Lots of Talent versus A little Bit of Talent

There is only one way to know the answer to this and you know what it is. Screw "talent" vs "a little talent" and get your butt out there!

Well as far as talent goes. Do you guys think there are people out there that just don?t have the talent to run a time under 16:00 for the 5k no matter how many miles and hard work? Or is 16:00 a goal that is achievable by almost anyone willing to but in the amount of work they need to do get there.

A low mileage guy should not ask what he could achieve if he were to start putting in mileage. He should evaluate his lifestyle, and ask himself if he really can make the committment and if he really wants to (two things that go hand in hand, you can only if you want to). Then, once you've been training for a while, run some races, see where your ability lever is, and then set goals. You might surprise yourself.

Not everyone can run a 16 minute 5K no matter how much they train. Obviously 16 minutes isn't a world beating time, but it is fast enough for there to have to be some talent there. My PR is 14:18, and now at age 33 (almost 34) I can easily run in the low 15s for 5K. I could step it way back and still run a 5K in 16 minutes, but it is because I have a little bit of talent. I know some who run 70-100 miles a week and have for years, train as I do except a little bit slower, and have trouble breaking 18 minutes - guys in their early 30s who have never run faster than about 17:45 and will never be able to run a 5K in 16 minutes. Not everyone has the talent to do it.

screw talent. I know a guy who never had any talent compared to others and he kept working and working and working at it and he ran 1:08 for a half marathon. thats trucking for mortals. all it takes to run the times you mentioned is hard work. run everyday! twice a day four times a week and the other three days go long. run with intensity and work your ass off on the hills. burnout is only mental, if you want to run fast you have to train as hard as you possibly can.

I would agree with jerry, but i think there is a little more to be said.

I think his argument comes more into play when you have someone with some talent, but cant run X (faster) time because they take (too many) days off, slack on runs, etc. (and Im not reffering to "stars" or even bigger athletes, just the average runner with some penchant for running)

As for someone with little to no talent, I think work ethic is mainly for the mental side of training -- As in forcing yourself to get out the door each day to run. Personally, I think it would be much harder for someone who knows that they will never have a chance at winning even their age group at the local road race to get motivated and run miles each day as opposed to say a college athlete or a competetive road racer.

And to refer back to the original question, personally, I dont think a lot of us realize just how hard it is for individuals to run 5:07 pace for 3.1 miles. Not disrespecting any recreational runners (or semi-serious ones), but Im not sure that someone with no talent could run under 16 minutes.

I suppose the next obvious question (although near impossible to answer) is how do you define talent and what are the cut off marks?

Yo Average joe,

I know you never asked for my opinion, but here it is anyway : )

The way you have put up those numbers for everything from 5k to marathon seems to give the impression that you think that you have to be able to do one of them before you can do the others.

This is not so.

A lot can depend on your particular "genetic" strengths (to call them that). I have coached runners to sub-2.40 marathons who will never run 16.00 for 5k, nor break 33.00 for 10k.

So I feel you might be painting the picture worse here than it really needs to be, and putting yourself off in the process. Making it seem more difficult than it might be.

You might have been a HS runner who could break 4.10 for 1500m, in which case you might find the training for 16.00-5k suitable, or even easy. Yet never manage to break 2.40 for the marathon.

On the other hand, you might be someone who could just about run 4.30/1500m (after some serious training) and now manage to run a 2.40 and never be able to break 16.00/5k.

You get my point? You have to play to your strengths.

Let's look at one guy I am now "coaching". An ordinary guy, accountant, busy lifestyle, getting married in a year etc...

Came to me with a 2.54 marathon PR from 3 years ago. Had tried many times to break it and couldn't.

After 6 months with me he ran 2.45. Dead easy, even splits the whole way. We are now aiming for sub-2.40 by this Nov or next Feb (2 races he has planned, depending on how the training goes).

To my certain knowledge, this guy has never broken 17.00/5k on the track. (In fact, he may only have run one or two in his life). Okay, it's no big deal and we're not training for it, but I bet that even if we did he would never manage sub-16.00.

In a recent road 10k (post 2.45 marathon) he ran 36.00, and has a recent PR of 35.48 on a hilly course on a hot Med summer evening (30degC).

Hard to compare these things: hilly hot 10ks, and cool flat marathons.

With serious work, we could probably get his road PR down to say 35.00 and his track PR to maybe maybe 34.30 but that would be about it.

And yet I'm pretty sure he'll break 2.40 by next Spring. which is his target, he couldn't care what he runs at 5k.

But to do that his PRs only need to be are something like:

5k - 16.30

10.k - 34.30 (track) 35.00 (road)

HM - 1.15 or maybe just under

M - sub-2.40

Notice that according to any points system these are not equivalent performances by any means. What they do show is that this runner gets better the longer the distance (has no zip, never was a stud in school, but bags of endurance ? which can be trained).

