Some bonkers times from 7th and 9th grade girls in Saint Anthony’s invite

justacoach wrote:

So another issue I see - both with this topic in general and in this thread in particular - is a lack of consensus over what "good coaching" means.

Taking pre-pubescent children and loading them up with acidosis tolerance work is greedy, ineffective, and tends to be detrimental to the child long term, both physically and psychologically.

1)The ability to develop this capacity is lesser pre-puberty than it is post-puberty. Bang for the buck is poor.

2)The opportunity cost of choosing this work over aerobic development and max velocity development means that the pillars these children could be building stronger are being neglected for short-term gain. Meanwhile, little soccer and basketball girls are building these capacities, increasing their general athleticism and thereby reducing their future injury risk.

3)Extracting every bit out of a child when she is young and getting her to that next level, whether it be JO regions, nationals, whatever, tends to run hand-in-hand with children cementing their identity as a stud runner early. Not all, but many, of these child phenoms struggle with the psycholigical toll of everyone else "catching up" to them as they get into the meat of their high school years. With females, this toll can amplified if the journey through puberty temporarily slows them down and the next tiny girl comes in and becomes the next big thing.

IMO "good coaching" of talented 7th graders would feature a lot of three things - aerobic development through a frequency of not-balls-to-the-walls continuous runs, max velocity and general athleticism development through a diverse array of sport and game, and a focus on FUN. I would NOT be cranking the 400's on the track much if at all, and I would race the kid sparingly. Sadly, the need to put one's ego aside and defer the "reward" of elite performance for another coach further down the pipeline is too much for many.

ambiguousmotivations wrote:

justacoach wrote:

So another issue I see - both with this topic in general and in this thread in particular - is a lack of consensus over what "good coaching" means.

Taking pre-pubescent children and loading them up with acidosis tolerance work is greedy, ineffective, and tends to be detrimental to the child long term, both physically and psychologically.

1)The ability to develop this capacity is lesser pre-puberty than it is post-puberty. Bang for the buck is poor.

2)The opportunity cost of choosing this work over aerobic development and max velocity development means that the pillars these children could be building stronger are being neglected for short-term gain. Meanwhile, little soccer and basketball girls are building these capacities, increasing their general athleticism and thereby reducing their future injury risk.

3)Extracting every bit out of a child when she is young and getting her to that next level, whether it be JO regions, nationals, whatever, tends to run hand-in-hand with children cementing their identity as a stud runner early. Not all, but many, of these child phenoms struggle with the psycholigical toll of everyone else "catching up" to them as they get into the meat of their high school years. With females, this toll can amplified if the journey through puberty temporarily slows them down and the next tiny girl comes in and becomes the next big thing.

IMO "good coaching" of talented 7th graders would feature a lot of three things - aerobic development through a frequency of not-balls-to-the-walls continuous runs, max velocity and general athleticism development through a diverse array of sport and game, and a focus on FUN. I would NOT be cranking the 400's on the track much if at all, and I would race the kid sparingly. Sadly, the need to put one's ego aside and defer the "reward" of elite performance for another coach further down the pipeline is too much for many.

^^^All of this. It requires a high degree of adult immaturity to ignore the difference between a varsity program and a feeder program. It takes different coaching, a far more restrained mindset, sane parents (ha!), and a recognition that the runner is a CHILD.

Iron Bars wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I'm not a fan of 7th graders running HS varsity races. More often than not, especially for the girls, they just see their standing against HS competition deteriorate over their actual HS careers. Too much emphasis is placed on 7th grade girls beating high schoolers. It sets up an expectation that is inappropriate for both the athletes and their parents. I really wish this weren't allowed. I see no benefit.

I don't think there is an inherent problem with 7th graders running HS races. It really depends on how the situation is handled post race. If the parents are nonchalant and don't put the kid on a pedestal, then perhaps it is useful to try yourself against older athletes. Set the expectations low at that age and put the kid in other sports. If you treat this as an end all and be all one track then the child could suffer when those lofty expectations are not met. If your kid is trained to maintain some level of equilibrium, win or lose, then you can do anything. If not...

moveup wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nope. The 90s isn't calling. This is not any kind of thinking that is holding US kids back. Also, you mentioned kids who are running well as FRESHMEN. Were they DOMINANT in middle school? I was talking about middle school kids, and specifically 7th graders. A kid who is doing well as a Freshman against high school competition has a better chance of continuing that than a kid in middle school who is doing well against middle school competition.

