Are we there, yet?
If it's true that somehow we all respond differently to training, because of our genetics, then the best that I can do for myself at the moment is to continue following my gut instinct when it comes to my own running.
And this is why canned programs are mediocre at best and why books like Hudson's Run Faster are what we should be reading. To paraphrase an old Greek saying, "Runner, know thyself." If you thrive on long runs, then train that way. If you thrive on speed, then that's what you should emphasize........But you need to give each a chance at some point to find out how and how much it helps.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
Smaller By The Day
True. I think maximum potential is all that I've ever hoped for. When I was a wrestler, and I met my Olympic heroes it was obvious to me that they were simply wired differently than the average human being.
This is quite interesting, but what interests me more is how someone (non-elite) who decides they have bad genes from reading this book reacts to that. Do they say "the heck with it" because they figure the running gods are against them or do they grit their teeth and work to reach their maximum potential with what genes they do have.
Improvements
Weight 100 pounds lost
5K 31:02 Sept. 2012 / 23:36 Sept. 2013 (Same Course)
10K 48:59 April 2013
HM 2:03:56 Nov. 2012 / 1:46:50 March 2013
MARATHON 3:57:33 Nov. 2013
GC, I think it matters for weekend warriors. I have seen people become terribly frustrated at their lack of progress. By the same token, sometimes those who progress rapidly assume that everyone can progress rapidly
GC, I think it matters for weekend warriors. I have seen people become terribly frustrated at their lack of progress.
By the same token, sometimes those who progress rapidly assume that everyone can progress rapidly
I suppose you're right. I'm more of a concept guy than a detail guy. I'm always surprised with questions about how to breathe or exactly what cadence to run or what to do if the plan says 9 miles and you only ran 8.8 miles.
I always assume it's generally understood that individual results may vary. I was raised playing in the neighborhood and playing sports before the over-organized youth sports generation and the "you can do anything" generation. It was obvious that some kids were much more talented than others. That's just the way it is. One one hand, kids can be cruel. But on the other hand, they do pretty good accounting for differences if just left alone. I spend a lot of time in "third world" countries (we actually don't use that term anymore) where the kids still just go out and play. If all the good kids are on one team, the game is no fun, so they come up with ways to involve everyone.
In track and football, we've all seen examples where some kids went to all the right camps and workouts since they were 6 and then in high school some kid who has never tried the sport before comes out and dominates based on natural talent. The camp kids (actually their parents) act like it's unfair, but that's life. I say track and football because this doesn't happen so much in the skill sports and in the sports where you have to get in the system early.
On the old forum in the 90s, there was a guy who called himself "PeterC from Montreal" who wrote long flowery essays like "celebrating three weeks of running" (that's a quote). Well, it turns out that he had some talent. In a couple months he was insulting anyone who was not as fast as him because we all must be lazy losers because he did it so therefore anyone can. I guess we all do that. Like you said, anyone who is faster is more talented, anyone who is slower is lazy.