The answer is simple. ITS 34.2% genetics and 65.8% effort.
Your welcome.
The answer is simple. ITS 34.2% genetics and 65.8% effort.
Your welcome.
What else is it then?
I don't think genetics is all limiting, but it's almost-all limiting...
I also do agree with environmental shift on various expressions of physical output and adaptability. The best and most visible example in our sport is altitude training. Another, known more to us all, is simply striving and training with another runner.
Dr. Runner wrote:
What else is it then?
I don't think genetics is all limiting, but it's almost-all limiting...
I also do agree with environmental shift on various expressions of physical output and adaptability. The best and most visible example in our sport is altitude training. Another, known more to us all, is simply striving and training with another runner.
What else could it be? Several of us have said it. Diet and proper training and recovery.
I don't understand this mindset of "If I'm not the best, then I should just give up and do something else". Of course, no one is disputing the fact genetics does matter. HOWEVER, the average person does have the genetic potential to be a very decent sprinter and or long distance runner with enough practice/discipline. The best of the best are genetically built for their sports, no doubt. A 100m Olympics finalist is likely to have 80% fast twitch muscle fiber composition, while the average person has an even distribution of both fast and slow twitch muscle fibers.
Mid-distance wrote:
I don't understand this mindset of "If I'm not the best, then I should just give up and do something else". Of course, no one is disputing the fact genetics does matter. HOWEVER, the average person does have the genetic potential to be a very decent sprinter and or long distance runner with enough practice/discipline. The best of the best are genetically built for their sports, no doubt. A 100m Olympics finalist is likely to have 80% fast twitch muscle fiber composition, while the average person has an even distribution of both fast and slow twitch muscle fibers.
Never said I was going to give up. I ran eight miles today :D
jenglan3 wrote:
OP, your situation isn't that unusual. I was a little bit slower than you in the 400 and a little bit faster in the 1600 in high school. In college, I got down to 4:37 for 1500 and 17:25 for 5k. That took four years of hard work on top of the four year of hard work in high school. In graduate school, I became a coach and helped a lot of people make huge jumps from high school to college. Much larger jumps than I made myself. One guy went from 10:10 for 3200, having run for York high school, to 14:19 for 5k. But others made smaller improvements. Everyone is different. Some are late bloomers. Some, like me, never really bloom at all (perhaps I am just an extremely late bloomer? I'm still trying to find out).
You can get a lot out of this sport whether or not your are a scoring runner. As long as you work hard and bring an attitude to practice that helps your team's scoring runners want to work hard, then you are an asset to any team and any coach. And don't worry too much about what your potential is. In my first several years of running, I wasted many racing opportunities because I was too concerned about what I couldn't do and not focused on what I could realistically do. Reaching your potential, no matter how modest, is worth your time and effort. You should never be ashamed of it.
Also, see a physical therapist about your hip. If there is a physical limit preventing you from training harder, then go seek out the knowledge that you need to overcome that limit. If you can't run faster because you don't have the talent, that's fine and it's honorable to do the best that you can. But don't let yourself be hampered by a lack of knowledge.
Thanks for the encouragement. You are of a rare breed on letsrun...
And I agree with everything you said. I just want to be a 'good' runner, in the sense that I'm faster than the people who are just starting out. Unfortunately right now that isn't the case. I realize that there will be standout runners who are super-fast after a few weeks or whatever, but aside from them I want to beat the newbies and be respectable.
Thanks to everyone else who answered. Unfortunately, I can't enter your discussion without feeling like I'm in biology class lol
hshsuusjs wrote:
Diet is a MAJOR factor. Cut your food intake in half and see what happens.
Diet can hurt you a lot more than not training.
absolute rubbish, if you are being active, you need more energy intake. Any person can figure that out
Watch this and all will be revealed
The Real Slim Shady wrote:
All right guys, it's time I finally got some answers. And who better to ask than the most intelligent group of people on earth, the users of letsrun.
Now before I say anything else: Flagpole, you are prohibited from this thread. No ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions.
I'll start with some background information. When I started running before my freshman year of high school, the fastest I could run a mile was 7:30 flat, all out (I finally broke 7 that cross country season). I am now a senior and can run a 5:30 after several years of doing the same training as everyone on my team.
Why can't I run under faster for the mile after all this time? I'm now 6'1" and 145lbs, which is an ideal build for a runner. I train just as much if not more than everyone on my team. Yet there are other kids who, off of the same amount of training, are way faster than me. Now, I'm not out of shape or anything. I was always very active growing up. When I was a kid, I swam or played baseball, basketball, or football almost every day.