Also, if you want to continue this discussion with me, and you want to show me that I'm wrong, I'll need to know what times they ran in middle school, and what you consider "running very well" now as freshman. Sometimes people from Podunk states don't understand what "running very well" as a freshman means. Ohio is one of the best distance running states, so my definition of what "running very well" might very well be different than yours. Get back to me if you want. I'll let you know what the reality is.

i consider running sub 16 as a freshman well around here, also consider 10:30 to 11:30 running well for an 8th grade 2 mile. On the track i would consider sub 4:50 in 1600 running well but not able to win a race around here and 9:30 or better good for the 3000 meter but still not a winning time. but of course i’m sure i’m way off. with proper coaching a 8th grader running those time should continue to improve.

joed|rt wrote:

Iron Bars wrote:

I don't think there is an inherent problem with 7th graders running HS races. It really depends on how the situation is handled post race. If the parents are nonchalant and don't put the kid on a pedestal, then perhaps it is useful to try yourself against older athletes. Set the expectations low at that age and put the kid in other sports. If you treat this as an end all and be all one track then the child could suffer when those lofty expectations are not met. If your kid is trained to maintain some level of equilibrium, win or lose, then you can do anything. If not...

How it is handled in terms of praise is irrelevant. It is okay for kids to set goals. It is okay for kids to try to win. It is okay to praise your child's hard work. What matters most is if kids are running fast because they are naturally talented or if they are running fast because an irresponsible coach or parent has them running adult levels of mileage before they are finished with their major skeletal growth. Most states separate the middle schoolers and high schoolers for this reason. Obviously girls mature earlier than boys, so a 7th grade girl may be the same in terms of development as a 9th grade boy. Sage Hurta won the NY State XC championship as a 7th grader and did just fine later on, so there are notable exceptions. My daughters are fast, and routinely beat some of the top high schoolers in our area in road races, but they run little kid mileage (2-3 miles per day, 4-5 days per week). They are just fast from playing soccer, hiking, biking, etc. Most of the rare kids their age that run faster are running double or more the mileage (talking to parents from some of their opponents and their kids are going on 6-8 mile runs in middle school). Kids need calories and nutrients for healthy bones and bodies. One of the major causes of stress fractures later on is insufficient calorie intake during their growth years. When I see kids that are rail thin during their growth years from running too far too early is when I have concerns.

justacoach wrote:

So another issue I see - both with this topic in general and in this thread in particular - is a lack of consensus over what "good coaching" means.

Taking pre-pubescent children and loading them up with acidosis tolerance work is greedy, ineffective, and tends to be detrimental to the child long term, both physically and psychologically.

1)The ability to develop this capacity is lesser pre-puberty than it is post-puberty. Bang for the buck is poor.

2)The opportunity cost of choosing this work over aerobic development and max velocity development means that the pillars these children could be building stronger are being neglected for short-term gain. Meanwhile, little soccer and basketball girls are building these capacities, increasing their general athleticism and thereby reducing their future injury risk.

3)Extracting every bit out of a child when she is young and getting her to that next level, whether it be JO regions, nationals, whatever, tends to run hand-in-hand with children cementing their identity as a stud runner early. Not all, but many, of these child phenoms struggle with the psycholigical toll of everyone else "catching up" to them as they get into the meat of their high school years. With females, this toll can amplified if the journey through puberty temporarily slows them down and the next tiny girl comes in and becomes the next big thing.

IMO "good coaching" of talented 7th graders would feature a lot of three things - aerobic development through a frequency of not-balls-to-the-walls continuous runs, max velocity and general athleticism development through a diverse array of sport and game, and a focus on FUN. I would NOT be cranking the 400's on the track much if at all, and I would race the kid sparingly. Sadly, the need to put one's ego aside and defer the "reward" of elite performance for another coach further down the pipeline is too much for many.

Flagpole wrote:

Nah...BS.

There just isn't any evidence that allowing 7th graders to run in high school competitions helps them at all as runners. It might help a team if that team is super weak, but that shouldn't be the determining factor.

I don't really want to bring up specific runners here, but since you already mentioned Sage Hurta, she won the lowest division as a 7th grader in 19:59.8! Not really a stellar performance to hold up here.

I know several girls who were much faster than that in middle school who got slower than that in high school. THAT is way more common than a 7th grader who runs 20 flat for 5k and gets faster.

I see you are proud of your daughters for beating high schoolers in road races. This is an affliction that parents have that I mentioned earlier. There is a reason that Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. You should do your best to tamp that down. It is far more likely that your daughters will not continue that kind of dominance against "top high schoolers" if they decide to continue running in high school. If you too much pride to them now, they will know you are disappointed later when they slow or don't get better (which again, is likely).

joed|rt wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Nah...BS.

