If you actually train for a bit and then run a 69 second 400, things are not looking good. Many people dont train for the 400 and run way faster. I personally think the 69 is pretty crappy. What, is he gonna run a 63 next year? See what I mean? I have freshman distance girls run faster than that without any sprint training. So not the 400.
The 6:09 mile, however is actually something. Maybe can run low 5:00s as a freshman.
GarminGuy wrote:
Not familiar with youth performances wrote:
One of my friend's middle school kids is interested in track and wants to know whether he's a better sprinter or distance runner. Two months of sprint-oriented training got him to a 69 second 400, while three months of casual distance training (longest run was 3 miles) got him to a 6:07 mile.
Any advice? He doesn't have a clear preference for either the sprints or the distances; he just wants to train for the events he's best at.
When you say casual distance training, does this mean he was doing at least 2-3 runs a week? I ask because the longest being 3 mile seems a bit low. That being said, I would say if he is in 8th grade, he should go for sprints. If he's 6/7th, go for distance.
He was doing 4 runs a week, so around 10 MPW.
He did the 69 second 400 in the summer right before 7th grade and the 6:07 mile in the summer just before 8th grade (he's in 8th grade now and is looking forward to track season)
I coach middle school, it depends what grade.
Those are pretty good but not great times for a 6th grader, below average but not terrible for an 8th grader.
The mile is stronger but they're both in the same ballpark.
Get him on the team and start training a bit, see what happens.
Like Really Bro wrote:
If you actually train for a bit and then run a 69 second 400, things are not looking good. Many people dont train for the 400 and run way faster. I personally think the 69 is pretty crappy. What, is he gonna run a 63 next year? See what I mean? I have freshman distance girls run faster than that without any sprint training. So not the 400.
The 6:09 mile, however is actually something. Maybe can run low 5:00s as a freshman.
The kid is too young to praise or vigorously criticize either his 69.xx 400m or 6:09 one mile.
Neither performance is great, but at that age, kids may improve significantly.
Not familiar with youth performances wrote:
One of my friend's middle school kids is interested in track and wants to know whether he's a better sprinter or distance runner. Two months of sprint-oriented training got him to a 69 second 400, while three months of casual distance training (longest run was 3 miles) got him to a 6:07 mile.
Any advice? He doesn't have a clear preference for either the sprints or the distances; he just wants to train for the events he's best at.
Both are pretty decent times and he shouldn't specialise at all. Im all about young athletes running a variety of events and training to run well over distances from 400-3k. I currently have a 15 year old female who has run 59.5 for 400m, 2:14 for 800m and 4:50 for 1500m. A good coach will prepare this junior to run well over a variety of distances. Good luck to him.
They're both pretty good, especially assuming the kid probably has no significant training or experience under their belt. That 6:07 mile could be a 5:50 mile with another race, and a 5:30 with a couple more. Kids improve really quickly at that age if their motivated. They just don't know what they're capable of until they get out into some real races. I'm pretty old now, but at 7th grade was running around 5:14, 8th 5:02 and 9th 4:41. I wasn't really training in the off season and had no real coaching - just ran like an unhinged wild man when I was expected to win.
coahc wrote:
Im all about young athletes running a variety of events and training to run well over distances from 400-3k.
+1
Look up LTAD (long term athlete development)
First, make sure the kid is enjoying the sport. High School is the beginning, not the Olympics.
If you train him to run the mile with lots of distance, he will do better in the mile.
If you train him with lots of speed development, and speed endurance he will do well in the 400/800 events.
Variety is best, especially at the middle school and high school age groups.
They should not run a serious marathon until they have exhausted the other distances, probably in
their late 20s at the earliest.
Not familiar with youth performances wrote:
One of my friend's middle school kids is interested in track and wants to know whether he's a better sprinter or distance runner. Two months of sprint-oriented training got him to a 69 second 400, while three months of casual distance training (longest run was 3 miles) got him to a 6:07 mile.
Any advice? He doesn't have a clear preference for either the sprints or the distances; he just wants to train for the events he's best at.
I guess the question for the young athlete would be, how does he fare towards the end of both events..is he getting stronger towards the end of the 400, or is he fading hard the last half and feels like he is stronger in the beginning? More importantly, does he favor one over the other? That would be a great place to see what he's motivated for.
Has he hit a growth spurt yet with any muscle tone showing? If not, it's hard to tell. Any insight with his genetics and what his parents did or are into?
To an above poster, I'd agree, it's so hard to predict where a Middle School athlete will be in 3-4 years. Some are early bloomers and some are late bloomers. By the end of 9th grade, into 10th grade, you'll likely see where he's trending a bit more clearly, imho.
Coffee Bacon wrote:
Not familiar with youth performances wrote:
One of my friend's middle school kids is interested in track and wants to know whether he's a better sprinter or distance runner. Two months of sprint-oriented training got him to a 69 second 400, while three months of casual distance training (longest run was 3 miles) got him to a 6:07 mile.
Any advice? He doesn't have a clear preference for either the sprints or the distances; he just wants to train for the events he's best at.
I guess the question for the young athlete would be, how does he fare towards the end of both events..is he getting stronger towards the end of the 400, or is he fading hard the last half and feels like he is stronger in the beginning? More importantly, does he favor one over the other? That would be a great place to see what he's motivated for.
Has he hit a growth spurt yet with any muscle tone showing? If not, it's hard to tell. Any insight with his genetics and what his parents did or are into?
To an above poster, I'd agree, it's so hard to predict where a Middle School athlete will be in 3-4 years. Some are early bloomers and some are late bloomers. By the end of 9th grade, into 10th grade, you'll likely see where he's trending a bit more clearly, imho.
