Young Phenom Runners Explained

Not sure the relevance of your post as this thread is discussing why some phenoms pan out and other don't. That fact that some do and some don't is a given, like in any sport. No discussion about parents has surfaced.

Interesting post from T&FN that you posted, and there is alot of truth in what the poster put in that response. One should not put undue pressure on a kid, and absolutely their goals should be THEIR goals and not some parents goals, and I don't know of anyone doing that in this thread. As was stated early on (the original post I believe) there are many factors including wildcards that can't be determined in advance.

The topic of this thread is the pitfalls and differences between phenoms. To explain some misconceptions and shed some light on the issue. To my knowledge no current phenom was mentioned by name, only a couple of former ones for example purposes, and rightly so as this isn't about any one person but an explanation of why some phenoms stagnate, or burn out, and why some do not. There is alot of good information on this thread and it sure beats some of the negative threads that have long lives.

feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss further.

Haha, I usually refer to aerobic training as increasing "endurance capacity"! I guess it's a matter of semantics. But I think efficiency, in the truest sense of the word, is different than either aerobic or anaerobic capacity. And, just like those two, it can be improved. Very few high schoolers these days look efficient, and the reason is probably a combination of a lot of hard running, not much mileage, and not much fast, relaxed stuff (though very little is necessary). I think--no real evidence to back this up, just a thought--that a lot of HARD running (mentally and physically) re-enforces a "tense" running style, and isn't very good for developing a relaxed, efficient stride. The neuromuscular/psychological benefits of relaxed high-end aerobic running can't be overstated.

As far as introducing workouts at M and T pace, I've found that younger runners (boys at least) do much better on progression-style workouts that allow them to gradually progress through a range of paces. An out-and-back run with only a few splits (say, 6mi total with splits at 1,3, and 5 miles) is great for developing the aerobic threshold. You get some quality time spent at a high-end aerobic pace, but if you're having a bad day, you don't find out until 4mi or so. But if you're having a bad day and the assigned workout is a straight-up tempo run at M pace, you'll know pretty quickly. I haven't tried this yet, but I imagine you could do a progression-style anaerobic threshold ("T" pace) workout where you started backed off--even slower than aerobic threshold ("M" pace) and gradually progressed down to the anaerobic threshold. Really, running just below anaerobic threshold is almost as good as running right at it, and this way, you'd minimize the damage of pushing the pace.

The main purpose of Daniels' "R" pace is facilitating mechanics at high speeds. All of his R workouts are short and fast (R is close to mile pace, if I recall correctly), but have a lot of recovery. This doesn't improve VO2 max or anaerobic capacity, but does improve efficiency and running mechanics. Mileage can also improve mechanics and efficiency (assuming your mechanics and efficiency aren't so poor that you get hurt right away!), and things like sprint drills can help too. But with a young runner, I doubt an intensive drill routine is useful.

Barefoot running is something that I think is great for promoting good running mechanics without making it feel like a workout. If your runners do their long run Saturday, Sunday is a great day to do four or five miles, two or three of which could be barefoot. It's fun, low-key, and is a nice break from pounding pavement.

weIInow wrote:

I agree. The OP is falling into the classic mistake of ingnoring neuromuscular coordination. The best runners regardless of age have highly developed running skills and many of the best young runners that I know can run a fast 5k with extremely low weekly mileage because of this. They are fully aerobically developed, even on this very low mileage, but they will coninue to grow, and they can continue to improve.

Doubtful. It takes a lot of mileage to develop neuromuscular co-ordination to the point of extreme efficacy. Many, many years. Most collegiate runners still don't have great neuromuscular co-ordination, despite good aerobic systems and mechanical efficiency. Neural patterns are a completely learned thing--that's why Lance Armstrong was a pretty bad runner (relative to his cardiovascular fitness) after biking for 20 years. And they're fairly specific--you become efficient at paces you run frequently. So a marathoner is more efficient at 5-minute miles than a miler of equal ability, and the miler is more efficient at 4-minute pace. And why? Because of years and years spent at those training paces. But let's not make the mistake of concluding that we should ONLY have milers do mile-pace running! That didn't work so hot in the 90s, did it...

Anyways, even the most phenomenal young runners tend to be fairly poor at long distances, simply because they don't have the mileage base required to run them well. It's most pronounced when young runners step up to 8 and 10k, but even most high-school all-time lists are slightly stronger at 1 mile than 2 miles. If the 5000m was contested in high school track, this difference would be even more evident. This is very strong evidence that, while raw talent is certainly a huge advantage, there's no excuse for aerobic development.

Not sure what you are disagreeing with there 777?

I agree with what you are saying mostly, but our phenoms are very fast over 1500m and 2 1/2 - 3 miles of cross country. Obviously they will develop better speed endurance, but the notion of aerobic development is misunderstood by almost everyone, including the OP, whilst neuromuscular coordination is ignored by almost everyone. Bad science is the norm.

No. You are furthering your silly neuromuscular theory, while the rest of us are in the real world where aerobic development is producing real runners. Young, talented runners, though competitive with their older peers at middle-distances, are really quite helpless at longer races, and this is 100% due to a lack of aerobic development. There's a reason that world record holders tend to be older as the distance increases.

This also explains why the east africans distance runners tend to be able to reach the world class status younger than American or european athletes. It is because they put in more mileage at a younger age as so their aerobic development is further along at age 18 than is the American or European athlete.

The current structure within the USATF and UK's and most of Europes equivalent organizations will only encourage this to continue.

As Al Salazar and Coach Vigil have both recently (and repeatedly) said, the average 18 yr Kenyan is ofetn 10,000 miles ahead of his American counter part in terms of aerobic development.

Whether you want to call it aerobic development or neuromuscular coordination or whatever, we need to get over the mindset that running is bad or running is punishment. Running mileage under a careful well monitored program is exactly what we need more young runners doing. Sure we should add in speed work and other components when they are ready, but for their longer term development a healthy dose of mileage is a must, if done properly.

Thbis is the great thing about clinics and the lousy thing about message boards. In clinics, a bunch of guys who have credentials to back them up and the accountability of everyone seeing how they do the next season give their input on issues. On message boeards, a bunch of guys who have zero credibility or accountability discuss things they may or may not have any business discussing. Running is a simple sport. You work hard and as long as you keep working, you keep improving. Burnout simply refers to people not wanting to work hard anymore. There is no physiological component to it. Decker busted her ass for thirty years and was a sub 4 1500 runner at the end of her career. the dfference between her and all those stories of has beens and never weres, she kept going. (Oh yeah, and drugs but she was pretty fast without them too :)

777 wrote:

No. You are furthering your silly neuromuscular theory, while the rest of us are in the real world where aerobic development is producing real runners. Young, talented runners, though competitive with their older peers at middle-distances, are really quite helpless at longer races, and this is 100% due to a lack of aerobic development. There's a reason that world record holders tend to be older as the distance increases.

My silly neuromuscular theory? Development of endurance in a young prodigy is almost entirely related to improvements in neuromuscular coordination.

This takes many years, often long after aerobic development has peaked. Denying this is just pure ignorance.

Yes, our young prodigies should train more like African runners, and develop endurance at a younger age. Aerobic capacity peaks at a young age and from our mid twenties it is in decline, so it makes sense that the best African distance runners peak at in their early twenties.

The young phenoms tend to never end up being adult phenoms. If you look at all the high school superstars over the years, how many ended up making an Olympic Team, how many of them still run. If you are running 100 miles per week in high school, taking whey protein and everything else, then what changes are you going to make when you get to college that will make you better. I really like the message that Anthony Famiglietti puts out about having a long career, how every year you are building strength for the following year. Patience is key. Success too early can sometimes ruin patience, then you get injured. Fam's movies Run like Hell and RUn Reckless are great examples of patience and how just because you are not the young phenom, does not mean that a few years later you want be beating the young phenom. My athletes love his movie. I think the only place to get Run Reckless is www.recklessrunning.com. As for Run Like Hell, I cannot find it anywhere...loaned my copy to one of my athletes and never got it back. Any suggestions?

How long does, roughly, does it take to maximize your vo2 max, not to the tip top but within reasonable proximity to it?

In my opinion:

You'll have gained the majority of your VO2 max movement in the first 2-3 years of serious training.

