Whuchu talkin' bout Willis? wrote:
And some college coach will dump him into 80 mile weeks and we'll never hear from him again.
Big facts though.
Whuchu talkin' bout Willis? wrote:
And some college coach will dump him into 80 mile weeks and we'll never hear from him again.
Big facts though.
The thing is 50 mpw is different for a high schooler than a 20 year old. When you’re a teenager your metabolism burns everything well. Once you’re in your 20s that metabolism slows and it’s easy to gain weight and lose fitness with even the same training volume. That’s why increasing volume in college along with being more conscientious of your diet is more important. I know that annoys the anti weight conscious people but it’s just flat out true.
So maybe not freshman year but by the time he’s a junior or senior college runner he will likely need 80 mpw to maintain being a sub 4 miler. There are the rare great metabolism for life but not all. Just look at how many former great runners are now fat.
not paid enough wrote:
The thing is 50 mpw is different for a high schooler than a 20 year old. When you’re a teenager your metabolism burns everything well. Once you’re in your 20s that metabolism slows and it’s easy to gain weight and lose fitness with even the same training volume. That’s why increasing volume in college along with being more conscientious of your diet is more important. I know that annoys the anti weight conscious people but it’s just flat out true.
So maybe not freshman year but by the time he’s a junior or senior college runner he will likely need 80 mpw to maintain being a sub 4 miler. There are the rare great metabolism for life but not all. Just look at how many former great runners are now fat.
That is more from going from 80mpw to 0mpw:) Most milers should be up around by 80mpw by the end of senior year. That isn't the issue. It is more if the coach bumps them up there in the fall.
The HS going to college face a tough situation. They need to get much better to be competive (i.e. a 3:59 mile isn't enough) and they are switching from a program that worked for them to some unknown one. It isn't shocking that a lot of kids don't have a smooth transition.
Hypothetical schedule based on comments:
Thu - 6 x 400m @ 56 seconds (average) with 500m jog recovery + weights
Fri - Easy run + 3 x 200m strides @ 27 seconds
Sat - Long run with hard close (example: 12 mile long run with 7-8 miles easy, finish at 5:10-5:20 pace)
Sun - Off day or 2-3 mile shakeout
Mon - 800m/600m/400m/300m/200m @ 2:02/1:29/54/40/27 with 5:00/4:00/3:00/2:30 rest
+ weights
Tue - Easy run + 3 x 200m strides @ 27 seconds + weights
Wed - 8 x 200m @ faster than mile pace (average 27 seconds with the last 3 @ 26/25 high) with 100m walk rest
Thu - Easy run + 3 x 200m strides @ 27 seconds + weights
Fri - Easy run + 3 x 200m strides @ 27 seconds + weights
Sat - Race
not paid enough wrote:
The thing is 50 mpw is different for a high schooler than a 20 year old. When you’re a teenager your metabolism burns everything well. Once you’re in your 20s that metabolism slows and it’s easy to gain weight and lose fitness with even the same training volume. That’s why increasing volume in college along with being more conscientious of your diet is more important. I know that annoys the anti weight conscious people but it’s just flat out true.
So maybe not freshman year but by the time he’s a junior or senior college runner he will likely need 80 mpw to maintain being a sub 4 miler. There are the rare great metabolism for life but not all. Just look at how many former great runners are now fat.
The male metabolism and cardiovascular/muscular response to exercise does not hit a brick wall once out of the teenage years. Don't be idiotic. Many, many teenagers are overweight and obese in America. The fat mass gain of college aged people is due to a poor diet from lack of time, money, and parental oversight to eat well. Male testosterone doesn't begin to fall until early to mid 30s (if the person stays active), the hips don't fully fuse to the spine until around 25, and most men will see their most significant gain in muscle pass and power late 20s.
Their diminishing returns on the stress response for growth is due to reaching their genetic peaks. An athlete with 6-8yrs of training under their belt is going to require an extreme amount of work to see the same improvement a little work did as when they were younger/inexperienced. Conversely, this means they will also lose their fitness slower as they are so exceptionally above their sedentary baseline. "You lose it half as fast as you gain it" has been said around coaching circles and physiology labs for over half a century for a reason.
The Overexplainer wrote:
Old School Cool wrote:
QFE.
He also ran 14:14 for XC in the fall. The huge base was also the key to this breakthrough. Listen to the recent LRC and Ryan Hall podcasts with the Big Three. They all talk about how important having that base was. Webb mentions his fall training, trying to chase down Ritz, was what set him up for the 3:53. His 2006 season focusing on the longer stuff, beating Ritz in the 10,000m, set him up for his 3:46 and monster 2007.
Huge base? He never had even a modest base. He ran 4:03 for the mile and 8:51 for 3200 m last year. Like all sub 4-minute High School milers, he is an otherworldly talent. I know his coach, and he has repeatedly said over the last two months that his "top guys top out at 40 to 50 miles a week". In season or between season.
He said that they rarely run more than 7 miles at a time, except Saturday. I did read the entire article and not just look at the summary in the OP. It is possible that he trained on his own over this spring slightly more than the 50 miles a week he has topped out at previously. It is also possible that he overstated his total, left the schedule intentionally vague, knowing 40 to 50 miles a week was not impressive.
7 miles a day, 5 days a week, + 12 miles on Saturday + 3 miles = 50. So I would take his coach at his word. But there was never a.ny heavy base training. From his coach, he ran 40 miles a week most of the time.
