Exactly. I started off with XC ( does not count as track) and I also started off with soccer. I only started true track and field training at age 15 (16 when I started doing weekly mileage stuff)
added injuries, people quitting the team because of workload, people flipping out about something else but it's really the work stress, people who decide not to do college running "if it's more of that," etc.
when our college soccer coach loaded up preseason running and had loooooong practices, we had a rash of injuries plus people quitting the team. they'd say "playing time" but the coach was a jerk and the practices demanding and i think you create some "balls of frustration" that go off the more you scream and ask.
no one quit over playing time as freshmen, and ironically when the injuries happened backups got time -- but not the ones who'd already quit. we get to a point 1/3 of the season left where for one road game we can only dress 17 out of the original 25 for a road game, and are playing the 4th string keeper. we win the game because the opponent sucked but a constant theme of that college team was attrition. if you had 4 years' worth of the best players who passed through we might have won conference.
you can get away with this crap in TF if your focus is on saddling up your perceived success and reputation to the guys who come out the other side.
i think it's more defensible for college for the guys who actually run 8k/10k. i do not think you need dozens of miles for a kid to run a mile/2 mile/5k and/or it should be used selectively on runners who seem like they can handle it.
Let's say 2 separate athletes have a lifetime ceiling of 8:00 in the 3k. Which kid is better off?
Kid A: Runs 70-80 mpw, "trains like a college kid", runs for an NXN qualifying team. Gets the positive experiences that come with being a high level HS athlete, runs 8:50 for 3200m, gets money to go run at a big school.
Only improves marginally and college. Is no longer the star he was in HS. People say his HS coach "burned him out", but the reality is his intense training in his youth simply accelerated him towards his genetic limit.
Kid B: Runs 30-40 mpw. Has a mediocre HS experience, is competitive at a local level, runs 9:20 for 3200m.
Goes on to run at a D2 and sees big improvements with a higher training load in college. Becomes a D2 all-american, has an enjoyable experience catching up with guys like "Kid A" who used to crush him.
I think there's pros and cons to both, but I lean towards the first because there are financial stakes to running faster in HS with scholarship and even college admissions. The future is never guaranteed and I think there's value in finding out how good you can be in the present moment, instead of always kicking the can down the road.
a lot of these discussions are at best framed in terms of the couple guys who have a shot at d1 and not what to ask of a full squad, a more varied talent and/or multisport team who might have some marginal or bad quality, or be doing dual workloads (playing soccer same time).
even for the future d1 kids i think when you go from 30-40 to something like 70 you're gonna find out some are up to it and others aren't, which to me should be optional/supplemental/tested by dipping toes incrementally.
the "two sides" thing sounds like a political world cop out. let's be scientific. surely we can identify body types that handle certain loads better. or calculate percentages on how many kids prosper/struggle/get hurt.
to me too much of this is one size fits all, don't ask whether the breakage percent is acceptable, treat the specific kids who populate the percentages when they physically/mentally snap as their own fault, ignore whether kid built A way might handle it but kid B build is a bad idea for it.
I ran in college in the 2010’s and would argue most HS guys who trained at a “high level” have similar success rates in college compared to the low milage/low sophistication athletes.
9:00-9:10 in the 2mi in HS is probably worth around 14:30-14:45 in the 5k. I’d say most guys who actually give a damn wind up running faster than that in college. Most “developed” HS’ers can plug and play easier too vs. the lower milage guys who need longer to adjust to doing real workouts/volume.
I think it’s worth noting though that HS coaches aren’t necessarily any worse than college coaches. And the HS coaches can really focus on coaching the few good athletes at their school (vs. college coaches who have more athletes + recruiting + additional admin).
Not many college coaches hand hold though. Ik a lot of good HS coaches who make their less committed athletes do all the right stuff. In college if you don’t have that drive yourself it turns out you’re replaceable…
I dont think a HS coach (or a college coach) has any duty to the athlete regarding "future development". Their duty is to make the athlete the best they can AT THAT TIME FOR THAT TEAM.
The future is completely unknown, any athlete can end up with any number of things that completely stop their participation in the sport. Injury, sickness, life circumstances, car accidents, you name it.. you can't sit around thinking about how you will hold back so next year you can really kill it.
Let's say 2 separate athletes have a lifetime ceiling of 8:00 in the 3k. Which kid is better off?
Kid A: Runs 70-80 mpw, "trains like a college kid", runs for an NXN qualifying team. Gets the positive experiences that come with being a high level HS athlete, runs 8:50 for 3200m, gets money to go run at a big school.
Only improves marginally and college. Is no longer the star he was in HS. People say his HS coach "burned him out", but the reality is his intense training in his youth simply accelerated him towards his genetic limit.
Kid B: Runs 30-40 mpw. Has a mediocre HS experience, is competitive at a local level, runs 9:20 for 3200m.
Goes on to run at a D2 and sees big improvements with a higher training load in college. Becomes a D2 all-american, has an enjoyable experience catching up with guys like "Kid A" who used to crush him.
