| Author |
Topic: The Truth About Mileage |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
 posted Aug-15-2007 10:06 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
What I'm saying is that people have varying abilities as to how much and how fast they can adapt. Or said another way, people vary as to how much training they can handle. Of this there is no question.
No, you're not saying that. You are saying that we are born with certain talent (genetics) and that determine how much we can train and, with that, how good we can be. In other words, you are limiting how good we can be right at the get-go and back-of-the-packers will always remain a back-of-the-packer. Period. That is what you're saying and anything else you add later on ("no, that's not what I'm saying; the level can be changed with training..." etc.) is just to dodge any criticism and ironically that's what makes any of your "principles" not making any sense. You are a demoralizer and I hope to God that NO young aspiring runner would ever come across anything you ever have to say; let alone remotely think it might possibly true.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:11 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Richard99:
...Or said another way, do genetics play any role in how much mileage a person can handle? Is there a correlation between someone's level of genetic talent and how much mileage they can handle?Clearly, I believe there is a correlation, as do Nobby and Kevin Beck. On this topic Kevin wrote, "There's a decent correlation among distance runners between the ability to handle mileage and running speed because the biomechanical factors that allow people to absorb a lot of footstrikes often translate into efficient striding and top-tier race results as well. But this is rough at best." Nobby replied with, "Kemibe is absolutely correct. Rough, yes, but correct..." So, Kevin, Nobby, & I agree that there is a reasonable correlation between genetic talent and how much mileage a person can handle.
Neither I or Kemibi said anything about mileage and genetic here. Just because we both said sky is not yellow, doesn't mean we're both agreeing that it's blue.
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:15 AM
But genes do exist Nobby.
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:18 AM
But genes do exist Nobby.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
But genes do exist Nobby.
...and your point is...???????
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:29 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
But genes do exist Nobby.
...and your point is...?????????? I have an appendix too, but that doesn't determine how much mileage I can or can't run.
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:30 AM
you can train a donkey to run fast, but it wont be a racehorse.just read your above post, which sort of seemed to rubbish the very idea that innate ability existed, when clearly it does.
If that's demoralising then welcome to the real world. doesn't mean we cant do our best, and train to be the best that we can, but we are all born different...
IP: Logged |
Richard99
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
No, you're not saying that. You are saying that we are born with certain talent (genetics) and that determine how much we can train and, with that, how good we can be. In other words, you are limiting how good we can be right at the get-go and back-of-the-packers will always remain a back-of-the-packer. Period.
Thanks so much for telling me what I'm saying. I didn't know you were a mind reader, too. Amazing. [This message has been edited by Richard99 (edited Aug-15-2007).]
IP: Logged |
obsessor
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 10:54 AM
You can look at a donkey and know that it's not a racehorse.We don't have the running gene bar-code and reader so obviously stamped on our foreheads. And I hope we never do. You can't tell the maximum potential of someone in long-distance running by testing them in the 100 meter dash, and you can't tell what they will eventually do by how the untrained person responds to some 16 week training program.
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:05 AM
agreed obsessor. you cannot see genes by looking. I was just saying they exist, and they mean we've all got different capabilities. the guy's post above seemed to be a bit ranty that even acknowledging some people have more natural ability than others was wrong, when it's just the case. I don't look like Brad Pitt 
IP: Logged |
obsessor
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:18 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
agreed obsessor. you cannot see genes by looking. I was just saying they exist, and they mean we've all got different capabilities. the guy's post above seemed to be a bit ranty that even acknowledging some people have more natural ability than others was wrong, when it's just the case. I don't look like Brad Pitt
Have you been reading this thresd? "Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; then stop." Lewis Carroll
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:32 AM
nope it's too long.in fact - it's length drew me in, and i read the most recent stuff - and the rant that I've mentioned seemed to not want to acknowledge the existence of genes/talent; hence my two-bob's worth. Sorry if I've offended you. To summarise my position: i believe genes exist.
i believe some people can run further and faster than others
i believe training can make all people fitter than if they didn't train at all and different training programmes will be more or less appropriate to different people
i believe there is a limit to how much training anyone can take and that this will differ from individual to individual if I'm wrong I'm interested. also there's loads of other things i do and don't believe so any omission on the above list is simply an omission (like I didn't mention that genes are invisible above but agreed with you when you pointed it out). cheers.