Such figures are, to me, more "normal", more "average", than some guy who is equally good across the board.

Which is why you have to take these "equations" or "formulae" with a big pinch of salt.

Doesn't look so frightening, does it? All perfectly achievable by your average ordinary sort of guy.

This guy will peak at 80-90mpw in his build-up (say 3 times a week of doubles, the rest singles).

The crucial thing is the training pace. He is actually training slower now per mile than he was for his 2.54 old PR. And loving every minute of it. He's now got his father out training and into that 36/10k he ran (his father managed 54-something).

It is actually a joy to watch this guy train because you can see him laughing when he checks his mile splits because he cannot believe he is running so "fast" (for him?it's all relative) so easily.

So yeah, if you can hit the sort of times I mention (and yet not achieve yours), then with the right training you could run sub-2.40.

So now you have no excuse : )

(I'm going abroad tomorrow, so just in case there are any questions on points I made above, give me until my return next Wed to answer. If there are, and you can keep this thread on page 1, I'd appreciate it.)

Hadd

Glad things are going well for your charge, but as for your statement:

<5k - 16.30

10.k - 34.30 (track) 35.00 (road)

HM - 1.15 or maybe just under

M - sub-2.40

Notice that according to any points system these are not equivalent performances by any means.>

These times are all essentially equivalent according to Daniels' tables and several others. It's just that most 16:30 guys don't put in enough miles to run sub-2:40.

I would hire a coach to maximize your training. Why don't you talk to JK about having with coach you? He's pretty good from what I hear.

JK works miracles. Look what he did with Wejo. That's amazing.

I ran those times off of little talent, so I'm sure you can too. My best high school 3200 meters was 10:51 and I was pretty stoked when I ran a 17:52 3 miler the summer after I graduated. Anyway, in my mid to late twenties I started running more consistently and when I was 28-29 I ran 15:35 for 5K, 32:52 for 10K (on my way to a 53:54 10 miler), a 1:12:57 half marathon and a 2:36:57 marathon. All of this off of 45-50 miles a week average. I have never run more than 66 miles in one week.Do I have a lot of talent? I don't think so. Could I have run faster? Maybe. I figure that my maximums would be a sub 15:00 5k, a 1:10 half and a 2:29 marathon.I'm still working at it, trying to get back after a four year "slump". I can relate to what your asking, as I just turned 35, work full time and have a 6 year old and a 9 year old. Best of luck to you. Consistency is the key.The Sunday "long run" made the big difference for me.

Well it sounds to me like there is some talent there. If you are running a 15+ 5k with under 60 miles a week i would deffenitly say that you are dealing with a bit of talent.

I just noticed the name of the person who posted this. Someone named "Average Joe", only this time one without the underscore in the name. Whoever this was, it was not me.

Besides, the chances me ever running sub 33:00 for 10k are remote at best.

Yes, yes, I know, nobody cares. Just being clear for the record.

I would to know what some opinions are on the limits of what can be reached performance wise. Is there a point where even with all the training in the world there is a limit to how fast you can get? I know personally I will keep increasing my mileage and interval intensity each year to try to find my limits. When I ran consistent 50 mile weeks I got to 16:48, when I ran consistent 75 mile weeks I got to 15:57, now I'm trying to build up to 90-100 mile weeks in hopes it will get me to 14:50 or faster. From there I hope to keep going (110-120=13:30-14:00. I believe it to be possible. Has anyone had an success steadily increasing mileage or do you believe me to be totally off base?

Thanks for the input Hadd. You make alot of since with your comments. When you get back I've got some question I would like to ask you.

Now that I'm at the ripe old age of 32 I'm beginning to think more and more that the marathon is going to be my distance. I'm not sure as to what my talent level is, but I was able to run a marathon in 3:15 on about 6 months worth of training. I just used it as a long run since I had never run near that far before. My usual long runs are 14 miles. Anyway, I know 3:15 is by no means fast, but I felt comfortable the whole way never really getting tired at all. I think if I train with consistency over the year I should be able to get into the 2:50-2:55 range pretty easy and then hopefully take it on down some more from there. I also ran a 38:00 10K a few weeks before the marathon.

I'm not sure what talent equates to or how people measure talent to determine if a person has it or not, but, although not fast in high school, I was able to record a 51 sec 440, a 2:01 880, a 4:32 mile, a 9:53 2 mile and a 16:12 5K. Now at age 32, I"m not sure if those times mean anyhting or nor in the grand scheme of things, but I do think with some consistent training I can achieve those PRs plus run a decent marathon.

When you get back Hadd I would like to ask you a few questions.

