Was looking through CaliforniaRunners thread on the best stuff on letsrun and came across this thread were the OP said "American Kids need to do higher mileage, because thats what the Kenyans do and thats how we will become champions." And Malmo replied defending the OP. Now heres the question.
My coach stresses quality mileage over quantity for high schoolers so we dont get burned out by college! So why do you recommend 90-100 mile weeks for HSers such as I? Just wondering
Question just to clarify since I have not read the posts in question.
Did Malmo state, or defend, higher mileage for HS kids or did he say they needed to be running 90 - 100 mpw?
Quantity in the summer, quality during the season. 90-100 in high school is pretty steep though and can be a red flag for some college coaches.
My bad he defended it,
hmmm, makes sense. good reply gud reply
Most kids don't run in college so why shouldn't they run enough in high school to be good at it? Let them do the stupid coach high school 20 miles a week so they are bad at running. That way when they are drinking beer and getting fat in college they aren't burned out.
Isn't there a middle ground here, like the 1000-mile summer? Why is 100 the magic number? Or 20, all quality?
ItsQuiteSad wrote:
My bad he defended it,
I didn't intend to clarify whether he said it or defend it rather I wanted to clarify if he said 'higher mileage' or '90 - 100 mpw'.
For HS 60 - 70 could be considered high mileage depending on who you ask. And of course, grade and years running would be relevant.
Mileage shouldn't be looked at as merely a total. It is a combination of:
1. Average Length of Runs
2. Frequency of Runs
3. Duration at that combination of 1 and 2.
Also important to note what the longest run is for that span.
SO for the linked plan:
http://thehighschoolrunner.com/2007/06/1000-mile-summer-doubles.html?m=1
Average Run: 8.33 miles
Frequency: Run every 0.7 days, or an average of 1.42 runs per day
Duration: 12 weeks
Longest run: 16 miles
For comparison, you could also achieve 1000 miles in 12 weeks with an average run of 13.89 miles every 1.16 days (One day off every 7 days).
Who would be in better shape at the end of those 12 weeks? People can argue for both sides (More frequent, shorter runs / Less frequent, longer runs). What's better for staying injury-free? Both give you 1000 miles.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Frequency: Run every 0.7 days, or an average of 1.42 runs per day
Duration: 12 weeks
Longest run: 16 miles
For comparison, you could also achieve 1000 miles in 12 weeks with an average run of 13.89 miles every 1.16 days (One day off every 7 days).
I thought malmo told us to double on any day that ends with "y." So shouldn't that be running every 0.5 days?
First, it's arguable that you will realize significantly larger total/lifetime improvements by gradually raising mileage and holding it at a particular level for a significant time before moving it up further than by raising it at once to, say, 100 mpw. However, Ritz is among those to run 90-100 mpw in high school, and with significant intensity, and still improve markedly after high school, about 30 seconds in the 3k, 48 seconds in the 5k, and so on.
Second, 100 miles per week may just have a kind of physiological significance in that if you run 14.2-14.3 miles per day you will be running for at least 90 minutes per day, and 90 minute runs produce significantly increased capillary and mitochondrial development, or in real language 100 mpw produces much faster times, other things being equal.
Malmo doesn't recommend high mileage, he recommends whatever mileage you need to meet your goals and not listening to the self-fulfilling excuse of 'saving it for college'
Realtalk dose wrote:
Malmo doesn't recommend high mileage, he recommends whatever mileage you need to meet your goals and not listening to the self-fulfilling excuse of 'saving it for college'
I'm saving myself for Zurich.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Mileage shouldn't be looked at as merely a total. It is a combination of:
1. Average Length of Runs
2. Frequency of Runs
3. Duration at that combination of 1 and 2.
Also important to note what the longest run is for that span.
SO for the linked plan:
http://thehighschoolrunner.com/2007/06/1000-mile-summer-doubles.html?m=1Average Run: 8.33 miles
Frequency: Run every 0.7 days, or an average of 1.42 runs per day
Duration: 12 weeks
Longest run: 16 miles
For comparison, you could also achieve 1000 miles in 12 weeks with an average run of 13.89 miles every 1.16 days (One day off every 7 days).
Who would be in better shape at the end of those 12 weeks? People can argue for both sides (More frequent, shorter runs / Less frequent, longer runs). What's better for staying injury-free? Both give you 1000 miles.
Good post!
When coaching adolescents it is always important to consider their age of maturation and running history (years of running experience). Someone who has never done any sport and is new to running may max out at 20 miles a week and a 5 mile run to start. And as a high school coach I can say that these are 95% of the kids who have come out to run.
Today's student is more stressed than ever. The perception of what it takes to get to a "good school" and expectations of AP classes, clubs, SAT prep classes, club sports, etc. has these kids pulled in a million directions. Add on they aren't sleeping half my team starts breaking down running more than 30 mpw.
Of a team of 60 we get 2-3 kids a year that can handle 50-70 mpw.
And you figure that out by trying new things out rather than shying away - good for you.
You start out with an expectation based on Best Practices. Then, you adjust to what you find out in each kid by paying attention to how that kid develops.
There are many here who would advise you to stick with Best Practices and hold everyone back.
He recommends gradually increasing your mileage, not 90-100 miles for a particular runner.