Over the last 6 years of my running career the one thing that has all but confused me (much more recently) is the idea of over-trained athletes or "burn-outs". Can one burn oneself in a season- this I believe to be true-, but can one burn oneself out for a career as many notable coaches and athletes refer to, e.g.,wetmore asking us to look at footlocker finalist years from now.
I wonder what some might think of my high school coach. I come from a high school which in a recent year was ranked by harrier in the top 10. yet, when you look at our post-hs runners they are doing almost nothing. With exception to one guy. So, did they burn out? No, they drink, don't train hard, and talk of the good old days. But I'm sure somewhere out there my hs coach gets ripped apart for burning us out. It's not his fault though!
Which, brings to my to my nxt point, how many of you know a burn out? Define burn-out: A track and cross country athlete who used extra miles during the summer and long hard intervals during the season and went off to college after a increible hs career (e.g., Footlocker finalist) and end up doing shit while still attempting to increase fitness level with the right attitude. I BELIEVE ALL LABELED BURN-OUTS DON'T CARE ABOUT RUNNING ANYMORE! So, when someone refers to a burn-out, are they refering to their attitude? (please answer this one).
To wetmore and alike, I wonder how many of the footlocker finalists , or YORK HS studs (I'm begining to read their book on training theories-crazy stuff) he talks of are actually doing almost everything right yet still not producing to there exceptions?
Finally, if a hs asked his athletes to up the mileage (85-100 m/week) and trains them hard with speed and other hard w/os, is there something wrong with this? Does a base prevent burning out?
Ok, please respond nicely, I'm more confused then lecturing. Maybe too may ?s, but answer whatever. Thanks