Why are freshman always the fastest on girls XC

It's not just XC, its most running related sports.

A girl I went to Jr HS and HS with was Hershey National champion in the 100m at 12, by 16 she was running 2 seconds slower. She had no bust, all that changed after her freshman year of high school.

Look at Candace Parker and Kaitlyn Whitney. Insanely fast sprinters at 15-16yrs of age, they could make D1 finals in the respective events, maybe even finals at US nationals...2 years later, they'd be lucky to make it out of regionals (in D1 if they didn't go pro in HS)

Boy George wrote:

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Emphasize strength training, nutrition and recovery for starters. Seems simple enough until you're in the shoes of a high school girl (or their coach).

Aren't those factors for boys too?

Yes, RED (relative energy deficiency) affects both boys and girls, but at this age it is more obvious in girls because of the added process of menstruation. There are lots of high school coaches out there who barely know how to coach running, so not a surprise that strength, recovery and nutrition are afterthoughts.

Yep, that is a huge part of my argument against coaches that say girls just naturally find other things to do as they get older. Culture is huge. If you create a place kids want to be, they will persevere and ride out the challenging parts.

And if girls find something else to do with their time, that's not necessarily a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with discovering you have other priorities and interests as you get older, but there is something wrong if you are forced to find other things to do because an unhealthy environment, bad culture, or bad training is making running a negative experience.

nopers478 wrote:

In any good program that isn't the case.

Complete, and utter BS!

This is not sexist or biased but is a very real occur ancestors even among "elite" young ladies. Case in point:

Grace Ping, former "age world record holder"

Coach: Tinman

Progression, 5k, XC:

2015 17:17

2016 17:22

2017 17:45

2018 18:03

Explain how Tinman is a bad coach, please, to bolster your nonsensical claim....

Yeppers469 wrote:

nopers478 wrote:

In any good program that isn't the case.

Complete, and utter BS!

This is not sexist or biased but is a very real occur ancestors even among "elite" young ladies. Case in point:

Grace Ping, former "age world record holder"

Coach: Tinman

Progression, 5k, XC:

2015 17:17

2016 17:22

2017 17:45

2018 18:03

Explain how Tinman is a bad coach, please, to bolster your nonsensical claim....

Grace Ping is a prime example of this. Had her on too big of a scale from too early of an age. Moving around the country to be on better teams. Being in the national spotlight at way too young of an age.

Also, looking at Ping's times, there likely wasn't enough emphasis on developing speed an athleticism at a young age. Her 800m times are pedestrian in the same years when she's running ridiculously fast in longer distances.

Just because someone can, and even wants to, compete at a certain level at a young age doesn't mean it's the best thing for them to do.

I'm certainly not saying Tom's training is bad from a physiological sense, but most regression I've seen in talented young women is much more psychological than physiological. And nothing about the way Ping has been handled (at least from what I've been able to see in the public) was setting her up for sustained success.

Who are you? Carrie T?

Hate to say it, but mother nature will win out no matter how careful you are, even the best coach with the best plan cannot beat mother nature at her game.

Bigote wrote:

[quote]MN Haute Dish wrote:

[quote]¿huh? wrote:

Who are you? Carrie T?

Haha - no. I'm before her time. I love Carrie T. though!

It's not a mother nature thing. There are individual exceptions, but girls do get better and faster as they get older.

Bull.

Physical. Nothing else.

Watts/kg, nothing more.

Psychological or traveling the country when 13 doesn't explain the 17:17 to 18:03 regression.

Watts/ kg does.

Kg's go up, then aerobic power must go up proportionally.

...Especially amplified when a tiny athlete gets even a little bigger.

Holy crap you just solved the secret to running success - robots!

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Yeppers469 wrote:

Bull.

Physical. Nothing else.

Watts/kg, nothing more.

Psychological or traveling the country when 13 doesn't explain the 17:17 to 18:03 regression.

Watts/ kg does.

Kg's go up, then aerobic power must go up proportionally.

...Especially amplified when a tiny athlete gets even a little bigger.