My apologies, just re read your last statement about not preferring one over the other. That actually eliminates the want or need to specify. Mechanics, and drills sounds like his best friend right now. Get him running fast, feeling different paces with his relative easy aerobic running. He'll get progressively stronger in all areas just being active.
Best of luck to the young buck!
The 69 400 at age 12 age grades to 71.97.
The 6:07 mile at age 13 age grades to 68.2.
So, they are both pretty close, even though the 400 is a bit higher. The onset of puberty affects development significantly in middle school.
I'd say the 800 would be a good choice; it would teach him how to race smart, since virtually everyone at that age runs the 800 with a mindlessly fast first 400. And it would work both anaerobic and aerobic systems in a pretty balanced way.
My two cents.
I ran a 5:00min mile in 8th grade and split a 61 second 400m in the 4x400. I never ran the 400 fresh so i may have been capable of a couple seconds faster. It would be appear from my POV the 69 second 400 is the better time.
That being said, you can't really look too much into long distance times for a middle school kid with little training who may still not have even hit puberty yet. Let him/her do whatever event they want to do for now because it should just be for fun and learning at this stage. I ran everything from the 200m hurdles to the 1600m in middle school, and dabbled in high jump. Their strengths will become clear with some time.
I coached middle school XC and TF, and taught PE for 17 years at the same school. It’s lower socioeconomically compared to the average school. I would say the 69 is more common than the 6:07, whether the kid has training or not. But more affluent schools tend to have more kids capable of the 6:07. Of course at any school, a higher number of kids are willing to push themselves for a lap vs 4 laps. That would be one reason for the 69 being more common.
Also, especially for the younger kids, they lack the experience and skill and endurance it takes to run the mile: pacing, knowing how to push through the pain, kicking at the right time, intestinal fortitude, being motivated intrinsically.... these skills are needed less for one lap or less distances, and needed more for the mile. One more thought, the mile is usually the longest distance offered in MS track and even XC school leagues, though XC leagues may have distances like 1.25, 1.50, or even 2 miles.
I'd say the mile time is better. In my one season of middle school track I ran a 63 and a 6:06. But I didn't run in high school so who knows how those times would have developed...
I would agree with other poster who say not to get too specialized this early. Get him out running and improve his times and athletic ability across the board. Plenty of time in high school to develop at a specific event.
Both are good for an untrained middle schooler but the 400m is too long to judge the talent of am untrained sprinter. If the kid would run an all out 200m, that would tell us a lot more.
2 months of sprint training and 3 months of distance training = not much training?
That's an entire middle school track and XC season.
Both are good, but your kiddos are clearly trained compared to their peers.
neither wrote:
neither is right. The mile is respectable. 69 is not.
You need close to 60 to be good if you did sprint training at that age. (middle school means 6-8th?).
He should focus on speed training (800m) if he wants to develop well. Aerobic base will come any time. The speed is something you need for your ceiling.
this is mostly true
my middle school PRs were
13.64
28.72
69 (relay split)
no 800
6:07 (for PE class)
all were hand timed
freshman year
12.9 (ht)
27.89
67 (split)
69 open
2:45
no mile
soph
no 100
23.5 (split)
54 (split)
56 open
2:09
5:20 (during cross time trial)
junior
11.23
22.59
51.5 (split)
52 open
5:04 (during cross time trial)
senior
10.77
21.97
48.25
1:58.68
4:45 (during cross time trial)
middle school was the basic 6 week season or whatever, starting soph year though i trained year round, the stronger i got aerobically the more speed reps i could do thus making me faster at sprinting.
you say 14 for 100? so his mile is better but if you work them both maybe he can hit the times i did by the time i was a senior
Not familiar with youth performances wrote:
One of my friend's middle school kids is interested in track and wants to know whether he's a better sprinter or distance runner. Two months of sprint-oriented training got him to a 69 second 400, while three months of casual distance training (longest run was 3 miles) got him to a 6:07 mile.
Any advice? He doesn't have a clear preference for either the sprints or the distances; he just wants to train for the events he's best at.
it's way too early to be talking about this stuff. he'll grow or lose interest or find another event to be good at. Just let it happen. If he's athletic he'll do well, otherwise he'll be a pure distance runner and might also do well if he stays interested or finds some success..
i ran 64, 2:33 and 5:47 in 8th grade as my bests. i mostly played soccer though and was very good
The next year I ran 54, 2:07, and 4:52 and actually became interested in running but still played club soccer in the spring.
My junior year I gained 35 pounds and grew 7 inches to be 6'-1" and started running XC
My senior year I ran 49.6 (split), 1:54, and 4:18 with a 16:11 XC.
I ran 1:51 and a 4:06 mile in college my senior year
banned i got wrote:
junior
11.23
22.59
51.5 (split)
52 open
5:04 (during cross time trial)
senior
10.77
21.97
48.25
1:58.68
4:45 (during cross time trial)
dude wtf were you eating between junior and senior year
Like Really Bro wrote:
If you actually train for a bit and then run a 69 second 400, things are not looking good. Many people dont train for the 400 and run way faster. I personally think the 69 is pretty crappy. What, is he gonna run a 63 next year? See what I mean? I have freshman distance girls run faster than that without any sprint training. So not the 400.
The 6:09 mile, however is actually something. Maybe can run low 5:00s as a freshman.
Your freshman distance girls don't don't do strides, accelerations, hills?
And they don't come from soccer, basketball or swimming?
You do not have freshman distance girls with no sprint training.