How should we develop American distance runners?(Coaches ,jtupper,Tinman,Renata,Malmo,Joe Rubio)Give some suggestions?

The problem is that way to many coaches advises 1 tempo run per week 20min, Jack Daniels etc. That is way too little.

Threshold training doesn't mean you got to do a specific temporun/intervals. Instead incorporate it in the ordinary distance runs like Steve Scott did. Finish the last 3-5 miles of a run at AT-pace 3-5 times per week, go by feel, like the kenyans. It's not that hard...

Well, then how about we help the young runner understand the physiology (even at a surface level) by standardizing our examples when we speak of training. It does no good for a kid to have to compare what, "Say a 4:20 miler is going to do..." versus another program's example, "A runner is a 14:53 5ker..."

People don't really need to know everything about lactic acid levels, and less about HR. What they need are charts to go off of. Make it simple so that any high school coach or kid can read the correct paces to do workouts off the charts. Yes, there still is a slight problem with estimating present ability, but at least the workouts will have some reason to them regarding pace, once the coach or athlete decides where they are.

and I know about JD's chart. What I'm stressing is that we hone those charts through comparison's between other programs; the chart idea should be incorporated by more training theorists and practitioners.

In my opinion no, it's starts with the athlete.

It seems like getting 5th and running a decent time is adequate for many post collegiates. . Our sport on its most basic level is about me beating you, when we loose sight of that we falter.

We just need guys to believe they can improve and compete, the rest exists. We need fired up athletes to take advantage of it.

So that's it from me. The first step is athletes having the drive to succeed, the will to win and a dream. I know it can be done because it was done by a lot of guys, a whole slew of 'em from this very same country not too long ago.

Good stuff Joe and thanks to Jack.

Let me add that our Bible and our fans seem to give the athletes a confused focus. Winning is important! Winning is the reason that we race! But, let's throw in a rabbit. OK, now what is important?

Winning is important, racing is the name of the game, but Mike Fanelli starts the booing if the pace is not fast. It doesn't matter that the last 800 of the national championship 1500 is run in 1:51.

Reward the winner, fast or slow, and the races will be fast. When someone talks about PR, ask what place he got and if it isn't first, say,"Oh, too bad."

m-thoner say:

>I think we need to be able to understand threshold training a bit more. I've read books, posts, and researched and I still don't get it... maybe they need "Threshold training for dummies"<

When you have run thousands upon thousands of miles you will understand.

Double Clutch:

http://www.driversedge.com/dblcltch.htm

I agree, i am a young post-collegiate runner/coach trying to find out the world of treshold and what training personally i can do to make my times drop.

once i do that, i will be better able to help high school/college kids train.

we need more runner's education that is simplified, then.... we can dive into more specifics to understand better.

so many great ideas and insight here on this post. finally, so much of what is posted here is complete crap. this forum was really intended, i would think, for this sort of talk and the occasional running "news" chat.

i think that the idea of starting with coaches at the high school level is key. there are a number of good high school coaches, but there are thousands upon thousands that are there because no one else will do it and the school asks for their help. they probably aren't that interested in the sport. i am not sure if we can ever change this.

i think that in the first pages of RWTB irv ray and tony benson make an important point. there is no one single approach that is the "correct approach". this has been mentioned before. there are, at least in my opinion, some must reads for all coaches at any level. there is never a time when there isn't room for an expanded level of coaching education. those coaches that must be read are: lydiard, cerutty, daniels, vigil, martin and coe, ray and benson.

that list may look incomplete to some and the point of this post and that list is not to encourage debate about who should and shouldn't be there, but to make a point. you must learn from the successes and failures of others. while these systems work for each of the authors and they will more than likely swear by "their system", in truth - their system is a combination of all other systems.

the keys to successful running are no secret:

total accumulated volume is a huge factor. you must put in the miles to get the results. however, the progression for each runner must be monitored to avoid injury. as a college coach i have a a group of freshmen each year with such a wide variety of running backgrounds. a one-size-fits-all program will not work and in the long run will turn runners away because of frustration with injury. i will have runners coming in each year that run for 20 minutes a day - 6 days a week in high school. works out to about 20-25 miles a week. other runners (i work mostly with women) come in running 40-50 miles a week. whatever their total accumulated volume you get them with, start increasing it right away, but don't rush it - there is no short cut in our sport.

