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

I don't think her HS mileage has any effect on her current success. Sara Hall did not have a normal successful pro career. Either she chose the wrong event early in her career or she changed something drastically in the last few years that allowed her to run amazing times in the longer distances.

ShilohDoesntCare wrote:

Now why would they follow this obviously correct information when you can just have every kid start as a HS freshman and train as a miler running no more than 30-50 miles per week at the most and doing tons of goal paced work? This way you can complain about how Western nations are garbage at distance running. Meanwhile Jakob is puzzling everyone training like a pro at age 12 and the east africans are running 100 miles a week before they are 18. Has anyone ever asked an elite east african athlete what they think of this western idea that running a lot of miles young will ruin an athletes development? I doubt they'd even get the rationale.

I'm honestly not making an argument on this either way, but....I have found it interesting over the years how we typically only compare early workloads/results to ourselves (US) - current and past. And keeping it just within the US, it's an interesting discussion - What is the best formula for running the fastest PRs, at whatever age? Are kids doing too much, or too little? And how does it compare to the past in the US?

But at the same time, the people thinking about those things and having those discussions (including myself) seem semi-oblivious to the fact that HS and early-college age East Africans are constantly on the hard-to-get-on starting lines of Golden League track races and top road races, including (most notably) the freakin' marathon.

Now, obviously this far from "proof" that going hard and long early is the best thing. But.....it is, arguably, a little intellectually jarring to emerge from a conversation about how gradual some US HS phenom's training should ramp up in the 6 or 8+ years through later HS, college, and early pros, and THEN turn on the TV and see multiple East African 18-22 year olds on the starting lines of races that will go sub-13, sub-27, sub-60, way-sub-10, etc.

Are western phenoms THAT much different than East African phenoms? I guess that the Ingo's are testing that......

Watching Americans hold up a "big 3" who won nothing, as a model back to dominance is hilarious.

"Guys if you want to be better, copy what these three guys who have zero world* or Olympic medals between them"

*Ritz did come 3rd at the world half marathon champs but that's not an event at World's or Olympics.

Meanwhile there are other Americans out there with world and olympic medals in their closets at home or still running today. Why you all so obsessed with high school success??

I am a college coach. The problem is that the kids in high school are running high mileage WHILE they can't sprint to save their lives. It's all long runs and tempo runs in training in high school.

I've seen sub 9:10 kids that can barely break 60 in the 400. Any fast twitch muscle fibers they once had are DEAD and there's no bringing them back. That 100% sets them up for failure in college.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

I am a college coach. The problem is that the kids in high school are running high mileage WHILE they can't sprint to save their lives. It's all long runs and tempo runs in training in high school.

I've seen sub 9:10 kids that can barely break 60 in the 400. Any fast twitch muscle fibers they once had are DEAD and there's no bringing them back. That 100% sets them up for failure in college.

Do fast twitch muscles really die? I would think they might atrophy, in which case, couldn't they be reactivated?

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

I am a college coach. The problem is that the kids in high school are running high mileage WHILE they can't sprint to save their lives. It's all long runs and tempo runs in training in high school.

I've seen sub 9:10 kids that can barely break 60 in the 400. Any fast twitch muscle fibers they once had are DEAD and there's no bringing them back. That 100% sets them up for failure in college.

Or they’re distance runners whom never had much going in terms of fast twitch fibers in the first place. This why they gravitate towards distance races.

I think that some sprint training can help but it shouldn’t be done in place of mileage and tempos. For example Rupp and the Ingebrigstens have incorporated sprinting into their training. But it’s more like the icing on top and not the cake itself.

Unstable Moran wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

I am a college coach. The problem is that the kids in high school are running high mileage WHILE they can't sprint to save their lives. It's all long runs and tempo runs in training in high school.

I've seen sub 9:10 kids that can barely break 60 in the 400. Any fast twitch muscle fibers they once had are DEAD and there's no bringing them back. That 100% sets them up for failure in college.

Do fast twitch muscles really die? I would think they might atrophy, in which case, couldn't they be reactivated?

They get converted to slow twitch and it's impossible to turn them back.

Sorry, but I don't consider them the "Big Three."

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

Unstable Moran wrote:

Do fast twitch muscles really die? I would think they might atrophy, in which case, couldn't they be reactivated?

