Why is it wrong to train high school kids ambitiously?

Obea Moore, Michael Granville, Yung Song Leal

Hasnt been wrote:

Obea Moore, Michael Granville, Yung Song Leal

Smart response.

You mentioned 2 sprinters and a guy who joined a religious cult. Galen Rupp, Chris Solinsky, Ryan Hall, Bobby Curtis, Bill McChesney, Chris Derrick, Colby Lowe, etc.

yes you can push kids but they must have room to grow. A great example might be Paula Radcliffe's development. Although she showed lots of talent as a young girl her coach was looking down the road. So too for Peter and Seb Coe.

Get 'em young. Find their potential and go fromm there.

The purpose of training kids isn't only to produce the 10-20 a year who will be come professional runners. It's about enabling everyone to have a lifetime of success and enjoyment at running. If you take a kid who runs 17:00 as a junior and torch him with high intensity intervals all the time, maybe he'll get down to 16:00 by senior year, but if he goes off to college he might only end up a 15:40 guy. Train the same kid with a more intelligent high-volume aerobic development program and he might end up at 16:30 senior year but 14:50 as a senior in college. Burning kids out sucks the fun out of running, which is the worst thing you can do to them.

sadfasdfasd wrote:

The purpose of training kids isn't only to produce the 10-20 a year who will be come professional runners. It's about enabling everyone to have a lifetime of success and enjoyment at running. If you take a kid who runs 17:00 as a junior and torch him with high intensity intervals all the time, maybe he'll get down to 16:00 by senior year, but if he goes off to college he might only end up a 15:40 guy. Train the same kid with a more intelligent high-volume aerobic development program and he might end up at 16:30 senior year but 14:50 as a senior in college. Burning kids out sucks the fun out of running, which is the worst thing you can do to them.

Did you burn them out even if they weren't going to run after HS anyway? And screw the BS about kids running for fun after HS. Kids who don't plan on running competitively after HS don't usually "run for fun" after HS. They gain 30 lbs and then decide they need to lose weight again. Do you hear football or basketball coaches saying "we probably shouldn't train three hours a day, I just want to make sure these kids develop for college". No. They work their kids butts off knowing they need to develop them as much as possible before they leave.

short answer: it's only wrong if it's inappropriate for the age/experience level.

running is better wrote:

short answer: it's only wrong if it's inappropriate for the age/experience level.

So basically you can't go wrong as long as you deem it appropriate.

All of the best runners on my college team trained the most in high school. They also trained the most in college too. A high school runner running 75 miles a week has plenty of improvement to make going to 85,95,100+ mpw in college. Training more in high school prepares runners for college, it doesn't burn them out unless injuries are a problem.

sadfasdfasd wrote:

The purpose of training kids isn't only to produce the 10-20 a year who will be come professional runners. It's about enabling everyone to have a lifetime of success and enjoyment at running. If you take a kid who runs 17:00 as a junior and torch him with high intensity intervals all the time, maybe he'll get down to 16:00 by senior year, but if he goes off to college he might only end up a 15:40 guy. Train the same kid with a more intelligent high-volume aerobic development program and he might end up at 16:30 senior year but 14:50 as a senior in college. Burning kids out sucks the fun out of running, which is the worst thing you can do to them.

And how exactly do you know whether or not the 15:40 guy would have been a 14:50 guy if he'd done high volume aerobic development in high school?

Look at Eliud Kipchoge. He won the WC over Bekele and El G when he was 18 (basically a high school senior), and what has he done since? If he had just focused more on long-term development he would probably have run 12:29 and won an Olympic gold medal. Coaches: learn from this cautionary tale and do not let you kids turn into Eliud Kipchoge!

More than 90% of high school runners never run on a college team. Give the kids a good experience at the high school level. The best way to do that is to give them the experience of being on a winning team.

