Agreed, now with that in mind, would you say the miles I posted are to much?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mileage/Training Methods
- Thread starter Mr.K
- Start date
Agreed, now with that in mind, would you say the miles I posted are to much?
Seppo Kaitainen
Member
Not to change the subject, but this part of the thread intrigues me. Everything I (and the rest of our coaching staff) has read or learned at clinics in the past half a decade or so says there is very little value in two a day running, and there can be significant downside. The basic reason given seems to be that the potential increased cardiovascular fitness is not offset by the increased stress on the legs and the significant decrease in recovery due to breaking up the rest periods. Has anyone had significant experience (as athlete or coach) with running two times a day consistently? In college I did two workouts a day four days a week for a while, but the mornings were in all in the pool.
I've had success with the consistent use of two a days as a coach. I agree that too many workouts in a week is a bad thing and that rest periods are important. However, is there evidence to demonstrate that 24 hours between runs is a magic number? Why not 36 or 48? The literature I've read emphasizes the importance of light aerobic exercise in speeding blood flow to help repair injured muscle tissue.
Only my top guys are allowed to run the early run and not all of them do all of them. I see it as a safer way to add 20 or so miles per week (I use time rather than mileage) without the added risk to injury that multiple long runs per week would pose. There's no way for me to know whether the morning runs are the reason the program has been successful, but I think they help and we haven't had any top level guys get injured while doing them.
anna4runner
New member
Anna4runner; I know a lot of elite runners that only have done 35-40 as a max week for mileage. Boys and girls. In high school, kids only race 5k as a maximum. Why would you need to do more than 50 miles a week for a race of that length. It's more how those miles come about.
Mathking; Don't you have some of those kids that just do not know how to run or just can't run more than a mile or 2 at a time? They have to start somewhere and running twice a day might be away to just get them used to running.Sort of teaching them how to run. Also, haven't you come across those kids that absolutely believe they have to hit 70 miles in a week and you would rather have them run (2) 7.5 milers instead of one 15? Sort of trick them into running the mileage they think they need, but really give them something that might keep them from getting injured by running a long run they are not ready for.
I still think that what is lost on a lot of coaches is teaching kids how to race. Training and mileage is one thing, and I think that the majority of high school runners are trained much better than we were in the 80's. However, I think we raced better. Especially up front. I don't see nearly as much good racing in high school as I used to. Much better trained and the middle of the pack runners are better as a result. Kids are much better prepared to transition to college training, but the front runners do not race as well as they should.
I do not think tha 2 a days is a good workout schedule as a regular thing, but I know there are times when something short and sweet in the morning helps shake things out. I do know that
I just finished my sophomore year of cross and i know that most elite runners are getting 50-80 miles a week in the summer. Most runners also add strength training to the mileage. Its not a question of the body's ability to run that much(proper sleep and nutrition will take care of that). If you really want to commit to being an front runner in every race you run you need to run more than 35-40 miles a week.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
I just finished my sophomore year of cross and i know that most elite runners are getting 50-80 miles a week in the summer. Most runners also add strength training to the mileage. Its not a question of the body's ability to run that much(proper sleep and nutrition will take care of that). If you really want to commit to being an front runner in every race you run you need to run more than 35-40 miles a week.
I disagree that you must run more than 35 miles a week. I know 2 state champions from Woodridge that did it on 35 miles a week at their peak and one of them went on to be one of the all time fastest at the Footlocker finals. You don't get much more elite than that. I'm pretty sure the Franek brothers were both state champions and they did not run 50-80. Brian Himmelright of Woodridge was a front runner and a State runner up and he was a 35-40 guy. Many other examples I could point to. Tallent, desire and other factors all play a role. I would not discourage you from building to the point where you are running 50-60 miles a week, it can't hurt if you do it correctly. I would not go above 60 as a high schooler though. I've seen too many injuries above that in proportion to any benefits.
I really think that for a 5k race, the data shows you really don't need to be above 40. 50-80 is college numbers not high school.
Mr K; You can see that I don't really put a lot of stock in big miles for high schoolers. I would rather see kids swim, bike, play tennis and soccer, some hoops etc and keep the actual running miles down under 40 for seniors over the summer. That's me though. Your miles look high to me.
