The guy who wrote the book was on R4 this morning, it's very interesting. Does it mean I might catch Grouse if I train hard enough?
Printable View
The guy who wrote the book was on R4 this morning, it's very interesting. Does it mean I might catch Grouse if I train hard enough?
Personally, I like to think that if you were to put in the training, the perseverance, the belief and make the necessary sacrifice you could improve and maybe be amongst the top flight of runners, but whether that would be enough to put you amongst or ahead of the very best, I don't know. When it comes to hill running, I'm just amazed that I'm able to take part and finish a race before everyone else has gone home.
I know I haven't read the book, but I'll proceed anyway.
I think the argument is slightly flawed. It seems to suggest that because great athletes have put in thousands of hours' training, then it follows that thousands of hours' training will make anyone into a great athlete.
If you take a lot of untrained people and tell them to run, some are much faster than others. If you then train them all for 10,000 hours, are you really telling me that they will now all be the same speed? Training makes people faster than they were when they started, but it doesn't completely negate this level of natural advantage that favours some people over others.
Also, I think the example of racing car driving and playing table tennis is not completely fitting to this. They rely much less on natural ability, and more on training and learned co-ordination.
The guy actually said on bbc breakfast this morning that some things "running, lifting and jumping" are predetermined by genetics however others such as reaction speed and anticipatory reception skills can be increased with hours of practice all be it a high rate of deminishing returns for those already at a high level of competition.
Noel's got a point you know. I hear a lot about Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours and find it rather too convenient. I think the answer is 'it depends'. 10,000 hours is a nice round number but can probably be translated as 'a lot of training' (or practise if you want to play the violin or whatever) will make you a lot better. But in my case, I reckon I'd be making a reasonable stab at Three Blind Mice after all that time, and the effort (on the violin) would have been better spent elsewhere.
I like running and love the places it gets you. I'd be loads better if I did more training, but I'm not going to. I'm going to realistically train a bit harder, and maybe a bit smarter. And keep getting better slightly faster than the rate I'm getting older. Working so far. The best I've got in my future is 'the upper echelon of mediocrity.' That's alright by me.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/...51599182_m.jpg
Though there is undoubtedly a question of the commitment that mere mortal also-rans like us have I think it is more complicated than that, as others have said.
I think there is a case for runners having differing levels of natural ability, depending on any number of things, but probably mainly dictated by genes: natural mix of differing muscle fibres, height, proportion of body, etc.
If someone is better pre-disposed to endurance running genetically, then straight away this person has greater potential than someone less suited to the sport.
However, someone with less potential - but effectively fulfilling that potential - could theoretically beat the 'natural runner' if that runner is not effectively fulfilling theirs.
How much of the body's potential is unlocked is going to depend on a number of factors, but most of it will come down to the effort you put in, in other words the level of specific trained ability - the right mix of training, in the right amounts (though most likely more than any of us mulling over this question put in), nutrition, etc.
For example, a naturally gifted runner, as illustrated by the Kenyan hobo story requires very little training to achieve silly quick times.
If you had someone who had bags of natural potential (possibly through genetic predisposition) who didn't take their training seriously, then there is a case that a 'normal' could, through enough specific training build up their ability to compete at the same level.
It just means that one runner is operating at 95% of their body's potential compared to the natural runner, who might only be operating at 60%. If both took the same approach to the training (i.e. applied themselves with the same commitment), you would expect to see the more natural runner move beyond the reach of the 'normal'.
Equally, you could have two people level in all other respects (natural ability & specific training commitment), but then the final kicker would be determination. As Al said about Jebb at Coniston: he was suffering, but he pushed on through. One runner might take this approach, and the other might fold at the first sign of the going getting tough. The 'wheels fall off', or people 'freeze' come the big day.
