Young Phenom Runners Explained

1) Even a 15-year-old who has been training since he was 10 will not have the necessary aerobic base to be a true well-developed aerobic runner. It takes a LONG time of HIGH mileage (which no "youngster" is physically mature enough to handle) to really develop the aerobic system to the point where a runner will be truly excellent at, say, 5000m. I would argue that ALL "freshman phenoms" have eye-poppingly good VO2 max development, and this is probably mostly due to genetics. You won't see the benefits of a long-term, aerobically-oriented training program until a runner gets to be 17 or 18 at the earliest, and these aerobic runners won't be overtaking the "interval junkies" until they are in their twenties.

2) You are correct in that there seem to be some great young runners who do a lot of hard VO2-max type training, and many fewer who seem to take a more aerobic tack. We can certainly look at guys like Jim Ryun, who pound themselves into the ground with anaerobic stuff and show huge potential, but fizzle out fairly quickly. I think that the VO2-max trained ones still have plenty of potential for long-term development, but they will need a restructuring of their training to sustain their development. Their aerobic system can be developed just as well as anyone's.

3) I agree that current youth running programs in the US are centered around VO2 max development. I think the problem is more with high school coaches who think state titles are worth setting back a runner's career. Can you squeeze more out of a young high school runner by hammering them with three (or more, a la Joe Newton) interval workouts a week? Of course. Will this ruin their whole career? Probably not. But it CERTAINLY will set them back several years because of the aerobic development they are missing. I've hardly heard of anybody getting burned out from too many easy runs...But anyways, I don't know if the solution is to have young kids run the 10k. It's too far and too strenuous, and you run into the problem of a really good race actually becoming physically harmful to a young runner. I think encouraging more high schoolers to run in college, especially at the DII and DIII level, would force coaches to start thinking long-term, if most of their athletes were planning to go on in running. Even then, it will still take a wise coach to convince a young, talented runner to take "the road less traveled" and focus on aerobic development, when the temptation to hammer intervals for short-term glory exists. I've had more success working with the slower kids, in fact. A freshman who runs sub-10 in the 3200m or 4:30 in the mile is keen to force his way to an even higher fitness level, and often doesn't want to hear about long-term development and miles of easy running. But when you tell a 14-year-old who's just broken 19:00 for the first time in the 5k that he could break 15:00 one day, he'll listen.

4) You never specified this in your post, but you seem to imply that you were talking about young MALE phenoms, when really, the "problem" seems to be with young FEMALE phenoms who run great as 8th-graders and vanish after that. I don't know if I've met a coach yet who's figured out how to keep a talented young girl fast AND healthy by the time she's a senior. I know plenty of coaches who turn a blind eye to eating disorders because it keeps their upperclasswomen lean and fast, and plenty of coaches whose varsity consists of 8th and 9th grade runners because all of the juniors and seniors have hit puberty and slowed down. Is it inevitable? I read an article a while back that said that the weight gain and change in body shape associated with puberty in girls will temporarily slow them down until they can get their aerobic system developed enough to run fast again. Thoughts?

Sounds reasonable. Based on your own research?

777, I think for the most part we are agreement, but I'd like to make a few other comments if I could.

1) be careful not to put ages on it but rather years of aerobic development and the level of aerobic development. Some runners start before age 10 or after age 10. To often I see statements like "that is too much for a 12 yr old to run" which is an impossible statement to make without know their progression to that point. Also I think one of the best ways to focus on aerobic development but still work in some VO2 max development, keeping the runner balanced along the way. This allows them to do some successful racing along the way.

2) I agree. The real trick is to get them doing significant aerobic development work from the start. Let them work on both fine, but make sure aerobic development isn't cut for faster gains else where.

3) I wouldn't say a certain distance is too far, the way to manage this is that they shouldn't race distances beyond what their aerobic development and mileage suggest they can effectively handle. If the kids been running for many years and up to 50-60 miles a week, racing an occassional 8k or 10k is fine I think, but probably not at 30 miles a week.