There isn't evidence of any "magic number" between runs. There is however a good body of evidence that a continuous 2x period of rest gives you more recovery than two 1x periods of rest. And in particular if the intervening work involves impact. That doesn't mean that two a day workouts are a net negative. As you said, light aerobic exercise helps in recovery. I am just wondering because I have seen and heard a lot more recently about two workouts in a day, at the same time that the people I have heard at clinics and the papers I have read are saying not to do them. I am not trying to criticize but to do a little thinking and research. Seppo are you using your morning workouts chiefly as a way to add mileage then? (Rather than as a way to say get in two types of workouts in a shorter time period.)
I can tell you that it is possible to win a state title with guys running 35-45 miles per week. I will add to psychodad and say it is also possible to be a multiple state champion in both track and CC running that kind of mileage, because there have been at least two. (By the way psychodad, I lost to one of those Woodridge guys a total of 11 times while I was in HS.) Now both might have been better if they had run more mileage. But both went on to be NCAA D1 All-Americans, one an individual champion and the other a top ten finisher on an NCAA Champion team.
There is a little bit of range in 50-80 miles per week. I think 50 is a perfectly normal mileage amount for a healthy, experience high school distance runner and 80 miles per week is probably too much for all but a tiny handful of runners. There is a large body of research out there to back this up. Proper rest and nutrition will not protect all athletes from injury at that mileage. I think that a lot of times when a kid gets up to 80+ miles per week its because they made an increase and got better. So they make another and get better. They draw a conclusion that increased mileage always makes you better. There probably are some for whom the move from 70 to 80 helped. There are probably others for whom the move from 70 to 80 (or from 60 to 70) didn't help, but they were able to win anyway.I just finished my sophomore year of cross and i know that most elite runners are getting 50-80 miles a week in the summer. Most runners also add strength training to the mileage. Its not a question of the body's ability to run that much(proper sleep and nutrition will take care of that). If you really want to commit to being an front runner in every race you run you need to run more than 35-40 miles a week.
I can tell you that it is possible to win a state title with guys running 35-45 miles per week. I will add to psychodad and say it is also possible to be a multiple state champion in both track and CC running that kind of mileage, because there have been at least two. (By the way psychodad, I lost to one of those Woodridge guys a total of 11 times while I was in HS.) Now both might have been better if they had run more mileage. But both went on to be NCAA D1 All-Americans, one an individual champion and the other a top ten finisher on an NCAA Champion team.
anna4runner
New member
I disagree that you must run more than 35 miles a week. I know 2 state champions from Woodridge that did it on 35 miles a week at their peak and one of them went on to be one of the all time fastest at the Footlocker finals. You don't get much more elite than that. I'm pretty sure the Franek brothers were both state champions and they did not run 50-80. Brian Himmelright of Woodridge was a front runner and a State runner up and he was a 35-40 guy. Many other examples I could point to. Tallent, desire and other factors all play a role. I would not discourage you from building to the point where you are running 50-60 miles a week, it can't hurt if you do it correctly. I would not go above 60 as a high schooler though. I've seen too many injuries above that in proportion to any benefits.
I really think that for a 5k race, the data shows you really don't need to be above 40. 50-80 is college numbers not high school.
Mr K; You can see that I don't really put a lot of stock in big miles for high schoolers. I would rather see kids swim, bike, play tennis and soccer, some hoops etc and keep the actual running miles down under 40 for seniors over the summer. That's me though. Your miles look high to me.
I know you have the facts but look at York High School in Illinois. If you look at their training, they run up to 1000 miles in the summer and up to 50 miles a week in season and they have won 27 state titles and ten or so national championships. And if anyone knows how to train, its Joe Newton. I don't know about you, but when deciding what to run to complete for state, i would want to run like York runs. They have obviously had success doing it.
And about the Woodridge runner, could you give me a name because Dathan Ritzenhein has the fastest ever at Footlocker and their is no runner from Ohio in the top 100 fastest times.
ccrunner609
Active member
I know you have the facts but look at York High School in Illinois. If you look at their training, they run up to 1000 miles in the summer and up to 50 miles a week in season and they have won 27 state titles and ten or so national championships. And if anyone knows how to train, its Joe Newton. I don't know about you, but when deciding what to run to complete for state, i would want to run like York runs. They have obviously had success doing it.
