Another thing about being a good distance runner in my opinion, is being a little messed up in the head. I think you need to have some internal fire and past demons that only running 100 miles a week will keep at bay. Just my two cents.
Another thing about being a good distance runner in my opinion, is being a little messed up in the head. I think you need to have some internal fire and past demons that only running 100 miles a week will keep at bay. Just my two cents.
2 Most important things?
Number 1
http://www.runningrachel.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2013-05-19-21.24.44.png
Number 2
I think I just solved all your problems ever.
We do an annul pt test at work, 20 meter shuddle run part predicts vo2 max
for 25 years that vo2 max prediction has been identical to my 5k time for that year (using jack danials chart)
identical
Okay, if we like your reasoning to accomplish 1 and 2, how do you "accomplish your point 1 genetics? Do we line up 3 very similar people each possessing one of these qualities and have them race say one mile? How do you predetermine "genetics"?
The long & short of it. wrote:
Machiaroni wrote:Not being tall.
Like Wilson Kipsang, Paul Tergat, etc.
I.E. 6ft tall.
The fact that the tallest examples you can think of are 6' - i.e., not tall - just proves my point.
This made me laugh
…you can't accomplish genetics. You're born with the genes you have. Some of us have long, light legs and great oxygen carrying capacity. Some of us don't. It's in the genes, as they say.
I take it you skipped over this sentence?
and ignored this study by Noakes?
....and ignored this study by Noakes?
I accept that VO2 max alone does not provide enough info to distinguish elite runners from average runners.
There are obviously multiple physical characracteristics necessary in the right combination that lead to elite performances.
Those characteristics are loosely referred to as talent, genetics etc. We're looking for some details.
Caleb Trotter wrote:
Another thing about being a good distance runner in my opinion, is being a little messed up in the head. I think you need to have some internal fire and past demons that only running 100 miles a week will keep at bay. Just my two cents.
Pretty much this. Also, I don't think anyone's explicitly mentioned injury avoidance. If you ain't running, you ain't improving. Being injury-prone really slams on the brakes.
orbitboy wrote:
Coach guy man wrote:1. Talent
2. Consistency
^^^THIS^^^
This is what it really is, but I'll be more optimistic..
1) Consistency
2) Enjoying yourself
Lots of good answers in here though
Subfive wrote:
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.
Because they DON'T mean anything. Low BMI & body fat are a result of proper training, not a cause of it.
Machiaroni wrote:
The long & short of it. wrote:Like Wilson Kipsang, Paul Tergat, etc.
I.E. 6ft tall.
The fact that the tallest examples you can think of are 6' - i.e., not tall - just proves my point.
Wrong. Kipsang and Tergat ARE tall, for Kenyans. Most top runners are short because Kenya and even moreso Ethiopia are short as a whole.
Hardloper wrote:
Subfive wrote: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.
Because they DON'T mean anything. Low BMI & body fat are a result of proper training, not a cause of it.
Apparently, you don't know what , " DON'T mean anything" means!?
Based on your own statement, you believe low BMI & low body fat MEANS that a runner has done "proper training". Therefore, it does mean something. However, it would be an error to presume that a runner has done proper training...just because he happens to have a low BMI & low body fat. Although, it would be reasonable to think that the runner is generally fit.
Now, what you probably mean to say is that having low BMI & low body fat does not PROVE that the runner in question is a good runner (let's say elite). And that' certainly true. The proof is in the performance. The thing about VO2 max is that you measure it by actually running!
The OP wanted to know two important things about being a good distance runner. A rather general reply would be: talent and desire. But it's difficult to name two most important physiological characteristics i.e. things you can measure for in a lab.
Again, there are multiple physiological characteristics that a runner must have in order to perform at the elite level. A certain combination of characteristics is necessary but one alone is not sufficient for high performance.
ALL elite runners have low BMI, low body fat, high VO2 max and low fatigue muscle fibers. So having just these four things increases the probably that a runner is a good runner.
Holy F****ing Sh**. Employee 1.1 just broke 15:00 for 5000 for the 1st time at age 36.
Al Jazeera publishes piece on how alleged Olympic marathoner Ashley Uhl-Leavitt has a GoFundMe. Who?
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Japan's Kazuto Iizawa runs #2 1500 time in Japanese history - Guess the time (video)
Parker Valby post 5k interview... Worst of all time? Are Parker Valby interviews always cringe?