What physical attributes make up running talent?

Do some people have an inherent advantage over others. If that is your question the answer is yes. Would Shaq beat a female Olympic gymnast in a shot-putting competition, or could she do as well or better than he if “psyched up” enough. Why do we have weight categories in boxing, wrestling, weight lifting? Maybe some are born with a better chance of being big than others. Just because you can’t see some differences, they can still be there. Two 5 foot 8 inch runners of 135 pounds and both training, eating, sleeping the same and both highly motivated to be a runner, may not reach the same performance level because of some biomechanical or physiological differences that you can’t see. Does anyone ever reach his/her absolute potential? Another question completely.

Have a newbie race a 400M and IMO, that indicates talent or therelackof.

[quote]Phillyrunner wrote:

I am interested in understanding what the actual mechanics are that make some people "natural" fast runners.

Without dissecting runners (how do you count or weigh the mitochondria)here is what I look for.

There is a "smoothness" in the best runners. I've had the good fortune to run along side some really excellent runners. Usually there is an economy of motion of the middle of the body. (not the head or hands or feet in the air) They float.

The make little noise either breathing or touching the ground. They must touch the ground, but not for long. Sometimes you can't tell they are running a step behind you out of your vision. It is as if they are made of air.

Bill Rodgers ran like this, except for the constant talking.

Tom

watch the slow motion from 3:41-3:55.

I would like to thank everyone for their responses, a lot of food for thought and interesting.

CCC wrote:

Why cant you tell us exactly what factor your talking about?

Whay cant you answer almost any of the questions people have asked?

Yes, almost everyone I've trained with seriously has trained to the point of injury or "burn out" ie over trained.

I guess Keynans and Ethiopians generally have what you wont tell us? No one else does?

I hope your not relying on crystals

There is no one factor other than innate desire that I consider to be truly indicative of what we call talent.

And desire itself comes and goes.

I have gone from super unfit to super fit and back to super unfit and back to super fit.

So I know what a humungous difference training makes. If you train properly, you can keep improving more or less constantly.

I know that most runners don't believe that they can run super fast times. Most runners think that they have average physical ability. The best runners truly believe that they are as good as anyone. Their self belief is unshakeable, and every time they get knocked down, they get right back up again. THAT'S THE FACTOR - SELF BELIEF.

It's not about VO2max, JD has shown that athletes of the same ability can have a difference in VO2max of 20%

Richard, all of those factors are trainable. Extremely trainable in every runner I know.

Yes, I agree mostly. Now if kid A really wants to beat kid B, and he gets the right coaching, he can improve a lot quicker. But then so can kid B right?

Meanwhile on the other side of town, Kid C can run a sub 4 mile when he is 17.

Kid A will not peak until his thirties or even his forties, but that may be because things didn't go his way when he was younger. The sad fact is, that the fast kids get a huge amount of help and attention and their confidence and self esteem gives them an aura of invincibility. For many others, that self esteem either never gets built up very much or it takes so long that when it does, they are past the age when they can make an impact on a national or international level.

wellnow wrote:

Richard, all of those factors are trainable. Extremely trainable in every runner I know.

They are certainly all trainable, but not to some degree and not the same degree in everyone. If every runner you know is "extremely trainable" in those 3 factors you don't know nearly enough runners. :)

Rate and magnitude of adaptation varies greatly in humans. For example, I recall a strength study examining the magnitude of adaptation in 585 subjects. This study found changes in 1 rep max strength ranging from 0% to 250%. The exact same training program resulted in some subjects not increasing strength at all while others increased strength by up to 250%. The average increase in strength was 54.1%.

Contraction speed appears to be least trainable of the 3, with slow twitch fibers increasing contraction speed a max of about 20% and fast twitch not increasing contraction speed any significant amount. For this reason, speed is basically in-born; you are mostly stuck with what nature gave you in terms of speed. You can train to get faster, but if you weren't born fast no amount of training will make you fast.

Here's another take on recognizing the physical factors in better runners:

When I am driving and see a runner in the distance I can detect a quality of motion long before I can recognize the runner. Even at a slow pace the better runner has a gingerly touch to the ground. The not so good runners seem to stick to the ground.

I suppose I would look for that signature motion if I were surveying high school freshman candidates.

Tom

i dont know about that. the girl who won the high school girls 3200(with a 10:3x) at the texas relays last year did not match up with all of those qualities. she wasnt the lightest one, but her vo2max was not too bad to say the least.