Why do people consider running a talent?

Was never fast wrote:

Predictor wrote:

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.

You might be right if the billion people you pick are all girls or 70 year olds.

Ryan's first mile as an untrained HS kid was something like 5:38. At best, a completely untrained adult Kejelcha or Tefera would be around 5 flat if they lived at sea level and had a standard American diet and lifestyle.

A 5 flat mile is achievable by about 60% of the trained young male population. If you allow sub 5 equivalent performances like a low 12 100 or a 3 hour marathon, the percentage of trained males who could achieve it would be more like 95%.

95% achieve a low 12 dash and the majority go sub 5... that’s the most hilarious and delusional thing I’ve ever heard. ? keep dreamin boi

What do want to bet that the few people who are dumb enough to believe that you can train your way to greatness without talent, also believe the opposite, that you are born with the brain wiring to be gay or transgender? The same logic carried through for no talent would say that men and women should not have separate categories in sports because size, strength, coordination, metabolism, VO2 max, are irrelevant. It’s all about willpower and perseverance. Bye bye title IX.

Internetsherlock wrote:

So the question still remains as to whether running is a talent we all possess but turn into a lesser talent with our overall lifestyle and our motivation for the sport . If so then the meaning of talent will start to mean multiple things combined and not just a simple single factor like most people think of it .

Why don't you start training as hard as you possibly can, and see how much you improve.

Report us back in a few years.

RobbieN wrote:

95% achieve a low 12 dash and the majority go sub 5... that’s the most hilarious and delusional thing I’ve ever heard. ? keep dreamin boi

Given sufficient incentives, at least 95% will achieve EITHER a low 12 100, a sub 5 mile, or a sub 3 marathon. A majority will go sub 5, but I put the "sub 5 equivalent" performance in there to account for the extreme fast twitch and pure slow twitch guys who can't go sub 5 but can do well in the sprints or marathon.

I need to stop reading this thread. I grew up with 2 brothers. We all had the same amount of external stimuli but I ran 4:20 in High School while my brothers only ran 5 minutes. My sister only 5:30. One of my brothers actually trained harder and was more serious than me. I ran 25 mpw and screwed around and didn’t get 7 hours of sleep.

Idiot lefties wrote:

The same logic carried through for no talent would say that men and women should not have separate categories in sports because size, strength, coordination, metabolism, VO2 max, are irrelevant. It’s all about willpower and perseverance. Bye bye title IX.

Using that logic, almost every trained young male should be able to run at least as fast as a 50 year old woman. I agree with that, but many people on here don't. FYI, 50 year old women have run a sub 12 100, a 2:12 800, and a sub 17 5K.

You cannot be an Olympic medalist or even get close to being one with average talent. But saying that an average young man can't be trained to run pedestrian times such as a 57 second 400 or a 16:59 5k is just as idiotic.

It is harder but not impossible to activate them later on. Also parents habits can decide how hard it is to activate them. If they were smokers etc it is much harder. But most people, atleast in Norway are not sitting on their butts all day as youngsters. I was born in 92 and all of my classmates did some sort of sport in the evening.

Here many of the best 50miles and up xc skiers started training late

Was never fast wrote:

RobbieN wrote:

95% achieve a low 12 dash and the majority go sub 5... that’s the most hilarious and delusional thing I’ve ever heard. ? keep dreamin boi

Given sufficient incentives, at least 95% will achieve EITHER a low 12 100, a sub 5 mile, or a sub 3 marathon. A majority will go sub 5, but I put the "sub 5 equivalent" performance in there to account for the extreme fast twitch and pure slow twitch guys who can't go sub 5 but can do well in the sprints or marathon.

Lol ok. Only about 30% tops hit those times with professional coaching.

Ronson wrote:

The ability to even just COMPETE in college takes above average talent.

This is probably the biggest load of horsesh!t I've seen on the boards this year.

There are tons of D3 schools and even a few D2 places that will allow almost any able bodied person to walk on their team as long as they have a good work ethic and don't look morbidly obese. If they train hard for all 4 years, they have a good chance of finishing mid pack or even winning some slower heats by the time they graduate. I've seen it happen all the time.

