Deemphasizing Cross Country in HS

If you are getting in strides at mile pace or faster throughout the season, no reason for real fast workouts at the end. I mentioned in another thread that 16x100 starting every 60 seconds at no faster than mile pace is one of my favorite sharpeners. The old Oregon Drill of Easy/Medium/Hard is great for cross. 15 minutes is enough. Lydiard's 50/50's are good. When I time trial athletes, it's usually a longer trial at less than all out (maybe a kilo at mile pace, then a long rest and an all out 400). Then there's the specificity work. Repeat 400s at race pace with 60 seconds rest (maybe let them open up on the last couple)and alternate 200s going race pace and race pace + 10 for 3 miles. You can start these three weeks out. None of this is theoretical for me. I've had a lot of athletes (entire teams) run really well track and cross country with only tempo, strides, fartlek during the season and then these workouts at the end.

MohrOver wrote:

I hope this thread hangs around and we hear some anecdotal evidence.

I'm your guy! I was a long-time coach who took some time off, then starting coaching again 3 1/2 years ago. I had some talented young guys and girls (sophomores). I have trained them with 'long-term' in mind from the start. Both boys and girls were 3rd in their conference when I started and are currently each ranked #10 in our state, a larger state. With a good day each team could be in the top 5-6 this fall. Training is primarily aerobic all year. In their first two years I did not attempt to peak them at all. Our toughest weeks were district and beyond. We were beaten late in the year by teams I knew we could beat if we tapered, but simply getting to state to take up the last finishing spot was not the plan. We do not race every week in the fall, rarely (just to break training boredom indoor) and never more than one race a week in the spring. We do no doubling at track meets. We do run some VO2 stuff the final two years, but much less than most. 5-6 times a season. We run low mileage (30-40) and work leg strength & form (hills, drills, steps-we have a hilly university in town, weights, etc.) EVERY day except races. We have a few runners that colleges will love and they have already posted solid times. A lot has been left in the tank. The next wave (freshmen & junior high who run 15 mpw and no speed)are on the same program and look to be much better talent-wise. I am sold on the long-term approach.

justthe facts: Do you have your runners progressing their mileage throughout their four years, or do you limit them to 40 mpw? I think that the key is to continue building up base and adding in more intensity gradually, which sounds like what you have your juniors and seniors doing.

strength is speed, so develop the piss out of the aerobic system lol

Yes! Most would laugh at our mileage and approach, but my goal is their enjoyment and long-term (college) potential. We run junior high at 15 mpw, freshmen 20-25, juniors 30-35, seniors 30-40 although we hit mid 40's to 50 in summer and winter off-seasons. We have over 100 kids in our program and have not had a single injury of kids who run and participate regularly. We have had a few minor injuries to those who do other sports and don't run in the off-season, but none from regulars. I think many, particulary the upperclass boys can handle more mileage, but I'd rather error conservatively.

I think the whole point of not slamming interval type work is to build mileage with less risk. Guys at 80+ girls 60+ by senior year works really well. The only way they don't improve through college this way is if their college coaches don't have them run more.

just the facts wrote: Yes! Most would laugh at our mileage and approach, but my goal is their enjoyment and long-term (college) potential.

So I love your approach and lived it myself but am not really sure that it means "college" potential. I came from a 45-50 +/- mpw enjoyable but dedicated high school program similar to what you describe. We were pretty successful with a lot of sub 16-5kXC and sub 10-2mi guys every year. However, the immediate jump to 90-100mpw in college crushed almost everyone. My experience (albeit limited) tells me it would be very rare indeed to find a collegiate program that takes a similar long-term approach of development....

sisyphus wrote:

I've had a lot of athletes (entire teams) run really well track and cross country with only tempo, strides, fartlek during the season and then these workouts at the end.

I assume this includes 1 race per week as well?

Good stuff. Congrats on having the stones to give it a shot. I think many are afraid to try it. I think its a great method for XC. As a PP said, speed is strength (and vice versa).

NewCoach asked about sharpening. My thought and experience is that a late season switch to anaerobic type work often leaves the predominantly ST kids dead legged. Instead of sharpening we are often dulling them. I like the 100's at mile'ish pace. And of course strides nearly year round.

It should be pointed out that this girl had a serious ED and basically fell apart upon entry into college. A very poor model for long-term success.

remember kids wrote:

I assume this includes 1 race per week as well?

I'm unique in that I actually enjoy racing... always did. I try to cultivate this attitude in teaching that races aren't death marches but opportunities to do what you love. If you don't like to race, why on Earth are you on a team. So my teams have always raced at least once a week usually with every second having a second race during the week. Athletes rarely run all out but also don't "jog". I find the attitude, not the speed determines the ability to race frequently.

D.B. Cooper wrote:

It should be pointed out that this girl had a serious ED and basically fell apart upon entry into college. A very poor model for long-term success.

You're forgetting I grew up in the area in question - already mentioned in this thread. You, on the other hand, have obviously read an article or two on the situation and think you know something. The fact that the athlete ran through high school was a testament to the program. To equate personal issues with a school program when it concerns one athlete is ludicrous.

New Coach wrote:

Are there any examples of teams who race through cross country without doing more interval training. I am curious as to how a team would do if they just did broken tempo runs/fartlek workouts and hill repeats of various lengths and intensities combined with racing as the only hard days. Would this be more beneficial to long term development to take the fall season as an extended base period and then do more interval based training in track while they focus on shorter races such as the mile.

