Annoying neighbour (Page 2)

To run like the elites/pros, you HAVE to have genetic ability. No doubt about it. Fast high school kids run 16minute (if not lower) 5ks on ridiculously low miles per week, like under 35. They train hard, but not any harder than most age-group competitors at local races. Heck, I likely out-trained all of 'em when I ran 70-100 miles per week as a pure runner as an adult, and I can't come close to running a 16:xx 5k. I recall some interviews with Kenyan runners who did not run until they had no other options in life, and some of them were throwing down 15:xx 5ks after their very first season of training - less than 4 months.

This topic always draws a lot of interest and a fair bit of animosity.  Why is it hard for everyone to accept genetics or natural ability play a part in all sports, endurance sports included?  Of course training is critical, and of course we can all improve with correct and consistent training.   And the personal key for me is that our potential is probably way beyond what most of us will ever even approach.

But just as I'll never play in the NHL, I'll also never become an elite triathlete.  When I played hockey in high school and college, I skated and worked at it 2-4 hours a day for years.  So did everyone else on our team.  Did I get a LOT better at hockey due to my training?  Absolutely.  Did I become Wayne Gretzky?  Nope.  Was I the best on my team?  Nope.  Was that because I didn't work as hard as our stars?  Nope.  They were simply better "natural" hockey players than me.  And I was "naturally" better than others on the team.  Did I make myself a better player than some other people who were better natural players?  Almost certainly.  But to claim natural ability doesn't play a part in athletics is just not being honest.

But when we come across someone who trains hard and accomplishes something great, congratulations are in order and hopefully it motivates us to train harder and improve our own performance.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I want to say that I hope it was clear (and if not, here's the clarification) that I wasn't questioning any of that about you or anybody else.  My point was just that it is equally annoying (which implies neither more nor less annoying) when performance is dismissed as 'just natural ability'.


Edited by Experior 2009-11-28 9:43 AM

This user's post has been ignored.

Didn't at all think you were questioning, just replying to the poster I quoted. "Consistency, perseverance and actual training" is needed tol tap your natural ability and realize your potential. Just think that everyone's potential has a different limit. Hard work is needed to add to that natural ability, not "instead of" as he stated.

It's true that genetics are a big deal. However, I've found that making sure I change up runs (tempo/interval/hill/etc) makes a big difference. I used to "just run." Now I try to have a plan and it's made a difference.

The problem is that a lot of people use talent and genetics etc etc as excuses.  If you look at your Wayne Gretzkys and Jordans and Tiger Woods, etc, etc, you are generally looking at other things as well- a win at all costs mentality, work ethic, love of competition.  In these kind of sports, you are often times as an individual looking at your self doubt or self pity or despair.  Folks seem to choose to take convenient excuses as to mediocrity rather than look for ways to try and overcome it.  That in itself is a recipe for failure.  We all come from different backgrounds so its not fair in the eyes of the OP to see someone that might have had a different background athletically at some point that is able to throw down a faster mary.  Its never an apples to orange comparison in team sports either.  Some folks are hitting the weight room or doing workouts outside of what the team does, they are watching diet, resting better, etc.  There is more to the formula than your parents.  If that were the case, i wouldnt have accomplished a lot of the stuff i have athletically over the years.  Again, I see it more of a nature vs nurture argument and feel that those that have that extra talent are usuallly the ones that truly enjoy what they are doing, they will take extra reps or are ever thinking about what it takes to improve and then doing it and also willing it to happen.  I can see it with my own 4 kids that there are differences perhaps inherently born within them for athletic aptitude, yet the ones who gravitate more towards athletic endeavors? The are of course becoming the more athletic.  My point regarding the OP is that too many times since this sport is for many an undertaking later in life, it is easier to point to genetics vs the fact that maybe somebody did something aerobically to build a general athletic advantage over someone just coming to this truly off the couch.  IMO its not too dissimilar to the concept of investing early in your 401k:  the sooner you are becoming athletic in life, the better the benefits.  It is also bothersome because I have seen and experienced what hard work does for you and have friends that have done the same and had their efforts written off as 'I can never do that because so and so just has the gift'.  Its an insult to their efforts IMO.  I only ever preach it in the hopes that someone who has that glimmer of hope that maybe they can get where they want to someday will keep that faith alive and keep looking for a way.  We all have different ways to get their and sure some might have advantages because of their pasts, but you just are not born hitting jumpers or throwing down sub 3 marys etc etc.

I think that natural talent may make a difference between a 2:10 marathon and a 3 hour marathon, but I can't imagine that a non-physically impaired male not being able to break a 4 hour marathon.  One huge factor is weight.  If you are extremely muscle bound or have a lot of excess adipose then perhaps it should be a challenge.  In running weight rules.  Every 10 lbs = 20s per mile, if you are willing to lose the weight and do the training I think a BQ is within reach of most.

I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the attainability of sub-4 or BQ for 'most' people, but I suppose in this context it is worth pointing out that sub-4 and BQ are miles apart for, I suspect, most of the males engaged in this discussion (for me, 40 minutes apart).

I do agree that weight is a pretty big issue.  At least, it has been for me, though of course it is difficult to separate the effects of the training that leads to weight loss from the effects of the weight loss itself.  (No, I'm not implying that anybody here -- except me -- could stand to lose weight.  I haven't seen any of you!)

You can apply this discussion to any part of life (who succeeds at work, who has a productive home life, etc).

In the words of Yogi Berra, "The harder I work, the luckier I get"

You can either say someone else is lucky, gifted, whatever, or you can look at yourself and learn what you can do to make yourself better.

