Hypothetical maximum - what do you think? (Read 1351 times)

This is a totally pointless topic with no real answer, just random thinking! I remember a few years ago seeing a fitness chart and that to be "excellent cardiovascular fitness" for my age I had to do the 1.5m run in I think it was 8mm, and then there is the marine chart that top mark would be 3 miles at 7mm At the time I remember thinking "no fair, I can't run 8 mm for 1.5 even if I was super fit, I am just not genetically a runner" OK, so I guess if I lose weight and train hard I can. I could even see me breaking 7 for 1.5 someday. And if I had started in my teens or 20's who knows? But what is my stocky slow twitch limit? So the question is....what do you think is the fastest pace that ANYONE could reach if they just trained hard enough and started early enough. What is that threshold between working hard, and working hard PLUS talent.

I probably have a minority viewpoint here but I think talent matters very little in running. If you outwork the competition you'll win.

I probably have a minority viewpoint here but I think talent matters very little in running. If you outwork the competition you'll win.

This is pretty close to how I feel about talent. Sure natural running talent matters quite a bit at the very top end of the sport where just about everybody is working close to as hard as they possibly can. But at the level of 99.9% of RA'ers, it's not a major factor. The difference between the fast and the slow has much more to do with priorities than talent.

I'm a talented runner, I'll admit it. My great talent? I've got some speed. A good heart. Two legs. But the talent most closely related to whatever success I've happened across is my ability to find the joy in running. It ain't about hard work, it's about the love. I'm lucky to have it; not everyone does.

Those guys over there grow up in running schools and both were around 21 yrs old. .

At the track and field olympic qualifiers late this month/early next the US is expecting about a half dozen guys with PRs under 13:20 and one or two with sub 13:00 PR.

I think native talent is HUGELY important as far as to what your limits are. I myself am not at all athletically gifted... probably the reverse. I could not be an athlete in high school, I was just too slow (and I'm not strong, either.) My cousin was an all-star track athlete in HS, and I can guarantee that if he had ever done marathon training like I have, he would have been sub 2:25 when he was in his 40s. Probably sub 2:20. I know one guy who has a bunch of marathon wins to his credit who goes out for sub 5 min/mile pace midweek runs (ok, and does slower running, too.) I know someone else who probably is physically incapable of doing any run as fast as 12 min/mile no matter how hard she would ever train. All that being said, none of us should despair of accomplishing worthwhile goals. They probably will be different for each one of us, but if they are not totally unrealistic they might be achievable. You can do more than you ever thought possible. Consider what someone who tied for being the slowest guy in his high school class (bottom 1%) was able to do. If you're interested, go to marathonmaniacs.com, click on the Insane Asylum, and then click on #970 to check out that kinda unique marathon double 30 years ago. Gino

You're telling me that you have done the sort of training that it takes a gifted athlete to run sub 2:20? I would like to hear about that.

Maybe what he meant was that his cousin is such a stud he could go sub 2:20 just training like he did???? Didn't we already discuss the mental stuff or lack thereof that enables you to win, Jeff?

Maybe what he meant was that his cousin is such a stud he could go sub 2:20 just training like he did????

This is the claim that I doubt. If he trained like a marathoner who ran an hour slower (I don't know how fast slowgino has gone), he would run an hour slower.