Having said this you can still increase it marginally long after that depending on your training. After the first several years your gains on this front will be more related to improving your velocity at VO2 Max rather than increasing VO2 Max itself. This increase in velocity at Vo2 max can happen for many reasons, including increased efficiency/economy, increased power to weight ratio (as often happens with teenage males - while teen age women sometimes lose this advantage).

what about with vo2 max intervals? my question is pointed towards if i just started running 3-4 months ago and start incorporating vo2 max intervals how meaningful will my improvement be in 2-3 months of them? also if my current easy pace is around 8:30 min/mile, after the vo2 max intervals will i see significant improvement in that pace?

lenny wrote:

what about with vo2 max intervals? my question is pointed towards if i just started running 3-4 months ago and start incorporating vo2 max intervals how meaningful will my improvement be in 2-3 months of them? also if my current easy pace is around 8:30 min/mile, after the vo2 max intervals will i see significant improvement in that pace?

Probably no. There are much more important training zones than the very narrow VO2 Max zone. Its an important part of training, especially for races that will take between 10 and 45 minutes to complete, but DON'T make VO2 Max your primary form of training, especially since you're so new to the sport.

For someone who is new to the sport, you'll be much better off with very limited exposure the the VO2 max range. Work on building your mileage, do plenty of hill work, and some LT-based work (tempo runs and the like). Spread your workouts around to all intensities, and you'll improve much quicker. In time, you'll be better able to handle higher intensity training.

You measure of sustained success is not a good way to measure people. FWIW I will give you a few people from my era and before who were at the top of the nation in HS and then stayed there and improved:

name HS times -> pro times

Chris Fox 14:21/30:32 -> 13:21/27:53

Spivey 4:06y -> 3:49y AR holder

Bjorklund 4:05y -> 27:45/2:10

Virgin 4:05y/8:41y -> 13:19/27:29 AR holder

Williams 4:11/8:58 -> 13:19/27:31

BK 4:05y -> 12:58 AR holder

Chapa 4:04y/8:50y/28:32 -> 3:56y/7:37/13:19 AR holder

Salazar 14:04 -> 13:11 AR holder

I could go on and on with 100 examples, but they would not reinforce the point any more. Some of these were high-mileage guys in HS (Fox, Chapa) and some were low-mileage (Williams, Spivey, Kennedy).

But look at the HS all-time lists and look at how many of the sub-8:50, or sub-9:00 boys went on to improve and be among the best ever at the college or pro level, or both.

Look at how many Olympic teams just the guys on this list made? Looks like about 12 teams just among these.

You can't judge the success of a HS runner by whether you make an Olympic team though. Most runners would only be able to compete in 3 or perhaps 4 Oly Trials in their time past college (depending on the timing) and that means just 3 spots for every OT. I.E. in the 10k from 72-84, Shorter and Virgin took FIVE of 12 available spots. Some very good runners got left home in the 5 and 10 (Clary in 1980, Bickford in 84, Nenow in 84).

I am not advocating any particular method or approach, but it is not accurate to say that the best HS runners don't continue to be the best from age 18-30. It is not 100% but it is far from the situation.

Using Fam as an example is fine, but I'm not sure it supports your point. He was Freshman of the yr at App State his first season there and won the steeple and the 5k as a sophomore at Conference ... I'm not sure he was a slow developer as much as he concentrated on skateboarding in HS and is, in general, just a wingnut and that held him back before age 20.

(Apologies, I'm replying when I mean to post, but can't find the POST button).

Question: re. pre-pubescent kids (e.g., my 8 yr old daughter) and 10 yr old son, what should be their emphasis?

We are new to 'serious' running. My 12yr old daughter started 8 months ago and is improving constantly and racing successfully (800, 1500 and CC). My 8yr old LOVES tagging along--leg speed/cadence is V fast, endurance up there, speed up there. Both girls love training. I have read that pre-pubscent kids CANNOT significantly develop their aerobic capacity (heart the size of peanute, etc.) and that therefore speed development is more important at this age. I intuit that e.g., 3 mile runs on grass for an 8 yr old with also develop other important areas (bone density, muscular and tendon strength, technical skills, etc).

