Penn State Intervals wrote:
How about the guy at Penn State who has his runners very fast at the first meet? What is he doing? Hammering intervals?
As long as they're setting WRs who cares?
Penn State Intervals wrote:
How about the guy at Penn State who has his runners very fast at the first meet? What is he doing? Hammering intervals?
As long as they're setting WRs who cares?
Woooo hooooo woo wrote:
If I recall he uses Alan Webb as an example of not putting emphasis on long term aerobic development
Did JK really say that? I wouldn't be surprised, he is talking BS though.
Webb's problem is lack of confidence.
Anyone wonder why AW hasn't moved up in distance? He is still focusing on the mile, right?
noakesie wrote:
Either that or Noakes is correct on the 10 years life expectancy of high-level competition, page 348, Lore of Running.
I would say people like Geb and Tergat disprove Noakes theory, but, they are exceptions to almost every rule.
There's a lot factors that go into training. Beardsley for example got in car accident and addicted to pain killers. Webb got in a weight room and addicted to Big Macs. Webb never had it between the ears. Ryun did until he pounded too many Bibles - like Hall.
genetic dysfunction wrote:
I will almost certainly be in the minority on this issue, but I think most elite high school track distance runners are overtrained in either quality or quanity, and often both. The ability of athletes to take the kind of hard work elite runners take differs greatly from person to person. This is true in virtually every sport. For every Nolan Ryan there are thousands of arms busted each year in spring training that never recover. For every Bil Rodgers and Frank Shorter there are runners like Dick Beardsly or others who had great talent but managed just one or two quality marathons. A lot of long term physical problems derive from cumulative work. What you do in hard work when you are 16 years old might not hurt you then, but it may contribute to later problems. I would suggest that most truly talented track distance runners would be far better off being undetrained in high school and running a 4:08 in high school than training excessively hard and getting down to 4:02. The difference may not appear until they are 23, 24, or even older. Undertraining talented high school athletes who compete in events where they could reasonably peak in their late 20 or early 30s will serve them well as they will be more likely to be able to do the really hard training when there is the bigger payoff in running fast. Slow steady progress and increases in work load is the way to go to achieve maximum results.
G_D
Well, Gharib started running at the age of 22, so that could explain why he could probably run 13:20 for 5k at the age of 39-40. If he would have started at the age of 14 like most elite runners, maybe he could not brake 2:15 today.
So if Alan Webb would have gotten into running at the age of 22, then he would probably be running 3:31 at the 1500 today hehe
genetic dysfunction wrote:
Overtraining in high school also at times affects those who do not compete after high school in their general health and long term well being. I am not suggesting that this is easy. It is difficult to find the appropriate level of quantity and quality for teenage athletes. You want them to work hard be disciplined and get faster. And you point to a problem, long term vs. short term goals. What makes this even more difficult is that talented and competitive 14, 15, 16, and 17 year old kids want to be as fast as they can as quickly as they can. Most serious high school track athletes want to overtrain and need to be held back for their own long term good. Teenage kids will always favor short term success without concern for long term consequences. But their coaches should not. I am just suggesting that a responsible high school coach does not unreasonably "hammer" their kids to eke out minimal gain in times while they are 15 and 16 year old kids whose bodies are still growing. I think most high school coaches are more than willing to hammer their kids. I am suggesting that when bones are growing and teenagers are maturing it is in the best interest of the teenagers for a responsible adult coach to act like a responsible adult and be cautious about overtrianing them. This is, of course, an inexact science and what one kid can do another may not be able to. But high school kids should not be getting stress fractures from over work and other such overuse injuries. High school should not be hemmmered into the ground to satisfy their coaches desire for success.
G_D
The assumption here is that "hammering intervals" leads to quick results and focusing on building up mileage and aerobic running is "development" that does not wear out the runner.
The fact is, adolescents physiology is different in 13-18 year olds than it is in adults. Hormones, growing, maturing bodies, social issues are usually not taken into consideration when training adolescents but is the major factor in if athletes continue to run or not.
Here are the facts:
1. If they enjoy it, they will keep doing it. Duh. Running on trails with friends is more fun than running on busy city streets. Bus rides to trails and races are as much a part of running as the run itself. Kids need to love it and it is the Coach's job to foster this.
2. Who is to say that hammering intervals leads to better results than aerobic mileage? In youth the cardiovascular system is growing, the added testosterone in pubescent boys increases production of mitochondria thus increasing the ability of red blood cells to carry oxygen. They put on muscle and get stronger. Nothing helps this process more than just getting out there and running.
3. Every individual is different. Some respond to mileage, others respond to quick, short intervals. Some like doubles, others need the sleep. It is the coach's job to understand what works and what doesn't for the athlete. This is a hard thing to do when coaching 100 kids but you should have an understanding of the top varsity athletes. This is the art of coaching.
The fact is you can do it right, make it fun, see great results and make lifetime runners.
It is wrong to assume that intervals does not help develop athletes while endurance training does. Pounding out the miles with no interval sessions can be just as mundane and lead to injury as well.
I personally have trained under a coach who believed in "quality over quantity" and another who believed in mileage. My last coach believed in doing both. But who is to say the fast speed training did not lead to the improvement when I transitioned to more mileage. Or that the more mileage was the base for me to improve when we began to focus more on the interval type training. It is all connected and part of the difficulty and proving what is the right way to train and what is wrong way.
As for Webb, I agree that he has been up and down but that is the way some people are. When your push your body injuries happen. We have good days, bad days; good years, bad years. That's life.
Only idiots. Why move up to an event where you have not run a world class time? The more interesting question is should he move down to the 800m and figure his speed is good enough and his endurance willl be a big plus with all the rounds.
sissyfoots wrote:
Anyone wonder why AW hasn't moved up in distance? He is still focusing on the mile, right?
Right. People regularly move to shorter distances when they no longer run well in the longer distances.
This is what John Kellogg actually said about Webb:
Per INTENSE interval training, it only takes a few weeks to maximize the training effects of workouts designed to help you buffer or reuse lactate. This doesn't stem from theory; it comes from trial and error. I don't know how much of this Webb did throughout HS, so I can't make any comment on it. Obviously, he did what was necessary to become the fastest U.S. HS miler of all time, destroying a record I thought would not be broken in my lifetime. Bottom line: If he relied on a lot of intense middle-distance (300m-1,000m) interval training, he sacrificed some degree of future development for his HS career. Not that that's particularly BAD - we NEEDED a guy like him to come along - and he WILL be a major force even if he doesn't improve at all. If he kept that high intensity running to a reasonable quantity during HS, he will likely turn out to be the best miler this country has ever produced - and a strong candidate for major championship medals.
Which is not quite so bad as what some of the posters on here are claiming. IF Webb ran too many hard intervals in high school, THEN JK believes he short-changed his future development. Though I would reasonably guess that JK still has immense respect for Webb and his accomplishments, even if he disagrees with the way he trains.
Yeah I was wondering what Kellogg actually said about Webb.
Webb's problem after high school was not knowing how to peak. Most years, he either peaked too soon, or he went too long without racing, and wasn't race-ready when he needed to be. He got it right one year, but couldn't repeat it.
SMJO wrote:
Hilarious. People come up with two guys which means it should be the "norm". Lopes and Gharib werre distance runners anyway.
Webb is trying to be a good college 800 guy at almost 30.
John Walker ran his PRs for the mile and 3000 at age 30.
Just a few thoughts...If Webb never gets better from here on out, he still had quite a career. He doesn't have a medal that many would want, but he's still performed at a very high level. From my experience with coaching, many short/middle distance youth runners would prefer intervals over an abundance of steady mileage. Intervals fall within the mindset of youth - run hard, then recover. As long as runners aren't going all out in intervals all year, they will probably be fine.