You think a 5'7" person being able to dunk is not related to genetics?

To me, that's the BEST example of genetics.

i can assure you that athletes that are ''successful'' in the long term take a real off-season.

Another +1

Insert nearly any endurance ("aerobic"; eg, not golf) sport where Dan indicated running. If one does have a VO2 >70ml/kg/min (maybe >60 for women) and one is pursuing excellence—winning—in an endurance sport, one is already at a disadvantage compared with those that can process oxygen more efficiently.

It's all about the engine, at every distance.

So, even with 15.5" calves (uh, wow! race bikes on the track, much?), if you have a massive chest cavity—and the lungs to fill it—you may have the physio potential to crush other, more-puny humans.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Work Ethic, Emotional Stability, Attitude.

With that you can reach 100% of your genetic potential.

I would say that the top pros in any sport, are separated by less than 1%, and it's a combination of genetics and work ethic. A person who hustles harder and grinds it out to 100% of their potential can out perform someone with superior genetics, but it only at 99% of their potential.

Work ethic also helps you get through financial hardship, and/or find sponsors etc.

Work ethic will help you follow your training plan and find training partners, etc.

Work ethic, not only gets you to 10,000 hours of focused training, but it makes you want to train, and get the most out of that training.

Missing the most crucial for me . Time.
When I had more time I was faster. Kids destroy spare time.

---

NCCP certified Comp coach

Totally, utterly disagree here.

A MOP genetics person at 100% of potential still won't touch a top-genetic-pro who's at even 75% of potential.

Dude, a top Kenyan marathoner runs 26 miles at freaking 4:45min/mile. The typical AG can't even do that for a single lap, and a GREAT AG runner will at best hold that for 3 miles.

There is no friggin' way that MOPer even sniffs 2:30 for the marathon, let alone a 2:05. Heck, that MOP probably wouldn't even crack 3 hours on BEST training at 100% of capacity, which is a whole hour slower for a mere 3 hour race. Not even close.

So what?

Does that make the 2:30 marathoner any less successful? Success is relative to one's goals. the 2:10 marathoner could be less successful if their goal was to win Olympic gold, but the 2:30 marathoner might have a goal to qualify for Boston, which would make them wildly successful.

suc·cess
səkˈses/
noun

1. 
   the accomplishment of an aim or purpose.
   "the president had some success in restoring confidence"
   synonyms:favorable outcome, successfulness, successful result, triumph;
   Hollywood ending
   "the success of the scheme"
   
   • 
     the attainment of popularity or profit.
     "the success of his play"
     synonyms:prosperity, affluence, wealth, riches, opulence
     "the trappings of success"
     
     
   • 
     a person or thing that achieves desired aims or attains prosperity.
     "I must make a success of my business"
     synonyms:triumph, bestseller, blockbuster, sellout; More
     
   
   

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Slowman also said that almost all men have the ability to run at least a 37 min 10k, don't remember if he posted any number for women but it would likely be around 40 min, so question is, what's your pr, and what was your mileage leading up to that?
Genetics won't be a inhibitor until you reach that ceiling, and for most people I would say that they reach that ceiling at anywhere between 60-100mpw.
The real key to success is hard work. Running 50+mpw while still biking 6+h/week and swimming 15+k/w is hard and doing it consistently year after year is even harder.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Fair enough. But in terms of sheer performance of albeit not success, which is to vague a term to be used with any consistency, in terms of absolute speed, Talent is probably the biggest Factor once you are training 'for real'.

I will say that slow man is utterly, totally wrong about that 37 minute 10k results. Slow men also said that most men have the ability to run Halo 4 minute or mid 4-minute mile which is also ludicrous.

The key thing to remember here, is that slow man himself was able to run a low 4 minute mile, and that five minute miles were probably not that difficult for him. He started with a significant level of run talents, and that is where he is judging people by.


This is a rampart error folks make here and elsewhere- assuming what's easy for them is same for everyone. What you should be looking at for average ability Talent, is how many people actually are running those 37 minute or below 10ks or how many people are coming legitimately close to an unreasonable training. In reality, Only a minority of the general average American populace comes that close even amongst Health emails, and you can even see that 37 minutes will be physically impossible for most of them just by looking at them after basic serious training.

