Why do people consider running a talent?

And you as well wrote:

You are wrong too.

For all of you talent doesn't matter dweebs out there you can rest assured that there is at least a couple of people just like you at all those lesser races getting their doors blown off by a talented guy running 20 per week. Just like it was back in school.

I agree with this but only out of personal experience, there are lots of beginner guys who blow past me after training for about 3 months. I am not sure how huge of a difference being a female makes but it has taken me 7 years to get comfortably under 22 in a 5k. It seems to me like a lot of men can do this easily, you all talk about 16 minutes as though it’s nothing but I can tell you that time would be an absolute dream for me an many others. I actually enjoy interval training too, I find it a lot more stimulating that running for an hour or so at 9 minute mile pace so I definitely take my interval work seriously. Having said that, I am not too bothered about being a snail because I love running and I want to be able to maintain it for the rest of my life, my only hope of ever getting a high age grade (80%+) is when I am old and if I keep my body in good condition, keep the weight off through menopause and stay injury free then hey who knows? Maybe I’ll be in the olympics as a centenarian. :P

Book smarts vs Street smarts wrote:

This is correct in theory. But for all practical purposes, talent is irrelevant in 99+% of races because 99.999% of people don't train to their full potential.

Someone who dedicates his life to running will always beat an obese couch potato who subsists on chips and soda, even if that couch potato has Bekele's genes.

Not true. Many folks reach that point of diminishing returns and wisely realize fast times just aren't in the cards.

A 21:27 5K would have won my town's (actually a suburb) most recent 5K in the 40-44 year old women's group. Which is further proof that even someone with no talent (no offense intended) can run fast and succeed in races.

You might try mixing things up to get a further benefit if your improvement has plateaued. Try a few weeks of 70+ MPW and see if that helps. Or try a bigger, longer taper. Or keep the same mileage and intensity, but vary the frequency. Some people do well off a 4-5 day/week program if they can get their miles and intervals in.

If you're looking for more definite suggestions, get an altitude tent and sleep in it as much as possible. That alone may get you to 20 minutes if you're a high responder.

Talent is highly overrated wrote:

A 21:27 5K would have won my town's (actually a suburb) most recent 5K in the 40-44 year old women's group. Which is further proof that even someone with no talent (no offense intended) can run fast and succeed in races.

.

Huh?

Um, No wrote:

Talent is highly overrated wrote:

A 21:27 5K would have won my town's (actually a suburb) most recent 5K in the 40-44 year old women's group. Which is further proof that even someone with no talent (no offense intended) can run fast and succeed in races.

.

Huh?

Her 100m and 400m times indicate plenty of talent.

21:27 5k lady checking in here.

To be honest, I actually think I am a lot more talented than some of my other friends who run (women). I have a good metabolism, have had my lungs tested with a spirometer and have 33% larger than average lung capacity fir my size and a runner’s build. Most of my female running friends are unwilling to run with me often because my training paces are too fast for them, they cannot keep 9:00 minute mile pace for too longer than an hour without it being an all out effort. None of them run as much as me, they run about 20 or 30 miles each week according to their strava and do their 400 repeats considerably slower, closer to 2:00 whereas mine are nearer 1:30. But even at 20 miles per week, I was still under 8:00 minute mile for my 5k race pace.

So compared to an average woman, I AM talented I guess but yet still fall way below the mark lf a “16:00 5k” needed to define the line between training and talent here.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Um, No wrote:

Huh?

Her 100m and 400m times indicate plenty of talent.

I have looked to see how my 100m and 400m times ranked on multiple websites and all have them have said they are very slow?

Um, No wrote:

Talent is highly overrated wrote:

A 21:27 5K would have won my town's (actually a suburb) most recent 5K in the 40-44 year old women's group. Which is further proof that even someone with no talent (no offense intended) can run fast and succeed in races.

.

Huh?

What is so hard to believe about that?

I remember running the Arcadia invitational last year, and I was a bit surprised to find out that there was another race in Arcadia that same day, which was intended for hobby joggers. Google "Santa Anita Derby 5K".

Almost 300 women were in that poster's age group (35-39). A 21:27 would have gotten her 2nd place ;

Slow person wrote:

I...still fall way below the mark lf a “16:00 5k” needed to define the line between training and talent here.

The 16 minute 5K is directed at the main demographic of the site, which is young males in their teens and 20s. You probably achieved something similar considering your age and sex.

I am beginning to think maybe this talent bell curve being mentioned is quite a bit slower than 16:00 minutes for a 5k, at least for women. I’m nkt sure if you are talking about men and women or just men there seeing as only the fastest women in the world seem to be capable of under 16:00.

I don’t know of to consider my times talented or not, I think I fall in no man’s land where I can sprint faster to the average distance runner but not faster than a sprinter do distamce better than the average sprinter but not better than the average distance runner. I am guessing that by theory, this would make me more of a “Miler”. So assuming the “Mile” is my talent, yet again, I still fall short of the talent vs training bell curve (stated as going 5 or under, reffered to as a pedestrian time) despite 7 years of training, optimal body composition and weight and a slight genetic component granting me the gift of running this distance to come more naturally to me.

