Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Veteran

561

Arden Hills, MN

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

There is someone on ST that has a signature that I think sums it up perfectly: "Genetics loads the gun, lifestyle (i.e. hardwork) pulls the trigger".

To get to kona you have to have some natural (genetic) endurance ability AND you have to work your butt off.

My Race Log

Extreme Veteran

1648

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Gladiador - 2012-09-18 6:14 AM

You should have in mind that genetic predisposition is an advantage only to certain extent, and only if your body is used to drills from the youngest age, where muscle tissue is developed and created in a way to withstand all these challenges...

If this IS the case, hard work will create result.

. I think this is the message of a system that generates a lot of $$$. As a new parent the state of kids sports make me sad and I have no idea what to do with my daughter. I spent my youth swimming and playing in a lake with friends. I took red cross lessons at camp and learned the strokes. I tried out for my high school swim team never having seen a starting block or spent any time swimming laps. I started swimming USS when I got my license as there was no way my parents were driving me to 5am practices. I swam D1. Do I wish I spent hours in a pool? Heck no. I got to ski race and was captain of my high school track team and had tons of experiences my pure swimming friends didn't. Granted I was a sprinter. But I think they try and scare you into thinking you have to drill your kids from a young age. Then your kid misses out on being a kid.

My Race Log

631

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

To get to elite status you need genetics. If we are putting the bar at a 6 minute mile I think that is do-able for most people. A 6 minute 1600m (close enough to a mile for this discussion) is not going to place at many/any high school events. My guess is low 5 can place at a dual meet.

But the age window has passed most of us by. I have not run on a track nor have I done the speed work required for a mile. But I think I would be happy with a 6 minute mile in my 40's. I have run sub 6 minute miles but those were many years ago (and 60lbs lighter).

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Sidney Porter - 2012-09-18 1:21 PM

To get to elite status you need genetics. If we are putting the bar at a 6 minute mile I think that is do-able for most people. A 6 minute 1600m (close enough to a mile for this discussion) is not going to place at many/any high school events. My guess is low 5 can place at a dual meet.

But the age window has passed most of us by. I have not run on a track nor have I done the speed work required for a mile. But I think I would be happy with a 6 minute mile in my 40's. I have run sub 6 minute miles but those were many years ago (and 60lbs lighter).

HS cross country is under way right now......typically, 15:10 - 15:30 5K wins most invitationals......for sure you have to be sub 16:00 to even be CLOSE.....17:00 will get you about 60th - 80th place out of 150 or so starters.

As for that 1600......5:04 was the winning time for the last 8th grade 1600 I watched. If you can't run a 4:40 in High School you can't even be part of the discussion....the slow end of the discussion.l

Edited by Left Brain 2012-09-18 2:01 PM

Member

51

Park Ridge

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Sorry to take this discussion on a slight tangent but what does VO2 max have to do with genetics? Is it something you are born with? How much can you improve it, if at all? I was tested and had a 70.2 vo2 max I am told this is a high score. Am I horribly underachieving by not geting to the podium in my age group? This was my first year doing tri's my best effort was an olympic distance(Chicago) in about 2:55, I was training about 10-12 hours a week. I realize I will need to increase my volume of training to approach my full potential. Btw I am old 46 to be exact.

Regular

91

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

all genetics my friend....

You have to work hard to put yourself in a situation to see who has the best genetics.

Expert

945

, Michigan

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long. I'll add that you can blame genetics if youre talking about your couch potato mom and idiot dad that left you in front of the tv for the first ten years of your life and didn't feed you well. Those early years that are out of your control do play a significant role in what most people refer to as genetic predisposition, but it's the nuture side of the equation not the nature.

Edited by DV 1 2012-09-18 2:29 PM

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

Expert

945

, Michigan

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:28 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

. Yes, I agree. That's why I started my post with "Most age groupers." The guys winning Kona, or any elite sport, have the timing right. I could never win Kona cause I'm 35 and have only been in endurance sports for 2 years. It takes a dozen years (estimate) to even get close. In a dozen years, I'll be 47. That ain't happening we can all agree. But if I had started when I was 25, having had ten years of track, or cross country, or cycling ... winning Kona would be physically attainable if I dedicated my life to it, and got lucky. Our genetic predisposition isn't the limiter ... It's everything else :-)

Edited by DV 1 2012-09-18 2:38 PM

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:30 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:28 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

. Yes, I agree. That's why I started my post with "Most age groupers."

