Why do people consider running a talent?

Why don’t we all just run 200 mile weeks and break 12 in the 5K? Clearly none of us are trying hard enough, even the elites.

SuMmEr Of MaLmO wrote:

Why don’t we all just run 200 mile weeks and break 12 in the 5K? Clearly none of us are trying hard enough, even the elites.

Everyone can run fast times according to their relative potential.

Bruhs, stop trying to make running so complicated. Talented or not, you don’t need it to lace up your shoes!

Just run, baby. ?

(For me, it takes about 45 minutes to start a run. First I chug two cups of dark coffee, wait for my bowels to get irritated, I poop and pee the first time, and then I warm up just a bit. Next I jog to my local hospital or park and poop a second time to get rid of my runners diahhrhea.

I would consider myself fast. You don’t need talent to run, you need dedication and commitment!

Also I have commitment issues with ladies ?

Look, I'm not trying to be rude or mean on purpose, I am just defending the sport. I don;t enjoy seeing people say that you need talent to run and so that stops them from every lacing up.

Just get out the door and run and run a lot if you want to get better.

Nothing needs to be built in puberty/early years.

I was a computer gamer and programmer from 13-30 years old. Was last in the entire school class in a "cooper test" (12 min all-out on a track) with I think 5 laps flat (2000m).

I started running at 30 with 10-15 mpw (after a period of 5 years where I had chronic shin splints and never got more than 100-200 miles/year, but a decent amount of swimming/cycling). Base level in Dec 2017 was 21 min 5k, mostly from cycling/swimming shape.

Then I went to 18:55 in May 2018, 17:38 September 2018 and now I'm easily in sub 17 shape.

Just one year of training was enough to go from sedentary to a time that's enough to get top 3 age group in some low-key local races. With a few more years of training I can speculate with around 15 flat 5k maybe and then slowly transition to longer distances.

My coach said I'm talented because I respond to his training so well. He also said that not everyone responds so well, and for some people even breaking 3 hours in a marathon is something BIG, which completely surprised me. He has coached an Olympian and thousands of hobby athletes, so he should know his stuff but I'd rather like to believe it's the hard work I've put in that made me improve so much and not just talent.

Everybody has a certain genetic potential.

Usain Bolt will never run a sub3 marathon, even if he would train 100 mpw. He would probably get injured long before reaching that mileage.

Good for you for having fantastic genetics, nobody under 17 is that fast off hard work alone.

occultpowers wrote:

SuMmEr Of MaLmO wrote:

Why don’t we all just run 200 mile weeks and break 12 in the 5K? Clearly none of us are trying hard enough, even the elites.

Everyone can run fast times according to their relative potential.

'Relative potential' is another term for talent.

Charlesvdw wrote:

Everybody has a certain genetic potential.

Usain Bolt will never run a sub3 marathon, even if he would train 100 mpw. He would probably get injured long before reaching that mileage.

Canova said every male - with normal weight and no disability - could run 15:50, 33, 1:15 and 2:33 - and now you come and set the bar already at a 3 hour marathon?

Bolt is a freaking BEAST athlete. He could run 2:30 easily if he focuses on it. Yes, he is 70% FT or so which is MUCH more than the average human, and definitely not ideal for a marathon. But with doing 70-80+ mile weeks year after year, he will condition his body for a 2:30 marathon.

Magness and Tinman both suggested a training for a sprinter trying to train for long-distance: 100m repeats, at 5-10k pace with short rest. Like 100x100 instead of a straight tempo run that those athletes couldn't handle. Then gradually increase the distance of the repeat, to 150m, 200m etc. It's all about doing the right training for the target distance and hard work.

Talent matter when it comes to top times/winning, but not for a 3 hour marathon.

"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"

Unless we get a bit detailed analysis on how the hobby joggers are training its really unfair to your friend running 4:30 who might have given a much higher sense of effort, analysis and attention to other things such as breathing , form and other smart training skills rather than just going out and running . I think what's perceived training hard for someone is perceived as moderately hard for another person although the feeling of pain/fatigue is same due to how one handles the pain . So in that case can we say one is lesser talented runner because he/she cant tolerate the fatigue to go a bit further?

And regarding being a world class opera singer and noble prize , there's so many external factors that can affect that unlike running where the result is directly displayed for the world to see ,don't you think ?

