Tierney Wolfgram American JR in Marathon - 2:31

First of all, I'm disappointed someone (not the one whom I'm responding too) posted her name, picture, etc. I thought everyone knew her name was a hot-button topic on this board 2nd will lead to deletions.

So in response to the cited post, I'm not her dad, coach, and have no dog in the fight at all. By no stretch of the imagination is she 'my prodigy'. So why bring her up? One reason and one reason only: to illustrate the dissimilarity in public (or more accurately, LRC posters) opinion on the whole idea of training for and racing events 10k and up while in your teens. It was met with shock, horror, and adamant disapproval then. It is not now. That is the only takeaway I have from those days vs now.

You are one of those that believes what nearly everyone once did: specifically, mid-D through most of your teens, up to 5k late teens, up to 10k early 20s, then longer mid-20s on. I realize most people still think that way. The one and only purpose of my posts was to acknowledge those that think this marathon was cool and encourage it. It's fine with me that you believe in a different (although very popular and conventional) program. What's not fine with me is a whole lot of people - possibly including you - tortured the young lady I referenced for not following what (only in the US) is the conventional path. And by the way, what I've read - written by her - is that the constant criticism and verbal punishment is why she quit.

I do wish we wouldn't glorify teenagers pursuing marathons. I get that high school XC and track isn't for everyone, but I think it's been proven over and over that teenagers running marathons is not a good idea and leads to burnout and injury.

What are you talking about?

1) We don't glorify teenagers running marathons. Most are focused on CC and Track.

2) Tierny ran a really fast time and clearly enjoyed doing it. You know what makes burnout less likely? Finding your own path.

One more thing. Your last paragraph was good. Here's the way I see it. Some people, due to slow/fast twitch ratios, how efficient their anaerobic vs aerobic energy systems are, and other physiological details, are better at certain events compared to others. Ther are mental factors too. Can you more easily tolerate an hour of discomfort or a minute of greater discomfort? What kind of training are you more accepting of and are therefore willing to do more of and do harder? OK, we all know this; so what?

Those who are best suited to 1500-5000m are served very well by what you (and every high school and college coach) are suggesting. Many greats fit the genetic profile I refer to. El G, Lagat, Jenny Simpson. There are also various high school prodigies who do. Who will be on the US 2024 marathon team? I can tell you who the 3 won't be: Cain, Ephraimson, and Cranny. Given their physiology, they ran 'approved' (again, by the court of public opinion) events at 17 and succeeded. To pressure or force a teenager whose genetics make them potentially better at something longer to run mid-distance events is only going to discourage the kid.

I look at myself. Modest though my PRs are, I could tell early on that something like the mile wasn't any ticket to glory for me. I was much better at 10k. Much better, but perhaps not Olympic caliber. OK, who among us is? Thing is, winning my age division in a bunch of road races was exactly the encouragement I needed as a young, developing athlete. Like nearly all of us, it didn't turn into a six-figure cash cow, but I'm doing it in middle-age and can still pick up an age-group medal. So I'm not incredibly bad at it - if I'm allowed to run events longer that half an hour. If I had been stuck at 5k and down, I would have been dead last at a bunch of mile races and never tasted success (modest though my success was). 10k and up was considered OK at the time, fortunately. Parents, peers, everybody approved. I was decent at it and it was cool. Let me reiterate: I am happy to see that things are moving back in that direction now.

Here's where your last paragraph comes in:

We just don't know how the young lady I mentioned would have done at something like 1500 or mile if the forces aligned for that to be her primary focus. Almost certainly not nearly as good as she was at the marathon. How about our current heroine, the subject of this thread? Would she have won national HS miles and such? Let's say that short stuff was all she was aware of and there was no knowledge of marathons or even halfs? Would she be the best teenager in the country? How about the best all-time? Definitely not. Let her run her best events.

History has shown that Americans don't do well by starting too early.

GD wrote:

123 5 wrote:

Did she run in Saucony Endorphin Pros?

