Dennis Kimetto - what are we Westerners still missing about Kenyan Marathoners?

How can anyone discount the simple math of genetics?

Why do runners obsess over the genetic issue? Isn't it obvious from the NBA and NFL that superior genetics are a prerequisite?

How many NBA players are under 160 pounds? Under six feet?

How many left tackles in the NFL are under 270? Under six four?

They sure don't have access to the amount and variety of different PEDS Westerns have.

Seems like runners keep clinging to the ridiculous fantasy that hard work alone can turn a chump into a champ.

The best way to become a champ has always been to choose your parents wisely.

Now, in some cases, your genetic response to PEDS can take you to another level. Not everyone responds to PEDS the same way. But that's a topic for another post.

objectivity wrote:

[quote]fisky wrote:

Here's an article that points out one of those genetic factors... stick legs.

Then why are the Japanese, with their clonking calf muscles, the next best bunch of marathoners behind the east Africans. You would expect the Europeans to at least be ahead of the Japanese who should be severely handicapped for distance running if you follow the "stick leg" theory.

quote]

The Japanese record holder is built like a Kenyan.

His list still applies to a population with superior running genetics.

We don't have to hear about the failures or those who weren't good enough but we can see that they number in the thousands and even those failures could be the best in any other country.

You're a typical excuse maker. And genetics provided the perfect excuse. Mark b's list shows his true knowledge of the sport. I'm guessing he's not a young guy.

There are millions of poor runners in East Africa. That's not because of genetics, but poor conditioning.

You are only as good as your conditioning. Why is that so hard to understand.

An elite runner soon becomes a nobody when they lose fitness.

[quote]yes wrote:

You are only as good as your conditioning. Why is that so hard to understand.

[quote]

Because it's not true.

yes wrote:

You're a typical excuse maker. And genetics provided the perfect excuse. Mark b's list shows his true knowledge of the sport. I'm guessing he's not a young guy.

There are millions of poor runners in East Africa. That's not because of genetics, but poor conditioning.

You are only as good as your conditioning. Why is that so hard to understand.

An elite runner soon becomes a nobody when they lose fitness.

2/10

Do like the kenyans do: Train harder!!!

I do not think that Kimetto just started running four years ago. Most reports say that he just started training seriously four years ago. He was a subsistence farmer near Eldoret. He was probably like most every other male in and around Eldoret and tried to run with the dozens of formal and informal training groups that were whizzing up and down the roads near his house. That being said, here is what Westerners are missing and E. Africans are getting about the marathon:

1. The recent gap is a combination of advances in training and a focus of talent coming to the marathon sooner. If there was some drug protocol at work, the Kenyans would dominate the 10k and have taken down KB's WR. But Galen Rupp has been very competitive with the Kenyans at 10k.

2. Training partners: It is no coincidence that the WR runners train together. There is no better way to improve in distance running than to have someone to chase in practice. I think US marathoners would be much better if the top ones all trained together or trained with top E. Africans. Again, look at Rupp. I doubt he would be as good as he has become if he did not have Mo as a training partner.

3. Talent selection: In the US, the general scholastic sports system is highly centered around selecting kids with good upper body strength. Football, basketball and baseball are all sports that require a good strong frame and upper body strength. Kids who do not fit this body type generally feel discouraged from participating in sports. It is usually more of a stroke of luck that kids end up in cross country/track than a systematic selection process. In Kenya, everyone is looking out for skinny kids who run fast. Anyone showing solid talent will get in front of top coaches and get to train with top athletes much sooner than US runners who have to wade through scholastic competition before seeing decent talent in college athletics.

4. The lifestyle of training in Kenya for runners feels privileged compared to what they would be doing otherwise, but for US runners, training is a major life sacrifice. Training with an elite running group in Kenya is a privilege for most Kenyans. They get good food, medical care, safe and clean living quarters and get to have fun training all day. Kimetto would have spent all day doing manual labor on a subsistence farm had he not been a pro runner. It is a privilege to get to do 35k at 97% of MP and spend the rest of the day eating well and getting a massage. For a US runner, they will miss out on going out the night before a big long run and miss most of the next day recovering from the run. Most of their weekend will be shot whereas all their friends will be having fun. Their friends are also out moving up in their profession, while US runners just sit back and watch an endless supply of fast runners come out of the Rift Valley.

If he could power clean that much he wouldn't be 130 pounds. And running 140 miles a week inhibits any power muscular development.

runningart2004 wrote:

I think too often Americans try to mimic the training of Kenyans with mixed results. You are not going to find a slew of 6'0" 137lb 'mericans roaming the quad. It is a genetic advantage in distance running to be small. Instead of embracing our more muscular genetics we seem to fight it.

Distance running is one of the few sports in which coaches have been slow to embrace modern strength training for improved performance. You can stay skinny run long yet still improve strength and running economy. The next big thing in distance running could be that 5'9 130lb elf who runs 100-140 miles a week but also power cleans more than his bodyweight.

Alan

Nice post, Roy.

Precious Roy wrote:

...while US runners just sit back and watch an endless supply of fast runners come out of the Rift Valley.

