Why aren't there US runners who improve A TON after college like so many Kenyans/

The same reason that Kennedy Kithuka was running in the high 24:00 minute range in cross country fall 2011... Majorly under-trained just before college, begin to improve with steady collegiate training, and then after a few years of aerobic training/base they make huge gains.

In Stephen's case he was injured often while at Iona but was pressured to race through it- his scholarship depended on it.
I hope he still dreams about being the first Kenyan astronaut. He watched the live feed from a NASA mission on tv in my living room for at least 6 hours.

Are you saying Rupp, Solinsky, Ritz, Teg, Rowbury, Martinez, Symmonds, Hall didn't improve a ton after college?

Might this be a veiled accusation that something is up? Just asking. If so, yeah, something is probably up. Also explains our boys and girls above.

I don't really know but I have some crazy ideas to kick around. 1. In our country, worth as a runner is defined by sponsorship and sponsorship is initially determined by college times. This creates a lasting hierarchy that can be tough to break out of. That's both a dollars and cents hierarchy of how well your running can pay the bills through prize money and sponsorship(which runners have latched onto like stray cats)and a kind of subconscious hierarchy where a 14 minute guy looks at something like how much of a struggle it was for Ritz to break 2:10, therefore the thought of ever getting close to running that fast literally never crosses his mind because he already thinks of himself as being far inferior. 2. Following the idea of the hierarchy, there's the formula. The formula is that nice comfortable path that everyone follows to help them believe they're accomplishing something and climbing to a higher place on the hierarchy. You ran x in college so you can expect to run y next year and z in two years, provided you stick with your college coach. Hell, if you get good enough you might even be able to join one of them fancy training groups(just make sure you never do anything suicidal like get a job and coach yourself or start your own group). Then, in a few years, if you've stuck with the formula you can proclaim on your facebook/twitter/instagram that you're training for a marathon. But wait! Before you run a marathon you MUST first run a half-marathon. With the formula this is non-negotiable. Because, I mean, how are you supposed to know what you can run for the marathon if you've never run the half, right? So after you've run the half you KNOW the marathon through and through(because "marathon" is in the name of what you just ran) and don't have anything more to learn. Therefore your time in your first marathon is pretty much who you are. Didn't break 2:30? You might get into the 2:20s someday but 2:10s? 2:10s is for pros dude. Do you have any idea what those guys ran for 5k in college? Forget about it. Didn't break 2:20? You might break 2:15 one day but it's not looking good for you. If you were a good runner then you would be there already, right? I mean, 2:28 guys can't just train hard and run 2:10:59 three years later. And someone who runs 2:36(after dropping out of their first marathon) can't end up breaking 2:10. Impossible. Better just stick to that prescription training plan and three times per day foam rolling. It's much easier and safer to believe in those things than it is to believe in yourself.

---

LetsRun.com wrote:
Any ideas as to how so many Kenyans improve a ton after college but few Americans?

---

---

xtrycktu wrote:
block of text

---

1) altitude training
2) no need to overrace and peak 3X/year
3) access to better "nutritional" supplements in Kenya?

There's no imperative for Americans to improve. They graduate with degrees that will allow them to earn a decent living, find a spouse, and enjoy a comfortable life. The alternative is training your butt off for years while subsisting on a gear sponsorship and part-time jobs(that sap away sleep or training time) in hopes that you might get good enough to make enough to make it worth the time. Those conditions practically ensure that most won't get much better.

Renato explains why:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=5353533&id=5354314&page=1#5354314

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=5353533&id=5355193&page=2#5355193

One idea that crosses my mind is that two guys don't make a "ton." Maybe there are more and you're just referencing two. I don't keep close enough tabs on college running to know but the best way to prove this point would be to compare improvements, or lack thereof, of comparable populations of former US and Kenyan collegiate runners.

Another idea is that you're talking about college guys with decent but not great track times who have moved to the marathon. We have had US guys who've done that. Bill Rodgers and Frank Shorter immediately come to mind as do Tom Fleming, Amby Burfoot, Dick Beardsley Greg Meyer, and Benji Durden. But all of these guys were really focused on the marathon. They raced at other distances but that was really all secondary to racing marathons. And the older guys in that group generally raced multiple marathons a year for several years.

No one in the US is really doing that today.
We've pretty much gone back to the days where the best guys stay on the track until they've "peaked" there and then move to the marathon. And even when someone does focus on the marathon they race the distance very sparingly.

Consider what you've written about Chemlany. His first marathon was 2:13 and it took him seven tries to get to sub 2:08. He reminds me of Ron Hill whose first marathon was 2:24 in 1961. It took him three years to get under 2:15 and five more after that to get under 2:10. Similarly, Durden did not burst into the marathon world as a 2:10 guy. It took him years of racing the distance and tinkering with his training to get under 2:10.

How many US guys with decent track times do that now? How many of them even run seven marathons in their enitire marathoning career? Most of our guys work their way to marathoning very cautiously and then give it up if they don't get a good time in their first two or three tries.

---

this is our sport, deal withit wrote:

Are you saying Rupp, Solinsky, Ritz, Teg, Rowbury, Martinez, Symmonds, Hall didn't improve a ton after college?

Might this be a veiled accusation that something is up? Just asking. If so, yeah, something is probably up. Also explains our boys and girls above.

---

---

Hardloper wrote:

Renato explains why:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=5353533&id=5354314&page=1#5354314

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=5353533&id=5355193&page=2#5355193

---

If you are an American with college times similar to these 'big improvement' Kenyans, you get a job after college. Financially it can still be the smartest move for the Kenyan to stick with running. The American equivalent to Chemlany isn't not improving, he is quitting running or is running for the Aggies or BRC while working a full-time job, so he never makes the big breakthrough.

Simple. If you're not one of the top guys in college, you quit. It doesn't make any real-world sense to continue pursuing it at an elite level. Perhaps if we lived in a world where you were objectively rewarded for loyalty to ideals that are personally valid...then

---

Phil Fondacaro wrote:

If you are an American with college times similar to these 'big improvement' Kenyans, you get a job after college. Financially it can still be the smartest move for the Kenyan to stick with running. The American equivalent to Chemlany isn't not improving, he is quitting running or is running for the Aggies or BRC while working a full-time job, so he never makes the big breakthrough.

---

Easy...financial incentive!

The Kenyan runners can easily feed their family off of a little bit of sponsorship money or race winnings. Most Americans cannot. If you have to work to supplement training, you aren't going to get faster.