___________________

Looks like it. The time is still impressive, but we have to remember that the shoes give a 2.5-3 min benefit on average. It's impossible to tell how this stacks up against the old U19 record, but there's a good chance that she's a 2:34-35 marathoner in regular/old marathon flats.

I'm so tired of people comparing things to the past. So what if she ran in the shoes? Her time was astounding, something established regardless of that's what is on her feet. You'd think everyone on here are dinosaurs what for all of their hoping for the good ole days of barefoot running. If we consistently compare society to the past in a negative light, we will never truly move forward into the future. Reminiscing on lawn chairs about how times were harder and technology worse has long been an art cultivated by those who desire to tear down others to make themselves look good. Just say she did good, and her run was impressive. Is it that hard?

I think the concept of burning out is funny in this context. She is a woman/girl that ran 2:31 for an AR and possibly an age group WR. Trial qualifier. She can quit now and feel tremendously proud of her accomplishments.

The future is unknown. She could get injured in a stupid accident like Solinsky tomorrow. Strike while the iron is hot, nothing is certain.

If she didn’t run this race, she may have forever wondered what may have been.

I hope she ends up among MN’s marathon greats.

No one noticed until you pointed it out! And no one is responding to that post either, proving your point kind of wrong, at least for now.

Defender of youth. wrote:

You are one of those that believes what nearly everyone once did: specifically, mid-D through most of your teens, up to 5k late teens, up to 10k early 20s, then longer mid-20s on. I realize most people still think that way. The one and only purpose of my posts was to acknowledge those that think this marathon was cool and encourage it. It's fine with me that you believe in a different (although very popular and conventional) program. What's not fine with me is a whole lot of people - possibly including you - tortured the young lady I referenced for not following what (only in the US) is the conventional path. And by the way, what I've read - written by her - is that the constant criticism and verbal punishment is why she quit.

I never said she should run mid distance. I said she should train as a 5k/10k person. You seem to be stuck in this world where a person has to run the mile or the marathon. There are a ton of distances in between. If you are fast enough to run a decent marathon, you will be more than fast enough to be competitive in 3200 and XC races. Or you can skip HS and run 10ks on the roads if you want. Nobody will care. The problem with the marathon is that it rewards mileage in training too much and it gets real seductive to keep ramping it up. Historically that hasn't worked out well. You. get one or two good training cycles and then things always seem to break down.

You think she quit because of the criticism. I. think it is the couple of stress fractures and inability to come close to those times. Run fast and you can ignore the critics. You perform exactly as they predicted and it is hard not to accept that they were right.

And for what it is worth, I am all for people running marathons in their early 20s. You peak running years are 22-27. You should be in your best event during them. But there is a big gap between a 22 year old and an 18 year old in terms of maturity and. ability to do the training.

JamesD2 wrote:

Odd that the article didn't say what or where the race was. From the far-from-crowded picture, it looks like it might have been something set up just for her to try to get the record. Regardless, congrats to her. Would this make her around the 15th or 20th best U.S. woman marathoner?

Anyone concerned that there may be a lack of certification to the course accuracy..?!

And even 18 is better than 15 which is when she started. This girl could be a great 10k runner in college if they can keep her mileage under control. Otherwise, I worry about stress fractures and burnout.

That works out to a 5:47 per mile pace. If a HS girl ran a 5k cross country race at this pace it would quite possibly win most state cross country meets. Truly impressive! I don’t know that I agree that HS kids shouldn’t run marathons. If someone is running 50 to 80 miles per week with the right mix of quality the marathon race itself isn’t inherently risky or unsafe. Many HS programs have kids running this type of mileage anyway. Provided coaches, parents and athletes are mindful of limits and progress gradually, why not? I was that high school geek running 60 miles/week essentially year round in the late 1970’s with a pair of Onitsuka Tiger Nairobi shoes and essentially no cushioning. With advances in shoes, nutrition, hydration and other aspects of training that we have today HS kids should be able to tackle longer races

_____________________

Uh-oh! Somebody set a PR in the shoes and is upset that the dinosaurs--those of us who were running marathons prior to Fall 2017--understand just how big of a technological jump they are. To repeat, they confer an average of 2.5 - 3 min performance benefit for elite and sub-elite runners (and much more for some people). Wolfgram broke the record by about this much time. It makes perfect sense to question whether she is actually faster than the former record holder. There's a difference between saying that a performance is bad and saying that 2:31 in the shoes is not nearly as good as 2:31 in the pre-super shoes era. This is not cranky nostalgia. It's an observation (super shoes make people much faster) and a question (what it means to break a record by 3 min in shoes that give about a 3 min advantage).