I think there's pros and cons to both, but I lean towards the first because there are financial stakes to running faster in HS with scholarship and even college admissions. The future is never guaranteed and I think there's value in finding out how good you can be in the present moment, instead of always kicking the can down the road.
I agree with you. There are too many unknowns and too many distractions in college, almost becomes like a job. Moreover, a kid “only” running 70-80 in high school, IF they can handle it, isn’t really doing anything unreasonable anyway, maybe, maybe pulling one year of college forward, that’s it. I did 70-80 as a college frosh, that’s pretty normal.
Many of the great college runners or runners destined for greatness are going to go above 100 in college anyway, so 75ish is merely a stepping stone. As John Kellogg once said when this site was first started, a runner needs to acquire the ability to consistently handle 120-150 mpw over a period of years to reach their full potential. Are you going to wait until you are 25 to try and get there? But even if you plateau in college and never get above 90-95 consistently, who cares? Move on…
Whatever your commitment level is in high school, you have to increase that in college to be successful.
Lots of kids do great in college coming out of “meat grinder” programs. Jump my mileage from 75 to 90? No problem. Doubles on my own, sure! Take care of myself to run fast, yup.
But I think the kids that got dragged along by the high school and culture tend to lose motivation in college. It’s really hard to be successful and they are used to dominating
There are so many differences between HS and college running. Burnout is a word that's thrown around a lot but there's a lot more happening. Burnout is a lazy explanation.
HS running for kids from great programs: great coaching, teammates you've known since childhood, living at home with parent support and supervision, structured lifestyle from HS schedule. Emphasis of sport is on development.
College running: maybe great coaching (maybe not), teammates you've just met, living on your own without supervision, unstructured lifestyle. Emphasis of sport is on winning.
Want to know which HS kids are going to be successful in college? Look to the ones who have the discipline to structure their lives when school is out: over spring break, winter break, and the summer. The ones who adhere to a disciplined lifestyle free of distraction. When the guardrails of school and family are gone, kids are on their own, and the strong bonds of high school teammates are replaced with weak relationships, the ones with the skills and habits to do these things will succeed. The ones who lack these habits will live an unstructured lifestyle, which increases likelihood of plateau/illness/injury. Call it burnout, but it's not.
Compare two runners: one running 40, who began in high school, and another who began in middle school, who does 70 mpw both for 9:00. Who do you think is more talented?
But the question is that they run 'worse' in college. And I say no to that. Maybe they won't improve very much more because they were already doing good training, but they won't get worse until they do worse training in college than they were doing in high school. And doing good training in high school to run fast isn't bad. If this hypothetical person running 9:00 off 40 miles would have just trained more they could have been an 8:40's runner in high school. So I don't think running less in high school is a good answer, you're just being less successful than you could have been in high school. You may even be delaying your best because you still have to ramp up the training in college and will waste a couple years getting up to the level you eventually could be.
Athletes can get burnt out if they are racing all summer before their freshman year of college, they increase training significantly in the summer before college in a hopes of making a team/making an impact, or because they struggle adjusting to college life.
Two kids have identical ability. Kid A runs 4:15 in high school then develops into a 3:58 guy in college. Kid B runs 3:58 in high school then keeps running 3:58 in college.
Everyone here raves about how kid A's high school training prepared him for future development. Everyone here jeers at kid B's high school training for ruining his potential for future development. Even though the end result is the exact same.
Burnout is most likely caused by specializing in running prior to high school.
The number one cause of burnout across all sports is typically early specialization. It may be likely that some of the kids drawn to top high school running programs began specializing in the sport at an early age. Early specialization often involves year-round, high-intensity training focused on a single sport, leaving little room for other physical activities, hobbies, or downtime. This intense focus can lead to overtraining and physical exhaustion, particularly when the developing bodies of young athletes are exposed to repetitive stress. Research by Jayanthi et al. (2015) shows that athletes who specialize early are 81% more likely to suffer from overuse injuries compared to those who participate in multiple sports.
In addition to the physical toll, early specialization can contribute to psychological burnout. The constant pressure to perform and achieve at a young age can result in emotional exhaustion, reduced motivation, and even withdrawal from the sport entirely. A study by Goodger et al. (2007) highlighted the significant correlation between early specialization and psychological burnout in youth athletes, driven largely by the loss of intrinsic enjoyment. Athletes who have little time to explore other activities or sports may also feel a sense of social isolation, further compounding the mental strain.
Finally, early specialization can lead to a plateau in performance during adolescence, as many athletes reach their peak too soon and struggle to improve later. This phenomenon is especially problematic in endurance sports like running, where gradual development is crucial for long-term success. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends delaying specialization until late adolescence to allow for both physical and emotional growth, emphasizing that a diverse athletic background can improve resilience, adaptability, and overall performance. Encouraging balance and variety during the developmental years can help mitigate the risks of burnout and promote a healthier approach to competitive sports.
I pretty much agree with this - especially that "burnout" is more often a psychological situation rather than a physical one.
