Why do people consider running a talent?

They are athletic because they are talented. Of course there are many late bloomers that were inactive as kids.

The definition of talent is natural aptitude. Running is probably the activity requiring the most talent. Many other things require a lifelong exposure and practice in order to be good. Being a good runner is primarily due to talent.

what you are saying is running doesn't require a lifelong exposure to be good (Elite) ? i have to disagree with you there . I think most people regard running as just a pure talent without experimenting everything with one's body to arrive to such a conclusion

What are you talking about? Cain, Tuohy, Kelelcha, Tefera, McLaughlin, Coleman, Cooper, Ryun, Webb, Prefontaine, Decker, Lyles. Many of the best of all time were hitting world class marks within a year or 2 of starting running. Cooper ran 45.2 as a HS freshman. Do you think he had a lifetime of training or great coaching or just great talent? Jim Ryun was world class after 2 years of running. Train a billion people their entire life and they won’t come close to what Kejelcha or Tefera could run on no training.

Internetsherlock wrote:

what you are saying is running doesn't require a lifelong exposure to be good (Elite) ? i have to disagree with you there .

You may want to read up on Tergat. And Juantorena. And several others that point out that you are wrong.

Internetsherlock wrote:

What are the factors that decides someone has a talent in running because all i have seen for the most part is that many good runners had an athletic childhood in their own unique ways. Does it mean that there are some people that can run long and fast in their adult years with no prior exposure?

"Talent" is not to mean running fast without having ever trained before. And it certainly does not mean running fast times with X training for Person A, and not running the same times as Person A with the same X training for Person B.

"Talent" is more about the ability to continue training hard, despite it being hard, hurting, and time-sucking away from other things in life. It is more about someone's mindset. It is more about their dedication to training.

So, not everybody is willing to sacrifice their time to run fast, and that is what I believe "talent" to be, rather than "Oh, he is a talented runner because he ran a 14 minute 5000m." I think every male is capable of running 14's for 500m, for example, but not every male is WILLING or DEDICATED to sacrifice their time in order to get to that level, hence where "talent" comes into play.

Does that make sense?

Running is a simple sport. There are no short-cuts. At the finish line, the person who crosses the finish line first is not more "talented" than the other. He simply trained harder for it, both physically and mentally. That is why I like running. You can't short-cut what it takes. You can't just run a sub 2:30 marathon off hardly any training just because you have "talent." You run sub 2:30 because you put in the work to get there. I like running because it shows who is the harder worker come race day. It shows who was out there running in the rain when others were staying warm and dry inside wasting their precious time. It shows who put in the harder workouts.

Everyone can run fast times. It is just a matter of do you have what it takes to get there.

There's no such thing as talent - in the conventionally accepted manner - as far as running is concerned.

All there is one's genetic predisposition (which some on here will claim is "talent") and the ability to withstand pain / trust your body's ability to flow at pace even though it hurts. The fearlessness of childhood / youth at harnessing this is carried forward into adulthood giving an advantage over those who've never ran at an earlier age. However I'm not sure I'd describe this as talent per se like one could easily recognise the talent of a flair tennis or soccer player say.

You're a delusional clown and probably slow too.

The age-old conversation about talent might never be settled but it is a semantic argument. While I disagree with Occult’s assertion that everyone could run 14s in the 5k with proper dedication, dedication is one of the primary pieces that helps for running.

But guess what? It’s exactly the same for every other sport. I played plenty of sports in youth before becoming a runner and while we all seemed to know who the best was in a particular sport or even just broadly as an athlete (strongest, fastest, great eye-hand coordination, and so on) dedication ultimately made the difference.

A buddy of mine was lifting every day in the summer in 8th grade because his older brother put him up to it. He was always one of the best athletes. But by high school he specialized in baseball and wrestling and even though I ran I was better than him at every other sport simply because of dedication and specialization.

So what comes first, the mind or the body? And those with the mind for it, why should that be lauded over the body when in either case it can be a product of both genetic luck and upbringing and circumstance?