And about the Woodridge runner, could you give me a name because Dathan Ritzenhein has the fastest ever at Footlocker and their is no runner from Ohio in the top 100 fastest times.
Newton averaged 175 runners a year on his teams. THat is why you win.
I know you have the facts but look at York High School in Illinois. If you look at their training, they run up to 1000 miles in the summer and up to 50 miles a week in season and they have won 27 state titles and ten or so national championships. And if anyone knows how to train, its Joe Newton. I don't know about you, but when deciding what to run to complete for state, i would want to run like York runs. They have obviously had success doing it.
And about the Woodridge runner, could you give me a name because Dathan Ritzenhein has the fastest ever at Footlocker and their is no runner from Ohio in the top 100 fastest times.
anna4runner, you probably don't want to pick this fight with psychodad. I will leave it to psychodad to talk to you about the Woodridge runners, but if you make a statement like "...there is no runner from Ohio in the top 100 fastest times." you should probably check it before you post it. According to the FL web site Scott Fry (Sandusky Perkins) has the 9th fastest all-time mark and Bob Kennedy has the 17th fastest. Interestingly, while being two of the best ever from Ohio, they had very different mileage loads in HS. Fry was very high mileage, Kennedy was quite low (35-40). Kennedy went on to be one of the fastest ever American distance runners.
Seppo Kaitainen
Member
There isn't evidence of any "magic number" between runs. There is however a good body of evidence that a continuous 2x period of rest gives you more recovery than two 1x periods of rest. And in particular if the intervening work involves impact. That doesn't mean that two a day workouts are a net negative. As you said, light aerobic exercise helps in recovery. I am just wondering because I have seen and heard a lot more recently about two workouts in a day, at the same time that the people I have heard at clinics and the papers I have read are saying not to do them. I am not trying to criticize but to do a little thinking and research. Seppo are you using your morning workouts chiefly as a way to add mileage then? (Rather than as a way to say get in two types of workouts in a shorter time period.)
I know you weren't trying to criticize and I'd love to hear about any research concerning 2-a-days. In my program, we don't ever run intervals on consecutive days or runs. Most of our work is done at sub-threshold paces, including our morning runs. I find that in addition to being a safe way to add mileage, getting up and at it before school is a good bonding experience and makes running more seem like a reward to young runners (I only "allow" varsity caliber runners to do them).
psycho_dad
Well-known member
I was going to post that when you have over 100 runners on your team year after year, you are going to be good almost by accident. CC609 beat me to it.
Mathking, I hate to prove you wrong, but the Footlocker site lists the top times by the winners. Scott Fry is the 9th fastest winner ever, but 18th fastest overall. Still not bad and certainly in the top 100. He ran a 14:50
Bob Henes of Woodridge,(they list it as Woodbridge) ran a 14:51 which puts him at 23rd. Kennedy ran a 14:59, Wesley Smith ran a 15:01 which has to put him in the top 100 as well and then Padgett of La$alle at 15:09 has to be up there.
Anna4runner; First off, I admire that you have a goal to be an elite runner and that you are ambitious enough to think about dedicating yourself to putting in a ton of miles. It's not just about miles. You need to be prepared to run against people like Dan Franek (Kenston 1982 CC state champ) who would kill himself to win. He could just out tough anyone. There is a genetic thing going on there because his brother Tom was also tough and Tom's daughter Bridget pulled off the best single state track meet I've ever seen a distance runner pull off.
Where did you get that Footlocker top 100 list? I saw 2 years ago on the telecast where they were listing the all time top times on a video board and Fry and Henes were in the top 25. Fry and Kennedy won the thing. I don't care what their times were, winning it puts you in the Elite classification.
Mathking, I hate to prove you wrong, but the Footlocker site lists the top times by the winners. Scott Fry is the 9th fastest winner ever, but 18th fastest overall. Still not bad and certainly in the top 100. He ran a 14:50
Bob Henes of Woodridge,(they list it as Woodbridge) ran a 14:51 which puts him at 23rd. Kennedy ran a 14:59, Wesley Smith ran a 15:01 which has to put him in the top 100 as well and then Padgett of La$alle at 15:09 has to be up there.
