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

Gene Summons wrote:OK, how many parents on here are going to activate their kids running genes now that we know how to do that?

Can I get a show of hands?

Looking at it from the progeny side of things I would not mind getting an upgrade or better yet as a designer baby that can run marathon WR. I would think all future babies would think the same way if they thought about it, its only as you get older that you want to do things the hard way!

avinely wrote:

Genetics is 4 stupid wrote:

I read it. What part of it backs up his argument that VO2 max has almost no genetic component?

Did anyone say it had "almost no" genetic component? No, invented that straw man now.

One study calculated a statistical MAXIMUM heritibility of 47%. That runs counter to you saying it is "mostly genetic," given that it is, at most, 47%, and likely lower due to environmental similarities between parents and children.

QED

1) That's heritability relative to gains in VO2 max, not baseline VO2 max

2) There have been know factors shown to have a larger impact

3) The study was done on a bunch of North Americans

Something that I haven't seen discussed on here is pain threshold. I have done medical work here and in Eldoret and it was amazing to me the procedures, without anesthetics, that Kenyan patients would have done to them without any sign of physical discomfort. This is compared to here where people scream with lidocaine injections.

I have no idea how much of a role this plays, but there is really a big difference between the ability to tolerate pain between Kenyans and Westerners in general.

avinely wrote:

Did anyone say it had "almost no" genetic component? No, invented that straw man now.

Going back to re-read I actually found out how I got that idea. There was someone saying that in the posts being replied to.

Not a scientist but... wrote:

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

know your heritage wrote:

2) There have been know factors shown to have a larger impact

Should that read "There have been NO known factors shown to have a larger impact"?

That's how I read the study.

know your heritage wrote:

1) That's heritability relative to gains in VO2 max, not baseline VO2 max

2) There have been know factors shown to have a larger impact

3) The study was done on a bunch of North Americans

Of course there's a genetic component to running ability. All of Kenyan distance runners have migrated from the what is now Southern Sudan to the Rift Valley less than 1000 years ago. What are the specific genetic components? Well, to paint it with a broad stroke: YOU CAN'T TEACH SMALL. These are very small men with almost no weight in their upper body to carry around. What could be more obvious than that?

Why do you think that VO2Max is important? VO2max doesn't mean anything.

=======================================

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

More on VO2 Max

malmo wrote:

Of course there's a genetic component to running ability. All of Kenyan distance runners have migrated from the what is now Southern Sudan to the Rift Valley less than 1000 years ago. What are the specific genetic components? Well, to paint it with a broad stroke: YOU CAN'T TEACH SMALL. These are very small men with almost no weight in their upper body to carry around. What could be more obvious than that?

Why do you think that VO2Max is important? VO2max doesn't mean anything.

I don't think anybody was saying VO2Max means much. The discussion was weather is was predominately a nature or nurture thing.

Anyway, I agree on your small men hypothesis. It seems pretty obvious to me as well. Especially over longer distances like the Marathon, where efficiency is king.

V02 max is crucial. The guys who test high and perform poorly chose the wrong sport to direct their high V02 towards.

You can be incredibly efficient and perform really well with a lower number and you will lose to the guy who is just as efficient and has a higher number.

The "running fast predicts running fast" is not a strong argument. It just means they don't want to choose a point to stand by or just admit they don't have a clue despite every lab test at their disposal.

Genetics is 4 stupid wrote:

avinely wrote:

Did anyone say it had "almost no" genetic component? No, invented that straw man now.

Going back to re-read I actually found out how I got that idea. There was someone saying that in the posts being replied to.

Not a scientist but... wrote:

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

sorry if the wording of my remarks were easily misunderstood. The key to my statement was "as its commonly understood." Most people think of genes az a blue print set in stone regarding what a person' build and physical abilities will be. Like when they're born, there's some code that if you could decipher if would read "Kimetto at age 27 will be 5'4" and 130 lbs, with long legs a short torso, and lean build." In fact, its not quite that simple, and many environmental factors can affect what Kimetto looks like and how he is able to perform in a Marathon. I ran with a Kenyan in college that showed up on campus at 5'11" and 130 lbs. He claimed to be 19, but looked closer to 20-21. By the end of his freshman year he was 6'1" and 145. Still very lean and very much a faster runner. Did his genetics make him 5'10" or 6'1"? 130 or 145? All of the genetic "advantages" that are often cited as reasons Kenyans excel in the marathon are present in other populations to varying degrees. Columbians are generally of slight build, live at altitude and perform well in endurance activities. They make excellent cyclists when the roads tilt upward...basically they check all the same genetic advantage boxes as a Kenyan, yet they are not out there running everyone into the ground in a marathon. Lots of reasons why, many of them cultural, but regardless of the reasons, its further proof that genetics are not the major determining factor in marathon performance. Further, many Westerners posses these same characteristics and yet still cannot compete. Having a short torso with long legs, little upper body weight and an efficient aerobic engine is not a uniquely East African phenomenon.

