You will get nothing but nonsense on this forum. Speed is genetic, and you will not improve it much by doing the ridiculous training routines suggested here. With a 400m of 66 seconds, you will never be competitive at HS track distances. You have to decide whether running is for you in light of that.
Credit cards wrote:
You will get nothing but nonsense on this forum. Speed is genetic, and you will not improve it much by doing the ridiculous training routines suggested here. With a 400m of 66 seconds, you will never be competitive at HS track distances. You have to decide whether running is for you in light of that.
Dude has run 17 flat as a sophomore, so he's decent at the HS level and he will get better than that if he's running his 60 mpw for the next two years.
On The Roads wrote:
doot doot wrote:One last thought: You included 10k and HM PRs which are pointless and indicate that you race overdistance or at least have your eyes set there. You may be a "distance runner," but you're young and don't actually compete in those events so forget them for now and think of yourself as a racer of short distances who must develop speed if you want to win anything. You have your whole life to plod along in (half-) marathons after you accomplish fast times in the competitive distances you race in now.
Incorrect, doot doot. He DOES actually compete in those events and they're definitely his best events. With the exception of Boston's 18yo limit, anyone his age is welcome to run actual long-distance races. I did. In fact, I did so almost exclusively. I did run a track 5000 once in my teens but nearly every race was 10km or longer. This disproves your theory that if you are young you run mid-distance events.
OP: run the events you are best at. Would you rather win at a certain distance or get dead last at another, more socially acceptable distance. Most on this Board will not approve, but so what? You'll never meet these people in person and they won't have the opportunity to ridicule you if you don't post here to brag about it. Rewind to when I was your age and Internet Message Boards would have been in a complete uproar. My whole teenage training group did marathons and I can assure you that going under 3 would not even get you on the podium for your age group at the time. There were so many kids doing it that it would often take 34:00 10km, significantly under 60 10 mile, maybe around your half time, and 2:45 full to win 17-and-under. These are local races I'm referring to that didn't attract heavy hitters from far away - and during the school year I might add. Peachtree, etc. were in another class entirely.
This true history will be met with disbelief and scorn today but it actually IS possible for slow-twitch teenagers to successfully compete at the events for which they are best suited. Don't beat your head against a wall trying something you will not be good at. If I was better at the mile I might have done it. I wasn't so I didn't.
By the way, doot door, not of your toe-striking pictures shows a foot touching the ground. Mary
Keitany is an unapologetic heel striker too.
I really appreciate this. I have found that I perform my best on the longer distances and I also usually negative split by about ~20s for the second half of 10k and 5k runs, while people who I race against will slow about 30 seconds and sometimes that amount each mile, and it is very tedious to run around people. You mentioned you had a group your age that trained and ran marathons? I know you said you'd get a lot of hate for that in this day and age, and that is why I left this out but I ran a marathon last December. It was a free-for-all, no age limit and no awards. There were maybe 6 volunteers total and you could bring your own water, so I went at it and I completed it in 2:49 and change. This is a great time and don't get me wrong, but I believe if every high school runner that ran 15 minute 5k's competed in longer distance times would be much different.
Buddy I was in your same boat at that time. I got injured junior year of high school from trying to do to much speed work. Be patient, log your miles, do strides, study off season training programs, lift lightly/ smartly and just trust the process. I went from 10:30 as a Sophomore in high school and taking months off for injury to 9:57 my senior year, not spectacular but respectable. Trust the process, and believe in yourself.
Alright. You guys win. Heel strike away. Geoffrey Kirui, the 222 fastest 'thoner ever, is living proof that no one should work on their stride because it's totally pointless. Makes sense now.
And keep ripping off those 72s. Good luck at the half-marathon state championships...
17 flat is an excellent time for a 10th grader. Keep at it, but do not get carried away with mileage because it is only one piece of the equation. There are a lot of examples in history of very fast runners who did not average more than 60-75 minutes of total training per day.
Your stamina is much better than your speed, but I do think your speed can be improved to an extent.
It is possible that both arguments in this thread are correct.
You do not need a massive overhaul in your stride mechanics, but you can work on those mechanics and some limiting speed factors will be improved. If you can get to the point where you can run a 28-29 second 200m with a moving start (without sacrificing your stamina / endurance training) you will become a completely different 1600/3200/5k runner.
To do this:
6-8 second all-out hills x 3-5 reps; full walking recovery; once, working to twice per week. After 8 weeks of this routine, keep one day of hills but make the other day 3 working to 5 x 60m flat out (with a running start to full-speed). Walk recoveries here too. Do this for 8 weeks.
After 16 weeks of "sprinting", keeping your other workouts the same, you will have transformed yourself. This does work; although you will still be a slower sprinter than your genetically gifted peers.
Good work - keep at it!!!
Credit cards wrote:
You will get nothing but nonsense on this forum. Speed is genetic, and you will not improve it much by doing the ridiculous training routines suggested here. With a 400m of 66 seconds, you will never be competitive at HS track distances. You have to decide whether running is for you in light of that.
