This is a good thread. Lots of interesting theories. As others have stated, it's probably a combination of factors.
But one thing that makes this spate of fast times seem even more remarkable to me, is that the average high school kid is probably more sedentary and out of shape than he has ever been. I realize we're talking about elite athletes, but I would have thought that the potential talent pool would have been diluted significantly by so many kids being such couch potatoes.
In a time when everyone is looking for a quick win, let's also make sure we are giving these guys their due credit. Martin has touched upon this in prior interviews, but these guys emerged out of COVID after seeing it as an opportunity. They took time to focus on training, which is a far cry from the multiple races a week approach we regularly see in high school.
Don't disagree with the other points about technology advances, but these guys have also put in the work and we're all witnesses to the outcome.
In my personal experience at the local HS level in northwest PA, its kids having access to more resources / better training and opprotunities. Shoes probably help a little but I think its just more kids realizing what you need to do to be better at running.
I think it was 1999 or 2000 when you had an explosion of data and information become available. Due to Letsrun, Daniel's Running Formula, and the internet, kids and coaches finally learned how to train properly and the depth of fast times continued to improve as a result.
Now there's been over 2 decades to refine and improve things. And the youngsters today have had an abundance of training knowledge and wisdom just a few keystrokes away before they were even born. Add better shoe technology into the mix, and its no wonder they're running so fast right now.
I think the question then, is whether this is as good as it gets, or will the kids keep getting better and better? Only time will tell.
In the nineties there were so many coaches who seemed to be afraid of “burning kids out” and would nod their heads about how they believed in quality not quantity . There were so many runners who would then go to college and be unprepared for the work it takes to go from a lightly trained hs 4:15 miler to get to the low fours. I was lucky, I had teams with little talent compete well because we ran a lot, and my kids did fine in college, at whatever level they were capable.
Legitimate question: what are people on this thread defining as “proper training?” I keep seeing that term used throughout this thread but I am unfamiliar with how high school kids are training now than they were ten or twenty or fifty years ago.
I could get into specifics, but the basic explanation is that these kids that are running sub-4 have been training to break 4:00, even when they were 4:30 guys.
in the decades before, most HS coaches would see a 4:30 guy and give him training to run 4:26. Then once that was achieved they would give them training to run 4:20. Now they are training athletes to go 3:55-4:05.
Goal Pace training > Date pace training.
also
Set your goal pace for something truly great, not just a 5-10 second PR.
Evebhdeidn
I don’t think this is quite correct. There are plenty of people that set their goal pace for “something truly great” and don’t end-up running those times. I don’t think all of these high schoolers are suddenly training for faster paces that kids have in the past several decades.
I am interested in the specifics. I haven’t seen anybody post yet what these kids are doing differently in training. It’s definitely not the mileage.
I don’t think this is quite correct. There are plenty of people that set their goal pace for “something truly great” and don’t end-up running those times. I don’t think all of these high schoolers are suddenly training for faster paces that kids have in the past several decades.
I am interested in the specifics. I haven’t seen anybody post yet what these kids are doing differently in training. It’s definitely not the mileage.
Well I wouldn’t think it’s a specific workout per se, but I do think kids are training at faster paces. I remember in HS and college many athletes bragging about how they have “no speed” and get to fast times through “hard work.” They would wear their 57-second 400m PRs like a medal of honor.
This current crop of kids seem to say: “I like working hard, so I am going to work just as hard on my speed as my endurance.” They know that they need to be 49/1:48 guys to be competitive, so they include that as part of their training.
Naysayers will say that is just “talent,” but it’s not. It is a conscious decision by coach and athlete to develop the whole runner.
I don’t think this is quite correct. There are plenty of people that set their goal pace for “something truly great” and don’t end-up running those times. I don’t think all of these high schoolers are suddenly training for faster paces that kids have in the past several decades.
I am interested in the specifics. I haven’t seen anybody post yet what these kids are doing differently in training. It’s definitely not the mileage.
