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

I think this is past of your answer:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6036703

In addition to having thinner/skinnier legs, I also think it helps that Kimetto is not very tall. Most Americans are too tall.

Height and weight is not even good for the 10,000.

http://www.letsrun.com/2010/heightweight0504.php

Nor the marathon:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5434685

You want to be well under 6 feet.

It will be interesting to see if as Kenya gets more developed if their average height increases. If so, I imagine they'll slow down.

Could a lack of child hood nutrtion help a distance runner?

If posters could confirm in writing that they don't believe that genetics are the main factor of East African success relative to the US that would be very helpful in my compiling a list of posters to be completely ignored for all of time.

Thanks

The Kenyans and Ethiopians are much better at middle distance on the track than the US is too. We may have a runner here or there that can hang with them, but considering how huge our population is compared to theirs, our technology, money, etc, we are in a sad place.

TAA wrote:

Our system doesn't train marathoners. The longest distance kids race until they're 18 is the 5k. Then from 18-22 it's 10k. We're great at sprints and middle distance because that's what we train people for. Also most of our best athletes go to baseball, basketball, football, soccer,etc...

Junk Master wrote:

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.

Quite right sir,

Years ago, while sailing the seven seas, even our dumbest shipmates would perceive and appreciate the fact that it was the West Africans that had the big muscles, whereas the East Africans were a skinny lot and if you were to pick a fight in a bar - pick one in the East.

The NBA and NFL must be overjoyed that West Africa was the most convenient area of that continent to seize slaves from.

rojo wrote:

I think this is past of your answer:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6036703

In addition to having thinner/skinnier legs, I also think it helps that Kimetto is not very tall. Most Americans are too tall.

Height and weight is not even good for the 10,000.

http://www.letsrun.com/2010/heightweight0504.php

Nor the marathon:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5434685

You want to be well under 6 feet.

It will be interesting to see if as Kenya gets more developed if their average height increases. If so, I imagine they'll slow down.

Could a lack of child hood nutrtion help a distance runner?

This is proof that ivy league degrees don't automatically mean the person is smart or rational.

rojo wrote:

I think this is past of your answer:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6036703

In addition to having thinner/skinnier legs, I also think it helps that Kimetto is not very tall. Most Americans are too tall.

Height and weight is not even good for the 10,000.

http://www.letsrun.com/2010/heightweight0504.php

Nor the marathon:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5434685

You want to be well under 6 feet.

It will be interesting to see if as Kenya gets more developed if their average height increases. If so, I imagine they'll slow down.

Could a lack of child hood nutrtion help a distance runner?

rojo, the average East African is shorter than the average American by about 2-3 inches, but that doesn't imply height is a disadvantage unless the shorter Kenyans are beating the taller Kenyans. Do we know if that's the case? I doubt you would say having more melanin in the skin is an advantage.

And though the average height between Kenyans and Americans is different, is that genetic? I knew two identical twins that looked about 2-3 inches different in height... and they grew up under the same roof. Western countries have all gotten taller in the last few centuries.

rojo wrote:

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.

Disagree with this. If you look up the number of sub-4 milers that have come from Ireland or New Zealand it is 10-15 times the rate of the United States. (Cross country is a common sport there for kids to do there, even required in some places.) The HS/college system is there for soccer too... yet the US is still getting beaten by countries 1/30 the size.

yes wrote:

flow of the nile wrote:

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?

Um, no.

I am enhancing my raw physical traits by conditioning but I'm not being re-born with different ancestry.

I am using my own genetic potential and I do know how, it's just that it happens to not be really suitable for running.

And neither is yours, I'm sure.

When I saw a picture of this Kimotto clown, I showed it to my coach at the box. He said: "that guy shouldn't run a Marathon, he should check into a hospital".

Long story short - this has nothing to do with selection.

If you want to breed a weakling, take weak parents and continue. In the end you will have a really SKINNY guy who can probably run a fast Marathon.

Will he ever get lucky though?

Probably not. Women these days want BUFF guys. I am sure things will change in Kenya as well one day.

You can eat your way to a greater height or diminish your potential by starving but gradual height increase over time in a population is due to breeding, not eating. That's genetics.

The Africans also bred various tribes where virtually everyone is close to 7 feet tall and it's not just because of what they ate.

Pygmies live in areas with plenty of food.

Now can you see how that relates to running genetics?

A lot of people babbling on about "genetics" that really have no idea how genes actually work. "Genetics" aren't some concrete set of factors that determine how we will grow/age/whatever from the day we're born. It's much more fluid than that, our genetic expression isn't all set in stone. Genes and gene expression are impacted by environment, and many can be "switched" on/off based on external and internal environmental input. The food we eat, the places we live, the work we do all affect our "genetics." This is why I have a hard time accepting the "genetic" argument...99.9999999999999% of all our genes are the same and many of the factors that influence our build (slight or stout), height, strength, VO2, etc. have nothing to do with "genetics" as it is commonly understood, but rather more to do with environmental factors that result in the expression of genes that we're all carrying around...

Sciatica Road wrote:

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.

I think someone had their feelings hurt after being told off by Renato Canova earlier today.

rojo wrote:

Could a lack of child hood nutrtion help a distance runner?

I wouldn't doubt it. As already mentioned it can have an effect on height/bone growth. Although I've never seen any scientific research, I wouldn't be surprised if lack of food at a young age would help the body cope with being extremely lean, as an athlete needs to be. There are lots of things that are probably out of your control as an adult, but are not "genetic."

It is funny how people keep trying to mention size/weight as a genetic factor - average BMI among African countries is almost exclusively related to the country's wealth - the poorest countries like Kenya, Ethiopia, and Ivory Coast are on average skinnier than the less poor Ghana and Morocco, even though that does not directly correlate to average distance running talent.

rojo wrote:

Could a lack of child hood nutrtion help a distance runner?

EUREKA!!! The experiment begins now.

On 3 (US scholastic system v. Kenyan training group system), I think most of the good US distance runners have been lost before they get to high school. From elementary to middle school, football, basketball and baseball dominate from PE to the playground to after school sports. If you are build like Dennis Kimetto, you are not going to be picked first when the kids divide up sides for a game of football during recess. This drives home a message to all the kids who are built for running that they are not athletes. Sure, you can pick out some talent by making kids run a mile in PE, but you may also just be selecting the kid that gets to play sports more than the other kids because he has good upper body strength. I saw this happen when I was a kid and have seen it again with my kid. I was lucky that I transferred to a little private school that just happened to have an art teacher who was all-American div. I distance runner.

As for 4, it is not lack of dedication. It is a different kind of motivation. For a lot of Kenyans, getting into a top training group means the end of food insecurity. Winning a second tier marathon means being able to buy a farm in Kenya and ending food insecurity for your entire family and extended family. For US runners, a pro career is a huge financial risk and often comes with major sacrifices in terms of lifestyle, even for the top runners. Most every US elite runner could apply themselves in another field and make bags of money. While you will never be able to measure it scientifically, there has to be a difference between one athlete going out to do a massive long run workout who is living a dream life compared to subsistence farming and could win enough money in a few decent races to be set for life and another runner who is living like a dog compared to his college buddies and would get to live the life of a very average corporate executive for a few years if they get a big contract. It is a big intangible, but it is undeniable.

SMJO wrote:

Have you ever seen two short Asian people produce a child that looks like Manute Bol just by putting the baby food on a higher shelf in strong sunlight?

Stop it with the constant straw men, SMJO. It's childish, disrespectful, and contributes nothing to the conversation. And the fact that you keep changing your handle is basically admission that you're a coward.

galapagos island finches wrote:

conversely ritz and guys like luke puskedra look "like skinny africans" but will never break 2:10.

What? Ritz has run 2:07. If Ritz had had the same benefits of Salazar coaching as Rupp ever since the start of his running, he'd probably have stayed healthier and have a PR of 2:05.

The 99.99999999999999999999% thing could be said about dogs as well.

It's mostly about gene expression. Still most people would agree that there are some differences between dog breeds, and that some breeds would, for example, be better at running than others.

Absolutely untrue. VO2 max is most certainly more tied to your genes than environmental impact.