Guy Fawkes You wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:
name the genes.
Why do you always pull out this strawman?
What straw man? Stop shifting the burden. If you think it's genetics, proving it is entirely relevant.
In this age of rapid discoveries, that should be your priority - not silencing debate with clumsy errors backed by hair-trigger anger and ridicule. Nobody cares about your emotions.
Houlihan is a genetic freak who is trained to the Max and has perfect form. Guess what? She can only run 2 minutes. How much more evidence do people need that it is 100% genetics. 99.9% of the population can’t do it no matter how hard they try.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Genetics R Us wrote:
1:48 takes incredible genetics...period!
name the genes.
There are countless people who could run 1:48 if they had access to years of top-level coaching, training, facilities, and especially the drug regimens that top elites have used since the dawn of the sport.
There's a big difference between PED's administered by experts and those used independently. Put a 2:14 runner into the old East German program and I think they could churn out a 1:48 guy if they wanted to.
I'm not talking about dope Wigins. For an athlete to run 1:48 clean is going require some outstanding genetics (great cardiovascular system, good FT muscle fibers, low bodyweight and excellent biomechanics) regardless of training.
To illustrate how special a 1:48 is - how many HS kids can run a 1:48 every year here in the States? How many college kids can run 1:48? ? The answer is very few.
If wasn't about genetics then we should be able to take every HS 800m kid who is dedicated & devoted to training and turn them all into 1:48 elites.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Genetics R Us wrote:
1:48 takes incredible genetics...period!
name the genes.
There are countless people who could run 1:48 if they had access to years of top-level coaching, training, facilities, and especially the drug regimens that top elites have used since the dawn of the sport.
There's a big difference between PED's administered by experts and those used independently. Put a 2:14 runner into the old East German program and I think they could churn out a 1:48 guy if they wanted to.
This has to be the most stupid comment I've read all week.
It takes a lot of natural talent. Let me explain what natural talent is. Natural talent is a combination of speed and endurance. The speed for the 800 can be trained to a certain extent, and especially with the endurance. However, there is always, always a baseline that someone starts from. Meaning that if someone starts at 2:00 minute 800 meter with no training, they have a chance of breaking 1:48 with training. Now on the other hand, someone that starts from 2:20 with no training has NO chance of breaking 1:50, probably not even the 2 minute mark.
The 800 meter requires a combination of speed , you must be about to run about 50 second 400 if you want to break 1:48. A 50 second 400, while nothing special, is the minimum speed required to break 1:48. And this 50 second 400 would be someone like a 1500 runner who occasionally runs the 800.
A true 1:48 800 runner (who trains for the 800 ), has around 48-49 speed for a 400.
I am assuming the person is also not overweight and fully grown.
1st, everyone saying the OP is already well trained is silly. 30mpw for 3 years is nothing. The OP will almost surely not run 1:48 yet alone much under 2, but there’s still a lot of training to do.
mhm123321 wrote:
However, there is always, always a baseline that someone starts from. Meaning that if someone starts at 2:00 minute 800 meter with no training, they have a chance of breaking 1:48 with training. Now on the other hand, someone that starts from 2:20 with no training has NO chance of breaking 1:50, probably not even the 2 minute mark.
.
I started at 2:43. And that was with a couple years of junior high XC under me. Didn’t even break 2:11 in high school with 3 more years of training under me. Ran 1:52 before I graduated college. Still miles away from 1:48, but I was very slow compared to most of my peers throughout high school and college despite out working them consistently. You never know.
Yes he is well trained. With No training, he would probably show up and run 3 minutes. With a year of training, he would hit 2:30. Well trained puts him at 2:14. College level training for a few years after probably gets him to 2 minutes but that is a combination of the training and the additional few years of maturation. Well trained is the term we are using so that people realize he isn’t running 2:14 in gym class straight off of the couch. That would indicate that he may be a 1:48 guy without knowing it. But with 3 years of training at 30 miles with some speed work, he already has tapped into much of his potential.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Guy Fawkes You wrote:
Why do you always pull out this strawman?
What straw man? Stop shifting the burden. If you think it's genetics, proving it is entirely relevant.