Mostly we’re celebrating people who win the lottery, even if your ticket says work ethic.

The genes responsible for developing the nervous and metabolic system are shaped duringchildhood so if you have an alethic childhood that is a massive physiologocal advantage and you will find physical activities easier your entire life because it was a huge part of your development, the same cannot be said for the guy who sat on his rear and played video game suntil age 30 then suddenly wants to get in shape, that guy has no sort of neurological or metabolic advantage as those genetic pathways are highly blocked and inactove as a result of never being used in developmental years.

Every single great and even good athlete was fit in their youth, I doubt there are more than one handful of exceptions.

A lot of people have “talent” with running, but they just squander it on being lazy in their youth and when they waste 30 years being couch potatos, the talent is gone, the genes are turned off and their bodies are a mess.

In most cases, lifestyle DESTROYS talent.

A story that proves this:I know a person who was a fast sprinter in high school, kicked ass on all the fitness tests and had a lot of potential. Fast forward 10 years later, this person went through a lot of trauma, started abusive some very hard drugs, has been sectioned multiple times and now has a damaged certral nervous system as a result of a decade of drug use and bad habits and he can no longer sprint, his body has changed. He is currently in some free all-comers hobby jogging sprinting group that I also so happen to be in, we are all slow and run between 1:00 and 1:30 so it isn’t serious. He honestly looks 45 years old and has taken up running to try and get back in touch with his childhood and as motivation to stay sober. He ran high 11s untrained in high school, and also 53 point off minimal training, smoked us all and gave up on the track team because he found it boring. He told me running is the only vice that keeps him sober and now at age 28 finds it hard to run like he used to, his coordination and muscle memory are damaged as a result of being on strong antipsychotic medication and multiple withdrawal periods from harder drugs. Guess what he can run in the 100m now flat out? 14.1.

Thanks all for the great answers . I wanted this thread to have multi-dimensional perspectives so we can really start to understand what is it that really matters in the pursuit of running greatness .

I still have to disagree with some of you who says that some people just got it all naturally as they attained world class times in just over 2 years . But mind you, 2 years is a pretty long time if you dedicate yourself to a real commitment. Vo2 Max can be fully improved in 1 year time according to various sources . But of course that doesn't explain the complexity issue of talent in running .

For example would have athletes like Jim Ryun, Prefontaine or who ever peaked in 2 yeas time ran similar times if they followed similar training to athletes that finished slower than them ? I highly doubt they would . Maybe they trained less harder but definitely more "Smarter"! Many people tend to overlook the later . Running is indeed a thinking men's sport not just in racing but on the training field , and that's the reason why good coaches are in such demand due to their smart approach to training .

I honestly see people who classify running as just pure talent a bit too narrow minded in their thinking . I mean common , our ancestors were long distance runners , its inside each one of us . Is breathing a talent ?

I like OccultPowers view on talent . It does makes a lot of sense. And the user that posted about childhood fitness having an important role, i am a firm believer of that .

So now the question is, does that mean a runner is talented just because he had an active childhood and smart approach to training? The next big debatable topic now would be the height of a runner , but then again there's so much of runners of varying height running world class times .

Therefore , are we all talented runners that failed/lost it due to modern society/Culture ?

OR

Is running a natural talent that few possess like singers that can naturally hit extremely high notes?

Adding to my previous point, sure every LetsRunner knows a former obese guy shwo started running at 45 and runs sub 5 because here, we like to pretend sub 5 miles aren’t a big deal but for 99.999% of humans, they will never gain the same benefit as staying fit as a youth because that is when the most growth hormone is excreted and is when your dna is developing, this is when that dna can use the growth hormones to develop to crazy potentials. If you wait until after puberty when you’re only making 70% of the growth hormone you did in puberty, then your DNA will only become 70% as effecient as it could have potentially became. Training is important but training at the right time is equally as important.

