What does it mean when we describe some runner as "talented"?
Is talent a combination of physical characteristics/mindsets/ a product of a life of training? Can one train in a way to reveal their "talent"?
What does it mean when we describe some runner as "talented"?
Is talent a combination of physical characteristics/mindsets/ a product of a life of training? Can one train in a way to reveal their "talent"?
I would say it is innate genetically coded ability.
I've been trying to answer all these questions for years. Good luck with your quest.
Whats Talent? wrote:
What does it mean when we describe some runner as "talented"?
Is talent a combination of physical characteristics/mindsets/ a product of a life of training? Can one train in a way to reveal their "talent"?
My guess is high calf/long achilles/skinny legs, lots o mitochondria, and abnormally high glycolitic enzymes.
Well for starters runners with fast twitch muscle will be better suited for speed. (think Jamaican sprinters) Slow twitch and you'll be more suited for endurance events. (think Kenyan marathoners)
If sports physiology interests you, pick up a copy of Tim Noakes expansive "Lore of Running" published by Human Kinetics. It's all there on 900 pages.
http://www.humankinetics.com/products/all-products/lore-of-running-4th-edition
imaloserbaby wrote:
My guess is high calf/long achilles/skinny legs, lots o mitochondria, and abnormally high glycolitic enzymes.
do webb, ritz, solinsky, mottram, and bekele fit those criteria?
A capacity for achievement or success
yes, i believe they do. while their legs all aren't "Kenyan Skinny" they fit the description. There are certainly exception but you find that most extremely athletic people have these kind of legs.
high calves certainly wont make you fast, but its hard to find elites without them.
this is all irrelevant.
youre going to be as good as you believe you will be
and as good as your training
worrying about imaginary things like "running genetics" is not going to help you. yes, imaginary because no one knows which genes they have (assuming that genes are even a limiting factor)
body parts are nice wrote:
imaloserbaby wrote:My guess is high calf/long achilles/skinny legs, lots o mitochondria, and abnormally high glycolitic enzymes.
do webb, ritz, solinsky, mottram, and bekele fit those criteria?
And Bob Kennedy.
Training? A basset hound will never beat a greyhound in a sprint. No matter how good the hound believes it will be. Sorry. It's designed for something else.
Hopkinton wrote:
Training? A basset hound will never beat a greyhound in a sprint. No matter how good the hound believes it will be. Sorry. It's designed for something else.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sport-and-ethnicity-240
1)nothing is "designed" for anything.
2)how do you know a basset hound will never beat a greyhound?
3)do humans genes vary as much as dogs'?
Whats Talent? wrote:
What does it mean when we describe some runner as "talented"?
Is talent a combination of physical characteristics/mindsets/ a product of a life of training? Can one train in a way to reveal their "talent"?
There are some characteristics of your body that you can't change much with training - you have to play with the cards your genes deal you; some people are not going to world class runners however hard they train - they may be better off doing other sports if they want to make it to the top.
Some of these things can be tested, but you have to be careful about these tests. When British Cycling were considering Mark Cavendish as a potential recruit for their elite program he did relatively poorly in many of the tests they used to assess potential. But it turns out that one things that the tests didn't adequately measure is his very high efficiency; which is part of what makes him the world beater that he is. But being a sprinter in a big stage race is a dead odd thing really - you have to be able to ride pretty fast all day long and then feel fresh for an all out sprint of a few hundred metres.
I've know some real idiots that genuinely thought they were world beaters but only managed 32:xx 10ks. They believed, they had good training, they got no where.
I do agree that worrying about it won't help, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
body parts are nice wrote:
this is all irrelevant.
youre going to be as good as you believe you will be
and as good as your training
worrying about imaginary things like "running genetics" is not going to help you. yes, imaginary because no one knows which genes they have (assuming that genes are even a limiting factor)
How the shit could genes NOT be a limiting factor?? Everything about us is dictated by our genes. Just as you have genes that make your hair a certain color, you have genes that determine your capacity for the long list of things involved in being a good distance runner, or scientist, or poster on Letsrun for that matter.
Well for starters runners with fast twitch muscle will be better suited for speed. (think Jamaican sprinters) Slow twitch and you'll be more suited for endurance events. (think Kenyan marathoners)
More complicated than that as most Kenyan Marathon runners have much faster speed than most of us
body parts are nice wrote:
Hopkinton wrote:Training? A basset hound will never beat a greyhound in a sprint. No matter how good the hound believes it will be. Sorry. It's designed for something else.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/sport-and-ethnicity-2401)nothing is "designed" for anything.
2)how do you know a basset hound will never beat a greyhound?
3)do humans genes vary as much as dogs'?
Wrong. 1. dogs are designed (bred) for very specific functions. 2. Unless a greyhound is gimped or there is a major variation in age, a basset hound will never out run a greyhound. On the flip side, a greyhound couldn't out track a basset hound when looking for something 3. I don't know I am not a biology guy, but if you look at recent powerhouse runners look at the genes of Flanagan, Coogan, Centrowitz, Spence. Odds were in each family's favor that their kids would be fast, and they are.
body parts are nice wrote:
1)nothing is "designed" for anything.
2)how do you know a basset hound will never beat a greyhound?
3)do humans genes vary as much as dogs'?
I guess that's why XC photos are so diverse. There are some guys that are 6'4 300 lbs, some that are 5'4 110 and look at alllll those T&F world records held by Samoans!
Aquafina wrote:
body parts are nice wrote:1)nothing is "designed" for anything.
2)how do you know a basset hound will never beat a greyhound?
3)do humans genes vary as much as dogs'?
I guess that's why XC photos are so diverse. There are some guys that are 6'4 300 lbs, some that are 5'4 110 and look at alllll those T&F world records held by Samoans!
Come on gentlemen. Body Parts is trolling. And not even making it the slightest bit subtle. And you are falling for it?
Not trolling. Just saying that the gene argument is useless unless you know which genes you're talking about and if you have been tested to see if you have them.
Ps - the Samoan statement makes no sense. And why can't a basset hound outrun a greyhound?