I suppose sitting behind both of these factors sits the level of desire, or more importantly the level of sacrifice someone is willing to make to fulfil their desires. e.g. I desire to win races - would be brilliant. Am I able/prepared to get out in the hills 3hrs at a time every day (assuming that is the most appropriate training)? No. First thing I would sacrifice if I were to do this would be the better half!!
Is someone prepared to sacrifice the time to put in the required training to more effectively fulfil their potential? Is someone prepared to put up with the short-term pain in a crucial stage of the race and keep going, or do they ease off?
There will be other things too, like personal circumstances at the time (stress), minor fuctuations in the body's health from day to day, experience, etc. but these are largely out of our own hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trog
I suspect too much emphasis is placed on genetic pre-disposition, but I do still think it's a factor. Take two people with the same training, same determination, and - all other things being equal - the one with more natural talent will win. The fact that less naturally gifted people can compete is testament to the fact that some people just work bloody hard to get where they want to be, and more power to their elbow.
For the 'normals' "it's genetic" is probably an excuse we cling to when we can't face up to the fact we just don't push ourselves hard enough. Most of us would acknowledge that our lifestyles don't allow the level of effort required but if we looked hard enough at ourselves, we'd probably admit we wouldn't want to/be prepared to change that.
In fact, as I re-read my post above, a great example of this came to mind: our very own Al Fowler. A cracking runner regularly troubling the upper echelons of the results lists (well, compared to me anyway!!) who by his own admission, doesn't train. His is a natural gift. If he sorted out his training we would all be eating his dust!!;)
Running is not a 'skill sport' which suits me.
The comparison of the performances of the gifted runner who doesn't train and the moderate runner who trains hard is obviously valid. It's a bit like the old hare and the tortoise scenario. But in sports like fell running, there are as well as fitness many technical aspects too; such things as quick reactions, good balance, an eye for a line, mental preparation, and even the right choice of equipment, and that is why I mentioned the Formula 1 motor racing driver as another example of somebody who has honed these kind of skills to a fine art. If you or I tried to emulate a world champion racing driver our reactions or nerves or eyesight or co-ordination or something else would let us down. In other words, a champion is someone in whom all the required qualities come together in the right proportions at the right time and in the right place.
Interesting was the remark of the Kenyan who won the Hamburg Marathon. "For the others it's a marathon. For me it's my job. And I enjoy my job."
Ah yes! Now enjoy it too!
It's a very interesting topic because the belief in genetic predisposition is widely held and has the potential to lead to prejudice. Until my opinion/belief was challenged by reading the book I would have agreed with the other posters. Now I'm not so sure. I would urge everyone to look at the evidence which is probably available in other sources than the book.
One last point. A man has been collecting and studying genetic material from champion Kenyan runners. He has found no evidence of genetic advantage. He ,and others, believe it is cultural and environmental factors which have led to their success in distance running. One common factor seems to be that many of them ran lontg distances to and from school, up to 20k a day. By the time they were in their teens they had clocked up many hours of training and the bodies of conditioned athletes.
Yes, but he wasn't trying to input into the argument we are having here. He was trying to inform the debate about whether Kenyans are genetically predisposed to being better runners than eg, Europeans. I agree with his findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deadlegs
However, his research will all have been done in elite runners (Kenyan vs non-Kenyan). To help us with our argument, we would need the same research to be done in elite runners vs. average people in the street.
Anyway, enough of this debate. I'm off to train to become a world champion basketball player. :rolleyes:
I will have another go.
Look at it this way,if it was aout detrminitaion more than genetics why dont the Premiure League football
Clubs pick afew kids at 8-10 yrs old train them for 10years and bingo you have a few ready made cheap
footballers.
We all know they do a form of this BUT and this is the key the kids that go through the acadamy sytem are hand picked for natural ability from a young age and trained to hopefully perform at the highest levlel.
Do you not think if it was as easy as training and determination, Man Utd Chelsea etc would be able to produce top class player from ANYONE?
Why is one race horse faster than another?
They can't all win the Epsom Derby even if they all eat the same food, all do the same training and they are all are ridden by the best jockeys.