run on soft surfaces (already mentioned).

focus on working to improve basic speed, at least in some form year-round. in a clinic, while listening to vigil, he discussed information on the average closing lap (final 400m), that is needed to finish in the medals at any major championship. it is always about the same. you have to train to finish your races with speed. neglecting speed work, in some form, for most of the year is going to come back to bite you in the ass.

do the form drills, strength training, and other ancillary training to run with the best form possible. however, do not do this in place of running. running must be the focus of an athelte's training.

train to improve VO2max, but focus more on improving lactate threshold. lactate threshold seems to me, to be the best addition to any atheltes training. i am certain that our weekly (sometimes 2x a week) lactate threshold runs are the factor that contributes most to the success of our young runners. the majority of high school athlets have never even heard of the concept.

all that i have time to post right now. again, it has been a pleasure to read the previous posts. best wishes to all.

Jack, that's nice that you're helping out our Peruvian friends, but maybe the next time an undertrained 22 y.o. 30min type 10K runner calls and asks for advice, you'll call him back and help out... sometimes all someone needs is a little push in the right direction - keep your eyes open for those asking for help.

So if there isn't just one method to train by, then we need a way to compare the different approaches.

If we standardized (at least) one example, we could place the different approaches side by side.

We need to create a theoretical runner and a theoretical season; then have each approach address the different stages of training. That way, we don't have to have endless threads about specific people asking specific questions; instead we see the theory behind the specifics... and when we see those principles; then each one of us can adapt the advice for others and/or ourselves.

Creating a theoritical example at least begins to minimize the confusion, as it seems that the different approaches are at least "advising" the same runner. Then we can see the differences between the approaches.

Actually I get those kind of calls all the time. As a college coach it's not exactly legal to get involved with high school runners who ask for help (illegal recruiting, etc.) and college coaches tend to get upset when any of their runners seek outside advice (except the ones who really appreciate other opinions -- Lananna, Tegan, Drenth to mention some). Interestingly, I just got a call from two guys today. One has gone 3:40 and trying to qualify and the other made the trials with a 2:21 marathon. I have sent him a plan and we will see how it goes. Also have a couple women in the same situation. It does take time, but I will keep trying. I am more committed to our runners than others, but I was their (Peruvian) national coach back in the 60s so feel associated to some degree. By the way, no potential recruits among them as all are 23-30 yrs and zero English.

It's irrelevant now, but that 22 year old was a post-collegiate unattached runner. He was looking for some help to make the next jump... He left a few voice messages for you.

Some more input:

I had a conversation with Jeff Johnson(the self-proclaimed "hack" who founded the Nike Farm Team) a few years ago about this, and he pointed out that clubs stocked our Olympic teams from the 40's well into the 70's. He also said that in his experience, runners did better when they did something outside of running-a job anywhere from 15 hours to 40 hours a week. The job allowed them to have something else in their lives besides running, while they put in the long, cumulative training that it takes to be great.

The club system seems to fill this role admirably. Jeff was (and still is) what I believe to be the quintessential American coach: a volunteer, without ego, and very open-minded. A club offers the opening that shoe contracts do not: they'll take you no matter your current talent level, as long as you are dedicated.

I have to contrast the training of Steve Scott with Jim Spivey to make the point that it isn't the specific type of training that matters most. Scott was high mileage, high volume workouts, etc. Spivey was lower mileage, less volume in his workouts. They both reached the top of the world. The constant was consistency and a long-term program or philosophy that they followed throughout their careers. This constant is being borne out by the success of the Hansen's program.

When I graduated from college five years ago, the clubs were just beginning to show signs of life. At the moment, they are well on their way to great success. A college graduate has numerous choices: Hansen's , Team USA, Wisconsin Runner, the Farm Team, and on and on. I am very positive about the state of our program, and I don't believe USATF had much to do with it. I agree with Rubio-keep the suits out of it!