So my question is this: Is it really true that everyone is a blank slate at birth and the fastest runner is the one who trains the most (this is what I've always been told)? Or is running ability genetic?
If so, to what degree is it genetic and how far will hard work really take you?
I would argue that running is mostly genetics. I've had to work extremely hard just to get my 5k under 15:30. I've seen teammates and conference rivals running fewer miles, easier workouts, and drinking 3-4 nights a week break 15.
At the end of the day, unless you are a professional runner, this sport is a hobby and how fast/slow you are shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it.
“Champions aren’t made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them-a desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have the skill, and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill.â€
Ignorant Buffoon wrote:
. I bet in America we could easily have 10x more elite track athletes than we do currently if track was our largest sport. Kenya, Ethiopia, Jamaica, why do they produce such talents every year without ceasing? Their main sport is track, hence they have a larger talent/gene pool to take from and produce athletes. Why is it so surprising that in America we have not had a 10K medalist since 1964? We're a country of 300 million, more than Ethiopia and Kenya combined. It is highly unlikely from a statistical standpoint that we have not had the talent necessary to produce a medalist in the last 48 years. I am sure in these last 48 years, we have had at least 1, hell, probably at least 10, more athletes that are more talented than Rupp that just never realized their potential. Rupp is very talented indeed, but he has had every resource available to him since he started running to maximize his potential, and he has done exactly that.
Ummm, track is the most widely participated sport at the high school level.
Is genetics important in sport? would Shaque make a great gymnast? or jockey? How well would a full grown guy who is 5'-2" and 105 lbs do in the NBA or NFL?
Yeah...
I think he was using the example of the awful things that would happen if you cut your food intake in half to show that diet is important.
ueueud wrote:
Dr. Runner wrote:
What else is it then?
I don't think genetics is all limiting, but it's almost-all limiting...
I also do agree with environmental shift on various expressions of physical output and adaptability. The best and most visible example in our sport is altitude training. Another, known more to us all, is simply striving and training with another runner.
What else could it be? Several of us have said it. Diet and proper training and recovery.
Please give some examples of good diet.
Trumpkin wrote:
The Real Slim Shady wrote:
All right guys, it's time I finally got some answers. And who better to ask than the most intelligent group of people on earth, the users of letsrun.
Now before I say anything else: Flagpole, you are prohibited from this thread. No ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions.
I'll start with some background information. When I started running before my freshman year of high school, the fastest I could run a mile was 7:30 flat, all out (I finally broke 7 that cross country season). I am now a senior and can run a 5:30 after several years of doing the same training as everyone on my team.
Why can't I run under faster for the mile after all this time? I'm now 6'1" and 145lbs, which is an ideal build for a runner. I train just as much if not more than everyone on my team. Yet there are other kids who, off of the same amount of training, are way faster than me. Now, I'm not out of shape or anything. I was always very active growing up. When I was a kid, I swam or played baseball, basketball, or football almost every day.
So my question is this: Is it really true that everyone is a blank slate at birth and the fastest runner is the one who trains the most (this is what I've always been told)? Or is running ability genetic?
If so, to what degree is it genetic and how far will hard work really take you?
I would argue that running is mostly genetics. I've had to work extremely hard just to get my 5k under 15:30. I've seen teammates and conference rivals running fewer miles, easier workouts, and drinking 3-4 nights a week break 15.
At the end of the day, unless you are a professional runner, this sport is a hobby and how fast/slow you are shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it.
Running is all genetics...period. That's why so many HS kids don't go on to run in college - they just don't have the times. And when colleges are recruiting kids all they look at are times. Slower kids who may be hard workers, team leaders, dedicated to the sport, etc., aren't going to have a chance. It's all about raw speed...no surprises there.
The Real Slim Shady wrote:
everyone is a blank slate at birth and the fastest runner is the one who trains the most (this is what I've always been told)
Who told you that?
Let's forget this blank slate idea - thousands of studies have shown that significant differences across all dimensions are genetic, and that environment/lifestyle factors act on top (magnifying some, nullifying others, whatever). The idea that everyone is physically, intellectually, physiologically, emotionally identical at birth and environment accounts for just about all difference in outcomes is an absurdity promoted by ideological postmodern neo-Marxists, i.e. the adademic left of the last 40 years. It isn't worth debating.
I want to know about auxiliary factors like diet and sleep. What does a good diet look like, macronutrients, fasting, things to avoid? How much difference does 8 versus 7 hours sleep make, and how does that vary across individuals?
When did the “academic left “ say that. And who is the academic left?