2 most important things about being a good distance runner

'Bannister ran about 25mpw, Henry Marsh ran about 30mpw, and ther are a couple of other milers that ran about 4:00 on about 20mpw. All would crush your typical runner doing 60 mpw...and your typical letsrun marathon nut doing 130mpw with very low bodyfat to barely break 3:00.'

You would put Bannister against someone with the same physical potential not against some jogger to get some sort of comparison. Even Coe ran got up to 70mpw and ran ...do I really have explain this! Was El G doing doubles for the sake of it. Of course they are genetically superior than the rest of us but I'm talking like for like

To the other poster here is Coe's VO2 max are the rest of your stats so far wroing

http://www.serpentine.org.uk/pages/advice_frank13.html

Subfive wrote:

Your list suggest that endurance athletes at and above that level have VO2 max values above 60. Are there any performers at that level with values of 50?

All have values above 60 because all are highly-TRAINED athletes... is it that hard to figure out?

Jesus Christ!

Obviously it has to be above 60 but the point here is that 60 is

TWO THIRDS the upper end athletes.

You will find 33 minute people measuring higher than 66 like Levins, but guess what? Levins runs under 27:30. Levins runs mega miles. That makes him have endurance on a muscular, lactate threshold, and aerobic level unrivaled by dudes who naturally have 75s off rather basic training.

My two cents:

Talent

Consistency

1. be east african

2. be #1

Genetics

Desire

1. The spinal engine

2. The mind

if you talking about a career....durability is number one.....i don't care how talented you are...if you hurt all time...."should've would've could've" is the theme

2nd is drugs

observer of athletes wrote:

1. Zatopek and 2. Paula Radcliffe are the two most common counterexamples to the form issue. People need to think.

1) Yes, probably why he was a 13:57/28:54 guy. One of the legends of the sport, but lets face it, he was extremely lucky to be born when he was. Today he would be midpack of D2/D3 if that. And his form wasn't THAT bad-his lower leg/hip mechanics were fine, which are what matter.

Impossible to say that. If born today, maybe he would have adapted to today's training and still been the best. It's like saying Jack Nicklaus won't be a factor in today's PGA because there is more competition. Jack Nicklaus would have found a way to be the best today. He also had the disadvantage of Persimmon woods and lousy tech. Same for Zatopek (cinder tracks, etc)..

Hardloper wrote:

Subfive wrote:

Your list suggest that endurance athletes at and above that level have VO2 max values above 60. Are there any performers at that level with values of 50?

All have values above 60 because all are highly-TRAINED athletes... is it that hard to figure out?

The list of performers did not prove that VO2 doesn't mean anything.

And I get the point about those on the list being highly trained athletes. In a similar way, that group of highly trained athletes will have a BMI less than 23, body fat less than 7%.

But you could find 4 hour marathoners with similar BMI & body fat. Which could lead one to claim BMI & body fat doesn't mean anything.

Obviously, there are numerous physical characteristics, which are necessary for high level endurance performances.

Any one of these characteristics is necessary but not sufficient for high performance.

High V02 max

High level of basic speed

1- A nice Slam Piece

2- Natural Talent

Having Kenyan-type lower legs

Not being tall.

Machiaroni wrote:

Not being tall.

Like Wilson Kipsang, Paul Tergat, etc.

I.E. 6ft tall.

haha wow this one of the dumbest posts on here in a while. To the OP, you do realize that I could accomplish 1 and 2 without running more than a few hundred steps a day? I could have great body composition by eating well, and I could complete drills each days to have form equally as good as a professional. AND, with both these things accomplished, I could absolutely SUCK at running.

Clearly, the most important thing is genetics. Anybody who says otherwise probably believes in god or something ridiculous of that nature. Wake up OP!

Also, I would suggest looking up the difference between causal and correlated. Low body fat and excellent are obviously correlated, but far from causal. The more I think about this post the dumber I'm realizing it is…How the hell can you say that low body fat is the most important determinant of good running? My god that is ridiculous! I want to punch you through my computer screen.

Also, I would suggest looking up the difference between causal and correlated. Low body fat and excellent running are obviously correlated, but far from causal. The more I think about this post the dumber I'm realizing it is…How the hell can you say that low body fat is the most important determinant of good running? My god that is ridiculous! I want to punch you through my computer screen.

hahawow wrote:

haha wow this one of the dumbest posts on here in a while. To the OP, you do realize that I could accomplish 1 and 2 without running more than a few hundred steps a day? I could have great body composition by eating well, and I could complete drills each days to have form equally as good as a professional. AND, with both these things accomplished, I could absolutely SUCK at running.

Clearly, the most important thing is genetics. Anybody who says otherwise probably believes in god or something ridiculous of that nature. Wake up OP!

Now, can you list "two" things, which are due to one's genetic makeup that's necessary for elite endurance running?

We can see that an elite runner WILL have high VO2, be low in body fat and have a low BMI. These things can be controlled to some degree by the runner. But what are the necessary characteristics (genetic) that the runner does not have any control over?

nobody has a truly definitive answer to that man. People are doing studies. Basically just look like an East African.

In order:

1. talent

2. hard work

3. mental toughness