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:36 AM
nope it's too long.in fact - it's length drew me in, and i read the most recent stuff - and the rant that I've mentioned seemed to not want to acknowledge the existence of genes/talent; hence my two-bob's worth. Sorry if I've offended you. To summarise my position: i believe genes exist.
i believe some people can run further and faster than others
i believe training can make all people fitter than if they didn't train at all and different training programmes will be more or less appropriate to different people
i believe there is a limit to how much training anyone can take and that this will differ from individual to individual if I'm wrong I'm interested. also there's loads of other things i do and don't believe so any omission on the above list is simply an omission (like I didn't mention that genes are invisible above but agreed with you when you pointed it out). cheers.
IP: Logged |
AndyHass
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
agreed obsessor. you cannot see genes by looking. I was just saying they exist, and they mean we've all got different capabilities. the guy's post above seemed to be a bit ranty that even acknowledging some people have more natural ability than others was wrong, when it's just the case. I don't look like Brad Pitt
"The guy" to whom you refer has more experience coaching runners and interacting with world-renowned successful coaches than just about anyone else posting here. Take that into consideration when you criticize his comments. I'm sure Nobby doesn't deny that genetics play a part in one's eventual peak ability as a runner. In a perfect world, people would always try their hardest at everything even when they know the odds are they will never be the best at most things. Unfortunately, in the real world it rarely works that way. Invariably, people like Dick harp on our innate limitations and use genetics as a crutch to NOT try harder and ACCEPT wherever they/you are at. This is why such defeatists are evil to the sport. Do I believe we all have a genetic limit, in terms of either speed or ability to handly training volume? YES. However, no human has ever trained 100% perfect and raced 100% perfect and therefore no human has ever realized their full potential. So to EVER accept where you are at as the end of the road in terms of ability is defeatist unless you are deciding you are not willing to try/train harder/smarter.....a CONSCIOUS choice unimpeded by genetics. (the only exceptions that come to mind are lasting injury or age-related slow-downs that reduce your theoretical potential below levels of acheivement you attained in younger years) Therefore, the will to try is more of a limitation than genetics in real life. I started running at age 12, still at an age for emotional/social.psychological development. A lot of kids start around that age. Typically, many kids drift from sport to sport, going for what is either easy or they are better at without trying. This is a trend that, if left uncorrected, can lead to the same way of going about life or career. I stunk at running and had tried and left other sports. But something (an encouraging coach and supportive sister mostly) caused something different to happen this time, and I refused to accept anything but success and just trained harder. Not always smarter, but harder. Several YEARS later, success came. Not surprisingly, I started using the technique in other areas "I just wasn't good at" and finding success. I was told I was not qualified for the job and company where I wanted to work AND that they weren't hiring. I refused to accept that and worked doggedly at it for a year until I got the job and company I wanted (though they "weren't hiring"). Long and wordy, but the point is that if someone like Dick is allowed to influence young minds nothing good can come of it. I would hate to see a kid miss the opportunity to learn valuable lessons in life because Dick tells them they are not fast and therefore must just be genetically destined to fail and therefore should just do something else.
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:41 AM
sorry.i lack any experience of this kind of thing. i'll make sure and do much more reading etc before posting again.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
you can train a donkey to run fast, but it wont be a racehorse.just read your above post, which sort of seemed to rubbish the very idea that innate ability existed, when clearly it does.
If that's demoralising then welcome to the real world. doesn't mean we cant do our best, and train to be the best that we can, but we are all born different...