They get converted to slow twitch and it's impossible to turn them back.

That doesn't sound true

Actually, Americans WERE better at longer events during 'the Boom'. You suggest that today's runners have smashed old records at every level from high school on. True, in a sense. The 5000 records have come down. Your statement is NOT true at all distances. Admittedly, you do write 'except the marathon'. Popular high school and college training is great for the 5000. Nate Jenkins wrote regularly about this. He suggests that the training commonly done in the US is perhaps the best in the world for distances around there, perhaps even 800 - 10k. He goes on to point out that this is not true at the marathon.

I'm not sure we disagree at all points here. You seem to acknowledge that at the longest commonly contested international events, something is wrong. The high school and college systems are. Of course, and a couple other posters confirmed my claims that kids used to run road races, these are optional. My training group didn't join the track team. I never met the track coach. Apparently a lot others did the same as we did since 10ks and marathons both were loaded in the 17-and-under division. I remember one time going under 34 minutes and not getting top-3. Again, didn't have to even wait around for the awards!

So, and let me reiterate that other posters (likely of my generation) have agreed, you don't HAVE to 'run track.' However, peer and parental pressure make it essentially mandatory now. Add heavy-handed recruiting by coaches and it would just be socially unacceptable for the best distance runner in the school district NOT to run for the glory of the school. Imagine me at Loudon Valley. Coaches who actually have the nerve to contact parents would have ruined my teenage running 'career'.

I walk in after school. My dad says "That track coach called again! She says you haven't shown up for a practice yet!! Why can't you just get with the program!!!" The result would have been me quitting the sport if I wasn't really allowed to do it on my own. No tragedy for the record books, but I'm at it 40 years later, so for me personally, it would have been a bummer to feel I was shut out by societal pressures.

So, what's wrong here? US distance times have been great up to about 10k. But not longer than that. Rupp hasn't been able to get past Hall's half time, and has beaten his record-eligible full by 10 seconds. If his shoes actually ARE worth a minute at the half half and 2 at the full (I'm not convinced of his, but Rupp's fans seem to believe this)then he is quite a bit slower at both if both guys were in similar footwear. And Rupp is arguably at the top of the heap right now. I mean, he's good but why aren't a bunch of guys close to 1:00 and 2:07, which would be consistent with where regularly occurring US 5k times are? Ritz and Hall both were, and they're in the 'heavy training while young' camp that I believe Sara was referring to.

About the "East African Invasion' of world distance running. I don't disagree that it was just starting during the time period that I and a few others have referred to. We don't disagree there. This would be a relevant point if US marathoning had improved to where 2:06 had become common and an occasional sub-2:05 happened. In that case, yeah, we have gotten better, and American Records HAVE come down, but these other guys are regularly a couple minutes faster. In reality, that didn't happen and guys like Bjorklund would still be right near the top of the heap even today.

If shoes have actually become a minute faster, plenty of '70s and '80s guys would possibly be in the top-3 in Atlanta. Joanie in her prime may have won. It's true that Kenya has changed the world, but we really haven't improved much during that time. Will either US marathon record be broken? Almost certainly, but unfortunately, maybe not by anyone active now. Somebody please prove me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath! On a very closely related note, will the US high school boys 10000 record, as recognized by T&FN, ever be broken? I think it's not coincidental that a record set back in the days we old guys always glorify is untouchable for 40 or 50 years. Yeah, we (the US - not necessarily me personally) actually WERE better back then - at long distances.

About your last paragraph. How old was Wanjiru when he first broke the half marathon WR? The leading lights (of which he was one) of world distance running don't wait around until 24 to 'move up'. Are you sure there's no reason to up the mileage and possibly even get into the marathon by your late teens? On thing I'm positive of is that the next WR holders in the half or full won't be anyone who spent their teens in races of less than a mile.

Hey cool, a couple guys who see it like I do. I don't think you disagree nor do I. Keep in mind, it was my long post (reposted just above) that Shiloh was referring to. OK, even if we forget the days when I was an also-ran nobody doing only 70 at 15 and a bunch of other 15-year-olds were ahead of me, all the proof we need that young mileage is not only not ruinous, but essential, is today's race results. Look how young some of the best in the world were when they first appeared on the international stage. Gebrihiwet, Gebemeskel, Koech, Jepkosgei, Kosgei. They didn't start getting into the program after high school and college running. They ignored high school and college teams and coaches and the training conventions that the US adheres to.