If you don't go to any of those schools, train hard on your own and compete as an unattached athlete in those races. You'll end up with similar results.

Gym class wrote:

Most guys can’t run 20 minutes no matter how much they train.

Give me 10 random babies and 10 million dollars, and I will bet my life that at least 9 of them would run sub 20 by their 30th birthday, and that includes the girls.

Jim Ryun's first timed mile was a 5:38 as a sophomore. By the end of the cross country season he finished 6th in the state meet in cross country. By the end of track season he had run a 4:07 mile. On a dirt track. That's off of less than a year of training. There's a word for that. It's called talent. Most people will never achieve a mark anywhere near that even with years of training.

Letsrun is nuts wrote:

You cannot be an Olympic medalist or even get close to being one with average talent. But saying that an average young man can't be trained to run pedestrian times such as a 57 second 400 or a 16:59 5k is just as idiotic.

You don't know what average means.

19:59 is sloooooowwww wrote:

Gym class wrote:

Most guys can’t run 20 minutes no matter how much they train.

Give me 10 random babies and 10 million dollars, and I will bet my life that at least 9 of them would run sub 20 by their 30th birthday, and that includes the girls.

I hope you'd have plans to spend that money fast because you'd be sweating bullets when those people were 20 and likely none of them would be close to 20.

Below Average Joe's gymnasium wrote:

Letsrun is nuts wrote:

You cannot be an Olympic medalist or even get close to being one with average talent. But saying that an average young man can't be trained to run pedestrian times such as a 57 second 400 or a 16:59 5k is just as idiotic.

You don't know what average means.

Upon further reflection, you're right. It only takes one DNF to make the average time infinity, and this is almost inevitable given a large enough sample size.

I should have said median instead.

Letsrun is nuts wrote:

Below Average Joe's gymnasium wrote:

You don't know what average means.

Upon further reflection, you're right. It only takes one DNF to make the average time infinity, and this is almost inevitable given a large enough sample size.

I should have said median instead.

Only if you wanted to still be wrong. Like really wrong.

Do any of the "talent is everything" guys on here even have any examples of people who couldn't run some of these slow ass times posted here despite years of training?

I don't know a single predominantly fast twitch guy who spent hours in the weight room and track, practiced running up the hills and bleachers, worked on ploys and sled drags, got enough sleep and recovery, and couldn't run a 12 flat or better after years of training.

I also don't know a single predominantly slow twitch guy who spent years doing intervals, tempos, and high base mileage, lived at altitude, optimized his diet and sleep, and couldn't run in the mid 16s for a 5K on a track in good weather conditions with pacers.

I don't know anyone with a more equal fast to slow twitch fiber composition who put in the work for 10+ years, was willing to struggle through the pain of an 800, and couldn't hit 2:10 as a young adult.

Face it, almost nobody consistently works hard enough, is willing to endure the pain of hard workouts and races, and makes the necessary lifestyle changes to run to their potential. If they did, at least one of those times would be achieved by the vast majority of the population.

Talent barely matters wrote:

worked on ploys and sled drags.

Should have read "plyos", as in plyometrics . Effin autocorrect...

Yes because mid 16 minute guys should be devoting their entire lives to running and living in conditions that makes it nearly impossible to pay bills or raise a family. Those things are all marginal gains and if someone runs a 19 minute 5k they probably wont want to devote their life to a time trial in the 5k.

Also, in high school Shelby Houlihan ate McDonalds before school and she could have dusted me on the track when I was getting 8 hours of sleep a night, eating right, and working hard (yes I am a guy). You are delusional if you think that people just need to "work harder" and that what some other people have stated that they "don't have the motivation." That's talent and youre wrong if you think that motivation and hard work are the most important asset to run fast

dont pull that card wrote:

Yes because mid 16 minute guys should be devoting their entire lives to running and living in conditions that makes it nearly impossible to pay bills or raise a family.

Almost everyone reaches their physical peak in their 20s, given appropriate training. Most guys don't even start their families until age 30+, regardless of whether they run or not. And there are plenty of people who got rich despite not caring about their career in their 20s.