This is the best thread I have ever read. I have a great deal of respect for many of the coaches and their ideas that have been offered. I also believe that for a coach that knowledge is king. Coaches need to be students of the sport and always learning. The important thing for us coaches is to question the ideas of many of these successful coaches. I feel that there is a great deal of accepted knowledge that is not knowledge at all. I have read nearly every work that I have ever found from Lydiard, Cerutty, Daniels, Coe, Vigil, Martin, etc. I sometimes read the material for information and I sometimes read the material to make myself feel smarter. I take advantage of picking the brains of several coaches that I respect at the college level and at the HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL (I will get back to that one). I also love talking to former elites like Virgin, Meyer, Shorter and many others that have been willing to share. The most important thing is that nearly everyone of these athletes and coaches have failed as often as they have had success. Once all of this knowledge is gathered you must adapt it to your own philosophy. If the coach doesn't believe in certain ideas they will never be successful with them (this is no different for an athlete). A successful coach is a coach that has convinced his or her athletes that he or she has the best system for that athlete. In order to do that you must try to understand other coaches philosophies so that you can prove why yours is better.

Joe Rubio is a very good coach and a man that understands todays athlete. I share Joe's concerns in several areas. Most important is that we need people that are willing to make a long term commitment. Any athlete that graduates from college and says I am going to try this for a couple years and see what happens, is guaranteed to fail. We need athletes that say I am willing to do this for as long as it takes to get the job done.

I also agree with Bob Hodge on the importance of altitude. I tend to think that once you have run 140-160 miles a week (combined with speed, strength and tempo workouts) for 6-8 years and you are no longer showing improvement and you are looking for the edge to put you into the 2:06 range, go for it. If you are a 2:10 guy (You are not very good yet) there is a whole lot of work to do before you need to think about fine tuning. If you are a 2:12 guy I think that it is important for you to try to become good first.

I also believe that group training is important (every day). I believe that is the only advantage that Japan has on the US. It also helps in allowing athletes to keep the focus that is necessarry for 10 years.

I do not believe that the High School Coaching is the problem. Yes there are several "paycheck coaches" at the high school level. I have also learned as much from several high school coaches as I have from the self proclaimed "experts". I also feel that more high profile college coaches have ruined top level athletes than high school coaches.

This has been a great thread and I could bore you guys all day so rather than ruin the thread, I will just thank those that have contributed.

Hansons Midwest Distance Solution

June 10th

Hansons-Running.com

USATF as a body should create a certification program for high-school coaches and then lobby to make it a requirement that high-school distance running coaches be certified to coach. First, they would have to come up with a plain vanilla basic program that would be the core of early-development American distance running. The high school coach would not be required to use that system but WOULD be required to understand PHYSIOLOGICALLY why that system is the best basic backbone for the young runner. Then the coach could use the system, tailor it, or throw it out altogether. But with the certification program, IGNORANCE would no longer be an excuse. Did anyone else out there have a coach who thought 20mpw was adequate training for cross-country? This should just not be happening, anywhere... There would be a lot of debate about what the program should be, but if we had a panel of the great physiology minds all talking, they would come up with something that is better than what 90% of all high-school coaches are doing.(END QUOTE)

USATF does have a coaching certification program.

USATF cannot compel someone to take it. Second, trying to get total agreement on how to develop runners is not as easy as you make it out to be. Even physiologists would disagree (I have seen it at meetings of exercise physiologists).

The problem is coaches already are throwing out the principles so why worry. I am involved in coaching education and know that when a person gets one of our certifications that person may completely ignore everything they just learned.

I think that USATF could do a lot more in the area of continuing education. Other than the certification clinics and an occasional offering from the USOC, USATF does no further education. Once you are certified, you just have to renew the certification each year (which means paying the small fee). A true profession requires continuing education (teachers already have to as do coaches with other NGB certifications--Triathlon and more recently Cycling just to name the two with which I am most familiar).

How about forking over some money for that advice then? Too many athletes expect to get coaching for free. Be willing to pay for it!

Luv2run-getting hs coaches certified is ok in theory, but so many schools are scrambling to get a warm body in the position let alone someone who would spend the time and money to gain a certification

My question goes to JD, Joe, Bobby Hodge, Malmo et.al. I have tried to adapt the Daniels approach to the hs level (I'm a former college coach) and really struggle to work around a dual meet on Wednesdays and an invitational every Friday or Saturday (mostly Saturdays).