There just isn't any evidence that allowing 7th graders to run in high school competitions helps them at all as runners. It might help a team if that team is super weak, but that shouldn't be the determining factor.

I don't really want to bring up specific runners here, but since you already mentioned Sage Hurta, she won the lowest division as a 7th grader in 19:59.8! Not really a stellar performance to hold up here.

I know several girls who were much faster than that in middle school who got slower than that in high school. THAT is way more common than a 7th grader who runs 20 flat for 5k and gets faster.

I see you are proud of your daughters for beating high schoolers in road races. This is an affliction that parents have that I mentioned earlier. There is a reason that Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. You should do your best to tamp that down. It is far more likely that your daughters will not continue that kind of dominance against "top high schoolers" if they decide to continue running in high school. If you too much pride to them now, they will know you are disappointed later when they slow or don't get better (which again, is likely).

So basically your philosophy is kids shouldn't run at all before high school? Got it. I'm not putting my kids in high school races (there are coaches in my area that do). I'm not putting them with coaches that run them at adult levels of mileage (my kids go to a charter and have their choice of schools, we intentionally put them with the coach that runs them short), we just ran a couple local 5ks as a family (which represented the 2nd and 3rd time my daughters had ever run over 3 miles in their life). Pride has nothing to do with how they will perform later on. They have yet to scratch the surface of their potential. When their growth is finished, and they are in high school, I will put them with a coach I know who ran in the SEC, that ran for the same club team as my daughters and brother in law (who also ran D1 with me in college).

Got it. You don't think middle schoolers should run at all. I shouldn't be impressed at all when my daughters. Evidently, they have already achieved all they are capable of after a couple seasons of running 2-3 miles per day. That against all evidence to the contrary, she will not improve at all when she actually starts formal training when she is done growing. Evidently Raevyn Rogers didn't benefit from her 11-12 US record in the 800 and never got better (her bronze at the Tokyo Olympics pales in comparison). Jordan Hasay never accomplished anything after her 1500m and 3000m 13-14 US records.

Flagpole wrote:

so what. wrote:

You want to put together a graph of all your data?

Had a quick look at MN state meet. Top 7th grader was 9th in 2015, was 3rd in 2019. Top 8th grader was 12th in 2015 and 13th in 2019.

I think you are just over protective. 7th grade swimmers might swim two hours a day in top programs. Top soccer 7th graders can play 10+ hours per week.

If you want to bash poor coaching of young athletes fine, but putting a blanket statement that 7th grades shouldn’t run is a joke.

1) Not over-protective. Just realistic.

2) I have not commented on other sports, so you bringing up other sports has not bearing on my views. My comments are about DISTANCE RUNNING only and are based on my experiences with great middle school distance runners and their parents.

3) You still have not provided the information I have asked you to provide which could give validity to your argument.

justacoach wrote:

So another issue I see - both with this topic in general and in this thread in particular - is a lack of consensus over what "good coaching" means.

Taking pre-pubescent children and loading them up with acidosis tolerance work is greedy, ineffective, and tends to be detrimental to the child long term, both physically and psychologically.

1)The ability to develop this capacity is lesser pre-puberty than it is post-puberty. Bang for the buck is poor.

2)The opportunity cost of choosing this work over aerobic development and max velocity development means that the pillars these children could be building stronger are being neglected for short-term gain. Meanwhile, little soccer and basketball girls are building these capacities, increasing their general athleticism and thereby reducing their future injury risk.

3)Extracting every bit out of a child when she is young and getting her to that next level, whether it be JO regions, nationals, whatever, tends to run hand-in-hand with children cementing their identity as a stud runner early. Not all, but many, of these child phenoms struggle with the psycholigical toll of everyone else "catching up" to them as they get into the meat of their high school years. With females, this toll can amplified if the journey through puberty temporarily slows them down and the next tiny girl comes in and becomes the next big thing.

IMO "good coaching" of talented 7th graders would feature a lot of three things - aerobic development through a frequency of not-balls-to-the-walls continuous runs, max velocity and general athleticism development through a diverse array of sport and game, and a focus on FUN. I would NOT be cranking the 400's on the track much if at all, and I would race the kid sparingly. Sadly, the need to put one's ego aside and defer the "reward" of elite performance for another coach further down the pipeline is too much for many.

