That's why I said "high mileage, high intensity"... although I would argue that if you take a kid that runs 20 miles a week and ramp him up to 80-100 within a very short amount of time, you could do the same amount of damage. In both scenarios, it is difficult to recover and adapt adequately to training. I agree with Lydiard's philosophy of easy running and building mileage over a period of many years though.Someone said that I shouldn't read into the description of high-intensity warm-ups/cool-downs because it was just hyperbole. Well, if you have intimate knowledge of these training sessions, please share and show the author for the fraud he is. Otherwise, he gives some very specific information, and I have no problem basing my comments on his blow by blow recount of the training group spreading out and going from 7 minute pace to 5:40 prior to the workout.
Monkey Magic wrote:
RRRR wrote:They are doing what is right for winning NOW. Not what is right for most of these kids to win in the future.
This much is right. And a chosen few will survive it. Whether they will be as good as they could have been is debatable.
But I don't agree that mileage is the issue - it is mileage AND intensity. The EA kids tend to do more easy running which allows them to better handle the intense stuff later on.
The trouble is when you want to win a junior race over 3km running easy 7-10 mile runs is hardly top of the agenda. Intense VO2 max sessions are.
Lydiard spoke of getting a kid to do the miles and not race until 16. Not bad advice.