Genetics matter. Training less so. Zero to hero…no. Zero to maybe average…possibly.

Because they want to go fast. You sound insecure about your own mediocrity.

On the contrary…I’m happy and fully accepting of my mediocrity. But I’m not delusional, thinking that some new training breakthrough will make me into a running superstar.

Do you think this is some sort of groundbreaking news? We runners who train hard do so because we find it enjoyable, end of story.

I can accept that as a reason, and acknowledge that it might be the answer for many…but I suspect it’s not the answer for everyone.

It started off as fun, but now I can’t stop - I need it.

Perhaps it's not the same in the US, but there are lots of tiers between "mediocre" and "elite" - in which an athlete can strive for some sort of achievement - at least there is in Australia.

Aside from the personal pleasure one derives from improving oneself (especially while doing the thing they love), there are also regional championships, state championships, local track, cross country and road races. Then there's qualifications for larger races, representing one's state, competing at a national championships and so on. No one would describe athletes at these levels elite, nor is there any real money to be made, but there's still a sense of satisfaction to be had through progressing to new levels of achievement (much more so than spending an extra few hours in the office every week).

Why not?

You can train yourself to be a good runner - winning local races, scoring at conference, 220s marathon, but not elite if your genetics suck.

How is talent measured? I'd like to see those with the genetic explanation start to make and test predictions based on genetic measurements of youth. Put up or shut up. There are programs out there that generate incredible results for large proportions of their athletes year after year, where you take fields of 200-350 athletes, both in high school and in college, and 3/4 of the top 15 are from just two programs. The colleges recruit but most of the high schools can't, and they are taking kids more or less randomly at the lower level. There wasn't some special genetic lottery at Newbury Park that had never existed before Brosnan and has not existed since, but which allowed 7-8 guys to go sub-9 over a few years. There isn't a genetic lottery hitting a few schools in Utah right now; places like American Fork and Herriman have great coaches. Distance running is much less like sprinting in terms of being able right away to outperform almost everyone. It is a sport that requires training, and there's a bigger training component in sprinting as well than most people credit.

Oh dear… if you think that genetics don’t matter in distance running, then you are sadly mistaken and setting yourself up for disappointment.

Training merely highlights the talent that is there, or waiting to be discovered.

Everyone has a ceiling though. You see people training their sacks off as if they're pro athletes and not being able to run faster than 36 minute 10ks, while you've got other people who barely train but can clip off 6 minute miles in training for fun.

What's the difference between these two?

I just like winning the local turkey trot.

Both Herriman and AF have their kids doing doubles 5 days a week with a long run on Saturday throughout the training cycle. Is Jakob really the most genetically talented person on earth, or is he just the only one who started doing double thresholds before his 10th birthday? Casey Clinger & Jakob are talented, of course. That’s why they rose the highest. But to be the best you need a 99th-percentile work ethic and talent.

In the US we have the Boston and Olympic Trials marathon qualifications for something non top level runners can shoot for. Olympic trials qualification is much, much closer to top level, but 2:18 isn't quite world class. Between 2:18 and about 2:50 for men under 35 there isn't anything tangible to shoot for that I'm aware of.

Sorry, you are wrong. Genetics plays way way higher a role than training. You are the one who needs to put up or shut up to defend the contrary, not the other way round. There is no dearth of any number of wannabe athletes who give it their all but can’t ever crack 15’ for 5K, a fantastic time for the average guy but utterly mediocre for an elite. I can go into the physiological reasons but the empirical evidence is already too strong.

Take a random sample of young boys and get the majority of them to crack 14’. You will fail. Even a quarter of them, you will fail. 10%, you still fail.

Brosnan is a chump who it the lottery. He then blew it in one year just like most idiot lottery winners do.

Correct. I have been coaching a long time. Fastest 3200 was 9:08 in 25 years. A typical year has a guy run 9:20 and a few sub 10:00 while a few also run 15:00. All do same workouts and give it their all.

I'm superstar compared to my old self. As long as there's steady improvement I don't complain. But that's just me. I cannot vouch for other ppl.

You figured out that there's not one answer for everyone? Um, congrats?