Flagpole wrote:

joed|rt wrote:

So basically your philosophy is kids shouldn't run at all before high school? Got it. I'm not putting my kids in high school races (there are coaches in my area that do). I'm not putting them with coaches that run them at adult levels of mileage (my kids go to a charter and have their choice of schools, we intentionally put them with the coach that runs them short), we just ran a couple local 5ks as a family (which represented the 2nd and 3rd time my daughters had ever run over 3 miles in their life). Pride has nothing to do with how they will perform later on. They have yet to scratch the surface of their potential. When their growth is finished, and they are in high school, I will put them with a coach I know who ran in the SEC, that ran for the same club team as my daughters and brother in law (who also ran D1 with me in college).

Got it. You don't think middle schoolers should run at all. I shouldn't be impressed at all when my daughters. Evidently, they have already achieved all they are capable of after a couple seasons of running 2-3 miles per day. That against all evidence to the contrary, she will not improve at all when she actually starts formal training when she is done growing. Evidently Raevyn Rogers didn't benefit from her 11-12 US record in the 800 and never got better (her bronze at the Tokyo Olympics pales in comparison). Jordan Hasay never accomplished anything after her 1500m and 3000m 13-14 US records.

No, that is not my philosophy at all. You aren't very good at reading and comprehension.

Both of my kids ran cross country and track in middle school AND they were part of a summer track program before middle school that I directed. I clearly wouldn't have allowed that if I didn't think kids should not run before high school. They did not TRAIN at all for the summer track program...just one meet a week for 6 weeks and one practice day in the middle of the week. The idea was just to introduce track and field to these kids. In middle school, they both did whatever their coaches had them do which was equivalent to running about 2 miles a day 5 days a week.

I will say this as clearly as I know how to as you apparently need some hand holding when it comes to understanding the written word.

1) That your kids are beating "top high schoolers" now before they are in high school and that you say they have just scratched the surface of their potential tells me that you have unreal expectations. You are saying unequivocally that they will be tons better than where the top high schoolers are now. That high level of expectation is not good for you or your daughters.

2) Planning out at this point who will coach them (when their growth is finished) is not a good sign. Helicopter parent much?

3) You throw out extreme exceptions to the rule that kids (ESPECIALLY GIRLS) who perform at dominant national levels before high school rarely continue to do so well into high school. For every girl you name who was great from age 11 on, I can name 30 who weren't. I will not, because I am a good person and don't need to slam anyone. I had a parent once tell me that her 4th grade daughter was a super star and would be running in the Olympics one day. She was dead serious. No Olympics for that kid. She's now done with HS and didn't amount to anything even on the high school level.

4) I WILL say good for you for not having your kids run a lot now before HS. I DO think that's the right thing. Changing your unreal expectation though would also be a good thing.

In all sincerity, good luck to you and your daughters.

Sub-9 guy wrote:

justacoach wrote:

So another issue I see - both with this topic in general and in this thread in particular - is a lack of consensus over what "good coaching" means.

Taking pre-pubescent children and loading them up with acidosis tolerance work is greedy, ineffective, and tends to be detrimental to the child long term, both physically and psychologically.

1)The ability to develop this capacity is lesser pre-puberty than it is post-puberty. Bang for the buck is poor.

2)The opportunity cost of choosing this work over aerobic development and max velocity development means that the pillars these children could be building stronger are being neglected for short-term gain. Meanwhile, little soccer and basketball girls are building these capacities, increasing their general athleticism and thereby reducing their future injury risk.

3)Extracting every bit out of a child when she is young and getting her to that next level, whether it be JO regions, nationals, whatever, tends to run hand-in-hand with children cementing their identity as a stud runner early. Not all, but many, of these child phenoms struggle with the psycholigical toll of everyone else "catching up" to them as they get into the meat of their high school years. With females, this toll can amplified if the journey through puberty temporarily slows them down and the next tiny girl comes in and becomes the next big thing.

IMO "good coaching" of talented 7th graders would feature a lot of three things - aerobic development through a frequency of not-balls-to-the-walls continuous runs, max velocity and general athleticism development through a diverse array of sport and game, and a focus on FUN. I would NOT be cranking the 400's on the track much if at all, and I would race the kid sparingly. Sadly, the need to put one's ego aside and defer the "reward" of elite performance for another coach further down the pipeline is too much for many.

Great post. Nice job.

For all of you overzealous parents out there who would allow your kids to run hard in middle school and race high school races, satiate that need w soccer & swimming instead w the occasional 5k race. Merely supplement w distance training.

I hate these club coaches who grind young kids nowadays, especially girls. As this Flagpole dude mentioned, it sets unrealistic and unhealthy expectations and can be detrimental once puberty commences.