Why do people consider running a talent?

A runner I know once had run several sub 4’s during his career. He took almost a whole year off with occasional runs (4-5 mile jogs 1x a week). He decided just before the year he’d like to run a sub 5 minute mile just cause. Well me having continued to train daily with workouts albeit much slower said I’d run it with him. (Thinking I could get him now). Well he jogged 4:30 mile and was barely breathing when finished. Destroyed me.

nope nope dope wrote:

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.

Plenty of athletes started later in life.

My brother started T jumping - a technical event - at 17, by 19 he was national champion and in the olympics 2 years after that.

Talented distance runners is almost a oxy moron

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?

It means they are genetically predisposed to excel at running. It's in their DNA. It means someone like Andrew Wheating can run a 3:30 1500m after only running for 5 years. Most runners can train for twice that period and never run anything close to that time.

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you don't have the genetics to be an Olympic medallist no amount of hard work will put you on the podium. If you have average physical ability you will have average results

You're not going to be an Olympic medalist with average genetics, even if you're a guy who's allowed to compete in the women's race.

That said, an average trained guy can do way more than what most people on here think. The upper ceiling for an average guy isn't a 19 minute 5K, it's more like a 16 minute 5K.

The name of the game in distant running is improvement. Talented runners will improve quickly and greatly. That could be the measure of talent, an almost effortless adaption to increased stress....average runners will improve slowly but surely ----with enough proper work........no talent runners will struggle to improve minimally.

When some sports fans talk about talent they are usually referring to hand/eye coordination. Runners may have less but then again the non runners have bodies that do not process oxygen as well as the more talented distance runners.......

There are differant KINDS of talent, and American emphasis on ball sports underestimates the talents of runners, swimmers, skiers, etc.......they are often too ingnorant to give the non-ball athletes their due.

1609m wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

If you don't have the genetics to be an Olympic medallist no amount of hard work will put you on the podium. If you have average physical ability you will have average results

You're not going to be an Olympic medalist with average genetics, even if you're a guy who's allowed to compete in the women's race.

That said, an average trained guy can do way more than what most people on here think. The upper ceiling for an average guy isn't a 19 minute 5K, it's more like a 16 minute 5K.

Fully agree that 99% of males aged 18-35 could run 16 min 5k if they really train for a decade and optimize their lifestyle for running.

However, I don't think you would require super talent to be a medalist in a women's race. I think 1:57 and 4:10 are possible to break for an average talented male that trains hard for many years. But many of these races are tactical, especially the slow 5k in 15:00 so even if a male could run that time, doesn't mean he would get a medal in a women's race as they will out kick him because their PR is 30 secs faster.

This is not accurate. You're either being factious or you've always been the fastest person on a noncommittal team. Some people are just faster than others.

I never drank in college, ran some of the highest mileage on my team, got 9-10 hours of sleep a night, and ate a healthy diet but still struggled to break 16 for 5k during my 4 years. The top runner on our team ran less, ate an unhealthy diet, cut out on his sleep but could still pull off sub 15 for the 5k.

There are genetic differences between the two of us that effect how fast we can run.

There's nothing to be ashamed or upset about, that's just life. Pursue your own greatness. But you are wrong and your sentiment discredits the focus, commitment, and hard work that slower runner put in.

Coach wrote:

This is not accurate. You're either being factious or you've always been the fastest person on a noncommittal team. Some people are just faster than others.

I never drank in college, ran some of the highest mileage on my team, got 9-10 hours of sleep a night, and ate a healthy diet but still struggled to break 16 for 5k during my 4 years. The top runner on our team ran less, ate an unhealthy diet, cut out on his sleep but could still pull off sub 15 for the 5k.

There are genetic differences between the two of us that effect how fast we can run.

There's nothing to be ashamed or upset about, that's just life. Pursue your own greatness. But you are wrong and your sentiment discredits the focus, commitment, and hard work that slower runner put in.

That's right, BUT realize that even you with extremely low talent for running (don't take it as offensive please), was able to reach 16:00 5k which is a respectable time. Most hobby joggers are between 20:00-25:00 and then point fingers and blame talent, and that's just wrong. They don't put in any work, have many unhealthy habits, sleep 5 hours and are stressed from work and wonder why they don't get faster.

Your top runner could have run much faster with a different approach, but he will never know as he ruined his own career with his bad habits.

No one here claims that talent doesn't matter - it does, but any healthy young male can get to 16:00 5k or 2:35 marathon, whereas talent is needed to run stuff like 14:00 or 2:20.

Because it is.

Are some people really serious or just trying to stir the pot? Do you remember gym class? Some kids can’t even walk 3 steps without tripping. Most guys can’t run 20 minutes no matter how much they train. 95% of high schools have records over 16 minutes. Some states have no HS XC runners in a given year who break 16 minutes.

Running - the physical act - all by itself isn't a talent at all. It's just running, putting one foot in front of the other.

Now, the ability to run fast, whether it be via natural talent and training - is a talent; and could be a combination of different "talents"

> genetics

> high work ethic

> ability to recover quickly

...along with:

> good coaching & training

> good timing

> luck

Itstrue wrote:

A runner I know once had run several sub 4’s during his career. He took almost a whole year off with occasional runs (4-5 mile jogs 1x a week). He decided just before the year he’d like to run a sub 5 minute mile just cause. Well me having continued to train daily with workouts albeit much slower said I’d run it with him. (Thinking I could get him now). Well he jogged 4:30 mile and was barely breathing when finished. Destroyed me.

And it's even worse in the sprints. It's so bad there that there aren't even trolls pretending training trumps talent there.

Au contraire. He was the lower level of the upper echelon. His talent is still extreme compared to the average. A college team by definition contains talented folks.

There are 20 minute guys putting in the same work.

People who believe in "talent" either don't believe in science or are too lazy to try to figure out the real biological and physical causes of running fast. That includes the "genetics" morons who don't even bother trying to find out which genes are the fast ones, or identify the champion-caliber phenotypes they supposedly produce.

The key to actually solving the mystery of how a runner got super fast is to apply the 10,000 hour rule as a guide. 10,000 hours of practice at something produces expertise. Before running, nearly every athlete spends years developing things like balance, agility, pain tolerance, energy efficient movement, proprioception, competitive drive, and neurological self-awareness. They also practice recovery skills - relaxation, stress reduction, sleeping. What they eat during their many years before training, their quality of life, whether they're happy. Life events determine whether they develop the rare personality to even WANT to be an elite runner, without which, forget everything.

Brian Herron ran 47 in the 400 in 8th grade. That's talent, not training or coaching. Grace Ping ran 16:25 in 8th grade. She is doing the same training today as then but running slower. Talent is the answer. Mary Cain peaked in her teens. Talent.

Sorry, you are living proof that no amount of effort will produce the talent of intelligence.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Sorry, you are living proof that no amount of effort will produce the talent of intelligence.

10000 hours will.

You've had 10 000 hours of troll practice and still suck at it.