Views on my son's 5k time

Ososlo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Your lungs should not be in agony after 10 seconds. 10 seconds is pretty much 100% anaerobic. You'd only feel it afterwards over such a short distance.

I assume you are referring to how kids run all distances. Just pelt it from the gun and try hang on. Kids will do this over 5km too. If you let them run 10km they'd still go out at suicidal pace. This is just how they run. It's stupid, but they are kids, they can't help but go like the clappers.

small exaggeration there on my part possibly.

I just wish (I've had this conversation with some RL people too and they agree) that in school we were encouraged to go for a pressure-free jog now and again rather than ever run being a race. I might have actually liked running then. But then again, maybe I wouldn't... but it would have been nice to have the chance to try it.

It took me a few decades to appreciate that running doesn't have to be hell and can actually be something I might enjoy if a more relaxed approach was taken.
Talking as someone with no natural speed.

Chivito550

Ososlo wrote: »

small exaggeration there on my part possibly.

I just wish (I've had this conversation with some RL people too and they agree) that in school we were encouraged to go for a pressure-free jog now and again rather than ever run being a race. I might have actually liked running then. But then again, maybe I wouldn't... but it would have been nice to have the chance to try it.

It took me a few decades to appreciate that running doesn't have to be hell and can actually be something I might enjoy if a more relaxed approach was taken.
Talking as someone with no natural speed.

I get what you are saying, but most kids like to be competitive, in a fun environment. I was rubbish at all sports as a kid, yet like all my peers, I wanted to try win in whatever I did. Pressure free runs as you call them, are like playing a football match with your friends and not keeping score. We never did that, and I doubt too many did. Kids seem to thrive on the competitiveness of sport.

The sport is becoming very much a case of "everyone's a winner" at adult level. Kids wouldn't find this "cool". They'd just pick another sport, where there are shiny medals and trophy's available and a chance to compete against their peers.

walshb

In my primary school we went to athletics meets and I was selected at the long distances as I was the best in the school at this. It felt long, but it was only 800 meters. Aged 12 that feels quite long. I remember going to the meet and thinking I'd get a medal. I almost got lapped by some of the other 12 year olds. Last I came. They must have ended up winning golds at the Olympics later on some of them.:pac:

kit3

Ultrapussy wrote: »

It's a complex area and needs addressing. Too many of the few kids that come into athletics (at way too young of an age) are being driven out of the sport (at an age when they should be just starting) because the sport is mismanaged and by extension, miscoached.

Interested to read this. I've only had very recent exposure to the club scene so my comment should be read in that context. My daughter joined a club in the last 2/3 months. She attends one session a week because she has something else on the second night. I've not analysed their session but it would appear to be a few slow laps warm up, some intervals/drills, maybe some relays if some of the kids have races coming up & a few slow laps to cool down. A nice emphasis on making friends etc with a buddy system in place. While it's not taxing her she has certainly improved even in that short time. I suspect she's hit it lucky with the coach she has - we're away for the summer & he was talking about getting her ready for the cross country season so I asked if there was anything in particular she should be doing (she likes to run with me anyway) - the response was to be a normal kid, bounce on bouncy castles, run on the beach, muck around. I liked that. In terms of the rest of the discussion, she plays camogie & football too (& the fiddle )

Clearlier

Chivito550 wrote: »

Your lungs should not be in agony after 10 seconds. 10 seconds is pretty much 100% anaerobic. You'd only feel it afterwards over such a short distance.

I assume you are referring to how kids run all distances. Just pelt it from the gun and try hang on. Kids will do this over 5km too. If you let them run 10km they'd still go out at suicidal pace. This is just how they run. It's stupid, but they are kids, they can't help but go like the clappers.

Poor little helpless kids, totally unable to think for themselves. You'd nearly swear there wasn't a brain cell between them. Of course some kids will start off a race at a ridiculous pace but then so do a fair few adults. If kids were forced to run 5k races then I could agree that it's a bad idea (I'd be heading in that direction for adults too FWIW). If however they decide that they want to do one and have considered what it will take then I don't see any good reason for preventing them.

My wife recently decided that she wanted to do couch to 5k and my 8 year old decided to join her. Are you really saying that that's a bad idea and that we should have told him that he couldn't? BTW he also plays or has played football, tennis, judo, swimming, tag rugby, netball and anything else that has been available that he was interested in. In September he wants to start playing rugby. We offer him opportunities to take part in as many sports as possible. If he decides that he wants to do more of one then we'll give him those opportunities but I'll be pushing him to practice multiple sports until at least the age of 15.

kit3

Clearlier wrote: »

Poor little helpless kids, totally unable to think for themselves. You'd nearly swear there wasn't a brain cell between them. Of course some kids will start off a race at a ridiculous pace but then so do a fair few adults. If kids were forced to run 5k races then I could agree that it's a bad idea (I'd be heading in that direction for adults too FWIW). If however they decide that they want to do one and have considered what it will take then I don't see any good reason for preventing them.

My wife recently decided that she wanted to do couch to 5k and my 8 year old decided to join her. Are you really saying that that's a bad idea and that we should have told him that he couldn't? BTW he also plays or has played football, tennis, judo, swimming, tag rugby, netball and anything else that has been available that he was interested in. In September he wants to start playing rugby. We offer him opportunities to take part in as many sports as possible. If he decides that he wants to do more of one then we'll give him those opportunities but I'll be pushing him to practice multiple sports until at least the age of 15.

Must agree that I would give kids a but more credit too. My kids school takes part in a cross country series that SDCC organise - I regularly hear them talking 'strategy' as in should they hang back at the start, stay with the leading group etc - think they actually learnt fairly early that tearing off at the start doesn't always work. Distance increases by class from about 300m for 3rd class to 600m for 6th

walshb

I suppose if the children are spoken to and advised and encouraged they can get the hang of the long distances that bit better, but naturally they will not have the maturity and experience to tackle these races with any real plan or intelligence.

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

I get what you are saying, but most kids like to be competitive, in a fun environment. I was rubbish at all sports as a kid, yet like all my peers, I wanted to try win in whatever I did. Pressure free runs as you call them, are like playing a football match with your friends and not keeping score. We never did that, and I doubt too many did. Kids seem to thrive on the competitiveness of sport.

The sport is becoming very much a case of "everyone's a winner" at adult level. Kids wouldn't find this "cool". They'd just pick another sport, where there are shiny medals and trophy's available and a chance to compete against their peers.

I agree absolutely with you on the competitiveness bit... I was a competitive little fecker who wasn't competitive at sprinty events. The end result was that I had to find a non-sprinty outlet for my competitive desires, and due to the non-availability of long distance racing, I spent about 10 years having golf / pitch and put as my main sport :eek::eek:, as that was the first sport I found where not having sprint speed was no drawback to being competiveness (Before you say it, I didn't have much muscle mass either, being a classic slow-twitcher, so throwing things was out too). That was 10 years of my life where I could have been developing as a runner if I had had the opportunity.

Thread wise, my main point is that there are kids out there with potential to thrive and really enjoy longer distance running/racing who will hate athletics if all you let them experience is speed or power based disciplines. And the better they are likely to be as distance runners, the more likely they are to reject athletics if it becomes purely about speed ability.

Notwork Error

walshb wrote: »

I suppose if the children are spoken to and advised and encouraged they can get the hang of the long distances that bit better, but naturally they will not have the maturity and experience to tackle these races with nay real plan or intelligence.

Not true, never had a problem pacing myself in a 10k as a kid and nobody ever told me about it. After my first one, I knew well not to make the same mistake again.People are seriously undunderestiming a childs intelligence.

Just go back a few months and a young kid from Limerick got kick of the week on flotrack. He sat on the guy ahead shoulder for 450m before unleashing a blistering finishing kick to come from behind. Tactically flawless.

menoscemo

Chivito550 wrote: »

I assume you are referring to how kids run all distances. Just pelt it from the gun and try hang on. Kids will do this over 5km too. If you let them run 10km they'd still go out at suicidal pace. This is just how they run. It's stupid, but they are kids, they can't help but go like the clappers.

I see kids every week at parkrun, some blast out and are wrecked after one lap but the ones who come back every week generally learn how to pace themselves much like any adult.
There are loads of kids at our parkrun who start off slowly and pick up places in the 2nd and 3rd laps.

walshb

Notwork Error wrote: »

Not true, never had a problem pacing myself in a 10k as a kid and nobody ever told me about it. After my first one, I knew well not to make the same mistake again.People are seriously undunderestiming a childs intelligence.

Just go back a few months and a young kid from Limerick got kick of the week on flotrack. He sat on the guy ahead shoulder for 450m before unleashing a blistering finishing kick to come from behind. Tactically flawless.

No issue there. I just would associate poor pacing/strategy more with eager and explosive kids, particularly the boys, as opposed to when they get that bit older and more wise and mature. I really can see both sides to the debate. Good valid points on both sides.

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

I agree absolutely with you on the competitiveness bit... I was a competitive little fecker who wasn't competitive at sprinty events. The end result was that I had to find a non-sprinty outlet for my competitive desires, and due to the non-availability of long distance racing, I spent about 10 years having golf / pitch and put as my main sport :eek::eek:, as that was the first sport I found where not having sprint speed was no drawback to being competiveness (Before you say it, I didn't have much muscle mass either, being a classic slow-twitcher, so throwing things was out too). That was 10 years of my life where I could have been developing as a runner if I had had the opportunity.

Thread wise, my main point is that there are kids out there with potential to thrive and really enjoy longer distance running/racing who will hate athletics if all you let them experience is speed or power based disciplines. And the better they are likely to be as distance runners, the more likely they are to reject athletics if it becomes purely about speed ability.

But there are long distances available for kids. Do you not consider 2K cross country, for example, to be a long distance for an 11 year old? It’s not just over long distances where kids are protected. There are no 400m races available for kids until they reach around 16 (correct me if I am wrong, maybe it’s 15). There’s a reason for this. It is too tough a distance to have kids sprinting. Instead there are 300m races on offer as the “long sprint”. Same with 400m hurdles. Instead we have 200m hurdles and 300m hurdles. These shortened version of full events prepare the kids for the full version when they are old and strong enough to handle it. The same way a 2km/3km cross country eventually leads into 5km.

800m and 1500m may seem short to you, but for kids it feels like much more than that. For an 11 year old 80/100m may be a sprint, 200m a long sprint, 600m a middle distance event, and 1500-2000 a long distance.

Notwork Error

Chivito550 wrote: »

But there are long distances available for kids. Do you not consider 2K cross country, for example, to be a long distance for an 11 year old? It’s not just over long distances where kids are protected. There are no 400m races available for kids until they reach around 16 (correct me if I am wrong, maybe it’s 15). There’s a reason for this. It is too tough a distance to have kids sprinting. Instead there are 300m races on offer as the “long sprint”. Same with 400m hurdles. Instead we have 200m hurdles and 300m hurdles. These shortened version of full events prepare the kids for the full version when they are old and strong enough to handle it. The same way a 2km/3km cross country eventually leads into 5km.

800m and 1500m may seem short to you, but for kids it feels like much more than that. For an 11 year old 80/100m may be a sprint, 200m a long sprint, 600m a middle distance event, and 1500-2000 a long distance.

A 5k's an ultra so is it!:p Think the marathon would be the 11 year equivalent of an adventure race, perfect for a young Enduro!:D

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

But there are long distances available for kids. Do you not consider 2K cross country, for example, to be a long distance for an 11 year old?

Going on my own memories and experiences as a kid, the straight answer to that would be no!

Jaysus, I used to be out and about literally all day long up to all sorts of things. I can remember going on a cycle (on a crappy little bike) as a 15 year old (there or therabouts) that I reproduced on my road bike a few years ago and it took me 4-5 hours on my road bike as an experienced adult cyclist. And I can remember being happy and elated finishing it as a kid (having paced it perfectly well).

I was just reading an article today about Nairo Quintana where they say he rode 1000 vertical meters per day for 5 days a week as a teenager. It doesn't seem to have caused him any harm... in fact I would have a sneaking suspicion that all the endurance riding in his youth may actually have contributed to his current ability . I don't have any similar running examples, but I suspect if we were to dig into the backgrounds of a lot of the poorer east african runners (who wouldn't have been told what they shouldn't be doing), for example, we would find plenty.

Notwork Error

Enduro wrote: »

Going on my own memories and experiences as a kid, the straight answer to that would be no!

Jaysus, I used to be out and about literally all day long up to all sorts of things. I can remember going on a cycle (on a crappy little bike) as a 15 year old (there or therabouts) that I reproduced on my road bike a few years ago and it took me 4-5 hours on my road bike as an experienced adult cyclist. And I can remember being happy and elated finishing it as a kid (having paced it perfectly well).

I was just reading an article today about Nairo Quintana where they say he rode 1000 vertical meters per day for 5 days a week as a teenager. It doesn't seem to have caused him any harm... in fact I would have a sneaking suspicion that all the endurance riding in his youth may actually have contributed to his current ability . I don't have any similar running examples, but I suspect if we were to dig into the backgrounds of a lot of the poorer east african runners (who wouldn't have been told what they shouldn't be doing), for example, we would find plenty.

I actually qouted it earlier re the Kenyans. Highly respected coach by the name Joe Vigil said that Kenyan kids had run 10,000 lifetime miles by the time they entered highschool. At 8 years of age, they were running between 8-12km a day. At the low end, that's 34 miles a week.

walshb

For most 11 and 12 year olds 1500-2000 meters is a long distance event, regardless of their ability!

Chivito550

Notwork Error wrote: »

I actually qouted it earlier re the Kenyans. Highly respected coach by the name Joe Vigil said that Kenyan kids had run 10,000 lifetime miles by the time they entered highschool. At 8 years of age, they were running between 8-12km a day. At the low end, that's 34 miles a week.

Genuine question. But what sort of numbers are we talking in terms of kids who were running these miles? Is it a case that the number of kids running this much was so big, with a survival of the fittest making it to adulthood, with the rest giving up/ bodies breaking down etc. If you had such a large number doing such a regime, it stands to reason that a few will survive it, while the rest will drop out. Is this a good thing though? For winning Olympic medals perhaps, but for the sport at lower levels?

Again, have no clue if this is even the case, so just wondering.

Myles Splitz

An awful lot of talk about energy pathways in terms of development but biomechanically seems to overlooked.

Few interesting points to note

- muscle grows slower than bone. This needs to be taken into account with regards capillary development through distance running.

- Volume. Kids will spend less time training than adults that means that distance running in a child will take up more overall ratio of development taking away from motor skill development, cognitive development and co ordination.

- Intervals. As was said kids aren't mini adults and in fact due to the hormonal changes in the body, kids often recover quicker metabolically from anaerobic work than adults.

- Gender. Changes during formative years widely vary depending on gender for example at age 8/9 gender has minuscule effects on performance in strength, speed as endurance but by 14 the rates can be as high as 10-15%. Girls also physically mature quicker than boys and biomechanically can have a huge ramification on injury amongst other things.

Despite what some have stated I don't think the issue is the lack of aerobic work but rather than sedentary lifestyle outside of formal training that is the issue.

East Africans are always held to example for early development but many run just as hard in there unstructured childhood runs as many would in intervals in western civilization.

It's an interesting topic and both sides make interesting points but I think there is a whole lot of grey in between the black and white of a right approach with this.

Clearlier

Chivito550 wrote: »

But there are long distances available for kids. Do you not consider 2K cross country, for example, to be a long distance for an 11 year old? It’s not just over long distances where kids are protected. There are no 400m races available for kids until they reach around 16 (correct me if I am wrong, maybe it’s 15). There’s a reason for this. It is too tough a distance to have kids sprinting. Instead there are 300m races on offer as the “long sprint”. Same with 400m hurdles. Instead we have 200m hurdles and 300m hurdles. These shortened version of full events prepare the kids for the full version when they are old and strong enough to handle it. The same way a 2km/3km cross country eventually leads into 5km.

800m and 1500m may seem short to you, but for kids it feels like much more than that. For an 11 year old 80/100m may be a sprint, 200m a long sprint, 600m a middle distance event, and 1500-2000 a long distance.

Is it possible Chivito that your experiences are colouring your views? It sounds like you're very much oriented towards fast twitch so an 800/1500 probably would have been too long for you and a bit painful to complete?

I do think that any true run race feels very long if you're well prepared and run the perfect race. The last portion of the first 800m I ran aged 15 felt like it took forever - when I ran one again 20 years later the feeling hadn't changed (although it did take a bit longer!).

Chivito550

Clearlier wrote: »

Is it possible Chivito that your experiences are colouring your views? It sounds like you're very much oriented towards fast twitch so an 800/1500 probably would have been too long for you and a bit painful to complete?

I do think that any true run race feels very long if you're well prepared and run the perfect race. The last portion of the first 800m I ran aged 15 felt like it took forever - when I ran one again 20 years later the feeling hadn't changed (although it did take a bit longer!).

Far from it. I was terrible at sprints as a kid. Came last or second last in the heats of every single sports day I ever did in primary and secondary school (all run on grass of course, and never more than 80-100m). Because of this I told myself I had no speed, and was a long distance guy. I was also a scrawny kid, so that fit in nicely with those I would see on the TV at the time (Haile, El G, Morcelli etc). I did try 800m and 1500m in school sports days and at Santry and was a little better at them. It was only when I was 25 that I by accident found out I actually did have decent enough speed (when mucking around in Barcelona at the Europeans, I raced brianderunner and nearly beat him over 50m on this temporary track in the fan zone, and he had been a good sprinter). So my childhood experiences are anything but positive when it comes to sprinting. I guess how good or bad you are at something at 11 can be pretty irrelevant to be honest. At that age it's best for the kids to do lots of events and sports, have fun, be competitive, but in an honourable way, and make sure they don't engage in activities which are not good for them at that age. What is and what isn't good for them, seems to be a case of personal opinion.

Clearlier

Chivito550 wrote: »

Genuine question. But what sort of numbers are we talking in terms of kids who were running these miles? Is it a case that the number of kids running this much was so big, with a survival of the fittest making it to adulthood, with the rest giving up/ bodies breaking down etc. If you had such a large number doing such a regime, it stands to reason that a few will survive it, while the rest will drop out. Is this a good thing though? For winning Olympic medals perhaps, but for the sport at lower levels?

Again, have no clue if this is even the case, so just wondering.

My understanding is that the running to school is relatively select - you definitely get a few but you don't get packs of kids running 10k to school and back every day. David Rudisha grew up in a middle class household in a city IIRC and still does pretty low miles. Also IIRC Kimetto (current marathon world record holder) only started training in 2010 at the age of 26. I don't know much else about his background except that his parents were subsistence farmers and he worked with them. It seems reasonable to assume that he was physically fit and accustomed to hard work.

It's probably worth noting here that athletes respond differently to training and have different ceilings and different starting points. Some people start at a high level, respond very quickly to training and have a very high ceiling, some people start at a low level and never respond to training. Most are somewhere in between. It's also worth noting that just because you're a slow responder doesn't mean that you won't have a high ceiling - it's just going to take you a bit longer to get there. You could make an argument that Radcliffe was a slow responder. It was only after many years of hard training that she reached her peak.

While I disagree with the notion that kids shouldn't be allowed to run long distances if they want to I wouldn't think that you have to start running long distances at a very early age in order to be an elite athlete. The key for me for children is myriad activities promoting enjoyment and skill development with specialisation if appropriate and desired at 15 or 16 at the earliest.

Wottle

Just to say I think there's a difference between running 5k and racing it. Every Saturday our kids will run about 5k in a pack at conversational pace but we do pull them out early if they can't hold good form but I'd never promote racing 5k.

Regarding intervals, young kids shouldn't really do them but if they do there should be plenty of recovery.

And definitely there's a huge drop off in numbers at 14+ (mainly girls) ( not so much in our club) and I feel the main reason is that at that age they are getting treated more like mini adults and the fun/games have been taken out of the equation.
They've also got the stresses of secondary school and instead of running helping to alleviate stress its only adding to it.

Enduro

Chivito550 wrote: »

Far from it. I was terrible at sprints as a kid. Came last or second last in the heats of every single sports day I ever did in primary and secondary school (all run on grass of course, and never more than 80-100m). Because of this I told myself I had no speed, and was a long distance guy. I was also a scrawny kid, so that fit in nicely with those I would see on the TV at the time (Haile, El G, Morcelli etc). I did try 800m and 1500m in school sports days and at Santry and was a little better at them. It was only when I was 25 that I by accident found out I actually did have decent enough speed (when mucking around in Barcelona at the Europeans, I raced brianderunner and nearly beat him over 50m on this temporary track in the fan zone, and he had been a good sprinter). So my childhood experiences are anything but positive when it comes to sprinting. I guess how good or bad you are at something at 11 can be pretty irrelevant to be honest. At that age it's best for the kids to do lots of events and sports, have fun, be competitive, but in an honourable way, and make sure they don't engage in activities which are not good for them at that age. What is and what isn't good for them, seems to be a case of personal opinion.

that's funny, it sounds like we have similar childhood experiences of running Totally off-topic question, but just sheer curiosity (and depending on the answer possibly relevent to keeping kids in athletics)... Since it sounds like you weren't very competitive at all as a runner in your youth, what kept you interested enough in the sport that you continued to keep it up?

Edit: And fair dues for keeping at it!

Chivito550

Enduro wrote: »

that's funny, it sounds like we have similar childhood experiences of running Totally off-topic question, but just sheer curiosity (and depending on the answer possibly relevent to keeping kids in athletics)... Since it sounds like you weren't very competitive at all as a runner in your youth, what kept you interested enough in the sport that you continued to keep it up?

I wasn’t really involved in athletics as a kid to be honest. It’s the type of sport you don’t tend to get involved in here unless your parents have a background in it. My parents did not. I did sports days, and then did the West Leinster schools from 2nd until 5th year in secondary school, mostly in the walk and managed to make Leinsters on a couple of occasions as the event was a bit soft, and once in the 1500m, which I most certainly did not make Leinsters in. The idea never occurred to me at the time to join a club, I did not know they even existed. When growing up I thought athletics was an April-May activity. I actually joined UCD AC when I started college, but I never got going with it, as priority at the time was going to the pub at every available opportunity. Looking back now, I regret not being involved when in college. I only took up the fun running then when I was about 22, and from my old log you’d see how bad I did it, and had no idea what I was doing.

So rather than how did I stay in the sport, how did I manage to get involved at all when I was an adult. I always loved watching the sport as a kid. Thanks to my dad’s all round interest in sport, I didn’t become one of these one trick Ford Super Sunday punters, and had an appreciation for every sport I saw on TV, from an early age. Around this time Sonia was winning all around her, and she became, and is still, and idol of mine. Even though I was never involved in the sport, I never missed a major championship on the TV (unless my family booked a family holiday at the same time, which used to piss me off). I guess over time, I lost interest in things like the Premier League, and my interest in watching athletics developed even more, and eventually this led to me wanting to try track running.

Not sure how useful any of that is to keeping kids in the sport. It’s all very individual. Maybe ensure that kids watch live athletics on the TV so that they have runners they can look up to, and relate to perhaps.

Notwork Error

Chivito550 wrote: »

Genuine question. But what sort of numbers are we talking in terms of kids who were running these miles? Is it a case that the number of kids running this much was so big, with a survival of the fittest making it to adulthood, with the rest giving up/ bodies breaking down etc. If you had such a large number doing such a regime, it stands to reason that a few will survive it, while the rest will drop out. Is this a good thing though? For winning Olympic medals perhaps, but for the sport at lower levels?

Again, have no clue if this is even the case, so just wondering.

I can't give an actual number as I don't know very few runners are going to burn out on aerobic training. I still can't believe that idea of developing speed first is the way to go, it completely knocked American distance running off the map in the 90's. And before I continue, track and XC is the largest particaption sport in American Highschools so it's not for lack of numbers that the US can't compete bar one or two, you can argue socioeconomics, genetics or whatever but surely it has to have something to do with the training.

I actually asked Eliud Kiptoo's coach this question when we were talking about NCAA coaches burning out athletes. I asked him does the Kenyan system not feed a huge number of athletes through a meat grinder and was it a case of if you didn't survive the training, you were never going to make it. He didn't directly answer my question but he did do a compare and contrast.

This is the reply he gave:

1) By the time Kenyans start actually training "seriously" they have already had 10 years of foundational work done, just through the daily act of running to school and to the shops etc. So they are in a better position to tolerate this hard work. The running foundation that Kenyan kids get is a big part of their success in my opinion.

2) Yes, a lot of the Kenyans run crazily hard workouts during the week. But in my experience they have a much better understanding of what a recovery run means. I'm a terrible runner, but i can go and run about 70% of their workouts because they're at a very slow pace. Recovery runs here in the US seem to turn into pissing contests quite often.

3) The Kenyan competitive schedule is COMPLETELY different to the US collegiate system. They put in 3-4 months of focused training to prepare for 1 or 2 races. In contrast, US collegiate runners spend the best part of 9 months continually racing. Week in. Week out.

This 3rd point is crucial. Training for endurance sport is based around aerobic development. But aerobic development requires a minimum of 3 months of focused training, ideally without competition. If you're racing every week or two, it is hard to maintain the quality and quantity of training necessary to promote physiological adaptation. To improve long-term as a distance runner, you have to go through 5-6 months of hard slogging, where you're constantly fatigued and slow. But its ok to be fatigued and slow, because there is no expectation to perform. The NCAA system does not allow for this approach. The runners are expected to maintain a level of sharpness all year, because they're racing all year.

The two goals of developing an aerobic foundation and being sharp for competition are diametrically opposed to one another. Essentially, you cannot do both at the same time. This is why the NCAA system fails most runners!

RayCun

They were mentioned above but butt kicks are discouraged now. The thinking is that they encourage you to push your feet behind you instead of lifting them and bringing them forward.
I think all sports have a significant drop out rate around 14 because the kids who used to do five or six things concentrate on one

Notwork Error

Wottle wrote: »

Just to say I think there's a difference between running 5k and racing it. Every Saturday our kids will run about 5k in a pack at conversational pace but we do pull them out early if they can't hold good form but I'd never promote racing 5k.

Regarding intervals, young kids shouldn't really do them but if they do there should be plenty of recovery.

And definitely there's a huge drop off in numbers at 14+ (mainly girls) ( not so much in our club) and I feel the main reason is that at that age they are getting treated more like mini adults and the fun/games have been taken out of the equation.
They've also got the stresses of secondary school and instead of running helping to alleviate stress its only adding to it.

I agree with the last part but doesn't that hold true for both sides of coin. If it's all about the fun, Why isn't long distance as fun as short distance? I think that's an assumption on your part. Some kids will enjoy long distance more than the short distance and vice versa so why limit their enjoyment by not letting them run both or one if they do so choose when it won't do any harm?

By telling them they can't run 5k's, aren't you taking away the enjoyment of those who like to and treating them as 'mini adults' by looking at your interpretation of long-term development as more important than what they enjoy?

Obviously, long-term development has to have a place in sport but my take on this and what I was saying to Ray is that the kid chooses what the like first and then, the coach should build around that to give them the best opportunity down the road to have more options to specilise in possible . This is why I believe that aerobic training is the best long-term development tool for mid-d and distance runners as they can still drop down to the 800m relatively easy but can step up to the longer distances without been pigeon holed by a lack of endurance which I feel short mid-d focused training does. I'm not ruling out the relevance of working on form as important, of course it has it's place but a small bit of work no matter how far kids run will keep it in check and I think aerobic fitness is a far more important piece in terms of development and general health in kids.


I just also happen to think that it is the best approach to developing fantastic athletes down the road but that's besides the point. I believe that that long term development strategy is best for giving kids the most opportunities in mid-d and long distance when the time comes to specialise which will give them more options to stay in the sport.

rom

There are a whole lot of adults that shouldn't be running long distance due to poor form if that is the case. Who dictates what poor running forum is. If you had a child version of Paula Radcliff with her bobbing head would you pull her off the route? The restrictions that society puts on children and women are outdated. 3000 was the longest track race that women could do and this changed in Sonia O'Sullivans time. The arguments there were seen to be invalid. Somehow racing a 5k is bad for a kid but doing a 2000m XC race is not. The most horrible race I ever did was the Munsters schools XC at 12. It took nearly 15 mins for me to get my breath back.

I used to play team sports also when I was younger. There is no one questioning that 90 mins of a soccer pitch is too long for young kid etc. I have never heard anyone ever saying "Look at that guy he can has loads of health issues as he ran too much and too hard as a kid".

Wottle

Notwork Error wrote: »

I agree with the last part but doesn't that hold true for both sides of coin. If it's all about the fun, Why isn't long distance as fun as short distance? I think that's an assumption on your part. Some kids will enjoy long distance more than the short distance and vice versa so why limit their enjoyment by not letting them run both or one if they do so choose when it won't do any harm?

By telling them they can't run 5k's, aren't you taking away the enjoyment of those who like to and treating them as 'mini adults' by looking at your interpretation of long-term development as more important than what they enjoy?

I said above that they do run 5ks, did you mean race 5ks?

I agree longer running can be fun and as said above they run 5 kms. Also the plan for XC this season for u13s and u14s will be to get the 3m run up to 4m but again not at the expense of form.
The kids who consistently train in our group are not lacking in endurance and its part of their overall development because u15 up they'll be running 6 miles up as their long run if they go into the endurance group.
My own daughter is in the u13 group and has told me she has no interest in racing 5ks. This would be the general consensus of the group. We do have a girl though who came to us from park runs (around 20), racing them nearly every week, she enjoys it but I've asked her to reduce it to once a month and instead join us for Saturday training.

Overall I think the only thing we disagree on is the racing of 5ks+
And you do make some good points.

Notwork Error

rom wrote: »

There are a whole lot of adults that shouldn't be running long distance due to poor form if that is the case. Who dictates what poor running forum is. If you had a child version of Paula Radcliff with her bobbing head would you pull her off the route? The restrictions that society puts on children and women are outdated. 3000 was the longest track race that women could do and this changed in Sonia O'Sullivans time. The arguments there were seen to be invalid. Somehow racing a 5k is bad for a kid but doing a 2000m XC race is not. The most horrible race I ever did was the Munsters schools XC at 12. It took nearly 15 mins for me to get my breath back.

I used to play team sports also when I was younger. There is no one questioning that 90 mins of a soccer pitch is too long for young kid etc. I have never heard anyone ever saying "Look at that guy he can has loads of health issues as he ran too much and too hard as a kid".

On that note as well actually, until the late 70's, woman were not allowed to run more than 800m in the Olympics because there was a fear that their uterus would fall out after that.:D

I think it's PC gone mad as besides form, no one has brought up any other argument against kids running long distance. A little bit of research the pedatric association of America says that once they aren't running marathons, kids should be ok.

There's kids of the same age out persistence hunting animals over a huge number of miles in the masai tribe. I'm not saying kids should be allowed to walk down a lion:p but I think overprotection is the main reason kids running long is frowned upon in the developed world only. I can understand where people are coming from in that respect but kids are a lot tougher and stronger than most give them credit.

Wottle

rom wrote: »

There are a whole lot of adults that shouldn't be running long distance due to poor form if that is the case. Who dictates what poor running forum is. If you had a child version of Paula Radcliff with her bobbing head would you pull her off the route? The restrictions that society puts on children and women are outdated. 3000 was the longest track race that women could do and this changed in Sonia O'Sullivans time. The arguments there were seen to be invalid. Somehow racing a 5k is bad for a kid but doing a 2000m XC race is not. The most horrible race I ever did was the Munsters schools XC at 12. It took nearly 15 mins for me to get my breath back.

I used to play team sports also when I was younger. There is no one questioning that 90 mins of a soccer pitch is too long for young kid etc. I have never heard anyone ever saying "Look at that guy he can has loads of health issues as he ran too much and too hard as a kid".

Yes there are a lot of adults running long distance with terrible form - very likely to cause injuries and its sth most should correct but don't.
In a club environment with kids this is an opportunity to get it right.
Are you really comparing kids to women?
Also you claim that racing 2k was a horrible experience for you but racing 5k would be better? And if you were racing 5k by the logic of a previous post that would mean you would train over distance, so should the 11 year olds be running 10k/10 mile as prep?
There also has to be progression to training, we have to leave them somewhere to go.

I know raycun and his involvement with juveniles, I'd make a very good guess that both rom and network have no involvement with the coaching of kids in a club? May be I'm wrong.

Notwork Error

Wottle wrote: »

Yes there are a lot of adults running long distance with terrible form - very likely to cause injuries and its sth most should correct but don't.
In a club environment with kids this is an opportunity to get it right.
Are you really comparing kids to women?
Also you claim that racing 2k was a horrible experience for you but racing 5k would be better? And if you were racing 5k by the logic of a previous post that would mean you would train over distance, so should the 11 year olds be running 10k/10 mile as prep?
There also has to be progression to training, we have to leave them somewhere to go.

I know raycun and his involvement with juveniles, I'd make a very good guess that both rom and network have no involvement with the coaching of kids in a club? May be I'm wrong.

That's a pretty personal attack on my posts. Does it mean that because you don't coach kids, you are right wrong and your opinion doesn't mean anything? No in my opinion, there's some downright awful coaches out there.Not saying you or Ray are but having a title as coach ddoesn't make anyone infallable.

And does my experience of running both middle distance and long distance as a kid not stand for anything? I have first hand experience of being on the other side of the coin.

Wottle

Notwork Error wrote: »

That's a pretty personal attack on my posts. Does it mean that because you don't coach kids, you are right on everything? No in my opinion, there's some downright awful coaches out there.Not saying you or Ray are but having a title as coach ddoesn't make anyone infallable.

And does my experience of running both middle distance and long distance as a kid not stand for anything? I have first hand experience of being on the other side of the coin.

Apologies didn't mean for it to come across like that, i certainly wasnt making a personal attack and youre right there are some terrible coaches out there (i could be one for all i know). I guess what I'm trying to say if you were coaching kids and around them you'd see how far away from the mark you and rom are and what it is they want.

Notwork Error

Wottle wrote: »

Apologies didn't mean for it to come across like that, i certainly wasnt making a personal attack and youre right there are some terrible coaches out there (i could be one for all i know). I guess what I'm trying to say if you were coaching kids and around them you'd see how far away from the mark you and rom are and what it is they want.

But I can easily say that when I did race 5 and 10k's between the ages of 11 and 13 and I raced a decent amount of them, I never had a problem running them. I enjoyed them way more than running 600m. We both ran as kids so I think we have a good grasp of what we liked individually.

Kids have individual taste and shouldn't be lumped into one generalisation.

Sacksian

My understanding is that, basically, there isn’t a lot of evidence that running long (and easy) hurts kids. However, it’s not a good approach for coaching children GENERALLY, because in the limited time clubs have with kids, it’s better (generally) for kids at that age to get introduced to foundational and fundamental skills development. Specialisation does not occur until later. If someone decides they want their 10 year-old to train like a marathoner, they can do that themselves, but there’s a model for introducing kids to a wide range of disciplines so that they have a choice later. And, for practical reasons more than anything else, that model doesn’t include kids running long distances with their clubs at an early age.

It has to be about generalisation, because clubs are trying to keep as many people involved as possible until they do specialise. I can only speak about what I’ve seen, but it seems to me that this approach is working over the past few years. I’m seeing a lot more good quality field eventers and multi-eventers in the juvenile ranks.

Someone posted earlier their concern about the quality of club coaches working with children, but this concern is wholly misplaced. Honestly, they’re the people who are keeping the sport alive. Most clubs, at least in Dublin, are limited in the numbers of children they can take on by the number of coaches they have. Without the coaches, most of whom are parents volunteering, there wouldn’t be juvenile sections. As ever, anyone with ideas on how to do things better would be welcomed with open arms at any club.

The bits about Kenyan’s aerobic development generally come from the belief that they run - or walk - to school (and, in fact, most don’t), not that they’re training like lunatics as kids.

If you read Vigil and Canova talking about this, they’re really just saying that these kids are a lot more active daily than western kids, not that they start specialised training for long distance at an early age. Irish kids used have a lot more aerobic development when we were kids, through walking to school and playing football for 12 hours a day during the summer. That’s changed. America has had the car culture for even longer.

Sacksian

The Canova quote on distance vs form I saw was that if you’re a child or if your aerobic system is weak, then you should “run less kilometers and do them the proper way.”

Notwork Error

Sacksian wrote: »

The Canova quote on distance vs form I saw was that if you’re a child or if your aerobic system is weak, then you should “run less kilometers and do them the proper way.”

The first post is a great post Sacksian!

I have however seen Canova speak differently on many occasion about this though and unless he has completely changed his training philosophy, you either picked him up wrongly or he is contradicting himself massively which is now making me auestion your first post. Canova will not at any cost introduce faster pace training if someone is aerobically weak. He talks about diagonals for form and speed but he will never introduce fast pace work until a runner has maxed out their aerobic house, he talks about it constantly that it is the foundation and an athlete has to be strong in that area before commencing any intense or fast paced training. He is completely against the American highschool system which Irish athletics has tried to copy.

I could pull up a 100+ links where he states all of the above.

Notwork Error

you are young and new to running then you will need to slowly build your kilometers. To answer your question, yes, it is ok to increase your kilometers very much per week if you have experience and you are not new to running. But if you are child or if your aerobic system is weak, you need to run less kilometers and do them the proper way. I always include two days every week of some rythmeh or what you call strides. 8-10x 100 meter sprints after long runs will help very much.

Found the thread.


http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3328547&page=1



I think it's important that we note context on this. The OP was asking if a gradual or quick mileage increase was better during the aerobic phase. Of course an athlete with a weaker aerobic engine has to run less km at first but Canova was pointing this out as a progression. When hes said "properly", look at what follows above, strides and sprints as form drills.


He directly contradicts your point above the next page when talking about aerobic capacity as a young kid as you said it wasn't gained from any running but just more activity, that extra activity is running. Notice the talk of building the aerobic house floor by floor first:

Your question DTM is a good one. My reply must be short. I have only 30 minutes that will I use this internet. Your information that Kwalia runs 32k sometimes is correct. But my example to explain these things, there is a reason. Why must we always look at the 12th floor of every building when the 1st and 2nd floor of this building is similar in importance. What I mean is that Kwalia start to exercise and run when he is 3 years old. Remember, his only means for transportation is his legs. Example I give is this. Kwalia is 7 years old and goes to school in next village. In morning he walks and runs 8 kilometers to school. During school he kicks ball and runs maybe another 2 kilometers of running. Kwalia, he comes home from school and walks and runs for this time another 8 kilometers. In his village at home, Kwalia plays sport and runs with his friends for another 6 kilometers during play time before time gets dark. My friend, do you see his aerobic capacity and endurance improving from this? Of course its true.
Now, lets take American child and European child. Same age. American child moves to school in car. American child maybe runs 2k at school with some sort of sport activity. After this, he gets ride home from car again. After school this boy or girl will be on computer or doing some video game activity. His total acitivity for aerobic activity is total of 2k. You see my point. This child has 2 kilometers of activity. Kwalia in normal day will run or walk for 20 kilometers or more. When Kwalia gets to be 16 years old his aerobic capacity is filled to floor number 6. American boy or European boy of same age has aerobic capacity at 2nd floor or maybe 3rd floor. This is big advantage in just normal life acitivity. I must be going but I hope my lesson is one that you can understand.

Also interesting to see MPR (Mark Hadley) posting in that thread. A guy that swears by keeping kids in the general aerobic phase and running miles and whose daughter had run a 2:40 marathon at 15 years of age and became the youngest ever Olympic trials qualifier without ever running at a high intensity.

