How successful can a talent-less runner become?

I tried this experiment on myself. Didn't even make the varsity squad after 4 years of year round training (plus doubles during senior year) and about 2 years of optimal diet. The one thing I didn't do well with was rest. I only got like 6-7 hrs a night in high school. But I'm not convinced that I could have been much better with more rest.

Matt Elliott is a good example. 4:42 miler in high school.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/matt-elliot-americas-fastest-kindergarten-teacher

Talentless wrote:

Say you have a commited runner who can put in all the time that a pro athlete does into training, diet, recovery ect...The only variable that makes them different from other high caliber runners is that this particular runner lacks superior running genetics or in otherwords is "talent-less".

1) Training, diet, and recovery are not about putting time into.

2) How does this person know what genes they have? Did they go get tested? For which genes specifically?

My sad tale wrote:

I tried this experiment on myself. Didn't even make the varsity squad after 4 years of year round training (plus doubles during senior year) and about 2 years of optimal diet. The one thing I didn't do well with was rest. I only got like 6-7 hrs a night in high school. But I'm not convinced that I could have been much better with more rest.

How do you know your diet was optimal? Why do you think you could not have done much better if you were only getting 75% of the rest that you needed? If you were only doing 75% of the mileage, wouldn't you expect that to have an effect??

I think we can agree on the fact that if you have no legs, it's hard to have talent.This guy from South Africa had no legs, still made it to the OG.

Obese America wrote:

Matt Elliott is a good example. 4:42 miler in high school.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/matt-elliot-americas-fastest-kindergarten-teacher

That's a whole lot more talent than talentless.

Talentless would be when your sprint speed is that of an ultrarunner going up a steep hill.

I think you all need to understand the average (talentless) guy in early adulthood would probably peak at about a 18:30-20:30 5k. With the 20:30 being the peak end of their hobbyjogging ability and maybe 18:30 being the peak end of their vo2 potential with a couple of years of speed work.

I think a guy who is able to hit those times could be sucessful im the sense that they could qualify as a personal trainer, coach small children or maybe win a couple of local races (very small cash money) but other that that the average person is just not going to be able to be any more sucessful that that. And they's have to bust their butts for a few years to even achieve this.

So, they could get a name for themselves locally for running but elite/pro athelets are elite/pro for a reason, that reason being they are a LOT more talented than average.

It depends how "talentless" one is. It's a scale.

By the time I finished college I had been training for a decade. Never super high mileage, but I was a 16:15/34:25 guy.

Over the next four years, I did indeed train much like a pro. Had a professional coach of some national reputation for awhile, with the goal of the marathon trials after showing some ability at the marathon (2:29). 90-120mpw was routine.

While I was never able to line up the cards for a marathon exemplifying my fitness, I did run a 30:55 10K. I think that's pretty decent for someone who, even in that shape, couldn't crack 60 for the 400 or 2:06 for the 800.

Obese America wrote:

Matt Elliott is a good example. 4:42 miler in high school.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/matt-elliot-americas-fastest-kindergarten-teacher

Ah yes, letsrun, where a 3:41 1500m means you are utterly without any talent for the sport of distance running amidst all the 6-minute clowns on here.

Once in a wrote:

2) How does this person know what genes they have? Did they go get tested? For which genes specifically?

That one which Ethiopians have to cope with Hypoxia would be one important one.

For starters

I have been coaching for 20+ years and have seen many talentless HS kids come and go. I would say that the average lazy HS kid that only trains during the season can run a 18:30 to a 19 minute 5k.

With a little extra the average kid can run a 17:30

kartelite wrote:

Obese America wrote:

Matt Elliott is a good example. 4:42 miler in high school.

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/matt-elliot-americas-fastest-kindergarten-teacher

Ah yes, letsrun, where a 3:41 1500m means you are utterly without any talent for the sport of distance running amidst all the 6-minute clowns on here.

