Also this was in the comments. There was a Minnesota studies done on twins and after the results this was said in the conclusion..
"The Minnesota twin studies, for example. These are the studies that have shown us, for example, that 80% of height is inherited, and that 50% of starting VO2max is also inherited, or explained genetically."
talent vs. hard work wrote:
No like I said please read the entire article before responding. If you actually read the article you might have learned something. He states that that is the belief of a lot of scientists but then he goes on to prove why he believe genetics play a huge role in sports, please just read the article and you will learn something. For example if genes don't matter please explain why men are so much more dominant then women in sports?
I read it again and like I said before, all this guy has are CORRELATIONS. He even says so. He also says that all of these studies are EARLY STAGE studies and not conclusive at all. I don't have to be able to explain why men are more dominant in sports. The fact is that there is no evidence that genes limit performance within a sex. Maybe between a sex, I MIGHT grant you that. But not WITHIN a sex.
talent vs. hard work wrote:
And if we go with your argument then genes don't affect your height either. Scientists can not prove that genes affect your height because it is too complex just like the sports arguments. But like adapting to workouts they have found multiple string of genes aligned in a specific order that have an afflity. it is all about the correct combination of genes aligned in the correct order.
My argument is not that genes don't affect running performance. My argument is that there is no evidence that they do.
Your height comparison is not appropriate. Training has been shown to increase running performance more than any other possible variable possibly can. There is no analogy for that in height (you cannot do stretches that will make you taller).
Again, these identified sets of genes are not doing anything but being present. We do not know that they are responsible for anything. We just know that they are present in those individuals. Correlation and causation are very different things. The writer of that article even says this.
AJF wrote:
in response to the talent vs hard work debate:
http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/a-primer-on-musclesfocus on the sections labeled "determining fiber type" and "training muscles".
my degree is in exercise science and every class i have ever had in exercise physiology clearly states that everyone has a genetic ceiling.i did not feel as though it would be widely accepted if i just put up slides from a lecture up so i found this. this guy is a phd and obviously knows what he is talking about. "natural talent" is not alone limited to muscle fiber recruitment. you could go as far as to say people have slight advantages if their muscles attach at different portions of their bones. bone density could change a person's weight. someone's leg length to body height ratio could effect how efficient they are able to run. the size of someone's heart could make them more efficient(yes i know you can change the stroke volume of your heart through aerobic exercise). anyone that has ever looked at michael phelps knows he was built to swim. massive feet and hands, long arms,shorter legs, etc. tell me he didn't win the genetic lottery.
all that being said, there are probably another 1000 guys built exactly like michael phelps that will never win an olympic gold, but not because they do not have the genetic abilities.they just lack the work ethic to achieve what he has.
i really hope you consider this scientific proof, if not i will find some more for you
There is no evidence for a physiological genetic ceiling. If there was, then you'd be able to predict who will run a sub mile and who will not.
I'm not sure what exactly your suggesting that I should consider scientific proof. The type of studies he cites and is involved with are studies that can only prove CAN. They can't prove CANT. Also, the issue of muscle fiber type conversion is not settled. He even partially states this when he talks about fibers starting to behave like other fibers given an appropriate stimulation.
The rest of your paragraph is filled with ifs, coulds, and mights - none of which constitute a fact or scientific evidence.
2012xxx wrote:
5. Too much emphasis (college particularly) on hard day followed by easy day, like as if having two consecutive hard days will hurt you
If your mid-distance it's all about the easy days. When I broke 1:50 for the 800 in highschool there were easy days where the JV runners passed me on my training runs.
the scientific proof would be that you are genetically born with a certain percentage of fast twitch fibers and a certain amount of slow twitch fibers.if you read that article at all you would realize that you can not change the fiber type, they can only begin to take on characteristics of the opposite one. so if an athlete is born with more slow twitch fibers he is genetically predisposed to being a better endurance athlete(natural talent)
"Although slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers cannot be changed from one to another, training can change the amount of area taken up by each fiber type in the muscle. In other words, there can be selective hypertrophy of fibers based on the type of training. For example, your client may initially have a 50-50 mix of fast-twitch and slow-twitch fibers in a muscle. Since fast-twitch fibers have a larger cross-sectional area than slow-twitch fibers, more than 50% of that muscle’s area may be fast-twitch and less than 50% may be slow-twitch (Pipes 1994)."
hence the phrase genetic ceiling.i would also like you to realize i very strongly agree with you that one of a runner's greatest talents lies with his ability to work hard.i am just simply pointing out that there are some things people cannot change no matter what
jdmd wrote:
Maybe between a sex, I MIGHT grant you that. But not WITHIN a sex.
"Well, some genes might affect talent, BUT NOT ALL."
Yeah, we were definitely arguing that eye color is a huge determinant of running ability.
Hell, maybe the women's world records will be better than the men's records someday if the top women work way harder than the men. But they are not as naturally predisposed to that level of athleticism.
Your whole well-there's-PROOF argument is just like saying that HIV and AIDS are not related, only correlative, because we have never directly witnessed the HIV virus destroy every single helper T-cell in an AIDS patient's body. Oh sure, every untreated HIV patient will get AIDS, and we can see the HIV virus destroy a cell, but we NEVER prooved that the virus was responsible for ALL of the helper T-cell loss in an AIDS patient. For all we know, goblins went and stole the rest. THIS IS WHAT YOU SOUND LIKE.
What was Kenny Bekele's first race? What did he run? What about Galen Rupp? If I recall correctly, Rupp ran in the 16s for his first ever 5K after just a few months of running. It took me close to 10 years of training to reach that level as my first 5K was over 24 minutes. I never broke 5:00 in the mile in high school either.
I run close to 100 miles per week, with workouts that I have found to have the most effect on my performance, and can barely run 16:00. I know for a fact that many elite and sub-elite runners who are much faster than me, train less than I do. Do you know why they are able to run so much faster than me? Because of their genetics! You ever hear the phrase "pick your parents well?" Do you know why that is so true in running? Because genetics determines your maximum performance level, and training hard is what allows you to approach that limit.
Science! wrote:
"Professional Runner" is a viable career path.
;)
You can optimize your training but you are limited by what your genetics provide for you. For instance, you can't really manipulate your maximal heart rate.
My illustration concerning genetics and height is crude but it is fair. Training can change physiology but at some point this plateaus and that is due to genetics.
"being a runner is cool!"
I think jdmd has convinced me that presenting a convincing argument is limited by genetics.
That anyone other than your closest family and teammates actually cares about your PRs.
Mr Mitochondria wrote:
You can optimize your training but you are limited by what your genetics provide for you. For instance, you can't really manipulate your maximal heart rate.
terrible example since max hr has nothing to do with anything.