100mpw in high school

When you take time off your mitochondria density does decrease but you can retrain yourself at a much faster rate than it took to originally reach that level of fitness.

If I would have never gone over 60 miles in high school I would have run 16:53 instead of 15:53. Christ, I was running 60 miles a week at the end of my freshman year.

Running miles, especially long miles builds capillary beds, increases mitochondria density, changes type IIB fibers to IIA and some type IIA to IIC. Basically, miles makes you an oxidative machine. The same person running 100 miles in a week will get a greater benefit than that same person running 100 miles in two weeks due to the longer duration of individual runs with the first guy. There are many more adaptations from distance running than just increased mitochondria density, increased capillary beds, increased aerobic enzyme production or increased Vo2max. As stated above you have a transformation of muscle fiber subtypes as well as an increase in strength of the muscles as connective tissues.

If the young athlete progresses gradually there is really no reason why they couldn't get up to 100 miles a week and there are many college programs that go over 100 miles a week.

Alan

This thread is starting to sound a little ridiculous. You can go on and on about how good for a high schooler 100mpw is, but the fact is that that is extremely bizarre behavior for a high schooler. I know from experience that 70 mpw in HS is a lot. 100 mpw would be all-consuming. Most high schoolers should be getting involved in numerous different activities rather than spending all their free time running or taking naps. You can come up with lots of examples of particular high schoolers who ran a lot of miles and did well, but the question that arises is, wouldn't they eventually have done just as well anyway (or better)? Obviously running high mileage in HS makes a runner faster (if they don't get injured), but is it in their best interest for long-term development? Is it worth it for the impact it has on the rest of their social life.

The funny thing is, I consider myself an advocate of high mileage. But 100mpw in HS is a little beyond "high mileage" in my opinion. Most professional runners don't do much more than that, and they probably have an extra 50 hours of free time each week, not to mention more physical maturity. This debate reminds me of stories I've read of like 12 year-olds running fast marathons or even ultras. My reaction is always, hey, good for them, but it doesn't mean they're going to improve much in the future, and most of the time they don't seem to stick with running at all. Think of all the top runners ever, and then tell me how many of them ran 100mpw as high schoolers. And when I say 100mpw, I'm assuming you mean for an extended time--not one 100 mile week in the midst of a bunch of 40 mile weeks or whatever.

I ran a 9:23 off 40 per week. Anything over, my coach calls just purely junk miles that risk injury.

I ran 15:10 5K off of about 40 miles per week in HS. I even got close to qualifying for Foot Locker (Kinney) finals off of that. The way I trained back then was mostly tempo runs and nothing slow. I would have got injured on 60 miles a week because back then because I would have tried to hammer all the miles. So a high school athlete running 70+ miles a week would need a coach that could calm him down.

good for you. that's better than my h.s. pr was off 35/week. but you might have run 9:03 with 80 miles.

how else are you going to get better but risk injury? how many top runners get injured at some point? uh, ALL of them, pretty much, at least have somthing that puts them down temporarily...

as far as the rest of this goes, there are plenty of studies (holloszy, coyle, etc.) re: detraining. you DO lose mitochondrial density and heart mass, muscle fiber adaptations, etc. but you can also, as i think it was running art stated , gain them back a little more easily. also, 10 years is an atypically long time to take off, broken runner.

finally, one of the reasons coaches and other claim that the rest are just "junk miles" is because of runners' tendency to go too fast. and also because ANYTHING will benefit someont training for the first time, but as you seek to get more from less potential improvement (ie. it's easier to go from 20min 5k to 18min than from 15min to14:40, etc), you have to push the envelope a little more.

for a high schooler or weekend warrior, 40mpw might be the ticket to stay fresh, motivated, and still improve. no one on here is saying that it WON'T work...but you give me 10 kids training at 35mpw and 10 training at 80mpw for 3 years with the appropriate in season workouts, and i'll give you back one all region team and one all state team. sure, some kids burnout...but you know what? guys burn out nearly as often in h.s. off 35 a week, becasue it's just not fun anymore...

don't knock high-mileage unless you yourself have tried both high and low. of course high mileage can't work for ALL people, but i can say (and many on this thread have backed this up) that it worked better for them.

cheers, and good luck to the kid that started this thread, get after it!

greg

TomM: I don't see this as ridiculous. The point I've been making is that at York, high mileage is tradition, that kids do this, and then go on and do well in college. And then I listed names, a good number that I could from memory. Listen, my kids worked hard. They ran practice every day (and Newton does not allow you to miss practice, ever), they had jobs, they graduated in the top 2% out of 440 kids, and they had social lives. They both went to top colleges and ran well and now they are taking their love of running and returning it to kids only 4 years younger than they are. Tell me where this is wrong. And yes, the 100mpw was not just one week- you saw the first week on Newton's schedule above. That's from a 12-week program. And 20+ kids each summer did just that.

