I guarantee Rupp lifts weights
I guarantee Rupp lifts weights
talent vs. hard work wrote:
I guarantee Rupp lifts weights
As much, in the same way, or for as long in his life as Tyson Gay? Can you guarantee that? Probably not.
And what have you to say about the rest of my post? Now that you know that fiber types aren't holding you back, how do you feel now?
Peaking is a myth. Keep in shape year round with very limited rests. You should never get away from racing for more than 2 months. Even at times when you are not sharp due to volume.
John McDonnell believed in that and had great success. Coached many sub-4 minute milers and believed that at any point throughout a year those runners should be ready to run close to 4:00.
Genetics decide for the most part your muscle fibers you can change them a little bit but you can't turn a Galen Rupp into a Lebron James, not possible. There are limits with muscle fibers so with that you are wrong and you never answered my first question.
If Tyson Gay dedicated all his work in his entire life to distance running instead of sprinting would his career have been as successful? And then same question for Rupp just reversed?
Because if hard work is all that matters then this would true for both of them.
talent vs. hard work wrote:
Genetics decide for the most part your muscle fibers you can change them a little bit but you can't turn a Galen Rupp into a Lebron James, not possible. There are limits with muscle fibers so with that you are wrong and you never answered my first question.
If Tyson Gay dedicated all his work in his entire life to distance running instead of sprinting would his career have been as successful? And then same question for Rupp just reversed?
Because if hard work is all that matters then this would true for both of them.
What evidence is there that says muscle fibers can only be changed a little bit? And how much is "a little bit"? I've never seen any evidence of such a limitation. The evidence I've seen places no limit on the conversion of fibers.
What question did I not respond to? The if Gay and Rupp switched training question? If so, then sure I think that genetic muscle fiber distribution is not the limiting factor in either of their cases regardless of which event they choose to work towards.
And I did not say that hard work is what matters. The RIGHT work is what matters. That's one of the biggest misconceptions that I hear about. And perhaps that's why you aren't faster.
I never complained about me not being faster. I had a very successful collegiate career, just graduated last year and I would probably take you to school because I have a good combination of talent and hard/right work, but I am not naive enough to believe that if I did everything that Galen Rupp ever did I would have a silver medal around my neck right now. Obviously something went terribly wrong in your running career and you probably blame it on your coach giving you the wrong workouts or something like that, well let me clear it up for you. YOU AREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO BE A PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY IT WON'T HAPPEN. This argument is a waste of time, you my friend are an idiot.
great post, totally agree. but I would counter with what I think is a another misconception on the other end of the spectrum:"I am training as hard as I possibly can & doing absolutely all the little things I can do to reach my potential. there is no way I could do more or train harder."
talent vs. hard work wrote:
I never complained about me not being faster. I had a very successful collegiate career, just graduated last year and I would probably take you to school because I have a good combination of talent and hard/right work, but I am not naive enough to believe that if I did everything that Galen Rupp ever did I would have a silver medal around my neck right now. Obviously something went terribly wrong in your running career and you probably blame it on your coach giving you the wrong workouts or something like that, well let me clear it up for you. YOU AREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO BE A PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY IT WON'T HAPPEN. This argument is a waste of time, you my friend are an idiot.
I agree with that you can always do more. Don't get me wrong I am a huge believer of hard work/right work but I am not naive enough to believe I can qualify for the Olympics.
talent vs. hard work wrote:
I never complained about me not being faster. I had a very successful collegiate career, just graduated last year and I would probably take you to school because I have a good combination of talent and hard/right work, but I am not naive enough to believe that if I did everything that Galen Rupp ever did I would have a silver medal around my neck right now. Obviously something went terribly wrong in your running career and you probably blame it on your coach giving you the wrong workouts or something like that, well let me clear it up for you. YOU AREN'T TALENTED ENOUGH TO BE A PROFESSIONAL RUNNER, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY IT WON'T HAPPEN. This argument is a waste of time, you my friend are an idiot.
I never said that you complained about not being faster. So what are you talking about?
You have no idea how much "talent" or "good genes" you have because those concepts have never been proven to exist. You also have no idea if you could be as fast as Rupp. You have yet to give real, existing reasons why not. There are no proven genetic limitations so what are you basing your opinion on?
And how do you know that you could take me to town? How do you know that I will never be a professional runner? You just keep spewing out one made up line after another. Say something that's actually correct or at least based on fact. Yes, that means that you'll not be able to take me to town. And yes that means that you're wrong about me not being able to be a professional runner.
I don't understand your mentality. I'd bet that there are plenty of ways that you could change/experiment with your training that you haven't. If you have just graduated college, then that means that you were likely forced to do whatever your coach had you do. And that means that you have likely never really experimented with your training for long periods of time.
No one is limiting you but yourself now that you're graduated.
talent vs. hard work wrote:
I agree with that you can always do more. Don't get me wrong I am a huge believer of hard work/right work but I am not naive enough to believe I can qualify for the Olympics.