4) I think the same principles apply to boys and girls, it is just that there may be a greater chance that the physical changes that happen COULD effect a girls mechanics more. But again this is by no means a foregone conclusion, all kids are different and pediatricians will tell you it is very difficult to predict what the changes will be, outside of looking at close blood relatives for clues. i.e. mother, older sister, aunts, grandmothers).

I agree for the most part, but as someone who is trained in Ex. Phys, I'd like to clarify some vocabulary to make sure we are on the same page.

You are suggesting that VO2 max is only related to stroke volume. This is not true. VO2 max is the product of all the body's systems for delivering and utilizing oxygen. What you wrote is like saying that running speed is only due to stride length and that stride frequency has no bearing. Capillary and mitochondrial density have a huge influence on the ability of an athlete to utilize oxygen.

I believe that when you speak of aerobic development, you are actually referring to aerobic efficiency or economy, the ability to run at a given speed while using less energy than a competitor running at the same speed. I believe that this economy is what takes years to develop.

I do agree that young runners should be trained so that they maximize their running economy and have recently backed almost entirely away from using standard interval training with my runners. I actually have come to believe that most young runners are not developed enough physically, mentally, emotionally to handle lots of high end VO2 max (2-5 min @ 3k-5k pace, with 1:1 or less work relief ratio) and that more than just a handfull of this type or work is counterproductive.

I think we are talking about the same thing, just different terminology and I am far from elequent at explaining such things.

I think that each runner must be looked at individually when determining when, how and how much they can handle adding various interval work. And of course you are correct that we must look at it from a mental and emotional standpoint as well as a physical one. We as coaches have alot of influence on this with some of our runners, preparing them mentally and emotionally.

Two things to remember - with girls most of them will have to essentially re-learn how to run to one degree or another after puberty as the changes they undergo are much more significant then boys. Biomechanical efficiency not only effects how fast you run but more importantly how much and how hard you can run without getting injured. Phenom boys and phenom girls are much the same in as, like you suggested, signficant VO2 max's but also tend to have very good kenetic awareness and are very efficient. As they both move puberty, girls must make more significant alterations and therefore also suffer a greater fall out rate. For the good ones this awareness can help hide flaws in their biomechanics until the training load eventually causes a breakdown, and one which is very hard to fix. From a statistical sense that is why you will always see a greater number of girls fall to the wayside then boys.

In terms of a coach focusing on long term development, you are correct in a perfect world but the truth is that only about 10% or even less of HS runners go on to run in college (I actually looked at participation figures for HS XC and college XC, all levels, to get that number) and I would be willing to guess that is almost at capacity for the post high school system - so even if you did have more runners want to continue on, it is likely all it would do is increase the competition for the available spots and not increase the size of the overall pool. So its no mystery that most HS coaches are going to maximize the training effect for what for 90% of them is going to be their only formal competitive experience.

Fair points except for the fact that you way over state the percentage of girls that have such a signifcant change. "Most" is far to strong a term to use. We as a population, especially male coaches, like to generalize this way too much. The fact is that each kid is different and so each is an individual case. But if we must use generalities then yes puberty will usually effect more girls in terms of hampering their running than it does with boys. But certainly that biomechanics will be shot to hell is not a rule or even a likelihood, only a possibility. Jordan Hasay and Mary Decker and thousands of others seemed to experience no ill effects.

Okay. PLease say a little bit more about what you would prescribe in terms of training over a four year period for a kid who is already a standout as an 8th grader. Boy, middle school has no team, so he runs with the high school. The training is VO2 max oriented as best I can tell, but I don't have all the details...of the training or of the boy's track times. Let's assume the training is heavily Vo2 max oriented and the kid has few miles behind him. Clearly it depends on what the kid can handle, but for a kid who is now running low 18s for 5K, what would your priority be over four years of high school? What do you see as the role of cross-training in such a program?

