Are elite runners born or made?

Talent beats training wrote:

99% talent. 1% training.

This makes me think of the saying about 77% of statistics are made up on the spot.

You need both of those to be elite. You need XX level talent just to get a ticket to play. But you need a certain level of training and discipline that does vary based on talent as well or talent goes to waste.

You might want to read a book called The Sports Gene...

How does a body "learn"?

The above does not prove his point. How would he fare against his college running teammates who kept running?

runningislife3 wrote:

Can someone with no natural running ability become an Olympic marathoner with years of training or do you also need talent?

If someone become an Olympian marathoner he/she had natural running ability. So the correct answer is you need talent and smart training.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

XXXX wrote:

Nope. Not even close. Talent is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I could take Kenenisa Bekele and if he jogged 3 miles per week he would not beat most top collegiate runners who trained 50 miles per week.

Once you get to a certain level, everyone trains hard. The reason some of them become elite is 100% genetics.

Your example is like pointing out that if Mike Trout didn't start playing baseball until age 25, he wouldn't be good enough to play in the Major Leagues.

THE reason? So mental skills have nothing to do with it? Proper training and remaining injury free (or relatively injury free) has nothing to do with it?

Even below a certain level a lot of people train hard. We all know the guys and gals running 70 mpw who are barely winning local road races.

Both. Talent makes it possible. Training cultivates the talent to make it actually happen.

You Will need natural ability, but you dont have to be a fast responder

Luv2Run wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Once you get to a certain level, everyone trains hard. The reason some of them become elite is 100% genetics.

Your example is like pointing out that if Mike Trout didn't start playing baseball until age 25, he wouldn't be good enough to play in the Major Leagues.

THE reason? So mental skills have nothing to do with it? Proper training and remaining injury free (or relatively injury free) has nothing to do with it?

Even below a certain level a lot of people train hard. We all know the guys and gals running 70 mpw who are barely winning local road races.

Mental skills? Running is pretty simple and something that even most children can do.

The OP's question is whether a person without natural ability can become an Olympic runner and the answer is absolutely not. Just about all of the guys at the OT marathon trials train hard and avoid injuries, but only a handful are capable of making the team.

One thing is sure, all the guys on this thread claiming that talent does not exist or matter will never be elite.

To consider what you may need to become an Olympian:

Luck. You do need it in Olympic Trial. But that's unpredictable and irrelevant to either your training or your talent.

Hardwork. I guess all the top athletes in the world have made their best efforts.

Quality of trainings. I would assume that world-class marathoners already have the most scientific, systematic and productive trainings already. But it is possible that you happen to find a unique workout plan that suits you better than how other people's plans suit them.

Mental strength. I think that's something you can develop completely irrelevant to your genes. This is part of training too.

Talent. Some advantages at biomechanical/neuro level are not changeable by your trainings. You know some athletes dope to make up for that advantage because you have to break your current biochemical balance in order to change that.

I think top athletes are not much different in factors other than talent. So I agree what most people say here, that you need talent.

robert678 wrote:

Both. Talent makes it possible. Training cultivates the talent to make it actually happen.

Fully agree. Talent and hardwork shouldn't be split apart. Without make an effort one could not even utilize his/her talent.

Joseph Heller wrote:

One thing is sure, all the guys on this thread claiming that talent does not exist or matter will never be elite.

Except of course that your statement is possibly incorrect. Many elites claim that they have little talent. Pat Porter said this. Not sure if he believed it. Of course Pat was talented but he was also very driven. This thread is not necessary. Talent for running is not much different than talent for anything else. You need the innate talent but you need to develop it if you want to be great.

XXXX wrote:

Joseph Heller wrote:

One thing is sure, all the guys on this thread claiming that talent does not exist or matter will never be elite.

Except of course that your statement is possibly incorrect. Many elites claim that they have little talent. Pat Porter said this. Not sure if he believed it. Of course Pat was talented but he was also very driven. This thread is not necessary. Talent for running is not much different than talent for anything else. You need the innate talent but you need to develop it if you want to be great.

Ummm... I think you are talking about two different things. Elites who say they have little talent are not denying that talent matters. They are saying they became successful in spite of their limited talent (which is of course untrue) because they worked harder.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

XXXX wrote:

Except of course that your statement is possibly incorrect. Many elites claim that they have little talent. Pat Porter said this. Not sure if he believed it. Of course Pat was talented but he was also very driven. This thread is not necessary. Talent for running is not much different than talent for anything else. You need the innate talent but you need to develop it if you want to be great.

Ummm... I think you are talking about two different things. Elites who say they have little talent are not denying that talent matters. They are saying they became successful in spite of their limited talent (which is of course untrue) because they worked harder.

Yes but the important takeaway is that it does not matter what the elite athlete thinks. It is actually more beneficial if they believe they hard work is more important. Whether or not the elite athlete thinks talent matters is irrelevant.

XXXX wrote:

them cowboys? wrote:

Yes he would.

No he would NOT. I am not talking about Kenenisa with his strong base of decades. I am talking about Kenenisa at 20 with no background and then on 3 miles per week.

1% percent training? What you are saying is that all thatcoaching and training is pretty much worthless. I guess if it's 99% natural talent, diet doesn't matter either.

Watch out for those fat couch potatoes born with natural talent, they will be the best you everytime.

You must have genetic gifts to be elite. Those genetic gifts must also be fully maximized with training.

Not everyone has a high natural Vo2max or threshold, nor does everyone responds the same way to the same training. Even something as simple as height/weight is affected by genetics.

Alan

Here's some fun math....

At my best (2:32 marathon, 15:43 road 5k) I had a measured Vo2max of 79.4 at 5'6" 140lb. Most decent runners at my height were 120-130lb. Given the same absolute Vo2max of 5L/min (rounded down), and 10-20lb less body mass my Vo2max would be 85-90!! Guess I just needed to lose more weight!'

1 tubby tubby 2 tubby tubby....

Alan

runningislife3 wrote:

Can someone with no natural running ability become an Olympic marathoner with years of training or do you also need talent?

No. You need some talent for running and need years of training.