetics. I recall some of the most unathletic scrawny kids being able to fire the ball like a rocket. No way you can train that.
I think that you are quoting Epstein out of context. There is not one sports gene
”There is no single sports gene. Rather, the athleticism depends on the results of thousands of interacting genes too complicated for humans to discern.
The fact that there are thousands of interacting genes makes talent even more of a factor and even more of a barrier for most. If there was just one “gene” then by logical reasoning alone, it would be easy to speculate that more people would be talented. However the fact that there is a “code” amongst the interaction of thousands of genes just demonstrates how special and rare true talent is. Plus there is a spectrum of talent. Some might have none or very little of the “code”. A good few might have a bit of it, to varying degrees. Only the elite have the full code, which they discover when they train and compete in order to unlock it.
You make a valid point. There is not one gene you can point too. There are also not two, or three, or five. In his book he points out that your height has about 1000 genes that come into play.
So yes 1 million genes may come into play.
Current estimate is that humans have 20.000 genes. So your 1 million figure seems somewhat exaggerated.
Your genetics are also malleable. If you live a virtuous life, run hard and eat well, your children will likely have genetics which may enable them to surpass your genetic potential. If you are a lazy slob who doesnt take care of their body or fills it with drugs and alcohol, your children will likely have limited athletic potential.
If I had a dollar for every pro athlete that came from a broken home with alcoholic parents and you had a dollar for every pro athlete that came from parents living a "virtuous" life, Id have a heckuva lot more money than you.
The sports scientist quoted in this piece states that you cannot train yourself to elite levels, if the genetics aren’t there.
For health and longevity, average levels, achieved with reasonable training, can be achieved, with consistency.
So one question for all the runners out there, not earning a scholarship, or a living from the sport, putting in mega miles and hours of workouts, hoping to find the magic bullet that will help them turn the corner towards huge improvements…Why?
You did not need to attach an article for that which is patently obvious.
My question to you though: Why not? Especially if you are staying fit and chasing goals during the journey.
You can stay fit and chase goals without being obsessive about it and it becoming an all consuming passion at the expense of other things. There are a good few on this board that either run mileage that would take a considerable amount of time each week, or who want to. Then there is the time on top of that spent thinking, writing and reading about training.
Obviously some people have life priorities (self centred) that differ to mine. I’m not here to change anyones mind. My simple question was, why? Just wanted to know the reasoning behind their choice, no more, no less. And yet it is clear from the defensive reaction of many, that that simple question triggered something…guilt perhaps?
The why is going to differ from athlete to athlete and be largely dependent on personality and circumstance. My college team had a mix of scholarship athletes and walk-ons. Some of the walk-ons cracked the top 7 in cross and eventually earned some $. They pushed all-in the summer before and never looked back. Obsessed? Absolutely. These runners trained as hard or harder than the scholarship recruits when they could have been doing something else. These personality types are going to push all-in regardless of whether they are 1st or 14th on the team. Just as they would in school, work or a pick-up game of hoops. It's 100% or nothing.
There are many other reasons of course. Thus my "why not?" There really is no way to quantify what one particular person wants to get out of an activity or pursuit. And many people want to know they left no stone unturned.
I don't know exactly, as I was in private school, but I wasn't at 8 minutes flat, it was a mid 8. I was never exceptional at endurance during co-ed community sports, either, so I don't think I was only average in reference a pond of rich people with good genetics. I was average, PERIOD
Maybe you’d have a more fulfilling life if you weren’t writing out PhD dissertation length post on LetsRun?
Did you have trouble reading it? Did it take you longer to read it than it took me to write? Is your attention span too short? Maybe someone can help you next time…
0/10 if you’re just going to get hostile. Stay on character or don’t even bother.
everyone knows you can't turn a plow horse into a thorough bred.
but don't stereotype
too small too tall too this and that
the greatest athlete all time is perhaps messi, is 5 ft 7, if that, and was a dwarf needing meds to grow to that height. nobody not knowing sports would pick this guy for anything based on looks, not in a million years.
coe was a 3000m runner as a kid. say no more.
bolt 6ft5, prior it was impossible for tall guys to do it. the dude even has the fastest 40m of all time, until broken by a chinese guy, which would be another stereotype, nobody knows that because it doesn't fit the pre conceived notions.
not you have ohtani, outdoing barry bonds, where they say, bonds could have stolen more bases if he wanted to.... this is the stereotype mind at work. just makes things without referring to reality.
myself, i though i was a beyond hope language moron, and suddenly started learning after 5 years of near total failure. and getting better all the time, no idea how the lights came on.
was weak on hills, then put a morning 4 x 500 ft in 1/3 mile hill into the schedule every day, so pi***ssed off.. and ran with pure hate. every time swearing.
you guessed it, hill running became a great strength, killing the flatlanders and look forward to anyone getting competitive on the hills.
do not stereotype, and limit anyone, that said, do your own reality check.
I don’t know about Turkey Trots, but once you reach a certain level of competition in HS, everyone trains hard, and talent will be the difference.
Yes you need talent to run a sub 13min 5000m , but a lot more people can run 13:20 with the correct development.
I hope you're not a coach. You would never get someone to do something they didn't think was possible.
There is nobody out there who can run 13:20 without a sky high V02 max or an incredibly efficient running economy... or some combination of the two.
There isn't anybody who can run under 14 minutes without a really high VO2 max or a really efficient running economy... or some combination of the two.
There isn't anybody who can run under 15 minutes without a high VO2 max or an efficient running economy... or some combination of the two.
In fact, an exercise physiologist could just look at the data of different runners and probably with close to 100% accuracy... tell you which runner is a 13 minute runner vs. a 14 minute runner vs. a 15 minute runner vs a 17 minute runner provided the runners were all in their best condition and had performed reliable treadmill tests.
How is talent measured? I'd like to see those with the genetic explanation start to make and test predictions based on genetic measurements of youth. Put up or shut up. There are programs out there that generate incredible results for large proportions of their athletes year after year, where you take fields of 200-350 athletes, both in high school and in college, and 3/4 of the top 15 are from just two programs. The colleges recruit but most of the high schools can't, and they are taking kids more or less randomly at the lower level. There wasn't some special genetic lottery at Newbury Park that had never existed before Brosnan and has not existed since, but which allowed 7-8 guys to go sub-9 over a few years. There isn't a genetic lottery hitting a few schools in Utah right now; places like American Fork and Herriman have great coaches. Distance running is much less like sprinting in terms of being able right away to outperform almost everyone. It is a sport that requires training, and there's a bigger training component in sprinting as well than most people credit.
Brosnan may be a great coach, but two families account for 5 of the 7-8 sub 9 runners. Genetics. Environment helps.
I made All State in HS. Went to a D1 school that finished top 10 at NCAA XC with only regional recruiting. I improved a lot with what I believe was exceptional coaching. At that level I was mid pack. I did the same workouts for 4yrs of college that my teammates did. Some were All Americans, I barely broke 15 for 5k. That is a talent gap. No amount of training would bridge it.
We all have similar stories of same workouts and dedication as teammates with wildly varying results. Talent, genetics.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.