100mpw in high school

I disagree, Adrian, I ran a lot in high school, yet my speed improved dramatically after I got to college.

If one trains slow expect to run slow. If one trains fast expect to run fast.

What idiot would make a HS athlete run 100 miles in a week. With young developing bodies, still growing, such an over-training effect would screw the nervous system, immune ssytem, hormone balance and produce huge irrepairable muscle cell breakdown. One has to build up to this type of work through increments over a number of years and even then 100 miles would not be attmpted until you were well and truly a senior athlete-not as a HS kid. And it depends what distance you're training for. Certainly never need 100 mile a week training for a mile. Good quality is the key for that distance.

If this is the case no wonder, with this mentality, the US can't produce great distance athletes despite having more distance runners than anywhere else in the world due to participation in HS and college. For that reason alone they should be right up the with the worlds best-seeing they're not you have to ask questions.

To any high school kid out there that is a normal kid, and is for the frist time really starting to train hard and take up running. Run as much as you CAN, not as much as you WANT. This is a world apart. When I was in high school I wanted to run about 60 miles a week, but being that I was young and not all that strong. I could only run 35-50 miles a week. That was top, more and my legs would get very sore. Now off of not running very much I only ended up run 9:55 and 4:97. But I am now 25 and am just starting to hit my stride. I run 20-25 miles a day. And much of it at a much grater pace then I had ever dreamed. Now I could have pushed things along. But in the end, I can see that takeing a long term picture. Was much better, then what would have happed if I had cranked up my milage, when my body was still forming.

Rember most of Americas greatest runners, have had there best years AFTER they graduated from COLLEGE!

Jim L wrote:

What idiot would make a HS athlete run 100 miles in a week. With young developing bodies, still growing, such an over-training effect would screw the nervous system, immune ssytem, hormone balance and produce huge irrepairable muscle cell breakdown. One has to build up to this type of work through increments over a number of years and even then 100 miles would not be attmpted until you were well and truly a senior athlete-not as a HS kid.

?!?!?! How can people make such blanket statements when they can be so easily disproved? I can give you a few examples of HS males who didn't experience anything like that: Chris Fox 100mpw, malmo 60-130, Brad Hudson, Don Sage, Ritzenhein (80-90-100 over soph-jun-sen years). I could go on and on, but what is the point.

And your assertion that you should be a "senior athlete"? No way. It is well-established that college males can easily tolerate 80-90 in their first years and 100-130 by the fourth and fifth years.

If you aren't trying to run 100 at some point in college, you aren't trying. High school? I don't necessarily think that all runners NEED to do it in HS. I myself ran about 20 a week before frosh XC, then 50 a week before frosh track, and took off from there. 60 a week before soph XC and 80 a week before junior XC. If you want to run beyond HS and you plan on running the Steeple, 5k, 10k or XC in college, then I just don't see how you could get away with less than building up to 80-100 as a senior. To think that this is harmful or "too much" is asinine.

Your fair dinkum kidding aern't you-100 MILES-NOT AT HS-NOT AT COLLEGE! It is a blanket statement and will aways remain a blanket statement for HS athletes of any age- NO IFS OR BUTS!! THE DAMAGE IS HUGE!!! I have never ever seen anyone who has gone on to be anything by doing anywhere near that mileage at HS age, their bodies can't cope. You name a few from thousands-how many have been stuffed up-and how many of those guys you name have gone on to be anything,or at least could've been much better, don't see them on the international scene-probably broken down and burned out. And what career did you have? I'm not only a coach of high national standing (not from the US) but also an Exercise Physiologist. Mate, the damage is immense doing that type of work when either (1) you're not ready; (2)you're too young. And you wonder why the yanks are useless at endurance events!!! DAH!!!!! With thinking like yours!! Don't worry about trying to be the superstar at college. College has destroyed that many athletes. College is burnout material!! You want to run well after college, that's where the real stuff is-prepare properly-the right quality is the key-structure comes before volume (volume is VERY important but not as much as structure). DON'T GET CAUGHT WITH THE MIEAGE BUG-IT'S NOT ALWWAYS NECESSARY. Alot of runners over the years have also done "stuff all" running as juniors (or have never even been runners) and been very good runners as seniors.