Don't waste time on the other guy. Work on what you can control, yourself.

Clearly weight can be an issue, but "BQ within reach of most"?  Gotta respectfully disagree there.  BQ is now roughly top 10% of times posted for that age/sex (although this varies by category).  And many of those times are posted by same top athletes, so BQ may be top few % of marathoners in a given category.  (Of course this excludes "charity" or "corporate" qualifiers admitted by BAA)
 http://www.runnersworld.com/cda/microsite/article/0,8029,s6-239-506--13111-1-1X2X3-4,00.html

Truth is that most of aerobic performance in normal (uninjured, disease-free) humans is genetic, with some possible improvement with proper training. 
Best data suggests that most individuals improve aerobic performance (VO2max) by ~20% with decent structured (i.e. witnessed) training, while a lucky 5% may gain 40-50%.  Unfortunately, there are an unlucky 5% who do NOT appear to significantly boost aerobic capacity by training.  And the pattern of response to training runs in families (strong evidence for genetic link).  But the response to training is NOT directly linked to baseline VO2max (i.e. not 'coach-potato effect').

http://www.pbrc.edu/Heritage/home.htm

Not sure why this is so surprising.  All of us are given a certain cardiopulmonary system just are have a certain musculoskeletal physique.  We make the best of what we have, but training cannot radically change the genetic package.  All the best powerlift training in the world won't let a 5'6" 125# guy match the absolute clean/jerk weight of an untrained 6"5" 325#er.  

I agree with every one of these points.  I'm not trying to get anyone off training harder and going for PRs or using genetic as an reason to not continue to push. 

But we have to honestly admit that there will simply be some who are faster and some who are slower given the same level of training and effort.

Yeah, there are TONS of stories like this one. Unfortunately, MY story is not like this one... at all... ha!

I have gotten completely frustrated over the years reading stuff like this... over and over again.

Some people can just do it. That's how it goes. Some of us have to work really hard to be mediocre.

so let me get this straight....your neighbor tells you he is going to do something he has never done, he has already signed up and has commited.

He didn't ask you for your opinion on whether or not he should sign up, but you gave it to him

He decided to continue on the path he set out on, and exceeded your expectations.

All along, you were waiting for him to get hurt

....and he's annoying?

a 3:50 marathon time has nothing to with natural ability, but feel free to continue to tell yourself that.

this is just another point of view.....devils advocate if you will......

I meant to reply to the OP. 

Edited by aarondavidson 2009-11-28 4:17 PM

Experior, with the half ironman and ironman times you have I would be totally amazed if you could not BQ fairly quickly if you were to focus on it for a mere 3 month period.  I do not know what age group you are in, but you do have some aerobic talent.

Absolutely genetics plays a role, but I do not feel that it is a either you are genetically gifted and can run a 2:10 hr marathon or you are without disability but are just genetically ungifted so you are a 6 hour marathoner (pedestrian as in slightly brisk walking pace).  The average male marathoner, who patiently trained as hard as he could for two to three years and did everything they could to get their body composition where it needs to be, must be in the 4 hour range if not faster.

If one really goes through a well-structured training program a few times, and can build up to the 70-85 mile per week range, they should be capable of a BQ.  A very high percentage of the people who do marathons do not train, and certainly to that level.  They do it as a life accomplishment and they do what is minimally necessary to complete a marathon.  If you exclude them from the statistics, I think you will find a relatively high percentage of those who try can go under four hours. 

I do understand genetic limitations, but I don't think you should invoke that reason until you have done everything physically within your power to maxize your potential - when you have done all that you can do, then you know but not until then.

I think most of us are capable of more than we believe but when we really try we surprise ourselves.

Thanks! I actually did BQ (barely, by the 'round down' rule...3:20 and change) in my first marathon -- I did that before joining BT so it isn't in my race logs.

I'm in no position to comment on what specific times 'most' people are capable of, but it wasn't my intention to disagree with the gist of what you say here.

Congrats on the BQ!  There are some elites here, but most of us train hard and enjoy the process and do our best in the race.  There are the freaks of nature that there is just no way to ever approach, it really is about getting the best out of what you got. 

I do know a guy who is about 50 years old and his first year of running he ran a 1:14 half marathon!  Of course, he was very light to begin with and was quickly able to build up to 100 mpw.

He had never been a runner before, just very gifted.  Man if he had run when he was younger, no telling how fast he would have been.

A 3:50 marathon on 4 months of training has NOTHING to do with natural ability?  I respectfully disagree.  It has a LOT to do with training effort and hard work and race day effort, but to say it has NOTHING to do with natural ability is just disingenuous.

And again, no one should hide behind mediocre performances or not train because they aren't "natural" runners or bikers or swimmers, I think that should just push us harder.  And of course none of us are even near our potential in any of these sports, so there's lots of room for improvement through hard work if we want to get faster.

did the OP mean 2:50 and not 3:50?????

remember, he hurt the same as you, afterward offer a beer and make a friend for life

What I don't understand is why you thought he was crazy to do a marathon when he was taking 4 months and had a training plan to follow. That seems like a reasonable approach to me. It's the people who try to do it without a training plan that worry me.

My brother decided to run his first half marathon on 11/1. He started training in July- no real plan, just gradually increasing his mileage. He ran it in 1:31.54. I was amazed! Oh, did I mention that he also has a ruptured L4/5 disc (post. and anterior rupture)? I hate him!! Nah, really, I am really proud of him. He really gave it his all and inspired me to buckle down. Now, I have hope that perhaps there might be hope for me with speed! LOL!!