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
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.
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.
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.
You’re a complete idiot.
Oh? Glad you feee that way.
Sadly you aren't bright enough to understand the point.
You can't accurately define all the needed talents and specific amounts of those talents that are necessary. Sorry.
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.
Well, the tallest person to ever break 13 minutes was like 6'3, so I will go out on a limb and say a 7 footer will never break 13 minutes. Kajelcha looks like a really tall person when he lines up next to his competition and he is only 6'1.
But that is beside the point. You must agree that certain genetic failings can be "deal breakers" for becoming an elite athlete. Someone born, for example, with a genetic predisposition to stress fractures and tendonitis from an early age would NEVER been able to run sub-13, right? Because he would never be able to do the training.
Some people are born with limitations (congenital and genetic) which preclude an "elite" running career. You agree with that right? That was my point.
I had a buddy in the army who never ran in high school. he was on the football team.
joined the army where we basically just jogged 3 miles 2 times a week in training. guy with no mileage at all could will himself to extraordinary times in distance running (we once ran a mile race for time on the roads and he cruised in at like 4:45). He crushed a couple 5 mile time trials to we did prepping for Ranger School (average well under 6 minute mile pace).
He did no specific distance running training at all outside shuffling a 3 miler in formation at 9 minute pace.
Yes. We can all agree there are some genetic issues which present limitations. Can't argue with that. But I'll tell you this... there are many many things that people said would never happen that now have happened so you go ahead and make your predictions, I'll refrain.
Of course, identifying specific genetic issues that present limitations doesn't answer the original question of the OP nor does it 'end the thread' (which is why I started conversing with you in the first place)
It seems perplexing to me that many wannabe “elite” runners (and bodybuilders or athletes of most sports for that matter) ie those who start an activity with big dreams of being great, but without the knowledge or self evaluation skills to realise that perhaps it’s not in the cards for them, haven’t realised what animal breeders have realised for countless years.
Of course genetics matter. Otherwise why would breeders go to great lengths in order to breed the fastest horses or dogs. Don’t believe me? Then I’ll wager a prize winning greyhound against any Spaniel you can find, and even let you train them for a year.
Genetics trump training of any kind. It’s that simple. No ordinary nag can be trained to win the Derby.
Competitive swimming and athletics from elementary school to the Olympics are good examples of evolution in microcosm.
Any junior school swimming meet will have competitors of all shapes and sizes and differing abilities. As the competition gets stiffer and the competitors older, those with lesser abilities and body types that are less suited, are weeded out, till you get to the Olympics, and most swimmers are pretty much similar in build and ability. Survival of the fittest in action.
At that level it takes a true outlier, almost mutation, like Phelps, or Bolt in athletics, to stand out.
There was a study done where it was found that every elite sprinter studied, was ALWAYS the fastest one in their social circle ( primary school, high school, college, etc) up till elite level, regardless of training.
You have to be more specific about genetics. Success isn't just determined by inherited genes. I know of two great runners who had offspring that were pretty good, but not great. I know a middle of the pack runner with a non-athlete spouse who had a state champion offspring.
One underperformed their genetics and the other greatly overperformed. So it is more than just genetics that allows one to excel and prevents the other from reaching the same level as their parents.
Of course, identifying specific genetic issues that present limitations doesn't answer the original question of the OP nor does it 'end the thread' (which is why I started conversing with you in the first place)
But the OP basically wanted to know two things. Does "natural talent" really matter and what is it?
1. Talent does matter.
2. Talent is a set of about seven traits (see above posts) that some people are born with lots of and others are born with less of. It is not the same as good coaching, hard work, or "effort."
Do we all agree on that much?
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
You have to be more specific about genetics. Success isn't just determined by inherited genes
But this is a thread about talent, not success. Of course success requires a lot more than just talent. It also requires effort, luck, coaching, hard-work, and longevity.
Of course, identifying specific genetic issues that present limitations doesn't answer the original question of the OP nor does it 'end the thread' (which is why I started conversing with you in the first place)
But the OP basically wanted to know two things. Does "natural talent" really matter and what is it?
1. Talent does matter.
2. Talent is a set of about seven traits (see above posts) that some people are born with lots of and others are born with less of. It is not the same as good coaching, hard work, or "effort."
Do we all agree on that much?
We do not all agree on that much. Don't get me wrong, you're adding a lot to the convo here (much appreciated) but I definitely don't agree with the part below, as it's an over-simplification
"- hematological values (high levels of hematocrit near or above 50; but not too high)"
it's global hemoglobin mass that matters much more than just the crit value. not trying to nitpick.
Watch two really aggressive muay thai fighters blasting away and taking shots in the ring round after round. That is what distance running talent looks like.
Expertly put, well done sir. In any physical sport the complexities to one's ability to run fast and for as long as possible is hard to understand on a base level. Interesting you also mentioned how early childhood and trauma etc, if you look at any sport the most important objective is to become completely focused while pushing your body to its physical limits at fasted possible speed and duration. And all the neurological and physiological processes that come with this. These processes are the exact same to running for ones life say a few 1000/10000 years ago. I think what you can measure for sure is a person's physical body composition. There is basically nothing you can do to change your physical body type. Everyone's different and as long as one physically matures to adulthood that's your ceiling and thats what you are. Different body types are better for different sports. I see this as one part of the equation that's pretty easy to understand. The second and most important part is the whole psychological equation to an athlete. A person's physical body alone never won any races for them. What's most important is the brain and the connection this has to every other part of the human anatomy.