>"If you aren't trying to run 100 at some point in college, you aren't trying. High school?"

If you are trying to run 100 miles then you're an idiot!! As I said, your nervous sytem , immune system, hormone balance are all damaged not to mention the huge muscle damage!!!It's because you're body is still developing at HS. DON'T DO 100 MILES A WEEK UNTIL YOUR REALLY READY AND SPENT A NUMBER OF YEARS BUILDING UP TO IT AT THE RIGHT TIME OF LIFE.

>?!?!?! How can people make such blanket statements when they can be so easily disproved?

The yanks have nothing as far as top-line international distance runners-nothing-despite having a huge population of both people and runners. KEEP TRYING TO PROVE ME WRONG!!!! You'll run alot faster if you get the structure right. Meanwhile, on this issue, I'll continue to make blanket statements.

The Sunday long run (if you do it on Sunday)is the most important session you do all year round, no getting away from that-the distance obviously being appropriate to the event you're training for. But the fast twitch muscles have to be specifically trained as well- trained to run hard for sustained period or otherwise when they are recruited they'll fatigue very quickly. That way you are recruiting the muscles you are going to use in any given event, as well as others you'll use during a race when you fatigue. You need to develop the respiratory of these muscle so you can sustain your performance. You need to learn how to neuro-muscularly co-ordinate these muscles for efficiency as well. That way you increase your specific speed-endurance. Lots of long slow running will have you run strongly but will develop the aerobic capacity of only some fast twitch muscles but you'll struggle to accelerate off a pace when you need it as you haven't developed their contractual speed and speed-endurance of the other needed fast-twitch muscles. The Lydiard method is the basics for alot of our training today (as it should be) but like every else over time it gets modified. Hence our training is specific to the distance we train for, not "one size fits all".

There is-"in the Journal of Applied Physiology"-Ivy et al(I think it's that journal-I have the papers somewhere) in the early 1980's, may even be 1980. Try "pubmed.org" and type in "Ivy". You'll find the scientific theory correct.

At last a voice of reason... good on yer, mate!

>>Chris Fox = 13:21/27:56 from the '80'smalmo = 8:22 steeple AR, 1:01 half-mar AR, 2:11-2:12-2:13 marathons, 15k of ~43:45, from the 80'sRitzenhein? = you ought to be aware of himBrad Hudson = look him upSolinsky = 100 mpw in HSMcDougal = current HS star who does 100 mpwIf kids and college men can't tolerate something close to 100mpw, then what mileage do you espouse? 50 mpw?

quote]sjm1368 wrote:

Go for it man! I'm a High Mileage guy and a senior in HS, and it's helped tremendously. I say if you can handle it, go for it. I've gone from 1:55.85, 4:15.96, 9:28 to 1:52.70, 4:01.58, 9:06.76 so far this year with one year of consistantly high mileage training. It helps a ton. You'd be surprised how much stronger, better recovery, etc. you have.[/quote]

Who are you? Running those times would put you at the top of the nation.[

Magness.

,,

Gee, you've mentioned about 6 or 7 over 20 years, most I haven't heard of anyway. Who's to say they could not have been so much faster anyway. And how many millions of athletes have fallen by the wayside in the process because of it-wake up and smell the roses!!!! Kids-100 miles (160km)a week- look at it-see if you're smart enough to see something wrong with it. How many champions have the US produced in distance athletics?!!! Must be the wonderful high school and college system. Fair dinkum mate, you're got no idea. No idea of the damage. Where in the world do we get them from.

> If kids and college men can't tolerate something close to 100mpw, then what mileage do you espouse? 50 mpw?

Yep good quality 40-50 miles MAXIMUM at 18 if that. Alot less less for younger ones. You'd still get a couple of really good long runs in in a week and some decent quality without having to over do it. It's all about getting the right structure-more important than volume. You get the structure right (speciicity-something they know nothing about in the US) and you'd be surprised how fast you run. And you'll probably run faster and have a longer career.Thats what it's all about. The world's full of kiddie champions that never make it. Work out why?!!!! Must be dumb HS coaches that make athletes go 100 miles per week (hopefully not too many).

