Could you become a professional/Olympic level athlete (making the Olympics finals of an event) through average genetics?

Female Shotput and Javelin.

Assuming that runners like Alan Webb, Adam Goucher, Zoila Gomez and a host of others all have outstanding genetics and work just about as hard as they can and still didn't make the 2008 Olympics, how would an averagely genetically endowed runner have any chance?

The answer is no. No chance. They won't even be a top college runner.

i work my ass off and i am a scrub.

Nope. You'll only see average times if you only have average genetics - training hard can only do so much.

you would be surprised how little your times change depending on how much you train if you maintain the same body weight and sleep schedule.

0mpw=16:40

20mpw=16:00

40mpw with workouts=15:20

70mpw with workouts=15:00

100mpw with workouts=14:45

Truman wrote:

The answer is no. No chance. They won't even be a top college runner.

Concur. Two reasons:

1) Distance running is a talent (actually a constellation of talents), just as much as sprinting is.* It may not seem "fair," but without superior genetics the chance of making it to an Olympic track final is zero--regardless of training.

And, of course, the ability to absorb and profit from a huge workload is also largely genetic.

2) Training "just for distance running" would be a big mistake. The West Germans and Soviets (some decades back, obviously) found out that early specialization limits an athlete's eventual ability. They recommended much more all-around preparation in an athlete's younger years.

We're misled when we hear about an East African kid who runs X km each way to school. It's easy to think that that's *all* the exercise the guy gets. Not at all--kids work around the home (and school), play football (soccer) at lunchtime, play with their neighbors, etc.

_____________________________________________________

*Sometimes it takes a bit of conditioning for the distance talent to reveal itself--that may be the only difference between distance running and sprinting. When Jim Ryun started high school cross-country, as a sophomore, he couldn't finish the initial workouts, and he was the last man to make the "B" squad at the first meet. But by the end of the season ~10 weeks later, he was sixth in the State.

a Med student. wrote:

you would be surprised how little your times change depending on how much you train if you maintain the same body weight and sleep schedule.

0mpw=16:40

20mpw=16:00

40mpw with workouts=15:20

70mpw with workouts=15:00

100mpw with workouts=14:45

0mpw=16:40? Are you smoking crack? Show me one human being who can run 16:40 (for the 5K, I'm assuming?) on 0mpw and I'll show you...something else that's impossible.

I'ts been a while since I read the book about Geb, but I seem to remember him saying that "running" he did to school wasn't really non-stop running. More like little jogs in between walking when him and his little friends would talk. Wasn't non-stop running, and even when it was running, it was just a little jogging.

Gallowalking?

race walk

J. Bingham wrote:

Gallowalking?

LMFAO I never thought about it that way... I think someone should let Galloway know, it would boost his street cred with real runners.

So what gene or genes specifically are you talking about here and how do the outstanding ones differ from the average ones?

You do understand that no one has found a "running gene" or even an "endurance gene." That makes all discussions about the role that genetics plays in running performance hypothetical. We do know that genes will predispose a person to certain sorts of physical characteristics, e.g. some people are naturally slender and others are naturally chunky, some have faster metabolisms than others, etc. and these things may have serious affects on how fast someone ultimately can run for various distances. But there simply is no way to know whether you have average or better than average genes for running.

What we do now is use the term "genetics" as a catch all explanation for that which we don't understand, pretty much like people in the Middle Ages used ideas like Divine Intervention or demonic possession.

So if I devote my life to running, pile on the miles, the proper hard sessions, the proper recovery and so on yet never break 31:00 for 10,000 meters, I and those who know me will be at a loss to understand why world class training hasn't made me at least a national class athlete and we'll probably eventually agree that I just had "bad genes." Maybe I do. But maybe there are other factors that limited my performances. Maybe I want success too badly and try too hard, ultimately impeding my performances in massive ways. Maybe I'm just a wussy who can't push himself through any sort of pain barrier. Maybe there's some whole other aspect of performance that we ignore.

On the other hand, once someone is successful we generally agree that s/he must have "good genes." That becomes a truly self contained argument.

HRE wrote:

But there simply is no way to know whether you have average or better than average genes for running.

This is one of the worst LR posts ever. Just because no one has located the "running gene" (though I doubt anyone has spent any considerable time looking) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There surely is a set of genes that set an individual's ceiling for speed over any range of distances. They haven't found a "nose" gene, but we all have noses.

Come to my 8 year old's soccer games if you want to see the manifestation of running genes. My son has got to be the slowest kid to the soccer ball when they have to sprint 10 yards, but he's the only kid still running strong an hour into the game. He didn't learn that, I promise you.

