At what point do marathon races become more about talent/genetics versus training?

Selection bias.

crackjack ballsack wrote:

Take a healthy 30 year old male. If they started from 0 and trained full time for the marathon for 5 years, injury free, how fast could they run it before they hit the genetics 'wall'? 2:30? 2:25? I was originally thinking 2:20 but then I remembered Sage Canaday who was a full-time pro runner for many many years and could barely break 2:20. Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?

2:18 for males, 2:35 for females.

bulwinkle wrote:

This is a classic selection bad fallacy.

You run marathons and apparently so do the people you know. You are sampling from a tiny subpopulation that is selected for running marathons.

Anyone can run a sub 3 given 4 years of decent running and then a good marathon training year.

I might believe otherwise if you can show me someone who failed to achieve sub3:15 despite over a year of unhindered, good training.

Until then, everyone here is just deluded and arrogant.

crackjack ballsack wrote:

Take a healthy 30 year old male. If they started from 0 and trained full time for the marathon for 5 years, injury free, how fast could they run it before they hit the genetics 'wall'?

-----

Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?

The premise itself assumes genetic superiority because the average healthy 30-year-old cannot train for a marathon without getting injured. Studies show that over half of participants in those group marathon training plans drop out due to injury. Even with the best coaches, doctors, shoes, and physical therapists, probably 25% are still going to get injured... and that's just in the first 6 months.

If you trained 1,000 healthy 30-year-olds for 5 years, more than half would be chronically injured from the mileage. Most of these could finish a marathon eventually and some would break 4 hours. Most of the remaining who could handle the training and remain uninjured could run between 3 and 4 hours. A few could break 3... maybe 5%. There would probably be 1% to 2% who could run sub-2:45, but only because they had the genetics.

Now, if you did this 1,000 person selection in the Rift Valley in Kenya, the results would be different.

The answer to the title question is: 70 mpw

Any less than that and more miles (more training) will directly translate to improved race performance.

Above that number, genetic limitations start to play a role in terms of athletic capability and injury probability.

This assumes that by the time someone gets to running 70 mpw they have learned something about running so their training is at least a little bit logical.

Uhhh wrote:

Your question is strange.

Your title is "At what point do marathon races become more about talent/genetics versus training?"

But then you want to train a 30-year-old for 5 years.

I've met quite a few natural slow-twitch (male) runners who can bash out a time of around 3hrs (2hr55-3hr10) without doing any decent training. Just build the long run up to twenty miles over a few months, run some speed session in the week then go race. I think that's one reason it's considered so vaunted because they're so close off natural talent.

But once you do some proper training to build aerobically, it's easily broken - just most people don't train properly. Even worse these days with everybody trying to do "Race Pace" sessions and using gels rather than building up the fat-burning and aerobic systems from the lowest levels.

EXACTLY!

Thank-you.

Flagpole reckoned earlier I was just talking about people who were already runners, I wasn't.

Knew a guy who took up running at 40, very overweight, and he was running 1hr28 halfs at his first attempt. 3hr15 marathon first go. Eventually he scraped under 3-hrs without ever doing any decent aerobic development. He can't understand why his 5K pace is only 20-secs/mile quicker than his 1/2M pace. Keeps working at the speed end to try and get faster!

Another guy who was 30, he was running close to sub-3 on his first marathon. I've just watched him come back into running at age 40 after 2-3year layoff and within six weeks he was running 5K in 18-mins off 35mpw and barely a speed or threshold session in there.

Third guy who ran a 2hr56 first-time marathon at 40. When I asked him a few years later what training he'd done, it was three runs per week - a couple of 6-milers in the week and a ten-miler on the weekend. Said he tried to run them faster than the previous week. He was very skinny definitely full of slow-twitch. I'm sure he trained a little harder than that description but not much I bet. Every marathon he ran after that was in the 2hr55-3hr05 range. Definitely not a committed runner/ racer.

All of which highlights the Lydiard "train don't strain". They think they're untalented because all they do is strain but struggle to get faster after the first year. Aerobic development doesn't feel like hardwork but it's what you need to fully develop talent.

Yup.

you must enter a username wrote:

bulwinkle wrote:

This is a classic selection bad fallacy.

You run marathons and apparently so do the people you know. You are sampling from a tiny subpopulation that is selected for running marathons.

Anyone can run a sub 3 given 4 years of decent running and then a good marathon training year.

I might believe otherwise if you can show me someone who failed to achieve sub3:15 despite over a year of unhindered, good training.

Until then, everyone here is just deluded and arrogant.

That is just such BS. Not everyone could even run a 7 minute mile...ONE mile given 4 years of running. You are WAY wrong, brother.

There is a genetic ceiling, which depends a huge variety of factors. I've got a personal example.

I've been a lifetime competitive runner - from 14-year-old in school to 64-year-old master. Nowhere near elite, but above average level of ability (won area championships in school, ran for county (in England, like the state here) on track and x-country, and have placed in US Masters Championships at 3000m s/c; 3000m indoors (on world rankings for age) and 5000m.

As a club runner in England I was around 15:00 5k and 32:00 10k, and ran a couple of marathons when I was 36. The second was 2:47.xx with only 30 seconds difference between halves. I had a lifetime training background, and had run three 20 miles runs going into the second one.

I probably could have trained better, but there was nothing on earth in the way of training (or anything else for that matter) that could have made me a 2:30 guy (I struggled to run much faster than 74:00 for a half).

I had a big V02 max, but just too much fast-twitch, and too heavy (5' 9" and 148-150lbs) to run a much better marathon. I think the absolute best I could have got down to would have been about 2:40.