You sound like an insane maniac with all the caps and exclamation points. If you were trying to sound credible, wouldn't it make more sense not to sound like a moron? Just my 2 cents though, what do I know.

JimL:

I'm with you all the way on this. However, you seem to be putting a lot of effort into making your point, and I'll go ahead and tell you, you're wasting your time. Nobody on this board will change their minds. This board is dominated by a "mileage is King" mindset. Anytime anybody tries to argue this point in any way, they get beaten down with examples of so and so ran a lot and did well, so everybody should try it right away--they'll either succeed or burn out trying, but at least they gave it their all. The favorite example is Gerry Lindgren who (so it is claimed) ran 200-350 miles weekly starting in high school, including an 88-mile long run weekly. No, I'm not kidding. And if you bring up the fact that he flamed out spectacularly, the point that is always brought up is, "at least he ran a few good races and still holds the high school 5k record". And if you bring up the long history of child phenom runners who trained hard and burned out, somebody will always pipe in with the claim that at least they made their mark unlike most everyone else, and just because so and so ran a world record for 13 year-old girls in the marathon but couldn't break 18 for 5k as an adult runner doesn't mean her career was a disappointment.

I don't agree with that philosophy, and I also have the opinion that kids shouldn't devote that much time and energy to any one activity (another opinion that gets supported by only a small percentage). Anyway, all I'm trying to tell you is, you can argue until your fingers fall off, but you can't change people's mindset, no matter how much evidence you have in your support. Massive mileage will always have the appeal that it gives the runner the feeling that no matter what happens, they are a crazy hard worker, and if they don't go on to become the world's greatest, it's only because of inferior genetics

Having said that, I think it's a great idea for any moderately talented runner to give high mileage a try if they really desire to reach a higher level--but not when they're still in high school.

Thank you-exactly!

Thanks for the advice. No-not from my education and a coaching background-my crediblity holds up well over here, but when you're talking to insane maniacs with stupid ideas, you may as well fit in and sound like one too!!!!! lol! It also gets the point across hopefully a little better. Have a good day

40-50 MAX?

I won't get started arguing over that, as that is asinine. However, I will tell you something you may not have thought of. The U.S. and Australia both produce outstanding swimmers, in all events. So they both must know what they are doing (according to the logic you used with distance running). Most people know that it is much harder to swim a mile than to run one. High school swimmers swim much more than the running mileage you propose is ideal, the elite ones are doing that much yardage by early teens.

Wouldn't this give them the same neurological problems, immune system problems, and growth-stunting, etc.?

To cover a mile in swimming takes at least 20 minutes since it is so much slower, there are breaks, etc. So to do just 10,000 yds a day takes at least 2 hours and more like three.

My biggest problem with what you propose is that all it takes to show yourself you are wrong is to try it yourself. 40 miles a week by 18? No decent runner (4:30-1600, 9:45-3200) is going to be pushed at this level, they won't even feel strain. I agree that only those sho can tolerate it should PUSH THEMSELVES to run 80-100 mpw. Most US coaches only ask kids to run 35 miles during the week and don't even have AM runs.

But seriously, 40-50 a week by age 18? It looks like this:

M: 5 easy, 10x100m

T: 1 WU, 1600 race, 800 race, 1 WD

W: 6 easy

T: 1 WU, 6 x 800, 1 WD

F: 5 easy

S: 1 WU, 1600 race, 800 race, 1 WD

Su: 7 easy

This is 40 per week, which would be fine for a freshman, or a 9-10th grade female, but a senior is very close to as mature as he is going to get. A schedule like this is cheating the runner out of reaching for his potential. And where are the two long runs you speak of? The longest continuous run would be 45 minutes?

I think you are interpreting what I wrote as "every HS kid should run 100mpw year-round"... that isn't it. Very few should do it and it should be confined to about 30-40 weeks of the year, but certainly some should try it.

You keep saying that the US has never produced a "distance champion", but how many Australian champions have been produced from waiting until 23 to run a little bit?