That has nothing to do with being naive. That's just plain old' negativity and low self confidence. What percentage of Olympians and Olympic trials qualifiers do you think thought that one day they could qualify for the Olympics? I'd bet all or almost all of them.
One of them is that exercise has to be painful. The other is whether or not bigfoot has a big dick.
jdmd wrote:
Another limitation is that training takes time and commitment. I wouldn't want to focus my life on training so I could break the 5k world record. Why would I do that? It's not even worth the money nor the little fame. I'd rather focus on the things that I currently enjoy and the things that currently make me more money.
.
Really? I mean, really and truly seriously and all?
That's so strange to say on this site.
I would live a sexless, funless, monk's life in a monastery on a mtn with zero entertainment for a few years if I truly believed doing so would allow me to get in the training that would permit me to break the 5k world record.
And to say there's no money involved is ludicrous. K. Bekele is a multi-millionaire, just like Haile and Makau and most of the other big time WR holders.
jdmd wrote:
Not even close. Vo2max has been shown to improve significantly with training. Stretching has never proven to significantly improve height as far as I know.
And your first part about vo2 and times is also wrong. I bet Lance has a high vo2, but his current running times suck.
Your claims are unsubstantiated.
VO2 max can improve when going from an untrained to a trained state. You can not have significant improvements in VO2max if you're already well trained unless you're pretty fat and drop some serious weight.
In addition, it doesn't really matter. Paula Radcliffe's best performances came at a time when her VO2max was lower than previous.
VO2max is just one factor and not as important as some other factors.
The person with a PHD in genetics explains it better:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-10000-hours-and-genes.html
Please read the entire article in its' entirety before responding to the article post
talent vs. hard work wrote:
The person with a PHD in genetics explains it better:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/training-talent-10000-hours-and-genes.html
We already went through that link or one related to it few pages ago. The guy's FIRST preface was that there has actually been no proof that genes limit running performance. All we have so far are possible CORRELATIONS.
So, coming from that phD's own mouth, there has been no proof that genes limit running performance.
Running fast every day will make you faster.
You should run through injuries.
Ice cream and M&Ms is a good pre-race meal.
Eating nothing is a good diet plan; Elite runners are thin because they don't eat.
It's normal for female runners not to have periods.
Playing basketball in the off-season is a good idea.
Dating teammates won't cause any drama.
The coach is always right.
Your parents are always right.
Beating your teammates at practice means you should beat them in a race.
You can wear trainers in a race.
You're invincible against injury, dog attacks and rednecks with shotguns.
You pick a college just for the running. Running is more important than academics.
Wearing running shorts everywhere is a good look.
Everything you read on LetsRun is true.
We already went through that link or one related to it few pages ago. The guy's FIRST preface was that there has actually been no proof that genes limit running performance. All we have so far are possible CORRELATIONS.
So, coming from that phD's own mouth, there has been no proof that genes limit running performance.
No like I said please read the entire article before responding. If you actually read the article you might have learned something. He states that that is the belief of a lot of scientists but then he goes on to prove why he believe genetics play a huge role in sports, please just read the article and you will learn something. For example if genes don't matter please explain why men are so much more dominant then women in sports?
And if we go with your argument then genes don't affect your height either. Scientists can not prove that genes affect your height because it is too complex just like the sports arguments. But like adapting to workouts they have found multiple string of genes aligned in a specific order that have an affect on height/adapting to training, but no there is no specific gene that says Timmy will be tall or Timmy will be short or Timmy will be a good runner or Timmy will be a bad runner but the obviously genetics play a role in your height just like athletic ability. it is all about the correct combination of genes aligned in the correct order.
in response to the talent vs hard work debate:
http://www.ideafit.com/fitness-library/a-primer-on-muscles
focus on the sections labeled "determining fiber type" and "training muscles".
my degree is in exercise science and every class i have ever had in exercise physiology clearly states that everyone has a genetic ceiling.i did not feel as though it would be widely accepted if i just put up slides from a lecture up so i found this. this guy is a phd and obviously knows what he is talking about. "natural talent" is not alone limited to muscle fiber recruitment. you could go as far as to say people have slight advantages if their muscles attach at different portions of their bones. bone density could change a person's weight. someone's leg length to body height ratio could effect how efficient they are able to run. the size of someone's heart could make them more efficient(yes i know you can change the stroke volume of your heart through aerobic exercise). anyone that has ever looked at michael phelps knows he was built to swim. massive feet and hands, long arms,shorter legs, etc. tell me he didn't win the genetic lottery.
all that being said, there are probably another 1000 guys built exactly like michael phelps that will never win an olympic gold, but not because they do not have the genetic abilities.they just lack the work ethic to achieve what he has.
i really hope you consider this scientific proof, if not i will find some more for you