Why do I see so many HS runners running 30-35 MPW with super high intensity? Surely there are many who would perform better especially at 3k and up with more volume?
Why do I see so many HS runners running 30-35 MPW with super high intensity? Surely there are many who would perform better especially at 3k and up with more volume?
Because everyone wants the quick and easy shortcut to success. They see one kid with ridiculous talent make it work and think it's good for the masses.
95% of high school runners are extremely aerobically underdeveloped. Until you're running 50-60 miles/week you don't need threshold, tempo, etc type workouts. Build the mileage, do strides & drills daily, a hill workout and a basic interval workout over the course of a 7-10 day repeatable training block is more beneficial over the long term.
.........
I'm sure the counter argument is going to be "But Cole Hocker ran 30/miles per week in high school".
He's the outlier, not the average high school kid. He ran 4:04(?) and won Footlocker off that training. But a year later with increased training he ran 3:50, eventually leading to world and Olympic championships.
Most decent sized high school track/xc teams will never have a Cole Hocker. They do have a lot of Jimmies and Janies stuck in the 20-25 minute 5k area. These are the kids that can have their potential unlocked with some decent aerobic development. They probably won't be top end great but they're your grinders and add depth and consistency to your program.
Why do I see so many HS runners running 30-35 MPW with super high intensity? Surely there are many who would perform better especially at 3k and up with more volume?
So many coaches are very unwilling to look outside their own experiences to try to find better ways to do things. Their ego is your answer.
Why do I see so many HS runners running 30-35 MPW with super high intensity? Surely there are many who would perform better especially at 3k and up with more volume?
Because everyone wants the quick and easy shortcut to success. They see one kid with ridiculous talent make it work and think it's good for the masses.
95% of high school runners are extremely aerobically underdeveloped. Until you're running 50-60 miles/week you don't need threshold, tempo, etc type workouts. Build the mileage, do strides & drills daily, a hill workout and a basic interval workout over the course of a 7-10 day repeatable training block is more beneficial over the long term.
.........
I'm sure the counter argument is going to be "But Cole Hocker ran 30/miles per week in high school".
He's the outlier, not the average high school kid. He ran 4:04(?) and won Footlocker off that training. But a year later with increased training he ran 3:50, eventually leading to world and Olympic championships.
Most decent sized high school track/xc teams will never have a Cole Hocker. They do have a lot of Jimmies and Janies stuck in the 20-25 minute 5k area. These are the kids that can have their potential unlocked with some decent aerobic development. They probably won't be top end great but they're your grinders and add depth and consistency to your program.
A few alternative thoughts:
- How in touch with the work tolerances of their runners the average coach is I don’t know, but I think it quite safe to say that 30-35 mile weeks are much more in line with the tolerances of your average HS runner than are 50-60 mile weeks. In your average school where you’re going to have a small XC/distance team (~dozen-plus) no matter the demands, do you want to reduce that to 4 kids because you demand 60 mile weeks?
- And tolerance of volume is (in addition to the higher time and effort commitment) also related to the often relatively inflexible team environment, where volume will built at paces more suited to the faster runners. IF your average Jimmies and Janies were running dozens of more miles per week at THEIR ideal easy pace, it would be one thing. But often, they’re running it faster than they should, because they’re with a group, and disciplined easy running is often hard in that situation. So, at 50-60 MPW in the fall, average Jimmie is going to go from 19 minutes in September to a thoroughly worn out 20 minutes in November.
Because everyone wants the quick and easy shortcut to success. They see one kid with ridiculous talent make it work and think it's good for the masses.
95% of high school runners are extremely aerobically underdeveloped. Until you're running 50-60 miles/week you don't need threshold, tempo, etc type workouts. Build the mileage, do strides & drills daily, a hill workout and a basic interval workout over the course of a 7-10 day repeatable training block is more beneficial over the long term.
.........