Holy crap you just solved the secret to running success - robots!

Pointing out a well known fact isn't solving.

A very successful local high school coach told me 20 years ago that some girls mature in such a way that is detrimental to the running form that is necessary to running fast. Their hips begin to spread in order to eventually bear babies. Their bodies change. It has nothing to do with their mentality.

I remember talking to a former high school star ten years after she graduated. She told me she didn't know what happened. She was the number one runner on a State Championship team (Calif) as a freshman and by the time she was a Senior she had slipped to number 5-6. Her times had fallen dramatically. She said she was working as hard, but just kept slowing down.

Nothing to do with coaching or motivation.

I went from not being able to finish a mile my freshman year to setting PRs and being recruited to colleges my senior year. I'm now 32 and 15 lbs heavier, yet continue to run PRs, so I don't know what to tell you. Now if you take a kid that's not physically developed yet and treat/train them like an Olympian at that age, of course that's going to backfire regardless of gender.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

Yeppers469 wrote:

Bull.

Physical. Nothing else.

Watts/kg, nothing more.

Psychological or traveling the country when 13 doesn't explain the 17:17 to 18:03 regression.

Watts/ kg does.

Kg's go up, then aerobic power must go up proportionally.

...Especially amplified when a tiny athlete gets even a little bigger.

Holy crap you just solved the secret to running success - robots!

....Well, as YOU noted, menstruation has an effect, and female psychological probably plays into it also, (again, your assessment, not mine) but the facts are the same.

A 70 pound waif thin girl who shoots up to 80 pounds needs to improve fitness by more than 15% just to maintain her pr. If she goes ALL the way up to 90 pounds, then 30 % improvement just to maintain.

Facts.

...And all the support and encouragement from a coach, peers, or parents will not overcome this simple fundamental fact.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I went from not being able to finish a mile my freshman year to setting PRs and being recruited to colleges my senior year. I'm now 32 and 15 lbs heavier, yet continue to run PRs, so I don't know what to tell you. Now if you take a kid that's not physically developed yet and treat/train them like an Olympian at that age, of course that's going to backfire regardless of gender.

This is great but not really the point of the thread.

The lower levels of talent (that's you AND me) don't really illustrate the phenomenon mentioned in the OP.

It's the people who seem right on track for the Olympics that puzzle people.

The person who starts barely being able to run and then finishes at about freshman star level is a whole 'nother thing.

What are your PRs now? Are you still going to b able to lower them with shot knees?

loose body wrote:

What are your PRs now? Are you still going to b able to lower them with shot knees?

It's not hard to find them, and no, I don't claim to be elite nor ever was. The OP did not specify elite-level outliers, just "Why are freshman always the fastest on girls XC?" But then again keeping it vague is a good trolling technique.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

I went from not being able to finish a mile my freshman year to setting PRs and being recruited to colleges my senior year. I'm now 32 and 15 lbs heavier, yet continue to run PRs, so I don't know what to tell you. Now if you take a kid that's not physically developed yet and treat/train them like an Olympian at that age, of course that's going to backfire regardless of gender.

Yes, a much more typical trajectory.

OP was not necessarily saying that an undeveloped (not being able to finish a mile = not at all developed) will perform even less in the next 4 years.

Many freshman boys and girls hit high school very fit though and of those , some of the girls will progress and some will regress. Doesn't happen on the boys side nearly as much though.

You are 32 which is ~18 years removed from being a freshman who couldn't finish a mile.

I would hope you are still improving from that moment.

Ping ran 17:17 5K at 13 and set an "age" world record. She's now 17 and runs 18:03.

She may actually hit 17:17 again and soon but her trajectory is a clear example of what the OP is refering to.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

loose body wrote:

What are your PRs now? Are you still going to b able to lower them with shot knees?

It's not hard to find them, and no, I don't claim to be elite nor ever was. The OP did not specify elite-level outliers, just "Why are freshman always the fastest on girls XC?" But then again keeping it vague is a good trolling technique.

I have no idea who you are. Just a ball park figure for times. I was really just wondering if you got down to fast freshman times.