Successful HS programs off ultra low mileage?

Depending on what you call successful, you can be very competitive on a low training volume. I coach at a small school and to show the talent I am working with, I have one athlete who can break 54 in the 400, and only two that can break 56 so I'm not working with speed demons here. With some training geared towards the mile, my runners have run 4:25, 4:34, 4:40, 4:45, 4:56, 4:56, and 5:01 (this includes two junior high runners because our school has only 350 high schoolers). Against other small schools my guys can hold their own. I would assume that the larger the school the more guys should be coming out who can run under 54 therefore making the pool larger. My team has 9 runners in high school and we often beat teams with 40+ guys. It's all about getting the most out of a kid both physically and mentally. We do around 25-30 mpw.

well,. wrote:

fdfaldkjf wrote:

Aaaaaand this is why women's running is not as competitive.

Come back when you manage to break 18 for the 5k.

Hmm must've struck a nerve?

The phrase "I consider myself a low mileage runner" says everything you need to know. The above athlete either lacked A) the consistency, B) the drive, or C) the coaching to do well at increased mileage. 40-50 MPW should not leave you "thoroughly fatigued" unless you are 1) anemic, or 2) partying too much.

The fundamental principles of training are universally true. Training programs should be tailored to the athlete, of course. But, 400/800 specialists excluded, there are no runners in this world who will achieve their best on less than 40 MPW.

The above female is a classic example of the idea that "everyone should just do what feels best for them."

And fun fact: my marathon PR averages quicker than 17:00 per 5k. Thanks for asking.

Freehold Twp won the girls 4 x 800 at indoor nats this weekend in 9:00. They run about 25-30 miles per week and that includes their boys. Top boy was 4:13/9:13 last spring as a junior. 2nd in All-Group meet in XC. One of the 4 x 800 girls ran 10:46 indoors for 3200.

Stillwater would probably qualify. Even at the varsity level they are almost entirely doing speed work.

In 2000 we won State in XC. Ran 20-35 miles a week.

Early in the season we would get to school early ot run 3 miles twice a week. This got our mileage up to the mid 30s. We never ran on Sundays or Saturdays that we didn't have meets.

I ran during the summer everyday, averaged 40 miles a week, and I was known as the mileage king.

Our coach just told us we were going to win and we believed him. It didn't hurt that we had 70 kids out for the men's team.

Running low mileage is like not studying for tests.... Yes some people can still make A's and do just fine, however the majority of the people making good grades will also be the ones studying. And.... The more you study the better grade you will get.

If a junior in high school isn't running 70 mpw they aren't taking running seriously.

Duke city wrote:

Running low mileage is like not studying for tests.... Yes some people can still make A's and do just fine, however the majority of the people making good grades will also be the ones studying. And.... The more you study the better grade you will get.

If a junior in high school isn't running 70 mpw they aren't taking running seriously.

Most kids shouldn't "take running seriously". 70mpw is a ton of running and unless a HS is positive they are going to run in college I'd say keeping the workload around 30-45 miles is completely in-line.

Running a lot (just like studying) just for the sake of it is a waste of time.

Just like playing computer games, watching TV, going to the cinema and every other activity. As long as its fun, why not? Nothing is as bad as being old and regretting the life you just had.

I would hope that most high school programs are under 40 miles per week. If they aren't, they should be.

I had on my hs team last year the second best xc runner in the region and he never ran over 50 mpw

Yes.

Our coach, who competed in multiple Olympics and won several NCAA titles, had us doing 25-30 mpw. During my 4 years we had 2 state championships and 2 state runner-ups. We also had a streak of 5 consecutive individual state champions, and had 5 guys from the same team all run in college, with several receiving D1 scholarship offers.

From what I remember without looking at my logs, we did lots of tempos, fartleks, and hills. Only ran slower than 7 minute pace for our 1 easy run each week.

Deena Kastor...and Ryan Wilson...and Amy Skieresz ran for Bill Duley, one of the all-time best, at Agoura High School in California. Not just Deena, but all of these people were top pros, and Amy also was an assistant under Dr. Li at Arizona for several years.

Kastor ran 35mpw peak in high school. Bob Kennedy ran slightly more at 38.

Craig Massback claims that he just ran 400s 3 or 4 times a week in high school. He was one of the top US distance runners.

Senecca Lassiter ran about 20mpw in high school.

No way I'd want my HS kids running 70mpw. I don't even know how you would structure that around a HS kid's season and include any amount of rest.

This thread is going in the opposite direction of what people have been advocating for the past 15 years--and before that in the 1970s and early 1980s. Are we going back to the 35 mile a week model that was popular in the late 1980s and through the 1990s?

I recall viscious arguments, on this very board, saying that anything Less than 70 to 90 miles a week is anathema and shortchanging the athletes.

I believe in an incremental aerobic progression, thinking long term. And keeping in mind that there are individual differences.

Put it this way, 60 to 90 minutes a day of running for a high school junior or senior who has been at it for a couple years is not by any means over doing it. 30 to 40 minutes is definitely underdoing it.

zohan wrote:

Most kids shouldn't "take running seriously". 70mpw is a ton of running and unless a HS is positive they are going to run in college I'd say keeping the workload around 30-45 miles is completely in-line.

Running a lot (just like studying) just for the sake of it is a waste of time.

70 mpw really isn't that much. Any decent program should be starting their kids at lower mileage as freshmen and working them up to higher volume as seniors. If you aren't running at least 60 by senior year XC, you aren't taking it seriously.

It is definitely possible to be a successful High school athlete while running under 30mpw year round. However, it really depends on the individual if this approach works. It is possible that an entire team can perform well with low mileage, but that doesn't mean that some kids would've run better doing a bit more base work.

I never went to High School in the U.S., but in my training group we had a few high school aged guys that ran around 15:30 for the 5K. Some ran 40-50 miles a week, but others significantly less than that. I ran about 25 miles a week in my senior year while running 15:28min (5K was an off-distance for me). After finishing High school I went to college in the US and tried to do Higher mileage but was injured 90% of the time. I eventually only ran well in the summers when I would go home and go back to my original training routine (25-30miles a week). I ended up running 3:48 for the 1500m in my sophomore year.

I think a good coach should recognize if someone is better off doing high or low mileage. I really like the team-oriented aspect of running in the US, but sometimes it is taken too far. It is so easy to individualize people's schedule a bit while allowing them to train with the group (letting them do a shorter long run, let them run less reps, let them do 1200m reps instead of 1600, etc.) and I don't understand why coaches don't do this more often.

I don't understand why some coaches claim to be a high or a low-mileage coach or schools claim to be a high or low mileage program. Is it because they believe this system should work for everyone or do they think it is too much effort to individualize their approach?