If you think you have no talent, you are right. If you think you have lots of talent you are also right.

cbenson4 wrote:

But to be great at running, you need a lot of food, namely carbs. A huge population of skinny, malnourished, and underfed people =/= good running.

Course, once they get sponsored, I'm sure eating enough is not a problem, but I imagine getting to the level of a sponsorship-caliber athlete on an insufficient diet is pretty difficult.

Kenyans are recruited and trained by the army, prisons and police first, before they make it big. It's why they succeed where hungry people elsewhere fail.

subfive wrote:

Belief, you're really taking advantage of the uncertainty principle! You're obviously wrong! But since it's difficult for any particular person to know his or her limit....you argue that's it hangs on believing. Kind of

Ike Alice in wonderland in Wonderland ...believing lots of impossible things in one day. Just keep at it. Workout and believe.

But let's say we took 1000 runners, at random who are doing about 100mpw after several years. Do you believe that the primary reason they can't make the olympic team is due to a lack of believing?

Two MAJOR problems with this post.

One, the Uncertainty Principle deals with how the act of measuring a particle's characteristics alters other characteristics, e.g. there's a limit to precisely you can know a particle's velocity and position.

This has NOTHING TO DO with the "uncertainty principle," nor is it even a relevant analogy or metaphor for anything here. Please do not misuse or redefine scientific terms like that. Thanks.

Second, let's hypothetically agree that everyone has equal physical talent and works hard. There can STILL only be 3 people per country per event at the Olympics, so 997 of your sample will still not make the cut, due to some variable, be it luck, subomptimal training, lack of belief. Therefore, your thought experiment does not prove anything we already didn't know, and doesn't disprove anything "Belief" is saying.

I frankly expected better posts than yours from this community of intellectuals on LetsRun.

Great thought

Belief wrote:

genuine random a hole wrote:

You answered my post w/ more banal pablum.

I think that one went right over your head.

That's just because he didn't believe he could be tall.

R2D3 wrote:

Critical Thinking wrote:

Why didn't you just believe a litter harder and run 1:10?

I probably could have in my 20s.

Anyway, it's just the facts. Self-belief helps unlock natural talent. It doesn't change the fact the OP is an idiot or a troll.

Why would you have to be in your 20s? It's all about belief. Age is just a number.

dial it up wrote:

I am a geneticist by profession. I can't believe this is actually being debated. Of course talent plays a role in sports. Genetic predisposition plays MOST of the roles in determining how good someone is at something.

Is belief a real person or an extremely successful troll? I honestly can't tell which I think makes him one of the best trolls I've seen in a while. 8.7/10. Kudos.

On the unbelievably crazy chance he is a real person who actually believes the ignorance he is spewing: Belief, do you feel that because you aren't one of the greatest athletes in the world that you are lazy and just didn't try hard enough?

You may be a geneticist by profession, but that doesn't mean you understand psychology or physiology does it?

This thread is perfect example of what I'm talking about. Lots of poster who lack self belief in their running ability trying to impose that lack of belief onto everyone else.

You guys just don't get it. Your lack of 'talent' is a psychological barrier you have imposed on yourselves, not a phsyiological one.

Belief,

Do you think there is a component to achievement that is commonly called talent?

If you do believe "talent" is something that does exist can you describe it please?

You may be a geneticist by profession, but that doesn't mean you understand psychology or physiology does it?

Actually belief, it does! Thats EXACTLY what that means. I wasn't saying it to tout my choice of job or to imply that I am better than anyone, I was saying it to show you my qualifications to end this outrageously stupid argument. I am telling you that you are dead wrong, and I am more than qualified to do so.

However, debating is one of my favorite activities, so I'll pose this: Is Lebron James successful at basketball because he is 6'9, 250 lbs, yet still has a huge vertical leap and excellent speed, or did he just practice hard?

What I am saying is that at a certain level, everyone believes in themselves and everyone works hard. What separates them is genetics. If you aren't predisposed to be a great basketball player, can you still develop the skills to have some success? Yes. Will Kirk Hinrich ever be Lebron James? No.

I will go ahead and agree that self-belief plays a large role in running and can definitely eliminate huge mental barriers. However, I can't agree with you when you say that lack of talent is not a physiological barrier. Some people are simply faster than others. Raw physiological talent can be seen in things such as body composition, running economy, and Type I muscle fibers. Evan Jager was running 35-40 mpw in high school, and yet he was able to run 4:05 for the mile.