I'm sure the counter argument is going to be "But Cole Hocker ran 30/miles per week in high school".
He's the outlier, not the average high school kid. He ran 4:04(?) and won Footlocker off that training. But a year later with increased training he ran 3:50, eventually leading to world and Olympic championships.
Most decent sized high school track/xc teams will never have a Cole Hocker. They do have a lot of Jimmies and Janies stuck in the 20-25 minute 5k area. These are the kids that can have their potential unlocked with some decent aerobic development. They probably won't be top end great but they're your grinders and add depth and consistency to your program.
A few alternative thoughts:
- How in touch with the work tolerances of their runners the average coach is I don’t know, but I think it quite safe to say that 30-35 mile weeks are much more in line with the tolerances of your average HS runner than are 50-60 mile weeks. In your average school where you’re going to have a small XC/distance team (~dozen-plus) no matter the demands, do you want to reduce that to 4 kids because you demand 60 mile weeks?
- And tolerance of volume is (in addition to the higher time and effort commitment) also related to the often relatively inflexible team environment, where volume will built at paces more suited to the faster runners. IF your average Jimmies and Janies were running dozens of more miles per week at THEIR ideal easy pace, it would be one thing. But often, they’re running it faster than they should, because they’re with a group, and disciplined easy running is often hard in that situation. So, at 50-60 MPW in the fall, average Jimmie is going to go from 19 minutes in September to a thoroughly worn out 20 minutes in November.
…and just to finish off the probably obvious gist of what I’m saying:
- At 30-35 MPW, Jimmie stays on the team, enjoys it, and runs ~18 by Nov.
- At 50-60, the obvious options:
1) He quits, because he doesn’t like spending that much time running.
2) As mentioned above, he runs his easy miles (and some workouts) too fast, and is totally shot by November.
3) Ideally, the extra volume is at the right intensity, and he runs 17 by November.
- How in touch with the work tolerances of their runners the average coach is I don’t know, but I think it quite safe to say that 30-35 mile weeks are much more in line with the tolerances of your average HS runner than are 50-60 mile weeks. In your average school where you’re going to have a small XC/distance team (~dozen-plus) no matter the demands, do you want to reduce that to 4 kids because you demand 60 mile weeks?
- And tolerance of volume is (in addition to the higher time and effort commitment) also related to the often relatively inflexible team environment, where volume will built at paces more suited to the faster runners. IF your average Jimmies and Janies were running dozens of more miles per week at THEIR ideal easy pace, it would be one thing. But often, they’re running it faster than they should, because they’re with a group, and disciplined easy running is often hard in that situation. So, at 50-60 MPW in the fall, average Jimmie is going to go from 19 minutes in September to a thoroughly worn out 20 minutes in November.
…and just to finish off the probably obvious gist of what I’m saying:
- At 30-35 MPW, Jimmie stays on the team, enjoys it, and runs ~18 by Nov.
- At 50-60, the obvious options:
1) He quits, because he doesn’t like spending that much time running.
2) As mentioned above, he runs his easy miles (and some workouts) too fast, and is totally shot by November.
3) Ideally, the extra volume is at the right intensity, and he runs 17 by November.
…and just ONE last thought: Even at the right intensities, going from the 0-20 MPW of so many HS XC runners over the summer to 50-60 in Sep/Oct is a really easy recipe for injury and/or exhaustion. But quickly ramping up to just 30-35 is probably quite doable in most cases.
- How in touch with the work tolerances of their runners the average coach is I don’t know, but I think it quite safe to say that 30-35 mile weeks are much more in line with the tolerances of your average HS runner than are 50-60 mile weeks. In your average school where you’re going to have a small XC/distance team (~dozen-plus) no matter the demands, do you want to reduce that to 4 kids because you demand 60 mile weeks?