If you were to compare a Colombian with a Kenyan you would see the differences.

Other endurance oriented peoples have some of the necessary features. Kenyans have all of them.

There seems to be a lot of people clinging to that nice thing your parents once said. "You can be whatever you want to be".

They lied.

Gene Summons wrote:

V02 max is crucial. The guys who test high and perform poorly chose the wrong sport to direct their high V02 towards.

Neither of your statements has any proven scientific support.

Gene Summons wrote:

The "running fast predicts running fast" is not a strong argument. It just means they don't want to choose a point to stand by or just admit they don't have a clue despite every lab test at their disposal.

And the lab tests that they are referring to SPECIFICALLY is VO2Max - which has no correlation to p

malmo wrote:

Gene Summons wrote:

V02 max is crucial. The guys who test high and perform poorly chose the wrong sport to direct their high V02 towards.

Neither of your statements has any proven scientific support.

Gene Summons wrote:

The "running fast predicts running fast" is not a strong argument. It just means they don't want to choose a point to stand by or just admit they don't have a clue despite every lab test at their disposal.

And the lab tests that they are referring to SPECIFICALLY is VO2Max - which has no correlation to p

What's yours?

You know which people don't run well? People with really low numbers.

Too many champions with high to virtually off the chart numbers to dismiss it.

Gene Summons wrote:

The "running fast predicts running fast" is not a strong argument. It just means they don't want to choose a point to stand by or just admit they don't have a clue despite every lab test at their disposal.

Jack Daniels has stated the exact same thing, on these message boards - VO2 max means little by itself, and if you want to track your progression, just see how fast you can run. Would you say Jack Daniels doesn't have a clue about lab tests? PS-any reason you're still changing your handle every few pages?

Genetics is 4 stupid wrote:

I don't think anybody was saying VO2Max means much. The discussion was weather is was predominately a nature or nurture thing.

Anyway, I agree on your small men hypothesis. It seems pretty obvious to me as well. Especially over longer distances like the Marathon, where efficiency is king.

Dude stop making comments about physiology. You keep showing that you don't know what you're talking about and you read sloppily. Efficiency is not king. You are allowed to injest fuel.

Manchester wrote:

Gene Summons wrote:

The "running fast predicts running fast" is not a strong argument. It just means they don't want to choose a point to stand by or just admit they don't have a clue despite every lab test at their disposal.

Jack Daniels has stated the exact same thing, on these message boards - VO2 max means little by itself, and if you want to track your progression, just see how fast you can run. Would you say Jack Daniels doesn't have a clue about lab tests? PS-any reason you're still changing your handle every few pages?

Joe Vigil says otherwise. Would you say Vigil doesn't have a clue?

PS To annoy you and poke fun at the subject matter. Mostly to annoy you though.

Thoughts below, taken from another thread, mentioned the idea of one being a late-bloomer, for the purposes of trying to defeat the bio-passport. I'm posting this here to see if P. Roy wants to weigh-in. Seems the Kenyan environment, purposeful or not, provides such a cover for the late-bloomer phenoms.------------

Gene Summons wrote:

Manchester wrote:

Jack Daniels has stated the exact same thing, on these message boards - VO2 max means little by itself, and if you want to track your progression, just see how fast you can run. Would you say Jack Daniels doesn't have a clue about lab tests? PS-any reason you're still changing your handle every few pages?

Joe Vigil says otherwise. Would you say Vigil doesn't have a clue?

Did I imply anything along those lines?

Why don't you own up to the things YOU say for once? Step 1: Answer your question, would you say Daniels, the most well known running lab guy in history, doesn't have a clue, which your post implies? Answer that. Second step: pick a consistent handle instead of dodging every time someone challenges your ridiculous straw men.

On just about every cross country team ever, you'd be able to find two guys with similar backgrounds who do similar training, but one will be a minute faster than the other. Why can we admit that differences in talent exist between individuals, but not ethnic groups?

PreRunner wrote:

Kimetto has been doing crop-fit his whole life.

HA!

Gene Summons wrote:

What's yours?

You know which people don't run well? People with really low numbers.

Too many champions with high to virtually off the chart numbers to dismiss it.

I just cited the scientifc study above. Can you cite a study that shows a different conclusion?

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier

90.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, Norwegian cross country skier

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist

82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner

82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion

81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ

81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder

80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion

78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner

77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner

77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500

76.6 John Landy, WR miler

76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner

74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner

74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner

74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36

73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner

73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion

72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner

71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner

71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder

71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder

70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner