Living in the Past wrote:
But the fact is that Lindgren did compete until he was 26.
The fact remains, there was no incentive for Lingren to compete past college, therefore no performances to speak of. Had Lindgren been born ten years later he would have competed to age 35 or more.
By that rationale Pre, shorter, george young , ryun had no incentive to compete?
Broken link wrote:
The fact remains, there was no incentive for Lingren to compete past college, therefore no performances to speak of. Had Lindgren been born ten years later he would have competed to age 35 or more.
The next olympics?
wang dang sweet poontang wrote:
Broken link wrote:The fact remains, there was no incentive for Lingren to compete past college, therefore no performances to speak of. Had Lindgren been born ten years later he would have competed to age 35 or more.
The next olympics?
you got it. for the elite, the Olympics was the Emerld City. (and for many other dreamers who were lucky to make the Trials-but it all made the wheel turn in those years); until the professional road racing scene came of age in the early to mid 80s; with guys like Herb Lindsey, Greg Meyers and the King, Bill Rodgers, etc. turning their main energies to the roads.
disgusting wrote:
By that rationale Pre, shorter, george young , ryun had no incentive to compete?
They didn't. The pro era didn't begin until the late 70s.
Broken link wrote:
disgusting wrote:By that rationale Pre, shorter, george young , ryun had no incentive to compete?
They didn't. The pro era didn't begin until the late 70s.
But some runners did improve well past college age. Jim Grelle, Billy Mills, Jim Beatty, Jack Bacheler, Len Hilton, Dick Buerkle, Bob Schul, Buddy Edelen, and Bill Dellinger come immediately to mind.
Your unstated premise is that, even though Lindgren competed for several years after college, he only gave a half-hearted effort since there were no financial incentives. I wonder what Gerry has to say about that?
There are plenty of examples of runners who have gone 9 flat or better and not approached 100 miles.
Also, notice how (in that quote brought forth) Nelson didn't say that High Schoolers NEED to run 100 miles... he only said most high schoolers breaking 9 in the 70s ran 100+ miles... as in, "back in my day, we ran 100 miles to run under 9. These kids these days don't run near that" ... not saying it should be a requirement, could be a note of astonishment. Point is, he wasn't telling anyone to go out and run 100 miles, because kids these days are finding success without running those types of miles. And just running that much mileage alone won't always help. Everyone have individual limits, and one would be a moron to exceed them just to hit 100 miles in a week.
Raising the pure volume of mileage isn't always the best answer.
Raising the pure volume is the best answer 90% of the time for high school runners. Again, most high school runners lack aerobic conditioning. All HS runners don't need to run 100mpw but if more approached 80-90 more would run faster.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand, old school runners ran more, ran faster (on shitty dirt tracks and non-groomed XC courses) and had more people running faster times.
35 years later and the indoor + outdoor two mile records are still there...all with better tracks, more competition, better shoes, injury prevention techniques, etcetera. What is the difference? WORK ETHIC AKA HIGH MILEAGE.
Evil wrote:
Raising the pure volume is the best answer 90% of the time for high school runners. Again, most high school runners lack aerobic conditioning. All HS runners don't need to run 100mpw but if more approached 80-90 more would run faster.
I don't understand what is so hard to understand, old school runners ran more, ran faster (on shitty dirt tracks and non-groomed XC courses) and had more people running faster times.
35 years later and the indoor + outdoor two mile records are still there...all with better tracks, more competition, better shoes, injury prevention techniques, etcetera. What is the difference? WORK ETHIC AKA HIGH MILEAGE.
Chris Lukezic was interviewed by NW Runner one time. They talked about what set him apart from other elites in his state at the time. He said (not exact words): One of the best ways to improve is to stay healthy. The difference between the greats of the time and the elites of the time is that the elites stay healthy.
Running 80-90 mpw and developing injuries < Running 60-75 mpw and staying healthy and getting consistant training.
Yes, sometimes running near 100 mpw will help athletes. Sometimes it won't. It's a case-by-case basis, everyone should know that. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that! more than 75% of runners that simply go out and run 80+ mpw when they are used to lower mileage are probably going to get injured. That's just being stupid. Work up to what your body is willing to do. Don't run more mileage just for the sake of running more mileage, it takes a real idiot to think that's the best way to improve.
No one has ever proven that running a lot of miles leads to injuries. It's a common belief and I don't think you should think that anything is a "magic" number, but 80 miles isn't all that much and won't need all that much getting used to.
I ran a 4:25 mile in high school on about 40 miles a week.
I ran a 4:04 mile in college on around 80-110 miles a week.
Of course, the highest mileage period, and most important, was in the August to December period, where the mileage would be the highest. I doubt I ever hit 90 mpw from January, on; since I was doing more interval training and racing on the track from mid January to early June. But, there is no doubt in my mind that the 100 mile weeks, from August to December, were the key.
Watchout, you keep talking about injuries. Injuries happen at 40mpw and they happen at 140mpw.
Like the poster above I was a average runner in HS. Ran 9:45 and 4:30 off 20 miles a week with heavy intervals my senior year.
My freshman year of college went and ran 100-115 miles a week and was hitting my 2 mile and 5k pr in 10k XC races. Went from 20 to 100 within one week of training over the summer. I was tired but my legs didn't fall off.
Intensisty NOT mileage causes injuries.
Call me (and my training partners) idiots but running mileage for the sake of running mileage sure helped us get into the low to mid 14 minute 5k's.
I absolutely agree that there shouldn't be some sort of "magic number" in anyone's heads as to what a good amount of mileage is for one person. Again, as I've been saying, not everyone is going to be able to handle 100 mpw, especially when still in high school and still growing. I attributed a number to "high mileage" because that is what this thread has been talking about, wanting kids to run 100 mpw or close to it.
And yes, it is a common belief as you say, that lots of miles leads to injuries. But what I was talking about is more mileage than you are ready for. Not everyone is going to be physically ready to run 100 miles a week, or close to it, in high school. Because of that, it would NOT be better for them to run that mileage when they have found a way to succeed off of 50-70 miles.
And yes, running more miles just for the sake of running more miles, when your body is telling you that that isn't a good thing to do, IS a stupid thing to do. That is your body telling you that there is a good chance you're going to get injured if you keep increasing the volume or intensity at which you are running. Again, I don't know what's so hard to understand about that... you're supposed to push the envelop, not speed past it! Run the "high" mileage when you are physically ready for it... there is no need to rush your body into doing something it cannot handle. That's DETRIMENTAL to your health, and with a good chance (again, this is simply common belief, but there is nothing supporting the contrary and a decent amount, no doubt, supporting the POV) that you could get injured by doing so. That means you'll be off the trails for a week or more, meaning you lose time training. So why would you want to put yourself through that?
Any sane person wouldn't. People need to know their limits, coaches need to explore those limits and make sure not to push their athletes past. Stay healthy and train consistently, and you'll find success. Run 100+ mpw because you think that will automatically make you better and not listen to yourself, your body and your coaches advice, and there is a decent chance that you'll get injured if you do this so recklessly.
MILEAGE IS NOT ALWAYS THE ANSWER. KNOW YOUR LIMITS. IF YOU ARE BETTER OFF TRAINING AT 50-70 MILES A WEEK, THEN TRAIN AT 50-70 MILES A WEEK. RUNNING 100 MILES A WEEK WON'T MAKE YOU FASTER BY ITSELF!
Not sure about high volume miles for High scholl runners. Perhaps average 60mpw is better. Have to be careful about burn out early and possible injury.
Slow progression for any potential high schooler to reach elite status.
"Better off training at 50-70 then 100"? How do you know whats better for you if you havent tried both? Just a thought.
We all agree that no one should run more miles than they can handle. That's like saying that good is better than evil. But how many miles are too many? How do you know what you can handle?
When we reach this point, people tend to start trotting out numbers. I think 100 is managebale, you think 50-70, someone else thinks 80. But there is no way to tell what you can handle until you actually try.
Personally, I found the 100 mile week a great benchmark. It became a goal when I was doing maybe 50. I spent maybe a year working up to it, not linearly, but with some back and forth. Occasionally things hurt and I was really tired and I thought that maybe 100 was too much. Heck, at one point I thought that 60 was too much. But I kept telling myself that if people like Shorter could do 140 or more then I could do 100. I could. Eventually it didn't even seem like that much running.
So, yes, there are people who probably can't handle that much and maybe never will adapt to it. There are also a lot of people who can but who don't know it.
One of the things I've noticed as the years have gone by is that avoiding injuries has become perhaps more of a training goal than performance. See your comment about being off the trails for a week or more. So what? You'll heal and get back on the trails and you'll be fitter.
If you really are better training at 50-70 miles a week then that's where you belong and you can run very well off of that. But people who really, really, excel are generally doing triple digit mileage.
I've had three girls under 5 for the mile. Three different animals, one needed 70+ per week, one thrived on 50 and the other never ran more than 35. The first ran sub 10:10 (9:27), the second ran 10:30 and the third ran 10:50. The third also ran 2:13, the other two did not break 2:15 in high school. The only one who competed successfully after college was the 70+, but I would like to think she was the exception to the rule.
I think the optimal mileage for "most" solid high schoolers is probably in the 40-70mpw range. If a kid wants to run really high mileage and isn't having problems doing it, then I don't see any reason they shouldn't. But for your typical 9:30-40 two miler, it is better to find a training load that the can consistently hold and work on being consistent. I know personally that in high school I was able to do a week or two above 70 miles, but wasn't able to hold it without feeling worn out and beat up. Unfortunately, for myself, for most my HS and College years I was too obsessed with hitting a number (90 or 110, etc), instead of finding the training that would lead me to the best results. I had other teammates who kept increasing the mileage and just kept improving.
It is a difficult formula to figure out and everyone is different. I think that most people can handle higher mileage than they think (it requires patience and time), but the key is too find the optimal training which produces the best racing results and not doing something because it looks good on paper.
Broken link wrote:
The fact remains, there was no incentive for Lingren to compete past college, therefore no performances to speak of. Had Lindgren been born ten years later he would have competed to age 35 or more.
The reason Lindgren didn't compete beyond 26 was that he could not compete beyond then. I don't mean he was physically unable to run or anything, I just mean his performances dropped off and he simply could no longer keep up with the best even in the US whereas just 9 years earlier he was beating the best in the world. Nor could he match performances of previous years. He was used up by 26.
I know that once he was out of college Lindgren struggled with his job situation. He never really found a stable job, was once caught up in some sort of pyramid scheme, I think he drove a truck and shifting the clutch gave him some knee trouble. It's just hard to look abck at an era when most people were done shortly after college and try to comapre what those guys did with what people do today.