Singers that can hit very high notes , that seems pure talent to me . Running is something that still mystifies me unlike any other form of art when it comes to classifying as a material of talent .

occultpowers wrote:

Everyone can run fast times according to their relative potential.

I agree with this contradiction to what you have said before.

How many different ways have we tackled this topic? Running takes more talent than any other sport. Other sports take training in order to develop more skill. You can take a group of kids, raise them in a commune, feed them the same, train them the same, and you will get runners ranging from 14 minutes to 24 minutes in a 5k and having the same heart rate while doing it. McGlaughlin and Cooper were both at national class levels at 15 years old. It isn’t the training, it’s the natural talent.

My friend that ran the 4:30 didn't give a higher effort. He didn't give a crap about running. We'd ask him how he was so fast and he'd say, "it's just easy for me." That is talent.

This whole macho "handling the pain" thing is also hilarious. Running doesn't hurt that bad. You're limited far more by your aerobic ability than you are by your tolerance for pain. How else do you explain the gold medal winners usually smiling and jogging around easily after winning gold? Was it pain that brought them the victory? No. It was talent and proper training. The number of races that have been decided by pain tolerance is probably less than 1%.

And let's be honest, a lot of elites train too hard and end up injured. I can't remember who the quote was from, but I think it was Alan Culpepper, said, "You should always finish a workout knowing you could have done more if you needed to." So the implication there is that training "hard" shouldn't really be that hard. Or I should say, training smart shouldn't be limited by tolerating pain.

I'm honestly curious, have you ever really run before? When I'm in peak fitness, some my workouts are challenging, with what I would consider a minor discomfort. But certainly not limited by my pain tolerance. Many of them actually go better than I expected and serve as confidence boosters. If you're limited by your pain tolerance, maybe it's because yours is abnormally low.

So why do athletes who train equally hard produce totally different results? Genetics - which is the same as "talent". You, sir, are never going to win at Diamond League, no matter how hard you train. End of argument.

You're slow. I'm not offended that you are wasting your life thinking you will make yourself into a champion. You probably don't have talent for anything else either.

occultpowers wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to be rude or mean on purpose, I am just defending the sport. I don;t enjoy seeing people say that you need talent to run and so that stops them from every lacing up.

Just get out the door and run and run a lot if you want to get better.

Many people do this and are still really slow because they have no talent. You can do all the running you want but if you can't move fast then it amounts to very little.

"We'd ask him how he was so fast and he'd say, "it's just easy for me." That is talent. "

If i had a friend like him i would for the sake of deep curiosity ask him everything about his past years and see if he led a certain lifestyle that attributed to his fast running .

1. If he led an active childhood i would favor the thought that those were the reasons he is currently able to run fast .

2. If he was able to run 4:30 mile by training for a few months i would classify that achievement as a balance of extremely hard yet smart training .

BUT

3. If he was able to run 4:30 with a just a week training or straight out of leading an inactive life (No cycling , swimming etc ) i would start believing that running is more of a product of talent .

"Was it pain that brought them the victory? No. It was talent and proper training."

what i am trying to understand here is whether adaptation to fatigue/proper training is greater than talent , because if that's the case one can find smart methods to adapt to proper training and erase the talent factor.

"I'm honestly curious, have you ever really run before? "

Ya i often take part in weekly races and finish well .

Dumbest thread again wrote:

How many different ways have we tackled this topic? Running takes more talent than any other sport. Other sports take training in order to develop more skill. You can take a group of kids, raise them in a commune, feed them the same, train them the same, and you will get runners ranging from 14 minutes to 24 minutes in a 5k and having the same heart rate while doing it. McGlaughlin and Cooper were both at national class levels at 15 years old. It isn’t the training, it’s the natural talent.

"Dumbest thread again " huh?

You know , this kind of mindset is the reason why humanity is advancing at a very slow pace . Research is a continuous journey to unravelling of knowledge . Being so ready to conclude on a topic will only stall you in knowledge and achievement whatever field it may be . Having said that yes you can raise group of kids in a commune and have mixed results but the greater question is how many of them were actually motivated and honestly worked hard ?

Did some of them had the same potential but didn't try hard enough ? Would the slowest or less motivated runner in the group have ran the fastest in the group if he was offered 1 million dollar if he trains hard and win ? If that's the case what is the meaning of talent here? Unless you have questioned every possibilities don't be so ready to conclude anything

You don't have talent for common sense.