In this age of rapid discoveries, that should be your priority - not silencing debate with clumsy errors backed by hair-trigger anger and ridicule. Nobody cares about your emotions.
Go back to trolling the flat Earth thread. Idiot.
I think that estimate is high... wrote:
1:48!is smoking wrote:
1 out of 1 million type of talent.
I think that estimate is a bit high, about 20 guys did it so far this year in the ncaa, and that represents about 10 million high school graduates in terms of the population being drawn from. Considering a significant portion of people never reach their potential in running, I'd estimate it down to somewhere between 1 in 10,000 and 100,000, (i.e. between the 99.99th and 99.999th percentile) but to your point, it is exceedingly rare.
I like your approach - best answer so far-
did you consider that the NCAA 1:48 runners are from 4 or 5 years of HS grads? Also, you have to remove the non-US 1:48 runners unless you are putting those populations in your denominator too.
People keep starting these posts hoping that they will get support in their theories that they can become elite through hard work. If fast times weren't based on genetics, women would run 1:48 and 50 year old men would run 1:48.
Math wiz wrote:
People keep starting these posts hoping that they will get support in their theories that they can become elite through hard work. If fast times weren't based on genetics, women would run 1:48 and 50 year old men would run 1:48.
The one thing we don't hear is a 1.48 runner saying they did it from a 2.14 base - unless they were then about 12.
The only people who will tell you that are liars. But we will keep waiting for somebody to provide a real life example.
bad math wrote:
Talent includes ability to stay healthy and mental fortitude.
This is redundant. "Ability to stay healthy" is all about mental fortitude. If you are determined, you will ignore any pain and hobble through. Runners get "hurt" only because they are looking for an excuse to skip workouts.
OP runs only 30 mpw. If he runs 100+ mpw like Snell did, he will see huge improvement.
The Way We Were wrote:
bad math wrote:
Talent includes ability to stay healthy and mental fortitude.
This is redundant. "Ability to stay healthy" is all about mental fortitude. If you are determined, you will ignore any pain and hobble through. Runners get "hurt" only because they are looking for an excuse to skip workouts.
OP runs only 30 mpw. If he runs 100+ mpw like Snell did, he will see huge improvement.
So it was only the mileage that made Snell fast, not his natural talent? Dream on.
30 mpw with hard intervals and strength to weight ratio training is enough to get most people to 95% of their genetic potential. The changes you get from adding the extra 60 miles each week are miniscule. It may turn a 2:04 guy into a 1:59 guy but it isn’t going to make any significant difference if you don’t have the right metabolism, lung size, central nervous system recruitment for speed and cardiovascular structure to make a fast time ever happen.
Nobody, especially not internet strangers, will ever know you enough to know what your max potential is.
Even if they claim to, they don't. You can't even know that.
If you have a goal you want to go after, focus on doing every day what is going to help you get there and that's it.
I don't know wrote:
Nobody, especially not internet strangers, will ever know you enough to know what your max potential is.
Even if they claim to, they don't. You can't even know that.
If you have a goal you want to go after, focus on doing every day what is going to help you get there and that's it.
This is correct.
Bad Wigins wrote:
Genetics R Us wrote:
1:48 takes incredible genetics...period!
name the genes.
There are countless people who could run 1:48 if they had access to years of top-level coaching, training, facilities, and especially the drug regimens that top elites have used since the dawn of the sport.
There's a big difference between PED's administered by experts and those used independently. Put a 2:14 runner into the old East German program and I think they could churn out a 1:48 guy if they wanted to.
Fast-twitch version of MSTN; optimal version of PGC1A; sprint version of ACTN3 to name a few....
Guy Fawkes You wrote:
Why do you always pull out this strawman? Just because something hasn't been identified and named yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Genes are responsible for all physical traits.
Wigins is truly a bad dude. He makes all these judgment statements in a stubborn way.
The original post wasn't even about drugs at all. He was asking about natural talent.
mhm123321 wrote:
A true 1:48 800 runner (who trains for the 800 ), has around 48-49 speed for a 400.
I am assuming the person is also not overweight and fully grown.
I think that's pretty close. A 1:48 is two 54-second quarters. I knew a 1:50 guy who ran around a :48 relay leg. So I think at least a :48 or better.