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.
You say that every high school team in America does this every year. That is certainly a generalization and a huge one. Many kids on lots of high school teams overtrain, do not get enough sleep, eat poorly, do not hydrate properly, do not stretch enough, never weight train, or weight train too much. And that's just the start. Talent is talent but it's not that simple. There are many sources where kids can get help these days, but the coach is still incredibly important. You must do things right.
My point is that the ex-soccer player who skips practice twice a week, eats McDonalds every day, and stays up all night playing video games might also be the District Champ if he has enough natural talent.
That is what the OP was asking about. Is that possible. Yes, with enough talent, it is. Did you read the post about Bill Rogers in the Boston Marathon? That was a good post.
You can't accurately define all the needed talents and specific amounts of those talents that are necessary. Sorry.
I don't know every hominid species that ever lived nor do I know the specific amount of each species as part of the larger hominid population. But I still know evolution is real.
I don't know the "specific amounts" or formula for Coke but I know it is mostly sugar, water, kola nuts, vanilla, and spices. I also know that Coke is real and it is popular.
You are playing the "gaps defense" wherein you claim that until we know the exact % of each "trait" we can't say anything at all about talent.
For example, would you say "Alan Culpepper's son Cruz has a lot of talent" or not? We can say that because we know it when we see it.
*LetsRun.com the home of the pro running fan*• Homepage: https://www.letsrun.com/• Check out our forum: https://www.letsrun.com/forum• Join the Supporters Cl...
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.
It could still be Genetics though because one can get their genes from grandparents and even great grandparents. "He had an uncle who was 6'10."
I feel like this happens more to those who get really into Marathons or 10ks or are running high mileage. If you’re running 70-100 mpw you are going to be exposed to the sun and elements for a long time which will definitely cause wrinkles, obviously to be a good marathoner you need to be out there for a long time so this is a trade off you need to take.
I can’t imagine someone running like 30 miles per week to stay fit is going to age as bad. I know runners that do this and look really fit and good for their age. If you’re only running 30 mpw per week you’re really only outside for 30-40 minutes which is negligible when it comes to sun exposure.
You are jumping into a discussion way too late. It's kind of a waste of time to explain because you don't know any of the context or understand what was meant.
And to answer your question... I did compete in school... wasn't good in HS but beat all of the guys in college that I couldn't beat in HS... even the guys you said you couldn't beat in college... you and I have had this discussion many times over the years.
We have different experiences so we have different perceptions. That's life, I suppose.
Can you humor me and name at least five of the these “far more traits” If someone can barely break 60 in the 400, how can he possibly beat someone that is just as strong while having low 50s speed? What am I not understanding?
You and I have often had this discussion? Do you always use “Looking for answer”.
Aztec, The guy who I was responding to said there was about 7 traits that make up talent... I simply said there are many more variables that make someone talented.
The guy also said somewhere in here that someone over 6'3" would never (ever) break 13 for 5k... I feel that 'never' is a long time and that at some point someone who is over 6'3" will actually break 13 mins because he has enough of the other traits (other than height range the guy felt was a mandatory trait) would overcome the height disadvantage.
I humored you... and like I said, you came in way to late to the discussion.
Yes. Talent is a thing. But whatever talent is for distance running it is not limited to about 7 factors... got it? Agree or disagree.. either side is an opinion which can't be proved (at this point anyway)
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.
Well, you do agree with the fact that if your hematocrit is in the 30s, you might need medical attention. So there is a "best for running fast" level that is not super low or super high. 50 is better than 36 for racing in the Tour de France, for example.
Blood, liver, global hemoglobin mass, etc. matters in running. "Having good blood values" is part of natural talent since your blood is built, in part, by your genetics.
But I am not hitching my wagon to one or another of the 7 factors; I am just saying they all play a role. I am not a doctor, so I don't know the precise levels for each factor.
yeah i was just trying to add a little more nuance.
50 will almost always be better than 36, yes. and of course we are assuming both readings being taken when optimally hydrated.
but 47 will not always be better than 43 for instance.
the problem in talking about global hemoglobin mass is that while it is much more precise, and actually what a lot of people think they are talking about when they talk about hematocrit, it's very expensive to measure. but understanding the concept would help some people in having a better grasp on our physiology and how our bodies respond to training, altitude, etc.
switching topics to genes: not all of our gene potential is being expressed constantly. isn't that why people got so excited about epi-genetics? different expressions can be activated while others go dormant. if one can accept that, i think it's not too big a bridge to cross into the idea that one's level of talent can't necessarily be known until they've explored different environments (altitude, sea-level, humidity, high heat, extreme cold) and different locales.
i content we all have more talent than we are currently expressing, at least age-graded. discovering one's talent/s is a matter of peeling back the layers consistently, and as self-knowledge edges higher and higher so too can our ability to express a talent relative to our peers.
Talent means different things at different distances. 800m 1500m requires a bit of natural speed. 10k marathon require a natural ability to suffer. 3k to 5k requires a little bit of both.
Okay. Fair enough. Second question, do you think people can gain talent? I know we can develop our bodies and our skill sets, but can we gain more "talent" than what we started out with?
Yes, talent can be developed. It can also be squandered.
I haven’t read through the whole thread so perhaps something like this has been said, but it seems pretty remarkable for some of these 110 pound guys to have enough power to have 48-51 sec 400 speed and close 5ks in sub 55, even 51-52 in some cases. I’m not sure exactly how you would qualify that ability, but I suspect something to do with muscle fiber distribution. But most guys who are capable of such speed have way more muscle mass which would inherently slow them down over the distance. So I’m my mind, a very simple measure of talent for distance running is how fast one can sprint/run over short distance while still being a tiny person
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.
Tell that to some of the parents I deal with. lol
Most parents will argue that their kids are very talented.
I haven’t read through the whole thread so perhaps something like this has been said, but it seems pretty remarkable for some of these 110 pound guys to have enough power to have 48-51 sec 400 speed and close 5ks in sub 55, even 51-52 in some cases. I’m not sure exactly how you would qualify that ability, but I suspect something to do with muscle fiber distribution. But most guys who are capable of such speed have way more muscle mass which would inherently slow them down over the distance. So I’m my mind, a very simple measure of talent for distance running is how fast one can sprint/run over short distance while still being a tiny person
400 speed is obviously very important for distance runners. The top 5000/10000 guys are capable of 1.46 to 1.48 in the 800 and you need good 400 speed for that, but not necessarily good 100m speed.
Okay. Fair enough. Second question, do you think people can gain talent? I know we can develop our bodies and our skill sets, but can we gain more "talent" than what we started out with?
Yes, talent can be developed. It can also be squandered.
And if you were talking to a fellow coach about an athlete that you had developed for a couple seasons, would you say, "He's a great kid. A real hard worker. He has more talent now than when he first started."
That is an incorrect way to talk about " talent." You are perhaps thinking of "ability" or "sport specific skills."
Bo Jackson would have developed a lot if he had done the decathlon more often. He would not have increased his talent.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.