At my local Safeway they hire disabled kids to bag groceries. Super nice, but when you ask them please don't put eggs on the bottom of the bag it's like talking to a wall.

4:42 mile in high school is very average. No discernible talent. Despite his lack of natural talent, Matt Elliott worked hard to achieve 3:41.

It's a good example.

Name any other male pro runner that ran slower than a 4:15 mile in high school. The list is short.

I trained myself into sickness and injury all through high school chasing more talented runners. You and I sound almost identical in college. I did manage a 2:38 by the end. Post-college I was seriously injured and didn't compete for 15 years. I did manage 55/2:06/4:40y as a master. Had talent for another sport where I am close to a world best for my age, despite training less than my running.

how talentless wrote:

It depends how "talentless" one is. It's a scale.

By the time I finished college I had been training for a decade. Never super high mileage, but I was a 16:15/34:25 guy.

Over the next four years, I did indeed train much like a pro. Had a professional coach of some national reputation for awhile, with the goal of the marathon trials after showing some ability at the marathon (2:29). 90-120mpw was routine.

While I was never able to line up the cards for a marathon exemplifying my fitness, I did run a 30:55 10K. I think that's pretty decent for someone who, even in that shape, couldn't crack 60 for the 400 or 2:06 for the 800.

"Talent" is not a binary alternative as you treat it here; rather each individual lies on a spectrum somewhere between high and low levels of talent. To be a high level runner, you must have a high level of talent, no exceptions. An average man who attempts to train like modern pros will get nowhere except injured and overstrained.

On talent alone, as a 15 years old, I was able to run a mile in 5:50 and a 5k in 29:00. With a lot of continuous training during 20 years, I am now able to run a mile in a little less than 5min and a 5k in 16:44. I also ran a marathon in 2h38 and a 10k in 33:54, just telling because both are being than my mile or 5k PR. But to get those results from my very low talent base, I had to log 50 000 miles in training, doing 3 hard session every week for nearly my entire life, running once up to 150mpw but most of the time between 50 and 100 mpw. Did gym work, yoga, all the stuff, and became along the road a certified mid-d and distance coach for more talented runners,.

So, training like a pro for a quarter of a century made me cut 1 min for the mile and 12-13 min for the 5k.

I am, I think, a middle of the range responder to training, i.e. that for each unit of training I do I get something out of it, but nothing magic here. Some very good responders get very good with very poor training or nearly nothing at all, while very bad responders don't get any better wathever training or amount of training they do.

Alex Vero, from Britain, did a good documentary on his experience from couch potatoe to living like a pro runner. The guy ran 1h13 for the half after 2 years of hard work.

But I would prefer talk about Nate Jenkins. This guy had a limited talent in High School and with a so good of a training ethic got himself to run a 2h14 marathon and a sub-14 5k.

With the very best training method a "talentless" runner can reach quite high....but.....to reach worldclass top it`s no chance.

COACH J.S

without genetics you can never produce the best weight-to-muscle advantage, long lean muscles and elite-class vo2max levels

can a 40 vo2max novice train themselves over a decade to 50? 52? even 54? maybe

will they ever get 60+ 70+? no way, not if they train for the rest of their prime lifetime years

look at Molly Huddle compared to the elite east-africans, certainly no-one is going to call Molly Huddle a slacker or talentless as the AR holder for distance, but she can be lapped, repeatedly, by someone with even more superior genetics

but why wrote:

without genetics you can never produce the best weight-to-muscle advantage, long lean muscles and elite-class vo2max levels

can a 40 vo2max novice train themselves over a decade to 50? 52? even 54? maybe

will they ever get 60+ 70+? no way, not if they train for the rest of their prime lifetime years

look at Molly Huddle compared to the elite east-africans, certainly no-one is going to call Molly Huddle a slacker or talentless as the AR holder for distance, but she can be lapped, repeatedly, by someone with even more superior genetics

Huddle is quite a bit closer to the top level of talent. 30:13 versus 29:17 is not multiple laps.