So which one are you; a donkey or a racehorse? And how did you find that out? There was this young lady in Japan who loved to run. She ran track in high school and did okay but she probably had 200 other high school girls ahead of her. She wasn't even the best runner at her school. She went on to college and ran there as well but never made any mark; maybe placed at regionals. Never got recruited by any corporate team. That put her in disadvantage as well because a good runner (a genetically talented runner, some might say) would start their regime right out of high school at the age of 17 or 18. She was ready to retire when she graduated from college. But for one last shot at it, she visited this coach at his training camp, paying her own way. He agreed to meet with her, thinking maybe she can be a team's care-taker. She told him proudly that she loved to run and was running 20km a day. He said, "Is that all? If you love running, why don't you run more?" He ended up taking her as a contarct runner (not the official team member) and a couple of years later, entered her in her first marathon. She didn't do as well as they'd hoped. She was hurting badly. The story went on and, of course, she's Naoko Takahashi, the 2000 Sydney Olympic marathon champion and the first woman to run the marathon under 2:20. It wasn't Joan Samuelson, not Kristiansen. Not Loroupe or Ndereba. But this young lady who didn't show any promist early on. Some might have said she was just a donkey. From my experience (I'm generalizing here), there are basically 3 different types of people who whine about this "genetics" or "talent"; 1) a young kid who finished last in his first cross country race and figured he doesn't have any "talent" to get any better; 2) late-20s or mid-30s who'd been running about 40 miles a week year after year and settled for somewhere around 4:00 for the marathon, decided that he doesn't have "talent" to do better nor much more; 3) an old man who had been running years and years and years, up to 100 or more miles a week but never quite improved, figured he "didn't have talent" and feeling bitter about it. Are you one of these types?
IP: Logged |
bigpoppapump
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 11:58 AM
no none of those. a slow donkey who needs more training.look, i just read the one post where you told the guy what he was saying, and read into it that you thought genes didn't matter and i posted what I posted. I wish i hadn't. sorry again, and I'll leave you to your discussion.
IP: Logged |
rengle
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 12:10 PM
Of course genes exist. and of course you can train and train a donkey and it won't be a raehorse. But it can be a much, muh faster donkey and it may even be able to beat the ocasional underachieving racehorse.
Genes are essentially to us what divine intervention and demonic possession were to the Middle Ages; our ways of explaining that which we can't explain. If you think that you don't have the proper genetics to run much faster than you started out running you'll stay slow and "prove" that you don't have the right genetics.
IP: Logged |
tigger
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 12:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Nobby:
So which one are you; a donkey or a racehorse? And how did you find that out?
I am a donkey! I know so because my dad used to call me one when I misplaced his tools as I was growing up! Seriously, I am not a race horse, although I think I raised one. She must have gotten her good running genes from her mother, but she got her love of running from me. I love to run! I didn't get turned onto it until I was 47 yrs old, and I have been running more each year ever since. The funny thing is that in spite of being 10 years older I am much faster now than I was back then. Maybe working in uranium mines somehow improved my genes, but more likely it is the improvements Andy mentioned a couple of posts ago. There is a point that has been under emphasized I think. My optimum training level will vary considerably over time....both upwards and downwards. There are months when I struggle to hit 40 mpw and then there are months when 60's are easy. Job stress, family stress and physical health are several factors influencing my mileage. I don't think I will ever be able to hit my ultimate limits, but every PR suggests to me that I've come a little bit closer. Therin lies my problem with Richard's guidelines. How would I ever improve it I simply continued to bang out 40 mile weeks of 9 minute miles? Don't you have to change at least one input if you want a different output?
IP: Logged |
tuscaloosarunner
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 12:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rengle:
...But it can be a much, muh faster donkey...
Down here in Alabama, we like our donkeys "fast". Sorry, in advance.