I don't know......MOST age groupers cannot KQ. The thing about triathletes is that the majority of them came late to the game. Building the kind of aerobic engine it takes to KQ is not possible for most people at that stage of their life. I realize that's a different issue than genetics, but I think your comments about "Most" age groupers is wrong.

Champion

7036

Sarasota, FL

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 3:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I would agree that many AGers could make the cutoff time in an IM if properly trained, but qualifying for Kona is an entirely different animal. I've know some very-talented and hard working athletes who have tried for years to qualify but have not been successful.

Also, if your generalizations are based on a 25-year-old they have more credibility than for older AGers.

I also don't think that knowing your limitations constitutes "making an excuse". I find that insinuation to be very offensive.

Mark

My Race Log

Regular

234

Madison

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

This thread is full of a lot of opinions and speculation. IMHO, if you have the belief in yourself and are willing to put in the work, then put in the work, you can get to wherever you want to get. I read threads on here of guys saying I'm 6'1" or taller and 200+lbs and I'll never get any faster. Truth is, you can, and you should. Myself and others who I know and that are on here can vouch for the fact that sub 5min/miles are possible at given sizes. Just how bad do you want it. How much can you hurt to get there. I like having that pain in my chest cranking out very hard times. For some people, they'd rather reel it in and call it quits. If you ask me, and I think others have said it as well, using 'bad genes' is just a scape goat for not wanting to put in the effort or really push yourself. I'm not really 'built' to be a quality distance runner, or biker for that matter. I have very broad shoulders, so my body facing the wind is larger than your average legitimate AG athlete. But I don't let that be a limiting factor. I have to find ways to use it to my advantage. I generally get worked on ascending, especially hilly courses, but when it comes to descending, I rarely find anyone faster that's not an insane biker. So I use that to my advantage. You just need to cater the strengths you have and play those up, instead of focusing on the things that make it harder.

My Race Log

Expert

945

, Michigan

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:33 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:30 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:28 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

. Yes, I agree. That's why I started my post with "Most age groupers."

I don't know......MOST age groupers cannot KQ. The thing about triathletes is that the majority of them came late to the game. Building the kind of aerobic engine it takes to KQ is not possible for most people at that stage of their life. I realize that's a different issue than genetics, but I think your comments about "Most" age groupers is wrong.

I have to disagree. I didn't say they could qualify today, or in two years. Maybe it takes them five, seven, or ten. My point is that it is not their genetics that's limiting them ... it's all the other excuses they make ... which is okay by me. Trying to KQ may be one of the more unhealthy things one could choose to do if it means sacrificing family relationships, monetary discipline, etc ... Not to mention the possible injuries one may suffer during training. But it's not their genetic code ... at least not in my opinion, that limits them. Maybe the gene mapping will prove otherwise in the next few years. We're not too far off from it even today.

Edited by DV 1 2012-09-18 2:53 PM

Expert

945

, Michigan

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Red corvette - "making an excuse" "justifying" "rationalizing" ... whatever you want to call it. My thoughts aren't intended to imply weakness, lack of awareness, or ineptitude. I just call them excuses when I talk to myself, about me, so that's what I wrote. I apologize if I offended you.

Edited by DV 1 2012-09-18 2:50 PM

Regular

234

Madison

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:43 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:33 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:30 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:28 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

. Yes, I agree. That's why I started my post with "Most age groupers."

I don't know......MOST age groupers cannot KQ. The thing about triathletes is that the majority of them came late to the game. Building the kind of aerobic engine it takes to KQ is not possible for most people at that stage of their life. I realize that's a different issue than genetics, but I think your comments about "Most" age groupers is wrong.

I have to disagree. I didn't say they could qualify today, or in two years. Maybe it takes them five, seven, or ten. My point is that it is not their genetics that's limiting them ... it's all the other excuses they make ... which is okay by me. Trying to KQ may be one of the more unhealthy things one could choose to do if it means sacrificing family relationships, monetary discipline, etc ... Not to mention the possible injuries one may suffer during training. But it's not their genetic code ... at least not in my opinion. Maybe the gene mapping will prove otherwise in the next few years. We're not too far off from it even today.