Jager, Webb, Ritz, and even Rupp while playing soccer are great examples of huge talents. Running is harder than a lot of other sports to understand how large of a role talent plays because a lot of people don't understand the science of training. I believe belief just doesn't get the science behind it all.

Nigga please!!!

jiggaboo jones wrote:

Nigga please!!!

Pretty tough to argue with that. Touche.

What about the guy who ran 100 miles a week (with tempo runs, long runs, base phase, structured workouts) and couldn't break an 18:00 for the 5k? Look him up (he posted on letsrun a few years ago)

Would you go up to him and say a physiological barrier does not exist?

I hope you know that genetics does prevent some from running faster than others, but you're right that many runners tend to blame genetics beyond their lack of effort or willpower.

See, this is what I'm trying to get at. Very very few HS runners can run 35-40 mpw (which isn't much) and run a time like a 4:05 mile, which is phenomenal

At 35-40 mpw, the average HS male might break a 5:00? Some would go to 4:30 - 4:40.

cbenson4 wrote:

Raw physiological talent can be seen in things such as body composition, running economy, and Type I muscle fibers.

If muscle fiber ratios meant anything, why are Kenyans good at such vastly different events as 800 and marathon? And why is their favorite sport rugby, not running?

Nobody's born fast. There's no way to keep track of everything that happens during a child's development, so you can't discount the possibility that 100% of athletic "talent" is acquired, not innate. There may be baseline tendencies inherited, but perhaps only time determines what they can become.

One thing you can keep track of, though, is total caloric intake, and I'm gonna keep mentioning how damn hungry most Kenyans are until people take their blinders off. Hungry people grow up skinny, skinny people tend to be good at events from 800 to marathon, and Kenya has a great system of training them. And as recent events remind, little to no doping control.

In stark contrast to the genetic position is the failure of formerly successful gene pools to continue producing great athletes. Where are all the great British middle distance runners? Where are the Finns since Viren? If Kenya ever solves its food problem, people will one day ask where did all the Kenyans go. They'll be playing rugby somewhere.

I believe I can fly.... I believe I can touch the sky...

It is a corollary of the theory of evolution that our abilities are genetically established. If great ability was not the result of favorable genetics, there would be nothing for the fittest to pass on.

As someone who addresses these issues in his PROFESSION, I can tell you that muscle fiber ratios DO MEAN SOMETHING AND ARE MEASURABLE. We can and have measured the make up of high level athletes muscles. Big surprise muscle fiber type fell EXACTLY in line with the sport they so happened to be world class in.

You do a good job of playing devils advocate by coming up with an argument that is much more substantial than beliefs, but you are still very wrong.

There is simply nothing you can say to dispute the fact that some people are faster than others. I chose to list Type I muscle fibers because those are the most inherent of the 3 types. The other 2 can be developed to a much greater extent.

Child development? Excuse me, but there are children who never run, and then end up being extraordinarily talented in the sport. Case in point: Jim Ryun. He was BAD at every single sport he did (told me himself) until he went out for the XC team. Sophomore year XC (only his 2nd year to run) he defeated the state champ. That track season he ran 4:07 in the mile. This is a kid who was bad at every other sport and certainly didn't run around all the time during his free time as a child.

He also later managed a 46.x in a 4xMile his senior year. And you're gonna tell me that it was his child development or caloric intake that got him there? Please. It was because of his innate ability and muscle fibers (among other variables).

How many white boy *milers* could do that today I wonder? Sure, let's bring in race too. Why are African Americans naturally speedier than American whites? Largely because of their inherent Type I muscle fibers, not their child development.

And please don't try to tell me that African Americans or simply blacks around the world are *not* naturally speedier than whites at the short events. Because if you do, sir, you will be laughed at. And it has to do with their Type I muscle fibers that they are naturally born with, not their child development. Where are the little white boys in this race?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luBSMGFVjls

Let's take another example: Lukas Verzbicas. He ran the first mile of a 5k in 5:30 OUT OF NOWHERE as a young boy. His parents noticed he never got winded on the basketball court unlike his peers, so they entered him in that local 5k.

Let's have another example: Craig Lutz. This dude ran 5:11 in the mile in 5th grade. I don't care what your child development looks like -- a vast majority of kids *will not* run that fast at that young age. It's genetics.