Why don't runners reach their potential?

It can't be lack of talent; talent determines our potential.

D and C

Which lowers:

b: motivation and people say "it just ain't worth it anymore."

Who could disagree? Once it's gone it's gone for good.

coaches who use a "one size fits all" approach to their training.

I'd say it's more B and D from what I've seen. With all the resources that are available to people today, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have any idea of how to train. I guess somebody can get stuck with a really bad coach and just run into the ground, but that still falls under category "D" usually.

The risks and sacrifices of successful running (esp. collegiately) often seem to drastically outweigh the benefits. You've really got to be willing to make running priority #1 in pretty much all cases to reach your potential, and most people just won't do that. Over time talent and hard work are indistinguishable.

Other reasons runners don't reach their full potential, in the US anyway, is the lack of support (financial, coaching and otherwise) after college or while they are in their 20's and 30's. Too much pressure to go out and get a job when they are still not at their peak physical and mental maturity levels....

zatopek wrote:

What do you think is the biggest reason individual runners/you do/did not reach their/your potential/goals?

A. lack of talent

B. Lack of training/motivation

C. Lack of knowledge on how to train

D. Injuries

E. Other

E. Afraid to take risks.

That's not to say that runners don't train hard or race hard. But I think that in order to reach your potential you have to take some huge risks. You can't play it safe. How many runners have really pushed their body to the limit - even to the point of running through excruciating pain? Those are the ones who have set the world records or won the big races. Runners like Geb, Clayton, Salazar, Radcliffe, Kristiansen, Benoit-Samuelson ... just to name a few.

B, C and D.

B. You've got to be willing to be very poor for a long time here in order to really get good. Unless you're already very good, you're going to be poor.

C. This is true a lot of the time. People have all sorts of baseless ideas about running and often these lead to lack of improvement or injury.

D. How many runners do you know who used to compete but don't because of ll the injuries they suffered?

late bloomer wrote:

E. Afraid to take risks.

I agree! If you get 100 guys taking risks in training by doing collosal mileage and savage sessions maybe 5 will break through to the top level. If you get 100 guys doing mediocre mileage and sessions you get 100 mediocre runners.

you speak as if you need to kill youself everyday if you're going to be the best -- look at geb's running: most of it's at a pretty relaxed pace. he just does a lot of it.

trackhead wrote:

he just does a lot of it.

In this country (USA), that is considered an enormous risk - no wonder we don't have too many sub-2:10 guys.

Let me add a disclaimer stating that I know that the Hansons et al athletes are taking some risks to be the best. If they have the talent, they'll be the 2:10 guys in a few years.

E. Other - There are no good running shoes available.

zatopek wrote:

What do you think is the biggest reason individual runners/you do/did not reach their/your potential/goals?

A. lack of talent

B. Lack of training/motivation

C. Lack of knowledge on how to train

D. Injuries

E. Other

I'll put them in order of importance for me (most relevant to least relevant):

B - easily the No. 1 thing for me. By the time I graduated from college, I had been a runner for 14 years. I was tired of that defining me.

C - I loved coach Marv Frye from OWU, but he wasn't the best as far as training distance runners goes. We ran hard all the time. I just didn't know any better.

D (this includes illesss too). Mono in college knocked me out of some important races - almost burst a spleen during a CC race. Tend to get sick when I train too hard or too much. Of the 7 marathons and two ultramarathons I've run, I've had a sore throat the day after each, usually accompanied by a fever.

E (for me it included interest in other things - school, work, women/eventual wife)

A I don't have HUGE talent, but I was born with a fair amount of it, and I was good at distance running right from the beginning. It is hard to imagine taking the path that some of you did - being a 13 minute 3200 runner as a freshman and then getting down to sub 10 by the time you were a senior in high school. My very first 1600 ever was under 5:00, and while not blazing, my freshman year of high school I ran 10:33 for 3200.

F (I added this category "NO FIRM GOALS"). I always trained hard and tried to run as fast as I could, but, post high school, I never really had major goals (like to break 32 mintes for 10,000, etc.). I seemed to run well coming off of a low training week or illness and then seemed to do worse when all the training plus taper seemed to indicate I should run better, and therefore, I've still to this day never been able to equate preparation with performance. So, what good would setting a goal do for me? I realize this is a failing of mine and that my running past is different from most.

I never ran high school or college so when I started running seriously at around 21, I was soon with a gossipy/snippy running club that kept poking fun that I was at my limit of my potential as a mid-33 minute 10K runner in my mid-late 20s. I probably was maxed out with their lame-o training methods. All they did was track workouts week after week, year after year, bunch of backstabbing kwoksucker babies. Poor club chemistry overall, should have gotten the hell out of there. I then managed to become over a minute faster after moving (and training with proper basework for once)...all in four months.

So not knowing how to train properly would be one thing that hinders some folks. I think they get caught up in one method, when if they tried something else out there, it might work a lot better for them.

#1 would have to be TIME. When I was in school and put everything else aside and ran 100-120 mpw, I was in abut 2:24 marathon shape. Now I'm struggling to fit in 70mpw (and not getting enough rest because of running that much) and in maybe 2:30 shape. If I didn't have to try and support a family, work on my career, and generally do the "adult" thing now, I probably have the talent to be sub-2:20. But it will never happen unfortunately.

overtraining

AH wrote:

and generally do the "adult" thing now, I probably have the talent to be sub-2:20.

Life is full of choices. I however think that those athletes that are training full time are still making "ADULT" choices.

yes TIME. In HS & College I had nothing but time to devote to running, AM & PM training was no problem. Now, there is now freakin' way I'm running 10m then try and get to work, then put in the work in the PM and come home only to go to bed and do it again. 1) I'd get fired for not getting anything done 2) I'd be divorced because my wife likes to see me do more things than run & sleep.

Yes, you and I, and a lot of people on this board think so, but most other people don't appreciate why you would keep running after college without a solid chance of making an Olympic team.

Motivation and injury are the too biggest I would say. Motivation will usually lead to you to seek the knowledge of training, although you could still fail to figure out the best plan. But if you start early enough there is time to try things and see what works. Starting at an early age can be a factor too.

Biggest would have to be motivation. If you really can't do any more training without getting injured, then I guess that limits your potential.