I'm gonna have to agree with DV 1. I think the only way to prove either way right or wrong though is to take an 'average guy' give them all the necessary tools: proper gear, nutrition, training, and time and I would most likely put money down they would be a KQ. Everyone starts at different points in heir life, and that is 100% normal. But to be 25 and just starting out in the sport of triathlon and thinking in 12 years I'll be 37 there's no way, I think that's just insane to be that down on yourself. I started when I was 25 (or 24, I forget), and if I had the above factors in my favor to get it done, no doubt I could. I've been an athlete my whole life, I know, but not an endurance athlete.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:43 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:33 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:30 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:28 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

. Yes, I agree. That's why I started my post with "Most age groupers."

I don't know......MOST age groupers cannot KQ. The thing about triathletes is that the majority of them came late to the game. Building the kind of aerobic engine it takes to KQ is not possible for most people at that stage of their life. I realize that's a different issue than genetics, but I think your comments about "Most" age groupers is wrong.

I have to disagree. I didn't say they could qualify today, or in two years. Maybe it takes them five, seven, or ten. My point is that it is not their genetics that's limiting them ... it's all the other excuses they make ... which is okay by me. Trying to KQ may be one of the more unhealthy things one could choose to do if it means sacrificing family relationships, monetary discipline, etc ... Not to mention the possible injuries one may suffer during training. But it's not their genetic code ... at least not in my opinion, that limits them. Maybe the gene mapping will prove otherwise in the next few years. We're not too far off from it even today.

And my point is that genetics WILL limit more than not. MOST people, given time, equipment, whatever....cannot run an IM in under 10 hours. They just can't.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Let me ask you this....do you think MOST people, given enough time and training and equipment, can run a sub 5:00 mile?

Regular

234

Madison

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:00 PM Let me ask you this....do you think MOST people, given enough time and training and equipment, can run a sub 5:00 mile?

Yes.

If they have the ability to push themselves.

Edited by djrigby9 2012-09-18 3:04 PM

My Race Log

Regular

234

Madison

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 2:58 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:43 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:33 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:30 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:28 PM

DV 1 - 2012-09-18 2:22 PM Most age groupers can KQ if they want to. 1:30/100 swim, 21 mph bike, 8 min/mile - with 8 minuts of total transition time - gets you in under 10 hours. None of those speeds are out of reach of most of us. Putting them together in a race takes lots of hard work, but we're not talkin about needing 25 mph bike speed or 6:30-7:00 min run splits. Where you are right now will help determine how long it will take to KQ, but any of us can do it. Saying it's not in my genes is just another excuse people like to make. Since we can't control our genes, it's the easiest thing to blame. Other things, like I don't have the time, money, etc..., are controllable if someone really wants it, so they blame genetics instead. I have a few geneticists in my family, MD practitioners, PHD researchers, a neurologist, and I've had this discussion with them before. Scientifically, the actual genetics is so minutely insignificant, that it's basically a non issue. It's the environmental factors, starting at birth, that make the difference. The poster earlier that referenced the Russian tennis players is on the right track. There's a book called Nature vs. Nuture that provides a non-athletic insight into the question, but it's more about human behavior than anything. Still, it's an interesting read, albeit very long.

I bet it's not in your genes to run Kona in 8 hours......and I don't care how much you work.

From my end of this discussion I'm not talking about doing "fast" times.....I'm talking about doing "elite" work.....it's just not happening if you don't have the genetics behind you.

. Yes, I agree. That's why I started my post with "Most age groupers."

I don't know......MOST age groupers cannot KQ. The thing about triathletes is that the majority of them came late to the game. Building the kind of aerobic engine it takes to KQ is not possible for most people at that stage of their life. I realize that's a different issue than genetics, but I think your comments about "Most" age groupers is wrong.

I have to disagree. I didn't say they could qualify today, or in two years. Maybe it takes them five, seven, or ten. My point is that it is not their genetics that's limiting them ... it's all the other excuses they make ... which is okay by me. Trying to KQ may be one of the more unhealthy things one could choose to do if it means sacrificing family relationships, monetary discipline, etc ... Not to mention the possible injuries one may suffer during training. But it's not their genetic code ... at least not in my opinion, that limits them. Maybe the gene mapping will prove otherwise in the next few years. We're not too far off from it even today.

And my point is that genetics WILL limit more than not. MOST people, given time, equipment, whatever....cannot run an IM in under 10 hours. They just can't.

I think this is an interesting discussion, because I don't really know how we can prove either way. I'm not going to say one side is right or wrong. But I take my personal experiences with myself and others and make my assumptions from there.

