no, sorry about that, I wasn't having a go but badly explaining that I think that keen runners when running mainly for enjoyment, probably do quite a bit of the recommended training techniques without thinking about it too much. Either way, its all good stuff!My run this evening was neither focussed or fast but nevermind
Originally Posted by Howgill Tarrier
I've got many genetic limitations which have been seriously limiting my running and cycling for years, i'm a complete biomechanical disaster, are you saying it's all in my head?
Good work Stolly :thumbup: I am impressed with what you have achieved and like the way you have gone about it.
A little bit of inspiration and motivation - something which racing etc doesn't really do for me - thank you
In the week I mostly run in the evenings when I get home from work - say 6 till 7 pm or thereabouts whilst at the weekends I fit in runs and adventures to suit. Don't get me wrong I can understand super keen runners wanting to do fartlek, sprint training and all that palava and others with not many hills near them doing hill reps but, for me, quite honestly life's too short. All the same I do tend to really push it from time to time and I always, always try and run the hill climbs which, given that I'm always running in the hills, means that even short runs usually include a bloody good struggle and some lung coughing uppering.
As for Britnick and Mr Brightside mentioning that genetically they aren't set up to run as well as others, from my point of view while there are still chubsters overtaking me in races I figure I can still try a bit harder
Your efforts to run everyday Stolly are quite inspiring I think. Tho' I've never come close, especially latterly. Its still out there in the ether as an idea and we all know someone's doing it! Nice one! Keep it up! FRA Forum's Ron Hill!
[QUOTE=JohnK;498068]I am with Iain R on this Genes have Damn all to do with ability to run fast or slow. In fact there are far to many factors, such as distance, time of day, mental application, diet muscular/skeletal makeup, Lifestyle, both living and working environment terrain etc etc etc, so to even tryand begin to isolate a single one is futile IMO.
There is evidence starting to appear that genes may play a part in how much a person can improve/achieve. There was a Horizon programme on a few months back that looked into the various aspects of exercise and it included a study of increases in VO2 max after exercise. The results seem to suggest that up to 15% of the population are "super-responders" who achieve high increases in VO2 max whereas up to 20% of the population show very little improvement (with the rest obviously being somwhere in the middle). While studies like this need repeating by other research groups to ensure that as many contributing factors (such as diet etc) are being normalised acuurately the evidence does seem to be heading that way for certain physiological parameters that aid things like running. Some links below to some of the reports and research.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17177251
http://www.pbrc.edu/heritage/index.html
http://jap.physiology.org/content/10...e2=tf_ipsecsha
A run a day sounds a fantastic idea. Hats off to you. I don't think I'm that motivated but I wish I were!!:thumbup:
Well that's just plain blinkered. You are suggesting that every being is born as a blank canvass with identical innate ability? Then how do you account for the incredible variety in the world? How do you account for race horses' selective breeding to produce the winners? There is quite a variation in their race times too, and I would suggest they would be less subject to the environmental variations and vagaries that humans bring upon themselves.
Genetic variations (mutations) enabled some humans to survive the plague. Similar variations give some low natural heart rates, high VO2max, low lactate production, etc. (Lance Armstrong is a case in point).
I suspect natural selection has has an effect on the gene pool. It would certainly, neatly, give us the answer as to why all the best sprinters are black. As suggested by the BBC in their Olympic coverage; that slavery of the blacks may have pushed them into a survival of the fittest scenario. Other possibilities are of a more difficult environments to live in. I.e food and water scarce severe heat etc.
It certainly would fit in with Darwins theories.
My opinion is that most are born with a similar ability. But some choose to make the most of it and get very good, and of those some have a slight genetic advantage from birth and become elite, at whatever it is they chose to stick with.
Nurture and nature probably equal elite, but mainly nurture.
nature does play a part
but there's so many factors within our control (body weight, training, rest) that until those facets are honed as well as they can be, nature cannot be used as a reason.
For example: BritNick beat me at Eccles Pike last night as he has a better body weight, does lots of training and has years more experience than me
that's my excuse and i'm sticking to it
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote