Mileage/Training Methods

[madman]

For a truly talented kid (physical, mental, and emotional) low miles allow them to delay intense training and potentially extend their career through college and beyond. However, for a kid of average ability higher mileage can allow them to achieve at the highest level in high school. Some of these kids just don't have the tools to compete at the highest levels of NCAA DI competition. Plus many of them have other interests in college and they may not even try. While higher mileage when in high school may lead to a shorter career for some, it may also be the only path to glory for some.

If I remember correctly, Joe Newton's philosophy is that he wants the best out of his runners now since they may never run a step as part of a team once they leave his program. I don't agree with that approach for all. I have left several truly talented kids undertrained but prepared for DI athletics, while my own history was one of much higher mileage in high school that allowed me to barely make varsity in the Big 10. If I had tried to "save my legs" with lower mileage in high school, I never would have had the opportunity to compete where I went to college.

I believe it's best to take each kid along with their situation and goals independently to determine appropriate mileage. Don't try to fit every peg regardless of shape into your preconceived round hole.

 

[mathking]

I strongly agree with madman that you can't train every kid the same. Our All-Ohio distance athletes have trained anywhere from 35 to 55 miles per week for their base volume. A big part of good coaching (in my view) is figuring out what works for each kid.

I don't think that for "less talented" kids that high mileage necessarily means better performance. For a lot of less talented kids high mileage means beat up legs and performance that plateaus or bends downward. For some it means injury and frustration. Even at the same volume not every program is the same. I think there is a tendency to assume that if a kid ran 16:00 at 40 miles per week then he could have run 15:45 if he had only run 50 miles per week. That just isn't necessarily the case. Every serious study of endurance athlete training has shown that exactly what you do (pace, recovery, etc.) is more important than the total volume you do in determining how fast you run/swim/bike.

I have come to learn is that I can't necessarily just do what some other coach does and get the same results. (A coach I know has said "I'm not good enough to do that and keep the kids healthy and motivated.") I will never be the motivator that Joe Newton is. It's not that I am bad at it, but that he is extraordinary. I know there is a tendency for us to think "Of course that school is good, they get 150 kids out." And it is very true that most of the elite programs in the country are at large schools. But I know from experience that it is really hard for two of us to manage a team of 70, and we would be better if we had 35. So I am impressed by coaches who can year after year produce great results with teams of more than 100.

While it is great to have kids run in college, and I love to help them get there, what I hope even more is to give them a love of running period. If they keep running after high school they will be more fit and healthy as adults.

 

[bob_marley]

In my opinion, 50-70 miles with an emphasis on aerobic development is much easier on the legs than 40-50 MPW in an interval-based program. As long as you're not hammering every run; and that would be a caveat in either program, really.

Honestly, I think a high school runner will last longer in a college program if he's done 60 MPW (give or take); he'll be much more prepared for the rigors of college training than someone who's spent four years under 50. Especially with the distance moving up 3000-5000 meters. Think of all the aerobic development they've lost.

 

[mathking]

In my opinion, 50-70 miles with an emphasis on aerobic development is much easier on the legs than 40-50 MPW in an interval-based program. As long as you're not hammering every run; and that would be a caveat in either program, really.

Honestly, I think a high school runner will last longer in a college program if he's done 60 MPW (give or take); he'll be much more prepared for the rigors of college training than someone who's spent four years under 50. Especially with the distance moving up 3000-5000 meters. Think of all the aerobic development they've lost.

What do you mean by interval-based program as opposed to aerobic development?

 

[bob_marley]

I guess I'm just referring to a program that's emphasis is on its two or more track workouts run throughout the season and at velocities faster than anaerobic threshold v. a program that trains aerobically (say aerobic threshold, marathon pace, anaerobic threshold) for the majority of the season where the emphasis would be on the long run. Both programs share characteristics -- the interval-based program still does a long run, and the aerobic development program still does fast intervals -- just that the emphasis is on two different training methods.

 

[madman]

I don't think that for "less talented" kids that high mileage necessarily means better performance. For a lot of less talented kids high mileage means beat up legs and performance that plateaus or bends downward. For some it means injury and frustration. Even at the same volume not every program is the same. I think there is a tendency to assume that if a kid ran 16:00 at 40 miles per week then he could have run 15:45 if he had only run 50 miles per week. That just isn't necessarily the case. Every serious study of endurance athlete training has shown that exactly what you do (pace, recovery, etc.) is more important than the total volume you do in determining how fast you run/swim/bike.

I'm not sure that we disagree, but for clarity I do think that the optimal mileage level for nearly every healthy person is well above 40 mpw. BUT the path to getting to that level may be vastly different for each person as it is dependent on physiology, mindset, training environment, motivation, living conditions, etc. I find that 40-50 mpw works relatively well for many high school runners. The truth, however, is that many of them don't eat right, they don't get near enough sleep, they fail to do much if any strength training, resist running much on the weekends, etc. Their performance may be optimized at 40-50 mpw under these conditions. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do better with higher mileage IF they were willing to adopt different habits.

For those high school athletes that are willing to make greater commitments in these other areas and are able to do so without feeling like they're making huge sacrifices we should not be resistant to seeing them progress towards higher mileage (70 or more mpw) by the time they are seniors regardless of their talent level. I am confident that we they would be more successful at that level than keeping them at 40-50 mpw simply because that level works for most athletes.

Few scholastic endurance athletes train consistently year round. They have to be emotionally ready to do so and few are. But, for those that are ready, we need to meet them with progessive plan that encourages growth. I think their bodies would easily adapt to the physical demands of higher mileage. Even if a freshman running 25 mpw in August increases only 1 mpw each month that would only be at 70 mpw by the end of their senior year. Physically, higher mileage isn't an issue if incremented upward slowly and consistently AND if the athlete isn't showing any signs of physical/emotional stress. We should not be limiting them by many of the preconceived mileage ranges listed in this thread.

To be clear, I do believe that a kid of modest ability would perform better off of 70 mpw than 40 mpw IF we do this.

 

[moemancc]

I'm not sure that we disagree, but for clarity I do think that the optimal mileage level for nearly every healthy person is well above 40 mpw. BUT the path to getting to that level may be vastly different for each person as it is dependent on physiology, mindset, training environment, motivation, living conditions, etc. I find that 40-50 mpw works relatively well for many high school runners. The truth, however, is that many of them don't eat right, they don't get near enough sleep, they fail to do much if any strength training, resist running much on the weekends, etc. Their performance may be optimized at 40-50 mpw under these conditions. That doesn't mean they wouldn't do better with higher mileage IF they were willing to adopt different habits.

For those high school athletes that are willing to make greater commitments in these other areas and are able to do so without feeling like they're making huge sacrifices we should not be resistant to seeing them progress towards higher mileage (70 or more mpw) by the time they are seniors regardless of their talent level. I am confident that we they would be more successful at that level than keeping them at 40-50 mpw simply because that level works for most athletes.

Few scholastic endurance athletes train consistently year round. They have to be emotionally ready to do so and few are. But, for those that are ready, we need to meet them with progessive plan that encourages growth. I think their bodies would easily adapt to the physical demands of higher mileage. Even if a freshman running 25 mpw in August increases only 1 mpw each month that would only be at 70 mpw by the end of their senior year. Physically, higher mileage isn't an issue if done slowly and consistently AND if the athlete isn't showing any signs of physical/emotional stress. We should not be limiting them by many of the preconceived mileage ranges listed in this thread.

To be clear, I do believe that a kid of modest ability would perform better off of 70 mpw than 40 mpw IF we do this.

I would agree to an extent but you also have to give them time to adjust to each increment of mileage. The human body wont just simply keep adjusting. At some point you will see diminishing and even negative returns. It takes the body roughly 3 weeks to a month to adjust to a certain workload before it is ready for more. also miles really arent the key. It is really amount of time that is the real factor. If we are measuring the work done the more time a person runs the more steps they take and more work done. ex., two kids could run 1 mile, but if one runs it in 730 and the other runs it in 630, the first runner did more work.

Another factor is aerobic maturity takes time, and there is really no shortcut. What we should focus on is training technique, strength and posture early so as to increase maximum velocity. Speed always translates up. I really think we are further behind in the middle events than we are the long ones because we are struggling to produce homegrown talent with the speed/endurance combo.

 

[billcarson]

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,m fairly certain Woodridge has a training webpage that has their guys running 55 to 60 a week early in the summer

 

[Running Man 101]

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.

FWIW: Yes, mathking is 100% correct IMHO. If there is a second workout it is a low intensity run (short recovery type) or a type of strength training (swimming, cycling, weights...) then that is fine. Probably should be seperated by 8 hours from the first with food and rest in between. We should also seperate the discussion into average and elite level running.

For the specific example of a kid running 4 miles twice a day for CC. He would be better off running 8 miles every other day at first, then working in a shorter recovery day in between. The long runs really are the key, more than 60 min to push the aerobic energy system and cardiovascular system into growth.

 

[Running Man 101]

I would agree to an extent but you also have to give them time to adjust to each increment of mileage. The human body wont just simply keep adjusting. At some point you will see diminishing and even negative returns. It takes the body roughly 3 weeks to a month to adjust to a certain workload before it is ready for more. also miles really arent the key. It is really amount of time that is the real factor. If we are measuring the work done the more time a person runs the more steps they take and more work done. ex., two kids could run 1 mile, but if one runs it in 730 and the other runs it in 630, the first runner did more work.

Another factor is aerobic maturity takes time, and there is really no shortcut. What we should focus on is training technique, strength and posture early so as to increase maximum velocity. Speed always translates up. I really think we are further behind in the middle events than we are the long ones because we are struggling to produce homegrown talent with the speed/endurance combo.

3-4 weeks for an adult. Kids due to their higher growth and hormone factors can adapt much faster. This doesn't disqualify the 10% rule. The other factor is what type of fitness level the person has had previously. A jump from 30-40MPW for someone who had run 60MPW before (say in the past 6 months) is different than someone who hadn't done it before.

HOW the miles are run are just as important as the total mileage.