I have logged thousands of miles. I have done the 100 mile weeks. I have done the hardest workouts. I have trained consistently for years. I was in the Olympic Trials for the Marathon. I could not run 4:20 for a mile. There is your evidence.
I have logged thousands of miles. I have done the 100 mile weeks. I have done the hardest workouts. I have trained consistently for years. I was in the Olympic Trials for the Marathon. I could not run 4:20 for a mile. There is your evidence.
coachy wrote:
I have logged thousands of miles. I have done the 100 mile weeks. I have done the hardest workouts. I have trained consistently for years. I was in the Olympic Trials for the Marathon. I could not run 4:20 for a mile. There is your evidence.
You have below-average talent, but your far-above-average work allowed you to have quite a bit of running success. Congrats.
huh?? wrote:
You have below-average talent, but your far-above-average work allowed you to have quite a bit of running success. Congrats.
Ah, the beauty of completely unfalsifiable beliefs.
The Warsaw Pact countries also had a talent spotting system set up like the world had never seen before, or since ( apart from perhaps China).
Young children were tested and selected for various sports due to their physical traits and abilities and those that were not talented or durable enough to survive the training were quickly weeded out.
So thank you for offering an example to disprove your opinion…
Bad Wigins wrote:
Like OP predicted, all the "talent" believers have littered the thread with ridicule and repetio ad nauseam, but no proof. They don't even know specifically what the "talent" actually is.
Suppose nature really did make someone faster. Okay, how?
Genetics? Okay, which genes? What do they do? Crickets.
The number one genetic factor for boosting your talent is your sex. If you are born a woman, the ceiling is demonstrably lower than if you are born a man. Obviously, some women are faster than some men, but we aren't talking about every individual, but rather about groups. Do you think sex is the only factor that is both genetic and also "matters" in this debate?
Genetically "advantageous" phenotypes exist and these sub-groups are not evenly distributed around the globe. You agree with that, don't you?
Put another way, if I gave you 10 years to develop 1000 people into sub-13:30 runners, but you could only choose your athletes from one genetic group in the world, would you choose the Kalenjin or the Dutch? Would you choose men or women? Phenotypes are heavily correlated to ethic sub-populations; genes are real and they matter. We all know that...
p.s. Flip the scenario around; if you had to build an army of 6'5, 225 lb. super strong rugby players, would you choose the Kalenjin? Do genetics matter?
Good post but he will throw out sex.