Well I wouldn’t think it’s a specific workout per se, but I do think kids are training at faster paces. I remember in HS and college many athletes bragging about how they have “no speed” and get to fast times through “hard work.” They would wear their 57-second 400m PRs like a medal of honor.
This current crop of kids seem to say: “I like working hard, so I am going to work just as hard on my speed as my endurance.” They know that they need to be 49/1:48 guys to be competitive, so they include that as part of their training.
Naysayers will say that is just “talent,” but it’s not. It is a conscious decision by coach and athlete to develop the whole runner.
So speed development has become a bigger part of high school training? That makes sense. It’s definitely been in vogue the last few years.
What does “proper training” mean? As another poster mentioned, volume of these kids is usually pretty low and kids in the 70s and 80s were running way more. Even in college, not many kids are running more than 80-90 miles per week these days.
Not a question that can be answered well in a message board post, but if I had to summarize the most critical pieces as a coach:
1. Running SUFFICIENT mileage is still surprisingly rare, but used to be much less common. There's no magic number, but 40 mpw is on the low side.
2. Good training includes lots of threshold work. Very few coaches, and almost no runners, knew to calculate and customize specific paces for specific purposes at specific times. Those who did often didn't explain the rationale to their teams, so it was easy for kids to implement poorly, even when coaches had good plans. Now kids have better information easily available.
3. I would add the importance of lots of very controlled easy running. Most people still don't understand that well. But the top tier does.
That's the thing about tying college entrance/scholarships to athletic ability is you provide a pretty large incentive for doping.
What level of HS distance runner do you believe are cheating? The NP kids don’t need to dope to receive scholarships and neither do all of the others that are running near 4:00 or 8:40.
There’s nothing in it for the coach and he would be risking losing his career, so it would have to be a parent obtaining them for their son. HS runners are generally going to have college educated parents that can afford tuition for at least a decent college. Would they not understand the ramifications of getting caught? Not only would their son not receive a scholarship, most college coaches wouldn’t even allow them to walk-on. They and their son will permanently damage their reputations.
If you were the parent, would you provide PEDs for your talented distance running son? Why do you think others would?
There were plenty of smart coaches "back in the day". What you are failing to grasp is how many ignorant coaches there were. They might have been very capable coaches, but the quality and quantity of information they had available to them was limited. Even just 15 years ago getting a monthly issue Running Times was legitimately top tier educational material.
Today, there is no excuse to be a ignorant coach. There are clinics, videos, podcasts, books, forum discussions--much of it free or low cost. There are more educated coaches in the high school ranks than ever before. It's making kids faster.
I agree with this. Back when I was in high school, we had a couch for two years who was a moron. "Go run" was basically all that was involved in practice. For the last two years, we got a new coach who really knew his stuff. Everyone on the team made crazy improvements.
There are a lot of dumb coaches out there who do nothing other than hold a stop watch. I think they are dwindling, which is good. I hate to think of all the potential that is ruined by clueless coaches.
Did anyone know about tempo runs, threshold, and other concepts that many coaches know today?
Yes. Just becuase it was pre-internet doesn't mean people were stupid bro. My coach knew how to read, and he listened to Arthur Lydiard talks on cassette. Crazy eh?
But your coach was the 1%.
now everyone has access to that info with a few clicks.
I don’t think this is quite correct. There are plenty of people that set their goal pace for “something truly great” and don’t end-up running those times. I don’t think all of these high schoolers are suddenly training for faster paces that kids have in the past several decades.
I am interested in the specifics. I haven’t seen anybody post yet what these kids are doing differently in training. It’s definitely not the mileage.
Well I wouldn’t think it’s a specific workout per se, but I do think kids are training at faster paces. I remember in HS and college many athletes bragging about how they have “no speed” and get to fast times through “hard work.” They would wear their 57-second 400m PRs like a medal of honor.
This current crop of kids seem to say: “I like working hard, so I am going to work just as hard on my speed as my endurance.” They know that they need to be 49/1:48 guys to be competitive, so they include that as part of their training.
