Young Phenom Runners Explained

Listen TGMCP and CoachB, its obvious you have each other e-mail address so why not carry on your conversation via e-mail rather than hyjack this thread to talk about a couple of specific kids, that is not what this thread was about.

I mean really you 2 have posted at least 40 of the last 50 entries in this thread. Get a life.

Soem guy calling it like it is wrote:

Listen TGMCP and CoachB, its obvious you have each other e-mail address so why not carry on your conversation via e-mail rather than hyjack this thread to talk about a couple of specific kids, that is not what this thread was about.

I mean really you 2 have posted at least 40 of the last 50 entries in this thread. Get a life.

True, we have mostly been discussing a few specific kids, but the development of specific kids can be used as a check on how "theory" is actually put into practice. As far as the "get a life" comment, I post on this thread on average once or twice a day. I have a life, thank you.

I have been thinking a lot about the fact that many (not just the kids that have been referred to) young runners have a very hard time holding pace or kicking at the end. I believe that the reason for this relates to the type of training that many of them do.

As MPR put it "90% of young phenoms fall into the VO2 max development category". I don't fully agree with this statement, but I would agree that many young runners are pushing their intervals way too hard. Here is the problem with pushing the intervals too hard.

1. Running at I pace (which is a good approximation of VO2 max pace) requires a significant contribution of energy from anaerobic sources. An athlete might be trained to run 5 x 1k @ 3:30 pace, for example, but never be able to come close to 17:30 in a race. Why is this? because during the rest interval of the workout, the lactic acid that was built up has a chance to be metabolized. This is not the case in a race. As athletes train to utilize their anaerobic sources of energy more efficiently, it gives them a false sense of what kind of pace is realistic.

2. Once a given workout at I pace becomes easy, athletes and coaches will generally try to run the workout faster. All this does is require a greater input of anaerobic sources and does nothing more to address the aerobic requirements of racing faster. This will further distort an athletes sense of pace. You will end up with an athlete that runs great workouts, but is not developing the aerobic qualities that will allow him or her to race fast (especially once the distance gets above 1500-1600m)

3. I believe that this phenomenon is why we see athletes develop more quickly in the short events and why, if you look at the pace tables, you will see young athletes "scoring" higher in events such as the 800 and 1500. If you look at the High School Record for 800m, you are looking at a time that is only 4% slower than the world record. The high school record for the mile is similarly only about 5% slower than the world record. If we move the distance out to 2 miles, the high school record drops to about 8% slower than the world record.

4. Kids are generally more ready to run fast than they are ready to run far or steady. If you look at most kids games, they involve intense bursts of sprinting interspersed with rest. An active kid, who plays tag with his friends or soccer on a youth team, will be far ahead anaerobically. This pre-disposition, I believe, directly feeds into the fact that young athletes tend to run their R and I pace workouts faster than race times would dictate.

CoachB

An enlightening post, its simplicity belying a lot of thought and experienced insight. Thanks.

1. The rest between intervals also permits runners to get more time at VO2 max (or thereabouts) than they'd get running continuously (Daniels). I agree that unrealistic expectations can pressurise kids to achieve faster times than they are capable of, e.g., barely trained coaches in the UK having no understanding of these fundamentals. Properly instructed though, should they be doing intervals BEFORE, say, spending years EXCLUSIVELY on aerobics. Aerobics take longer to develop, but that, per se, does not resolve the issue of "proportionate development"--accomodating all the systems NOW.

2. Daniels suggests not moving up the VDOT scales more than every 3 - 4 weeks. I agree with you, however, that longer should be spent at each level. (E.g., despite achieving intervals paces on a 4 x 1000 I pace, I'd keep the I training the same for 8 - 12 weeks, letting them feel comfortable at that level, and use the DECREASING intensity of the I component of a training cycle to increase the emphasis on aerobics (and steady state and technical points).

3. Your conclusions seem totally sound, kids are generally not trained for longer term goals, everyone wants it all now.

4. Point taken. My 3, for example, have hill-walked and cycled since 4 yrs old, swam, tennis, etc. They have developed aerobic systems. #3 more, #2 ok, #1 less. I feel, as you pointed out, that all kids have to be viewed as individuals and their training tailored to suit. The proportionality issue for me is crucial: I'm wary of overemphasisng aerobics to the expense of speed and power (e.g., failing to develop fast twitch, transform slow into fast, etc.).

Thanks for again kindling my thirst to learn and passing on your knowledge.

Just read this article. Excellent, IMHO. Corroborates CoachB's cautions about too much intensity for 10 - 17 year olds (although the article discusses 17+, the principles apply). Aerobic conditioning and LT explored thoroughly.

http://www.counterpartcoaching.com/hadd.pdf

UPDATE: daughter won the Welsh 1500 championships (age 13)

PS: U15 girls championships (daughter was 13)