The more highly trained you are, the more difficult it becomes to improve (i.e., diminishing returns), and that can be difficult for athletes that are used to rapid success and high achievement at an early age and throughout their scholastic careers. It requires increasing commitment, and increased (mental and physical) training load at a time when academics require the same. For someone who as already "achieved a lot", the lack of positive results can easily add to frustration, and lack of desire to keep grinding away with little to show for it. They get "burned out" on the process.
In addition, the younger you are, the easier it is to out train your competition. If you are running 40 mpw in middle school, you are going to be a top performer because you're doing 50+% more volume than 99% your competition. If you're running 90-100 mpw in HS, same idea. As you move up to college, your advantage disappears because everyone is training at a high level. So while this could seems like physical burn out, it's more likely regression toward the mean. As someone described earlier, they were closer to their max potential earlier in life (HS) where those performances stood out.
I honestly do not see how HS kids are getting in 70+ miles per week. They have 7 hrs of school, plus jobs, school activities (clubs, academic clubs, plays, choir) family activities and commitments, church.
I think there's more to being a teenager than being a running monk.
Those high school coaches blame their alumni's lack of development on the college coaches burning them out. So according to them it's impossible for a high school coach to hurt someone's long term potential, but college coaches are capable of it. HYPOCRITICAL BULL****
OF COURSE those high school coaches are hurting the long term future of their athletes. Some are extremely talented and it doesn't hurt them at all, but for many it does cost them long term. Yes, there are bad college coaches too.
The notion that you can train as hard as humanly possible from age 5 to 18 with no negative affects is laughable but scary how many people actually believe it. This is why a lot of high school sub 4 milers did not have great careers.
At least here, HS coaches run kids in 2 meets minimum per week sometimes 3. Each meet= 2 or 3 races. So, you are basically running pre meet workout, meet, recovery run.... rinse and repeat 2x per week--every week. No real development IMO. College does NOT run 6-9 races per 7 days! They (generally) understand training and development. College runner don't have to win 100% of every invite 2x per week and league meet on schedule.
Is this worse now than we ran in the 80s? IDK, I don't remember running 8 races a week and so many meets.
Burnout is most likely caused by specializing in running prior to high school.
The number one cause of burnout across all sports is typically early specialization. It may be likely that some of the kids drawn to top high school running programs began specializing in the sport at an early age. Early specialization often involves year-round, high-intensity training focused on a single sport, leaving little room for other physical activities, hobbies, or downtime. This intense focus can lead to overtraining and physical exhaustion, particularly when the developing bodies of young athletes are exposed to repetitive stress. Research by Jayanthi et al. (2015) shows that athletes who specialize early are 81% more likely to suffer from overuse injuries compared to those who participate in multiple sports.
In addition to the physical toll, early specialization can contribute to psychological burnout. The constant pressure to perform and achieve at a young age can result in emotional exhaustion, reduced motivation, and even withdrawal from the sport entirely. A study by Goodger et al. (2007) highlighted the significant correlation between early specialization and psychological burnout in youth athletes, driven largely by the loss of intrinsic enjoyment. Athletes who have little time to explore other activities or sports may also feel a sense of social isolation, further compounding the mental strain.
Finally, early specialization can lead to a plateau in performance during adolescence, as many athletes reach their peak too soon and struggle to improve later. This phenomenon is especially problematic in endurance sports like running, where gradual development is crucial for long-term success. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends delaying specialization until late adolescence to allow for both physical and emotional growth, emphasizing that a diverse athletic background can improve resilience, adaptability, and overall performance. Encouraging balance and variety during the developmental years can help mitigate the risks of burnout and promote a healthier approach to competitive sports.
I pretty much agree with this - especially that "burnout" is more often a psychological situation rather than a physical one.
The more highly trained you are, the more difficult it becomes to improve (i.e., diminishing returns), and that can be difficult for athletes that are used to rapid success and high achievement at an early age and throughout their scholastic careers. It requires increasing commitment, and increased (mental and physical) training load at a time when academics require the same. For someone who as already "achieved a lot", the lack of positive results can easily add to frustration, and lack of desire to keep grinding away with little to show for it. They get "burned out" on the process.
In addition, the younger you are, the easier it is to out train your competition. If you are running 40 mpw in middle school, you are going to be a top performer because you're doing 50+% more volume than 99% your competition. If you're running 90-100 mpw in HS, same idea. As you move up to college, your advantage disappears because everyone is training at a high level. So while this could seems like physical burn out, it's more likely regression toward the mean. As someone described earlier, they were closer to their max potential earlier in life (HS) where those performances stood out.
Yep, but again, 70 mpw in high school is not too much and leaves plenty of room for a growth trajectory. Perhaps that is the sweet spot, where 50 is too little but 90 is too much.
As far as adjustment to college, I like that a Graham Blanks took the Covid year off to just go out west and train and run high volume in Flagstaff. Seems every runner would benefit from that, even just a redshirt year in college the first year to just train to acclimate to the next level.