Talent vs work

It depends on what you are looking to do. If you are trying to compete on a national or international scale, I agree. If it is a high school team trying to get a few runners in the low 16's for guys and high 18's for girls you can get there if you are focused, do the work, and get your sleep.

i don't think genetics is very important, certainly doesn't account for 90% of your ability as a runner. i think sometimes some people include what you did as a child into 'genetics'. how much you pushed your lungs as a child will play a huge factor into how aerobically strong you are later in life, but that's not really anything to do with genetics. and even with good genetics, if you didn't develop your aerobic system/lungs to their full potential whilst your body was growing, it is too late to do anything about it later in life and you might only be able to achieve a 35 minute 10k (male) even with all the proper work and commitment, because there are limits as to how far you can improve your vo2 max as an adult, something like 15% which isn't much.

yes if you are talking about elite level, you need everything - hard work, good genetics, proper nutrition, sleep etc

Assigning a percentage like that isn’t the right way to look at it in my opinion. If we’re talking about competing at the elite level, like the Olympics, then you do need to be in the 99th percentile of human running genetics. If you’re just trying to contribute to your high schools varsity squad, hard work matters considerably more.

at lower level hard work can still beat talent but on the higher level, hard work just cannot win over talent, at the higher level only those runners who have both the elite running gene and work ethic can thrive

Depending on what Coach Renato Canova has said, talented athletes can run a 5k in under 13:30 without specific running training.

Based on that, I calculated that for individuals aged 40-45, even without natural talent, through dedicated running training, the upper limit achievable for a 5k is around 14:00.

Thus, my ultimate goal is to achieve a 5k time of 15:00, despite my current 5k personal record standing at 22:10 at the age of 41.

I’m with the OP on the issue that genetics is 90% + of the equation.

Obviously there is a sliding scale, with the elite being at the very small pinnacle of it.

I think that those who are saying that hard work can get most on to a college team are forgetting just what a tiny percentage of the population actually make up those college teams. It’s minute. And yes there may be some who have talent, but never tried (before anyone says it), but let’s be realistic. Most people tend to gravitate towards activities ( racing, not running) that they are good at, because they get enjoyment out of being good at it. Those who were talented, but didn’t pursue a racing “career” are probably much less than most on here would like to imagine.

With all due respect to Renato Canova, that's a stupid thing to say. I would be willing to bet millions that not a single person on this planet has run or could run a 13:30 5k without training for it.

Of all the dumb and crazy posts over the years of LRC , this one is the best. 10/10 trolling. Chapeau to you sir .

the world record for 40-45 is 13:38 (Bernard Lagat) so to say that 14:00 for somebody without any talent is possible is just stupid. 16:00 maybe. 17:00 more likely.

Training will beat talent when talent doesn't train. The guy running 100 mpw but with no talent, will beat the superstar training 30 mpw eventually. The superstar running 60 mpw will beat the guy running 100, 120, maybe even 140 nearly every time though. The superstar training 120+ is on the lists.

Your goal should be improve yourself- your times, because you can't control the rate at which others improve.

For myself as a no talent type, I beat a lot of people eventually by training significantly more than them, but there were just some guys I couldn't catch up to. I know a couple real talented guys who ran around 1430. One did at 90 mpw, the other did at 35 mpw - though every single run was moderate or hard.

Hmm mind boggling. So lets say assuming no training? The genetics is 100%, as defined by success. If you dont train, you have 0% chance at success as a someone with poor genes. You do have a shot if you have the genes (to place in a HS race or whatever). For 40+ yrs Ive watched kids (and sometimes an adult) come to run with whatever club i was with at the time and be great from day 1 with no training. That weighs heavily on my outlook. I ran my face off for 20 yrs, could easily run 1/2 marathons in training but barely broke 20 in 5 k, almost broke 40 in 10k with optimum training in HS. Yrs later, i now see how genetically bad I was. It was way easier for the genetic freaks. Now, once you have all genetic freaks its of course training and heart.

You're premise is all wrong. Its not talent vs work, its talent & work & mental persistence.

Which of those three is the most important?

100% talent 100% genetics

i meant to say 100% work 100% genetics lol

This is generally part of "work". Work would be defined as both the will to execute training and the act of executing it. It also includes the extra stuff be it focus exercises or gym work.