Natural talent vs. hard work

jenglan3 wrote:

OP, your situation isn't that unusual. I was a little bit slower than you in the 400 and a little bit faster in the 1600 in high school. In college, I got down to 4:37 for 1500 and 17:25 for 5k. That took four years of hard work on top of the four year of hard work in high school. In graduate school, I became a coach and helped a lot of people make huge jumps from high school to college. Much larger jumps than I made myself. One guy went from 10:10 for 3200, having run for York high school, to 14:19 for 5k. But others made smaller improvements. Everyone is different. Some are late bloomers. Some, like me, never really bloom at all (perhaps I am just an extremely late bloomer? I'm still trying to find out).

You can get a lot out of this sport whether or not your are a scoring runner. As long as you work hard and bring an attitude to practice that helps your team's scoring runners want to work hard, then you are an asset to any team and any coach. And don't worry too much about what your potential is. In my first several years of running, I wasted many racing opportunities because I was too concerned about what I couldn't do and not focused on what I could realistically do. Reaching your potential, no matter how modest, is worth your time and effort. You should never be ashamed of it.

Also, see a physical therapist about your hip. If there is a physical limit preventing you from training harder, then go seek out the knowledge that you need to overcome that limit. If you can't run faster because you don't have the talent, that's fine and it's honorable to do the best that you can. But don't let yourself be hampered by a lack of knowledge.

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

All right guys, it's time I finally got some answers. And who better to ask than the most intelligent group of people on earth, the users of letsrun.

Now before I say anything else: Flagpole, you are prohibited from this thread. No ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions.

I'll start with some background information. When I started running before my freshman year of high school, the fastest I could run a mile was 7:30 flat, all out (I finally broke 7 that cross country season). I am now a senior and can run a 5:30 after several years of doing the same training as everyone on my team.

Why can't I run under faster for the mile after all this time? I'm now 6'1" and 145lbs, which is an ideal build for a runner. I train just as much if not more than everyone on my team. Yet there are other kids who, off of the same amount of training, are way faster than me. Now, I'm not out of shape or anything. I was always very active growing up. When I was a kid, I swam or played baseball, basketball, or football almost every day.

So my question is this: Is it really true that everyone is a blank slate at birth and the fastest runner is the one who trains the most (this is what I've always been told)? Or is running ability genetic?

If so, to what degree is it genetic and how far will hard work really take you?

Ignorant Buffoon wrote:

. I bet in America we could easily have 10x more elite track athletes than we do currently if track was our largest sport. Kenya, Ethiopia, Jamaica, why do they produce such talents every year without ceasing? Their main sport is track, hence they have a larger talent/gene pool to take from and produce athletes. Why is it so surprising that in America we have not had a 10K medalist since 1964? We're a country of 300 million, more than Ethiopia and Kenya combined. It is highly unlikely from a statistical standpoint that we have not had the talent necessary to produce a medalist in the last 48 years. I am sure in these last 48 years, we have had at least 1, hell, probably at least 10, more athletes that are more talented than Rupp that just never realized their potential. Rupp is very talented indeed, but he has had every resource available to him since he started running to maximize his potential, and he has done exactly that.

Trumpkin wrote:

The Real Slim Shady wrote:

All right guys, it's time I finally got some answers. And who better to ask than the most intelligent group of people on earth, the users of letsrun.

Now before I say anything else: Flagpole, you are prohibited from this thread. No ifs, ands, or buts. No exceptions.

I'll start with some background information. When I started running before my freshman year of high school, the fastest I could run a mile was 7:30 flat, all out (I finally broke 7 that cross country season). I am now a senior and can run a 5:30 after several years of doing the same training as everyone on my team.

Why can't I run under faster for the mile after all this time? I'm now 6'1" and 145lbs, which is an ideal build for a runner. I train just as much if not more than everyone on my team. Yet there are other kids who, off of the same amount of training, are way faster than me. Now, I'm not out of shape or anything. I was always very active growing up. When I was a kid, I swam or played baseball, basketball, or football almost every day.

So my question is this: Is it really true that everyone is a blank slate at birth and the fastest runner is the one who trains the most (this is what I've always been told)? Or is running ability genetic?

If so, to what degree is it genetic and how far will hard work really take you?

I would argue that running is mostly genetics. I've had to work extremely hard just to get my 5k under 15:30. I've seen teammates and conference rivals running fewer miles, easier workouts, and drinking 3-4 nights a week break 15.

At the end of the day, unless you are a professional runner, this sport is a hobby and how fast/slow you are shouldn't affect your enjoyment of it.