Anna4runner; First off, I admire that you have a goal to be an elite runner and that you are ambitious enough to think about dedicating yourself to putting in a ton of miles. It's not just about miles. You need to be prepared to run against people like Dan Franek (Kenston 1982 CC state champ) who would kill himself to win. He could just out tough anyone. There is a genetic thing going on there because his brother Tom was also tough and Tom's daughter Bridget pulled off the best single state track meet I've ever seen a distance runner pull off.
Where did you get that Footlocker top 100 list? I saw 2 years ago on the telecast where they were listing the all time top times on a video board and Fry and Henes were in the top 25. Fry and Kennedy won the thing. I don't care what their times were, winning it puts you in the Elite classification.
psychodad, thanks. I should have read that more carefully. I just remember thinking "Wait a minute, Fry, Henes and Kennedy weren't top 100?" and googled a list. Those were the names that stood out for me since I lost races to all of them.
Seppo, the first information was from a clinic in NYC in the summer of 2010 in a presentation by a college coach (from the NE, can't remember where) and a physiologist/marathoner from UF-Gainesville. After that I looked around and found quite a few more studies, about half from swimming and half from running. What has puzzled me is the studies generally showed a clear increase (not a huge percentage jump, but statistically significant) in the incidence of injury, but what wasn't clear was whether everyone had an increased risk of injury. When I was in college, our morning workout group (in the pool) sounds kind of like yours, a subset of the team. I didn't start until I was a junior. But what really got me thinking was that if two-a-day workouts actually were a net negative, why do swimming coaches use them?
Seppo, the first information was from a clinic in NYC in the summer of 2010 in a presentation by a college coach (from the NE, can't remember where) and a physiologist/marathoner from UF-Gainesville. After that I looked around and found quite a few more studies, about half from swimming and half from running. What has puzzled me is the studies generally showed a clear increase (not a huge percentage jump, but statistically significant) in the incidence of injury, but what wasn't clear was whether everyone had an increased risk of injury. When I was in college, our morning workout group (in the pool) sounds kind of like yours, a subset of the team. I didn't start until I was a junior. But what really got me thinking was that if two-a-day workouts actually were a net negative, why do swimming coaches use them?
One thing to remember about running/endurance related research is that it is almost always anecdotal (very small samples), based on untrained runners, or rarely applicable to common training conditions of high school athletes.
The other thing to remember is that injury avoidance isn't the number one priority of elite athletes who are most likely to employ multiple workouts per day. The attitude is more "Olympic Trials or bust". With developing athletes in a scholastic setting I think we must have a much higher priority on injury avoidance.
The other thing to remember is that injury avoidance isn't the number one priority of elite athletes who are most likely to employ multiple workouts per day. The attitude is more "Olympic Trials or bust". With developing athletes in a scholastic setting I think we must have a much higher priority on injury avoidance.
One thing to remember about running/endurance related research is that it is almost always anecdotal (very small samples), based on untrained runners, or rarely applicable to common training conditions of high school athletes.
The other thing to remember is that injury avoidance isn't the number one priority of elite athletes who are most likely to employ multiple workouts per day. The attitude is more "Olympic Trials or bust". With developing athletes in a scholastic setting I think we must have a much higher priority on injury avoidance.
Many studies are small, though most are not anecdotal. Just because a study is not a controlled experiment does not mean it is anecdotal. Most of the studies I read were specifically about teenage athletes, and relatively large samples,in the 50-300 range, so easily past the n=30 target and large enough for t-testing. One of the studies the exercise physiologist showed us was a controlled. (Half of each team 2 a days, half not. But was the increase in injury risk due to twice a day or just the increase in total volume?)
But I completely agree about placing a higher priority on injury avoidance. Every time I think about moving a kid to a higher volume than we normally use for someone of that experience level and age, I reread the forward of Daniels about his early experience as a coach, and the "some will survive and they'll be good" attitude. Just so I can make sure I am contemplating the move for the right reasons. Which is basically this kid looks like he can handle it and get faster. Last year was a typical such decision. We had a senior who had handled high volume and moved up to 50-55 miles after much pleading with us. He was amazing in workouts all CC season, but didn't really get much faster than he was the year before. I think his PR improved 5 seconds, but given the awesome conditions, the fact that his improvement was the worst on the entire team, and how he basically leveled off and didn't get any faster the second half of the season we concluded that the higher volume for him was probably a mistake. I have found that when kids move to much higher mileage that kind of "leveling off" effect happens frequently.