One more thing: not sure how different Daddy Ingo is than an American coach. His guys run 1500-5k. That would be approved of by parents and coaches here. It's what everyone in the US says they 'should' be doing at that age. They're good, but not at the half and full marathon.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

I am a college coach. The problem is that the kids in high school are running high mileage WHILE they can't sprint to save their lives. It's all long runs and tempo runs in training in high school.

I've seen sub 9:10 kids that can barely break 60 in the 400. Any fast twitch muscle fibers they once had are DEAD and there's no bringing them back. That 100% sets them up for failure in college.

First of all who cares if a sub 9:10 kid can break 60. Anyone with sub 9:10 high school talent can be a contributing member on a college cross team if coached well even is their speed sucks.

2nd where are all these sub 9:10 guys who can't break 60? I was one of the slowest top end speed guys on my college team. I still ran a 55 second relay split in high school and I think I probably could have run that open in college. Less than 20% of my college distance team couldn't beat me in an open 400. If you get an 18-year-old kid who is sub 9:10 whose natural speed is dead and you can't fix them either the kid is no longer motivated to run or you aren't a very good coach.

Maybe at the D3 level where a 25:30 8k is impressive. I need athletes to be able to break 60 in the 400 for 4 laps in a row - and that might not even qualify them for the NCAA championship.

SeniorSeason wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

They get converted to slow twitch and it's impossible to turn them back.

That doesn't sound true

It's not, nor is it really relevant, but he says it with such conviction!

Here is an article which does a good job of talking about the fiber type conundrum:

As far as HS mileage goes.....to each their own. I find it odd that folks are saying we should hold kids back for a potential future they likely won't even have. Can't burn out if you never catch fire. My HS team had guys running 30mi a week and guys running 70-80 a week. Every athlete is different.

Alan

You don't need much "speed" to break 60.

Alan

I ran at the D1 one level and there is almost no one on any decent college team who cannot break 60. Sure not every 9:10 guy coming out of high school is going to have All American talent on the track. But there is not a problem in the American high school system of tons of kids with phenomenal endurance that have destroyed their speed. That is not a real thing, you just made that up. You don't need phenomenal speed to be a scoring member on an NCAA qualifying D1 team or to make it to regionals. And if you coach at one of the few schools in the country where getting to that level is a disappointment I can show plenty of D1 coaches who will gladly take that sub 9:10 guy who doesn't have great speed.

Webb was fried at 25 years old, he didn’t make the 2008 team and was struggling to run 3:41.

Hall was very up and down after 27, by 31 was struggling to run 2:17 in the marathon.

Aside from Ritz’s doping years with Alberto, he was starting to falter by 25.

Sarah Hall is correct in that they are all legends. But given the genetic talent, I would say, based on the numbers, “long career” is inaccurate for them.

Runningart2004 wrote:

As far as HS mileage goes.....to each their own. I find it odd that folks are saying we should hold kids back for a potential future they likely won't even have. Can't burn out if you never catch fire. My HS team had guys running 30mi a week and guys running 70-80 a week. Every athlete is different.

Alan

+1

nothing changed wrote:

Watching Americans hold up a "big 3" who won nothing, as a model back to dominance is hilarious.

"Guys if you want to be better, copy what these three guys who have zero world* or Olympic medals between them"

*Ritz did come 3rd at the world half marathon champs but that's not an event at World's or Olympics.

Meanwhile there are other Americans out there with world and olympic medals in their closets at home or still running today. Why you all so obsessed with high school success??

Yeah, this is the downfall of US distance running. The scene is way too parochial, judging success by a national standard in a sport that is international (this isn't basketball or baseball). The Big 3 were competent but nothing special when measured in international terms. It might help if college and pro coaches weren't so obsessed with distance runners having "range". Listening to the podcast about Wilson, Houlihan, and Coburn you had the Johnson bros giving Houlihan the edge because she has been an also-ran at a lot of distances whereas Wilson and Coburn specialized and won global medals. Distance runners across the world specialize to win global medals, Americans don't and end up finishing 6th.