When I was your age...

MrThrifty

Ummm... I need to take a softly, softly approach on what I want to say here to try to avoid a mighty backlash, but I do feel it needs to be said at this stage. Well, back some 20 years ago when I got into running, strangely enough perhaps to some people here I actually joined a running club. After a year or two, I was clocking 60 miles a week, including 1 to 2 nights of speedwork sessions and often a race at the weekend. I'd be running alongside 20 to 45 year olds at these races, typically 4 or 5 miles long on country roads. Anyway, typical racing speed would be 5.30min/mile up to just under 6 min/mile on a bad day. The point is that we were all novices and there'd never be discussions or interest in heart rates, protein supplements, training logs and blah-de-blah.

I have since become shocked in recent times at how a type of self-proclaimed runner has emerged who can be overheard at work going on and on to colleagues about their gruelling training routine and which type of supplements they feel work best etc., and then a quick web search reveals that they're 'racing' in 4 mile races at 8 minute miles (aka a 'jog' back in my day).

So while it is great that more and more people are getting involved in running these days, and also that some of these people are achieving personal goals in the process and so on, it would be even greater in my opinion if the amount of talk on the subject was based on substance, rather than just, well talk I suppose.

From what I can see, and this is necessarily a generalization, there appears to be two types of 'running' nowadays - popular running (all talk, little action) and just running (all action, little talk). I don't mean to be having a go at people here but am honestly telling it as it is. If you don't agree with me and are not currently joined a running club, then I would challenge you to do so. And by running club here, I don't mean your company's sports and social club or something like that but an actual established community-based or maybe collage-based club. I think there might be a wake-up call in store for some...

PaulieC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESuHkSOhmas

I fully agree, but it's just general bullsh1t, harmless enough.

BobMac104

as do I. Even alot of the great runners back in the 80s still had jobs and ran incredible times still comparible to todays e.g Steve jones ran a 2:07:13 marathon while working in the RAF repariring planes and still holds the British marathon record today.

MrThrifty

Brilliant ad, I wonder if they would be interested in doing one on some people at my work who claim to be serious runners!!

TheRoadRunner

Standards have fallen since the 80s. We all know that. If it bugs you so much set the guy straight!

MrThrifty

TheRoadRunner wrote: »

Standards have fallen since the 80s. We all know that. If it bugs you so much set the guy straight!

Yup, I've been tempted alright just to go along to a road race and go for my first run in years and kick their ass... But suspect they'd know exactly the point I was making and things could get interesting after at work!!

I have no problems with standards falling compared to years ago - it's really just people talking up how big they are into running and what the best food is to eat and training is to do prior to a race etc. etc. when at the end of the day all that kind of stuff is pretty irrelevant if you're jogging/running 8+ min miles. I suppose to me it's giving running a bad name.

BobMac104

MrThrifty wrote: »

Yup, I've been tempted alright just to go along to a road race and go for my first run in years and kick their ass... But suspect they'd know exactly the point I was making and things could get interesting after at work!!

I have no problems with standards falling compared to years ago - it's really just people talking up how big they are into running and what the best food is to eat and training is to do prior to a race etc. etc. when at the end of the day all that kind of stuff is pretty irrelevant if you're jogging/running 8+ min miles. I suppose to me it's giving running a bad name.

I dont think thats true really especially for longer races. If you run 8+ min miles for marathon that s still 3hr:30min running and i dont care who you are but if you dont train for this or eat right it's not gonna happen. I am not a member of a club and have only been running really for 6 months so it's been all on my own. The majority of the information on training etc taht i have learned has been through boards and i am very greatfull for that and i wouldnt have gotten that info had i not asked the silly questions and talked about running (shock horror ) ten min miles on my long runs! After all, thats what certain areas of this forum are about. When you're involved in a club and have been for a while i would imagine that these things wouldnt be talked about as much as they would be a given for most of the members (correct me if I am wrong).

If people are talking about things then its only because they are interested about it and excited about it and is that really such a bad thing?? If you were not joined a club back in the good ol days I am sure you would have been as clueless as the rest of us joggers and you certainly wouldnt have had such a structured training programme. If that fella is annoying you then shut him up as TRR said but leave people there interests/hobbies. There are many 5 a side soccer players who go out once a week playing and talk about it all fecking week long about what an amazing goal they scored whereas if they played in a club game they would be ran around for fun but i dont think many people set them straight about it. These 5 a side guy also probably waffle on about there new addidas football boots.

Times are different yes , but the fact that more people are out running again will probably lead to a rise in standards again. YOu started running in the early 90's (???) when the running seen had a decade of huge interest and development. Give this generation a break and the overall standard may come around again...

Rantan

MrThrifty wrote: »

Yup, I've been tempted alright just to go along to a road race and go for my first run in years and kick their ass... But suspect they'd know exactly the point I was making and things could get interesting after at work!!

I have no problems with standards falling compared to years ago - it's really just people talking up how big they are into running and what the best food is to eat and training is to do prior to a race etc. etc. when at the end of the day all that kind of stuff is pretty irrelevant if you're jogging/running 8+ min miles. I suppose to me it's giving running a bad name.

I think you/re missing a bigger point - back in the day when you ran, information was hard to get. The only place for a runner to learn was at the local club surrounded by experienced runners. That was/is the best place to learn any sport, Now anyone can become an "expert" in any field in minutes with access to vast amounts of info(good & bad) at our fingertips. This contributes to an homogenisation in standards in pretty much everyrthing. Its a fact of life, yes times are different, but I think it's quite insulting/disrepectful to claim that because people do not meet or even aspire to your high standards is giving running a bad name.

Krusty_Clown

MrThrifty wrote: »

Yup, I've been tempted alright just to go along to a road race and go for my first run in years and kick their ass...

Wait, so you're not even running? So this post is all just talk?
I do agree with you though, there is a general erosion of standards. It's easy to sit on a perch and grumble though, but much harder to do anything about it.

jonsnow

in my day I could outrun speedy gonzales after a 48 hr shift down the mines and then I,d cycle home to the aran islands blah blah blah and I could still outrun you whippersnappers even though you are out training every night and I haven,t run in years blah blah blah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13JK5kChbRw[
youtube]

TheTubes

Wow, I don't think I've ever read a post I disagreed with so much, I really don't know where to start.