I would be interested in seeing the citations on the research you mention. I would be surprised to see any studies that would allow causation to be established.
Too often a survey or observational study is done, a correlation is established, and we infer a causal relationship because it matches with our experience and intuition.
Many running related research activities involve fewer than 20 people who are often volunteers from a researcher's undergratuate physical education program - hardly a representative sample from the general population. While not technically anecdotal, it isn't much better. I honestly haven't ever seen any proper research done with adolescent athletes, so I would be very interested in seeing what you are refering to.
A typical research study:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/1/93.short
* Small sample: n = 7
* Untrained subjects
* Adults, not adolescents
* Males only, no females
* Response limited to one muscle group/joint
Too often a survey or observational study is done, a correlation is established, and we infer a causal relationship because it matches with our experience and intuition.
Many running related research activities involve fewer than 20 people who are often volunteers from a researcher's undergratuate physical education program - hardly a representative sample from the general population. While not technically anecdotal, it isn't much better. I honestly haven't ever seen any proper research done with adolescent athletes, so I would be very interested in seeing what you are refering to.
A typical research study:
http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/1/93.short
* Small sample: n = 7
* Untrained subjects
* Adults, not adolescents
* Males only, no females
* Response limited to one muscle group/joint
Last edited:
madman, I will try to see if I can find one that is web-available. Most of it is probably too new now. It is true there are very few studies that can establish causation. But just because you can't prove causation does not mean there is no evidence of something. And this is the kind of situation where I would want evidence that adding two workouts a day would not be associated with increased risk of injury before I started using them. As I said, however, almost every college coach, trainer or physiologist I have heard address this issue whether at clinics or in casual conversation in the past two years has said "don't do two days." That makes me take notice. But I am at heart an empiricist. I am happier when I at least get to talk to a lot of people with experience on a subject before I start making judgments.
I will say that much of the research on training I see seems like they structured it to come out with a certain answer. Example: http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/36/1/33.short Nice large sample, randomized control design, looks like it should be great. The problem is when the control group trains for 8 weeks and the experimental for 13 weeks, using a definition of injury as "any musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back causing a restriction of running for at least 1 week" is troubling. Given dramatically greater time available the second group is going to see proportionally more injuries given the definition. So when the two groups saw basically the same injury rate it did nothing to convince me that their conclusion was warranted.
OK, I checked and as I thought the study from the UF professor is not on the web. Still likely in the review period. My issue with most of the the talks about studies I attended was that they seemed to be looking to show that two a days cause increased injury. That is not in and of itself a bad thing, but it makes me want to poor over data rather than just hear about a summary. It was also not clear to me that they distinguished between injuries because of training twice a day and injuries because of increased volume. And they didn't address such differences in performance. Hence asking about on here. The UF study stuck in my mind the most because he did address performance, he had a two coaches who did use two a days and two who didn't, all four used close to the same (within 10%) total training volumes and he asked the coaches to agree on how to identify injuries. He didn't say what the total training volume was however.
How to identify injuries is the single biggest problem in all such studies. I know a HS coach who uses two a days with a total volume in the 65 mile range and large teams who claims a less than 3% injury rate per season. Something I just can't believe unless our definitions of injury are very different. No matter what training you do there are going to be some injuries.
I will say that much of the research on training I see seems like they structured it to come out with a certain answer. Example: http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/36/1/33.short Nice large sample, randomized control design, looks like it should be great. The problem is when the control group trains for 8 weeks and the experimental for 13 weeks, using a definition of injury as "any musculoskeletal complaint of the lower extremity or back causing a restriction of running for at least 1 week" is troubling. Given dramatically greater time available the second group is going to see proportionally more injuries given the definition. So when the two groups saw basically the same injury rate it did nothing to convince me that their conclusion was warranted.
OK, I checked and as I thought the study from the UF professor is not on the web. Still likely in the review period. My issue with most of the the talks about studies I attended was that they seemed to be looking to show that two a days cause increased injury. That is not in and of itself a bad thing, but it makes me want to poor over data rather than just hear about a summary. It was also not clear to me that they distinguished between injuries because of training twice a day and injuries because of increased volume. And they didn't address such differences in performance. Hence asking about on here. The UF study stuck in my mind the most because he did address performance, he had a two coaches who did use two a days and two who didn't, all four used close to the same (within 10%) total training volumes and he asked the coaches to agree on how to identify injuries. He didn't say what the total training volume was however.