Maybe it's the same with human runners. Except for the bit about jockeys of course :D
So you wanna be a top runner?
Easy....
http://www.salomonrunning.com/os/blo...ml?sf2040715=1
nice bit of film
I especially like the bit where he says that his diet consists mainly of pizza & nutella!
also at the end when he says that winning isn't about coming first, but about being happy with your performance :)
That's the only bit of his training regime I can manage, apart from lying in a hammock or twiddling a pine cone....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by DazTheSlug
I'm guessing that is where we are all going wrong! Interesting that he doesn't taper but appears to build up the time/ascent of runs leading up to a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussockface
Is there a case for just not being a good runner and enjoying running for what it is? I'm consistently mediocre and have realised that in my mid thirties, running for about 9 years now, that I'm not going to win any races. I even came second in the dads race at my sons sports day. But every race i've finished (bar the ones that I've tried really, really hard to do well in) I've come across the line smilling. By not worrying about being the best or winning anything and running for fun (albeit with a bit more effort than your average jogger) I think I'm possibly enjoying running more than someone who commits themselves to weeks of +100 mile training. I'm also looking forward to being able to run into my old age.
Yes, the less you are able to train now, the more you'll run later in life. I'm really looking forward to being the first V80 champ!Quote:
Originally Posted by Twister
One thing I've realised over the last couple of years, due to various issues I've had! Leg strength and strength/weight ratio are fairly important!
Its nice to share!! :thumbup:
Great thread, intriguing stuff. And favourite thought from it so far is the above. Definitely food for thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by A.P.E Knott
I've got an out of work friend whose plan is taking him to four weeks of this at the moment.
That's one thing that's been missed so far: good genes, amazing will-power, redundant!
careful what you wish for in the pursuit of something. One V55+ DP runner recently said to me that at the age he is, that he is no mans land and needed to turn 60 to start placing in vet catergories again, seems like there are two reasons to wish your life away, one to get to retirement and the other to get into the next vet catergory!Quote:
Originally Posted by mr brightside
I think categries should be based around weight then i might win something :w00t:
A couple of month ago i trained for 8 consecutive days, ive never did this before. I had 1 day recovery then trained for another 5 days. I had 2 days off before a race I had pencilled in. I have done this race over the exact same course 7 times now. On this occasion, i was the fastest I have ever ran the course, by nearly a minute, and i beat some top top runners who I had never done before. To me that proved everything, if you train correctly and consistently you will improve.
some good thoughts on this thread :)
I was searching for something on here last night, and tripped across this thread again. Certainly interesting reading....
On a "hard work = success" perspective....look at the results Daz h is knocking out at the moment.
Everyone know's Daz has always been good, but over these last few months (since he stopped posting on here) he has been climbing up the ladder of race positions race by race. Daz isnt getting any younger, but he's getting better and better.
On his blog he puts it simply....you have to put the effort it. Daz cycles and he runs.....alot! And I know for sure that he will always be training at a high intensity and suffer alot to get to where he has to be.
We all have our weaknesses. I came 2nd at a local race last week out of 100 or so which seems good. But had the top boys turned up (Darren Kay turned up and won, and he's right up there with the fast lads) I wouldnt even of got a look in.
My weakness is my head. I used to be a right soft arse and Id moan, but Im getting better now. But I still have to force myself to push and to suffer that bit more sometimes. People talk about "enjoying" races, but I think thats nonsense. I race is only to be enjoyed when its over and your talking about it with everyone in the pub! During the race is all about absolutely hating the sport you do ha!
Im also crap at flat speed and I have to work on this as much as I hate doing it, to be able to stand a chance at getting near the top of the results page for bigger race. If I had decent flat speed I might even have won the local race last week. I died on my arse and lost alot of time running along the top because I didnt have another gear to kick into. I only managed to bag 2nd because of a slightly mental descent which gained me 2 places just before the finish.
