txRUNNERgirl wrote:
It's not hard to find them, and no, I don't claim to be elite nor ever was. The OP did not specify elite-level outliers, just "Why are freshman always the fastest on girls XC?" But then again keeping it vague is a good trolling technique.
Wasn't trying to troll. Clearly this thread has you pretty upset, though. Maybe try going outside?
“Age at First Onset of Impaired Performance Due to Iron Deficiency
I have noticed that female runners who develop iron deficiency often have the onset of impaired racing performance in their junior year of XC, if they began running in earnest as freshman. Runners who started running year round in middle school may have the onset of iron deficiency significant enough to impair racing performance earlier in high school. In areas where there are active middle school running programs some of the freshmen showing up for their first XC practice have single digit ferritins. A “back of the envelope calculation” will show that a runner who is losing 1mg of iron per day of running in excess of the iron absorbed, will take about 250 to 300 days of running to empty their storage iron compartment. For runners who begin their serious running in freshman year XC season this “300 days of running” mark often occurs during their junior year of XC.”
old guy 72 wrote:
A very successful local high school coach told me 20 years ago that some girls mature in such a way that is detrimental to the running form that is necessary to running fast. Their hips begin to spread in order to eventually bear babies. Their bodies change. It has nothing to do with their mentality.
I remember talking to a former high school star ten years after she graduated. She told me she didn't know what happened. She was the number one runner on a State Championship team (Calif) as a freshman and by the time she was a Senior she had slipped to number 5-6. Her times had fallen dramatically. She said she was working as hard, but just kept slowing down.
Nothing to do with coaching or motivation.
This is all stupid. The olympics aren't filled with pre-pubescent girls.
nopers478 wrote:
old guy 72 wrote:
A very successful local high school coach told me 20 years ago that some girls mature in such a way that is detrimental to the running form that is necessary to running fast. Their hips begin to spread in order to eventually bear babies. Their bodies change. It has nothing to do with their mentality.
I remember talking to a former high school star ten years after she graduated. She told me she didn't know what happened. She was the number one runner on a State Championship team (Calif) as a freshman and by the time she was a Senior she had slipped to number 5-6. Her times had fallen dramatically. She said she was working as hard, but just kept slowing down.
Nothing to do with coaching or motivation.
This is all stupid. The olympics aren't filled with pre-pubescent girls.
No, but they're filled with women who have no hips. It's biomechanically more efficient for running. I was a relatively fast Freshman, went through puberty sophomore year, developed hips, and then got injured as my body adjusted. I bounced back Junior year to PR, and basically stayed at the same level through Senior year. But puberty was hell on my running form. Because I have hips, my center of gravity is lower and I'm a best at skiing then and now than at any other sport.
lidnlnelkne wrote:
nopers478 wrote:
This is all stupid. The olympics aren't filled with pre-pubescent girls.
No, but they're filled with women who have no hips. It's biomechanically more efficient for running. I was a relatively fast Freshman, went through puberty sophomore year, developed hips, and then got injured as my body adjusted. I bounced back Junior year to PR, and basically stayed at the same level through Senior year. But puberty was hell on my running form. Because I have hips, my center of gravity is lower and I'm a best at skiing then and now than at any other sport.
I coach collegiate women. Some are small, some are built like bigger women with wider hips. There's no indicator of who is faster based on that.
This conversation needs to stop. All it does is give crappy coaches an excuse for why certain girls don't improve. Take ownership here. Yes, some athletes, men or women, aren't going to improve, for a variety of reasons. But going through puberty does not guarantee a talented girl will never run any faster and to say so is ridiculous.
nopers478 wrote:
lidnlnelkne wrote:
No, but they're filled with women who have no hips. It's biomechanically more efficient for running. I was a relatively fast Freshman, went through puberty sophomore year, developed hips, and then got injured as my body adjusted. I bounced back Junior year to PR, and basically stayed at the same level through Senior year. But puberty was hell on my running form. Because I have hips, my center of gravity is lower and I'm a best at skiing then and now than at any other sport.
I coach collegiate women. Some are small, some are built like bigger women with wider hips. There's no indicator of who is faster based on that.
This conversation needs to stop. All it does is give crappy coaches an excuse for why certain girls don't improve. Take ownership here. Yes, some athletes, men or women, aren't going to improve, for a variety of reasons. But going through puberty does not guarantee a talented girl will never run any faster and to say so is ridiculous.
Yep, it’s called working on hip strength.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
nopers478 wrote:
I coach collegiate women. Some are small, some are built like bigger women with wider hips. There's no indicator of who is faster based on that.
This conversation needs to stop. All it does is give crappy coaches an excuse for why certain girls don't improve. Take ownership here. Yes, some athletes, men or women, aren't going to improve, for a variety of reasons. But going through puberty does not guarantee a talented girl will never run any faster and to say so is ridiculous.
Yep, it’s called working on hip strength.
This is also a toxic conversation because just having it out there in a world creates a culture where girls expect to get slower. You may notice that in most programs where seniors are the fastest, girls tend to improve. Where freshman are the fastest, they tend to not improve. Expectation can often lead to reality
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
nopers478 wrote:
I coach collegiate women. Some are small, some are built like bigger women with wider hips. There's no indicator of who is faster based on that.
This conversation needs to stop. All it does is give crappy coaches an excuse for why certain girls don't improve. Take ownership here. Yes, some athletes, men or women, aren't going to improve, for a variety of reasons. But going through puberty does not guarantee a talented girl will never run any faster and to say so is ridiculous.
Yep, it’s called working on hip strength.
It never offsets the biomechanical deficiency though.
