High Schoolers- If you aren't at 60+ MPW you aren't trying hard enough

In 5 years who will be better?

Runner A mileage 30, 40, 50, 60, 70

Runner B mileage 60, 60, 100, 110, 110

The fact is the more years of mileage you do in high school, the easier your transition to college running.

Running is also harder when you're a 35mpw senior then you get to college and realize how sh1tty your low mileage program was.

I was putting up my best times on 40-50 mpw and some xtraining. I tried to slowly up it to 70 mpw last summer and all I ended up with was months of injuries.

Lol my HS coach had everyone at 20 MPW. His motto for workouts was literally that they should all focus on being "short and fast."

In my 4 years of HS running with that coach not a single kid ever broke 17:00 xD

Or

Runner A mileage 30, 40, 50, 60, 70

Runner B mileage 60, 45 (Stress Fracture), 50 (100 for 6 months, 0 for 6 months), 0 (100 for 6 months, 0 for 6 months), 0 (Burnout)

i ronic wrote:

Arthur L wrote:

OMG here is retard of the year....."60mpw is maybe 60 minutes of running each day"

True if you are running 5 minute miles. How many high schoolers run 5 min miles???? At practice no less!!!

You should really make sure your not being an idiot and learn to do math before you call someone retarded.

Just for the record, 60 minutes x 7 days ÷ 60 miles = 7:00/mi.

You would need to run about 69 minutes per day if averaging 8:00/mi and 73 minutes per day if averaging 8:30/mi.

Training.Sage wrote:

In 5 years who will be better?

Runner A mileage 30, 40, 50, 60, 70

Runner B mileage 60, 60, 100, 110, 110

The fact is the more years of mileage you do in high school, the easier your transition to college running.

Running is also harder when you're a 35mpw senior then you get to college and realize how sh1tty your low mileage program was.

Take any random sample of a couple hundred high school athletes and put half of them on a four year plan 30-40-50-60 and half on a four year 60-60-100-110, and I'd bet that a good 85% of the 60-60-100-110 guys will spend half their time being injured. I doubt more than 10% of the 30-40-50-60 kids would be hurt.

So in answer to your question, runner A would probably be better. Runner B will more often than not be broken.

Most male senior XC / distance guys can benefit from running higher mileage--I'd never dispute that--but setting a baseline of 60+ is pointless. Pushing for higher mileage simply to hit completely arbitrary mileage goals is a good way to get hurt and tank a season.

A kid who builds up to 60 MPW by senior year via 30->40->50->60 will transition to college running without undue difficulty. With a few select exceptions, schools don't throw all their new freshmen onto 80+ MPW the first week of preseason.

Training.Sage wrote:

I guarantee that if you're a high schooler running 60+ MPW you're going to be racing to win most races. 60 mpw is maybe 60 minutes of running each day. Football, basketball, baseball all have longer practices.

I know you are trolling, but come on!

Training.Sage wrote:

Same as subject^^

Stupid. Highschooler 16 year old Yusuf Bizimana (look him up on power of 10) runs 50 or less miles per week, and for a 16 year old:

1500: 3:57

800: 1:55

400: 52.7

5000: 15:58

Puts him very near the top.

DoYouKnowWhatYoureSaying wrote:

Stupid. Highschooler 16 year old Yusuf Bizimana (look him up on power of 10) runs 50 or less miles per week, and for a 16 year old:

1500: 3:57

800: 1:55

400: 52.7

5000: 15:58

Puts him very near the top.

Yes, very good, you found someone who runs fast on less-than-optimal training. It's called talent.

The point is you're never going to approach the limits of your talent if you don't also push your mileage. That is an irrefutable axiom of distance running.

moose wrote:

DoYouKnowWhatYoureSaying wrote:

Stupid. Highschooler 16 year old Yusuf Bizimana (look him up on power of 10) runs 50 or less miles per week, and for a 16 year old:

1500: 3:57

800: 1:55

400: 52.7

5000: 15:58

Puts him very near the top.

Yes, very good, you found someone who runs fast on less-than-optimal training. It's called talent.

The point is you're never going to approach the limits of your talent if you don't also push your mileage. That is an irrefutable axiom of distance running.

To run fast in middle-longdistance running the most important "factor" is talent!

Then you have to find out which factors comes next......and it`s maxVO2-pace,threshold pace and aerob best pace.......and you only need aerob power to complement the threshold and maxVO2-pace. Thats it!