I haven't seen any post about a mid 4 min mile but I agree that is nowhere near true. Most men could however break 5 for the mile, but some will have to work a lot harder for it than others.


"This is a rampart error folks make here and elsewhere- assuming what's easy for them is same for everyone. What you should be looking at for average ability Talent, is how many people actually are running those 37 minute or below 10ks or how many people are coming legitimately close to an unreasonable training. In reality, Only a minority of the general average American populace comes that close even amongst Health emails, and you can even see that 37 minutes will be physically impossible for most of them just by looking at them after basic serious training. "
How many people in the american population do you think runs 60+mpw?? It is totally uninteresting to look at what the average population does as they do not run smart enough, or as much as is needed to reach your ceiling. If you were to take 100 healthy 25 yo males, have them build up to 60-100 mpw with a good structured system over a couple of years you will se a few running low 30s, most running mid to high 30s and a few running high 30s. I am confident in that the average result would be 37>

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Holy macaroni. A 10k in 40 minutes is a 6:26 pace. Not a chance in hell could I hold that! I did a major running focus in my early 30s thinking that I could bully my way into running speed. I got faster, yes. But couldn't touch this. My legs just don't push me forward enough. My best 5k at that time was 24:02 (no, I did not break 24. Damnit.). With 20-30 miles/week training at my average weight (race weight + 7%) I'm around a 9:00 mile. But I can go for a really long time.

Give me a month of consistent swim practice (from nothing) and I can get my 100y down to 1:00.0.

---

Hillary Trout
San Luis Obispo, CA

Your trip is short. Make the most of it.
https://www.slogoing.net/

Here's a thread for letsrun on the subject of HS boys breaking 5-minute miles.

Some decent stats are thrown out on this thread. Looks like farrrrrrrrrrrr fewer than 50% of HS males even in x-country, can break 5 for a mile.

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7504883&page=2

If you could take ALL 25 year old males you coached and get them all sub 35, let alone 30-32, you would literally be THE best running coach in America, by far.

And you don't even need 25 yr old males to do this - you know how many men run the Boston marathon and have trained for decades/years at 70mpw? Thousands. Just do a WAVA-table extrapolation from their current fastest 10k PRs backwards to their age 18-25 results, and you'll find they are nowhere near 30-35 min 10ks as a whole. Not even close.

I used to believe this sort of stuff when I was 25, and the sky seemed like it was the limit since I was never coming close to maxxing my training. Now that I've seriously overtrained several times, and have literally SEEN the asymptote (upper theoretical limit) of my performance, I now understand that those 'possible sub 35min 10ks' were a pie in the sky compared to the hard reality check of my ability - and I'm running 10ks sub 40, so I'm faster than most AG runners.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said I could coach everyone to sub 35, I said most will run mid to high 30s ie 35-37.
You will always have outliers in both directions, both faster than average and slower, but around 37 min 10k is not unreasonable as an average.

Please show me the thousands who run 70mpw at Boston and whom are nowhere near 37 min 10k. Since you need around a 3:03 for a spot, that translates to a 38 min 10k so def not unreasonable that they could run a min faster with focus and better training.

Now if we are talking sub 35, then yes you need talent, my point is most AGers are nowhere near that since they don't run enough. Even in running races most don't run enough, just look at the placements. Take a 45 min 10k and a 37 min 10k runner and check their strava, one of them is going to be running a lot more than the other.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

3:03 is friggin' fast.

I guarantee for every guy running a 3:03 BQ, there are at least 5 who have run 50-70+mpw (I am one of them) who isn't BQing. (I did Pfitz 18/70, several times, so structured program too.)

It's utter fantasy to think that over half the men under 30 could train their way to a 3:03 marathon, or 37min 10k if that's the equivalent performance.

It's not like people languish at 45 min 10ks while running 25-30mpw, then become 37 min run studs once they double their mileage - they bump in speed is real, but a lot smaller than expected. Guys who can run 37 min 10ks should already be on the faster side (like low-40s in not 40:xx) once they are actually off the couch and running 15-20mpw regularly with sprinkled intensity.

I'll revise my prior statement and say you would still literally be the best running coach in America if you could take 50% of American males at random and consistently train all of them to run 37-39 min 10ks. Heck, you'd make a fortune making a TV show about, on how you'd coach randoms with the typical BOMOP performances to winning their AG consistently, and then make a 2nd fortune on the methods to do so.

Sure, but that's not the poll question, is it?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

LH - agree with you 100%. Your "average runner" might, if he could run 70 mpw w/o injury, might get down to a 22 min 5K or 46 kin 10K, but I'd say that would his ceiling. For women, maybe a 24 min 5k and 51 min 10K. Actually though, I doubt that the "average runner" male or female can actually tolerate 70 mpw w/o injury, even if they were down to their "ideal weight".

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

So you are running sub 40, then you should at least be sub 3:15 for the marathon. If 60 Moa isn’t enough to get you to 3:03 then maybe 70,80,90 or 100 works better for you. You can’t say you’ve maxed your potential in the marathon if your averaging 60mpw and peaking at 70.

I think you can see similarities with cycling, according to ST’s fav Dr.Coggan, the average male can get to 3.9w/kg. Now even if you would take the average male on ST, most would not have 3,9 but quite a bit lower since they are not willing to put in the work necessary to get their.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

Why do we have to click one more time to see the results? Does Dan get something for this extra click?

Number one contributor to success: Dedication to using foam roller every day. Even when you don't feel like you need it.

I'm sub 3:15 (3:11, actually.)

Still a long way to go from 3:03. And compared to the average American male (not the average STer LOL) I'm probably considered on the 'advantaged' side to running, as I'm smaller, lighter, and can tolerate actually running 70-90mpw without injury.

One can never truly, absolutely 'max' their potential, but like in calculus, you can draw a curve with an asymptote (fancy word for upper-ceiling) that you will NEVER reach, even if you can come closer and closer and closer to it with diminishing returns as you train more. My asymptote is way below a 37min 10k, and as said, I'm almost def advantaged compared to the average male.

Seriously, if it WERE true that 50% of men under 30 could run 37s, that would def mean that we'd see a LOT more men running 40-42, which is also not true - they are very few in number at typical local races.

But have you run 70-90mpw consistently with peaks at 100? Cause the plan you mentioned averages 60mpw, just increasing to 70 can make a big difference. I ran two marathons this year and ran 5 min fast the second one and also averaged about 10-15 more mpw.

How do you know you are more gifted than the average American? Have you had you vo2 max tested?

Yes there are few running 40-42, because there are few that take their training seriously enough! You are not going to find a lot of 25-30yo fit males running 60+ mpw consistently who aren’t breaking 42.

I agree that everyone has a different ceiling and the gains are definitely deminishing, I’m saying that most people have no idea where their ceiling is since they don’t train hard enough to get there.

I’ve been running 60mpw for about a year now and have seen huge drops from when I’ve previously been at 40. Now I could say that since I have yet to run sub 35 I can’t because of my genetics, but I can’t say that for sure since I haven’t run enough to get to that ceiling.
Real training to reach you potential is hard and takes a lot from you. You need a lot of sleep, good food and a job where you can be sedentary most of the day besides when you are running. I can guarantee that most people in running races are not doing everything they can to maximize their potential and the guy running 45 min on 40mpw would most likely run sub 40 if he doubled his mileage, slept more and ate better food.

---

Terrible Tuesday’s Triathlon

I understand where you are coming from. When I dream of an amazing outcome for a race, a podium spot doesn't even make the dream for me. Success is reaching my goals or exceeding them.

But, as soon as you put genetics as an option, I think you are no longer looking at it on an individual level. You are looking at success compared to different individuals, which odes lend itself to comparing finishing times and/or winning. I still voted for work ethic as I do think that is more likely the intent of the poll. But if the actual intent was to determine what it takes to be successful, as in be in the pointy end of the field, genetics starts to take over. Not that you can't bridge the gap with extreme dedication. Just that some people will have what others never will.

Again, you do NOT need to run your 'max' to see your potential. You can see the declining curve of improvement as you ramp up to determine that 37 is a fantasy in my case, and in most people's cases.

Pretty much, if you're not low 40s on decent effort training at 25-35mpw, forget about 37.