Does a 4:30 Mile REALLY Require Talent?

Running a 430 Mile is 60 percent talent and 40 percent hard word.

-the430miler

Owner, teXXXas tanning salons LLC

Coach and adjunct professor

A university in san Antonio

I would put 4:30 at about 5:15.

I always love this topic... please define "talent" for all of us.

So if you don't think 4:30 requires any talent then what time does? Is there a particular time that requires talent to run? Does 4:10 require talent? What about sub-4? Does 3:45 require talent?

This ^

The 4:30 you ran in high school means you are good. The 4:15 kid who didn't run all winter has more talent than you do. He's the same sort of kid who was running sub-5 in seventh grade, when you were struggling to run under 6. You both put in work, and he's better. He doesn't work, he's still as fast as you.

That's life.

Sham 69 wrote:

It just makes no sense to me. I started off not even being able to break 6, but am now running 4:30s less than a year later. I see a lot of people who look like DORKS who can run even faster than that. It really does just take a strong mentality to run fast, and I'm living proof of that. What do y'all think?

BS.

Runners want to believe that they work harder or are more intelligent or are just tougher than those who are slower than they are. Just BS. YES, it takes talent to run a mile in 4:30. You got there within a year because you have a better engine than most.

A talented runner will SUCK if they don't train or even if they don't train properly, but an untalented runner can NOT become fast no matter what they do.

Sham 69 wrote:

I'm just trying to help people realize their potential. I'm shocked that so many people struggle to run well.

At the start of the cross country season, there was a short freshman on the same team as me who time trialed at about 5:50, he was trying too. He broke 18 in the 5k during the same season.

You are shocked because you don't understand what is necessary to run well. You aren't tougher than anyone, mentally or otherwise. You simply have the genetics that allow you to run relatively fast on some training.

Go to an elite running camp in Eldoret and then see how much you struggle. You are exposing your ignorance with this thread. Learn, and do it now.

15_50 wrote:

I always love this topic... please define "talent" for all of us.

Are you a talent denier? Are you one of those who believe that any healthy person can just do the proper training and set world records? Do world record holders (who don't cheat) just have some extra mental toughness?

NO...they have physical gifts that make them better -- efficient use of oxygen, etc.

How do you have whole teams (college, HS, Pro) who do mostly the same workouts and yet one guy is the standout? He just wants it more? He's more mentally tough? Nope. He's more physically gifted.

Talent. It's a real thing, and it's the most important thing in determining how good a person can be.

Sham 69 wrote:

It just makes no sense to me. I started off not even being able to break 6, but am now running 4:30s less than a year later. I see a lot of people who look like DORKS who can run even faster than that. It really does just take a strong mentality to run fast, and I'm living proof of that. What do y'all think?

Interesting, you seem to think that you know where you stand on the "toughness" continuum (high), but either deny that there is a talent continuum (there is), or believe that you're nothing special on it.

Of course, you have it backward. Not being cute, you just do. As anyone who's been around a few runners knows, very few will ever run 4:30-something. You are certainly above average on talent. And in the absence of any evidence that you're particularly tough, we can assume that you are average on toughness.

The trick is to try not to assume that you know things that you don't really know. With time, hopefully.

Sham 69 wrote:

It just makes no sense to me. I started off not even being able to break 6, but am now running 4:30s less than a year later. I see a lot of people who look like DORKS who can run even faster than that. It really does just take a strong mentality to run fast, and I'm living proof of that. What do y'all think?

Congrats, Sham 69! It turns out you're quite talented a runner! Surprise, surprise!!!

96th street wrote:

"How do I know you ran a 4:30 mile in HS? Because everyone ran a 4:30 mile in HS."

-Quenton Cassidy

That book was a snooze fest.

Flagpole wrote:

15_50 wrote:

I always love this topic... please define "talent" for all of us.

Are you a talent denier? Are you one of those who believe that any healthy person can just do the proper training and set world records? Do world record holders (who don't cheat) just have some extra mental toughness?

NO...they have physical gifts that make them better -- efficient use of oxygen, etc.

How do you have whole teams (college, HS, Pro) who do mostly the same workouts and yet one guy is the standout? He just wants it more? He's more mentally tough? Nope. He's more physically gifted.

Talent. It's a real thing, and it's the most important thing in determining how good a person can be.