8min is as fast as I get, most of the time I'm slower, I'll never run a 5:30 min/mile and I'm fine with that.
I talk with friends and colleagues who also "run" about training, we talk about all aspects of it including supplements (even those new fangled gels the kids are using these days!)

someone once told me that training never gets easier, you just get faster, it's in our nature to always push ourselves.
When we say our training schedule is gruelling, it's because it is, it doesn't matter if you run 6 min/mile or 9 min/miles, if you're training its going to be tough.
So I think your being very harsh becasue someone is only "racing" 8 min/miles.

I just had a look at some recent results for BHAA runs in cork and the number of people running sub 6min/miles is pretty low, 40 from 400 in one race and 7 from 40 in another race, we'll say about 15% of finishers as a very rough number by my gorilla math.
So by your logic the other 85% of people who run are giving running a bad name. wow, just... wow.

Not everyone was blessed with the same athletic ability and to look down on people that are slower than you used to be is very patronising imo.

When I read your posts it reminds me of a couple of sentiments I've heard before:
1. The guy who runs a sub 3:30 marathon and thinks that anyone who runs it in over 4 may aswell not bother, very similar to the guy who runs sub 4:00 and thinks anything over 4:30 is a waste of time... you get the picture
2. Damn kids, get off my lawn.


I ran dublin in 4:10 for my only marathon so far, I have a buddy who ran it in 5:00, I know some people think "what was the point in that" but I think fair play to him and I'd never think of saying otherwise.
I know nobody is saying that we should be running 5:30 min marathons but I think the OPs sentiment would apply to us towards the back of the run, no matter the distance.
Maybe I should tell him he is a disgrace and he should pack it in?
Maybe I should too?
Maybe we should leave it to the elites among you?

MrThrifty wrote: »

I do feel it needs to be said at this stage.

I don't think it needed to be said at all.

I may not have worded this post very well but i find the whole thing pretty insulting.

</rant>
anyway, im off for a jog.

tl;dr;
OP thinks everyone who is slower than he was 20 years ago is giving running a bad name, I think its BS :rolleyes:

plodder

MrThrifty wrote: »

there appears to be two types of 'running' nowadays - popular running (all talk, little action) and just running (all action, little talk).

Reminds me of an old (jokey) saying: "There's two types of people in the world - those who divide everything into two categories, and those who don't"

Joking aside, it's very often a sign of someone who makes simplistic disctinctions - me (or us) and everyone else.

Mr Marri

Yes but we're fatter now, mass x distance = more work, we're actually better now than we where in the 80's :pac:

pconn062

I do agree with some of what the OP says, i.e. standards have dropped since the 80's and most runners from back then would outrun anyone from nowadays. But you have to remember that there was a huge decline in running in the 1990's until recently (I mean last 5-6 years), just look at the numbers in the Dublin marathon in the 1900's. But now there is a running boom and this will lead to another increase in standards I believe. Me, personally this time last year I was running 7.30 pace for a four mile race, now I run 6.00-6.30 pace and next year with some more good training I will hopefully run sub 6 pace. So you should see an increase in standards in the coming years (I hope!). Don't despair!

thirstywork2

Standards in europe have dropped but not in places like Kenya and Ethiopia.
I don't think standards will improve unless we look at grass roots athletics and encourage yougsters to join the sport.

ThisRegard

Don't forget the shoes, nothing fancy back in the day either, bare feet in the summer and you'd be lucky with a bit of straw wrapped around your feet held together with twine in the snow and ice.

MrThrifty

Era, think I'll drop this - people seem to be taking me up wrong. My fundamental point was that there seems to be a group of amateur runners on the scene these days who like to talk forever to everyone about their running and training and diet giving the impression that they're serious athletes, yet they're only training for max 30 on days that they do get out and putting in PBs of >8min/mile at races (we're talking 5k and 4mile here, nothing longer).

It's like having a bunch of lads who play indoor football now and again discussing the importance of nutrition, pre-match meals, post-match nutritional supplements etc. etc. to everyone all the time. There are a group of them after appearing at work over the last 5 years but I keep coming across them outside of work too. I was not attacking people with an interest in running or people running >8min/mile in races, but this particular type of person that gives everyone who doesn't know anything about running the impression that they're very seriously involved in it and achieving spectacular results etc.

Condo131

BobMac104 wrote: »

e.g Steve jones ran a 2:07:13 marathon while working in the RAF repariring planes and still holds the British marathon record today.

That was a world record then. Jones use to run 13 miles to work several times a week..........and he lived 100 yards from his work!! (at least he didn't have far to go, when going home! )

Rantan

MrThrifty wrote: »

Era, think I'll drop this - people seem to be taking me up wrong. My fundamental point was that there seems to be a group of amateur runners on the scene these days who like to talk forever to everyone about their running and training and diet giving the impression that they're serious athletes, yet they're only training for max 30 on days that they do get out and putting in PBs of >8min/mile at races (we're talking 5k and 4mile here, nothing longer).

It's like having a bunch of lads who play indoor football now and again discussing the importance of nutrition, pre-match meals, post-match nutritional supplements etc. etc. to everyone all the time. There are a group of them after appearing at work over the last 5 years but I keep coming across them outside of work too. I was not attacking people with an interest in running or people running >8min/mile in races, but this particular type of person that gives everyone who doesn't know anything about running the impression that they're very seriously involved in it and achieving spectacular results etc.

sorry man but it does come across like you are bitter over something so bloody pointless - maybe thats not fair to say but its how you come across...I'm now feeling paranoid about the next time over a cup of tea at work someone making small talk asks me was I running last night, should I steer the chat away from running for fear of insulting someone or giving running a bad name with my poor times?

Clearlier

MrThrifty wrote: »

Era, think I'll drop this - people seem to be taking me up wrong. My fundamental point was that there seems to be a group of amateur runners on the scene these days who like to talk forever to everyone about their running and training and diet giving the impression that they're serious athletes, yet they're only training for max 30 on days that they do get out and putting in PBs of >8min/mile at races (we're talking 5k and 4mile here, nothing longer).