And the best way to do *that* is to get them as frosh, build them up progressively, and get them to the 70-100mpw (at times) level by the time they're upperclassman. See: Joe Newton, whose students get a fantastic educational experience in HS cross-country.

lease wrote:

More than 90% of high school runners never run on a college team. Give the kids a good experience at the high school level. The best way to do that is to give them the experience of being on a winning team.

And the best way to do *that* is to get them as frosh, build them up progressively, and get them to the 70-100mpw (at times) level by the time they're upperclassman. See: Joe Newton, whose students get a fantastic educational experience in HS cross-country.

I think the double standard is funny. People love to praise York then at the same time blame him for burning kids out. If I had a choice I'd rather be "burned out" and run 14:30s in high school than "be saved for later" and ran 16:00s.

Richard Cheese wrote:

So basically you can't go wrong as long as you deem it appropriate.

if i'm the one writing the program, then yes, i can't go wrong.

The school record holder at my high school was trained with the "save for later" mentality. He ran 15:55, 9:26, and 4:25 his senior year.

Colby Lowe, who ran an 8:47 two mile (more than twice as fast as my friends 1600 PR in high school) in high school, was trained hard as a prep, he has run 8:03 (~8:41 2 mile) for the 3000 but has never really been able to compete with the big dogs.

My friend? the 9:26 3200 guy? He ran 8:04 this year, has been improving rapidly since graduating, loves running, and will probably end up faster than Colby Lowe. DId I mention my friend is a junior in college? (Lowe is a senior).

lease wrote:

See: Joe Newton, whose students get a fantastic educational experience in HS cross-country.

I guess this is the place for this:

Yes, I know that the link has been posted before...

Intradasting wrote:

The school record holder at my high school was trained with the "save for later" mentality. He ran 15:55, 9:26, and 4:25 his senior year.

Colby Lowe, who ran an 8:47 two mile (more than twice as fast as my friends 1600 PR in high school) in high school, was trained hard as a prep, he has run 8:03 (~8:41 2 mile) for the 3000 but has never really been able to compete with the big dogs.

My friend? the 9:26 3200 guy? He ran 8:04 this year, has been improving rapidly since graduating, loves running, and will probably end up faster than Colby Lowe. DId I mention my friend is a junior in college? (Lowe is a senior).

Wow, your anonymous anecdote really proved a lot.

Your question presumes a particular answer.

It's relatively easy to identify flame outs associated with some runners who trained high mileage in high school and then didn't develop much further after high school.

There are, however, many elite athletes that have run high mileage and gone on to great success.

I would also suggest that they are multitudes of athletes that never tried high mileage in high school and as a result never achieved at a high enough to qualify for any major college program.

Let's face the fact that every athlete on the track at the NCAA championship in the mile, 3k, or 5k has plenty of talent. How hard they trained in high school may have affected their achievements there, but it doesn't determine their level of success in college. A kid who is undertrained in high school may show more improvement in college, but who can say whether their ultimate level of achievement is affected by how much they ran in high school?

As a scholastic coach, I know there are a multitude of great reasons for kids to become distance runners. Many of those reasons are far more important than becoming all-state or all-american.

Each kid is an experiment of one. I think it is important for me as a coach to always remember that the athlete's goals supercede mine as long as they are consistent with good health and do not detract from the team. When my goals for an athlete are loftier than the athlete's, little that is good will come of it. This almost always means it's best for me to pull back lightly on the reins when it comes to mileage than to pull hard from the front.

We run as much as we can without being injured. For girls 1st year that's about 5 miles and boys 6. Only the dedicated run 6 days a week, the self driven 7.

You can't force a kid to choose to be their best, that comes from within. Beyond this mileage (in first year runners who have yet to hit puberty) you get burnout, chronic fatigue, injuries and they quit the first few months. When I am trying to have the fastest runners I can, there is a whole lot more to Consider than just pounding mileage. Jobs, family, school, friends, etc. all have to be thought about when making a training plan.

Run as much as we can... That is what we do. It ends up being 35-50 mpw, though I'd love to get more it's hard with today's student unless they are OCD with their running.