70 is probably fine. Maybe a bit higher on some weeks. Mix some strides in toward the end of some runs and one tempo effort such as 6 miles at 35-36 minutes and you’re probably good.
The long run is a good idea too.
Feel free to double frequently.
70 is probably fine. Maybe a bit higher on some weeks. Mix some strides in toward the end of some runs and one tempo effort such as 6 miles at 35-36 minutes and you’re probably good.
The long run is a good idea too.
Feel free to double frequently.
No need to double, no need to run 70 mpw at 16 years of age. No need to run a 35 min. tempo to run a two mile race. Be patient and build up over time, nobody cares who the best 16 year olds are.
double donut wrote:
No need to double, no need to run 70 mpw at 16 years of age. No need to run a 35 min. tempo to run a two mile race. Be patient and build up over time, nobody cares who the best 16 year olds are.
Idiot. The kid should double.
Idiot. wrote:
double donut wrote:
No need to double, no need to run 70 mpw at 16 years of age. No need to run a 35 min. tempo to run a two mile race. Be patient and build up over time, nobody cares who the best 16 year olds are.
Idiot. The kid should double.
Why? He's 16.
I'm going into SR year at 4:28 and 9:54. Am I FT or ST?
clown college wrote:
Idiot. wrote:
Idiot. The kid should double.
Why? He's 16.
First, it's summer. And second, he'll get better stimulus doing something like 30 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the evening.
HS not quite all-star wrote:
I'm going into SR year at 4:28 and 9:54. Am I FT or ST?
Do you find short mile-800m reps easier or tempo runs?
OlympicRunningTeamCoach wrote:
I agree with you that ST will recover faster from mileage than FT that's pure logic...
But a ST will benefit from sprints for sure. With sprints I am not talking about anaerobic work, I am talking about maximal speed (5" max). He will improve his running economy, his way of recruiting musscle fibers the same as you would do with correct strength training.
I don't agree that on his young age he has to go to 100 miles a week that is insane and will give him no chance to become a good track athlete in the near future.
And a lactate test is only partly true, the best and only correct way to determine how FT or ST he is, is to do a muscle scan.
But thank you for your reaction.
Yes, sprints are important for all runners, but ST athletes need less/should do less than FT runners. They need to care especially with longer, anaerobic sprints (speed endurance).
I also say that 100 mpw aren't good for him - but you can't generalize it, there were runners that did 100 mpw in HS and did very well. Most of them already were extremely fast on lower mileage, and then competed on a national level, doing 100 mpw for them (I'm talking about the Solinsky, Magness, Rupp, Ritz etc) is appropriate, it also takes them much less than OP to do them (Solinsky avg pace was 6 min/mile on easy days).
The problem even if OP could do 100 mpw is, if he maxes out now at 100 MPW just to run something like a 16 flat 5k, where is the journey gonna go/end? Better to achieve 16 flat on 50 mpw, and then be able to improve with each increase in mileage. That would be much better long-term.
And lactate test is cheap and good, test someone like Salazar I guarantee you he will not be able to get above 8 mmol or something. You could unleash 5 hungry lions on the track , and Salazar still wouldn't be able to go faster than 57s for 400m, running for his life. Whereas a FT runner would easily reach 15-20 mmol, showing great anaerobic capacity.
Pansy wrote:
HS not quite all-star wrote:
I'm going into SR year at 4:28 and 9:54. Am I FT or ST?
Do you find short mile-800m reps easier or tempo runs?
Reps.
200s at 26-27 with walk-backs across the football field are my specialty.
Idiot. wrote:
clown college wrote:
Why? He's 16.
First, it's summer. And second, he'll get better stimulus doing something like 30 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the evening.
Because it's summer? What the heck does that mean?
Better stimulus for what?
clown college wrote:
Idiot. wrote:
First, it's summer. And second, he'll get better stimulus doing something like 30 minutes in the morning and 45 minutes in the evening.
Because it's summer? What the heck does that mean?
Better stimulus for what?
Try doing long singles in the hot sun. It sucks.
Training twice produces better training adaptation due to having twice the hormonal responses.
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/tag/doubles?v=7516fd43adaaOlympicRunningTeamCoach wrote:
That's what I said above... I don't understand your remark because you are repeating my opinion about his training. I gave him the same advice :)
No, my advice wasn’t the same as yours. I suggested that he consider changing other training variables and suggested some options. I don’t know which of the variables he might benefit from changing this year, because I know nothing about him other than his mileage and his 2m times.
He is not running that far. Unless he is overtraining.
Mentally easier to run more mileage in doubles.
Preventing mental burn out wrote:
Mentally easier to run more mileage in doubles.
If you need it to be mentally easier you should find another sport.
clown college wrote:
Preventing mental burn out wrote:
Mentally easier to run more mileage in doubles.
If you need it to be mentally easier you should find another sport.
ohhhhyeahhhh a real macho man runner... you really want to be tough... try it with a 10 penny nail driven through your foot! That way you can really prove how tough you are.
yeah it's not smart training, it doesn't help you race, but guys with think you are tough.
keep other stuff strong too though cause while you're growing you're more vulnerable to injury. hips were a big issue for me in high school as i grew but keeping them strong prevented injury. but yes, more mileage will make you faster.
Damn, if O.P. ran 10:12 off of a 4:51 that is quite impressive endurance. Wondering what his 5k is, but maybe it isn't comparable if it is a XC course from last fall.
Anyway, I say yes to more miles.