It's like having a bunch of lads who play indoor football now and again discussing the importance of nutrition, pre-match meals, post-match nutritional supplements etc. etc. to everyone all the time. There are a group of them after appearing at work over the last 5 years but I keep coming across them outside of work too. I was not attacking people with an interest in running or people running >8min/mile in races, but this particular type of person that gives everyone who doesn't know anything about running the impression that they're very seriously involved in it and achieving spectacular results etc.

Careful you don't mention anything about finding the time to train - ecoli can let you know what happens if you do that!

I get your point, it's probably accurate but I'm not sure how you expected people to respond. As you pointed out yourself there are a lot more slower than faster runners around and they're not going to be too happy at being described as (effectively) charlatans.

donothoponpop

MrThrifty wrote: »

Era, think I'll drop this - people seem to be taking me up wrong. My fundamental point was that there seems to be a group of amateur runners on the scene these days who like to talk forever to everyone about their running and training and diet giving the impression that they're serious athletes, yet they're only training for max 30 on days that they do get out and putting in PBs of >8min/mile at races (we're talking 5k and 4mile here, nothing longer).

It's like having a bunch of lads who play indoor football now and again discussing the importance of nutrition, pre-match meals, post-match nutritional supplements etc. etc. to everyone all the time. There are a group of them after appearing at work over the last 5 years but I keep coming across them outside of work too. I was not attacking people with an interest in running or people running >8min/mile in races, but this particular type of person that gives everyone who doesn't know anything about running the impression that they're very seriously involved in it and achieving spectacular results etc.

I sort of agree with your point- I know quite a few fellow joggers who can talk the finer details of Garmin/gel strategy/tech tops, yet never push themselves in training (5+ hour marathon times, when they should be going much faster). They can be found toward the front at the start of races, and toward the back of the results. Any benefit they're getting from said "Garmin/gel strategy/tech tops/etc" knowledge, would be better served by just training harder in a cotton tshirt. First principles should be HTFU, with knowledge of the finer points of running/training coming from experience.

Emer911

...I don't consider myself a runner. I've never been fast - even as a kid (in a running club) I was always bringing up the rear.

A few year ago I took up running for health reasons.
I ran completed my first marathon last year.
I'm running participating in my second marathon in 2 weeks time.

Last year my pace was 10min/mi.
This year I'm aiming for 9min/mi.
If I could do a marathon at 8min/mi I'd be thrilled!

I know I'll never run a 5 or 6 minute mile. I hope I'm not 'letting the side down'. Please don't discourage me. It's taken me a long time to get to here, and I hope to keep going because (strangely) I quite enjoy it and I know I'm reaping benefits from my (very slow) runs.

corny

MrThrifty wrote: »

So while it is great that more and more people are getting involved in running these days, and also that some of these people are achieving personal goals in the process and so on, it would be even greater in my opinion if the amount of talk on the subject was based on substance, rather than just, well talk I suppose.

What does that mean exactly? Only people capable of reaching the standard set by your good self should have the honour of talking about a hobby? You'd swear its a sin to discuss HR, nutrition or how hard a person finds training. Sorry its a sin because you didn't do it back in your day and you were a better runner of course. They're guilty of the running ****e talk and you're guilty of the 'in my day' ****e talk. Just people who like to talk about themselves and much of a muchness to me.

sideswipe

MrThrifty wrote: »

Ummm... I need to take a softly, softly approach on what I want to say here to try to avoid a mighty backlash, but I do feel it needs to be said at this stage. Well, back some 20 years ago when I got into running, strangely enough perhaps to some people here I actually joined a running club. After a year or two, I was clocking 60 miles a week, including 1 to 2 nights of speedwork sessions and often a race at the weekend. I'd be running alongside 20 to 45 year olds at these races, typically 4 or 5 miles long on country roads. Anyway, typical racing speed would be 5.30min/mile up to just under 6 min/mile on a bad day. The point is that we were all novices and there'd never be discussions or interest in heart rates, protein supplements, training logs and blah-de-blah.

I have since become shocked in recent times at how a type of self-proclaimed runner has emerged who can be overheard at work going on and on to colleagues about their gruelling training routine and which type of supplements they feel work best etc., and then a quick web search reveals that they're 'racing' in 4 mile races at 8 minute miles (aka a 'jog' back in my day).

So while it is great that more and more people are getting involved in running these days, and also that some of these people are achieving personal goals in the process and so on, it would be even greater in my opinion if the amount of talk on the subject was based on substance, rather than just, well talk I suppose.

From what I can see, and this is necessarily a generalization, there appears to be two types of 'running' nowadays - popular running (all talk, little action) and just running (all action, little talk). I don't mean to be having a go at people here but am honestly telling it as it is. If you don't agree with me and are not currently joined a running club, then I would challenge you to do so. And by running club here, I don't mean your company's sports and social club or something like that but an actual established community-based or maybe collage-based club. I think there might be a wake-up call in store for some...

Are you Tunney's grandad?

PaulieC

Emer911 wrote: »

...I don't consider myself a runner. I've never been fast - even as a kid (in a running club) I was always bringing up the rear.

A few year ago I took up running for health reasons.
I ran completed my first marathon last year.
I'm running participating in my second marathon in 2 weeks time.

Last year my pace was 10min/mi.
This year I'm aiming for 9min/mi.
If I could do a marathon at 8min/mi I'd be thrilled!

I know I'll never run a 5 or 6 minute mile. I hope I'm not 'letting the side down'. Please don't discourage me. It's taken me a long time to get to here, and I hope to keep going because (strangely) I quite enjoy it and I know I'm reaping benefits from my (very slow) runs.

I think the OP was bemoaning slow-running blowhards who talk a good game, rather than people who put in the effort, like yourself. As you say, you are doing your 2nd marathon this year, so that in itself implies a lot of effort and discipline. I don't think anyone ever suggested anything about letting the side down or trying to discourage anyone in their efforts (effort being the important word there).

Personally, I know I am slow and I know I'll never be fast, but I know that I put in the effort and I don't stand around the water cooler boasting about my fabulous 8-minute miles precisely because I know they're nothin to boast about.

tunguska

MrThrifty wrote: »

Ummm... I need to take a softly, softly approach on what I want to say here to try to avoid a mighty backlash, but I do feel it needs to be said at this stage. Well, back some 20 years ago when I got into running, strangely enough perhaps to some people here I actually joined a running club. After a year or two, I was clocking 60 miles a week, including 1 to 2 nights of speedwork sessions and often a race at the weekend. I'd be running alongside 20 to 45 year olds at these races, typically 4 or 5 miles long on country roads. Anyway, typical racing speed would be 5.30min/mile up to just under 6 min/mile on a bad day. The point is that we were all novices and there'd never be discussions or interest in heart rates, protein supplements, training logs and blah-de-blah.

I have since become shocked in recent times at how a type of self-proclaimed runner has emerged who can be overheard at work going on and on to colleagues about their gruelling training routine and which type of supplements they feel work best etc., and then a quick web search reveals that they're 'racing' in 4 mile races at 8 minute miles (aka a 'jog' back in my day).

Agreed. Read Chalie Speddings book recently and he says pretty much the same thing.

TheTubes wrote: »

8min is as fast as I get, most of the time I'm slower, I'll never run a 5:30 min/mile and I'm fine with that.

Why do you think you could never run at 5:30/mile pace? Are you physically incapacitated in some way? Because if you're not you do have the potential to run at that speed. The only thing stopping you is your own belief systems. It'll take hard work, time and consitancy in your training but if you're committed you can knock out 5:30s, to say you'll never be able to run at that speed is nonsense.

TheTubes wrote: »

Not everyone was blessed with the same athletic ability and to look down on people that are slower than you used to be is very patronising imo.

Again you seem to think that you're either born with the ability to crank out fast miles or you're not. Thats BS. Its hard work, consistant hard work. You should read "Bounce: How champios are made" By matthew Sayid. And Charlie Spedding's "From last to first." The only limitations are the ones you've placed on yourself.

SWL

MrThrifty wrote: »

Ummm... I need to take a softly, softly approach on what I want to say here to try to avoid a mighty backlash, but I do feel it needs to be said at this stage. Well, back some 20 years ago when I got into running, strangely enough perhaps to some people here I actually joined a running club. After a year or two, I was clocking 60 miles a week, including 1 to 2 nights of speedwork sessions and often a race at the weekend. I'd be running alongside 20 to 45 year olds at these races, typically 4 or 5 miles long on country roads. Anyway, typical racing speed would be 5.30min/mile up to just under 6 min/mile on a bad day. The point is that we were all novices and there'd never be discussions or interest in heart rates, protein supplements, training logs and blah-de-blah.

I have since become shocked in recent times at how a type of self-proclaimed runner has emerged who can be overheard at work going on and on to colleagues about their gruelling training routine and which type of supplements they feel work best etc., and then a quick web search reveals that they're 'racing' in 4 mile races at 8 minute miles (aka a 'jog' back in my day).

So while it is great that more and more people are getting involved in running these days, and also that some of these people are achieving personal goals in the process and so on, it would be even greater in my opinion if the amount of talk on the subject was based on substance, rather than just, well talk I suppose.

From what I can see, and this is necessarily a generalization, there appears to be two types of 'running' nowadays - popular running (all talk, little action) and just running (all action, little talk). I don't mean to be having a go at people here but am honestly telling it as it is. If you don't agree with me and are not currently joined a running club, then I would challenge you to do so. And by running club here, I don't mean your company's sports and social club or something like that but an actual established community-based or maybe collage-based club. I think there might be a wake-up call in store for some...

I know the feeling but that kind of person you describe is in every walk of life sport, work etc. they are the kind of people who spend an extra hour at work on the internet and then tell people they were working late etc. People appear to have different benchmarks in life including sport, some work to be the best, others are happy to be average.

TheTubes

tunguska wrote: »

MrThrifty wrote: »

Why do you think you could never run at 5:30/mile pace? Are you physically incapacitated in some way? Because if you're not you do have the potential to run at that speed. The only thing stopping you is your own belief systems. It'll take hard work, time and consitancy in your training but if you're committed you can knock out 5:30s, to say you'll never be able to run at that speed is nonsense.

I never said i couldnt, i said i wont.
Im sure if i put the training i could do it but i dont have the desire to run that fast over a couple of miles and if im happy with that i dont see why it should bother anyone else.

Husavik

Agreed. Read Chalie Speddings book recently and he says pretty much the same thing.




Why do you think you could never run at 5:30/mile pace? Are you physically incapacitated in some way? Because if you're not you do have the potential to run at that speed. The only thing stopping you is your own belief systems. It'll take hard work, time and consitancy in your training but if you're committed you can knock out 5:30s, to say you'll never be able to run at that speed is nonsense.




Again you seem to think that you're either born with the ability to crank out fast miles or you're not. Thats BS. Its hard work, consistant hard work. You should read "Bounce: How champios are made" By matthew Sayid. And Charlie Spedding's "From last to first." The only limitations are the ones you've placed on yourself.

I read a synposis of Spedding's book and he seems to be saying that everyone has the ability to be really good a something as opposed to running specifically??

Sayid gave an interview in which he said that a person who does not have many fast twitch muscle fibres cannot expect to be a great sprinter thereby alluding to a genetic marker in running moreso than other sports.

I'm of the view, having read Noakes, that genetics do indeed have a major role in determining running ability. I have every intention of getting better and better but the view of genetics has helped me to be more realistic about what I can achieve with a given volume of training/time.

But I would be interested to learn more about this. In the two books that you have cited were they are able to give examples of runners who have made substantial progress in their running. To be more specific, if examples could be shown of people who had a year or two of good training under their belt and produced say, a 10k in 42 mins and then went on and through hard effort several years later broke 30 mins (even 32 mins) for the 10k. The person would also have to be matured (starting in their 20s). My guess is that won't be any examples of this.

I hope I'm wrong. I have already been hugely encouraged by some runners on this website. But the strongest progress I have yet come across is that of a well trained marathon result of 3.55 eventually progressing to just under 3.00.

tunguska

TheTubes wrote: »

8min is as fast as I get, I'll never run a 5:30 min/mile

Not everyone was blessed with the same athletic ability and to look down on people that are slower than you used to be is very patronising imo.

