How much does genetics affect running?

And if you want proof of this I can even show you my profile, you can clearly see my 3k PB on here, and my lack of serious running for several years.

https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=436352

And here is me in January, finishing 4th here running 16:27 in an undulating 5k fun run. I know I don't have proof of my sub-15:30 TT so feel free to doubt it, but I believe this at least serves as proof I'm capable of running well under 16 minutes on a track.

https://www.parkrun.org.uk/sheffieldhallam/results/weeklyresults/?runSeqNumber=469

Do you realize that there are 7 children? They all had the same upbringing but some of them are slow. Talent beats training. Ingebrigtsens could have adopted a child and rasied him alongside Jakob and provided the identical upbringing and have the kid run 20 minutes for 5k if he had no talent.

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

Nonsense! I was by far the slowest guy in my training group, I had to train with the guys 3 or 4 years younger, or sometimes even the girls! And I started pretty young too. I just lived a very unhealthy lifestlye and got injured a lot. If I can run 17:XX, any able bodied young male can.

So you finished DFL in every single HS race?

Did your HS have a mile run test in your PE class? The national average for HS senior is something like 7 min.

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

And if you want proof of this I can even show you my profile

Congratulations on improving. I respect the hard work you put in.

The environment definitely plays a role. Those born at altitude have more blood cells.

So a person with average genetics can still work hard to improve his red blood cell count and also mitochondria count.

unless you have proof of a 15 minute 5k from a timed official, your improvement from a 17:xx 5k to a 16:34 5k really isn't wowing anybody or doing anything to bolster any of your claims. saying it was a hilly course or it was hot that day or you felt bloated and gassy is needless equivocation. regardless, even if you showed a 14:xx 5k time it's still nothing but a dumb anecdote that provides no factual evidence except that you sucked at training when you were young and got faster later. your innate talent level did not change. like it or not, you stand in the 98th percentile of verified 5k times ever run by human beings

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

So you finished DFL in every single HS race?

Did your HS have a mile run test in your PE class? The national average for HS senior is something like 7 min.

Dude, I've literally provided you with a profile page displaying probably 90% of the races I've ever participated in (And as an added bonus, that time I stuck a Javelin in the ground to get a participation point).

It clearly showcases my lack of talent and my improvement to a level that people on this thread were claiming should be impossible for someone like me. I never claimed to have come last in every race. I definitely came near the back in almost all of my races though.

And this 'national average' is meaningless. I've showed you that I'd been running consistently for years and still couldn't run a 10 minute 3k despite my best efforts! You can obviously drag someone off the street who's only been training for 2 months and say "Look, you're faster than him!"

There were around a dozen guys my age who I trained with that had been training with me and around three quarters of them broke the 9 minute barrier. Even the slower guys were pushing low 9s. I was the only one who'd been running for years that couldn't break 10. In training, even when I was 17 or 18 I had to run with the under 15 boys because I just couldn't keep up with the other guys my age. I clearly have well below average talent. And I promise you I'll run a sub-15 5k in the next couple of years.

I've never tried to claim that genetics doesn't matter. It does. But don't give me this argument that people with 'less talent' can't even run an 18 minute 5k. It's complete nonsense. Anyone can run sub 16, sub 15 etc. It's genetics that separates a decent runner from a sub-elite and a sub-elite from an elite.

uh huh right right wrote:

like it or not, you stand in the 98th percentile of verified 5k times ever run by human beings

We're comparing apples to apples, not apples to couch potatoes. Do you truly believe that I am in the 98th percentile in terms of 'genetic talent'? So you believe that if every young man in the world trained for 8 years like I did, only 1 in 50 would be faster than my 16:27? I'd say it would be more like 1 in 50 who would be slower, putting me in the 2nd percentile. Also, if I'm 98th percentile, how are there thousands and thousands of people who were over a minute faster than me? And what's your logic that I need 'proof of a 15 minute 5k'? I don't recall ever claiming to have run such a time, only merely exclaiming that I'm confident of such a time in the future.

And about that 16:27, the website it's sourced from literally tells you where I ran it. If you're that desparate for proof that it was undulating you can look at the course on Google Earth... not that it particularly matters as it was quite clearly not on a track and there's no disputing that a 5k on a track is easier than a fun run where you're weaving around pedestrians and spend most of the 2nd lap dodging the people you're lapping.

facts and reason wrote:

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

And if you want proof of this I can even show you my profile

Congratulations on improving. I respect the hard work you put in.

The environment definitely plays a role. Those born at altitude have more blood cells.

So a person with average genetics can still work hard to improve his red blood cell count and also mitochondria count.

Thank you! The only sensible, logical person on this thread.

You really are clueless. Do what you suggested and only 25 would be uninjured so your 1 in 50 goes out the window. Most people can't run. That's just the way it is. It is like saying if we trained all of the kids to do mathematics from an early age that they would all be mathematicians. Many just don't have the capability to ever catch on. Many don't have the bodies to run. 1 in 50 under 16 minutes sounds about right. You don't seem to grasp facts. There are entire states that have only a handful of guys break 16 minutes after 4 years of track and cross country training. And that is out of thousands of kids training.

I think a lot.

My cousin ran 2:08 in the marathon.

My brother and I both ran sub-29 and sub-14. My sister ran 16-min.

My girls have started running and my 7th grader has run a 5:27 mile on soccer training and my 5th grader ran 13:12 for 3200m on soccer fitness.