Same reason why young women are better at gymnastics and figure skating. Their power to weight ratio is higher
DW wrote:
Same reason why young women are better at gymnastics and figure skating. Their power to weight ratio is higher
Yup.
You hope the power continues to grow as the runner does. Sometimes is does, sometimes it doesn’t.
Wtfbbq wrote:
Have you never taken a health class?
Girls mature earlier than boys. A freshman girl vs a senior girl is a lot closer than a freshman boy than a senior boy.
Do you seriously call it a health class or is it one of the silly nabes Americans seem to always use instead of the real name.
Surely it's called Biology the same as in the UK? Or sex education?
They lose interest is my guess as to declining performance. You can't coach that it's either there or it isn't.
hs girls coach wrote:
Coaching absolutely is a factor. Creating an environment where healthy bodies are encouraged and accepted is a coach's responsibility. Adding strength training that helps girls avoid injury while their body is changing is a coach's responsibility. Keeping training age appropriate even with young phenoms is a coach's responsibility. Planning training and progression over a period of 4 years (or for a lifetime) instead of a 1 season at a time is a coach's responsibility.
Our state's biggest class didn't have a single all-state freshman last year. The teams that made the podium had a combined total of 3 freshmen in their top 7. National and world records aren't set by high school freshmen. Don't make excuses if you haven't figured out how to coach girls yet, but the stats don't lie.
Of course coaching is a factor but even though you 'have figured out how to coach girls' don't kid yourself there is way more to it than something you think you can control.... yes, you can help guide an athlete but honestly some coaches just take themselves way too seriously. Good thing I have it figured out too.
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I went from not being able to finish a mile my freshman year to setting PRs and being recruited to colleges my senior year. I'm now 32 and 15 lbs heavier, yet continue to run PRs, so I don't know what to tell you. Now if you take a kid that's not physically developed yet and treat/train them like an Olympian at that age, of course that's going to backfire regardless of gender.
I don't mean to be disrespectful but no one is saying certain females can't improve over time as they get older... and obviously you qualify as one who did.
The point being made is some very young girls run very fast times that they will never run again as they age... the reasons for this are many and based on the individual ... just like some guys run faster than others as they age... some people are distance runners and some aren't... coaching can help but it certainly can not save every athlete from decline if that is what's in the cards...
a blanket statement like ' that doesn't happen in good programs with a good coach' is simply untrue.
Erin Keogh?
MN Haute Dish wrote:
Some HS girls slow down, some don't. I was one of those HS girls that developed late so my "sophomore slow-down" actually happened in 11th grade. Back in the 80's I went undefeated for four straight years - 9th through Senior year (culminating in a full ride college scholarship) - but it was MUCH more difficult in 11th grade (most other's 10th grade). Weight was more difficult to manage, boys became way more interesting, friends became way more important, focus was everywhere. Some girls work their way through this stage, other girls throw in the towel and pursue other dreams. I had the lure of a college scholarship to keep me somewhat focused but back in those days most girls didn't. I don't think it's a matter of better coaching,
I think it's a matter of having the opportunity to chase benefits gotten through running (college scholarship, etc) that keeps girls running and training through the gauntlet of adolescence.
Boys gain muscle mass in puberty whereas girls gain fat mass or dead weight naturally and not muscle.
I'll just weigh in here... wrote:
txRUNNERgirl wrote:
I went from not being able to finish a mile my freshman year to setting PRs and being recruited to colleges my senior year. I'm now 32 and 15 lbs heavier, yet continue to run PRs, so I don't know what to tell you. Now if you take a kid that's not physically developed yet and treat/train them like an Olympian at that age, of course that's going to backfire regardless of gender.
I don't mean to be disrespectful but no one is saying certain females can't improve over time as they get older... and obviously you qualify as one who did.
The point being made is some very young girls run very fast times that they will never run again as they age... the reasons for this are many and based on the individual ... just like some guys run faster than others as they age... some people are distance runners and some aren't... coaching can help but it certainly can not save every athlete from decline if that is what's in the cards...
a blanket statement like ' that doesn't happen in good programs with a good coach' is simply untrue.
It seems like certain people in this thread are saying precisely that.
And as I've said all along, there are individual exceptions. But I stand by the statement that in good programs, all the fastest girls aren't freshmen.
lidnlnelkne wrote:
[quote]nopers478 wrote:
Because I have hips.
Pics?
You are right. A top level post collegiate coach once said that if it were true every World Record would be held by a 14 year old.
Runners improve with changing traing variables.
Poor HS coaches get away without doing it correctly with boys as they get physically stronger without training smarter. Coaches then think they are doing a good job. Meanwhile girls do not get that physical boost and must train correctly.
college is designed to fatten girls up for marriage
lidnlnelkne wrote:No, but they're filled with women who have no hips. It's biomechanically more efficient for running. I was a relatively fast Freshman, went through puberty sophomore year, developed hips, and then got injured as my body adjusted. I bounced back Junior year to PR, and basically stayed at the same level through Senior year. But puberty was hell on my running form. Because I have hips, my center of gravity is lower and I'm a best at skiing then and now than at any other sport.
You bring up a good point here. Progress is rarely going to be perfectly linear for girls and that is fine with me as long as it trends upwards over their career. I try to be really honest with my girls that they may hit a growth spurt and need 6 months for their rest of their body to catch up to handle their old training load. We will often reduce mileage and/or intensity when we notice girls hitting a growth spurt as well and use the extra practice time for additional strength work. That keeps our injury rates pretty low. I'm far from having it all figured out though..maybe one day! In the meantime , I will push for coaches to look for ways to improve. It's painful having to watch some young runners careers enter an injury cycle and then end at age 15 because of poor coaching.