I pulled my 12 yr old out of club training as I considered the coaches "know-it-alls" who KNEW little and lacked much professionalism. I train all 3 kids myself. (12 yr old top 10 National level at all distances--but we have only just started (5 months training under me).I've been using Daniels suitably implemented for a 12yr old, with emphasis on the aerobic base building, but now just started phase 111 and rapidly improving. Enjoyment factor with the girls is high.

I'm reasonably confident that with the amount I'm reading (Lydiard, Daniels, Coe, etc.), that I'll be careful, not push too hard or not enough. My biggest concern is that I develop my 8yr old corrrectly. She is the height of nothing and would bite your ankles off to win. Her bigget 'problem' is, quote, "Dad, I have a technical question, how do I stop laughing and smiling when I'm running really fast." I love it, she loves it. She especially loves HUNTING down runners 3-4 years older, frightening them from behind. SHe WANTS to win, but really doesn't care a jot that she loses most of the time to much older kids--"I got closer Dad...I'm innit to winnit...I'll get them next year."

Should I be emphasising aerobic running + speed? Strength work? We run on grass and track--my 12 year old has just switched to SOME road running, in addition to lots of grass and track. (Biggest issue with my 12yr old is psychological in competition--leaves her best efforts on the practice track.)

Any advice or direction greatly appreciated. I would love discussion with knowledgeable persons, coaches, parents, athletes.

TGMCP,

Sounds like you are doing a great job. You are reading and learning more and letting your kids have fun, which is most important.

I would disagree totally with the what you heard that kids can't develop their aerobic capacity. I have seen much real world experience that contradicts that.

I think you should start them off with mainly easy running but also allow them to run fast on occassion if they enjoy it. Fast strides before or after an easy run is a great way to start off.

The aerobic development is key to their long term success in the sport but speed is a key skill to learn early on as well.

My best advice would be to have patience and take their long term development slowly. Gradually build up work capcity over time and make sure it always remains fun. Do this and they will take part in our great sport for years to come.

MPR, thanks for the reply.

Apologies, I didn't make clear the point re. aerobic capacity--the suggestion I read in research was that under 10 yrs kids aren't physiologically mature enough to really improve aerobic capacity. I agree with you that older kids (e.g., 11 - 15) can significantly improve this system,depending of course on their physical maturation. But U10? I'd be very interested in your input re. the "real world experience" of aerobically improving 8 yr olds. (I.e., I have read about this scientific view of runners so young, but I don't know if the reading is correct.)

I was probably too vague regarding what they already do. And I premise the below on OUR notion of enjoyment--my kids love the physical effort, the training. Success in competition is a bonus for them. I've also read and agree with the view that without success (measured by guaging their own improvement), motivation wanes.

12yrs old: follows Daniels 1500 plan, 5 days a week, 3 quality sessions (e.g., 5 x 1000 intervals at 54 VDOT pace--she actually exceeds the pace with her HR below VO2 Max rate)...this after 1 mile jog w/u, plyo drills/dynamic stretch....1 mile w/d and static stretch afterwards. We pay particular attention to aerobic runs/recovery runs. Schedule is Tues quality (e.g., intervals), Wed aerobic (e.g., 7:45 mile/min for 6 miles), Thurs quality (e.g., tempo +reps), Friday rest, Sat quality reps (she exceeds the rep pace for 54 VDOT), Sun Long run or fartlek. She also plays hockey for the school, and 3 x skipping/jump rope sessions before school (a precursor to Lydiard type Hills for next year's base. SHE LOVES TRAINING AND HAS NEVER--TOUCH WOOD--HAD AN INJURY. We talk, I listen, she lets her body run.

8 yr old: chases sheep for 45 minutes up and down our hillside when she can't be bothered with an organised session, does sprint training Tuesday and Thurs, couple of 1K time trials on grass, couple of 1200s on track...usually does one pared down type of tempo session a week, two aerobic, etc. She is scary. She scares the sheep.

As said in my first post, I don't subscribe to over or undertraining. Periodically I give my 12yr old 3 days off--she chooses to swim and cycle/spin. I feel that many parents and coaches patrionise too much--kids can have FUN training! Kids undertrained or overtrained burn out. BOTH.