Our schedule usually looks like this during the pre comp phase

M-Cruise intervals

T-Steady run 40-50min

W-Meet

Th-steady run 40-50 minutes

Fr-shorter easy run and accelerations

Sa-Meet

Su-30-50 minutes depending on background

Competitive season

M-Race Pace intervals

T-steady run

W-Meet

Thursday-steady run

Fri-short run and accelerations

Sat-Meet

Sun 30-45 minutes

Most of the athletes did very little mileage between cc and track. That will certainly change next year since I'm managed to convince them of the value of accumulated mileage, but I always feel like we're coming up short on theshold work. I kept them off the track as much as I could for the first 4 weeks of the season as I got them into consistent mileage interspersed with tempo runs and controlled fartlek running.

Any suggestions?

KW - I'd go one step farther.

Gentleman:

The original poster asked how to develop American distance runners. The answer that I hear being put forward is "Education".

This is not exactly a bold step forward.

Most of us that have coached for more than a few years have been intimately involved in "education". We attend clinics, read the few books that truly dissect our sport, and attempt to apply these principles to the athletes that we are entrusted with. We take education seriously.

So, what is missing from our "education"? Why are our athletes not at the level we feel they should be? Why aren't we all producing a generation of runners that makes the 70's and 80's pale by comparison?

We have a number of esteemed coaches that are involved in this thread. How would YOU approach this training question my neighboring coach has presented above? Describe how you might train this athlete. What can you TEACH us that might ADVANCE this discussion from principle to reality? Attack his question with your experience. Help him to answer the current problem, so he can move to the next level

Are we to be long on theory and short on detail? If education is the answer, then let's be about EDUCATING. What areas seem underdeveloped? What things do we find consistantly in common with programs that develop athletes? What specifics can your experience give that might translate into better performance?

Hopefully, this discussion can be something that moves our knowledge forward.

Take a shot at his question.

One possibility is to add soome more training to meet days. For example, if at a meet you run just a mile or even possible a mile and an 800, you might try adding a little more to that day to expand it to a more full-fledged workout day (especially in early season when the races may not be real important. If you have 2 meets each week and a Monday training session, those 3 days of relatively high stress are enough quality, but those quality days could be used to fuller advantage. A race day might be turned into a fartlek day with a couple more miles of acceleration running (increasing tempo pace), or by adding somoe reps or intervals to the day after the races are over. If the races are pretty stressful then that may be about it for that day. It's good to try to determine the particular benefit the particular races are giving the runner and do something else on your training day that week (for example, if both race days involve relatively fast short races then the threshold stuff you do on Monday is good, but if the races are longer types then maybe some shorter, faster stuff on Mondays. I'd rather see Sunday as a quality day (day after the Saturday races day), rahter than Monday, because it gives you 2 relatively easy days before the Wed meet, and Turs and Friday give you 2 relatively easy days befoer the next meet. Depends on th eimportance of the meets and time of season, etc.

Kevin- how do you view the Joe Newton approach for high schoolers, the high mileage approach? Now, I am not asking to raise the issue of Newton burning out runners (which is how all too many York comments end up- or else simply take issue with me :-)). But I find that knowledgable HS coaches, of which there are some good ones, vary in their approach to mileage. The way Newton trains runners differs from Pat Tyson or Jeff Arbogast; Arbogast in particular seems far more technical, working on micro and macrocycles over the course of XC. However, in Newton's case, he seems to be annually successful- a look at the top IL times for this track season shows the following:

800: 1.56.49 Roger Bilhart (11), 1.56.99 Sean McNamara (11), 1.57.69 Matt Dettman (10), 1.58.59 Marc Arnold (11), 1.59.69 Eric Dettman (10)

1600: 4.12.99 McNamara, 4.16.99 Marc Fruin (12), 4.19.89 M. Dettman, 4.26.89 Dave Nontgomery (10), 4.30.29 Brian Marchese (10)

3200: 9.00.89 McNamara, 9.18.89 Fruin, 9.20.09 Marchese, 9.29.39 M. Dettman, 9.36.69 Montgomery, 9.38.09 Fruin, 9.43.39 E. Dettman

What is notable is that this is heavily reliant on 10th and 11th graders. This implies that there is some kind of training directed at the younger runners.