I think it's a lot.

talent beats training wrote:

You really are clueless. Do what you suggested and only 25 would be uninjured so your 1 in 50 goes out the window. Most people can't run. That's just the way it is. It is like saying if we trained all of the kids to do mathematics from an early age that they would all be mathematicians. Many just don't have the capability to ever catch on. Many don't have the bodies to run. 1 in 50 under 16 minutes sounds about right. You don't seem to grasp facts. There are entire states that have only a handful of guys break 16 minutes after 4 years of track and cross country training. And that is out of thousands of kids training.

I'd say you're the 'clueless' one. It's not about how many people 'train'. I could casually run 3 miles once a week and say "Look, I ran all through high school and never broke 16! I must have bad genetics!" When in reality I just didn't bother training properly.

Also, the guy you're replying to is listed as an under 23, so he's definitely not in High School unless they held him back many years I guess.

I ran 8:52 at 'High School age' and I'm nothing special so I'd definitely say someone running 10:XX after years of training does show pretty low levels of talent.

I think you know this though, you just hate admitting you're wrong.

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

And this 'national average' is meaningless. I've showed you that I'd been running consistently for years and still couldn't run a 10 minute 3k despite my best efforts! You can obviously drag someone off the street who's only been training for 2 months and say "Look, you're faster than him!"

Most high school kids who run 7 min mile are not sedentary. They may not be doing any specific training, but are active in other sports. Truly sedentary kids are in 8-9 min range.

So if you take this 7 min kid, and give him proper training, he will improve to 6 min or possibly 5:30. That's about 18:30 to 20:00 in 5k.

And guess what? Talent matters at every level. That kid who ran 18:xx in his final HS race is still more talented than his teammate who could not run sub-20 with the same training.

It's the same thing in baseball. It's genetics that separates a MLB player from Triple A, but anyone can get a pro contract or a D-1 scholarship.

The funny thing that is missing in every single one of these talent/genetics beats training is what exactly defines having "talent/genetics" for distance running?? There is no objective definition so this becomes a subjective discussion.

I've known plenty of distance runners in my life who had leg speed or were gifted cardiovascularly but didn't have the desire to train enough to become elite.... hence in my mind anyway, the ability to be motivated/dedicated is a talent. I honestly think people miss that element.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Genetics can be overrated wrote:

And this 'national average' is meaningless. I've showed you that I'd been running consistently for years and still couldn't run a 10 minute 3k despite my best efforts! You can obviously drag someone off the street who's only been training for 2 months and say "Look, you're faster than him!"

Most high school kids who run 7 min mile are not sedentary. They may not be doing any specific training, but are active in other sports. Truly sedentary kids are in 8-9 min range.

So if you take this 7 min kid, and give him proper training, he will improve to 6 min or possibly 5:30. That's about 18:30 to 20:00 in 5k.

And guess what? Talent matters at every level. That kid who ran 18:xx in his final HS race is still more talented than his teammate who could not run sub-20 with the same training.

I get what you're trying to say. But again, back to my original point. The kid who only runs 20:XX isn't incapable of running faster. Chances are, he didn't break 20 because he didn't train enough and put little effort into his sessions, or he got injured frequently, or maybe he had anaemia etc.

There's so many factors involved, you can't just say "These two guys did similar training and are of similar age. Person A was faster therefore GENETICS."

15_50 wrote:

The funny thing that is missing in every single one of these talent/genetics beats training is what exactly defines having "talent/genetics" for distance running?? There is no objective definition so this becomes a subjective discussion.

I've known plenty of distance runners in my life who had leg speed or were gifted cardiovascularly but didn't have the desire to train enough to become elite.... hence in my mind anyway, the ability to be motivated/dedicated is a talent. I honestly think people miss that element.

+1

Absolutely right!

Icouldbeyourmom wrote:

It matters a lot.

Marathoners are smaller boned than most. They also tend to be on the shorter side with longer legs relative to their torso. Mary Keitany is a prime example. She was just smaller all over than Shalane. And Shalane is tiny!

At the same time, though, if Mary Keitany had been born and raised in the U.S. and ate a standard American diet, she probably wouldn't be that small. Even if you compare villagers with city people in many parts of Africa, village people tend to be much smaller due to differences in diet.

The Williams sisters and the Zverev brothers are great tennis players and it would be absurd to imply that they there's a tennis gene. If there's a gene that affects running, the variant that causes elite runners to be fast hasn't been discovered yet.

I would bet my life that the overlooked missing link is lifetime mileage/lifetime physical activity. I know people who train regularly and have never been able to get anywhere close to how fast I ran my first race. The difference is that I had almost a lifetime of competitive sports under my belt when I switched to running.

Genetics make up a huge part of elite level running. It probably makes up about 90% of your potential. You still have to train like a madman or woman but without the right genes it's not going to happen. I'm talking for people being ranked the top 60-70 in the world.

Alan55 wrote:

The Predictor wrote:

no matter how hard you try, the person with better genes will always beat you.

if you don't have the genes, you can not be elite no matter what.

Not true. If they don't put the hard work in, you can beat them. The ones that you cannot beat have good genes and a great work ethic.

Nope.

The only arena where that kinda matters is Ultras and long events where athleticism depth drops off fast from the too guys.

But don't let me steal your dreams though.

There's always Spartans, CrossFits, and Ultras