Genetics and natural talent vs. hard work? (Page 3)

Where do you base a 1:58 not being fast for a HS athlete? I'm pretty sure in most states, that would qualify you for the state meet. And to be one of the top several hundred HS athletes in the country at that distance, I'd say you're fast. I couldn't quite break 2:00, but that race wasn't my focus. Yet I was winning the races I entered except for our county meet in which I took 3rd.

And you completely missed the point of his statement.

I ran a sub 4:20 mile in HS.....so yes, I've done the interval work.  My point tis that MOST people can't do it....in fact, the overwhelming majority can't do it.

If your point is valid, and most people can run 5:00 miles with enough work, then the same qould apply to 4:00 miles....even though, realistically speaking, as a percentage of humans, virtually no one can.  It takes genetics.

Or how about 3:00 miles? or 2:00?? Now your breaking it down into what the human body is physically capable of doing throughout a long history of evolution. Records will continuously be broken, does that mean someone will someday run the 100m in 3 seconds. Maybe. I have no clue. We're an amazing species, what I'm getting at is the fact that until either is proven wrong, this discussion can be an endless battle of opinions. I'm a very optimistic person when it comes to the capabilities of humans. Give us enough time and the right science behind it, what we're talking about is completely possible.

I live in the midwest, a 1:58 wouldn't have medaled in our state HS meet last year.  A 1:58 would maybe crack the top 500 nationally.  The sub 17:00 5K in cross country likely would not put him in the top 2000 nationally, depending on what end of "sub 17" you are talking about.

No, I didn't miss the point.  You said MOST....I say NO WAY.

YES!!!!!!!!!

As it is GENETICALLY passed down.

Thank you!

I didn't say medal at state meet. I said qualify. Please don't yell.

I'll throw in with Lefty in this conversation.  Look at the bolded section.  You could ask a number of people to do what he did, and they would simply not be capable of achieving the goal.  Not because they didn't have the heart, desire, or guts - but they simply did not have the base ability.

Each time people make an argument against genetics, I look at it as though someone is telling all the MOP/BOP athletes who bust their butt that they should in fact be trying harder.  The vast majority of us are never going to train like Pro's and dedicate the time to see what our "true" potential is. But when you compare apples to apples, one age grouper training 10 hours a week vs another one with similiar constraints, responsibilities, etc., there can be vast differences in performance.  In many cases this can be tied to background, perhaps training regime, and in other cases a genetic predisposition to be good/great/okay at a specific activity.

I consider myself as an example.  I tend to be a much better runner than cyclist or swimmer, and in local Tri's I tend to be BFOP.  I don't run nearly as much as many others, I also have zero background in running, but I do have a predisposition with my body type, etc., to run reasonably well.

Yes, hard work is needed to make something of your inate abilities - but you need to have the abilities to begin with.

Left Brain - what was your 2 mile? and how far under 420?

Do you coach? Just curious. You have way better knowledge base than most of hs track.

I ran alot of miles in under 4:20....never broke 4:15.  I don't know what I ran the two mile in.....the mile was my "long distance".

No, I'm not a coach, but I have a fast kid so I have an idea of what "fast" is at his level.  I also attended every youth/junior elite triathlon in the country this year.  Again, after awhile, you start to get an understanding of what "fast" looks like and what it takes to get there.

I would never downplay hard work.....but talent is just as important to play on the big stages.

haha "yelling". I agree caps lock is rude.

Anyways, just to clarify, genetics means the muscular ability to adapt to a training load and the body type (ex: broad shoulders, long legs, arms, etc.)

I don't consider caps on the internet to be rude.  I don't care if you type your whole post in caps.....I wasn't yelling....I was shaking my head.  Whenever I do, caps come out. Go figure.

Besides.....the argument is over.  We agreed that through evolution man would get faster.  When you watch really fast people now, you're seeing evolution right before your eyes.

I think this is a point I've been forgetting to say about a lot of what I've been saying. I do think genetics has a role, yes. However, it's not as large as people may think. I think their role in this is they help 1.) get those who have them 'on their side' there faster. 2.) they help push those with 'the good stuff' just a little higher than those 'without'.

