In article <[email hidden]>,
SwStudio said:Please read below - I will try to explain what I mean and I hope
to not come off elitist, because I am anything but:
Indeed, I think you go too far the other way with respect to your
own abilities. Namely, you are _not_ average on either talent or
training. Both contribute to the results you get.
Quoted message said:"Neil Gendzwill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted message said:You are quite a bit ahead of the curve.
Right - but it's the "curve" that I think is wrongfully used. I think
if you are to compare my times to others in a race, the "curve"
should comprise only of people who's main goal in running is go
fast; as fast as they possibly can, and then try to go even faster.
What percentage of an average race comprises of people with
that singular outlook? Not too many. A lot of people enter races
for fun and don't really train hard or race hard for that matter. Yet
they are included in the percentages you use when determining
my ability or lack of. Just because I am standing in the same start
line as someone else doesn't mean we are both going to apply
ourselves to an equal extent of our talents, respectively. I hope
you see what I mean.
Well, yes, it's true that your real competition, in terms of
a finishing placement, is your own age group and goal level.
Granted that it isn't thousands of people, but I have no trouble
finding races with a couple of dozen people in your age group
who are hell-bent to squeeze every second out of their 5k or 10k PR,
and who might, for example, run well in to a 30 km race with a
burst appendix.
A 17-ish 5k, 36-37ish 10k _still_ places very well among them.
You're working hard, granted, but so are they. You're trying to
train smart, but so are they. At the end of the day, there's
still something that has to be allowed for about the genetic
contributions you got from your parents.
[snip]
Quoted message said:You just answered your own question, and proved my point. I
am not saying the general population that enters races should be
running 17 minutes for 5km... what I *am* saying is that I firmly
believe that if everyone in a race ran it with the singular drive to
do it as fast as they can, *and* trained prior with that notion in
mind, I would place substantially further back on the "curve".
Some, but probably not a whole lot. The thing is, to the extent
that VO2max is meaningful, and inherited, and (un)trainable, and that
you're looking at a VO2max of 60 for a 17:00 5k
http://www.cs.uml.edu/~phoffman/ex1old.html --
Population average type values seem to be 40-45 for open class men,
with a standard deviation (very roughly speaking) of about 5.
Suppose it's a standard deviation of 5. You're, then, 3 sd above
the mean. Not many folks, even if they hit the roads, are going
to be in that 3+ standard deviation above mean to be able to catch
you. There is a degree of trainability to VO2max (the degree to
which that's the case is also heritable), but it's in the realm of
another 10% (maybe 20%). Off a 45 median, that means the person
coming off the couch need 'only' start 2 standard deviations above
the average (the extra 5 coming from the training of VO2max).
So, with a number of qualifiers before we get too testy about
conclusions, there really are some things to point to that say that
even if more people trained much harder, there would still be
rather few who would pass you.
No shame to have talent either. (There do seem to be those
who attribute all merit to 'making it' to those who do so without
talent. b.s. If you have talent, you still have to do the work.)
We all blend our talent with our training in getting the results
we do. What happens, happens.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
