He is having his short sprinters and short hurdlers come out for cross country that he thinks are going to move up in distance. How should I respond to something like this?
Is there any sort of physiological truth to this? If I ever had somebody come out for cross country it would be just simply to keep them in general fitness.
As far as his training plan goes, he is not doing a 400 fall segment, rather they are just running "less" than everybody else overall.
I want really highlight the fact that he is bringing them out for strength training.
Not sure but in my experience a lot of "400" runners in high school were probably people that would have been fantastic 800/1600 runners if they had trained apprpriately.
highhoppingworm wrote:
Not sure but in my experience a lot of "400" runners in high school were probably people that would have been fantastic 800/1600 runners if they had trained apprpriately.
I could see that maybe, if he were bringing out 400 runners. He is hoping to move them TO the 400.
Maybe the coach is not good...
I never required sprinters, or even 800m runners, to come out for cross country.
When some chose to come out, I gave them training appropriate for them--in other words, workouts different *in kind* from what the "true" cross country guys were doing, not just a reduced volume of the same stuff.
This wasn't to get the sprinters ready for track season, but to make them better at cross country. A fast-twitch guy isn't going to get a lot out of a ten-mile run, which at best would be a jog-and-slog. But striding 100m 60-80 times with appropriate (shortish) rests, or doing half an hour of true fartlek over hilly terrain, could keep a FT guy fast-twitch, yet give him enough volume to run reasonably well in xc (and to impress himself with his improved endurance).
All of which would *actually* build some strength to move up to the 400 or 800 in track season, though that wasn't my goal in the fall.
You must go to a really big school to have that many sprinters.
Must be the new "beat the cats" training philosophy. I hope the distance squad is ready to run the 400 when the sprinters all go play ball.
Up to two-hundred sprinters out for XC?
Being a successful athlete is as much mental as physical. Sydney McLaughlin was a high school XC athlete for a season or two. She was a back of the pack XC runner. It was good for her competitive edge that she stopped participating in high school XC. You can lose sprinters.
I tend not to believe you O.P.
Not sure it would hurt or help. Maybe have them do weight work and trampoline instead.
Still, interesting.
Suggest Georgetown 400s. It’s a good way to get long sprinters to do a tempo.
Also suggest short hill sprints. Give them something that they’re better at then the distance folk.
It won’t be that bad if most of their runs are 30-40 minutes and they do a lot of general strength / mobility stuff.
Even just letting them play ultimate frisbee every practice is better than them sitting at home playing video games after school.
Not a crazy idea, in my opinion. If you have track runners that are not in other fall sports, then running cross country will definitely help their track performance. Is cross country the optimal off-season training for sprinters? Obviously not, but any training is better than no training.
Heck, you might get some who develop into strong mid distance runners.
When I was in HS, back in the olden days, I had a friend who was fantastic in 110m hurdles, but would struggle and run out of gas in 300m hurdles. Coach asked him run cross country, which he did. He basically had fun and just jogged most of the time. But by senior year, he qualified for states in both hurdle events and finished top 10 in 110m event.
100-200 wtf? my school only has 40 cross runners...
Try reading beyond the headline before commenting. The 100-200 isn’t referring to the number of runners. The coach wants his 100m and 200m runners in track to do XC to prepare them for moving to the 400m next season.
Raggedman wrote:
Try reading beyond the headline before commenting. The 100-200 isn’t referring to the number of runners. The coach wants his 100m and 200m runners in track to do XC to prepare them for moving to the 400m next season.
What do you mean?
joel r wrote:
Raggedman wrote:
Try reading beyond the headline before commenting. The 100-200 isn’t referring to the number of runners. The coach wants his 100m and 200m runners in track to do XC to prepare them for moving to the 400m next season.
What do you mean?
I was ignoring the first couple of posts because I thought they were kidding but yes I mean 100m and 200m runners.
WinnytheBish wrote:
joel r wrote:
What do you mean?
I was ignoring the first couple of posts because I thought they were kidding but yes I mean 100m and 200m runners.
That’s incredible! The tallest runners at my school were ~2m.
If you ain't runnin' sub 23, sub 11.3, you ain't much of a sprinter anyway.
School size is important here, if he is at a smallish school that's a great move. Small schools only have a few true sprinters.
Raggedman wrote:
Try reading beyond the headline before commenting. The 100-200 isn’t referring to the number of runners. The coach wants his 100m and 200m runners in track to do XC to prepare them for moving to the 400m next season.
Zing!!!!!!!
lease wrote:
A fast-twitch guy isn't going to get a lot out of a ten-mile run, which at best would be a jog-and-slog. But striding 100m 60-80 times with appropriate (shortish) rests,
I'd go with the 10m 600-800x
I mean, lol, Sixty to eighty 100s??