For some of you who are younger, you may not realize that there is a wide range of training backgrounds when you look at the 11 sub 4 High School milers.
Verzbicas doesn't count because he was not an American citizen, and Maton doesn't count because he was 19. But that is a discussion for another time. if you look at the first three who achieved it. Most people know about Ryun's interval heavy training program, and that it added up to a lot of miles per week. Most people know that Marty Liquori trained 70-85 miles a week year round, with a 15 mile long run every week. Danielson was also a good two-miler, and would be considered a high mileage runner by your lot, but was just average for his era. In the last 10 years the US has seen a lot of kids break 4:00 and run 4-flat, 4:01, 4:02, even as juniors. It wasn't the training that got them there, it was their genetics.
One of the things his coach has kept stressing to people that asked, is that it isn't the coach or the training or any magic workout that helped him to run 4:03 as a junior and 3:59 as a senior, it was him ... It was Leo's talent.
You all would do well to try to realize this. All this talk about, "he's able to run 56 and 27 in training ... And he's comfortable at maximum speed". He has run 1:49 and 3:59 and 8:51 last year. That's just how fast a super talented kid runs those workouts, just like a college kid running 1:49 would. If you have a 4:20 guy, he's going to run 62 to 63 for those workouts. Not because his training is inferior, not because he's worse at maximal speed workouts (that isn't maximum speed for either of them), but because he's not a 3:59 runner.
I agree with most of this. T A L E N T generally wins out when it comes to running fast in high school. Some of those workouts look way too hard to me, and would absolutely fry 99% of the runners who tried them (like our 3:47 guy in this thread) but because Leo is an elite talent, he gets away with it. That's not to say none of his training is good; I like his tempo within the long run and some of his lighter track sessions. Who knows anyway, he might've been much more conservative in his training before transitioning to this stuff.
I still think that there is an optimal way for each individual to train, but generally the people that can handle the biggest workload become the best.
hansen9952 wrote:
BUTTHOLE SURFER wrote:
True.....but using the African elite model is not ideal. The attrition rate is off the charts. Very few African elite runners sustain long careers, we only hear of the select few who managed to "Survive" high mileage training at a young age. I liken this to a shooting star, it burns hot and fast and then disappears. I believe with a more comprehensive build-up these super talented runners would have run faster for a longer period of time.
"Go Run One"
Judging on your previous two posts in regards to this debate, would you consider John Kellogg's running philosophy hazardous? What are your thoughts on it? He attributes the "downfall" of American distance running to the "low mileage" approach. Based on the correlative evidence he provided from the 70s onward, it almost seems true. But maybe that's just because the running boom faded? Kellogg, and Lydiard, philosophy obviously is where I get the idea of periodic high mileage with a gradual taper as the season progresses. It seems reasonable if you take into account that they share your idea of gradual buildup in workload, and also operating within one's own boundaries by listening to the body. There also isn't a shortage of speed work mid-season like many assume.
I get what your saying and offer a counterpoint.
Donovan Brazier is now the fastest american ever, and runs 25-35 miles a week.
A single anecdote doesn't prove either of us right. But saying every runner needs to do a high mileage approach for success is false. Depending on the athlete, their strengths, and most importantly their progression a good coach will develop a training plan that fits them. Leo may very well be a low mileage, high intensity guy.
I emphasize "and most importantly their progression." Could Leo have maybe run a little faster off more mileage? Sure. But who cares its highschool. Let him gradually progress over the next 5-6 years, slowly building mileage, staying healthy, and growing and transition into someone who will be competitive on the world stage. Or else he will become the next Webb or Ritz who ran fast in high school and were washed up by 21, never winning any race of importance.
There is a big difference between 800m guys with 45 speed, and 5k/10k guys. I think even Kellogg would say that.
Yes, hence periodization and specificity of training. Obviously a marathon runner would do more long slow mileage than a 10k runner... and so forth. But I’m certain that a decently large base will be beneficial to any type of runner, though I agree that 800m runners don’t require much. But if you think about it, the shorter the distance of an event, the more latent talent is required of the specialized runner. Tons of aerobic work develops truly long term fitness, which can in some cases make up for a lack of speed in distances longer than the mile. But on the other hand, you will never make a good 800m runner out of a lack of speed. So it pretty much depends on if whether one chooses to specialize in mid-distance or long-distance.
Incorrect. An decently talented 100 meter guy can run 12 seconds while a world class guy runs 10 seconds on the same training. A decently talented 10k guy runs 32 minutes while a world class guy runs 27 minutes on the same training. Talent provides greater separation as you move up in distance.
New name of names wrote:
Incorrect. An decently talented 100 meter guy can run 12 seconds while a world class guy runs 10 seconds on the same training. A decently talented 10k guy runs 32 minutes while a world class guy runs 27 minutes on the same training. Talent provides greater separation as you move up in distance.
Umm....duh? What did you expect? You a troll? Of course the ACTUAL difference in time (i.e. seconds) is greater as you move up in distance. I don’t think you grasped my point at all. The longer the distance, the more trainability the athlete generally has. You cannot give an athlete speed, he/she must be born with it. That’s why if you focus on longer distances due to a lack of speed, you may find yourself more successful than if you stayed at a shorter distance, and this is also why as an elite runner’s raw speed deteriorates with age, the runner moves up to marathon distances. I never claimed that the disparity in physical seconds between elite and non-elite times was greater for longer distances...LOL