I think overall the point is missed about this topic. I do believe that an 'average joe' can get to the elite level with hard work, and all the necessary tools. However, should he come up against someone with slightly better 'genes' than him/her, with the same training, odds are, he/she will lose. But that's not the bigger picture. I think the whole point of this conversation is about being able to play on the same field, rather than knocking off top contenders.

Most people actually can't/won't qualify for Boston or Kona.  Yes BQ is much easier than KQ.  Statistically speaking BQ is the top 10 percent of the world's marathoners.  KQ is the top 2 percent of the worlds IMers.  Olympics in USA is more like 1 in 100,000,000.  You are not 1 in 100,000,000 based on hard work alone.  To say that most can/will KQ if they work hard but ony the top 2 percent will on any given year does not = most people can/will. 

So I am 45-49 age group.  IM Swim 2:00/100, bike 17.8 mph and run 8:39 mpm.  I need to be in the top 60 in the world or better to qualify. that is 60/436,624,522 1 in 1/34x10^-7 or the top .000001 perentcent.  Granted not everyone in my age group does IMs so of those who do it is the top 1 percent ish, but clearly not an anyone can do it kind of thing.   Dropping to a 1:30/100 swim is not something that will likely happen in my lifetime.  Increasing bike speed 4 mph over 112, I am not hopeful.  The run, ya I could improve the run maybe 10 minutes overall, I have run Boston.   

If you know how to get me to a 1:30 /100 swim and a 21 mph bike, I am all ears.  I have a P2, have done 3 IMs with a 4th planned for this fall and should get in around 6000 miles biked 1500 miles run this year, not sure about the swim.  People who are silly fast underestimate how much work it takes to get sub 19:00 5k or over 20 mph for an IM bike.

Short answer better genetics = less work.  BQ = decent genetics and decent hard work, KQ= really solid genetics and pretty solid work or world class genetics and pretty solid work, Olympics smiled on by God genetics and really hard work.   

It's all good. Just some thread fun. lol

Absolutely!

OK

Wow 90 percent of us fit into the top 1 percentile of IMers or higher, shakes head.  Not mathematically possible.  If you are able to have a 90 percent KQ rate as a coach and not be at all selective in who you pick to coach (you have to include the 17+ hour folks),  you will be a rich rich boy.  Where do I sign up to gain these supapowers? 

This is the math of No Child Left Behind, I want 100 percent of students functioning above the 85th percentile on steroids, I want 90 percent of IMers to perform in the top 1 percentile. 

How many times have you qualified for Kona?

Mark

Things might differ with the different triathlon disciplines. It seems ever time we see human interest story on an Olympic swimmer, it's accompanied by video of a kid on a swim team. The technique takes time to learn.

On the other hand, I'm sure it's not common, but for running, there is Abdi Adbirahman who came to the sport relatively late.

"It wasn't until his second semester at Pima Community College in Tucson that Abdirah-man's running talent was finally discovered, in a story that's become part of running legend. "I hung out with a bunch of athletes, and every day at 3 they'd go to practice, leaving me alone," he says. "I decided I needed to be on a team, so I went to the track coach and asked him if I could join. He told me to come back Monday when they were doing a 5-mile run.

"So I showed up, wearing jeans and Rockport shoes, and only their No. 1 guy beat me, and he had to outsprint me at the end. So the coach gave me a pair of shoes and said I was on the team," Abdirahman recalls. The following weekend he was in his first track race, a 5,000m. "I had no idea what to do," he says. "I'd sprint 200, then jog 200." He wound up running 15:05."

The whole article can be found at http://runningtimes.com/Print.aspx?articleID=25919.

It's a very interesting subject. I am pushing to see how far I can go with what I have, even if I never run a 5-minute mile.

The most important part about his post was to "make sacrifices". 90% of IM finishers can do it. But what's the percent of those willing to put in the work for KQ? Maybe... 10%? Of those 10% how much more does it narrow down to who has time available to train like they want to? (I made up the 10% off the top of my head)

Just what I was thinking reading your post.

Michelle that sounds like a great article to read! Now I'm absolutely certain there are those people who do it without trying and thats the natural inherent ability at play. However my original play was that the "average joe"can get to that level through work. I'm absolutely certain they won't win in those situations, but to get to that level...