Lolz...

you are one of the posters on here who love to always be 'right'. Which is totally fine, I am not the judge of how people should act.

that said, you need to go back and read/comprehend what I wrote... I did not deny that 'talent' is a thing. my point is none of you who argue this entire subject can define exactly what talent is for running or what the right combination of those talents are for success at any level.

that is the point.... there are many 'talents' and combinations of talents that go into making someone great at running (and neither you nor anyone else can tell us exactly what those talents are).

that is all

Rich dude wrote:

https://www.tfrrs.org/top_performances/WI_college_m_Wis_River_Falls.html?list_hnd=3167&season_hnd=519

There are hundreds of guys in D3 who run 75MPW and never break 5.

How do you know what their mileage is? I know some run a lot but I would bet not that many of them run that much. When I ran D2 I ran the most of anyone on my team except maybe one guy, and the highest I ever sustained for an extended period was 60 mpw.

I suppose I could have made it more clear in my original post, I did even not try to define "talent" because that was not the point of what I was trying to say, I apologize if you misunderstood that.

For the purpose of this conversation, "talent" is something that goes beyond the ability to simply work hard and train smart. It is some assortment of genetic gifts that some very very fast people have that the rest of us do not. It is difficult to define because it can be any combination of untrainable things.

My point was that at the highest level, most people train similarly, the difference between those elite-level athletes and the ones slower than them is "talent". Sham's original post attempted to say that "talent" was not a thing, I disagree, "talent" is possessed by many people and the people at the top have significantly more than us hobby joggers.

I thought that he misunderstood your original post, because I thought that you were alluding to the fact that talent is not a point, but a continuum. Now I realize that's not what you meant.

But I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. One needn't know the exact physiology of running to know something about talent. There aren't many variables. Arguably, 1) Inherent, non-trained ability to run relatively fast at distances (the "talent" we're talking about here), 2) training load and quality, and 3) willingness to hurt. Those 3 must make up something awfully close to 100% of the pie chart.

And anyone who's ever spent a bit of time on a school distance team or running club (or even just went for a run with the wrong guy from your dorm) has been in a situation where 2 of those are clear, making the 3rd pretty obvious. To wit:

You're a HS junior with a 4:55 PR and have been running since Freshman year. You've been running 30-50 miles all summer, with a tad of quality, and think you're in pretty good shape. Underclassman who played a LITTLE soccer over the summer keeps up with you on 6-mile hardish run in the first week of practice. You're sucking wind in the final miles, and he isn't. Clearly. The two you do the same training. Within a month, he's beating you by 30-60 seconds over 5K. The next year, you're still both on the same team with the same training, and now the gap is 2-3 minutes. Real common story.

He has more talent. One need not be able to define physical talent with any specificity in order to accurately say this. And, life can suck.

I think some people can run 70+, 80+, 90+, 100+ mpw, and barely crack 4:40. I think talented runners start off there and can get a lot faster pretty quickly.

Clearly hard work matters. But it helps if you run 4:40 your first time out and run sub-4:10 while in HS. Most can't just get to sub-4:30 with really good training. You can find dedicated runners breaking 16:00, 33:00, 1:13, 2:30, who love running but would have run a lot faster if they were meant to.

No from a person who has run faster than 4;30

Sham 69 wrote:

It just makes no sense to me. I started off not even being able to break 6, but am now running 4:30s less than a year later. I see a lot of people who look like DORKS who can run even faster than that. It really does just take a strong mentality to run fast, and I'm living proof of that. What do y'all think?

Less than 10 people in the history of my HS (est.1954) have EVER broken 4:30.

Congrats on being talented! My first ever timed mile as a HS frosh was 6:12......ran 4:28 by the end of my soph year. Hell ran 4:37 at end of my frosh year.....9mo later.

That level of improvement is a measure of talent.

Alan

Well, when you keep saying or insinuating things that are wrong, that just makes me right (whether I "love" to be right or not) when I disagree with you.

1) I didn't SAY you were a talent denier. I asked you if you were.

2) I have never said I could give you the exact recipe for talent for a runner, yet it is undeniable that talent for runners DOES exist. We know this because we have umpteen cases where groups of people do the same workouts and one person in those groups stands out, sometimes by a LOT. It has nothing to do with them being mentally tougher either. It's a physical thing, and there is a lot of evidence for that...exact recipe, no.

3) So, if you believe that talent does exist, then you are correct and we are in agreement.