I'm one of the few people here not pushing the idea of working on his speed for pretty much the same reason you aren't. But I wouldn't be so discouraging of his prospects for being a good high school runner. His 400 time will get faster naturally as he matures physically and there have been some very good runners who struggle to run under 60 seconds for an open 400. Gerry Lindgren comes to mind immediately as an extreme example. I'm not suggesting that he'll be another Lindgren but he certainly can be competitive at high school track distances.
Well said. 17 flat xc is fast for a freshman, if I read correctly that your pr's are from last year, and shows the promise to run low 16 this year and mid to low 15s as a senior. As the weather cools in Florida, your xc times will fall dramatically, and the same goes for physical maturation. Do the flat sprints, hill sprints, core, squats, and lunges and you will surely get a lot faster at the short and long distances. The long repeats are a good idea, because most in high school do intervals that are too short for a 5k.
I developed a decent kick senior year of HS that I still have a bit of. I was only passed by 1 person in the final 200 all year. Before this, I dreaded the final 100 because I would get toasted.
What did it for me was as follows
Less mileage
More weights-bench, squat, deadlift, etc. good form, don't hurt yourself
More sprints in spikes
Switching events from 3200 to 800
Not the fastest, I hit 2:03 800 and 4:38 mile, but you'd better believe I was coming for ya at the end.
doot doot wrote:
Alright. You guys win. Heel strike away. Geoffrey Kirui, the 222 fastest 'thoner ever, is living proof that no one should work on their stride because it's totally pointless. Makes sense now.
And keep ripping off those 72s. Good luck at the half-marathon state championships...
Yep. WORLD CHAMP!
Perfect stride apparently.
e.coolguy wrote:
5K - 17:02
10K - 35:06
Half marathon (only did once) - 1:17:x
Run the marathon
A runner dude wrote:
e.coolguy wrote:5K - 17:02
10K - 35:06
Half marathon (only did once) - 1:17:x
Run the marathon
I did it in 2:49. I went much slower than I needed to (1:26 at halfway) because I was afraid of "the wall"
hemfaulk wrote:
Well said. 17 flat xc is fast for a freshman, if I read correctly that your pr's are from last year, and shows the promise to run low 16 this year and mid to low 15s as a senior. As the weather cools in Florida, your xc times will fall dramatically, and the same goes for physical maturation. Do the flat sprints, hill sprints, core, squats, and lunges and you will surely get a lot faster at the short and long distances. The long repeats are a good idea, because most in high school do intervals that are too short for a 5k.
Ah yeah that is very true, I forgot about how much heat can make a difference. I went from 18:10 to 17:02, not necessarily because of the weather but it had a very important part to play. In addition, I have tailored all of my workouts to be faster than 5:20-5:00 pace as that's what I hope to run tomorrow. My first meet of the season was the hardest course in the state where I ran 17:35.
HRE wrote:
Credit cards wrote:You will get nothing but nonsense on this forum. Speed is genetic, and you will not improve it much by doing the ridiculous training routines suggested here. With a 400m of 66 seconds, you will never be competitive at HS track distances. You have to decide whether running is for you in light of that.
I'm one of the few people here not pushing the idea of working on his speed for pretty much the same reason you aren't. But I wouldn't be so discouraging of his prospects for being a good high school runner. His 400 time will get faster naturally as he matures physically and there have been some very good runners who struggle to run under 60 seconds for an open 400. Gerry Lindgren comes to mind immediately as an extreme example. I'm not suggesting that he'll be another Lindgren but he certainly can be competitive at high school track distances.
Lindgren claims his best was 52 in the last lap of a 5000. Surely a bit of an exaggeration but you can bet he could have done low 50s.
Cheap claims wrote:
HRE wrote:I'm one of the few people here not pushing the idea of working on his speed for pretty much the same reason you aren't. But I wouldn't be so discouraging of his prospects for being a good high school runner. His 400 time will get faster naturally as he matures physically and there have been some very good runners who struggle to run under 60 seconds for an open 400. Gerry Lindgren comes to mind immediately as an extreme example. I'm not suggesting that he'll be another Lindgren but he certainly can be competitive at high school track distances.
Lindgren claims his best was 52 in the last lap of a 5000. Surely a bit of an exaggeration but you can bet he could have done low 50s.
Salazar was always said to have had a best 400 of 57. Some he woulda coulda run faster than that based on other times but he was certainly very slow footed. He was known mostly for marathons but he ran 13:11.
9/10 as you got many serious replies. 1:17 and 2:49 for HS freshman with 66/2:20/4:57? Maybe if you were Yannis Kouros.
Many D3 XC teams and some D2 XC teams would love to have OP on XC team. If one does not show early success in shorter distances, one is not asked to race shorter distances in meets. I am sure OP only raced 400/800 during time trials in practice. I am sure OP is capable of racing 400/800 significantly faster than stated times. Regarding your statement that speed is genetic. It is true that most males will never break 11 seconds for 100 metres; while high school age EVERYONE can become a faster sprinter.
e.coolguy wrote:
On The Roads wrote:Incorrect, doot doot. He DOES actually compete in those events and they're definitely his best events. With the exception of Boston's 18yo limit, anyone his age is welcome to run actual long-distance races. I did. In fact, I did so almost exclusively. I did run a track 5000 once in my teens but nearly every race was 10km or longer. This disproves your theory that if you are young you run mid-distance events.
OP: run the events you are best at. Would you rather win at a certain distance or get dead last at another, more socially acceptable distance. Most on this Board will not approve, but so what? You'll never meet these people in person and they won't have the opportunity to ridicule you if you don't post here to brag about it. Rewind to when I was your age and Internet Message Boards would have been in a complete uproar. My whole teenage training group did marathons and I can assure you that going under 3 would not even get you on the podium for your age group at the time. There were so many kids doing it that it would often take 34:00 10km, significantly under 60 10 mile, maybe around your half time, and 2:45 full to win 17-and-under. These are local races I'm referring to that didn't attract heavy hitters from far away - and during the school year I might add. Peachtree, etc. were in another class entirely.
This true history will be met with disbelief and scorn today but it actually IS possible for slow-twitch teenagers to successfully compete at the events for which they are best suited. Don't beat your head against a wall trying something you will not be good at. If I was better at the mile I might have done it. I wasn't so I didn't.
By the way, doot door, not of your toe-striking pictures shows a foot touching the ground. Mary
Keitany is an unapologetic heel striker too.
I really appreciate this. I have found that I perform my best on the longer distances and I also usually negative split by about ~20s for the second half of 10k and 5k runs, while people who I race against will slow about 30 seconds and sometimes that amount each mile, and it is very tedious to run around people. You mentioned you had a group your age that trained and ran marathons? I know you said you'd get a lot of hate for that in this day and age, and that is why I left this out but I ran a marathon last December. It was a free-for-all, no age limit and no awards. There were maybe 6 volunteers total and you could bring your own water, so I went at it and I completed it in 2:49 and change. This is a great time and don't get me wrong, but I believe if every high school runner that ran 15 minute 5k's competed in longer distance times would be much different.
Hey man, I'm glad you appreciated the comments. Whenever I've seen a post to the effect of "run longer events" on a HS -oriented thread there had been uproar and fury. (There aren't many posters saying what I did but I have occasionally posted myself...)
So here's the deal: I was your age during the so-called 'running boom' of the '70s and '80s which probably could be called the 'road racing boom' or more accurately 'marathon boom'. Shorter, Rodgers, and Salazar made the event appealing to the masses. So when I met a few guys at school who ran, we trained together. We put together a team for a road relay (legs between 4 and 11 miles) one year and I remember a marathon that 3 others and I rode to with my dad driving. The school didn't endorse or even know about any of this. There wasn't a coach or official who would corral anyone seen running in the area. There were so many people out on the local trails in those days.....
None of this seemed strange at the time. Our parents weren't all bent out of shape if we ran but not for the school. They wanted to do marathons themselves! I was heckled very occasionally by 'the team' if I passed them on a trail but none of them could beat me at anything longer than 5 miles, so I really had the last laugh, and again, several of the best in the school frequently ran with me.
I think your times are great and encourage you to keep up the good work. You would have been competitive when I was running, but not an outlier (meaning also not an outcast). These days, of course, a 2 hour half often wins 17-and-under since there's only 1 finisher. I completely agree with you that the teenage road scene would be more like it was years ago if some of these decent HS runners were doing longer events as some of them are naturally slow-twitch and suited to halfs and fulls. They will discover this at 24yo but you'll have a decade head start. So do what you're doing!
The main challenge will be lack of peer approval. Alana Hadley's blog goes into this. Hopefully the mention of her name doesn't derail this thread or get it deleted, as her experiences are a perfect example of the consequences of pursuing distance running as an American teen. She let the disapproval and ridicule get to her but if you don't - and your parents allow training without coaches or chaperones (ours did), then the sky's the limit. Remember, the great Sammy Wanjiru started out with 10km and up from your age. Put in your miles!
Steve O Vette wrote:
9/10 as you got many serious replies. 1:17 and 2:49 for HS freshman with 66/2:20/4:57? Maybe if you were Yannis Kouros.
I am currently ranked 6th in the state. I am trying my best not to disclose information that can lead to my identity being leaked but this is a 100% truth, the record for my age group is 2:32, btw.
Credit cards wrote:
Lindgren claims his best was 52 in the last lap of a 5000. Surely a bit of an exaggeration but you can bet he could have done low 50s.
I've seen races where Lindgren closed in well under 60. But he always said he could never get under 60 in an open 400. It's not unheard of for people to run the last 400 or races faster than they've ever done in open 400s.