Why don't some runners improve much after/before training?

I anticipate some answers will be that some people do not have much room to improve, but I would posit this is false. My guess is that the training is neither specific nor individualized in the cases you mentioned.

Yes, it is a normal high school program so it's not. Just find it so awkward why this happens.

I remember reading a bit about how talent, or genetics in this case, isn't just a cap on the top speed. Sometimes it affects the ability to adapt to training and improve. Some people just can't improve much. The ones that start fast and can improve a lot are the guys you see at the top

Ceilings. It's all about ceilings.

Lowdown killer wrote:

Yes, it is a normal high school program so it's not. Just find it so awkward why this happens.

Wait until you see your team's 51 sec 400 runner beaten by a guy running in chucks.

Some are trainable, some arent. Adaptation to training is a trait like anything else. Some kids work legitimately hard and barely improve.

Some are not low talent/not trainable

some are high talent/not trainable

some are low talent/highly trainable

some lucky ones are high talent/highly trainable

and plenty variations of all of the above.

The 59 second 400m runner who does not improve is doing the wrong event.

If they don't have the basic speed they won't improve that much although you should see some improvement

Need more info eg 200m pr

If a new runner trains for 5km their improvement might still be limited but they will make far more inroads than they will over the sprints. That's unless the runner is really fast over 100m

All this is just stating the obvious

Its more complex when you get 2 people starting off at 25 mins 5km one ends up doing 17 the other can't break 20 - down to adaption as above + training same training prog might not suit them both

Sprinter Type wrote:

I anticipate some answers will be that some people do not have much room to improve, but I would posit this is false. My guess is that the training is neither specific nor individualized in the cases you mentioned.

You can "posit" whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we all have a ceiling. Not everyone gets to be an Olympian when they grow up.

Lowdown killer wrote:

A guy on HS team ran a 59.4 400 on no training. No sports, nothing. 3 months later runs 58.9. Another was in the same situation, ran 59.9-1:00 and now runs 56. Don't make sense to me. Some basketball players I remember run 5:23 mile, but after focusing on track for a couple months only run 5:15. While others on the same training come in at 6:23 and finish at 5:16. Why is this? People on the same training and similar background, yet one starts slow and runs fast. The other starts fast and stays the same. Then there are others who start fast and get faster.

For the aerobic distances it is clearly established now that response to exercise is highly variable and some are 'non-responders'.

"The fact is that people respond to exercise in very different ways. In one international study 1,000 people were asked to exercise four hours a week for 20 weeks. Their aerobic fitness was measured before and after starting this regime and the results were striking.

Although 15% of people made huge strides (so-called "super-responders"), 20% showed no real improvement at all ("non-responders").

Jamie and his collaborators investigated the reasons for these variations and discovered that much of the difference could be traced to a small number of genes.

On the basis of this finding they have developed a genetic test to predict who is likely to be a responder, and who is not. "

The main study cited is this one:

"Although the average increase in VO2max was 19%, about 5% of the subjects had little or no change (50%."

Parsing error at the end there...

"Although the average increase in VO2max was 19%, about 5% of the subjects had little or no change (less than 5%) and about 5% had an increase of 40 to more than 50%."

You can't really have a single answer to this or really, a definitive one. In some cases you may simply have someone whose ceiling in the event is really low. A lot of really good distance runners struggle to break 60 for the 400, others can break 50. And you're assuming that everyone is putting the same effort into racing and training. A high school kid who's on the basketball team, a prestige sport, may not be really motivated to push himself past the pain barrier to be better in a low prestige sport like track.

I don't think there are any areas in life where the same preparation done by different people yields the same results. Why do some kids get nearly straight A grades while studying less than some other kids who get lesser grades?

Funny, this just came up in the mail

[quote]HRE wrote:

A lot of really good distance runners struggle to break 60 for the 400, others can break 50. [quote]

Very few actually struggle to do this.

Yes, there have been 10k/marathon types who have trouble running under 60. Gerry Lindgren always said he could never do it in training or in an open race though he could manage it at the end of races and I've read similar comments over the years. They'er a minority but far from non existent.

Lindgren...great example. Then he goes on to say his' PB" is either 52 or 54 depending on how crazy he's feeling that day.

Many of those people are being overly hyperbolic.

Even a 57 is well under 60 and they are probably just tying the trouble a 400 creates with the actual 60 second barrier.

Most 400 elites would probably say that they struggle to break 45.

You can only play the hand that you're dealt.

The Hyper Bowl wrote:

Lindgren...great example. Then he goes on to say his' PB" is either 52 or 54 depending on how crazy he's feeling that day.

Many of those people are being overly hyperbolic.

Even a 57 is well under 60 and they are probably just tying the trouble a 400 creates with the actual 60 second barrier.

Most 400 elites would probably say that they struggle to break 45.

But many of them will never actually race a 400m so their 'best' is just the fastest they've done in a bulk 400m rep session. Even when I was doing middle distance track (800/1500) I think I only did one formal 400m race.

bananas for everyone wrote:

Sprinter Type wrote:

I anticipate some answers will be that some people do not have much room to improve, but I would posit this is false. My guess is that the training is neither specific nor individualized in the cases you mentioned.

You can "posit" whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that we all have a ceiling. Not everyone gets to be an Olympian when they grow up.

Straw man. Nobody made the Olympian claim. Most training programs lack individualization specific to the athlete's physiology.

Sprinter Type wrote:

. Most training programs lack individualization specific to the athlete's physiology.

Also made with straw.