Joe Newton has won 22 xc state titles in one of the toughest states for xc in the nation (next highest team has won- 5). He has come in 2nd another 19 times. He has never finished lower than 5th. This is over 47 years. Does that not say something about his program and his approach?

9.23 on 40mpw? Not bad. Think about how much better you might have done on more miles. That 9.23 would have made you the 6th fastest 3200 runner at York during Don Sage's senior year: Sage- 8.42; Adam Palumbo- 9.06; Peter Cioni- 9.11; Peter Stasiulis, 9-17; Adam Roche- 9.21. The team had 10 kids under 2 min for 800 and set both the indoor and outdoor 4x800 national records (Sage- 1.50.1, Tim Hobbs- 1.51, Pete Stasiulis- 1.52), 7.43 and 7.34. They had 4 kids under 4.20 for the 1600. All high mileage. Okay, this is just one team- but look at Flathead in Montana, at Meade in Spokane and the Woodlands and Kingwood in TX, at Bingham and Mountain View in Utah, Shenandowahah and Saratoga Springs in NY, Council Rock in PA, and you see mainly high mileage places. All top teams year after year.

Now, truth, neither Webb nor Ritz were big mile guys. But Ritz is a much bigger mile guy now- as he worked with Torres twins, who are also from IL, Wheeling, where they did around 80-90 per week mainly, still high.

Not every approach works with every person, certainly, but don't sell this so short. It might not have been for you but that does not mean it is not for others.

But 9 year old girls practicing gymnastics 8 hours a day isn't bizarre I suppose? Or football players practicing 3-4 hours per day (more of a time committment than running 100 mpw). Just about any sport requires more of a time committment than running 100 mpw incurs. So what's so bizarre about it? Is it because it is running and running is always seen as punishment or something that is "harder" than some other activity? Running 100 mpw is a serious undertaking but it shouldn't be considered any more bizarre than practicing other sports for several hours per day. If you think about it, running 100 mpw is about 16 miles per day which if you run 7:30 per mile it will take 2 hours per day. Big freaking deal.

Best point of the day. Hour per hour we runners get the most out of the least when compared to other sports.

Alan

fwrunco,

That may be the best individual reply/post I have seen all year! (seriously)

Now that you put it that way, I feel guilty I am not running enough.

Nine year old girls practicing 8 hours per day is extremely bizarre, in my opinion. If a HS football player averaged 3-4 hours of practice per day during school, I think that would be excessive. Summer camps or whatever, I can see. The difference with running is that it is more physically exhausing per unit of time than other sports. Even if you are a professional runner, you're not going to spend 8 hours a day running. That doesn't mean you're lazy. Two hours a day running for a high schooler is a big deal in itself, but when you add the extra time getting to and from workouts, meets, etc, plus the level of fatigue it would create, it would become all-consuming. That might be justified if you were Jim Ryun or somebody similar, capable of making an Olympic team right away, but for 99.999% of high schoolers, that's not an issue. And anyway, a major part of the issue here is not just whether a high schooler is capable of handling it, but whether it would be in their best interest in the long run. Still, I think you are completely off-base when you sarcastically say "Big freaking deal" regarding a high schooler training 100mpw as far as time and energy invested. 100mpw is a lot for a grown adult with an easy job, let alone a high schooler with six classes, a social life, and various other activities.

100 mpw is NOTHING for a well-trained adult with an easy job...

greenliner,

I don't want to knock your kid's performances or any of those from York. Joe Newton is a great high school coach, there is no denying that. HOWEVER, just out of the kids you listed, they are FAR underachieving. Tim Hobbs and Pete Stasiulis were exceptional in hs. They should be 1:47 guys by now (or in Stasiulis' case, given his endurance, a sub 4:00 miler by now). Are they? Adam Palumbi and Peter Cioni should both be sub 14:00 guys in college. Are they? 10 kids under 2:00 for the 8... how many of those guys are low 1:50 guys now? 4 kids under 4:20... how many of those guys are running low 14:00 5ks as juniors in college?

All those numbers I just threw out are not arbitrary. They are numbers that, based on those highs school times, those kids should have achieved by now. Seeing that out of all of them I've heard of very few, I have a feeling many of not IMPROVED greatly after going through Mr Newtons program.

This is not necessarily bad. They all probably had great experiences and are doing other things with their lives now. However, it makes you wonder if they "only" ran 60 miles a week in high school and sacraficed a few seconds on their pr's, if they would have been better off in the long run.

I think people go to extremes too much. I ran no more than 20 miles a week in high school and ran sub 2:00 and sub 4:30. That was too little and did not prepare me well for college. However, I think 100 is probably too much too and would have fried me. If I were to go back, I first would have run in the off season and second would have built up to about 60-70 throughout my 4 years.

Just my $.02

M

truth wrote:

100 mpw is NOTHING for a well-trained adult with an easy job...

... and no wife and kids

And almost every poster on here has either an easy job or no job. Too much time on most all of your hands!

TomM- you misunderstand. Newton's 100 mpw is done during the summertime! It is in preparation for the regular season. When the actual season begins in mid-August, he builds a program that tapers to each meet, and is under the 100mpw level. The York runners are not running 100mpw week after week all year long. They do this in the summer, then train hard during the season leading up to the sectional and state meets, but with mileage around 80 mpw or so. Then they take off 2 weeks or so to rest in early December, and then the indoor track season starts and the mileage is far less intense. You follow?

Nonetheless, York runners handle all that Newton asks them to and the xc team has the highest gpa of any team on campus. And it is a hell of a lot higher than the football team. These kids love running, love it. They choose to run, remember? It is a no-cut sport, and the kids who run range from very good to not good at all, but they all hang in there and become part of the tradition. Look at York's record.

I guess you're right, 100 mpw is nothing--never mind the fact that it is basically the same amount that the top distance runners in the world (who are more talented and more biomechanically efficient than other mortals) find the need to run, 100 miles per week is basically just as easy as 0 miles per week. You and most of the other posters on this site surely all run 100 mpw year-round, even though I've been running for seventeen years, ran in HS and college, have met tons of other runners, and only a tiny percentage of them have put in 100 mpw regularly. I just haven't met any of you guys because you are always out kicking ass somewhere.

I would have kids do what they can handle. I started out my freshman year running 20-25 mpw, all I could handle. Over four years, I could average 70-80 mpw and had run as high as 96 miles in a single week.

I wouldn't give anyone something they couldn't handle; just point them in the direction for development.

i was going to just leave this one alone, but i can't.

part of why they are the best is BECAUSE they run that much...and have run that much for years. as MANY of us on here have said, including me, 100 or any specific number is not the "requisite" number to be good (coe comes to mind as an exception), the point is that much improvement can be made by running more.

and i can name at least 10 people off the top of my head that run 100/week for more than the last year, at least during base phase which is what we're discussing here.

and you say that only a tiny percentage of them (runners you've met) have run that much...how many of them could have run more, and could have run faster for PRs? just a thought.

i'm not attacking your viewpoint; i personally won't have my kids run more than 70/week in h.s. (if they choose that sport) the point is:

a) it works

b) it is certainly doable (a girl from my h.s. ran 90/week and was awesome)

c) there is no requirement in running that much, or any "shame" in not doing so

d) there are many ways to train h.s. kids, so your opinion is just as valid as those espousing high mileage, so why attack back when people can disagree?

no need to get so worked up about this, a kid just asked a simple question and wants to get better. let him make his decision from what he sees, no one on here has to keep bashing the "other" viewpoint when everyone's after the same goal: GETTING FASTER.

greg

I'm not claiming nobody actually runs 100 mpw; just that reading this message board makes it seem a lot more routine than it actually is. A runner who puts in 5000+ miles in an average year is very unusual statistically.

Top runners are that fast because they train so much? Obviously, there are no top runners out there who don't train hard. But that doesn't mean I or any other average Joe can be a top runner just by putting in the same volume as the top guys, any more than me putting in a dedicated baseball workout every day is going to turn me into Barry Bonds. Sure top runners are hard workers, but there is just no getting around the fact that they have great genetics. I don't care how hard you work, you're not going to get down to 13:00 5000m without being a physical freak.

I remain unconvinced that 100 mpw is an effective way of training high schoolers. The "success" stories I keep hearing are interesting and I don't want to put those runners down in any way, but my only points are that A) we're not hearing about all the failure stories, and B)those examples fail to convince me that the runner wouldn't have gotten that fast eventually anyway. The success story I'm looking for is a champion runner who reached that level merely because they were willing to work hard, not because of innate talent. And I don't think such an example exists, so my feeling is that a high schooler running 100mpw is taking heavy risks for what may well be minimal gains.

Please don't bother lecturing me about getting worked up--I'm not worked up, it is just the nature of this debate format to try to negate things others say if you disagree with them. I'm not cursing them out or ridiculing them or anything. In fact, effective or not, I admire any teenager with the will to train so much more than their peers. I just have yet to read a convincing argument that running 100 mpw is a good long-term strategy for a typical high school runner.