How to identify injuries is the single biggest problem in all such studies. I know a HS coach who uses two a days with a total volume in the 65 mile range and large teams who claims a less than 3% injury rate per season. Something I just can't believe unless our definitions of injury are very different. No matter what training you do there are going to be some injuries.
anna4runner
New member
anna4runner, you probably don't want to pick this fight with psychodad. I will leave it to psychodad to talk to you about the Woodridge runners, but if you make a statement like "...there is no runner from Ohio in the top 100 fastest times." you should probably check it before you post it. According to the FL web site Scott Fry (Sandusky Perkins) has the 9th fastest all-time mark and Bob Kennedy has the 17th fastest. Interestingly, while being two of the best ever from Ohio, they had very different mileage loads in HS. Fry was very high mileage, Kennedy was quite low (35-40). Kennedy went on to be one of the fastest ever American distance runners.
i did check it but my info was from milesplit and apparently they need to get there information right. Thanks for the info and sorry anout the mess up psychodad. Im just a high school runner trying to figure out what to do to become an elite runner.
anna4runner
New member
Hey sorry about the mess up psycodad, I got my list from milesplit. I should have researched it more. And thanks for the information. Im in DIII in the southwest so I have the chance to run against a lot of talent during the year and into districts and regionals so I think that will help me as I progress.
Mathking...
A research study on the effectiveness of 2-a-days: http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/1/93.abstract
Go past the abstract (the pdf is free on the right) to the discussion section. Small sample size, but they have some interesting observations about HOW to approach training like this from a gene expression point of view.
A research study on the effectiveness of 2-a-days: http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/1/93.abstract
Go past the abstract (the pdf is free on the right) to the discussion section. Small sample size, but they have some interesting observations about HOW to approach training like this from a gene expression point of view.
Mathking...
A research study on the effectiveness of 2-a-days: http://jap.physiology.org/content/98/1/93.abstract
Go past the abstract (the pdf is free on the right) to the discussion section. Small sample size, but they have some interesting observations about HOW to approach training like this from a gene expression point of view.
Thanks tmk. It was an interesting article. Of course this opens a completely new can of worms. Would it be better to train endurance athletes twice in one day and then skip the next day rather than once every day?
Also, the train low, compete high idea which was the point of the study has me thinking other implications for training.
That's the same study I linked to earlier. Be cautious about making any changes on the basis of this study as it doesn't mimic very well the conditions under which most runners would be doing two-a-days. They trained for 1 hour, had a two hour rest during which they must fast, and then trained for another hour.
Madman, sorry about that. Reading comprehension issues on my part. My point wasn't to say this was an optimal training scheme by any means. Understanding the process is one thing; applying it to a 16 year old (with a 7:30 AM class, homework that keeps them up to midnight, Etc.) is a whole different world. The key is optimizing the individual in a team concept, and there is as much art as there is science in that idea.
That's the same study I linked to earlier. Be cautious about making any changes on the basis of this study as it doesn't mimic very well the conditions under which most runners would be doing two-a-days. They trained for 1 hour, had a two hour rest during which they must fast, and then trained for another hour.
I would be really hesitant to use this to make any changes at all. The type of training they are talking about is no impact and not aerobic. (And there is a good bit of research that says that after a hard aerobic workout it is important to eat.) Also, it doesn't really address the two a days question. They did train twice in one day, but then take a day off.
But it raises some interesting questions about off season lifting for me.
My first comment is that we have discussed going to one workout a week (plus the race) for the past two years. I don't know that we are ready to take that plunge yet, as it is frankly a bit scary. But it is what a close reading of a lot of the literature suggests. So bob marley, I have a question. Did you change to the higher mileage and the one workout a week at the same time or did one come first?
Interesting analysis by someone who actually does the whole higher mileage thing. I have done higher mileage at both the high school and collegiate level. I can make the case for both sides, but on the topic of developing adolescent athletes, I am probably going to underdo the mileage a bit (although I really don't compared to most programs), Just to try to keep people healthy. I think the most important aspect of the whole thing is to keep people continuously training. If you dont have interruptions in the training regimen I think you see the maximum benefit for everyone. But if you have success with what you are doing then by all means nothing should stop you from continuing.
ccrunner609
Active member
We spent most of september running one workout a week and it was tough. We had days were we were running over 2 hours continuous with different distances and intesities (took the other workout and mixed it in). We raced average during that phase but in October when we split it back to 2 days a week we started running well and finished the season at the state meet.
