I seen talented guys run 15 min 5k or sub 35 min 10k with almost no training. One of the best masters runner I know ran 2:30 marathon on 3 runs per week ...
So I would say talent is the basic starting point in running, but it is not enought if you don't put in the work.
Talent is also a calling, once you discover you have it, you must go for it !
This is something I've looked into every now and then.
Simple answer is that genetics plays a huge part. You only need to look at the difference between male and female times to see that's the case (basically one category lower sub elite to elite). I don't believe people will doubt their training or drive but their ability to beat similarly experienced men just isn't there genetically and no amount of training can fix that. There must be also similar things within men and women as we're clearly genetically different.
For a science look there's this fairly easy to understand study. Basically they took some people and put them on an 8 week training plan with the test being a 12 minute best effort run at the start, 4 weeks and 8 weeks. Some people gained 500m in this time and one really unlucky person got 200m slower. Average was 2.2km to 2.45km a gain of 250m. Genetic analysis explained (R2) 85% of the variation. Some people just respond really well to training.
Cardiorespiratory fitness is a key component of health-related fitness. It is a necessary focus of improvement, especially for those that have poor fitness and are classed as untrained. However, much research has shown indivi...
I dont understand why people cannot accept that some people have a natural aptitude towards certain things, distance running is one of those things. We've all seen little kids that are musical prodigies that can play the piano by ear, and the violin, and guitar, and.. you name it. We seen mathematical genius beyond training, paiting and art of all types.. why is it so difficult to accept that some people are predisposed to be super responders to training?
On another thread I was attacked for suggesting that there are still people in this forum who believe that just working hard can overcome any genetic deficiencies.
But there are…the fact that posts like these keep appearing / resurfacing supports the notion that there are some people that still need convincing that hard work will not make them elite. There still are people out there who do believe that if they find the right mix of training intensity / frequency / volume that their results will suddenly take off into the stratosphere. This is characterised by the number of questions on here stressing about training and finding the right approach.
Myself, I resigned myself some time ago to the fact that my talent is limited. To this end I no longer race and just run for health. It is quite mentally liberating. Certainly less stressful. For me personally I no longer see it worthwhile to bust a gut in training to knock a couple of seconds off a time that nobody but me cares about. Or pay an entrance fee to a race for nothing more than a t shirt and a mass produced medal.
I admit that my views are not typical to those of many on here.
The reason that some people believe it is because they are more talented than 99% of the general population. It is typically the people running 90 MPW and a 14:30 5K.
All I can say is that in the years I worked in the ex phys lab...
Everybody we ever had in there to test who was world or national class had exceptional results on their physiological testing. If we measured VO2 max the really good runners were usually 75+ with a handful of exceptions. And usually the guys that were in the lower 70s exhibited exceptional running economy. Usually low 40s ml/kg/min at six minute mile pace. (Our lab was told by our professor that he had been involved in a study where they tested Pre and Shorter and a bunch of other world and national class runners in the early '70s. He said Pre's VO2 Max was 84.5 and he ran six minute pace at 51 ml/kg/min. OTOH Shorter had a VO2 max of 70 but ran six minute pace at 39 ml/kg/min.
The group average of that testing was like 74 VO2 max. and 48 ml/kg/min. This study came out as a book where they did all kinds of descriptive work about elite distance runners.
He said up to that time he had never seen a VO2 max higher than 84.5 in any testing he had been involved in. And that he'd never seen anyone run six minute pace at 39 ml/kg/min. Thom Hunt was the best runner we tested in the lab while I was present. He was 76.5 VO2 and ran six minute pace at 43 ml/kg/minute.
Point being that these guys had talent...AND they ran their butts off in training.
All I can say is that in the years I worked in the ex phys lab...
Everybody we ever had in there to test who was world or national class had exceptional results on their physiological testing. If we measured VO2 max the really good runners were usually 75+ with a handful of exceptions. And usually the guys that were in the lower 70s exhibited exceptional running economy. Usually low 40s ml/kg/min at six minute mile pace. (Our lab was told by our professor that he had been involved in a study where they tested Pre and Shorter and a bunch of other world and national class runners in the early '70s. He said Pre's VO2 Max was 84.5 and he ran six minute pace at 51 ml/kg/min. OTOH Shorter had a VO2 max of 70 but ran six minute pace at 39 ml/kg/min.
The group average of that testing was like 74 VO2 max. and 48 ml/kg/min. This study came out as a book where they did all kinds of descriptive work about elite distance runners.
He said up to that time he had never seen a VO2 max higher than 84.5 in any testing he had been involved in. And that he'd never seen anyone run six minute pace at 39 ml/kg/min. Thom Hunt was the best runner we tested in the lab while I was present. He was 76.5 VO2 and ran six minute pace at 43 ml/kg/minute.
Point being that these guys had talent...AND they ran their butts off in training.
Many people here to want to dismiss talent and the role it can play. There was a video/documentary on a guy who went from couch potato to pretty solid times after he got tested for V02 max and it was discovered his was really high. Prior to this he had done zero physical activity but adapted quickly to running and was soon under 1:18 for the half with his times dropping.
If not for getting injured (too much too fast likely) he could have continued his improvement. Having this kind of "talent" allows people to excel at distance running much faster than others. Can others beat them? Sure, but it's a lot harder.
On another thread I was attacked for suggesting that there are still people in this forum who believe that just working hard can overcome any genetic deficiencies.
But there are…the fact that posts like these keep appearing / resurfacing supports the notion that there are some people that still need convincing that hard work will not make them elite. There still are people out there who do believe that if they find the right mix of training intensity / frequency / volume that their results will suddenly take off into the stratosphere. This is characterised by the number of questions on here stressing about training and finding the right approach.
Myself, I resigned myself some time ago to the fact that my talent is limited. To this end I no longer race and just run for health. It is quite mentally liberating. Certainly less stressful. For me personally I no longer see it worthwhile to bust a gut in training to knock a couple of seconds off a time that nobody but me cares about. Or pay an entrance fee to a race for nothing more than a t shirt and a mass produced medal.
I admit that my views are not typical to those of many on here.
I know I will never race a time that anyone notices, but pushing to improve myself is a huge motivator. Idk what I'll have after I get too old to PR. Age group podium in local races will probably be my ceiling then.
On another thread I was attacked for suggesting that there are still people in this forum who believe that just working hard can overcome any genetic deficiencies.
But there are…the fact that posts like these keep appearing / resurfacing supports the notion that there are some people that still need convincing that hard work will not make them elite. There still are people out there who do believe that if they find the right mix of training intensity / frequency / volume that their results will suddenly take off into the stratosphere. This is characterised by the number of questions on here stressing about training and finding the right approach.
Myself, I resigned myself some time ago to the fact that my talent is limited. To this end I no longer race and just run for health. It is quite mentally liberating. Certainly less stressful. For me personally I no longer see it worthwhile to bust a gut in training to knock a couple of seconds off a time that nobody but me cares about. Or pay an entrance fee to a race for nothing more than a t shirt and a mass produced medal.
I admit that my views are not typical to those of many on here.
I know I will never race a time that anyone notices, but pushing to improve myself is a huge motivator. Idk what I'll have after I get too old to PR. Age group podium in local races will probably be my ceiling then.
If that’s what motivates you, then more power to you…I applaud your commitment.
For me however, life is too short to stress about optimal training approaches anymore. I’m at an age where I have less years on this planet than I’ve currently experienced. I want to use those years wisely, and broaden my experiences beyond training.
Therefore I run for health and do as little as is required for that…( minimum effective dose). I don’t want to spend hours training to break a PB by a couple of seconds. Apart from me, who would care anyway? I’m not talented enough to win big prizes or money and no amount of hard work will make up for those deficiencies. And I’m okay with that. It actually helps me enjoy my running even more. Too many on here probably spend many of their running hours stressing about not hitting planned splits etc…then spend further hours stressing / debating / mulling over optimal training approaches on places like this. Actually not being talented and not aiming to be the “best” that I can be, but just “good enough”, can be quite liberating.
You're premise is all wrong. Its not talent vs work, its talent & work & mental persistence.
Yes this is correct.
I'm lucky to have taught 2 very talented athletes. When one of these athletes was 15 he could dunk a basketball, win the 100m, plus would win the school cross country carnival. Told his mother he had talent and suggested he give cycling a go. 6 months later he was u17 National champion. Through hard work has won green jersey at Tour de France and even placed 2nd in world champs in my hometown in 2015.
Another athlete came to me at 18 to give running a go. With 7 weeks of training placed 2nd in Nat Xc for u20. Now has run 1:09 half and 31:37 10k.
Talent + work+persistence= success
Talent is everywhere. If you're a coach the key is finding it and making them believe.
You're premise is all wrong. Its not talent vs work, its talent & work & mental persistence.
Yes this is correct.
I'm lucky to have taught 2 very talented athletes. When one of these athletes was 15 he could dunk a basketball, win the 100m, plus would win the school cross country carnival. Told his mother he had talent and suggested he give cycling a go. 6 months later he was u17 National champion. Through hard work has won green jersey at Tour de France and even placed 2nd in world champs in my hometown in 2015.
Another athlete came to me at 18 to give running a go. With 7 weeks of training placed 2nd in Nat Xc for u20. Now has run 1:09 half and 31:37 10k.
Talent + work+persistence= success
Talent is everywhere. If you're a coach the key is finding it and making them believe.