Well first order of business is to get him to not hammer every single VO2max workout. Teach him to run controlled. Second, make sure he's not going to be overraced. One race a week is plenty for cross, and likewise for spring track. You can push that boundary a teeny bit once he's old enough--say, if you have a district meet the same week as the conference meet. Ideallly he'd do no racing in the winter (or maybe one road race just for fun--even up to a half marathon) I'd see what kind of mileage he is comfortable with now, and figure out a rough plan to get to 55-65 mpw the summer before senior year--more if he's ready. From what I've read, the best boy's runners tend to run about 65-75 mpw by their senior year, but I'd rather make the "goal" lower, and allow him to push his mileage up to the 65-75 mile range if he wants to. Mileage is no good if you hate doing it. Consistent mileage over 80 the summer before senior year just doesn't seem to produce results, at least long-term. Steve Magness is a good example of why. Before junior year, one high-end aerobic run per week (progression run or aerobic threshold run) could be introduced during the non-competitive season, but really isn't absolutely vital.

Aside from that, keeping him healthy is really the key to long-term development in high school (and beyond). The two dangers are going to be injury and overtraining--overtrainining from hammering easy runs or hammering workouts, and injury the same. A lot of the battle is getting a young runner to understand how to train smart, not hard. How to get him to understand that easy runs should be easy, etc etc.

Over a four-year period, training can evolve in the direction it needs to. That sounds vague, but it doesn't make sense to plan for senior year before freshman year.

As for cross-training, I really don't believe in doing much of it, unless he enjoys it. Elliot Heath (USATF Junior Cross Champ, now runs for Stanford), for example, did a lot of nordic skiing and mountain biking in high school, and it obviously didn't hurt him. But don't be shoving Junior into the pool for some aquajogging, because he's better off resting or running (or doing other 8th-grader things). Ideally, a runner would do some core work year round, and sprint drills & strides once or twice a week. But these are minor details, really.

Finally, let him discover much of this on his own. Running's no fun when somebody's micromanaging your life.

Agree with most of what 777 says. I would like to add that teaching the kid how to do steady state and tempo runs correctly are two important aspects. A lot of times when kids get used to hammering VO2 max workouts, they feel like their tempo runs should hurt like a VO2 max workout and end up doing them way too hard. Then, if you have them run steady state, that usually ends up being what their tempo should be. Also, I think that once a kid learns to run steady state work, it is a good idea to get him doing it pretty frequently (2-3 times per week during the off season). I don't think that there is a pace better for development of both aerobic capacity and economy than steady state. When I say steady state, I am referring to the pace that Daniels calls M pace and Lydiard called HSS and Bakken used to refer to on his site as sub LT. It should feel fast, but there should be no discomfort whatsoever on the run. The athlete should just focus on floating along as lightly as possible.

tellmemore wrote:

Okay. PLease say a little bit more about what you would prescribe in terms of training over a four year period for a kid who is already a standout as an 8th grader. Boy, middle school has no team, so he runs with the high school. The training is VO2 max oriented as best I can tell, but I don't have all the details...of the training or of the boy's track times. Let's assume the training is heavily Vo2 max oriented and the kid has few miles behind him. Clearly it depends on what the kid can handle, but for a kid who is now running low 18s for 5K, what would your priority be over four years of high school? What do you see as the role of cross-training in such a program?

I agree with maximizing aerobic development in youth runners, and train athletes in this manner, but I have found that often a significant portion of the cross-country/distance runners I have coached or observed want to run longer races as early as they come available in age-group competitions, and drop the 800, 1500, or 1600. They proclaim themselves "distance" runners early on, and get caught up in racing at those slower speeds. I am a firm believer in training long- aerobic conditioning, coupled with tempo or steady-state runs, cruise intervals, as early as possible, and racing short (middle distance-wise) as long as possible. Kids and coaches often steer away from faster/shorter races when they achieve some succes in cross or the 3200, but need to experience the pace of those shorter races while they are young to truly maximize their potential in the long run. Just my thoughts on trends I see.

