is it possible to be great runner without genetics?

No, but thanks for dragging this tired old argument back out!

You have a genetic gift for the meaningless.

Possible: Yes

Plausible: No

Think of runners that made it to the womens 3000m NCAA steeple final. Allie O, coming back from injury and limited training still managed to edge the field because she is just better and more talented. The other runners can train their butts off, but just not having that talent makes it much much much more challenging and takes more time to reach the marks that some genetically inclined runners can hit with a fraction of training.

You see an average runner working their butt off, a major talent like Allie O in the steeple, and then realize there is a 17 year old kenyan phenom who has run almost a minute faster and is still improving...

Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard

But hard working talent will always win at the end of the day

It's up to you to either discover your max potential or be complacent with how much talent you have and accept it by setting your own goals and not comparing yourself with more "genetically inclined" runners.

No, you have to be born with the right kind of the engine to be great because if you don't- none of those other factors even matter. It's not just about height and speed.

Without great genetics or great PEDs, the answer is a resounding NO!

Yes< I read that Fred Kerley of Texas A&M who ran the NCAA record in the 400, only ran 52.30 in High School.

No, without genetics you won't exist.

Okay 52.20 was in 9th grade, but throughout high school his times were nothing special, so he did it through hard work and not genetics. https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Athlete.aspx?AID=9151261#/L0

douglas burke wrote:

Okay 52.20 was in 9th grade, but throughout high school his times were nothing special, so he did it through hard work and not genetics.

https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Athlete.aspx?AID=9151261#/L0

This is such BS. Some kids mature later. You can't run a 400 as fast as Kerley without great genetics. Sure he worked hard...so do others who run that fast.

This question comes up because those who ask it have trained for a little while and have some evidence that they are not genetically blessed, and so they hang on to some hope that through work and determination that they will become great runners. It just doesn't work that way. Yes there are examples of relatively slow runners from high school who got way better in college and beyond with better training, but maturity and better training will do that to a lot of people. Not everyone trains properly in high school.

You can do all the training in the world, but if you don't have the genes, you will not become great.

spirit runner wrote:

No, without genetics you won't exist.

Yes definitely, but with a cocktail of the right PEDs with a high-responder miracles can happen...see Lance Armstrong 😁

Genetics R Us wrote:

spirit runner wrote:

No, without genetics you won't exist.

Yes definitely, but with a cocktail of the right PEDs with a high-responder miracles can happen...see Lance Armstrong 😁

Being a high responder is genetic.

Flagpole wrote:

You can do all the training in the world, but if you don't have the genes, you will not become great.

That is such anti intellectual, anti science nonsense. Typical Republican Trumpkin.

No elite runnner has ever published their genes. No one has really ever identified genes that make you good at running. There is, as of right now, no such thing as "genes that make you good at running". So there is no way that you can make an argument about running genes being the reason for people's success and failure in running.

The only things we know that make a difference are things like training, rest, and nutrition. No 2 people have ever done the same in all 3 of those so that possibly explains all of the difference in times between any 2 runners.

Stop worrying about imaginary running genes that don't exist. Instead, get your butt out there and eat smart, train smart, and rest smart.

That is actually not true. I had a boss once who was one of the best ultrarunners in the world at that time, and he went through a battery of tests looking for all kinds of things including size of heart, diameter of aorta, number of fast twitch cells in his leg muscles, VO2 Max, and a whole bunch of other things. He tested as one of the most fit people of his age at the time ever tested.

How do you explain high school and track teams with guys who do basically the same workouts and yet some are much slower and some are clearly the best? It isn't attitude. A great attitude and work ethic help and are needed, but without great genes, the other two matter not.

douglas burke wrote:

Yes< I read that Fred Kerley of Texas A&M who ran the NCAA record in the 400, only ran 52.30 in High School.

Fred has elite running genetics. His younger brother runs sub-45 and is an excellent 800 runner as well. His older brother played in the NFL. This is highly predictive of his "ceiling" ability.

Flagpole wrote:

That is actually not true. I had a boss once who was one of the best ultrarunners in the world at that time, and he went through a battery of tests looking for all kinds of things including size of heart, diameter of aorta, number of fast twitch cells in his leg muscles, VO2 Max, and a whole bunch of other things. He tested as one of the most fit people of his age at the time ever tested.

How do you explain high school and track teams with guys who do basically the same workouts and yet some are much slower and some are clearly the best? It isn't attitude. A great attitude and work ethic help and are needed, but without great genes, the other two matter not.

Nothing you just said shows that what I said is not true. I said no elite runner has published his genes. You responded with a list of physical test results. Those aren't genes.

Why are you ignoring pieces of what I said? I said training, yes. But I also said rest and nutrition. Highschool teams are not doing the same in all 3 of those. The coach only controls the training.

You are making up gene stuff. Why are you being anti science?

If you don't want to find something you never will.

Usain Bolt could eat crap barely move around and stay up all night and he would kick your ass even if you did everything right.

How close are you to making your big breakthrough, champ?

Absolutely not. Anyone who fails to understand the primacy of genetics is a fool, purely and simply. Less talented athletes can win at the high school level, but even then genetics matters a lot--the average kid on the XC/distance team may not even have the raw speed to break 60.0 for 400m, let alone run two of them consecutively. Every kid on the starting line at the state championships is one in at least hundreds, if not thousands genetically. Every athlete competing at the Olympic qualifying level is a genetic freak without exception.

Gene Summons wrote:

If you don't want to find something you never will.

Usain Bolt could eat crap barely move around and stay up all night and he would kick your ass even if you did everything right.

Nowhere in my post did I say I don't want to find running genes. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about me wanting or not wanting to find anything.

Your next sentence about Bolt is more of you making stuff up. Not only is it made up, but it is wrong. Wrong preparation can easily reduce your power output by 50%. I can run 100-400m faster than a 50% Bolt.

Science of Genes wrote:

How close are you to making your big breakthrough, champ?

My big breakthrough in what? What does that have to do with this conversation?