IP: Logged |
saviorfaire
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 12:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
you can train a donkey to run fast, but it wont be a racehorse.just read your above post, which sort of seemed to rubbish the very idea that innate ability existed, when clearly it does.
If that's demoralising then welcome to the real world. doesn't mean we cant do our best, and train to be the best that we can, but we are all born different...
I agree with genetic advantage as it pertains to in born ability. Look at other professional sports such as baseball. There are plenty of current pro ball players who had fathers and grandfathers who played in the majors. I loved playing baseball in my youth and was perhaps a bit better than the average kid. No amount of coaching and training would make me a better ball player. There are plenty of high school runners now, that had parents who were elite HS runners in the 70s. Take Matt Centrowitz, the current coach at American University. He ran for Power Memorial in the 70s. His son is the top hs miler in the nation.
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 01:29 PM
Any "other" talent aside, physical talent are basically as follows:* The ability to go the distance without apparent distress (endurance)
* The ability to handle a lot of hard workouts day after day after day (like Shorter or Pre, not like Kenny Moore)
* Speed It's rare, very rare, to find the one who has all of these (and more). The coach, and athlete him-/herself, would work according to what he/she has. If you're fast, great. Lydiard always talked about basic speed (200m). If you're fast, you need to build up endurance to sustain that speed. If you are not fast, you work on more endurance, even move up longer distance to compete; and all along continue to work on your speed because you can still make a slow runner faster; not to beat the sprint champion, but fastER and you need to do that. And even if you can't handle a lot of stress, that does not mean you can't become a champion--in fact, the history has shown us this is not so at all. Doubell, 1968 Olympic champion, and Marsh, as well as Moore, come to mind. They couldn't handle a lot of physical pressure but they did a heck of a lot better than just alright. So how do you determine "talent"? You go to any high school track meet, you'll see some "talented" kids. They all run well (fast). So if you want to pick some "talented" kids out of them, just pick top 3 of any race. Would they go on to become champions? Most likely, 9 out of 10 won't. So how do we know donkey from racehorse? If, based on early performances, you determine who's got talent and that consequently determine how much training you "should be able to handle", then how do you progress? What I don't torrelate is those who somehow determine that they don't have "talent" and give up trying any harder from that point on. Kiyoshi Nakamura used to say that; "Genius has limits; but trying doesn't have any limit." He used to outwardly stated that Seko is genius (and got criticized for it). But what he really meant was that he has "talent" to keep on trying (nothing to do with physical talent).
IP: Logged |
Nobby
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 01:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bigpoppapump:
no none of those. a slow donkey who needs more training.
Good. At least you're way ahead of some others that you realize you "need more training." But who or what determined that you are a "slow donkey"?
IP: Logged |
denton
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 02:11 PM
....really what the idea here is how good do u want to be.............Richard's ideas are short term and allow for only a certain level to be reached.....what the the rest of us are preaching is that to reach your potential you cannot do what he advocates.... ....his ideas work for certain facets of training (egs racing time), but they are 'the road to ruin' for buildup phases of training and long term development..... .... hopefully Richard doesn't influence many (any?) people with his ideas and if he does they realize the limitations of what he advocates (although for some they may be quite happy with mediocrity...or burnout...or injuries....) ....although i think we can agree that athletes do go need to go thru certain stages (workloads) of training before they can move on to the next....
IP: Logged |
DavidD
Cool Runner |
posted Aug-15-2007 05:08 PM
The genes we have come from out parents, of course (and theirs from their parents, etc.). However, WE control -- through our environment -- how those genes will behave. Our environment, including diet and nutritional state, training, racing, injuries, etc., influences the genes to either express a certain trait or turn it off. This used to be a big argument - is it our genes or our environment? But the recent trend in genetic research has answered a lot of these questions. So we can't blame our fatness on our parents, our slowness or our speed on them, etc. There is still the presence of specific predispositions, genetically. But our environment plays the larger role overall.
IP: Logged |
 |