Not necessarily. All the work doesn’t mean much if the talent is not there. Don’t forget, the ability to withstand large amounts of training and profit from it is also a genetic trait.
Numerous studies have shown examples of high, low and even non responders ( and everything in between) to training.
Put a low responding, structurally frail individual on a high volume program and you are creating a recipe for injury, disappointment and / or burnout.
All I can say is that in the years I worked in the ex phys lab...
Many people here to want to dismiss talent and the role it can play. There was a video/documentary on a guy who went from couch potato to pretty solid times after he got tested for V02 max and it was discovered his was really high. Prior to this he had done zero physical activity but adapted quickly to running and was soon under 1:18 for the half with his times dropping.
If not for getting injured (too much too fast likely) he could have continued his improvement. Having this kind of "talent" allows people to excel at distance running much faster than others. Can others beat them? Sure, but it's a lot harder.
All I can say is that in the years I worked in the ex phys lab...
Everybody we ever had in there to test who was world or national class had exceptional results on their physiological testing. If we measured VO2 max the really good runners were usually 75+ with a handful of exceptions. And usually the guys that were in the lower 70s exhibited exceptional running economy. Usually low 40s ml/kg/min at six minute mile pace. (Our lab was told by our professor that he had been involved in a study where they tested Pre and Shorter and a bunch of other world and national class runners in the early '70s. He said Pre's VO2 Max was 84.5 and he ran six minute pace at 51 ml/kg/min. OTOH Shorter had a VO2 max of 70 but ran six minute pace at 39 ml/kg/min.
The group average of that testing was like 74 VO2 max. and 48 ml/kg/min. This study came out as a book where they did all kinds of descriptive work about elite distance runners.
He said up to that time he had never seen a VO2 max higher than 84.5 in any testing he had been involved in. And that he'd never seen anyone run six minute pace at 39 ml/kg/min. Thom Hunt was the best runner we tested in the lab while I was present. He was 76.5 VO2 and ran six minute pace at 43 ml/kg/minute.
Point being that these guys had talent...AND they ran their butts off in training.
Many people here to want to dismiss talent and the role it can play. There was a video/documentary on a guy who went from couch potato to pretty solid times after he got tested for V02 max and it was discovered his was really high. Prior to this he had done zero physical activity but adapted quickly to running and was soon under 1:18 for the half with his times dropping.
If not for getting injured (too much too fast likely) he could have continued his improvement. Having this kind of "talent" allows people to excel at distance running much faster than others. Can others beat them? Sure, but it's a lot harder.
The reason that there are some who want to dismiss talent in favour of the notion that it can all be achieved via hard work is…ego.
It satisfies their ego to stand by the idea that it was “all them” and their drive, planning and determination, rather than the fact that the main part of the equation was simply that they were lucky enough to be favoured in the genetic lottery.
IF athletes are of a similar genetic standing, then the hardest worker wins. However, if there is a large disparity between the natural limits of two individuals, then no amount of hard work will bridge the gap for the weaker of the two.
If that is still not believed then I challenge anyone on this forum to train in strongman events for a reasonable period, and then go and challenge Brian Shaw at Strongman. Maybe train at sprinting, then go and take on Bolt, even long after he has retired…
Complex topic. When viewed from a coaching pov, you try to reinforce universals of smart training, lifestyle, consistent work habits and positive attitude. Getting the most out of every runner for the team effort --rewarding and recognizing the point-makers as heroes in their own right. at the same time you have to nurture the talented ones with the same values plus some extra stuff--be it mileage, intensity, and personal psychology. Y0u have to expect more and more but be ready to modify according to individual and team needs. ideally your approach is to bring out the best in all runners. Forget the idea of latching on to a couple talented people and riding their coattails to fame and fortune; the. job is to build a team. Part of that is recognizing and nurturing the genetically endowed ones for sure, but they too will do better and be happier when theyre representing a team they identify with and enjoy.
Who told you that? Elite runners have little respect for untalented ones.
Too true…or else the term “hobbyjogger” wouldn’t be thrown about as often as it is on this forum for example. And let’s not kid ourselves, it’s hardly used as a term of endearment, more as a label of contempt.
Many people here to want to dismiss talent and the role it can play. There was a video/documentary on a guy who went from couch potato to pretty solid times after he got tested for V02 max and it was discovered his was really high. Prior to this he had done zero physical activity but adapted quickly to running and was soon under 1:18 for the half with his times dropping.
If not for getting injured (too much too fast likely) he could have continued his improvement. Having this kind of "talent" allows people to excel at distance running much faster than others. Can others beat them? Sure, but it's a lot harder.
Can you link said video/documentary?
Let me see if I can find it again. I watched it at least 4 years ago. I want to say it was a show where they take a few people who never ran before and test them to start training. Some fail but one guy had a superior Vo2 Max and responded well to the training until injuries did him in.
