Genetics (probably)... I knew loads of juniors who were much better than me and did a lot less training...
Training/injuries... I've never strung together a full year of training without getting injured... I've been a cycle of over-train - get injured - recover - get excited by quick fitness gains - over -train - get injured again for the last 9 years...
Alcohol/drugs/partying... I was making great progress until age 18... Then I was able to buy alcohol and one thing led to another... Over the worst of it now and a little more level-headed, but still find myself drinking a bit too much when injured...
And probably more reasons. However, had absolutely everything gone perfectly I don't think I would have ever been elite... I'll be happy if I can run a sub 15' 5k and a 2h30' marathon before I hang 'em up. If not, I'll enjoy running well a few months each year
Unlike some who cite being not fast enough to be elite, I think I actually had the speed to pull it off. Could never hold the pace long enough to put together any elite finishing times though.
The ability to hold a pace is just as genetics driven as top-end speed. That’s why 400/800m guys always suck in XC.
For someone with elite talent, about 90% of of over distance running is going to be easy. Racing is not going to be stressful at all since a tempo effort will result in at least a 30+second win in most XC meets.
In other words, elite talent makes running far more enjoyable than it is for a 9:20 guy.
For runners who post here (so supposedly people who run and train) who didn't become "very good", the answer is the same as I already gave...they aren't talented enough.
Ah, but some of us had bad coaching, or at other times just ran a lot, but didn't train, so possibly had enough talent. Possibly enough talent because you never know if you don't get there, and there have been even US champions who are weren't pro. You've probably heard this before because I've posted pieces of my running story over the years here, but I had poor coaching in my two years of high school running, so that already put me off track for becoming elite straight away. If you don't make college running, you don't get coaching, teammates, support, or even ability to get into meets, especially before the internet. I basically ran myself into the ground in hard sessions in high school because that was my understanding of how to train, and the coaches didn't correct that. I was always in an overtrained state and ran well below my capability. I was painfully shy (dreaded making phone calls, much less cold calls), so my extent of trying to walk on at UCLA was to call the coach's office once. When told I needed a 4:30/9:30 in high school to attempt to walk, I just said, "Oh," and hung up - I couldn't go back in time to high school. I ended up riding on the cycling team for a year, then back to running on my own when my bike frame broke and I didn't have anything to ride. I ran because I enjoyed being outside, had insatiable appetite for exploring, and ran lots of easy miles (up to 145 mpw). I did almost insane stuff like 20-milers every run for months on end. Eventually, I backed off and added 6-mile tempo runs. After a while, I found myself doing the 6-mile tempo runs in the 29s (solo, in old trainers of the day, no warm up). I kind of was trial and error learning better training/what worked for me, but I was really just running, not training. I had no big races that I could get into, and no car to get to races anyway (I walked or biked everywhere.) If you were to look at it as "training" rather than "just running", my "training" was similar or worse than Seth James Demoor training because I wasn't even aiming at any races. But I think I likely got into 29-mid to -low 10,000m shape just estimating based on my tempo run times. I'm sure with any semblance of smart training, I would have easily been sub-29. With personalized, pro-level training, even faster, but how much under, possibly sub-28?, or actually being good enough to be pro I have no way of knowing since I didn't do it. But seeing people who had decent training in high school make good jumps in college and then college runners make large jumps afterward college, I'm sure there was a lot of levels left in my body beyond where I reached. I was a runner who essentially did base training only. I really didn't know how to train until the internet came around, and training knowledge was spread around better (see how training in the '90s/high school track times in the US sucked, then LR/Dyestat/etc. spread better training knowledge around). Plus I learned controlled paces in hard workouts from when I helped assistant coach at my high school, by the mid- to late-'90s. By that time, I had suffered through 2-years of chronic fatigue syndrome from 22-24 (possibly Epstein-Barr virus related), and that was the final straw, putting ambitions to PR at any distance to an end. After I recovered, I was good enough to have fun, meaning able to win on occasion local races from my 20s to mid-40s when I felt like racing (often years with no racing too) with basically my standard everyday easy miles 10-14 miles per day on trails, no training plans, and racing into shape when I was feeling like racing (for head-to-head results, never having time goals... ambitions to PR ended at age 24). I remember going to the track at age 30 to do my first track session in years/not really raced a couple years because my GF wanted company for her track session, and I averaged 5:00 for 4x1600. I suspect many former pros that age couldn't do that after similar time off racing and hard workouts, so I had decent remaining talent from just hobby jogging.
