A big problem of uneducated HS coaching: Do this workout at "X race pace"

You should start a blog

Okay, we have read your initial hypothesis. Now tell us WHY. And what you would suggest.

Instead of trying to share knowledge you decide to just put down coaches who are trying their best. My biggest problem with LetsRun posters.

Having them run faster, as you seem to be suggesting, is still advising them to run the intervals at “X race pace”. The X just changed, not the methodology of communicating the workout.

I don’t know man.

Seems to work pretty well for a lot of people. My school does this exact type of training and we have sent multiple individuals to xc nationals in the last 10 years

I don't disagree that the method of communicating is unchanged. Using pace targets for workouts is a common language. I am more taking issue with how a HS athlete might look at a workout performed by Jakob Ingebrigtsen or Drew Bosley and modify it for their athletes.

Here's how you apply what I was talking about. It will highlight how your interpretation of what I said was not what I was trying to get across:

I'm not simply saying you should have athletes run faster in workouts. I'm saying that many HS coaches look at what NCAA or pro athletes are doing in workouts and they identify the variable as the athlete's current race pace. They change that value and consider their coaching job done.

Here are some of the many variables you have to work with when you are adapting a workout. I will use the example of someone running 10 x 400 in 60 seconds with 60 second rest in preparation of running a 4:00 mile.

Rep distance: 400m
Rep time: 60 seconds
Rest interval time: 60 seconds
% of rest to rep time: 100%
Race time: 4:00
Total workout time: 19:00
% of workout time to race time: 475%

When a coach changes up just the variable of rep time, here is what happens to the rest of the workout:

Rep distance: 400m
Rep time: 75 seconds
Rest interval time: 60 seconds
% of rest to rep time: 80%
Race time: 5:00
Total workout time: 21:30
% of workout time to race time: 430%

What can be observed here is that having an athlete run 10 x 75 seconds at mile pace would be a similar stress as having a 4:00 miler run 10 x 500m in 75 seconds. That would be a immensely hard workout that I doubt many NCAA and elite athletes could manage. Furthermore, the HS workout is a full 2:30 minutes (13%) longer in duration to the elite workout. Those are two metrics that indicate that modifying workouts in this way for HS athletes actually means you are giving them workouts that are more difficult to their relative fitness than that of the elite athlete. If anything, you should be modifying them so that they are more achievable for more novice runners.

Or even a podcast

You are incorrect

So what do I suggest? First of all, you should try to keep as many of the dependent variables the same:

Original workout:

Rep distance: 400m
Rep time: 60 seconds
Rest interval time: 60 seconds
% of rest to rep time: 100%
Race time: 4:00
Total workout time: 19:00
% of workout time to race time: 2500%

Proposed workout for a 5:00 runner:

Rep distance: 320m
Rep time: 60 seconds
Rest interval time: 60 seconds
% of rest to rep time: 100%
Race time: 4:00 (The 5:00 runner is training at their 4:00 race pace, which is just slightly faster per lap than their mile pace)
Total workout time: 19:00
% of workout time to race time: 2500%

So to adapt a 10 x 400m workout from a 4:00 miler to a 5:00 miler, you instead look at the elite workout as "10 x 60 seconds at 4:00 race pace."

The 5:00 miler should therefore do "10 x 60 seconds at 4:00 race pace" which means they will run 10 x 320m rather than 10 x 400. The stimulus of the workout is thus consistent. The Total workout time and interval-to-rest ratio is unchanged. The HS runner is no longer working harder and for longer than the elite runner.

Incorrect because 400 meters is 25% of total race. You changed it. You lose.

Not if the race is 4:00 long. 60 seconds is 25% of 4:00.

A 4:00 minute race and a 5:00 race are not the same thing.

A 13:00 5K and an 18:00 5K are not the same thing. An 18:00 race for an elite would be like 6800-7000m.

Or how about 8x400 at mile pace with equal recovery, instead of this 320m nonsense.

Ok so 60s is 25% of 4:00/mi. and 60s/320m is 20% of 5:00/mi., so you’ve altered that (important) variable regardless.

This is why Daniels talks about time ranges and % of weekly volume for I, T, and R pace work. If elite guys are running mile repeats, it might be wise for JV runners to do something like 1200m repeats to get a similar stimulus.

I disagree with the 5:00 miler vs. 4:20 miler part. You should be doing workouts based on the current fitness of the athlete. Training a 5:00 runner like a 4:20 runner is a sure fire way to lead to injury and burnout.

See, now you're getting it.

I still think that is a harder workout, though. Running hard for 75 seconds is more challenging than doing it for 60 seconds.

We agree on point 1.

I may save my reasoning and recommendations regarding part 2 for my podcast.

The interaction between race pace (date pace) and goal pace is a fluid one. Good coaches know that - you race to allow you to train faster to some degree. A good example is Walt McClure's training schedule for HS Steve Prefontaine (readily available online with a little searching). This type of coaching is much better than the HS (and even some college) programs that just have athletes race each other in practice as if that is a substitute for legitimate racing, yet wonder why athletes get stale. The point of the "paces" is to put limits on the training, to keep it controlled and progressive. But reasonable goal paces are an important guiding force in the process, in conjunction with race results to confirm if the process is on the right track for a given individual.

But also daily training may need to be adjusted by the coach on the observation of the athlete and considering the various conditions that apply (weather for example). In other words the training can be malleable, not written in stone. That is why I am not a big fan of online training when the coach isn't present to make changes as required. Especially when athletes see the written workout as if it were one of the ten commandments.

I would add that 10x400 (4000m) is not a lot for a guy (or gal) running 80mpw but is relatively a lot more for a guy or girl running 45mpw.

In your example above coaches I see do this increase the recovery time so that it is still 1:1.

Have runners turned into robots? My experience was that no matter what a coach said, there was always different levels of effort.

I want to give you some credit here. Most folks seemed to disagree with your initial post, and while I do too, you clarified a lot here instead of digging your heels in and making it worse.

You're right, a workout for a pro can't always be translated to high school. I think the classic example that most HS coaches are actually pretty good with is looking at something like a tempo run. Having your boys do 4 miles might be a 21-26 minute effort for a lot of teams. For girls that might end up being 28-34 minutes for a similar level of athlete. Obviously, those are different physiologically and some might not be capable of handling a hard effort for that long.

The other side of it though is that we're not always looking for strict physiology. There is a race and that race has a specific demand. You can opt to always give your girls a 3 mile tempo because it may fit with what you think the ideal physiological duration is for a tempo, but it's not really an overload relative to the event. To put it another way: Why are HS boys training with workouts that are longer than their race to get ready and HS girls aren't?

There are always flaws with adaptation. A few posters already made great points about it. You're right to try to always take the step back and see if the pro stuff will translate the same, but I don't think its a coaching epidemic. I'd rather them borrow from the pros a little more and maybe stop thinking that 30 miles a week is a lot of volume