TheTubes wrote: »

I never said i couldnt, i said i wont.
Im sure if i put the training i could do it but i dont have the desire to run that fast over a couple of miles and if im happy with that i dont see why it should bother anyone else.

Theres a bit of a contradiction between your two posts. On one hand your're saying that the reason you can only run 8min miles is because you're not "blessed with athletic ability." But then you're saying that actually you could run at fast paces you just choose not to????

I understand that effort is relative, if 8minute mile pace is a reasonably hard effort for you then fair enough. But why place a limit on yourself? Why say Im only gonna run at 8min mile pace and thats it, I refuse to try any harder. Whats the point of that? Why race if you refuse to improve?

Husavik wrote: »

I read a synposis of Spedding's book and he seems to be saying that everyone has the ability to be really good a something as opposed to running specifically??

Sayid gave an interview in which he said that a person who does not have many fast twitch muscle fibres cannot expect to be a great sprinter thereby alluding to a genetic marker in running moreso than other sports.

I'm of the view, having read Noakes, that genetics do indeed have a major role in determining running ability. I have every intention of getting better and better but the view of genetics has helped me to be more realistic about what I can achieve with a given volume of training/time.

But I would be interested to learn more about this. In the two books that you have cited were they are able to give examples of runners who have made substantial progress in their running. To be more specific, if examples could be shown of people who had a year or two of good training under their belt and produced say, a 10k in 42 mins and then went on and through hard effort several years later broke 30 mins (even 32 mins) for the 10k. The person would also have to be matured (starting in their 20s). My guess is that won't be any examples of this.

You read a synopsis of Speddings book but have you actually read the entire book? I would highly recommend it. Charlie was the classic example of somebody not "born with great genetics." But he worked his ass off and refused to allow the genetics model restrict him. Bronze medal at the olympics speaks for itself.
Same for Sayid's book, have a read of it. I defy you to still believe genetics are the deciding factor in athletic performance after you have read that book. There are so many examples in Bounce of how through years of practice, athletes(and in other areas such as musical performance)reached the top of their sport. Not through, genetic gifts but through hard, persistant work. I completely believe in the practice model, I just dont buy the, Im a plodder thats all I'll ever be, notion, or I'll never be able to run a sub 2:20 or 2:10, that type of thing is only reserved for special people. Why not find out for yourself instead of making assumptions about what you can and cant achieve? Why not train with absolute dedication and do all that you can do so that when its all over you can safely say that you couldnt have gone any faster, you got everything you could've from yourself?
T.S. elliot(that famous athlete) said, Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.

ecoli

I would have to agree with Tunguska to a point. I think maybe genetics does come into play at a sub point but i think that that point is alot quicker than the kinda times anyone on this board posts.

Personally I think that most people have the "genetic talents" to run 14.xx - 15.XX for 5k or sub 2.30 for a marathon. 99% of athletes never reach the aerobic limits in there life so that in itself is more a limiting factor than " genetic talent".

Also people seem to associate talent with speed. Very rarely do you hear someone say "Wow that guy is talented he has managed to get years of consistent training in". To me that is a talent in itself as it allows a person to (if train right) reach their potential and you will notice this in athletes performing at a high level most of it is down to the hard work they put in especially in the longer distance events.

This sport is predominantly condition based and as such unlike skill based sports the limit of potential is no where near as bad as people tend to assume.

One of the best quotes I have ever heard about this is

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us"


We are only limited by our mind our bodies do not limit us as much as you might think. This is why the likes of Ed Whitlock and Pete Magill continues to defy our perceptions of getting slower with age

gerard65

A cart-horse will never win the Derby, even with the best trainer and jockey. World class athletes are basically genetic 'freaks', they have the perfect balance of genes - speed,endurance, bio-machanics, ability to obsorb training to its max., ability to recover and probably a 100 more traits not yet know about.
Want to run a sub 3 marathon? Run a 100 mile weeks for a couple of months - simples, but the problem is trying to run 100 mile weeks without breaking down.
Its not about the ability or willingness to train, its the results from that training that counts. For some the payback is massive, or others its not. 'Its all about genetics - stupid'.

TheTubes

8min is as fast as I get, I'll never run a 5:30 min/mile

Not everyone was blessed with the same athletic ability and to look down on people that are slower than you used to be is very patronising imo.

tunguska wrote: »

Theres a bit of a contradiction between your two posts. On one hand your're saying that the reason you can only run 8min miles is because you're not "blessed with athletic ability." But then you're saying that actually you could run at fast paces you just choose not to????

There is no contradiction in my posts at all.

You are twisting my words.

There was 2 other paragraphs between those two statements and you forgot the end of the first sentence as well. I never said I'm not "blessed with athletic ability.", I said "Not everyone was blessed with the same athletic ability", and I wasn't even talking about myself when I said it. I am blessed with athletic ability, I can run.
I have no problem with you quoting my post back to me but it could do without the editing.

Just to clarify, I said that I won't run faster than 8min miles and I'm happy w that.
Further down in my post I was talking about the fact that about 85% of people in the races I looked up ran slower than 6 min mile, when I was referring to a couple of hundred people in those races I would have thought that saying that not everyone was blessed with the same athletic ability is a bit of a no brainer.

Like I said in my last post, I probably could do 5.30 if I wanted but the only races I do are 10m+ and I dont have time to be able to train to run 5.30 over 10 miles.

I still train hard and im improving all the time but not everything is always about beating a PB, I still consider myself a casual runner, like lots of people who do run.
We run cos we enjoy it, its healthy exercise, stress reliever, time out, etc. And if people who run for fun do a race and do it slow, i dont think they should be derided, thats my point, I wasn't trying to make my first post about me, and I don't want to keep going on about how fast I could/do run and am capeable of running because thats going further off topic imo.
I was only using myself as an example of a casual runner who should be able to go and do a race if he wants, finish last and not be called a disgrace for doing it.

Chartsengrafs

Maybe it's just me but the OP makes some valid points and he has been careful not to belittle people who are working hard to maintain a low/moderate level of performance. He's complaining about 'talkers' and posters need to acknowledge that. Not sure how what he is saying would discourage most non-club runners, myself included. I'm no 5:30 minute miler but I get his point.