Nah. People like to think they had the talent to do X but that they were derailed by bad coaching or some other nonsense. Lack of talent is what keeps people (including you) from being very good or elite.
I started running when I was 43. Set all my PRs when I was 46 on about 45 miles a week (38:30 10k is the PR I am the happiest with). Then I stopped training because too many tight muscles, and thus ended my elite dreams. Kidding of course, but I did want to see how low I could get some of my times.
I have an achilles heel, that has kept me injured for the last 10 years. Can't bump mileage up, can't do speedwork, can't wear low drop shoes. I can run fast, but then I won't be able to run again for the next week, so can't string together a consistent schedule. Sucks that at one point I was on track to be a stud, but after I first got injured, I could never match my times.
Lack of talent. I ran 20:26 5k freshmen year of HS and have lifetime PR of 16:48. Respectable times for a woman, but I'm a man, so I'm pretty mediocre. I win the occasional local road race, but who cares.
I started structured training too late. I started casual jogging (1-2x runs a week) at 18 alongside playing Soccer but didn't really get into any structured run training until 22yo.
I'm sure I can run sub30" in the next year based off how training has been going, but had I known more about the sport or been interested in athletics from a younger age... I just think about all the missed development I could've had from 12-18yo and with that, how much earlier I would've got into a better training regime
I gave it a pretty good shot, went to a great school, surrounded by world-class talent, but there's only so much you can improve through effort vs natural talent. I was roommates with an olympic-level talent and the gap was already there when we got to school freshman year. I was a 4.18 miler and he was a 4.01 miler before we ever even ran our first race. I think that creates both an obvious physical gap but also a mental one, where his expectation of himself was that he'd compete in the olympics whereas mine was to break a 4 minute mile (which never happened). Our mindsets were just different and I think that altered how we approached workouts/lifestyle/goals...etc.
I do think if I gave it 4 more years of pure dedication I could have brought that 4.05 down to maybe 4.01 but knew when I ran 4.05 at 24, I'd never be elite. I just wasn't born for that next level.
Most of the time from what I understand, was improper training, Gene's, and or mental. Mine was improper training/mental. My high school track coach always had us on the track and doing repeats. Plateaued pretty quick from sophomore xc to senior xc. Quit my senior year of high school track and did my own training that season, ran a 4:27 1600 meter by myself, I could only imagine what i could have accomplished had i had a good coach and the mental health. Now I'm getting back to running.
My downfall was my mental game. Overly anxious days before the race and unable to execute led to always running poor races.
post collegiate, got my mind right, and was able to run almost as fast with practically 1/3 the training
I'm actually planning on doing this next year. I was a sprinter and my block form, running form, reaction time all went out the door whenever it was time to race. I'm in a better mental state so I feel like even with less training I could still go out and crush some of my personal bests. That being said I'm unlikely to be elite, it's more to prove to myself the potential that I believed I had.
As a kid I talked like I was elite but tried like a coward. Let 20 years and 100lbs get in the way after that. Started running again and lost the 100lbs last year and now my goal is just to be old man fast.
How many people did the same workouts as their teammates everyday and somehow got a different result? How many people did more / better workouts than their teammates and got a lesser result or vice versa? The answer is EVERYONE. Talent / genes are the answer. Hard work will help, but will not overcome hard work AND talent.