- And tolerance of volume is (in addition to the higher time and effort commitment) also related to the often relatively inflexible team environment, where volume will built at paces more suited to the faster runners. IF your average Jimmies and Janies were running dozens of more miles per week at THEIR ideal easy pace, it would be one thing. But often, they’re running it faster than they should, because they’re with a group, and disciplined easy running is often hard in that situation. So, at 50-60 MPW in the fall, average Jimmie is going to go from 19 minutes in September to a thoroughly worn out 20 minutes in November.
…and just to finish off the probably obvious gist of what I’m saying:
- At 30-35 MPW, Jimmie stays on the team, enjoys it, and runs ~18 by Nov.
- At 50-60, the obvious options:
1) He quits, because he doesn’t like spending that much time running.
2) As mentioned above, he runs his easy miles (and some workouts) too fast, and is totally shot by November.
3) Ideally, the extra volume is at the right intensity, and he runs 17 by November.
you don't push a kid to 50-60 until he has shown that success at 30-35, and running ~18. in fact it could still very much be another two years to progress to that 50-60.
your well developed, previously successful juniors and seniors shouldn't be running the same volume as similarly talented freshman and sophs.
with all that said, there are tons of good posts here that jive with the realities of the real world.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
…and just to finish off the probably obvious gist of what I’m saying:
- At 30-35 MPW, Jimmie stays on the team, enjoys it, and runs ~18 by Nov.
- At 50-60, the obvious options:
1) He quits, because he doesn’t like spending that much time running.
2) As mentioned above, he runs his easy miles (and some workouts) too fast, and is totally shot by November.
3) Ideally, the extra volume is at the right intensity, and he runs 17 by November.
you don't push a kid to 50-60 until he has shown that success at 30-35, and running ~18. in fact it could still very much be another two years to progress to that 50-60.
your well developed, previously successful juniors and seniors shouldn't be running the same volume as similarly talented freshman and sophs.
with all that said, there are tons of good posts here that jive with the realities of the real world.
The vast majority of XC teams are much closer to start-from-scratch-each-year, one-size-fits-all operations than what you describe. And in those very common situations, 30-35 MPW is probably much more defensible than 50-60.
If the question is sub-divided, it has two different answers. Is 30-35 ideal for “well-established,” sophisticated distance programs? Likely not (although we also see how incredibly fast a program can go from that to the much lower average). Is 30-35 easily defensible for your average school? Absolutely.
you don't push a kid to 50-60 until he has shown that success at 30-35, and running ~18. in fact it could still very much be another two years to progress to that 50-60.
your well developed, previously successful juniors and seniors shouldn't be running the same volume as similarly talented freshman and sophs.
with all that said, there are tons of good posts here that jive with the realities of the real world.
The vast majority of XC teams are much closer to start-from-scratch-each-year, one-size-fits-all operations than what you describe. And in those very common situations, 30-35 MPW is probably much more defensible than 50-60.
If the question is sub-divided, it has two different answers. Is 30-35 ideal for “well-established,” sophisticated distance programs? Likely not (although we also see how incredibly fast a program can go from that to the much lower average). Is 30-35 easily defensible for your average school? Absolutely.
when that is happening, the coach is doing enough or they just have very unmotivated kids. My reality is mostly what you describe, to be honest. but when i get kids who show ability and ambition to run, you bet they're gonna be on a summer program, building off of spring track, and they're gonna build to that 50 range.
if you're not at the very least helping to guide and motivate self motivated, ambitious kids to do something more, you're not doing your job.
And when you get even a small group of them to taste some success, most actually do want to put in that work if they're given a little nudge.
but believe me, i understand the realities of the kid who doesn't want to do anything all summer all too well.
The vast majority of XC teams are much closer to start-from-scratch-each-year, one-size-fits-all operations than what you describe. And in those very common situations, 30-35 MPW is probably much more defensible than 50-60.