Some thing that I wanted to try and it worked well. THe one day a week workout was alot of Bob Schul type training.
Some thing that I wanted to try and it worked well. THe one day a week workout was alot of Bob Schul type training.
Forgive me for going on a tangent, but since the topic also included training methods, I have a question about other methods in addition to the mileage factor. Would someone mind chiming in regarding what sort of ancilary training your team does and, if possible to determine, the effects you believe they have had? I'm talking drills, dynamic stretching, lifting, strides, core work, top-end speed development, etc..
Reason being, I would like to incorporate more of this in the future and would like some anecdotes from the trenches in addition to the research I do on my own before implementing anything. I ran at a college where, starting the year after I graduated, they began to do a session that focused on speed/strength development through exercises and drills. Everyone was sore at first but ended up seeing good results in their performances (especially the women).
Thoughts? What does your team do and what do you think are the results?
Reason being, I would like to incorporate more of this in the future and would like some anecdotes from the trenches in addition to the research I do on my own before implementing anything. I ran at a college where, starting the year after I graduated, they began to do a session that focused on speed/strength development through exercises and drills. Everyone was sore at first but ended up seeing good results in their performances (especially the women).
Thoughts? What does your team do and what do you think are the results?
For the past four seasons we have been doing a core strength routine three days a week. We start practice with a series of dynamic warm-up drills every day. These are for warm-up, not really drills to develop speed or form. Three days a week we go directly from this into a series of general and core strength routines (with a focus more on the core). In the off-season we have voluntary weight room sessions, but with 150-170 kids a season in CC we can't use the weight room effectively. The core work are a series of exercises which take about 20 minutes. We do strides after most distance runs, and as the season progresses we finish some of our workouts with fast 200s.
Of all of this, we have the most clear picture of dynamic warm-ups, which has pretty clearly helped in preventing the smaller, nagging injuries. We feel like the core strength stuff helps, though that is harder to be quantify. (We just noted how generally weak in the core our team was, even many of our top runners.)
Of all of this, we have the most clear picture of dynamic warm-ups, which has pretty clearly helped in preventing the smaller, nagging injuries. We feel like the core strength stuff helps, though that is harder to be quantify. (We just noted how generally weak in the core our team was, even many of our top runners.)
ccrunner609
Active member
We lift 6 months a year (3 in winter and 3 in summer) we then transistion into plymoetrics and core during the season.
We do alot of strides. Some weeks up to 3-4 miles worth (some on easy days and some during workouts in the intervals sessions)
We do alot of strides. Some weeks up to 3-4 miles worth (some on easy days and some during workouts in the intervals sessions)
hubcaphurler
New member
Sorry to ask such a dumb question.
What is meant by "Strides"? How do you describe a workout of Strides.
Having a hard time visualizing what that is.
Forgive me for going on a tangent, but since the topic also included training methods, I have a question about other methods in addition to the mileage factor. Would someone mind chiming in regarding what sort of ancilary training your team does and, if possible to determine, the effects you believe they have had? I'm talking drills, dynamic stretching, lifting, strides, core work, top-end speed development, etc..
Reason being, I would like to incorporate more of this in the future and would like some anecdotes from the trenches in addition to the research I do on my own before implementing anything. I ran at a college where, starting the year after I graduated, they began to do a session that focused on speed/strength development through exercises and drills. Everyone was sore at first but ended up seeing good results in their performances (especially the women).
Thoughts? What does your team do and what do you think are the results?
What is meant by "Strides"? How do you describe a workout of Strides.
Having a hard time visualizing what that is.
Mr K; You can see that I don't really put a lot of stock in big miles for high schoolers. I would rather see kids swim, bike, play tennis and soccer, some hoops etc and keep the actual running miles down under 40 for seniors over the summer. That's me though. Your miles look high to me.
I agree, some runners are a lot more sucessful with less mileage. Especially if they are doing other activites such as swiiming and other sports. Im just trying to get rough estimates, but yes I completely agree that those numbers can be to high. Just depends what the runner feels comfortable with and works for them