Average Joe,

You turned way above average times in high school, as a 4:32 mile wins most boys'meets in the mile as i'm sure you remember, though they obviously are nothing in comparison to those that get the press. Keep in mind you did this when you were a boy! Think of how much stronger your will is now, or even your handshake for that matter, your not dealing with the same body. Many think back to their high school days or college days as being their prime, and for the average american lifestyle it is unfortunately, but it certainly doesn't have to be.

Your best bet is to use your willpower to make yourself more savvy than the next guy. Here are some recommendations I have to put your training regimen into the future...

Begin by reading top runners. Notice I didn't say read about top runners, but to actually read THEM. Take a picture of Daniel Komen for example and gaze at his body, don't stare so much as simply keep your focus on a point beyond so it's as though you are looking through his picture. Start by gazing through his core for several minutes before your run. How he carries his body begins to reveal itself to you. Try gazing at your own body in a mirror and understand where the differences are. Visualize how he must feel while running, then do your best to employ that on your run. Over time work up to being able to gaze at one spot for as long as you are going to race, if you can't do that then you can't expect to keep focus your whole race...Move on to other parts of the body beyond the core and over time you can expect to sort of transmutate your body into the likes of an elite distance runner.

Figure out how to make running a religous commitment. This makes it much easier to get out the door each morning before work if you know it is not just about running fast. This works for me...running or other exercise purifies my body by eliminating toxins through the sweat. As the mind and body are interdependent, I have purified my mind each time I purify my body and the result is one step closer to spiritual truth and ultimately happiness. You can even take it a step farther and go on a retreat as vacation to take workshops dealing with your emotions and finding out how to let the negative ones go as they are constricting your muscles throughout the day which has a major effect on running performance and recovery etc.

Don't take steps backward by consuming what you already know to be a poor diet, of food, air, or thought.

Look into fasting, which can be used heavily in your advantage during the offseason.

Use your family to your advantage. They can be an awesome support group for you if you let them know what you are trying to achieve.

Keep an open mind...i've yet to have any takers respond to this next suggestion and it's my opinion that the ego is the problem...wear a pair of ear muffs that reduce outside noise by 30decibels or so when you run. You'll quickly become more conscious of your body and what its doing. Generally many people don't run light as a feather because of too much outside stimuli to the brain coming in which leaves the bodies voice muffled and an inability to listen to our bodies results. The impact is heard, among other things going on in the body, much easier with earmuffs on. Working on those things go a long way in preventing injury by increasing efficiency which is what stands in the way of most athletes goals.

Have your wife/family take you on a walk while you wear a blindfold. This will help your "hand/mind" coordination incredibly. Watching people move I can assure you few people know how to walk a straight line, and if you can't walk a straight line you aren't going to be able to run a straight line. I proved this point to the track team I coached two seasons ago. We went out to the football field and I had them one by one run blindfolded from one end zone towards the other. The fastest runner held the straightest line and made it from one end zone to the other(the only one to do so), the slowest runner we had to yell to stop because by the time she got to the first 40 yard line she was almost all the way off the field and on to the track. It was statistically significant in relation to their sex as to how far and straight they went before being told to stop and how fast they were, there were about 25 athletes that did this test.

I highly recommend riding a bike as it helps with variety in your training and in having a smoother/faster turnover. Turning increasingly faster circles on a bike takes alot of focus and there is little chance of injury, the same can not be said with running. Plus you can work on your weaker leg on a bike much easier than you can with running as running with one leg is more or less impossible but turning the pedals with just one leg is quite doable. I imagine your symmetry could use some work. I think the bike is great for recovery and increasing leg strength as well.

I'll stop now as people rarely reply to what I have to say.

Legalizit, I agree with you on the ear muff thing but it is a bit risky for certain circumstances. Women should always go without hearing impediment and if there is any risk of being hit by a vehicle, you're better off without them. Although I'm sure you could develop the ability to "hear" with your feet. For turnover there is no substitute for running barefoot down a gentle grass slope such as a golf course.

I'm also surprised so many people have this mental drag of considering themselves "old" when they are actually in their prime. I am 32 and haven't even run continuously all my life. On several occaisions I have started running after long layoffs and within weeks was running better than I had previously. Now I am setting personal records at all distances from 400 to the half marathon. My body has matured and can handle far more work now and recovers much faster than when I was a teenager. Maybe I'm just a late bloomer. It is interesting that horses participating in endurance events are considered in their prime from the age of about 7-12. They can handle far more training. That's about 30-40+ in human years. However, they don't have the mental baggage of thinking they are old. We should lose that as well and run much better for longer. Look to horses like Red Rum and Sea Pigeon as your role models.

Thanks for all of the input.

While your suggestions seem a little bit out in left field, they make quite a bit of since. They are "different", there's no doubting that, but they seem to be very applicable. I may try some of the tips and see what happens.

Hey Hadd, as soon as you return I do have a question or two.

Thanks