Your definition is very broad. Yes, someone with modest talent could make an Olympic final, but it would have to be in the marathon, for a country that lacked the depth of the US, Kenya, Ethiopia, Japan, etc. I think runners of average ability can get inside 2:30/2:50, but they aren't going to be get any contracts for it.

HRE wrote:

But there simply is no way to know whether you have average or better than average genes for running.

Most idiotic statement here in a long time, and that's saying a lot.

Take two runners. One trains very minimally, if at all and can run 16 min. 5k. Another trains constantly, putting in high mileage and speedwork and can't break 17. Yeah, you're right, there is absolutely no way of knowing if you have better than average genetics.

Sara B. wrote:for example, Geb ran 10k to school and 10k back every day according to him

No he didn't.

HRE wrote:

So if I devote my life to running, pile on the miles, the proper hard sessions, the proper recovery and so on yet never break 31:00 for 10,000 meters, I and those who know me will be at a loss to understand why world class training hasn't made me at least a national class athlete and we'll probably eventually agree that I just had "bad genes." Maybe I do. But maybe there are other factors that limited my performances. Maybe I want success too badly and try too hard, ultimately impeding my performances in massive ways. Maybe I'm just a wussy who can't push himself through any sort of pain barrier. Maybe there's some whole other aspect of performance that we ignore.

On the other hand, once someone is successful we generally agree that s/he must have "good genes." That becomes a truly self contained argument.

HRE, every runner gets to a certain lifetime best and does not progress from there. It's the same with stand up comics, chefs, and mathematicians, as well as any other human endeavor. Some are good, a few are better, only one is best. Our skills are relative to each other. If, as a runner, you have trained to the point where you are faster than 999/1000 people in your area, you have accomplished something. No, that doesn't make you a champion, but it makes you a runner. The same is true of the farmer who works at his craft and getting more out of his land than 999/1000 people do in his area. Is he not a good farmer because his yield is not the most in the state, or the country? No, we would properly call him a farmer and respect his efforts and results.

I am not celebrating or endorsing mediocrity, but the result of years of effort is something very different than the ordinary person can do. I have several simple cheap reproduction posters of beautiful paintings on my wall at home and people often admire them. The artists are incredibly talented in comparison to the average person, but they are not the best in the world, or even artists with recognizable names. Their work is admirable, just as is the work of the guy who fixes my car. He isn't the city's or state's or nation's champion mechanic, but his skills are admirable and helpful to me.

Runners, because their efforts are so easily compared with times, are susceptible to losing some of the joy of their activity in a way that musicians, writers, or teachers aren't. Sure, look at the top to see where you are, but also look at everyone else. In a country of 300 million people, if you are in the top 3 million in an activity, you are in the top 1%. The top 300,000 is 1/1000. The top 30,000 is better than 9,999/10,000 people, etc. Celebrate your accomplishments. 31 and change for 10,000 meters is an accomplishment. Congratulations. You likely have a rarer skill than your teachers, car mechanics, the performers at your local coffee house, your doctor, the people who make the goods in the stores you shop in, and your bosses at work do in their fields.

May you have as much success in some other field of endeavor in your life and may you come to appreciate both of them as successes.

Ok. Ron Daws did the same high school training as was typical of high school runners in the 50s and early 60s and never broke five minutes for the mile. He got less performance for the same effort. Why? Bad genes, right? But a few years later he's running the Olympic Marathon. Sure, he's trained hard and smartly and most of those guys who beat him in high school have quit.

But he's not training harder than Tom Laris or Bob Deines or Tom Heinonen and numerous other people who finished behind him in the Trials, many if not all of whom were faster high school runners than Daws. So Daws must be on the Olympic team because he has better genes than those other guys, right?

But where were those genes in high school?

In your example, you're assuming that each of these runners is at the same developmental level. Are you talking about high school kids or early college runners? The first guy might have matured early and the second might be your classic late bloomer. Maybe the second guy isn't running his best event and the first guy is. Maybe the second guy has a much lower pain threshold. Do we have a "pain threshold" gene? Maybe the second runner isn't a really competitive person or simply can't conceive of himself as someone who could win an athletic competition.

Why do Kenyans run faster generally than Ugandans but not any faster than Ethiopians? Kenyans and Ugandans are genetically much more similar than are Kenyans and Ethiopians.

What's idiotic here is your reading comprehension. I never said all people have the same potential. I'm saying that we don't know, and probably never will know, why some people perform better in certain endeavors than other people do and when that happens currently we take the unproven idea of genetics as ana explanation.

HRE

Did you know a kid in school that was alway just fast? Even in gym class with no structured training or any thing?

It's those guys that go on as successful runners. Maybe you're trying to play devil's advocate, but genetics play a huge role in whether someone is the Turkey Trot Champion or Oly Gold medalist.