Swedish Wizard

DoYouKnowWhatYoureSaying wrote:

Training.Sage wrote:

Same as subject^^

Stupid. Highschooler 16 year old Yusuf Bizimana (look him up on power of 10) runs 50 or less miles per week, and for a 16 year old:

1500: 3:57

800: 1:55

400: 52.7

5000: 15:58

Puts him very near the top.

That 15:58 could be 14:58 if he put in a few more miles.

Man, Letsrun really has changed since the early days. Can't remember the last time I saw so much mileage bashing. I'm basically on the OP's side, with the caveat that you can't really prescribe a single number for everyone. But the basic idea is sound. High schoolers should be trying to high mileage, building up higher each year, though not necessarily year 'round. There's not really a reasonable dispute that the mileage makes you faster, both in the short and the long term.

The only question is whether there's to much of an injury risk. The answer to that is fairly simple. There isn't. High mileage isn't inherently risky. In fact, it's safer than high intensity. The main risks of high mileage are: (1) having too sharp of a buildup, and (2) increasing intensity without cutting mileage. The latter is the main issue I see. Guys will put in an awesome summer of mileage, show up to XC in the fall and start doing really hard workouts without cutting their mileage back at all. (Depending on the kind of program, you can keep your mileage higher further into the season if the workouts are mild at first.)

It's true that some college coaches want low mileage guys because it makes them look like gurus to have runners make breakthroughs. I think this is a mistake, for a few reasons.

One problem is that low mileage guys end up injured in college because they're building up volume and intensity at the same time. Even if the coach isn't trying to overtrain guys, the significantly more competitive atmosphere often causes guys to do it to themselves. By contrast, a high school runner who has a high mileage background is far more likely to be able to handle the incrementally increased demands of college running.

Another problem is that a low mileage guy with good high school times is likely to have comparably worse times at 8k and 10k. I'm sure that most of us have seen high school studs running terribly in cross country races because they're so unprepared for real distance. The high mileage guys, by contrast, are much more likely to contribute to cross in their first years. Some coaches may think that they shouldn't need to depend on freshmen for their cross team, but that's not how it works out in the real world. You never know for certain who your team is going to be. You have to play the odds.

We disagree! The highschool runner, as well as every other runner ,only needs mileage to support the basic process of training and supercompensation. It is proven by scientists that mainly 3 factors counts for the result. It`s more a question about balance these 3 factors correct. If the runner overdo one or more of them it leads to breakdown and overtraining.

To build a perfect individual training program that reduce risk of injury and maximize the runners capacity, one have to look at a more modern way of keeping the mileage as low as needed and possible. Just enough mileage to support the develop of the 3 most important factors. The real training is not mainly in the running efforts, it`s more in the recovery phase the most important process for develop and supercompensation occurs.This kind of training is easy to perform week after week ,year after year, by keeping the mileage reasonable low,just enough to support the process of supercompensation .

COACH J.S

But supercompensation occurs due to adaption to increasing the stressor appropriately...which for distance running means increasing the mileage.

you keep using that work wrote:

But supercompensation occurs due to adaption to increasing the stressor appropriately...which for distance running means increasing the mileage.

or increasing pace.

No.....that is not correct. Supercompensation occurs when there is a correct balance in the 3 factors that counts for the result.

Anyone with half a brain realizes every athlete's needs are similar but different. If a student comes in their freshman off the couch, then obviously they'd start by gradually build to 25-40mpw by the end of that school year, depending on their workload capacity. More mileage indeed yield aerobics and neuromuscular benefits, but the athlete needs to recover and adapt to the mileage too. I'd say a junior or senior would be best suited for tipping 60mpw only if 1.) The athlete is willing to adhere to that regimin (read wants to become the best they can be) and 2.) The athlete's free of injury and ailments/handles 45-50 comfortably.

Arbitrary numbers are arbitrary. Don't force an athlete into a program that isn't meant for them and doesn't suite their goals. 60mpw only makes sense for someone who wants to become so aerobically fit they could sprint a 10k if needed as long as they're fairly comfortable with 45-50mpw already and want more.

ya..... wrote:

I ran all of my PRs on 10-15 miles per week after trying for years doing 60-100 miles per week. For some people, intensity is the only training stimulus that helps. For others, it's duration.

You ran your PRs because you ran higher miles for years and then tapered.

ya..... wrote:

I ran all of my PRs on 10-15 miles per week after trying for years doing 60-100 miles per week. For some people, intensity is the only training stimulus that helps. For others, it's duration.

Did that 15 miles per week include a 3:11 marathon PR?