Grace Ping 5K 16:26.83

That's crazy wrote:

Indoor and roads too.... wrote:

Like Jordan Hasay?

Yep. Just like that 1 in 100,000 girl. You neglected to mention the other 99,999 that become roadkill.

But Ping might be an outlier too.

An outlier, indeed - just like her coach

Issues regarding prepubescent female distance runners are legitimate, but they are not the either/or proposition many want to cast them as.

Puberty is kind to male distance runners, but not so for females. Hips widen, strength to weight ratios change, centers of gravity change and numerous other factors come in to play. It is a legitimate observation that many girls who are age group sensations prior to puberty frequently take a significant performance hit after puberty, and many do not even continue in the sport.

I have observed this phenomenon with interest for over 30 years, and in my opinion, the approach that gives talented prepubescent female distance runners the best chance at continued success is to train them and race them just enough to give them a taste of success, fuel their interest and get them some experience, but not so much that they post times pre-puberty that may be difficult for them to match or exceed when they go through puberty. I firmly believe that the reason many girls who were prepubescent age group sensations fade is partly psychological when they suddenly find themselves unable to match performances they were hitting seemingly with ease prior to puberty.

I'll illustrate for clarity. Let's say we have two girls, perfectly equally talented and both hit puberty at the age of 14, in the summer between eighth grade and their freshman year in high school. The girls in this example are a composite of different girls I've actually known.

Girl A runs track and cross country with her school, plays basketball (or indoor soccer) and club soccer. Spends the summers riding her bike, maybe running sometimes, playing some soccer, maybe doing a triathlon for fun and then starts to run in August for cross country. In other words, she's very active but doesn't emphasize or specialize in running much over the other sports. Let's say by the end of eighth grade, she has run 5:25 for 1600 and, say, 11:45 3K cross country. She has never run over 25M/week and is most commonly around 15-20M/week while running 3-4 days per week and playing soccer the other days.

Girl B, on the other hand, dropped soccer after sixth grade and has focused on running. She runs age group track with her club all summer, running three or four events at Junior Olympics in early August and posts some great times, maybe even winning some medals at JOs. She then runs club cross country after her school season, again placing high at a national meet and runs over the winter. Let's say by the end of eighth grade she has run 5:08 for 1600 and 10:45 for 3K cross country and has regularly run 35-40M week.

Now let's say they both hit puberty on the same day, August 1, immediately before starting high school.

Girl A has now dropped club soccer and basketball and begins to run more full-time, bumping her mileage up accordingly. Girl B, on the other hand, was already training at the level her high school coach wanted her at and maybe bumps her mileage up just a little. Girl B beats Girl A in cross country, but by the end of the season, she has shown little or no improvement and Girl A has closed the gap a bit.

Girl A runs over the winter for the first time and again bumps up her mileage. The increased training is enough to overcome the body changes in puberty and by spring she is equaling and sometimes even beating Girl B. Girl A has made great strides in high school, and Girl B has, at best, stayed even or even slipped back a little. Girl B now begins to get beat by other freshman girls she'd never even heard of before.

Thus, as they go through puberty, Girl A continues to make progress because there was more room for her to specialize and ramp up her training. Suddenly Girl B is being beaten by a Girl A, who a year ago she was destroying.

Girl A continues to be enthusiastic, upbeat and positive. Girl B starts to have some disappointments and doubts, thinking there's something wrong with her or at the very least getting less satisfaction because she's no longer getting the same results for her efforts.

I have been convinced for years that the best chances for continued success is to train and race prepubescent girls just as part of their annual rotation in sports, and then start to ramp up and specialize after they hit puberty. In other words, deliberately don't let them post the prepubescent times they would actually be capable of posting were they to emphasize running because those times actually become a burden when they hit puberty.

Handling girls like Girl A, on the other hand, lets them post good but not jaw-dropping times, times that are fast enough for them to know they have talent and get excited, but times that were produced by a training level that leaves lots of room for them to continue to ramp up at and after puberty. This allows them to continue to improve and stay motivated and excited. However, often girls like Girl B begin to feel like "has-beens" at the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and it's at this point we see a lot of them bail for other sports or activities.

Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.

Posts like this are why I wade through all the crap on this board, because every once in a while you find wisdom and insight like this. Every age group coach and parent of a talented young girl should print this off and read it daily.

Zat0pek wrote:

I'll illustrate for clarity. Let's say we have two girls, perfectly equally talented and both hit puberty at the age of 14, in the summer between eighth grade and their freshman year in high school. n.

First of all. No girls "hit puberty" at age 14.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post as well. As a middle school coach for many years (and as someone who has coached national youth champions as well as national youth record holders) I've seen this occur ("Girl A & Girl B") play out over and over again. And if the articles I've read about Ping are correct, then she most definitely has been training far too much for someone her age. Hopefully she will be that 1 in a 10,000 runner that somehow manages to beat the odds and continues to run with great success well beyond middle school and high school.

Zat0pek wrote:

Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.

On the other hand, for most, not doing anything may be an opportunity lost.

If there is a high chance (and there is, as you agree) womanhood will be unkind to future running success, why NOT seize the day and make the most of what you have?

This may be premature, but lets take Cain for an example. If she had done less running as a Jr/Sr in HS, it is MOST LIKELY that she would be a totally anonymous college student today, no more successful as a runner than she currently is.

What she DID was get while the getting was good, set records and made a WC FINAL.

How do the African runners who run thousands of miles as part of their childhood lifestyle fit (or not fit) your theory? Would they race faster as adults if they had cars and bikes as kids? If not - what is the key difference?

You are thoughtful and caring and it is a hard puzzle to solve, but what evidence can we use, in addition to opinions?

My ultimate point is:

You are slamming the door on every kids youth and HS career. And for many, no matter what they do, that is the only career they will have.

Virtually NOBODY makes a living running.

By your logic, we should undertrain all girls (and limit their success and opportunities) just in case we *might* overtrain the one-in-a-thousand who might be a legitimate future elite?

Next

Duderunner wrote:

Zat0pek wrote:

Issues regarding prepubescent female distance runners are legitimate, but they are not...

However, often girls like Girl B begin to feel like "has-beens" at the ripe old age of 15 or 16 and it's at this point we see a lot of them bail for other sports or activities.

Sometimes, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Just because a girl can run lights-out at 12-14 doesn't necessarily mean she should yet. To do so might actually be setting them up for a greatly increased chance of failure later on.

Posts like this are why I wade through all the crap on this board, because every once in a while you find wisdom and insight like this. Every age group coach and parent of a talented young girl should print this off and read it daily.

+1

Fan a da sport wrote:

How do the African runners who run thousands of miles as part of their childhood lifestyle fit (or not fit) your theory? Would they race faster as adults if they had cars and bikes as kids? If not - what is the key difference?

You are thoughtful and caring and it is a hard puzzle to solve, but what evidence can we use, in addition to opinions?

There's a big difference between running tons of miles and racing fast times. The issue isn't nearly so much about the training as it is racing. I forget which legendary coach it was (maybe Lydiard?) who once said "if you can get a kid to train but not race until they are 18, you have the makings of a champion." While it clearly isn't necessary to delay racing that long, the point about not posting eye-popping times before puberty remains.

sghe5tys wrote:

My ultimate point is:

You are slamming the door on every kids youth and HS career. And for many, no matter what they do, that is the only career they will have.

Virtually NOBODY makes a living running.

By your logic, we should undertrain all girls (and limit their success and opportunities) just in case we *might* overtrain the one-in-a-thousand who might be a legitimate future elite?

Next

No I'm not. Where did I ever say anything about not swinging for the fences in high school? And my point wasn't about "overtraining" and it could well be that both Girl A and Girl B in my example were "training" the exact same amount before puberty. The difference was that prior to puberty, Girl A was doing it across two or three different sports, and Girl B was only running.

And who said anything about making a living from running or even getting a college scholarship? I didn't. My point was the methodology for giving girls the best long-term chance at success, and that might mean nothing more that a girl who simply enjoys to run and challenge herself but who lacks the genetics to run in college. Doing what I outline still gives that girl the best chance to stay in the sport the rest of her life. If she becomes discouraged or disillusioned and drops out of the sport at 15 or 16, then she's lost the chance for that life-long love affair with the sport.

sghe5tys wrote:First of all. No girls "hit puberty" at age 14.

Sure they do. For some it's as soon as 11 or 12, but they're the exception.

One other thing. I had an orthopedic doc tell me that he was involved in a study in bone density in female runners and it was discovered that girls who participated in ball sports had 50% greater bone density than girls who only ran. The reason is that ball generate stress from different angles and across different planes. Having a girl stay in a ball sport at least until high school also helps develop a stronger skeleton and makes for a more durable runner when the real training starts.

+1

Zat0pek wrote:

sghe5tys wrote:First of all. No girls "hit puberty" at age 14.

Sure they do. For some it's as soon as 11 or 12, but they're the exception.

Its the latter stages of adolescence that (seem, imo) to impact running. Walk into any 9th grade classroom (or even 8th). You'll find young ladies, not little girls,

"The average age of pubertal onset in girls is 10-and-a-half years old, but it ranges from seven to 13 years old. The average age of menarche is 12-and-a-half to 13 years of age. The whole process of puberty should take three to four years."

And that changes Zat0pek's valid point...how?

Regardless of when "puberty" is, the effects to running usually hit afterward. For example, I personally "hit puberty" at 12 and reached my adult height of 5'4. Since I was very active, I stayed in the "child-like" body stage until 15 (three years after puberty onset), but at the point since I was no longer growing, I began to put on weight.

Compare to high school boys, who can continue to grow through high school and even college.

Running turtle wrote:

Regardless of when "puberty" is, the effects to running usually hit afterward. For example, I personally "hit puberty" at 12 and reached my adult height of 5'4. Since I was very active, I stayed in the "child-like" body stage until 15 (three years after puberty onset), but at the point since I was no longer growing, I began to put on weight.

Compare to high school boys, who can continue to grow through high school and even college.

Agreed, but the concept remains the same regardless. Leave some proverbial meat on the bone for prepubescent girls so they can continue to improve through those changes and stay interested and motivated.

Zat0pek wrote:

One other thing. I had an orthopedic doc tell me that he was involved in a study in bone density in female runners and it was discovered that girls who participated in ball sports had 50% greater bone density than girls who only ran. The reason is that ball generate stress from different angles and across different planes. Having a girl stay in a ball sport at least until high school also helps develop a stronger skeleton and makes for a more durable runner when the real training starts.

I'd have to see the data on that. 50% sounds extremely exaggerated. I'm not opposed to ball sports mind you but what if a kid has no interest or skill?

My sense is that it is not the running per se (impact sports positively correlate with bone density) that leads to poor bone density, its a combination of calorie deficit and resulting menstrual/hormonal irregularities. Those issues can be managed.

Swimming, btw is reportedly a bad idea too. Those athlete have low leg bone density apparently because its not load bearing.