Can someone explain to me "talent" in distance running?

I don't mean to be one of those "thread is over" people, but if you haven't read The Sports Gene by Epstein, there is actual research by actual geneticists which answers this question. If you want to read two books, you can lean a lot from Endure by Alex Hutchinson. The truth is out there.

I'm not really looking for answer so I am not going to read both of those books. But you are saying that these two books list all of the specific physical and mental 'talents' needed to be an elite distance runner? All of them? Did they analyze a large enough sample size of all the elite distance runners in history to come up with those 'talents'?

The thread is no more over than it has ever been when this question has been asked.

The "average" VO2 max for a healthy untrained male is about 35-40ml/kg/min.

Training will improve this by 5-10 ml/kg/min.

So 70 ml/kg/min. is way beyond "average."

51 sec 400m is also way above average. Cooper test has 42.6 in 300m for a 99th percentile for men in 20-29. The 50th percentile is 56 sec for 300m.

I don’t believe that. My untrained VO2 max was 65 and most of my teammates were also mid 60s untrained. I don’t consider myself especially talented either - it took 90 mpw for me to break 14

Believe it. It's true.

Anyone who can break 14min is uber talented. Well within the top 1%.

This table on Cooper Test says the 50th percentile is 44 ml/kg/min, and the top 1% is 61.

I agree with you that the mix of traits and qualities continues to vary. What I meant when I said the "thread is over" is that there only about six things that go into that mix. Just like 99% of you body (and a whale's body and a mouse's body) is made of the same six elements. Those six elements are expressed in different ways, but there aren't "endless" elements that go into making an animal, just six.

Smarter posters than me have mentioned the seven genetic traits needed to be an elite distance runner. Most of these can be improved through training.

"Natural talent" is just the common term for a person with above average abilities before they begin training. Hard work and environmental factors (like good coaching) are just as important, but without innate talent, there are limits to how good you can become.

Edge cases make this obvious. If you are born with a female's genes, you can never run sub-13 in the 5km no matter how hard you work or how good the environmental factors are. Your "genetics" limit you to times over 14 minutes for that distance. If you are seven feet tall, you can never break 13 in the 5km. You can't work your way out of every genetic hole through effort and coaching.

So, summing up, talent is the set of inborn (genetic) traits that you bring to the table before you even begin to train for the sport. These traits have been narrowed down to the following categories by other posters:

- hematological values (high levels of hematocrit near or above 50; but not too high)

- body type (correct weight, proportions, and biomechanics for running)

- lean body mass (naturally light and strong; so you don't have to starve yourself to be lean; some people just are always leaner than others)

- muscle fibers (fast AND slow twitch; quick repair to allow more hard workouts)

- lung health and volume (to increase VO2 max)

- tendon and joint durability (to avoid injury)

- endocrine and brain chemistry (resulting in grit; to endure boring, difficult, and unrewarding behavior; otherwise you would burn out and give up)

All of these can be improved through hard work and good coaching, but they can't be improved endlessly. Talented people start with a lot more of all of these.

70 ml/kg/min at 10% body fat. Most people are way over that aren't they? Also , dont you think that an 'untrained' person would need a different testing protocol to reach their VO2 peak (not plateau) because they would be susceptible to early fatigue? If you don't believe me you can simplify your own research by comparing lung capacity of people you know, it's a very easy test to perform.

Also, I said Kinkaid had average speed, i.e. his top speed is average. Do you know how 'fast' sprinters are in top speed compared to distance runners? Go on, have a guess?

The reason he can run a fast 400 is because of his superior fitness don't you think? Speed endurance?

We're talking genetic traits here as the genotype and fitness as the phenotype. Keep these thing in perspective, it's not extreme outlying abilities, but near perfect general abilities combined that make an elite distance runner.

You were doing great until you mentioned hematocrit. High hematocrit isn't necessary because oxygen uptake values are not super high. And remember the oxygen economy number is very LOW. My oxygen economy number as a low 15 minute 5k runner was much higher than these guys.

@Ruxton Towers XC

Wonderful list, and certainly a start, but it sure doesn't answer the OP's question because no one knows the exact values and combination of things needed from your list. There currently exists no objective answer to talent in distance running.

Some folks can list a few things that are good things but there is no way to define the exact talent needed.

Heck, if one doesn't have the proper mental outlook when racing all the physical talent in the world won't matter. There are just too many variables involved.

Wrong. The best researchers and coaches do know what they are looking for and have done for decades.

Looking for a exact DNA profile is a never ending task. But the basic qualities are easy to spot to the trained eye.

Everyone wants to quantify the things we can measure, then use that as the primary explanation.

I think the people who post this question are looking for more "magical" things that we can't measure.

Endocrine and brain chemistry is an example of that. We know a lot, but not everything about how bodily functions affect athletic ability. Even down to an atomic level, things like chirality can affect the function of cells. I don't know enough about it to say that some people have magical body cells, but we all recognize when an athlete has that something special that we can't define. They recover better, improve faster ... biology doesn't always provide the perfect answer.

Psychology has a lot to do with it. An athlete's mind-set and attitude while training can make a difference between a good workout and a bad one. Competitiveness varies. Many great runners don't get to the next level until after they get challenged or beaten. You can either accept your defeat or get better. The champions get better.

Research on Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) shows that mental trauma can affect people physically, even years later. For another person, the same trauma might not affect them as much. The mind/body connection is something that many great athletes have overcome.

The unseen and unknown things play a very big role, along with the things we can quantify.

You’re a complete idiot.

I do know the answer though... More of everything!

Having more of these (and fewer of the opposite) traits will allow an athlete to be trained to a higher level. The exact percentages are not the point.

The OP's question was "what is talent?" We know that "natural talent" is when you have a lot of these traits before you even begin training for your sport.

Danny DeVito could have never beaten Yomif Kajelcha in the 5km. I don't know the precise percentages of the seven traits, I just know Yomif has more of all of them. And he always did. Even as eight year old kids, you could have predicted who was never going to become an elite distance runner.

Now you've just contradicted yourself.

If you have a high Midi-chlorian count you have good genetics.

Sorry, how? "Natural talent in running" is when you have a lot of these traits. Not having one of them is usually enough to knock you completely out of the running (no pun intended).

You can't be über-talented in every way, except you happen to be 7 feet tall. That body type cannot run an elite 5000m time. So you need all of them and the more you have of each, the better. If you are lacking in one, it can doom you.

Brilliant reply. You've hit the nail on the head regarding the physical traits needed. Not even beginning to mention the psychological differences between humans, some are just inherently better, more physically competitive, can push themselves harder and it just comes naturally to them. While I believe there is generally large scope for improvement for anyone in any sport, it doesn't come from a level playing base. What makes an athlete better than the next is a very nuanced and complex set of things but Simply put, some people are just physically and mentally better athletes than others. Genetics, early childhood are the two most important components.

Yep, distance running in particular demands a pretty specific work ethic whereby one has to be patient and work hard over the long haul, day in day out etc without burning out. Whether this ability or know how can be described as "talent" is debatable. There isn't one clear definition of what "talent" involves. An athlete is a complicated and nuanced ecosystem of physical and psychological components.