How should we develop American distance runners?(Coaches ,jtupper,Tinman,Renata,Malmo,Joe Rubio)Give some suggestions?

I'd like to touch upon just a segment of this thread re: LDR development...the area where US distance running has slipped most notably since 1980 or so is in the marathon...I don't think that anyone will contest that fact...so, here's the deal...back then, a) overall training volume was hypothetically higher... and it IS, after all, a purely aerobobic activity and b (here's the REAL deal)athletes raced the marathon at a far younger age...Shorter was racing the event at 23...most stepped to the plate at age 20ish...you ran XC and then jumped into a post-season marathon...today, our best 10,000 meter guys wait until age 28 or 29 etc...until they are on the DOWNside of their careers to race the event....check out Kenyans etc...they race the marathon as youngsters...21, 22 etc....here we've got Kennedy racing his debut at NYC in '04...great Bob, but where were 'ya about 5 years ago??? The most recent Oly trials results are amongst the best that we've seen in a while and its an example of decent track guys going 26.2 while still capable of 10K PRs...we can talk "development" until we're blue in the face, but, in my opinion, we need to make some simple attitude adjustments first and foremost...there's no way that the late '70s/ early '80s guys had all the exercise physiology wherewithal of 2004 but with an absolute blood and guts "take no prisoners" balls to the wall approach to the sport, they accomplished some fairly heady results...results that carry weight nearly a quarter of a century later (and I find that almost ridiculous!!)

....and now, I'll step off my soapbox

MF

As long as America remains fat it will never be competitive on the world stage.

America,

Quit supersizing and become super fit and you will kick ass.

That's not the problem, the problem is how to develop the talents there are in HS and college now, and make them world-beaters.

The results speak for themselves, a small pool of athletes will not do it, if kids were lean and fit and running around the school yard instead of eating garbage and sitting on the couch, we would do as well as anyone else. This starts with the parents, most are fat and influence their kids to eat s#*t and not exercise.

Plz.....America got the biggest pool of talented runners in the world...

It's almost only America that got the system to combine sports and school. An young kid in Europe must join a club to be a runner, it's much easier to recuit runners through school. I say it's easier to discover talents in America then anywhere else.

And gettin fat is a global problem, specially in Europe.

I never said USATF should compel a high school coach to use a particular system. I do think that USATF should PROMOTE a basic system and that high school coaches should be required to be educated about the system. If they choose to ignore it, that's fine, but they should be required to know what the basic principles of running physiology are. USATF's role should be that of the propagandist, to use their prestige to promote principals that advance their cause (hopefully for us their cause is good distance running). They need to counter the propaganda coming out of Runner's World that promotes feel-good systems that have no basis in physiological reality.

There should never be total agreement on what the system should be. If that were the case, we could apply it to everyone and forget about continuing education. As science and experience teaches us more about what does and does not work, the system should change. The physiologists should sit in their meetings and continue to argue until eternity. The product of their arguments would be our (evolving) system and each year the high school coach should be re-certified.

USATF itself cannot make this a requirement. But they COULD lobby the education department to make it a requirement. It might take a while but they could do it if they tried. There are all kinds of rules for high school athletics. You can only train so many hours a week, you can only run so many meets a year, you can't have an organized program out of the season. If those rules were put into place (I think this happens at the state level but I'm not a politician so I don't know), then they could probably get a certification for a coach made as a requirement.

How does this help? It is not a guarantee that all coaches will magically start coaching well. But it does guarantee that all coaches will be exposed to the current body of knowledge of the sport. They can choose to ignore what they learned, but they won't be ignorant. If only 10% of coaches changed from total incompetence to a basic system that works for the average person, we would see vast improvement in our depth.

I realize this is oversimplified and it's more complicated than it sounds. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. I can't see where it is worse than the status quo, where a large majority of the coaches out there are uneducated about even the basic principles.

The alternative, if we let our so many of our runners slide through high school without development is to hope to pick them up in college, or the club system (which is rapidly developing but still almost non-existent). The problem here is that if you are a new runner in college you are way behind. Most coaches won't waste their time on you. In college it is not like high school where they are required to let you join the team.

So what is left are the lucky few who had a competent coach in high school, survived high school without injury, and now are in a college with a competent coach. The numbers thin out very quickly in this scenario. That's why we get our ass handed to us on the world scene.

okay, sounds logical to me.

here is your theoretical freshmen male: ran an average of 45-55 miles a week in high school, lived at sea level, most of the running was on harder surfaces, PRs of 4:25 and 9:35, most of his workout intervals were shorter in nature (200, 400, occasional 600), has done tempo runs - but does not totally understand the concept of lactate threshold training, lacks some upper body strength, form needs work ...

what other info do we need? let's add to the atheltes info without changing anything above so we are working on the same "person" and then we can get going on this. i think this might bring the conversation along even further. we could also do this for a female, but i think the overall concept would be pretty much the same.

I do not think that high school coaching is "the problem" either. i think that a lack of long-term development in coaching as a whole is the problem. while i too have learned plenty from listening too / talking with high school coaches, the vast majority of high school coaches either don't educate themselves to learn more about coaching distance runners or continue to make decisions that are not in the best interest of the athletes. most coaches want to get "the most out of their athletes" while they have them. few give consideration to athletes that may go on to have success at the next level, or heaven forbid beyond college. please don't read that i suggest athletes not train hard in high school, but that coaches train high school runners with something more than their high school running in mind.

some people have questioned the "running formula" program because it only calls for threshold runs one time a week. what people sometimes don't realize is that the book is a general plan and not "set in stone". something that some people forget when reading a book and adapting a training program is that every runner is different. i certainly, don't want to speak for Dr. Daniels, but i am sure that his athletes follow the plan in general, but each athlete has something unique about their training. pretty sure that would include more LT work.

daniel's post about doing extra work after a race is good advice, something not mentioned in his book, but something that works. if you are going to make the day a "hard" one, you should do what you can in addition to racing to get the desired results - an improvement in fitness. i have used what i call "add-ons" at the end of cross country and track meets. depends on what time of year it is or what the goal of the day is ... but it usually consists of some type of fartlek work.

the great thing about "running formula" is that it is an easy read. every time i go to a high school meet to watch recruits run i see at least one high school coach reading it. that is something that should have everyone on this board excited. i usually talk to that coach about our program and how we have used the "running formula" combined with other programs to improve our runners fitness.

as daniel's posted earlier, i wonder if that coach, when he experiences success attributed to that book, would offer the book to another coach in his conference? that is where we need to be headed in order to continue improving american distance running.

[quote]Flashmile wrote:

Luv2run-getting hs coaches certified is ok in theory, but so many schools are scrambling to get a warm body in the position let alone someone who would spend the time and money to gain a certification (END QUOTE)

I agree, but at the same time, certifications or licensure is required for many things. Heck in a lot of states you have to have a license to arrange flowers or cut hair, but nothing other than a pulse is required to call yourself a coach much less work in a school as a coach.

Some states do require coaches to have something like ASEP that covers some of the basics ASEP is an excellent program and has excellent principles I think all coaches should be educated in, but it is not sport specific although it is starting.

We do not disagree on this item one bit. I just know that it would be tough to administer particularly for the vast #'s of volunteer coaches. Tough, but definitely doable.

Coach Daniels, thanks for the advice on combining the dual meet with a workout, that was something I have been thinking about and will use next season.

TMK, you brought up an excellent point, I try to keep the art and the science of distance running on the table for the athletes to sample. We frequently watch films of World Class runners to talk about the "essence" of running and racing which can sometimes get lost in the swirling winds of VO2 Max, Aneraobic threshold, and target paces. A good coach will always illustrate the symbiotic relationship between the artistic and the scientific. The psychology of the sport is something you can never spend too much time on (IMHO) and that is something that I've always learned from Malmo's expositions.

This is a stellar thread-keep up the great work everyone!

In talking about add-on workouts after races, let me pose this question. What are the opinions out there about adding on after a cross country race (5K-8K) an extra 30-50 minutes to make it into a long run day, then going easy the next day (often a long day) so as to (hopefully) allow one to come back 2 days after the race with a quality day of some sort?

I often found that younger collegiate runners, especially those who had not been exposed to longer runs or decent mileage previously, reacted negatively to a race and then a longer run the next day. In general, is this too much overload for one day, or a better option than doing race one day and long the next...or would a better option be to race, then easy next day, then long-ish run with some type of quality (threshold perhaps) the following day?

Another issue unique to the American school-based system is a lack of continuity in coaching. A typical US elite runner changes coaches twice at very critical points in their development. I read where Paula Radcliffe has had the same coach since she was 10 years old or so, and I believe Harry Wilson worked with Steve Ovett in a similar manner.

Where do we "lose" most runners in the USA? Between HS and college (when undergoing a coaching transition) and we lose almost all of the rest after college (ditto). For whatever reason, a HS runner is successful working with a coach and their system, and adapting to a new coach and new system can be quite disruptive, no matter how smoothly the coaches work at the transition. All too often the attitude of college coaching is "I don't care what you did in HS, you're gonna do what we tell you now". Some of the best college coaches recognize this issue and work individually with the athlete to smooth things over, but from where I am that kind of concern seems to be rare.

Just look at the high school honor rolls from various states and you can usually see them loaded up with runners good at the 800 and 1500/1600, but generally lacking in comparitive depth at the 3000/3200. The problem seems to be too much emphasis on anaerobic training and too little emphasis on threshold and VO2max training. Most high school coaches I talk to think Jack Daniels is a brand of liquor.

The problem for high school coaches, I think, is that they only see "the real deal" distance athlete once or twice in a career. The specialized and heightened training required for such an athlete (from an early time?) requires attention or expertice which may not be available, except for the most dedicated coaches, and so they get trained to run a fast 800, but not much more.

Instead of educating all coaches, like someone above suggested, what would be wrong with an organization like USATF seeking out and offering possible assistance to the parents and the coaches of those kids who seem to be "the real deal". It might just be a congratulatory note, and a pamphlet containing some sort of guidelines for training gifted athletes, mailed to the athlete via the coach.

I'm not so sure at what age it should start, but possibly as early as 7th grade. The goal would be to ensure that the coaches and parents of potentially great athletes don't get ruin their athletes with too much anaerobic training. Just the fact that USATF "noticed" they exist would probably be important in keeping the great ones motivated in their careers.

aksdoasd wrote:

Plz.....America got the biggest pool of talented runners in the world...

It's almost only America that got the system to combine sports and school. An young kid in Europe must join a club to be a runner, it's much easier to recuit runners through school. I say it's easier to discover talents in America then anywhere else.

And gettin fat is a global problem, specially in Europe.

wow... i disagree with EVERY sentence in your post...

The last three posts have had some variation of the same crucial idea: Because of the American school/college system, kids aren't coached for the long term. Club track for kids in this country is a joke--a handful of kids compete in the AAU or USATF circuits in the summer (track) or fall (cross). There is tension between club and hs coaches in most places, and no college kid runs for a club. Postcollege, as admirable as programs like the Hansons' are, they cater only to a handful of athletes because of limited resources.

Contrast that with Great Britain or Germany. Sebastian Coe ran for the same club throughout his career. Of course he had his father for a coach, but the point remains. You can grow up through a club as a kid and go as far as you care to--the county championships or the Olympics.

The problem, of course, is money. Schools and colleges are still financing track teams, so there's no incentive to start a club program. But if someone could start a community-based program that could work with a HS program and give kids a solid foundation through junior high and high school, that would be an enormous step in the right direction.

Well, the problem here would be that you need to work with the state athletic association to ensure that there is no conflict with their rules and regulations, which often do not allow for club involvement. This is the problem that faced Jorge Torres in IL during his indoor track season, when he was still training with his club coach- Jorge opted out of indoor as a result and a variety of problems later ensued, which nearly led to lawsuits. So until the atheltic associations are willing to let go of some measure of control, this problems will remain- it is acute in IL and PA as it stands. The rules were set really for other sports, but XC and TF got roped in as well.

Excellent point: YOU gotta be fit to use all the tactics out there. Otherwise, you might as well just run a steady pace and then kick as hard as you can for as long as you can. Get really, really fit and then be competitive in races by using surges, short or long, and and various means of exploiting your strengths. If you aren't really fit, then you are an the mercy of everybody else's tactics. Tinman

Flash,

With two competitions/week they do not need to do much else on the track. Vary the distances of the athletes races. Have your 2 miler run 800's and miles and have your milers/800 runners run the 2mile. *00m runners run some 400's. Mix it up.

Sun. long steady run

Mon. 6-10m run & 6-8x200m

Tue. 6-8m strides

Wed. 3mile warmup strides, race 3m warmdown

Thu. 6-10m run

Fri. 4-6m run 6-8x200m

Sat. same as Wed.

Kevin Hanson wrote:

Joe Rubio is a very good coach and a man that understands todays athlete. I share Joe's concerns in several areas. Most important is that we need people that are willing to make a long term commitment. Any athlete that graduates from college and says I am going to try this for a couple years and see what happens, is guaranteed to fail. We need athletes that say I am willing to do this for as long as it takes to get the job done.

I'd like to address what you are saying here which relates to a point Joe made earlier in this thread. Post-collegiate americans have too many good alternatives to dedicating the next 10 years of their lives to the pursuit of running super fast. 99.999% of runners 21 or older worth a darn trained and raced in college and high school. That means these guys already have 8 years of 2 or 3 seasons per year under their belts, where they are likely over-raced and undertrained. Once a guy gets outta college, he might be frustrated with his PR's, and want to pursue better ones, but in the light of job prospects, money, girls, and the american way of life in general, it is an almost impossible conclusion to come to logically that sacraficing career goals and other ambitions like chasing girls is worth 10 seconds for a mile pr, or 5 for an 800pr, or a minute for 10k or whatever. Guys straight outta school these days get offers for $50,000 a year, which is more than all but the most extremely successful runners make.

My point is that, the sacrafice is more than face value. Sure you need to put in the time, the training, the effort the trials of miles and whatnot. But you also need to say "ok, i studied my ass off for 4 years to get "x" degree from "y" university and now i have job offers from "z" corporation, and I'm gonna shove that all aside, work part-time doing something I'm enormously overqualified for, make barely enough money to survive, and live in poverty for the best 10 years of my life, just so I can run around in a circle faster than some skinny Kenyan in 2008. Then I'll attempt to compete in the increasingly competitive american job market, with people 10 years younger than me, and I'll have no marketable work experience"

So you see the sacrafice, isn't just in the present, its in the future. To make the committment Joe and Kevin are talking about requires someone to literally say to themselves that my success in running is MORE important to me than my career, salary, success and that I don't mind permanently limiting my potential in that to pursue running success.

After all that, there are no guarantees, no guarantee of success even if you do make the sacrafice. It simply doesn't seem worth it. That's why americans don't develop after college. I know probably 100 guys who could be 28 min, 2:12 marathon guys who have quit the sport completely or severely limited their involvement in it because of the very point I have just made.