It's common in all sports, the Junior C GAA footballers wearing club tracksuits, bike to work guy who insists on buying Dura Ace- specced bike despite cycling 30km on a Saturday when there's no rain or wind. Obviously we all love the five-a-side once a week guy. I'm friends with about ten of them. Finely tuned athletes, each and every one.

Husavik

tunguska wrote: »

You read a synopsis of Speddings book but have you actually read the entire book? I would highly recommend it. Charlie was the classic example of somebody not "born with great genetics." But he worked his ass off and refused to allow the genetics model restrict him. Bronze medal at the olympics speaks for itself.
Same for Sayid's book, have a read of it. I defy you to still believe genetics are the deciding factor in athletic performance after you have read that book. There are so many examples in Bounce of how through years of practice, athletes(and in other areas such as musical performance)reached the top of their sport. Not through, genetic gifts but through hard, persistant work. I completely believe in the practice model, I just dont buy the, Im a plodder thats all I'll ever be, notion, or I'll never be able to run a sub 2:20 or 2:10, that type of thing is only reserved for special people. Why not find out for yourself instead of making assumptions about what you can and cant achieve? Why not train with absolute dedication and do all that you can do so that when its all over you can safely say that you couldnt have gone any faster, you got everything you could've from yourself?
T.S. elliot(that famous athlete) said, Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.

I will look out for the two books but my basic question is not answered. What examples exist of runners who, after some training and the easy gains are out of the way, continue to make deep reductions in their times? Better than the example I've given.

Husavik

ecoli wrote: »

I would have to agree with Tunguska to a point. I think maybe genetics does come into play at a sub point but i think that that point is alot quicker than the kinda times anyone on this board posts.

Personally I think that most people have the "genetic talents" to run 14.xx - 15.XX for 5k or sub 2.30 for a marathon. 99% of athletes never reach the aerobic limits in there life so that in itself is more a limiting factor than " genetic talent".


We are only limited by our mind our bodies do not limit us as much as you might think. This is why the likes of Ed Whitlock and Pete Magill continues to defy our perceptions of getting slower with age

Noakes writes on page 70, Lore of Running:

As the famous Swedish physiologist...Astrand said 'If you want to be a world beater then you must choose your parents carefully'. Of course what tends to happen is that most runners do not accept this. They assume that the rapid improvements they make when they start running will continue forever; that with training they too will become world champions. But what happens is that after a year or so of running they enter the area of diminishing returns. At first, performance and fitness improve dramatically, so that for a small input of, say, 60km of training per week, [a] trained average runner with a vo2max value of 57 might be able to run the....marathon at 50% to 60% of his vo2max. This would give him a finishing time of 3.58. But to improve his fitness by another 26% so that he could run his personal record of 3.06, he might have to treble his....mileage up to 160 to 180km per week......It will of course never allow him to run faster than his 3.06 threshold'

Alarming isn't it. I must say I treat the above with some skepticism as I have encountered runners with progress which may contradict this eg. my earlier example. But that said, Noakes is very authoritative on running and it would be bad form to throw out this assertion without reasonable objective evidence.

Bob Glover, who has coached 1000s to marathon success from his NYC base also references the 'choose your parents' quote. ('Competitive runners handbook' 1999).

I have always belived in conditioning over genetics and still do for most areas of life but reading Noakes was a real sobering up moment for me. All around is evidence of genetic input in running performances. Some can run 36 min 10ks on 25 miles a week (boards poster), others need 60 miles a week. Steve Way ran his first marathon in 3.07. This was from a effectively untrained base and being over 4 stone overweight. Arriving on the start line at optimal weight would have knocked 28 to 30 mins off that time. Way currently runs 120 miles/week and has a PB of 2.19. Steve Jones in the 80s ran 2.07 on no more than 80 mpw. Mark Maloney back in 1908 only ran 24km pw and walked up to 48km. On this training he set the world marathon record of 2.35.* Joe Binks set the mile record of 4.16 in 1902 on one 30 min session pw of repeat 110 yd sprints.**

Here are several examples of incredible running feats with modest conditioning. If anyone has examples to support the strength of the 'conditioning' approach, please share.

* and ** Noakes 2003.

RayCun

At first, performance and fitness improve dramatically, so that for a small input of, say, 60km of training per week, [a] trained average runner with a vo2max value of 57 might be able to run the....marathon at 50% to 60% of his vo2max. This would give him a finishing time of 3.58. But to improve his fitness by another 26% so that he could run his personal record of 3.06, he might have to treble his....mileage up to 160 to 180km per week......It will of course never allow him to run faster than his 3.06 threshold'

I ran my first marathon in 3.58 :eek:

I'm sure we are limited by genetics in just how fast we can run. But I'm equally sure that most of us will never hit that limit. We will hit our "I don't want to train more" limit before we hit our "my body cannot improve any more" limit.

Clearlier

Husavik wrote: »

Noakes writes on page 70, Lore of Running:



Alarming isn't it. I must say I treat the above with some skepticism as I have encountered runners with progress which may contradict this eg. my earlier example. But that said, Noakes is very authoritative on running and it would be bad form to throw out this assertion without reasonable objective evidence.

Bob Glover, who has coached 1000s to marathon success from his NYC base also references the 'choose your parents' quote. ('Competitive runners handbook' 1999).

I have always belived in conditioning over genetics and still do for most areas of life but reading Noakes was a real sobering up moment for me. All around is evidence of genetic input in running performances. Some can run 36 min 10ks on 25 miles a week (boards poster), others need 60 miles a week. Steve Way ran his first marathon in 3.07. This was from a effectively untrained base and being over 4 stone overweight. Arriving on the start line at optimal weight would have knocked 28 to 30 mins off that time. Way currently runs 120 miles/week and has a PB of 2.19. Steve Jones in the 80s ran 2.07 on no more than 80 mpw. Mark Maloney back in 1908 only ran 24km pw and walked up to 48km. On this training he set the world marathon record of 2.35.* Joe Binks set the mile record of 4.16 in 1902 on one 30 min session pw of repeat 110 yd sprints.**

Here are several examples of incredible running feats with modest conditioning. If anyone has examples to support the strength of the 'conditioning' approach, please share.

* and ** Noakes 2003.