I do believe you have to be born with some sort of talent though. My mum and all her family we all good runners at school, but my dad's family have never been known for physical activites other than planting potatoes and building houses. Im ok at running and I think Ive got my mum's side of the family to thank, but I'll be having words with my grandma for not playing sport when she was younger, otherwise I might of been a top class runner!
(Ps....ive written so much because Im on my dinner hour and the news is boring today)
it WAS a mental but very exciting to watch descent!
Al you need to brush up on your evolutionary theory. Most people subscribe to Darwin and not Lamarck. Great running though.
An increase in training does lead to an improvement in performance in most cases. As long as you don't get to the point of overtraining. However just increasing one aspect doesn't improve everything. You need to do speed work to improve your mile times, hill work to improve your climbing & descending and long sessions to improve your endurance. The art is in balance the right amount of each and eating and resting well too.
The sad fact is that that we are limited by the potential we are born with, VO2 max, vital capacity, bodytype and as a number of people have said - willpower. Training will release the potential we have but can't make us somethign we are not.
When I used to race short distance (5-10miles) my speed training and hill work did pay off. My placings got better but after a point i had to settle for mid teens as my spot. I couldn't do any faster than 5min 30s mile reps. I moved to long distance trainign for my BG and my placings got better. Maybe long distance suits me more.
As I understand the inherited side of endurance sports ability, your mitochondrial DNA (relevant, I think, to our ability to metabolise fuel and generate energy efficiently) is entirely from your mother's side. So those of us men can thank/curse our mothers but can be absolved from blame if our children are no good. Other factors are obviously highly significant, but this is a key factor in middle and long distance running.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Fowler
I'm happy for this to be disputed but I picked it up from Barry Fudge who's one of the physiologists who works with the UK's olympic athletes and has carried out a major study into the factors influencing East African domination of middle and long distance events. His conclusion was that there was no "east african" gene, as DNA is now so widely spread around the global gene pool. The biggest influences were running being the No1 sport (massive base of the pyramid of potential superstars), the volume and intensity of training, the highly competitive environment, recovery from training and (probably) the effects of training at altitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.P.E Knott
That's the key. there is too much defeatism. too many excuses.
Look at Rich Roberts, 6 years ago he was 15+ stone and a right big guy, now he's a top runner.
DazH as Al says, year on year he's improved, he just keeps going.
Run more, train smarter, avoid injuries, drink less, get lighter, you'll run quicker. Ok there are a few genetic freaks but TBH I don't worry about them, I don't think most of us will learn much from them, but we will learn from the likes of Tim Davies, who well and systematically.
Running is pretty simple really. Its just about dedication and desire. I train fairly hard, but need to drop a good stone or two, drink less, up my intensity, work on my flexibility and did less enjoyable running in the fells. I don't think many of us can honestly say we've hit our genetic potential so I don't see why its mentioned to be honest..
But we run as amatuers because we enjoy it so you need to strike a balance that works for you. If you don't enjoy the training then you won't do it.
Nonsense - Lamarck sounds good to me. One question - does any adaptation absolutely need to have happened before my birth. To put it another way, if I mither my parents into doing more training now, will I get better without training any harder?Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouse
Also, where does Zen come into it? Can I get faster by thinking about it more?
And another thing, if I've been reincarnated from having been a slow animal (like a hedgehog), should I work on my distance training more or focus on sprints?
All good questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I think the answers are: no, no, yes, no.
I think we could all get up to a decent standard if we trained correctly (notice i said correctly and not hard!) the key points being what you want to achieve. I'm not a big fan of this big mileage theory, unless you want to run ultras, its about experimenting with what you can absorb, and doing specific sessions for what you want to race. I personally drink to much, eat to much junk food and dont train consistently enough, if i cut down the drinking and sorted my diet out and trained properly then maybe i would be half decent, but i cant be arsed.