Naysayers will say that is just “talent,” but it’s not. It is a conscious decision by coach and athlete to develop the whole runner.
Right. Interval training has been around for a long time and absolutely no distance runner would be happy with 57 400 speed. It would be what prevents them from receiving a distance running scholarship. There have always been HS runners that ran less mpw but with more intensity.
What does “proper training” mean? As another poster mentioned, volume of these kids is usually pretty low and kids in the 70s and 80s were running way more. Even in college, not many kids are running more than 80-90 miles per week these days.
Not a question that can be answered well in a message board post, but if I had to summarize the most critical pieces as a coach:
1. Running SUFFICIENT mileage is still surprisingly rare, but used to be much less common. There's no magic number, but 40 mpw is on the low side.
2. Good training includes lots of threshold work. Very few coaches, and almost no runners, knew to calculate and customize specific paces for specific purposes at specific times. Those who did often didn't explain the rationale to their teams, so it was easy for kids to implement poorly, even when coaches had good plans. Now kids have better information easily available.
3. I would add the importance of lots of very controlled easy running. Most people still don't understand that well. But the top tier does.
What do you mean by controlled easy running? That they are running their easy runs at a faster clip or running them at a slower pace compared to what high schoolers have done in the past?
Yes. Just becuase it was pre-internet doesn't mean people were stupid bro. My coach knew how to read, and he listened to Arthur Lydiard talks on cassette. Crazy eh?
But your coach was the 1%.
now everyone has access to that info with a few clicks.
The 1% estimate make sense if coaches were illiterate, couldn’t comprehend spoken English and were morons. It’s miraculous that all of the good to great runners from the past, were blessed with having the good luck of having one of your “1%” coaches.
It is across the board, not just HS. College times are significantly faster and so are pros. This has happened in the span of just over a year. What happened just over a year ago. The shoes became widely available.
Cheptegei - 2 WRs in the shoes.
Fisher, Ahmed, Raynor, Butchart set NRs in the shoes on a HS track in the shoes.
NCAA times to qualify jumped be nearly 5s/mi when shoes became widely available.
HS has how many sub 4 milers this year?
The improvement is a small increment across the board, but significant enough for records to fall in droves (WRs,NRs, meet, etc.). Coaching didnt change across all levels. Tracks didnt change, weather didnt get more conducive to distance running. Shoes are the change.
In my state for example, only 2 athletes were allowed per event in the varsity races/jumps/throws. One of these kids at my school was really good, ran about 4:06 mile. So now there's only one spot left if you want to run varsity. That raises the bar of competition for the whole team. We knew we would never beat the guy running 4:06, but we stood a better chance beating the other guy on our team running 4:30.
So now you have 2-3 guys all trying to beat each other all getting better and it creates a culture and environment for success and friendly competition within the team that furthers the same kind of competition.
This is happening around the country. You get one kid who really elevates a program, and then the next years after that program does really well, and if they have a good coach, the program will continue to do well.
In my state for example, only 2 athletes were allowed per event in the varsity races/jumps/throws. One of these kids at my school was really good, ran about 4:06 mile. So now there's only one spot left if you want to run varsity. That raises the bar of competition for the whole team. We knew we would never beat the guy running 4:06, but we stood a better chance beating the other guy on our team running 4:30.
So now you have 2-3 guys all trying to beat each other all getting better and it creates a culture and environment for success and friendly competition within the team that furthers the same kind of competition.
This is happening around the country. You get one kid who really elevates a program, and then the next years after that program does really well, and if they have a good coach, the program will continue to do well.
What state do you live in? This year, here in the Sacramento area, Jesuit and Davis had 7 and 9 runners in the varsity 3200m at their league meet. What’s the logic behind limiting schools to only 2 runners and since parents are likely to want to see their child compete in meets, wouldn’t they complain to whatever entity made the policy? It wouldn’t make sense for more than 3-4 runners to go out for the team if only 2 get to compete in meets. Having one spot available results in friendly competition?