So that was my genetic limitation. There were guys that I'd drop by a minute or two on a Tuesday night club road run that were real slow-twitch guys that ran a lot quicker marathons. They didn't have the fast twitch to run anywhere near my pace for 5000m and shorter, but in a marathon, their genetic ceiling was higher.

I would say if you took a group of 30-year-olds and even if you ruled out ones that were patently unathletic or were built like sprinters, or quarterbacks, you would still struggle to get many under 3 hours. That's about 6:50 per mile, and look how few of a self-selected population manage that in 5k.

So I would say that even for reasonably appropriately made 30-year-old men the genetic ceiling is way higher higher than 2:30, more like 3:30.

Your anecdotal evidence doesn't matter. So, the fat guy had some running talent as did the others in your story. If you want to accept anecdotal evidence, I've known some stick thin guys who couldn't run a 5k in under 30 minutes. I went to high school with a kid (looked fit) who was REALLY into running...did great training, talked about it all the time...in his last 1600 his senior year, he managed 5:58...SO, not even sub 6 for the mile. He gave it all he had, and I thought he had died afterwards. Sub 6 for 1600 had been his goal for 4 years. He was over the moon happy about it.

Classic survivorship bias. What you are missing is all of the people who attempted to take up serious running and then , for whatever reason, stopped.

bulwinkle wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

CORRECT! It's just BS. Runners with any level of success need to understand that the vast majority of the reason for that is inherent ability. You have to train of course, but if you have little to no talent you won't run even remotely fast.

What's odd is that people don't admit that doing mathematics is the same. One of our biggest failures in schooling is teaching everyone the you can do whatever you want if you work hard myth.

When people claim they have no talent and all their success is from hard work ignore the fact that they had some level of talent that allowed them to do the hard work without breaking down.

I'm going with about 2:30 being where talent/genetics become important for the marathon. I'm definitely not what I would consider a very talented runner, nor the least talented. Been running for a little over 5 years, starting as a freshman in HS. Eventually started taking running seriously and put in extra mileage outside of practice only to run times that were just average for HS by senior year (17:00 5K, 4:50 mile). Meanwhile my teammates ran much less than I did and still beat me. A few months after graduating last year dedicated 24 weeks from October to March to train for a marathon, putting in a handful of 100 mile weeks with plenty of long runs with marathon-paced workouts in them. Ended up running 2:40 in the marathon. I think its reasonable to say that with several more years of training and marathon buildups I could eventually get down to 2:30 at best. Someone with greater talent than me would get down to 2:20/2:10. Someone with less talent may not crack 3:00. That being said, I think an average, healthy male can get down to about 2:30 with proper training for enough years. Anything below that requires above average talent.

you must enter a username wrote:

bulwinkle wrote:

This is a classic selection bad fallacy.

You run marathons and apparently so do the people you know. You are sampling from a tiny subpopulation that is selected for running marathons.

Anyone can run a sub 3 given 4 years of decent running and then a good marathon training year.

I might believe otherwise if you can show me someone who failed to achieve sub3:15 despite over a year of unhindered, good training.

Until then, everyone here is just deluded and arrogant.

A three hour marathon is out of reach for most professional athletes. A good example is Luis Enrique, who got there, barely, after considerable training, and was widely considered one of the fittest footballers players in the Spanish league.

What's deluded is the notion that hard work can get anyone there. It's simply not true. Folks with good genetics overestimate how hard they work relative to others.

Runner10287 wrote:

bulwinkle wrote:

What's odd is that people don't admit that doing mathematics is the same. One of our biggest failures in schooling is teaching everyone the you can do whatever you want if you work hard myth.

When people claim they have no talent and all their success is from hard work ignore the fact that they had some level of talent that allowed them to do the hard work without breaking down.

Think about sprinting. No matter how hard most three hour marathoners work they can't ever break 12 in the 100. They just don't have the talent necessary. In fact, running well at longer distances suggests strongly they don't.

Running well at longer distances requires talent just like running fast in the sprints does. Different genetic gifts but still innate talent required. One of those talents is the proper build to be able to what most would consider the minimum amount of training to run a 2:30 without breaking down.

Take for example the one kid every high school team has that can seems to have endless endurance but is constantly battling injuries. If they tried a marathon they would break.

I think hard work can make up for a talent deficit. I was undertrained from 2017 until 2020 and ran 1:39 in a half with a 2-min. bathroom break, and that was on 30 mpw with 3 10s and 1 11-miler, over a short 10-week block, and that was it! No speed work at all.

So mileage bumping and specific training + coach can help untalented runners close the gap some.

The answer to the OP's question is hard to quantify because there are too many variables. Even distinguishing between fast- and slow-twitch runners is a variable to consider.

crackjack ballsack wrote:

Where is the 'genetics' wall that separates the elites from the normal runners?

Conception.

There is no wall, there are only gradients of talent, effort, and training optimization. Every elite has an enormous amount of the first 2, the marginal stuff happens with the 3rd. Anyone running 2:20 is coming with giant talent plus hard work.

Kvothe wrote:

In Ron Daws book on training he outlines some times that the average man could probably hit. 230 is given for the marathon as a time most will reach with serious Lydiard based training.

To go further, 225 would be very good - a local stud. 220 would be exceptional - you're among the best runners. To get past that takes masses of talent. You're not going to train your way to this territory if you were born without any athletic genes whatsoever.

The average man could not run anywhere near 2:30. That is absolutely delusional. How many men in their prime could run 6 min pace for a 10K even if focused and if properly trained? Less than 25%. Now multiply distance by 4 and pick up the pace a little. Most men could never stay healthy at the training required to run 2:30.

I would say 3 ish hours is what the average Male could do implying everyone was training seriously for the marathon. Obviously the majority would never care to do so.