Unpopular opinion: Genetics matters a lot more for distance running than it does for sprinting

Thank you for expressing that view, that is very interesting. It is true that for every story of a sprinter who is beating everyone at his first meet, you can probably find similar stories about distance runners, who never lost a 10k.

While the discussion of distance vs sprints in terms of genetics itself seems pretty interesting and worthwhile to have, I find it a bit hard to believe that you have tons of young, skinny male runners who fail to break 20 minutes by the end of high school.

I ran in the high 20s as a freshman and usually found myself near the back to middle of the pack of most races. My high school was a far cry from a powerhouse even at the league or regional level, and yet most of our slowest guys who stuck with it (including many who started overweight or had non traditional runner builds) eventually ran in the high 18 to 19 minute range in XC if they stuck with it for all 4 years and trained consistently.

On a similar note, I could count on my hand how many guys didn't break 6 in the mile by the end of senior year (most ended up in the 5:20-5:40 range), which is what I'd sort of expect from average male runners who apply themselves a bit.

Also, I'm pretty most people, runners and non runners included, would consider a 20 min 5k more impressive than a 14s 100m. One requires a fairly respectable level of aerobic fitness most untrained males simply don't have, the other takes a fairly reasonable level of coordination and exertion.

If the average person can run sub 14 with a few weeks of training it’s not being taught. You need to change your threshold to 12.5 and see what the results are.

This has to be bait. I have never seen a fit kid at my high school who couldn’t break 17 on 60 mpw. There’s a lot more factors at play like nutrition, upbringing, living environment that can drastically alter a kids aerobic development. We had our entire team under 19 minutes, even beginners. It could be that sports are not important where you are from. I come from an upper class area with no pollution so it is easy for me to say it is not genetic.

Genetics is equally important for sprinting and long distance.

While most senior boys who've run for 2+ seasons do break 20, I've observed that roughly a quarter of them couldn't do it. It's not a large percentage, but it's a significant number and is far higher than the 0% of seniors who failed to break 14 in the 100.

The IAAF/WA tables state that a 13.99 100 is 223 points, while a 20:00.00 500m is 160 points. Also, a 13.99 is 46% slower than the WR, while a 20:00 is 58% slower than the WR. So the 14 flat 100m is more impressive.

Have you seen the start lines of the semi finals or finals at the Olympics or world championships? Talk about diversity

From what I've seen:

Approximate percentage of HS senior boys running an electronically-timed sub 12.5: 50%

Approximate percentage of HS senior boys running a sub 17 5K, which is roughly equivalent: 10%

The problem is that many kids can't handle 60 mpw without being chronically injured. Injuries aside, you could be technically correct that you've never seen a "fit kid" who couldn't break 17 on 60 mpw. That's because if a kid runs 60 mpw and fails to break 18, which is fairly common, you wouldn't consider that kid to be fit.

Some beginners do run under 19 minutes, and that's why they're considered at least moderately talented. Plenty of people will never break 19 regardless of how much they train. The opposite is true for the sprints. Almost any young male can be trained to break 13.5 even though a 13.5 gets you more IAAF points and is closer percentage-wise to the WR than a 19:00.

Sports are important where I'm from, depending on the sport. There aren't many swimmers, golfers, or lacrosse players, but football, basketball, and baseball games are usually packed. But that's pretty typical for high schools across the country.

Had surgery in college and was easily 50 lbs over race weight when I came back ( i was unable to run for 18 months). I ended up pacing mid d women through workouts because I could still hit 28 second 200's, I think at best I was in 23 minute 5k shape. Suffice it to say, I think a 14 second 100 is much easier.

Thanks for sharing, that's a good way to make that point, and I agree. I'll chime in on that as well..

I lost a bit over a month and a half of training over this summer so I'm currently way out of shape, to the point where 6:50 pace feels like threshold effort. I went to the track the other day to see what I could do for 100m strides, and 13.7 repeats still felt fairly comfortable.

In fact, it felt almost no different than when I was in peak track shape, I could barely tell the difference - except for being slightly rusty, and way more tired after the warmup.

Aerobic fitness requires so much more work to maintain than basic sprinting fitness, I don't think anyone can really deny that. It's just kind of a proven fact.

There's a reason that opinion is unpopular. It's wrong.

To do well in either sprints, middle or long distance requires genetic traits specific and applicable for that event.

End of…

this is one of the better self-owns i've seen in a while