My Race Log

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

djrigby9 - 2012-09-18 3:01 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:00 PM Let me ask you this....do you think MOST people, given enough time and training and equipment, can run a sub 5:00 mile?

Yes.

If they have the ability to push themselves.

What do you base that on? I'm not saying you are wrong, though from my experience I don't come anywhere close to believing MOST people can run a sub 5:00 mile....and there are ALOT of people out there working really hard.

Edited by Left Brain 2012-09-18 3:07 PM

72

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

There is really only one solution to this. I am 25 and will be the guinea pig for the next 10 years. So I will take all the best gear, coaching and nutrition!

My opinion - talent makes it easier to get close to the line of elite and amatuer athletes but when push comes to shove its sheer guts and will that brings you to elite. Running 4 min miles is not a cake walk for anyone, it hurts and being elite is being able to mentally withstand that hurt. Talent and hard work can both get you there, just some people arent their mentally.

The reason I feel this way is that I have seen complete turn around transformations. In hs a kid went from not even being able to run a mile to being able to run sub 17min 5ks as a sophmore. How? He wanted it bad, not just a little bit but bad. He put in loads of time with the 1st group in xc and hung on till he couldnt hang every time. He never gave up and always fought to be where he was.

Other side of the coin. Another instance from hs. I knew a kid who could run 1:58 in the 800 all day long without practice. Just natural ability. Didnt want to go outside his comfort so he wouldnt go faster but prob couldve gone to sub 152.

72	Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work? Left Brain - Most people maybe could, but do most people WANT to?

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

jrichardtri - 2012-09-18 3:06 PM

There is really only one solution to this. I am 25 and will be the guinea pig for the next 10 years. So I will take all the best gear, coaching and nutrition!

My opinion - talent makes it easier to get close to the line of elite and amatuer athletes but when push comes to shove its sheer guts and will that brings you to elite. Running 4 min miles is not a cake walk for anyone, it hurts and being elite is being able to mentally withstand that hurt. Talent and hard work can both get you there, just some people arent their mentally.

The reason I feel this way is that I have seen complete turn around transformations. In hs a kid went from not even being able to run a mile to being able to run sub 17min 5ks as a sophmore. How? He wanted it bad, not just a little bit but bad. He put in loads of time with the 1st group in xc and hung on till he couldnt hang every time. He never gave up and always fought to be where he was.

Other side of the coin. Another instance from hs. I knew a kid who could run 1:58 in the 800 all day long without practice. Just natural ability. Didnt want to go outside his comfort so he wouldnt go faster but prob couldve gone to sub 152.

I agree the discussion is interesting. Your two examples don't come anywhere close to MOST.....and a sub 17 5K or 1:58 800 really isn't that fast for fast HS athletes.

Pro

15655

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

jrichardtri - 2012-09-18 3:08 PM

Left Brain -

Most people maybe could, but do most people WANT to?

No...MOST people could not run a sub 5:00 mile.

Regular

234

Madison

Subject: RE: Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work?

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:06 PM

djrigby9 - 2012-09-18 3:01 PM

Left Brain - 2012-09-18 3:00 PM Let me ask you this....do you think MOST people, given enough time and training and equipment, can run a sub 5:00 mile?

Yes.

If they have the ability to push themselves.

What do you base that on? I'm not saying you are wrong, though from my experience I don't come anywhere close to believing MOST people can run a sub 5:00 mile....and there are ALOT of people out there working really hard.

Put it this way, take the next year, maybe even up to 3. Only think about training for your golden sub 5min/mi. Do the work, and I mean the HARD work. Have you ever done repeat 300s, 600s or 800s? So many that you collapse due to sheer exhaustion? That's the type of work that it takes. I watched myself and 2 other average athletes with average parents go from running mid-upper 50sec splits in the 4x400 the year before, to all running 50.x the next due to all 3 of us pushing our limits to qualify for the state meet. That came with time spent pushing ourselves beyond what we thought we could do. We had another athlete who had never run more than a mile come out and join us, and in less than one season went from 56 down to 50.x splits. Maybe it was his genes, but he worked as hard or harder than the rest of us. If you were to ask me if I were to ever do a Half IM 3-4 years ago, I'd have said no way, but now I see absolutely no reason why I can't qualify for the Worlds. But that's because I believe in myself and know that if I do things right, good things can happen. But bad things can too! I could get hurt and never race again.

My Race Log

Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work? (Page 2)

REGISTER TODAY