The one question you should ask to discover your talent in distance running

First point of action: Stop drinking wine.

Stop drinking ***alcohol of any kind**

In my decades of coaching experience I’ve observed most aren’t faster because of these factors:

Lack of self discipline

Not running enough

Lack of consistency with training

They make excuses for themselves

They don’t want it bad enough

Basically they should run more(triple digit) mileage for many years. It’s a rare person that can train that much for that long. The type of person that can put in that much running for that many years truly enjoys running, truly enjoys the grind of it all. It’s not natural talent or genetics, it’s work ethic. The successful people don’t make excuses.

You started off talking about talent then drifted into being the best that you can. Some people can do everything right and run 18 minutes while their next door neighbor runs 2 races per year at 16 minutes without training. The 18 minute guy ran 18:30 at a d3 school while the 16 minute guy ran 13:55 at a D1 state school.

The one question is, "How fast at running were my parents? If I lost weight, would I look like Eliud Kipchoge, or Gimli the Dwarf?"

New Queen wrote:

You started off talking about talent then drifted into being the best that you can. Some people can do everything right and run 18 minutes while their next door neighbor runs 2 races per year at 16 minutes without training. The 18 minute guy ran 18:30 at a d3 school while the 16 minute guy ran 13:55 at a D1 state school.

+1

If two runners do "everything right" as per the OP's list, the very talented runner runs 13:10, the untalented runner runs 16:40.

There are 2 different things here: genetic potential and hard work.

We all know largely what it takes to get as good as we can be - long-term commitment to miles, diet, recovery and strengthening/ injury prevention.

My problem is the trade-off between sleep/ work/ being a good dad and the consistent time commitment of miles.

Did you dedicate your life to it in college? If so, did you run 13:30? If you only ran 16 minutes, you are not very talented.

Another giver of +1 wrote:

New Queen wrote:

You started off talking about talent then drifted into being the best that you can. Some people can do everything right and run 18 minutes while their next door neighbor runs 2 races per year at 16 minutes without training. The 18 minute guy ran 18:30 at a d3 school while the 16 minute guy ran 13:55 at a D1 state school.

+1

If two runners do "everything right" as per the OP's list, the very talented runner runs 13:10, the untalented runner runs 16:40.

All of you have misinterpreted my post. The title of the thread is "your" talent in distance running. Talent is a spectrum. To fully discover the extent of your talent, there's something additional you should be doing.

Honestly, so many of you are crybabies it's unbelievable. The resentment you feel about genetic ability is clear as day.

I'll say it plainly: in no way did I assert that you can run however fast you want. There are people who can do minimal work and run fast. Equally, there are people who do tons of work and run fast, and even if you match their work, you will not beat them. Because genetic predisposition is a thing.

I had forgotten how salt can make people intentionally miss the point by 8,000+ yards.

I don't disagree with your points. But!

You mix a lot of things that are 0.001% ("foam rolling and stretching") and that are 50% ("running enough").

When it comes to a hobby runner, there's no point to maximize your potential to 100%, you will be much more sane getting to 99% and not obsessing about last 1%. Who cares if you ultimately run 16:20 or 16:15? You're still not even sub-elite. On the other hand, you're better than 99% of other hobby runners.

My idea of successful competitive running as a hobby is steady consistent improvement (absolute or relative to age). As long as you improve, you're fine and getting PRs is a nice enough carrot to keep you training. It might seem pointless in the grand scheme of things, but in my mind it is one of the things that make life worth living. The fitness and especially mental ability to work hard and push yourself can help a lot outside of running.

No. I would say that almost none of the posters misinterpreted. Talent is along a spectrum. Seems like everyone said that. We are all reminding you and everyone else of that very thing by pointing out that the very least talented may do everything right but only run 22 minutes while the average talented will run 17-19 minutes and the very talented will run 13 minutes.

Downer it goes wrote:

No. I would say that almost none of the posters misinterpreted. Talent is along a spectrum. Seems like everyone said that. We are all reminding you and everyone else of that very thing by pointing out that the very least talented may do everything right but only run 22 minutes while the average talented will run 17-19 minutes and the very talented will run 13 minutes.

Lul what, no, if you start running as a healthy young adult/teen and you train right, you will run faster than 22:00, male or female. I don't know what the limit would be for someone with "no talent," but it sure as hell is not 22:00. It's probably around 17:00 for men, 19:00 for women. Imagine the slowest kid on your high school team 10 years later if they had dedicated themselves 100% to running.

If you are okay with 16:20 instead of 16:15, that's fine. The important question in the post was "why am I not faster?" That would be asked by those who want to get faster. If you're fine with where you are, good, enjoy running.

No. Imagine the kid in gym class who couldn't walk without tripping over his shoelaces who was 5'6" with super short legs and a long torso or his buddy who was 6'9" and walked all hunched over and his knees hurt after running 1 lap.. Those guys could train their entire lives and not break 25 minutes. How fast do you think Yao Ming or Shaq could have run in a 5k. If you think 17 minutes, you should be banned permanently. The numbers you threw out are what the upper 5% could achieve, not the lowest 5%. Road races with 500 people are sometimes won with slower times.