Husavik, i think that the argument you're making here in respect of ecoli's assertions is about where the dividing line between talent and genetics is.

I think that you're actually saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles. ecoli is saying (I think) that most people don't approach their 'threshold' or their limits. You're saying that some people's limits are quite a long way away from other peoples. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

There's not a shadow of a doubt that genetics plays a role in who can be the fastest, it doesn't have much to say about who can mostly closely approach their limits though.

Point to note about Steve Way is that he always ran a bit even it was mainly the odd race and his weight yo-yo'd quite a bit. I'm not sure that he was 4 stone overweight when he ran his first marathon and he definitely trained for that race, just not optimally.

Just for info. here's a guy who's gone from a well trained 2:59 to 2:31 over the course of 5 years.

Another point to note in respect of earlier posts is that Charlie Spedding wasn't a big miles guy either. In his book he talks about doing a block of high mileage 6 weeks long where IIRC he was aiming to do 100mpw (and failed to do it every week too). It's also worth noting that while Charlie wasn't very talented at sprinting he clearly demonstrated ability at longer distances from an early age as he was brought to compete for his school quite a few times.

The stories we read about people are just that, they're the narratives that people make about themselves, the perceptions that they put out into the world. Sometimes we need to look beyond the narrative and try and assess what really went on. Steve Way told runners world that he averages 45 servings of fruit and veg per day, suggested that he didn't train for races before he got serious, just ate pies and smoked cigarettes. Charlie Spedding says in his book that he had no talent and his success was due entirely to hard work. They're great stories but I doubt that they are the whole story.

What's more important is what you take from these discussions. Is it that you (generic you) are genetically limited to never be much good or that if you work really hard you can reach your limits? If you look at it from the latter point of view I think that you'll achieve more but the former point of view is also probably correct. Then there's the really annoying ones who 'know' that they would be great if they trained properly but couldn't be bothered.

On the original point however insulting some may have found it it's not inaccurate to say that there are some runners who do a lot more talking than running. It's something of an Irish trait that we don't like people talking themselves up, if you add in to the mix that there isn't too much to talk about you'll have to join the queue to tell em that they're useless:o.

corny

Clearlier wrote: »

There's not a shadow of a doubt that genetics plays a role in who can be the fastest, it doesn't have much to say about who can mostly closely approach their limits though.

I think thats the key right there. VO2max is a very poor predictor of performance for a good reason, that is, nearly always the limiting factor is your head and not your body.

robinph

This.

RayCun wrote: »

I ran my first marathon in 3.58 :eek:

I'm sure we are limited by genetics in just how fast we can run. But I'm equally sure that most of us will never hit that limit. We will hit our "I don't want to train more" limit before we hit our "my body cannot improve any more" limit.

All of the elites happen to have the combination of being genetic freaks and also have very high "can't be arsed" limits as far as the training goes. For the rest of us, if we happen to have a bit of luck with the genes we were handed then it will make things a tiny bit easier, but it is mostly down to how much time you can be bothered to put in.

RacoonQueen

Given this is mostly based around long distance running, IMO being good over those distances is very little to do with genetics, for the average 'recreational' athlete, long distance is not about genetics - it's about training. Every one of us here could run a sub 3 marathon, at least, which, for a recreational athlete is pretty good. A lot of very good coaches would agree with this.

Elites, for the most part, have great support systems - coaches, physio, massage, nutritionists, strength and conditioning coaches etc etc on hand and they don't work 40 hours a week on top of the training they do. They also still break down while trying to maintain their 100 -120 mile weeks.

We limit ourselves more than genetics ever will.

I always played/play down my running. I don't think a 10 hour 50 mile run is very impressive yet people in work etc were practically bowing at my feet last year.

MrCreosote

What's the point worrying about genetics anyway? You can't do anything to change them.

Better to work on the things you can like training and the enjoyment you get from running.

As for the OPs argument-personally I'd much prefer to see lots of people of every age/shape/size out running at all sorts of speeds, than a few elitist skinny whippets scowling along on their interval sessions.

TFBubendorfer

RayCun wrote: »

I ran my first marathon in 3.58 :eek:

I'm sure we are limited by genetics in just how fast we can run. But I'm equally sure that most of us will never hit that limit. We will hit our "I don't want to train more" limit before we hit our "my body cannot improve any more" limit.

I ran my first marathon in 4:06 and my second in 4:35 or so (prefer not to remember).

I have since broken 3 hours.

I have read Noakes and remember the page where he quotes the "natural limits" research. I remember putting my own numbers in the graph/chart associated with that chapter and realising that I had broken those limit. That was a few years ago and I have run faster again.

The conclusion is, don't put limits on yourself.

Husavik

Clearlier wrote: »

Husavik, i think that the argument you're making here in respect of ecoli's assertions is about where the dividing line between talent and genetics is.

I think that you're actually saying the same thing but coming at it from different angles. ecoli is saying (I think) that most people don't approach their 'threshold' or their limits. You're saying that some people's limits are quite a long way away from other peoples. These are not mutually exclusive positions.

My original post was in reaction to a claim that genetics does not matter at all and secondarily, the OP who lamemted the dearth of 5 min milers nowadays. I posted evidence that supported a genetics role and also the limitations of conditioning. I think it would be fair to say that while many could in theory run this pace, for most it would require a gargantuan effort relative to others runners. I think this point was been missed amongst the posts.

In addition, according to Noakes, some - many - people will never achieve that 5 or even 5.30 min mile pace, even if trained full time like a pro on 100 mpw*. This is my second point.

There's not a shadow of a doubt that genetics plays a role in who can be the fastest, it doesn't have much to say about who can mostly closely approach their limits though.

Running 80 mpw for 3 years and following the guidelines set out by the best coaches, eg. Daniels, would get you close. Studies show that only running economy improves above this mileage. Many pros found they performed better when they dropped back from 140 miles to 100 miles. Optimal training will continue to evolve but it does not look like anything major will appear in the near future. For the amatuer runner, if at this level you are pushing against a 2.45 marathon, the benefits of 5/10 mins faster may not be worth putting your family life and career at risk. But yes, as ecoli said, most people will likely never achieve this sustained volume so there is hope for us all yet.

Just for info. here's a guy who's gone from a well trained 2:59 to 2:31 over the course of 5 years.

