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?
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.
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.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!
Last edited by woodlander; 13-05-2010 at 08:17 PM.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote