How do genetics play a role in running? Would someone with "talent" always be better than someone without, no matter how much the person without good genes trains? I keep hearing about these insane freshmen that run sub 17 in their debut XC season without running at all prior. Could an average person ever train to an elite level, starting say beginning of high school, or is genetics just that important?
Genetics is absolutely vital. Imagine a team of twenty boys doing the exact same workouts, eating the same diet, and getting the same about of sleep each night. At the end of the season, some boys will be much faster. This scenario plays out on every team in every high school in America. Some people are just much, much better. You can compensate by "working harder" but what can you do when the most talented kids are also working super hard?
But you can still be very good even if you are "normal." Try your hardest to be the best you can be (D3 was great for me), and don't worry if you aren't in the top 10% in the sport.
You asked if "someone" could explain this to you. The answer is yes - Epstein and Hutchinson.
The first book you (and all fans of the sport) should read is called The Sports Gene by David Epstein.
Link:
amazon.com
The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance [Epstein, David] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Sports Gene: Inside the Science of Extraordinary Athletic Performance
The second book everyone should read is Endure by Alex Hutchinson. It is just as good.
Link:
amazon.com
Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Human Performance [Hutchinson, Alex, Gladwell, Malcolm] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Endure: Mind, Body, and the Curiously Elastic Limits of Huma...
Could an average person ever train to an elite level, starting say beginning of high school, or is genetics just that important?
No. If you had "average" lung volume, bone density, tendons, blood values, lean body mass, and so on, you could never "train hard enough" to break 14 minutes, for example, for 5km. People who can do that are not the average for our species.
BTW, this fact goes against the American tradition of telling young people that they "can do anything" and as such, I assume some people will tell you that if you work hard enough, you can run sub-13 (see Woody Kincaid). The problem is that Woody was never average to begin with. He is super talented, unlike most of us.
This post was edited 48 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Typo
Talent can mean naturally gifted athletes as well as high responders.
The naturally gifted are predisposed to be good because of physiology: things like naturally high aerobic capacity (something like 0.25% of the non-athletic world has a Vo2 Max >70), limb length, stature, etc.
The high responders are enviable because their bodies react well to stimulus. If you've ever trained at altitude, you know that how people initially deal with and then respond to the different stimulus varies tremendously.
Usually the people we see on TV are a deadly trifecta of naturally gifted high responders with a strong work ethic (and quite likely exogenous help).
How do genetics play a role in running? Would someone with "talent" always be better than someone without, no matter how much the person without good genes trains? I keep hearing about these insane freshmen that run sub 17 in their debut XC season without running at all prior. Could an average person ever train to an elite level, starting say beginning of high school, or is genetics just that important?
talent is a vague word that means a bunch of different things to a bunch of different people
a more productive question to ask is "what is one's ceiling in distance running?"
that's what you're actually interested in here right, you want to know your ceiling?
your sprint capacity is a hook anchored to your upper-most ceiling that all other distances are tethered to and hang below, each with individual ceilings of their own
if someone is significantly faster than you in a 5k yet they have a similar body type and have put in a similar amount of training time using similar methods as you, odds are they can blow your doors off in the 200m too
Some people roll out of bed & run sub-17 as a high school freshman. At that point you can't say they're training harder than anybody else. Those are the runners with D1 potential, sub-14 potential in the 5k. Others could train forever & never break 15:00, let alone 14:00.
How do genetics play a role in running? Would someone with "talent" always be better than someone without, no matter how much the person without good genes trains? I keep hearing about these insane freshmen that run sub 17 in their debut XC season without running at all prior. Could an average person ever train to an elite level, starting say beginning of high school, or is genetics just that important?
There are different type of "talents" needed for different running distances.
All track racing needs a certain lean build runner with "fast" muscles.
The longer the distance get the more you can do with dedicated training. Marathon running for example. Once you move into ultrarunning territory running talent is less needed the longer the distance is. But a runner with more running talent might still be better at it, IF he has all the other skills as well.
Could an average person ever train to an elite level, starting say beginning of high school, or is genetics just that important?
No. If you had "average" lung volume, bone density, tendons, blood values, lean body mass, and so on, you could never "train hard enough" to break 14 minutes, for example, for 5km. People who can do that are not the average for our species.
BTW, this fact goes against the American tradition of telling young people that they "can do anything" and as such, I assume some people will tell you that if you work hard enough, you can run sub-13 (see Woody Kincaid). The problem is that Woody was never average to begin with. He is super talented, unlike most of us.
Actually Kincaid does have average lung volume. Average oxygen uptake too. And average speed. Those are part of his 'talent'.
Talent can mean naturally gifted athletes as well as high responders.
The naturally gifted are predisposed to be good because of physiology: things like naturally high aerobic capacity (something like 0.25% of the non-athletic world has a Vo2 Max >70), limb length, stature, etc.
The high responders are enviable because their bodies react well to stimulus. If you've ever trained at altitude, you know that how people initially deal with and then respond to the different stimulus varies tremendously.
Usually the people we see on TV are a deadly trifecta of naturally gifted high responders with a strong work ethic (and quite likely exogenous help).
I don’t get this high responder stuff. Everyone responds to training and it’s still going to be the guy with the most talent that’s going to win.
The naturally gifted are predisposed to be good because of physiology: things like naturally high aerobic capacity (something like 0.25% of the non-athletic world has a Vo2 Max >70), limb length, stature, etc.
Elite distance runners are around 70 VO2 max at 10% body fat, just like millions of non elites. It's not a high number at all.
Runners like to kid themselves that elites 'aerobic monsters' in reality they use less than 180 ml of oxygen per kilogram of body weight running 2.30 kilometers. Much less than you or I.
talent is very important. high end physical potential including lungs, strength, form, mental, and ability to recover and avoid injuries.
however, someone with all the talent in the world would be middle of the pack High School with no training. they then might start moving towards the front with just minimal training like 20-30 miles a week.
your great High Schools are built on numbers with some talent, but a ton of hard work. boys can run 15-16 and girls 17-18 something like that. a team full of those will be Nationally ranked.
to be High School elite, NCAA All American, and pro potential then the scarcity means great talent AND great training.
No. If you had "average" lung volume, bone density, tendons, blood values, lean body mass, and so on, you could never "train hard enough" to break 14 minutes, for example, for 5km. People who can do that are not the average for our species.
BTW, this fact goes against the American tradition of telling young people that they "can do anything" and as such, I assume some people will tell you that if you work hard enough, you can run sub-13 (see Woody Kincaid). The problem is that Woody was never average to begin with. He is super talented, unlike most of us.
Actually Kincaid does have average lung volume. Average oxygen uptake too. And average speed. Those are part of his 'talent'.
Agree with above poster. Clearly you aren't dedicated enough and don't actually put in the work, otherwise you would be running faster. Get off the boards and run 100 MPW and get back to me in 2 years.