U. Raynuss wrote:
A man with absolutely 0 genetic talent for running could probably coax a 4 hour marathon if they trained diligently for 5 years. You need better than average "talent" to run 3 hours, and you can interpolate the rest.
No. Someone with absolutely 0 genetic talent for running wouldn't even be able to put one foot in front of the other.
RunningInEurope wrote:
So I consider myself someone with little talent, I only got to my current level because of all the hard work.
Every semi-competitive runner in history has wanted to believe that about themselves.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
The genetic wall is OP's lifetime PB.
Anyone faster than OP is genetically gifted.
Anyone slower than OP has not worked hard enough.
#hottake
This is the only correct answer.
Silly thread. They are both impactful on performance, at any level.
crackjack ballsack wrote:
Take a healthy 30 year old male. If they started from 0 and trained full time for the marathon for 5 years, injury free, how fast could they run it before they hit the genetics 'wall'? 2:30? 2:25? I was originally thinking 2:20 but then I remembered Sage Canaday who was a full-time pro runner for many many years and could barely break 2:20. Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?
??? Are you being serious here? 2:20?! Jeebus man, you are WAY off. At LEAST an hour slower than that.
Uhhh wrote:
Your question is strange.
Your title is "At what point do marathon races become more about talent/genetics versus training?"
But then you want to train a 30-year-old for 5 years.
I've met quite a few natural slow-twitch (male) runners who can bash out a time of around 3hrs (2hr55-3hr10) without doing any decent training. Just build the long run up to twenty miles over a few months, run some speed session in the week then go race. I think that's one reason it's considered so vaunted because they're so close off natural talent.
But once you do some proper training to build aerobically, it's easily broken - just most people don't train properly. Even worse these days with everybody trying to do "Race Pace" sessions and using gels rather than building up the fat-burning and aerobic systems from the lowest levels.
Yeah, but those people you know are already runners. People who are runners are generally people who had some sort of talent for it...or at least it wasn't complete hell for them.
You can't just pick any healthy 30-year-old, train them for 5 years and expect them to run even under 3 hours. Just no way.
hobby jogging harry wrote:
RunningInEurope wrote:
So I consider myself someone with little talent, I only got to my current level because of all the hard work.
Every semi-competitive runner in history has wanted to believe that about themselves.
CORRECT! It's just BS. Runners with any level of success need to understand that the vast majority of the reason for that is inherent ability. You have to train of course, but if you have little to no talent you won't run even remotely fast.
Flagpole wrote:
crackjack ballsack wrote:
Take a healthy 30 year old male. If they started from 0 and trained full time for the marathon for 5 years, injury free, how fast could they run it before they hit the genetics 'wall'? 2:30? 2:25? I was originally thinking 2:20 but then I remembered Sage Canaday who was a full-time pro runner for many many years and could barely break 2:20. Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?
??? Are you being serious here? 2:20?! Jeebus man, you are WAY off. At LEAST an hour slower than that.
2:20, Absolutely ridiculous. Besides "genetics", the vast majority of people don't have the discipline or mental toughness to do what it takes to train hard for the marathon on a regular basis. This cannot be discounted. Training does not occur in a vaccum.
The answer is, there is no answer. There are far too many things that cannot be quantified that go into a training and running a "fast" marathon, whatever that may mean to you.
I’m inclined to say sub-3:00 is possible, other variables aside. The problem is being fully dedicated…keeping on top of nutrition, avoiding alcohol, getting enough sleep, and never, ever overtraining no matter how good you feel. I would probably actually recommend fairly low mileage with lots of cross training to minimize injury risk.
August West wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
??? Are you being serious here? 2:20?! Jeebus man, you are WAY off. At LEAST an hour slower than that.
2:20, Absolutely ridiculous. Besides "genetics", the vast majority of people don't have the discipline or mental toughness to do what it takes to train hard for the marathon on a regular basis. This cannot be discounted. Training does not occur in a vaccum.
The answer is, there is no answer. There are far too many things that cannot be quantified that go into a training and running a "fast" marathon, whatever that may mean to you.
Mental toughness and discipline aside, most people (the VAST majority) do not have the ability to even run 3 hours flat for a marathon, no matter how they train...they just are not physically equipped to do so.
Every few weeks threads like these show up because many runners like to believe their success has nothing to with talent.
3:30 seems about right to me. That's an 8:00 mile for 26.2 miles. This based on my experiences being around thousands of normal, healthy, exercisers.
Alan
I think it depends on desire and some genetics and training. Think about this there has been 3 marathoners in history to crack 2:02:00.
1.) Tubby Tuke 2:01:37
2.) Eliud Kipchoge 2:01:38
3.) Kenenese Bekele 2:01:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udG3_A2F0uw
Bottom video was supposed to be this:
I mean if you trained 5,000 of them the same then the only variable that is changing between the "healthy 30 year old males" would be the genes. So then it would be entirely based on genetics.
I'd guess they would range between 2:15 and 4:00 hours.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
The following men are all under 30, and presumably healthy. How fast can they become if they trained for marathon for five years?
Ryan Crouser.
Darrell Hill.
Payton Otterdahl.
Daniel Stohl.
Neeraj Chopra.
best answer!
2:30 lol no. This has to be a troll job. Even breaking 3:00 would be well above average.
A guy I went to HS with ran 15 marathons over an 8 year period, often getting over 70 miles a week. Best he ever did was 3:17 on some downhill revel course. He was a pretty average guy athletically. Nothing special, but nothing embarrassing. I've met other runners that have had similar experiences. You'd never know they suck so bad by looking at them, but time and time again they have a hard time breaking 3:20.
Kvothe wrote:
In Ron Daws book on training he outlines some times that the average man could probably hit. 230 is given for the marathon as a time most will reach with serious Lydiard based training.
To go further, 225 would be very good - a local stud. 220 would be exceptional - you're among the best runners. To get past that takes masses of talent. You're not going to train your way to this territory if you were born without any athletic genes whatsoever.
That is absolute garbage lol. People actually believe this? An average dude running 2:30 lol. Your heads in the sand.
Surely genetic potential would be on a continuum, so given the same level of training you would get the full range of times from international in standard upwards given a big enough sample. There wouldn't suddenly be a wall that was reached.
Everyone in this thread is absolutely mad lol.
The question says if you take an average healthy 30 year old male, train him for 5 years full time and injury free what time will he get.
And lots of you think it would be over 3 hours???
Is there anyone here who thinks they would personally get a time of over 3 hours in those conditions? Anyone who in their early 30's put down 50+ mile weeks with workouts for 50+ weeks but still couldn't get 3 hours??
Does everyone here think they have superior running genetics? LOL
I'm 30. Basically everyone I know who runs is someone who wasn't particularly healthy at school or university who all have either got sub 3 or run a half that indicates they could do sub 3 if they were bothered to do the mileage.
Considering the question includes injury avoidance and full time training those can't be used as an excuse for why the average person isn't capable.
Flagpole wrote:
hobby jogging harry wrote:
Every semi-competitive runner in history has wanted to believe that about themselves.
CORRECT! It's just BS. Runners with any level of success need to understand that the vast majority of the reason for that is inherent ability. You have to train of course, but if you have little to no talent you won't run even remotely fast.
What's odd is that people don't admit that doing mathematics is the same. One of our biggest failures in schooling is teaching everyone the you can do whatever you want if you work hard myth.