PS: Would you make a similar argument if she ran on a downhill course?

Sure but if you are only running 50-80mpw (and there are few girls that hit 80 for extended periods of time), you aren't going to run a fast marathon like Hadley and Wolfgram. To do that you. bump the mileage up to 100+ and hope you don't break down. The problem is that pretty much everyone who has tried it, has broken down.

I totally get why these girls are running marathons. If you only had to run say a 2:30 marathon to make the Men's trials, I expect a a few HS boys would be taking a shot at it. Wolfgram says she will be smart and back off for a couple years and work on being a 5k/10k. Hopefully she can put her injury history behind her and get in a couple of solid years of training and then be set to take a shot at 2024 and 2028.

Why do people keep saying high mileage burns you out. For me it's always the intensity that breaks me down and gives me injury.

Oldie and not goodie wrote:

History has shown that Americans don't do well by starting too early.

Everyone else, however, seems to. Look at World Junior records. If they are pretty close to open elite times - and they are - it must mean ththesome of the best in the world are running distance races in their teens. That also means they are training at high mileages at an age when Americans are expected to be signing up for your school track team.

This thread started out purely positive. I posted to the effect that although I was surprised, I thought that was great. Next thing you know, those who believe inthe US school system and the distances that high school and colleges sanction showed up. They tend to point out that this kind of thing doesn't end well. The men's WJR is faster than the Open AR. The women's is a little slower but still faster than any post-collegiate American woman will run this year.

Is there age-cheating involved? Likely, so what are the real 19 year old records? Perhaps a minute or 2 slower. It's hard us in our armchairs to say what 3rd world birthdays really are with a particular athlete. Here is a safe bet: They would have easily won the OT in both races - the true fastest 19 year old performances in history are as good as the best Americans ever who abided by the conventional wisdom and went through HSXC, then NCAA, and so on. Apparently, going to your best events as soon as possible IS actually the best plan. Many of you say it is a guaranteed train wreck. Is it? It worked well for Sammy Wanjiru.

George213 wrote:

Why do people keep saying high mileage burns you out. For me it's always the intensity that breaks me down and gives me injury.

Overstressing is why people get injuried. You can do that tons of ways. Go from running 50mpw to 100mpw in 2 months and a lot of people will get injured from volume. Go from running 100mpw to running 80mpw with 2 hard track works and you will get injured and blame it on intensity. Figuring out how to assign blame is up to you.

It is easy to say there is nothing wrong with cranking out 100mpw as a 17 year old. But the history of the people who have done it and survived is very short. Make a list of these type of runners and look at how many are faster at 22 than they were at 16. It is a real short list.

Hey maybe she is the runner that can handle this mileage and not break down. There are always outliers. But the odds suggest she would have been better off running moderate mileage (60-70) and taking a few more years to get there. But again I totally understand how hard it is to be patient. Who wants to run. 2:30 in 2 years when. you can run it in 6 months.

I think it's great that this young woman ran so darn fast.

But it wasn't a race - she wasn't racing anyone. It was a time trial like the sub 2:00 run.

If I want to break the US 50 year old record, can I call my local USATF office, design my own route on my rail trail, hire wind-blockers/pacers, chalk a "Start/Finish" on the path and give it a shot??

Would this count as a qualifier for the Olympic Trials ?

Is this a new age of setting records?

My point was that some people handle volume better than intensity, and she seems to have found the sweet spot after lots of trial and error.

This surprises me, to say the least. Congrats Tierney!!!