Sara Hall advocates high mileage and intensity in HS- holds up Big 3 as examples

Not East Africans wrote:

Webb’s flame burned out quick

Webb did not really run high mileage in HS.

I agree with the old school people. 80-100 is fine. I also agree intensity is important. People like Verzbicas showed how much you can gain from high volume without intensity. I think he ran no more than 60 with lots of cycling and swimming.

Can't compare kids today to kids back in the day like Jeff Nelson, Rudy Chapa etc..

Kids these days are much softer, they are driven everywhere, rarely walk or ride bikes, don't cut lawns, shovel snow, climb trees, rarely play outside. They don't have the capacity for work that kids had years ago.

"Kids these days"

*breaks all the old records*

the guys back then weren’t scared to put the work in. considering that Jeff Nelson ran in the 8:3Xs in the 70s on a track that is probably a lot slower than they are today, with old gear is impressive. but yeah, it wasn’t the work he put in right, because that makes no difference?

Alana Hadley ran huge mileage in high school.

How'd that work out for her?

There’s a difference between putting in peak, base mileage, and racing marathons at 16.

I seriously doubt Rudy, or Nelson we’re running 60 mile weeks when they were twelve, but I could be wrong.

You’re much more developed at age 17/18 then 12.

Given, she’s also a female too. I was speaking on the male side of thing not Sara Hall.

But, if you prefer hammering out intervals and races on 25 MPW, all the power to you bro!

To add :

Is it not a common theme to see women get slower as they age?

coleiolio wrote:

the guys back then weren’t scared to put the work in. considering that Jeff Nelson ran in the 8:3Xs in the 70s on a track that is probably a lot slower than they are today, with old gear is impressive. but yeah, it wasn’t the work he put in right, because that makes no difference?

To reiterate- I wasn't saying that the old runners didn't work hard, I was pointing out that you don't break records without hard work, and the 2020 class looked like it was posed to break all sorts of records- maybe not outright speed records, but it might've been the deepest class in decades.

Ahh okay. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I agree.

So sick of this dated we used to be so much better in my day attitude. There were some day days for American distance running in the 90s and early 2000's. But at every distance except the marathon Americans in the past decade have smashed performances of every other era. That includes high school through pro's. Even at the marathon we are pretty much caught up and the depth is around where it was in the running boom.

In the 70 and 80's the east Africans were only beginning to enter the scene. That is a group of highly talented runners that did not exist at the same level on the world stage. Soccer has also risen in America and now pulls away a number of talented runners.

Could some people train better, yes. Are there some flaws in the college system sure. But there is no need for high schoolers to be running 90+ mile weeks or move to the marathon in their late teens.

I generally believe a coach shouldn’t prescribe more than 60 MPW for high schoolers. That’s a fine volume for them and the goal beyond that should be to increase intensity. That being said, if a kid is motivated to run more and says they want to do a longer cool down after practice, or run longer on weekends, run in the morning etc. I think the coach shouldn’t stop them. The coach should advise them and guide them and make sure they’re doing it responsibly and staying healthy. The problem might not just be that kids burn out young or over train, but that the kids that did so lacked the proper supervision, guidance, and injury prevention.

I like bacon A LOT but that doesn’t mean it’s good for me. Non lactate events you can do all do day. But for distance runners constantly racing is a huge detriment to development. If dual meets were cut entirely the long term development would be greatly enhanced. 80 mpw is doable with one tempo and one race or hard workout per week. But 2-3 either races or hard workouts combined with 80 mpw is a recipe for burn out.

coleiolio wrote:

There’s a difference between putting in peak, base mileage, and racing marathons at 16.

I seriously doubt Rudy, or Nelson we’re running 60 mile weeks when they were twelve, but I could be wrong.

You’re much more developed at age 17/18 then 12.

Given, she’s also a female too. I was speaking on the male side of thing not Sara Hall.

But, if you prefer hammering out intervals and races on 25 MPW, all the power to you bro!

...Like Donovan Brazier??

Anecdotally, most of the kids in my area who were hammering 70-80 (boys) and 50-60 (girls) were studs in HS but were injured more often than not in college.

HS coaches should let some kids do higher mileage but it's not going to work for everyone, even kids who appear to have comparable levels of talent. Especially have to be careful of girls doing too much too soon.

The obvious conflict is between training runners to be there absolute best and having a healthy team that can show up to multiple races and score well. The E. Africans throw all their runners to the fire when they are HS age. That isn't a problem because their goal is to find one world class runner out of every 10,000. The rest will go back to farming. In the US, a HS coach would get canned if three kids got Div 1 scholarships but half the team was injured and they did not make states.

He never said OR claimed to have believed what you're accusing him of. One, a future lying in the 10K or up presumably means that the individual themselves is relatively better at those longer distances than he would be at shorter ones. That doesn't mean they must be competitive at those longer distances on a global or national stage. He also NEVER claimed that doing a couple of hard, anaerobic efforts would ruin a young runner, only that young runners tend to be excessive and brash with these things.

I think part of the reason they enjoy it is that they are not as deep into the sport as serious competitors. And that's fine. If they just want to have fun, by all means. When you are serious, though, about winning or running good times, the nerves will play a big part. When having fun, there is likely no pressure to perform well. That's why most truly competitive runners can't race too often, or else they risk blowing their nerves and mentally caving in. They can definitely still enjoy the process.

You are also right. Training really cannot be forced and is up to the individual to carry out. But I'm pretty sure he's not referring to DEPTH of talent, but the BREADTH of talent. Meaning there are less good runners overall, though the good ones are still very good. As a nation, the U.S is no longer a distance running powerhouse. If you look at the all-time record list of any less competitive NCAA school, you'll notice a pronounced trend--that virtually none of them are from recently but were, one, either set 13 years ago in the early and mid 2000's, or two, set in the 70's.

1. The Big 3 were generational talents that were probably going to be awesome regardless of whether they ran huge mileage. Their outlier experiences do not translate well for every runner.

2. Peoples' opinions and individual experiences mean nothing in the face of overwhelming evidence. But that's a harder habit to crack, especially with how Ryan Hall decided to conduct his training towards the tail end of his career.