This is why it can take a full decade for a dedicated runner who was sedentary in youth to run under 6 for a single mile, this is why the 6 minute mile is such a barrier. This pace will never be easy for the majority of people. For somebpdy who just pissed about on a soccer pitch as a kid for the first 18 years of their life, sub 6 should be cake even if they lay off for a while because forgetting vo2 max and weight and all of that stuff, their actual DNA is conditioned to run those times. Anybody can train their lungs and drop weight, but turning on and off certain metabolic genes is what truly matters in running. The structure of your genes are shaped during development, you cannot change this after puberty.

No, YOU are full of crap.

I am speaking the truth. You have to put in the work to get the results. If you truly believe some people are just born fast, think again. That is what my obese neighbor says. He says "it is just genetics." No, it is lifestyle choices.

I put my heart and soul into running. Sorry if that offends you. Actually, I don't give a rats ass if it offends you. I am getting work done on the daily while you just sit and complain and dream. Stop being a drainbow and be a rainbow. It is a choice in the moment to be a champion or a loser. I choose to be a champion. I choose to give running my life. And so had every single fast runner out there (and PS. your 20 minute 5k is not fast, and neither is your 5 minute mile.)

3/10

How many times have you watched Without Limits today?

People consider running a talent, because it largely is. Sure, just like everything, you have to develop that talent if you want to succeed. But being an elite runner is only possible if you have the talent. I've seen hobby joggers train hard for years to break 3-hours in the marathon. They don't have any talent. I have a friend that smokes, eats garbage food and hardly ever trains, and can go bust out a 4:30 mile. Sure, that's not elite. If he actually tried, maybe he could be elite. But obviously there's a difference in talent between my 4:30-miler friend, and the people that live a healthy lifestyle, train regularly, and struggle to break 5:30. The difference is talent.

Why is this a hard concept to understand? Do you think you could be a world-class opera singer if you took singing lessons? Do you think you could be a nobel prize winning physicist if you just studied harder?

I think what a lot of people here don’t understand is that a lot of slow runners also put tbeir heart and soul into running. I am a 21 minute lady and running is actually the whole reason I am still here after some awful abuse. My diet, social life and sleep cycles are completely dictated by my running scedule.

under a bridge wrote:

3/10

How many times have you watched Without Limits today?

I don't waste my time watching stupid films. That is wasted time that can be spent towards training or doing purposeful stuff with my day. Sitting in front of my tube is not a priority hence why I don't own a tv set. I'm sorry but many, many, many people disagree with you dude. We are talking about all those guys putting in 100 miles a week in order to get to the top, they all disagree with you. The "talent" falls into who is willing to put in the work. When you disagree, you imply that you are one of them who complain that they will never be fast because they lack "talent".

Acutally...you are right, bro. I'm wrong. I apologize to all the 20 mpw guys running elite times.

When I feel sad at night I calm myself by pretending you are stroking my hair. It calms me.

I lay on one of my arms till it goes numb and the use that to stroke my hair till I fall asleep. I think about you all the time. I miss you bro. xox

I know a guy who ran 13:47 for a 5000 on the track. He took a few years off to spend some time with family and then he started running a little bit again. He put on some weight and never ran more 30 miles a week. He jumped in a Marathon and runs a 2:28

Please explain to me how he beats your guy who has devoted his life to training to break 2:30 and barely pulls it off without having talent?

Yezzy wrote:

I think what a lot of people here don’t understand is that a lot of slow runners also put tbeir heart and soul into running. I am a 21 minute lady and running is actually the whole reason I am still here after some awful abuse. My diet, social life and sleep cycles are completely dictated by my running scedule.

You need to then put in more work. There are three ways to do that: intensity, frequency, and duration.

Your time for your training is not because you are untalented, it just means you need to change things around. It may take you, say 70 miles a week instead of 30 mpw to run under 20. Or it may mean you have to do more quarters on the track. If you are not doubling every day you can right now, you are sacrificing time. Even a 1-2 mile jog at night for a double will do wonders to your performance. Read Malmo's responses and apply to your training.