The high school american xc system has way too many races in my opinion.

Therefore, what your suggesting makes sense. Most programs have 5-6 dual meets a year, at least three championship meets, and 2-4 invites in 2 and half months. Thats a lot of racing!!!

There is no need to do any more anaerobic training because the races develop the anaerobic system enough by themselves.

I think long runs and steady state runs should be the staple workouts for high school athletes if the system is going to reguire them to race so much. I like steady state runs over the typical 20 minute tempo because their longer length forces the athlete not to race and run at a controlled effort.

Here is an example of training that I think coaches should lean more towards in xc.

Mon: long run, 75-105 mins.

Tue: easy run w/ strides @ mile pace, 45-60 mins.

Wed: dual meet

Thu: medium long run 60-90 mins.

Fri: easy run w/ hill sprints @ the end, 45-60 mins.

Sat: Steady state run 30-60 mins. w/ warmup and cooldown or Invite.

Sun: Off

PwacTwac wrote:

So I love your approach and lived it myself but am not really sure that it means "college" potential.

My observations are that far fewer athletes who run higher mileage in HS succeed in college. Where do you go from 70-80 mpw once in college? Very few handle higher than that in college. If I was a college coach I would welcome a kid with solid times (I have sub 2:20's/5:15/11:20 girls & sub 2:00/4:30/10:00 boys) who have done so on low mileage, very few races (no more than 10 in track, races, not meets), and primarily aerobic and leg/hip strength work. I hope I have set them up for a good college coach to test their limits. We have run some 50 mile weeks in the offseason to prove to college coaches that they can handle an adaptation to higher mileage. As someone asked, I have the guts to take this approach because I am no longer a young coach trying to prove something or show how wonderful my program is. I was once that way like most young guns, but now only care about the individuals in the program, not the program itself. It seems to be paying off and is a heck of a lot of fun.

I would believe that "deemphasizing" track work in the spring would be more benifecial to the long term development so that the aerobic development can be the main focus earlier in their running careers.

sisyphus wrote:

I'm unique in that I actually enjoy racing... always did. I try to cultivate this attitude in teaching that races aren't death marches but opportunities to do what you love. If you don't like to race, why on Earth are you on a team. So my teams have always raced at least once a week usually with every second having a second race during the week. Athletes rarely run all out but also don't "jog". I find the attitude, not the speed determines the ability to race frequently.

OK, no need to justify anything, I agree that the point is to race. I was more asking so that if someone training on their own wanted to try a mostly tempos-strides-fartlek plan, they should also realize there is a weekly race.

And since a race is the hardest and most specific workout you can do...well, we shouldn't leave that out when describing the training program.

Good to see you posting Sisyphus ... a quality running coach with quality training ideas. We have had many a heated discussion while I used a different screen name.

The success I have had with the high school athletes I have worked with is based on the "2 and 1/2 hard efforts per week" concept.

1. No more than two quality efforts per week. If you choose to race your kids twice in a week, no formal workout. If you race once, then one workout. Works like magic. These coaches who race a dual on Tuesday, do some sort of quality on Thursday, and then do an Invite on Saturday are asking for injury/illness/staleness. It has really been that simple.

2. "1/2 hard" is a long run. For a high school kid who is slowly developing an aerobic base and all those strong joints/tendons, the long run takes something out of them. And the long run is crucial for developing strength and that mental edge that comes from the confidence that the long run develops. We only drop the long run 2-3 weeks before we want to run fast.

With this philosophy we've seen great success over all three seasons run in the Northeast, with very little injury time or large fatigue symptoms.

Also, we've never met a mile we didn't like. Developing distance runners need to run miles. Not quality ... quantity. High mileage is not evil ... it is the gateway to success.

some coach,

I've got a decent guess who you are, and ya, I'd say your system works pretty well.

As to the question of mileage from others, there are a few aspects to consider. First if you come out of high school running 4:30, you're not getting recruited or possibly even allowed to walk on to many programs so that's game over right there. An example would be a 1:57/4:22 I had go to Villanova (he went for academics). He was given one race in xc to prove himself; that was it. The worst part was he wasn't even a cross specialist. Another is what would you rather have a kid face in college: speed for the first time but the same mileage or double the mileage and same amount of speed. I have seen kids do better who can run college mileage and the intensity just goes up. This is where the improvement comes in. If a kid is running 80 mpw in high school and his first year in college, the intensity increases, faster times. There are many factors that lead to improvement, not just mileage. I know it seems a bad example given very recent developments but in 2007, Ryan Hall said he would never have been able to handle the rigors of world class training if he hadn't been running in the 90 mpw range in high school. Todd Williams was on the same panel and wholeheartedly agreed. I'm of a firm belief that intensity fries kids, not mileage. The reason it is sometimes attributed to mileage is a lot of over eager coaches do both and all anyone ever remembers is the mileage.

"The reason it is sometimes attributed to mileage is a lot of over eager coaches do both and all anyone ever remembers is the mileage"

Yes yes yes. Again, we can split hairs over what quality should be done, and in the end the essential conclusion will probably be that there are many ways to skin a cat. We don't change what we do from XC to track outside of moving from mile pace fast stuff to 800 pace fast stuff (we are not talking 800 runners here though, more the 2 miler types) and that we choose to do the high end aerobic stuff on specific surfaces. As long as you don't "speed" your guys to death, mileage won't kill as long as it's a long, slow increase toward the higher numbers.