And with such a large supply of athletes to pick and choose from, foreign coaches/agents are not afraid to throw more intensity in their training, (at the risk of burning out or breaking a few of the 'eggs' thrown at the wall...aka Moses Mosop), because that obviously will produce some major winners, and then the coaches can take on this guru-status their 'new' training methods that produces world records.

Whereas, coaches that try that harder training in the states (e.g. Shumacher) with a more limited supply of top athletes at their disposal, get blamed for breaking their athletes down.

flow of the nile wrote:

[quote]yes wrote:

You are only as good as your conditioning. Why is that so hard to understand.

[quote]

Because it's not true.

Obviously you don't understand what conditioning means.

The Kenyans' success is necessarily due to genetics. The simple reason is that genetics is always the primary determinant of ability—not lifestyle, training, or childhood exercise. In order to rub sub-2:10, you absolutely have to be an extreme genetic outlier, and there's no way around that. We perceive certain times as "fast" precisely because so few people can manage them. All of you who have hit your walls at times reflecting your mere mortal status despite making efforts to improve your training should be able to understand the primacy of genetics, because you are the proof of it. The notion that the Africans or fast representatives of any race got fast by logging childhood miles running to school or growing up at altitude is really quite silly. The body is simply not that malleable. While training makes a difference, your range of possible improvement is firmly delimited from birth by factors that are biologically fixed and not subject to change through training.

yes wrote:

flow of the nile wrote:

[quote]yes wrote:

You are only as good as your conditioning. Why is that so hard to understand.

[quote]

Because it's not true.

Obviously you don't understand what conditioning means.

Obviously you don't understand what baseline raw ability is.

Hint: Someone with better genetics could come out of solitary confinement and beat someone who has been "conditioning" for years.

'We're great at sprints'

Define we

White American's are not great at sprints

fisky wrote:

I don't understand why there is such hostility on LetsRun to the premise that superior distance running genetics plays a major role in the marathoning success of East Africans. Yes, there are many other factors and they all play a role... culture, diet, altitude, and so on... but the raw talent (i.e., genetics) has to be there first to reach world-class level.

Here's an article that points out one of those genetic factors... stick legs.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/11/01/241895965/how-one-kenyan-tribe-produces-the-worlds-best-runners

And here is why it isn't discussed, according to the author.

"Asking that question [are the Kalenjin genetically superior] almost convinced Epstein to back out of his book contract. He realized he'd have to address sensitive questions of ethnic and racial differences. Academics told him they had evidence of genetic advantage but wouldn't share their research with him for fear they'd lose their jobs."

Note that I didn't assert that stick legs were the only genetic factor nor did I claim that genetics were the sole factor.

Other genetic factors (as I recall from memory) were a very light frame, a relatively short torso in relation to leg length, and something about fast twitch muscle fibers being able to work better in an endurance capacity.

If genetics played only a minor role, you'd expect to see a lot of East Africans in the sprints, but you don't.

flow of the nile wrote:

yes wrote:

Obviously you don't understand what conditioning means.

Obviously you don't understand what baseline raw ability is.

Hint: Someone with better genetics could come out of solitary confinement and beat someone who has been "conditioning" for years.

You just proved my point that you don't understand what conditioning is.

When people like you talk about genetics, you are refering to physical traits aren't you?

You aren't using your own genetic potential and you don't know how, and you probably don't want to know how do you?

Kimetto has been doing crop-fit his whole life.

fisky wrote:

If genetics played only a minor role, you'd expect to see a lot of East Africans in the sprints, but you don't.

Missing the point dude. Nobody can succeed at distance running in an East African country, there is no support for them. And anyway, distance runners are distance runners, not sprinters. Just like sprinters are sprinters and not distance runners.

I agree with what someone said earlier, this is the most horse shit filled thread I've seen on LRC in a while

Why do you quote weights as if they are an indicator of genetics? Anyone can be over 160 lbs if they lift and eat enough

Even height is as much nutritional as it is genetic - the Dutch used to be some of the shortest people in Europe... after their diets improved in the 20th century they are now the tallest country in the world

As Canova has pointed out most Kenyan runners are very under-nourished from childhood until they actually make money, which is of course why they are all so lean before they even try becoming athletes... but may also be why they are so efficient at consuming fuel in the marathon

Nice straw man

Nice non sequitur

Thank you for sparing us from more off-topic BS

Do you have anything even related to genetics to post?

I enjoyed your posts. Very thought provoking.

But I disagree with them to some extent. On #3, the American system is very good at id'ing talent. Schools have fitness tests, high school cross country, college scholarships, etc.

In Kenya, people can fall through the cracks. Kimetto is a the perfect example of this. Despite the fact that he'd make a life changing amount of money, he almost didn't have a pro career.

Coming out of nowhere at age 24? That would never happen in this country.

As for #4 and lifestyle, I agree wtih you. Pro running, college running is viewed as a huge 'sacrifice.' I used to tell my guys at Cornell. "you know what, you're right, you aren't a normal college student. Normal college students don't get into Cornell with 650s on their SATs, get flown to California for Spring Break, get to go to England once every four years, etc."

I tried to turn it into a positive. But come on, the top guys are very good at living the lifestyle. Are you saying a lack of dedication cost Teg, Solinsky, Rupp or Ritz???

No.

A 13:45 guy isn't going to go all in on running post collegaitely but he'll never be within 2 miles of the WR.