Certainly, shorter distances shouldn't be neglected. If all you ever did was run aerobic stuff and race 3k/5k and up, you'd make yourself into a "marathon shuffler" in no time! Races even down to 400m have their place in developing young runners. I think the distances you race when you are young isn't a huge factor in deciding success. Obviously, you'll want to race what you're good at, but it's good to work on weaknesses too.

I can't say I'd recommend running at a high-end aerobic pace 2-3 times a week. Perhaps for a 17 or 18-year-old, but I think that sort of training, even when you have a proper understanding of what it should feel like, can become too HARD if you do it too often. And it turns every other day into a workout. Which can be as taxing mentally as running a real workout! Remember, especially for young runners, the mental game is half the battle. Even if they are running at an "easy" pace, if they have a "run hard" mentality about it all, it will still be mentally strenuous (and will wear them down). Heck, I'd get worn down doing three tempo runs a week. I think the trick is to let them run whatever feels right. That way, they'll have some good days that will be faster, and most days will be at an easy or moderate pace. Again, like you pointed out, understanding that you can run fast without running hard is key to all this!

Great discussion, here are some of my thoughts in general:

1) start with aerobic development, easy runs, building up in frequency and duration, slowly over time.

2) Once the runner is comfortable with running 4-5 days or more per week add in the concept of long runs. Make sure they are proportionaly correct with total mileage the kid run.

3) as the runner is able, slowly build in and teach them the concepts of tempo runs and steady state runs. Specificly I am thinking of aerobic threshold and lactate threshold paces (M and T paces in Daniels world)

4) then as the runner strengthens you can add in the concept of vo2 Max intervals, hill repeats and sprint intervals.

5) Be sure to keep a good mixture of the workout types. Ultimately I have them shoot for a 1 tempo run, 1 interval session and one long run per week on a typical training week preseason or early season, with all the other runs being easy runs. Once they can handle this type of schedule the progression (yr over yr) is increased durations and total volume of workouts.

6) I am refraining for adding any specific time tables here as that needs to depend on the individual. I will say to take it slow and incremental. Establish a routine, let them get comfortable and reap the benefits from that routine and then when all the benefits have been absorbed, incrementally move to the next phase.

7) take breaks every so often. At the end of the season is great. It doesn't have to be long but let the batteries recharge. Maybe a few days off all together and then a couple of weeks of light jogging only.

For the guy asking about the 8th grader who has primarily been VO2 max trained with little aerobic base. Likely he has significantly developed his VO2 max but will stagnate at some point (and frustrate himself) unless he has the aerobic development (efficiency) built along with the VO2 max. I would recommend several things. 1) make sure he is running his workouts at the approriate effort level. Too often kids tend to race interval workouts. 2) teach the kid how to do tempo runs and steady state runs and add those in in place of some track workouts. 3) make sure he has sufficient recovery between his workout days. Day in which he can just run some eay distance. 4) add in a long run day every so often in place of track session. Teach him the appropriate proportions for long runs and how to run them. 5) Keep it fun, paint a good picture of what he is doing and why and the future benefits it may reap. And praise him as much for a well executed tempo run or long run as for a blazed track workout.

777 wrote:

Certainly, shorter distances shouldn't be neglected. If all you ever did was run aerobic stuff and race 3k/5k and up, you'd make yourself into a "marathon shuffler" in no time! Races even down to 400m have their place in developing young runners.

Teenage runners should do a small amount of all out speed running pretty much year round, no matter what distance they are racing. If you neglect all out speed at this stage

you won´t be able to get it later, and no matter how fast your average race pace is you will be crushed on the last lap by a guy like Bekele.

Club Coach wrote:

Teenage runners should do a small amount of all out speed running pretty much year round, no matter what distance they are racing. If you neglect all out speed at this stage

you won´t be able to get it later, and no matter how fast your average race pace is you will be crushed on the last lap by a guy like Bekele.

I agree that no element should be ignored. Sprint sessions are an important part of the development of any young runner. It just shouldn't get undue focus. Distance races are primarily aerobic events and so aerobic development should be the primary focus. But all areas should be worked and touched on, on a regular basis.

