Zola Budd's daughter--talk about genetics! Wow.

Interestingly there was an article a few years back where Zola and two of her daughters ran a 5km race and both the kids ran around 30 minutes for 5km at an age when their mother was twice as fast.

I think what we see here is genetics regressing to the "norm".

Genetics? Maybe training her daughter had something to do with her success instead.

I sincerely hope you don't live within 500 miles of these folks.

weird post to begin with, then you start making wacky claims ...running fast is 100% genetic - that's just plain stupid ...and how many women have you tested or surveyed or studied to claim Zola was the most genetically gifted runner ever...just plain goofy.

jsjsj wrote:

Genetics? Maybe training her daughter had something to do with her success instead.

Wishful thinking. Have to train, yes, but all those other kids are training too. Train AND have good genes, and you're a star. She has the genes, and that's the difference maker.

Genetics eh? Where did Zola get her running ability from? Not her parents, except the fact that she ran to get away from them.

Flagpole wrote:

jsjsj wrote:

Genetics? Maybe training her daughter had something to do with her success instead.

Wishful thinking. Have to train, yes, but all those other kids are training too. Train AND have good genes, and you're a star. She has the genes, and that's the difference maker.

But they are not all training the same way. And how do you know she has the genes?

It's not wishful thinking at all. The article says that Budd has been training her daughter since she was little. You and your genes are wishful thinking.

jsjsj wrote:

But they are not all training the same way. And how do you know she has the genes?

It's not wishful thinking at all. The article says that Budd has been training her daughter since she was little. You and your genes are wishful thinking.

I agree. Flagpole has a way of reducing arguments to basic collective wisdom i.e. BS.

It is much more likely that Zola is a very good coach and enabler of her daughter's ability. That's her real genetic advantage.

jono wrote:

Genetics eh? Where did Zola get her running ability from? Not her parents, except the fact that she ran to get away from them.

What is your basis for saying this? Are you really that familiar with the elder Budds' running ability?

They could be training in such a way that would hinder performance. Thus, the genetics are the only factor for success. This is highly unlikely, but I stand by Flagpole's statement that genetics are no doubt the difference. Anyone that disputes this is either a troll or they have their head in the sand.

Exactly why a lot of major league baseball players have dads who played in the majors. They were just born with that one baseball gene that most of us lack.

Walker Red wrote:

They could be training in such a way that would hinder performance. Thus, the genetics are the only factor for success. This is highly unlikely, but I stand by Flagpole's statement that genetics are no doubt the difference. Anyone that disputes this is either a troll or they have their head in the sand.

If you're going to troll, try a bit harder.

Her mom lived at a time of clean living

today with all the process foods, toxi/pollutants, over vaccinating, poor diets, etc....

her genetics may not matter long term

btw; i do wish her well, thanks for the article

jsjsj wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Wishful thinking. Have to train, yes, but all those other kids are training too. Train AND have good genes, and you're a star. She has the genes, and that's the difference maker.

But they are not all training the same way. And how do you know she has the genes?

It's not wishful thinking at all. The article says that Budd has been training her daughter since she was little. You and your genes are wishful thinking.

Good grief. Most of you think that if you just train hard enough or smart enough or long enough that you'll be able to drop some elite times. BS. Doesn't work that way. Tune up a Yugo all you want, it's not going to outrun a Ferrari.

Genetics is THE biggest thing for POTENTIAL in an athlete. Budd's daughter has it.

Flagpole is right.

If you can't accept that, you're not very bright. Oh, and that rhymed, so it counts double.

OP said "ability to run fast is 100% genetic". Having the ability is different than actually doing it. To do it, you have to try and then train hard.

Flagpole wrote:

Good grief. Most of you think that if you just train hard enough or smart enough or long enough that you'll be able to drop some elite times. BS. Doesn't work that way. Tune up a Yugo all you want, it's not going to outrun a Ferrari.

Genetics is THE biggest thing for POTENTIAL in an athlete. Budd's daughter has it.

Science says otherwise. Genetics are NOT the biggest thing for potential. Your car analogy is dumb and makes no sense at all.

Flagpole wrote:

Good grief. Most of you think that if you just train hard enough or smart enough or long enough that you'll be able to drop some elite times. BS. Doesn't work that way. Tune up a Yugo all you want, it's not going to outrun a Ferrari.

Genetics is THE biggest thing for POTENTIAL in an athlete. Budd's daughter has it.

And how do you even know that she and her mother have the same genetics?

Common sense says it's a combination of potential (genetics) and how you develop that potential (training). And the factors interact so that training will increase your potential (epigenetics). Not everyone starts out with the same potential and people with equal potential don't necessarily train in the best way to develop that potential.

Assigning percentages to genetics vs. training is just pulling a number out of thin air.

In this case, Zola Budd's daughters likely started with more potential than average but you can't disentangle that potential from training and being active from a young age and assign it a percentage. But it's certainly not 100% because that would exclude any effect of training.

Fast on the grass wrote:

Common sense says it's a combination of potential (genetics) and how you develop that potential (training). And the factors interact so that training will increase your potential (epigenetics). Not everyone starts out with the same potential and people with equal potential don't necessarily train in the best way to develop that potential.

Assigning percentages to genetics vs. training is just pulling a number out of thin air.

In this case, Zola Budd's daughters likely started with more potential than average but you can't disentangle that potential from training and being active from a young age and assign it a percentage. But it's certainly not 100% because that would exclude any effect of training.

How do you know everyone doesn't start out with the same potential?