In my opinion, adding all lf this up, the curve is very different for different groups of people. If you are a bunch of athletic kids on a high school track, there is going to be a massive weed out of untalented people right there, as the people who have more talent choose to do more sport to build on what already came naturally, a 5 minute mile is probably going to be the 50th %. If you are talking about a group of people at a gym, with a more diverse pool of talent them it is almost definitely going to be in the top 5% as people with no talent are drawn to gyms to battle their health issues, look better to find a date, and are exercising for lots of other reasons (reasons that hugh school athletes dont have to worry about) than innate talent or running because it is natural for them to feel like doing it.

I remember when I was a kid, I wanted to run everywhere because it was fun, came naturally to me and I felt like I was effortlessly gliding when I ran. There is a mind-body connection to that, not everybody enjoys it when they run so you could argue that talented people have more pathways in their brain linking them to their running abilities. Everybody knows that intelligence is largely genetic and I suppose, in a way, running ability is also shaped by your brain structure. A person with a natural IQ of 90 could maybe study hard and raise his IQ to 95, somebody more talented with an IQ of 125 could study hard and raise his to genuis levels and I feel like a lot of people here have the running-ability-equivilent of a high IQ, where really fast to begin with and somehow seem to think that everybody should get at least somewhat good with training. I run a modest 21 minute 5k, but I have ran so hard in races before that I have actually wet myself, nobody can tell me I do not try hard enough, just the same as that dumb kid who studies all day and stays dumb, a lot of it is to do with the way your bodi is built on the inside.

So why aren´t you dedicated enough to be the best in the world?

Idiot!

Slow person wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Her 100m and 400m times indicate plenty of talent.

I have looked to see how my 100m and 400m times ranked on multiple websites and all have them have said they are very slow?

They are both about 70% age grade. That's also the case with your mile and 5k times.

But most people who train for distance have much higher age grade in mile and 5k than they do for 400m.

So Cal pride wrote:

Um, No wrote:

Huh?

What is so hard to believe about that?

I remember running the Arcadia invitational last year, and I was a bit surprised to find out that there was another race in Arcadia that same day, which was intended for hobby joggers. Google "Santa Anita Derby 5K".

Almost 300 women were in that poster's age group (35-39). A 21:27 would have gotten her 2nd place ;

https://www.athlinks.com/event/22554/results/Event/721309/Course/1184331/Division/1041151/Results

Nothing. It was the no talent and run fast comment that was and is s baffling.

Target wrote:

Slow person wrote:

I...still fall way below the mark lf a “16:00 5k” needed to define the line between training and talent here.

The 16 minute 5K is directed at the main demographic of the site, which is young males in their teens and 20s. You probably achieved something similar considering your age and sex.

Not even close. Her 21:27 is about 70% age grade. 16:59 for 25 yr old male is 74%. 70% is a little over 18 min.

And she is definitely more talented than the majority of women.

@slow person: you don't understand what the other guy tried to tell you??

We said that 16 flat can be achieved by 99% of young males who try hard enough and train smart. Of course there are genetic differences with women, 16 flat male is more like 19-20 min for a woman.

You are already far too old to be in the "optimal age" group for distance running performances. Even at the 32 years where you started your aerobic capacity has already been declining for several years (average of top 10 5k times is around 21 years). Not to mention it took your tendons, ligaments, bones and joints (and even muscles..) time to adapt first, because you started so late in your life.

Had you started training at a young age, gone through HS, college etc and kept running, running, running going all the way up to 70-80 mpw or even more, I promise you you would have broken 19-20 mins which is the equivalent 16 min guy performance. No matter if you had super talent or below average talent. Same with mile potential - 5 min guy equivalent would be 6 min for a woman.

Getting tired of people putting overemphasis on talent - yes, it matters A LOT, but not in the areas of 16 min 5k for males or 5 min males. Almost anyone can do that with the right training.

Btw. your training is far from optimized - why are you doing 400s at sub-mile RP? You are killing yourself with 90s, based on ur 5k time. Do them at your 10k time to improve your threshold, like Ingebrigsten or Tinman would recommend.

So much wrong with this.

I love the "It's too late but you COULD have done it etc."

This dude probably tells himself that every day.

Xoman wrote:

Had you started training at a young age, gone through HS, college etc and kept running, running, running going all the way up to 70-80 mpw or even more, I promise you you would have broken 19-20 mins which is the equivalent 16 min guy performance. No matter if you had super talent or below average talent. Same with mile potential - 5 min guy equivalent would be 6 min for a woman.

She might have broken 19 min if she had started earlier. But that's because she is more talented than the majority of women. Those with below average talent probably cannot.

It's also a fact. Ideally, you'd be active as a kid and start serious training in your early teens to maximize your potential. Starting at age 32 isn't going to give you optimal results or anything close to it.

Slow person wrote:

If you are a bunch of athletic kids on a high school track, there is going to be a massive weed out of untalented people right there.

At most high schools, track is not filled with athletic people. Here are the reasons people have given me for joining track:

"I'm doing it because my friends are."

"I need to get in shape for football."

"My parents are making me join a sport."

"I just want to see how the whole thing/experience feels like. Running 100m can't be that hard."

"It makes my college apps look good."

"It's cool to get out of class and be driven to meets instead."