MPR wrote:

Fair points except for the fact that you way over state the percentage of girls that have such a signifcant change. "Most" is far to strong a term to use. We as a population, especially male coaches, like to generalize this way too much. The fact is that each kid is different and so each is an individual case. But if we must use generalities then yes puberty will usually effect more girls in terms of hampering their running than it does with boys. But certainly that biomechanics will be shot to hell is not a rule or even a likelihood, only a possibility. Jordan Hasay and Mary Decker and thousands of others seemed to experience no ill effects.

You contradict yourself. You admit that puberty will effect girls to a greater degree then boys but then say that doesn't effect the likelyhood of problems in biomechanics having a negative outcome after puberty. My point was simply that boys and girls, on average, go through different levels of biomechanical change through puberty (you appearently agree). This greater amount of change carries with it greater risk. That does not mean that they cannot come out on the other side and be successful, just that on average greater adaptation will have to occur. Statistically speaking, that just means that will result in a higher chance of injury in girls and higher potential for decreased effciency once that adaptation ocurs - Not that every girl will see a decrease in success or that their biomechanics will be "shot to hell". Hence the term "statistically speaking".

Let's take your two examples - after Mary Decker burst on the scene running 2:01 for 800m as 13 yo (or was it 880yds) and other very quality times, she went through a rough patch for a few years (notice most of her best HS times are frosh/soph) as she went through puberty and then only re-emerged after she was able to recapture her form after a few years. I would even argue, based on the numerous injuries she experienced through out her career that she never was able to adapt completely and do a sustained training base like you advocate. Hasey has also had up and down improvement at times for much likely the same reasons (see this past spring where she battled with injuries). Based on this fall XC she seems to have come through this well but still the adjustment period was still there.

My point (not to belabor it but I guess its too late for that) was mearly that nature plays a part in the differences in the odds for future performance between female "phenoms" and their male couterparts. Not that nature was the only reason.

From a coaching standpoint, you are correct though, because the greater variation in body changes between boys and girls, a coach must be willing to individualize training load volumes and intensity of young female athletes to a greater degree or suffer the consequences of this higher degree of risk.

No way I'll read all of your post.

Chelsey Sveinsson

To quick points

1) clarification - by aerobic development I am refering to what McMillan describes as Endruance and Stamina training and by VO2 max development I am referring what he categorizes as Speed and Sprint training. In Daniles world this would be Easy, Marathon and Threshold training for aerobic development and Interval and Repetition training for VO2 Max development. I apologize if my terminology and rather "off the cuff" explanations caused any confusion.

2) bs- we are in agreement that on average puberty will have a greater effect on girls than on boys in terms of running. I did not mean to give the impression I was contradicting myself, my point was only that averages are just that averages and that on an individual basis things can be extremely different from one person to the next. We should be careful not to judge someone based on averages, especially when the subjects (phenoms) are not very average to begin with. I have talked with several pediatricians about this and they tell me it is very difficult to judge when and to what degree phsycial changes will occur. They continually point me back to using family history as the greatest indicator, but even then their are significant variations. As I said originally, this is truely the wild card area of this discussion.

Coach B to your point. Yes it is a question of working on efficiency vs capacity.

Once you have increased capacity to near its limits it takes improved efficiency to continue to improve. As efficiency takes longer to develop to a high level it needs to be started early, but not necessarily in the absense of capacity work as well.

In other words, there are a few ways to go:

1) work mainly on capacity then after that is near maxed work on efficiency.

2) work on efficiency and then after that is built up significantly, add capacity work to get the most out of the efficiency.

3) work on both efficiency and capacity in some type of mixture.

My theory is that most young phenoms got there through #1 due to systematic pressures pushing them in that direction.

#2 is less common, do to lack of opportunities and the patience needed.

It is probably some combination of #3 that will bring the best combination of near term success and long term growth. Of course I would suggest lean more heavily on efficency development (as it takes more work to develop to a high level) but would also include some capacity development as well.