On that website, the marathon of 2.59 is the farthest back shown. It is not clear what training occured prior to this.

Thanks for the other points you have made.

*Not allowing for new discoveries.

Husavik

robinph wrote: »

This.



All of the elites happen to have the combination of being genetic freaks and also have very high "can't be arsed" limits as far as the training goes. For the rest of us, if we happen to have a bit of luck with the genes we were handed then it will make things a tiny bit easier, but it is mostly down to how much time you can be bothered to put in.

Agreed. Despite the level of desire we think we have, most of us probably aren't doing as much as we could.

Husavik

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I ran my first marathon in 4:06 and my second in 4:35 or so (prefer not to remember).

I have since broken 3 hours.

I have read Noakes and remember the page where he quotes the "natural limits" research. I remember putting my own numbers in the graph/chart associated with that chapter and realising that I had broken those limit. That was a few years ago and I have run faster again.

The conclusion is, don't put limits on yourself.

Your marathon progress has been the most inspirational for me. If I recall your blog correctly, your third marathon involved a fair bit of knowledgeable training and was 3.55. And yet after 5 years of sustained effort you ground out a 2.59 this year. I honestly think you should forward your results to Noakes and see what he has to say.

TFBubendorfer

Husavik wrote: »

Your marathon progress has been the most inspirational for me. If I recall your blog correctly, your third marathon involved a fair bit of knowledgeable training and was 3.55. And yet after 5 years of sustained effort you ground out a 2.59 this year. I honestly think you should forward your results to Noakes and see what he has to say.

You've got my marathon history spot on, but I don't think I want to impose my running times on Noakes.

Gringo78

Husavik wrote: »

Here are several examples of incredible running feats with modest conditioning. If anyone has examples to support the strength of the 'conditioning' approach, please share.

Condo131 had a great database of race results from Cork back over all the years but unfortunately this has been down the last few months. There were some interesting results trends though which could be found when looking up athletes who did not seem to have run as a youth. The Ballycotton 10 results were good for looking this sort of thing up as its a race on the same course for the last 34 years and its "prestigousness" ensured most runners aspired to run it in Cork and it was also generally a 'introduction to the sport' type race i.e people never having run before would set running the ballycotton 10 as a target - if they liked it, they were hooked on running and you could see then how their times progressed over the years.

One such runner seemed to run his first 10miler in 60:xx at approx age 27 and then knocked roughly a minute off every year for 9 years until he ran 51:xx.....he's managed to stem the tide of age such that at late 40's he's still running times faster than he was in his early 30's.

It takes many years to acheive your potential, books like 'Bounce' used the figure of 10,000 hours or 10 years to be good at something I think...if you start running as a youngster you will find yourself running good times in your early 20's that would be difficult to replicate if you only started in your 30's. However, I saw countless examples on Condo131's database of runners who seemed to come late to the game and improved incrementally for 8-10 years. The talent at work here is dedication to continuous training and probably training smart aswell to avoid injury (Steven Way posts most of his training online, he does majority of his miles at >7min/ml pace or 30% slower than his marathon pace - that would equate to 9min/ml for a sub 3 marathoner)

Pisco Sour

OP, had there been a boards.ie back in the 70's and 80's I'm sure you'd have had JTreacySilver, RFylnnMiler and Chairman99 among others saying that you were giving running a bad name, with your pedestrian 6 minute miles. Sure those lads could do repetitive beer mile faster than that!

It's all relative!

tunguska

Husavik wrote: »

I will look out for the two books but my basic question is not answered. What examples exist of runners who, after some training and the easy gains are out of the way, continue to make deep reductions in their times? Better than the example I've given.

Argh!!!! read the damn book Husavik!!! Then we'll talk about all things nature v's nurture. Although I can use myself as an example. Im definitely not genetically gifted, I work hard and my times come down. If I were to prescribe to the genetic model then I probably wouldnt have even started running. Thats my problem with the belief that genetics is what its all about, it deters and limits people from even trying. Theres a guy in the club Im in and he talks himself out of ever getting anywhere near his potential, he doesnt even try because he believes he's not gifted like other runners. Its not the special few who can achieve great times, that belief has you beaten before you get to the start line.

Husavik

Gringo78 wrote: »

Condo131 had a great database of race results from Cork back over all the years but unfortunately this has been down the last few months. There were some interesting results trends though which could be found when looking up athletes who did not seem to have run as a youth. The Ballycotton 10 results were good for looking this sort of thing up as its a race on the same course for the last 34 years and its "prestigousness" ensured most runners aspired to run it in Cork and it was also generally a 'introduction to the sport' type race i.e people never having run before would set running the ballycotton 10 as a target - if they liked it, they were hooked on running and you could see then how their times progressed over the years.

One such runner seemed to run his first 10miler in 60:xx at approx age 27 and then knocked roughly a minute off every year for 9 years until he ran 51:xx.....he's managed to stem the tide of age such that at late 40's he's still running times faster than he was in his early 30's.

It takes many years to acheive your potential, books like 'Bounce' used the figure of 10,000 hours or 10 years to be good at something I think...if you start running as a youngster you will find yourself running good times in your early 20's that would be difficult to replicate if you only started in your 30's. However, I saw countless examples on Condo131's database of runners who seemed to come late to the game and improved incrementally for 8-10 years. The talent at work here is dedication to continuous training and probably training smart aswell to avoid injury (Steven Way posts most of his training online, he does majority of his miles at >7min/ml pace or 30% slower than his marathon pace - that would equate to 9min/ml for a sub 3 marathoner)

Yes that example given is interesting because it goes against the idea that most gains come early and then tail off, (or perhaps suggesting he was fit on his first 10 mile attempt).

Noakes also writes that coming into full running later in life is not a big disadvantage. He discussess extensively the performances of Arthur Newton, an ultra runner in the 1930s, who only began aged 38. The theory is that runners have 20 'peak performance' years in their legs and then it's a decline. Eamonn Coughlan pushed the boundaries of this theory back when he came out of retirement to be the first man over 40 to run a sub 4 min mile. But elsewhere those that dominated in their 20s and 30s did not continue this into their 40s and 50s - those that came into running latterly (eg 30s) did.