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 recursively refers to the ability to have picked talented parents.
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.
I think one area of "talent" that is underestimated is the ability to work hard over a long duration. Some are or aren't willing to do it and that's a part of talent. I think most of us understand that you have to work hard over years to be able to achieve big goals in distance running. Some that are even the most gifted at running don't have it in them to work hard over the years. I think that's a "talent" as well.
Talent exists. I was a very good runner in college. We had a great team and a few all American guys transferred in. It really opened my eyes to what talent is. I could take care of every element better than them outside of running (eat sleep recovery etc) and they whooped my ass living off of Taco Bell and Miller lite. I also trained way harder. It was tough at the time but made me realize it was time to lean into my school work. That Nike contract wasn’t going to happen.
Runnings an interesting sport because aerobic talent is easy to spot but hard to measure. I think there are a few types of talented runners:
Runner A-Runs low mileage in high school and puts up fast times off of a limited training volume. Runs higher mileage on college and sees major improvements in performance.
Runner B-Runs low mileage in high school and relatively unimpressive times. Puts in increased volume in college and has dramatic improvements in performance in college. (I think Wejo is a good example of this type of runner but as a pro)
Runner C- Runs fast times off of low mileage in high school, but does not improve that much aerobically with increased training volume in college and their times stagnate relative to their peers.
Runner D- Runs fast times in high school off of high mileage/intensity and continues to progress to even faster times in college.
Runner E- Runs fast times in high school off of high mileage/intensity, but burns out/plateaus in college despite training more.
All of these runners are “talented” but in different ways.
There’s also many runners who have a lot of aerobic talent and speed but can’t seem to stay healthy. Often times they are very talented in some areas of running but have very poor biomechanical talent (ie Drew Hunter).
That’s what makes running talent hard to measure. There are so many variations and some runners can be fast off of limited training, but then be poor responders to more training stimulus. It’s very hard to predict.
they're all somewhat talented, but runner A is the most talented.
Anecdotally, I know someone who was likely between A and B (low mileage but medium to good times - think sub 16 for a legit xc 5k, mid 9:30s off about 40 mpw) and his improvements were basically linear: add 15-20 mpw and you'd take a minute off the 5k
Actually Kincaid does have average lung volume. Average oxygen uptake too. And average speed. Those are part of his 'talent'.
How do you figure? You are telling me he is not above average physically? Is he just "trying harder" than everyone else in the world? That is crazy. There are hundreds of guys in the NCAA who do ALL the workouts without getting his results. Something, by definition, has to be different...
Actually Kincaid does have average lung volume. Average oxygen uptake too. And average speed. Those are part of his 'talent'.
How do you figure? You are telling me he is not above average physically? Is he just "trying harder" than everyone else in the world? That is crazy. There are hundreds of guys in the NCAA who do ALL the workouts without getting his results. Something, by definition, has to be different...
Can't disagree with that last sentence but the answer lies in what exactly are the differences... I say 'what are' because talent is not as easily defined as all of the 'talent wins over hard work' proponents would like.
Point being that talent for running fast is not easily defined.
How do you figure? You are telling me he is not above average physically? Is he just "trying harder" than everyone else in the world? That is crazy. There are hundreds of guys in the NCAA who do ALL the workouts without getting his results. Something, by definition, has to be different...
Point being that talent for running fast is not easily defined.
this is why i contend that talent can ultimately only be tied to a result
there are so many factors that have to come together that they can not all be listed or agreed upon
what can be agreed upon is an actual result
and typically it's a great result that inclines one to say they are talented, because they've demonstrated they have the talent to perform at that level
other times people say the word talented and really mean they think that person can get a lot better than they currently are, so it's more like potential talent not yet realized
Only up to a point. The best gene example is female or male, which makes a difference in running.
However, not long ago scientisists were thinking the Kenyians they have superior genes for running. And the scientisists were travelling to Kenia to try to find out whats going on. And i tell you the outcome: nothing. Null. They could not find a clear evidence. Nowadays you see J. Ingebrigtsen and you know the Kenians can be beaten. There is no gene which sets them apart. (let's ignore doping for a moment)
The brain and the body is extremely felexible and able to adopt. No HS runner reaches his plateau, saying so is big BS. And there seems to be evidence that so called non-responder to training can be trained, but they need another stimulus.
- Raw physical ability. Some people are just better than others. You see this in primary school (aged 4-11) PE classes. Some are just bad, some are just good. - Body's response to training. - Ability to withstand training i.e. to not get injured. - Biomechanics/efficiency of runner. - Mental strength.
A lot of these can be trained but you start at a certain baseline.
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'.
How do you figure? You are telling me he is not above average physically? Is he just "trying harder" than everyone else in the world? That is crazy. There are hundreds of guys in the NCAA who do ALL the workouts without getting his results. Something, by definition, has to be different...
He has just the right characteristics. Just the right combination of speed and oxygen uptake to be super efficient in distance running. Yes there are hundreds of guys in the NCAA like him, so he has superior fitness to them and can be their inspiration, but they need the right guidance and dedication, because there are thousands more with similar or more ability in East Africa.
Then there is the 14:45 HS runner who goes to D1 and runs Freshman year and says screw this. I want to other things during my stint at Stanford or Princeton and just wants to run for himself. I've seen this story a whole bunch of times. Been coaching 50+ years. Then you have that discussion the summer of his now sophomore year and I say but you are so darn fast and talented and he says. Yea but I am enjoying doing other things but still jumping in road races when he feels like it. It is not all about running.
GENETICS: A persons baseline as well as max trained potential.
TALENT: The sum of multiple non-genetic variables mostly related to Experience.
A very basic example: Two runners with similar Genetics. One played video games as a kid, the other frequently played tag, kickball, ect... with friends.
A more complex example: Two runners with similar Genetics. One just runs "naturally" with whatever sub-optimal footwear he gets from the discount store, picking up bad habits along the way. The other uses optimal footwear, studies biomechanics, and actively perfects his/her running technique.