Talent vs hard work

shotgunmcos wrote: »

So change it to a nature vs nurture thread then?
Agree very interesting thread.

The mental thing is a whole other ball game but intrinsically related. Going back to my lil bro (and chivito's post). He is mid 30s and been a Personal Trainer most of his career. If you set him an endurance challenge or strength endurance where you hit and surpass your lactate threshold after a couple of minutes, you would assume he has an enormous lung capacity. Until you saw the scientific output that showed he hit his LT much earlier than you thought. As a kid he just didn't feel pain like other kids. I was the fast one, he was the tough one. I'd beat him easily over 100m, still would. But as the distance got longer he would close the gap. He can literally push himself until he passes out. I've come close but never that close. If he put in the same training I've put in over the last 10 years I have no doubt he would be a 35 minute or better 10k runner. And that would be more on sheer tenacity than latent talent.

How do you push yourself until you almost pass out? Its something I can't do, don't have the mental strength for that. Maybe this should be a different thread?

average_runner wrote: »

How do you push yourself until you almost pass out? Its something I can't do, don't have the mental strength for that. Maybe this should be a different thread?

Done it few times lately in the heat, not recommended!! On my part it’s a stubbornness and stupidity to hit every run within the required numbers instead of readjusting to the heat and humidity on the given day.

average_runner wrote: »

How do you push yourself until you almost pass out? Its something I can't do, don't have the mental strength for that. Maybe this should be a different thread?

James Cracknell and Sir Steve Redgrave (5 consecutive Olympic Gold medals)



BTW Mathew Pinsent who finishes first in a near world record has had a measured lung capacity of 8L! Doesn't matter how hard you train - he will beat you

I think it is important not to glorify hard work and the no pain no gain mentality. 
Especially with regard to training, consistency and sustainabilty are more important than destroying yourself. 
At the amateur level the "hard work" is finding time for extra stretching or drills after a session rather than going home to see your kids or whatever, that's really difficult. Saying no to extra portions and going to bed early. All that stuff, it's boring and nobody will make a viral video of it but it is just as important. 

I know in some of my sessions I could work harder for example 4/5 200s with 3/4 mins recovery. 
Lets say I do the first 4 in under 28s but the 4th is a real struggle with lactate build up and feels like the end of a 400. I could "work harder" and do a 5th rep in 35 seconds or something but would that help me towards my goals? It's too slow and will just inhibit recovery. Train hard but be smart about it.

Murph_D wrote:

Ok, so quantity and quality of training (‘work’) are vital factors, that allow a runner to either maximize their talent or minimize their lack of talent.

I think you've touched on one of the main points in terms of quality and quantity of training. In terms of the other stones to be overturned before talent becomes the dominant factor I think nutrition/lifestyle is the next big one. Then there's commitment - setting that alarm at 6am in the middle of winter to do those easy miles, not missing key runs, a 'no excuse' mentality. Drive and ambition are huge. Being aggressive with your long term goals. Being smart with your training. What I mean by that is if you want to maximise your potential at 10k you won't by running marathons all year round. Seems obvious but I think a lot of people look for pbs and progress at distances without doing distance specific training. Patience is another one. The gains are made in running over a long period of time. And a very understanding family! Personally I consider all of the above as "hard work". I'm sure there's more that I can't think of right now.

There's another aspect to the whole athlete A vs athlete B debate. Two athletes could work their ass*s off but the reality is that training is very specific and individual for every athlete. What works for some won't be optimum for others so a big factor is doing the right training for your own individual needs which isn't easy. Two athletes of similar age and build following the same plan are almost definitely going to see different results, because that plan won't address their specific individual needs on any given day. I think at amateur level at least, the dominant difference between the bulk of people who line up at a race is not talent but is a combination of all of the above.

Murph_D wrote:

Are these not all psychological factors?

I'd consider them all part of the key elements that make up a successful runner that have nothing to do with "talent".

I so want to get into this....but I won't :pac:

TFBubendorfer wrote:

Isn't that what talent is? The sum of the key elements that make up a successful runner?

Im not sure to be honest. In relation to this discussion I'm seeing talent as a natural ability for running. The things you can't really work on in training. For me the psychological aspects can be worked on. But I'm not sure now, you're making me rethink. Haha

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

Isn't that what talent is? The sum of the key elements that make up a successful runner?

Yes they are key elements but they still come into the question of whether you are born with them or learn them. To me a more interesting question is if a sample group of 100 people of similar age and fitness levels were put on personalised 10k training plans for 12 months what spread of times could be expected at the end. To me that quantifies the talent/ genetics advantage.

shotgunmcos wrote:

I think you would get a standard bell curve. But would a 35min 10k be on the right side?!

The originator of that benchmark (me) has since revised his statement. Haha

YFlyer wrote: »

I often wonder why snooker players loss their form when they hit their 40s. Is it living in hotels on the circuit. Ronnie O'Sullivan with his fitness regime has mitigate that. Similar to Phil Taylor in darts.

It’s a bit off topic, but to address the question, snooker players can remain competitive into their 40s and, in some cases, beyond. The world final was contested by 2 40-somethings this year. But of course they decline naturally, even fitness freak Ronnie, and the likely factors are eyesight, ability to concentrate, hunger, simple desire etc. Physical fitness, while certainly no harm, can be overstated in snooker I believe.

If you find the whole general nature versus nurture debate interesting I would highly recommend the book "The Sports Gene" by David Epstein.

The book discusses Malcolm Gladwells 10,000 hours rule and dismisses it with why genetics can sometimes trump hard work.

One of the best sports books I've read