If the question is sub-divided, it has two different answers. Is 30-35 ideal for “well-established,” sophisticated distance programs? Likely not (although we also see how incredibly fast a program can go from that to the much lower average). Is 30-35 easily defensible for your average school? Absolutely.
when that is happening, the coach is doing enough or they just have very unmotivated kids. My reality is mostly what you describe, to be honest. but when i get kids who show ability and ambition to run, you bet they're gonna be on a summer program, building off of spring track, and they're gonna build to that 50 range.
if you're not at the very least helping to guide and motivate self motivated, ambitious kids to do something more, you're not doing your job.
And when you get even a small group of them to taste some success, most actually do want to put in that work if they're given a little nudge.
but believe me, i understand the realities of the kid who doesn't want to do anything all summer all too well.
Ironically, I suppose, since I’m at least partially defending a low mileage approach in this discussion, I periodically reflect on my LONG-ago HS “career” and wish that I had had the wisdom and discipline to realize that the ONLY thing that could have PARTIALLY saved me from my low talent was high mileage!! Alas, that never happened, and I was never anything close to good. When you’re young and spry and have even a little foot speed, you think that low miles and “high quality” will eventually yield different results! The stupidity of youth!
when that is happening, the coach is doing enough or they just have very unmotivated kids. My reality is mostly what you describe, to be honest. but when i get kids who show ability and ambition to run, you bet they're gonna be on a summer program, building off of spring track, and they're gonna build to that 50 range.
if you're not at the very least helping to guide and motivate self motivated, ambitious kids to do something more, you're not doing your job.
And when you get even a small group of them to taste some success, most actually do want to put in that work if they're given a little nudge.
but believe me, i understand the realities of the kid who doesn't want to do anything all summer all too well.
Ironically, I suppose, since I’m at least partially defending a low mileage approach in this discussion, I periodically reflect on my LONG-ago HS “career” and wish that I had had the wisdom and discipline to realize that the ONLY thing that could have PARTIALLY saved me from my low talent was high mileage!! Alas, that never happened, and I was never anything close to good. When you’re young and spry and have even a little foot speed, you think that low miles and “high quality” will eventually yield different results! The stupidity of youth!
So many coaches are very unwilling to look outside their own experiences to try to find better ways to do things. Their ego is your answer.
I definitely know some coaches who refuse to learn because of their ego. But most of the time it's not ego, it's that the coach just doesn't care that much. They coach as a hobby. They aren't trying to develop national high school champions and future Olympians. As long as the team does reasonably well at the county or conference meet, that's good enough for many coaches.
because they are coaching children and want it to be fun
Pretty much this. My coach was like this (but she strangely took it serious?) We had good girl runners but never boys. We only ran like 200m repeats Monday, 4 miles Tuesday, 400m repeats Wednesday, 6 miles Thursday, some like weird stuff on Friday + maybe weight room? Then no running on weekends lol. Only few got into the 16s like 2 people really. Our best team was 5 17s guys. But that was because we learned to pack run that year. Coaching was no bueno. We had a girls team tho have top 6 girls in the 20s. #1 girl in the 18s. We were also a very low income school
The vast majority of XC teams are much closer to start-from-scratch-each-year, one-size-fits-all operations than what you describe. And in those very common situations, 30-35 MPW is probably much more defensible than 50-60.
If the question is sub-divided, it has two different answers. Is 30-35 ideal for “well-established,” sophisticated distance programs? Likely not (although we also see how incredibly fast a program can go from that to the much lower average). Is 30-35 easily defensible for your average school? Absolutely.
when that is happening, the coach is doing enough or they just have very unmotivated kids. My reality is mostly what you describe, to be honest. but when i get kids who show ability and ambition to run, you bet they're gonna be on a summer program, building off of spring track, and they're gonna build to that 50 range.
if you're not at the very least helping to guide and motivate self motivated, ambitious kids to do something more, you're not doing your job.
And when you get even a small group of them to taste some success, most actually do want to put in that work if they're given a little nudge.
but believe me, i understand the realities of the kid who doesn't want to do anything all summer all too well.