My team mate and I had a similar discussion some years ago - there should be a matrix...including weight it should include whether you have children, do you work full time....maybe bring in testosterone testing ;-)....some of us fair to middling runners might then be in with a chance of getting a prize...(note, before I get berated, this is all tongue in cheek of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Bad Baz
Is the training totally fell specific? Would a year living and training in the lakes improve someone greatly in this discipline? :)
The key here is 'training'. When i first moved to the area my form dropped off quite dramatically. I took it for granted, became lazy (I'll go out next week when it stops raining), drank too much of the local beer and ended up stopping lots to admire the views.
What limits most of us when we run? - despite the fact that running makes us breathless it is not our lungs, nor is it our heart, which simply pumps out the blood that is returned to it; it is the mitochondria and enzymes in our muscles which have to provide energy in the form of ATP without generating too much acid - in other words our VO2max and what percentage of this we can maintain for a period of time. How trainable one's VO2max is has been debated elsewhere but I suspect it is more fixed than people would hope - certainly that is Noakes' opinion; the % of VO2max that can be maintained is more trainable but requires constant training or it will quickly drift back to where it was.
Most good runners are slim and have longish legs and thin calves - though just because you are built like this does not mean you will be a good runner. We know you need to be tall to be a good basketball player or high jumper, to have big hands/feet to be a good swimmer, and to be "big" to be a shot-putter - these things are easy to see, but we cannot "see" VO2max, which makes it difficult to understand and to work out WITHOUT A TRAINING PROGRAM who has the potential to be a top level runner. Some of us will never get above the middle echelons of mediocrity no matter how hard/sensibly we train.
but wasn't there a world marathon record holder with an incredibly low VO2max, well for that level of sportsman, mind 60's IIRC..Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike T
I am away from my reference books at the moment and cannot recall who it was but I can remember a top runner with a VO2max of "only" 70 - as opposed to 75- 90 for top runners/cyclists/cross country skiers, and about 40 for the average person; - the individual concerned made up for it by being able to maintain a very much higher % of his VO2max than his peers. It is a bit like a "short" basket ball player of 6 foot 4 inches being able to compete with the seven footers as he can jump higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by IainR
perhaps at a tangent to an otherwise absorbing thread (but hopefully still relevant). Clearly to be good you have to put the time in - you need hours on the fell running and training effectively. How do people fit the hours into a busy work/home life. Maybe I am just incredibly disorganised or don't manage my time effectively enough but the very most I seem to be able to manage on a typical week is 4 hours. How many hours a week to top runners do a week and how do they fit it in to their lives. We can talk about commitment/desire etc but when you factor in jobs, time with children etc. I don't seem to have that much for running. is this a similar story for other mere mortals or is this just me being ineffective. Part of being great is obviously the physical/mental make up of a person but they also need time. Where do they find this time from?
Derek Clayton I think it was.. 67 - 69 depending on the source.. 2:08 marathon.. ex world record holder
Like you say.. could maintain higher Vo2
"How do some elite runners make up for lower levels of VO2 max?
Although all elite runners have VO2 max values well above the population mean, the correlation between VO2 max and performance is not absolute. Derek Clayton only had a VO2 max of 69 ml/kg/min. and Frank Shorter only recorded a value of 71 ml/kg/min., yet both of these runners ran marathon times of under 2:11 and surely outperformed runners with higher values. This variation in VO2 max values among the elite is possible because VO2 max is only one of several factors that determine running performance. These other factors include mental attitude (ability to tolerate pain), running economy (how efficiently one runs), and lactate threshold (fastest pace you can maintain without accumulating large amounts of lactic acid in your blood). A runner with a relatively low VO2 max, but high in these other performance factors, could outperform a runner with a significantly higher VO2 max but with poor running economy and a low lactate threshold. For example, Derek Clayton and Frank Shorter compensated for their lower VO2 max values with their high efficiency and ability to run their marathons at a high percentage of their VO2 max without accumulating too much lactic acid (high lactate threshold)."