An avg year yielded 60-75 runners on the boys team. I had 3 groups of experience starting early June. Beginners, Transitioning and Experienced. I always had a few talented freshmen. Once in awhile top 7 talented. Even had a couple land #3 by end of season. Nonetheless, there was no way they were on the same schedule of volumes and intensities as the top 12 guys that were jr/Sr aged or they would be obsolete by October. Even though they could have helped a varsity team do even better the first few meets, they raced against underclassmen so they could learn how to win first. Kids need that experience to grow their confidence and sharpen their focus. There's also a residual effect on the top 7 knowing hes coming and will eventually have a positive impact when it counts the most. The older kids are great assistants when it comes to developing younger talent because they also want to protect their ultimate interests. Even seniors that never make varsity will be looking after the younger kids and reporting things I can't always see. Once they've experienced the calendar year, look out. Healthy, happy and hungry. It's my job to get them to the line. If I hurt them, Ive failed. But I do know where that limit is with every kid and so do a lot of other coaches, more today than ever before. Not everybody is blessed with numbers, work ethic, talent or can build a sustainable culture in their environment. But there are a lot of good coaches.
Why do I see so many HS runners running 30-35 MPW with super high intensity? Surely there are many who would perform better especially at 3k and up with more volume?
What level of runner are you referring to? There are so many fast runners now compared to in the past, and it’s not being accomplished on 30-35 mpw. There are currently probably 10 times as many sub-9:00 guys compared to the ‘90s. You say you see it everywhere, but there are about 25,000 high schools in the U.S.
If you’re talking about 18:00 runners, 30-35 mpw during the season and minimal training during the off seasons is acceptable.
- How in touch with the work tolerances of their runners the average coach is I don’t know, but I think it quite safe to say that 30-35 mile weeks are much more in line with the tolerances of your average HS runner than are 50-60 mile weeks. In your average school where you’re going to have a small XC/distance team (~dozen-plus) no matter the demands, do you want to reduce that to 4 kids because you demand 60 mile weeks?
- And tolerance of volume is (in addition to the higher time and effort commitment) also related to the often relatively inflexible team environment, where volume will built at paces more suited to the faster runners. IF your average Jimmies and Janies were running dozens of more miles per week at THEIR ideal easy pace, it would be one thing. But often, they’re running it faster than they should, because they’re with a group, and disciplined easy running is often hard in that situation. So, at 50-60 MPW in the fall, average Jimmie is going to go from 19 minutes in September to a thoroughly worn out 20 minutes in November.
…and just to finish off the probably obvious gist of what I’m saying:
- At 30-35 MPW, Jimmie stays on the team, enjoys it, and runs ~18 by Nov.
- At 50-60, the obvious options:
1) He quits, because he doesn’t like spending that much time running.
2) As mentioned above, he runs his easy miles (and some workouts) too fast, and is totally shot by November.
3) Ideally, the extra volume is at the right intensity, and he runs 17 by November.
50-60 mpw is very moderate and involves about 6 hours of actual running per week. On their own, the more talented kids are likely to develop a passion for the sport and are likely to run 50+ mpw no matter what the coach wants them to do. If Gerry Lindgren was in HS today, he would be running 10 miles in the morning to pick up the slack.
Why do I see so many HS runners running 30-35 MPW with super high intensity? Surely there are many who would perform better especially at 3k and up with more volume?
If they are 40 and over thats because that is most of them trained or just their frame of reference? Also, most high school coaches are now hobby joggers and volunteers (especially if they are also teachers at the school). They did not stay up to date with new research and do not have a formal coaching education. Most of them anyway. That being said, how do we know how most coaches operate?
The region where I coach is putting a disproportionate amount of high school distance athletes in the top ten rankings and team titles are being won by younger coaches and the established ones that have evolved. The ones still stuck in 1990s methodologies are slipping out of contention.