Sacksian

NE, I think you're taking too restricted a view of Canova's philosophy. I don't want to get into a tit-for-tat but, in a separate post on his philosophy, he says:

"The main points that characterize my philosophy are as follows :

a) Aerobic training is the most important part of the preparation. Without a wide aerobic base, in my opinion it's not possible to reach the top personal level. In this I have the same idea of Lydiard.

b) An athlete needs about 8-10 years for building his "aerobic house". The beginning of this process starts in natural way, well before the "official" training with a coach. This is what happens in Africa, where boys and girls have a way of life very active under the aerobic point of view. They play hours every day running at different speeds, and build their aerobic efficiency when still very young. That's the reason because in my programs Kenyan and Ethiopian runners can move to high intensity after 2-3 years of official training : they had already several years of general activity in natural way, accumulating mileage and increasing their strength, running on very hilly courses at different speeds.
But this situation is not different from the situation in America, Europe or Oceania 50 years ago. Of course Elliot, Snell, Walker, Dixon, Quax, Ryun, Prefontaine, Lindgren, Salazar, Nenow and many others had an activity when young very much different from the modern life.

So, as he's said above, this situation is not different from the situation in America, Europe or Oceania 50 years ago. I was "running at different speeds" when I was playing football for 10 hours a day.

Sacksian

That's from this thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4465229&page=1

Also, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. You seem to have taken one point from what I've posted above. The success or failure of my argument doesn't depend on Renato Canova. The point is that aerobic development can be achieved through general activity, which your quote above is saying the same thing:

In morning he walks and runs 8 kilometers to school. During school he kicks ball and runs maybe another 2 kilometers of running. Kwalia, he comes home from school and walks and runs for this time another 8 kilometers. In his village at home, Kwalia plays sport and runs with his friends for another 6 kilometers during play time before time gets dark.

Playing chasing or anything would be covered by the above too.

Notwork Error

Sacksian wrote: »

That's from this thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4465229&page=1

Also, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. You seem to have taken one point from what I've posted above. The success or failure of my argument doesn't depend on Renato Canova. The point is that aerobic development can be achieved through general activity, which your quote above is saying the same thing:



Playing chasing or anything would be covered by the above too.

Yes, I'm not sure what we are arguing about either now. It's pretty obvious that the Kenyans huge amount of activity as kids contributes to their success.

I started off with the Kenyans as a point that long distance running was ok for kids which you agreed with. I was saying that the Kenyan kids could handle all that activity so why can't Irish kids was my point. All that extra activity put the Kenyans in a better position to reach their potential which is pretty obvious. You still seem to believe that the low mileage(low activity) activity levels are the best way to long term development even though your posts betray your points. Canova says that Pre, Snell etc. had high activity levels different to modern life and that activity levels were higher 50 years ago.


So essentially, higher activity levels develop better runners and don't cause harm which is the point I was making the whole time so why isn't long slow running a good form of training if it adds to activity levels? It is, they will have a stronger aerobic capacity down the road because they will have had a higher activity level. The kids will still play in general and other sports so what's the problem?

Sacksian

Notwork Error wrote: »

You still seem to believe that the low mileage(low activity) activity levels are the best way to long term development even though your posts betray your points.

At no point have I said that.

Sacksian

Notwork Error wrote: »

So essentially, higher activity levels develop better runners and don't cause harm which is the point I was making the whole time so why isn't long slow running a good form of training if it adds to activity levels? It is, they will have a stronger aerobic capacity down the road because they will have had a higher activity level. The kids will still play in general and other sports so what's the problem?

It's fine but my point was that clubs won't get involved in that because, for young kids, their model has to be focused on what works best generally for all disciplines. And introduce specialisation later. The current model ensure that kids gets a chance at lots of things.

The problem is not the clubs' approach of not encouraging kids to race 5ks or 10k, it's lower levels of activity in the wider culture.

I didn't do athletics with a club when I was a kid but, when I was 10 or 11, I did run every day down to Tolka Park and back before school for a couple of months, just because I liked running around. That was about 4 miles in total. And I played football, sometimes two 90 minute matches in a day, so I'm not against kids being active.

I just don't think not offering long-distance running to 10 year olds is a stick you should beat clubs with.

Notwork Error

Sacksian wrote: »

At no point have I said that.

But you said that the club system was right in the way that they develop kids which is a low mileage approach. I could've picked that up wrong?

I understand what you are saying about time consumption and the problems that lie in that area but is it the actual best way of developing runners purely from a development strategy of course? Would you agree that a long slow approach would develop runners in this range better over the approach in place now if the clubs could do it? Hypothetically of course.

Myles Splitz

Notwork Error wrote: »

Yes, I'm not sure what we are arguing about either now. It's pretty obvious that the Kenyans huge amount of activity as kids contributes to their success.

I started off with the Kenyans as a point that long distance running was ok for kids which you agreed with. I was saying that the Kenyan kids could handle all that activity so why can't Irish kids was my point. All that extra activity put the Kenyans in a better position to reach their potential which is pretty obvious. You still seem to believe that the low mileage(low activity) activity levels are the best way to long term development even though your posts betray your points. Canova says that Pre, Snell etc. had high activity levels different to modern life and that activity levels were higher 50 years ago.


So essentially, higher activity levels develop better runners and don't cause harm which is the point I was making the whole time so why isn't long slow running a good form of training if it adds to activity levels? It is, they will have a stronger aerobic capacity down the road because they will have had a higher activity level. The kids will still play in general and other sports so what's the problem?

I think the point that is being missed here is that kids are no longer running around for 5-8 hours a day on top of formal training. 2-3 hours of structured training a week are better suited focusing on form, developing motor skills and neural pathways.

It should also be noted that there are other factors in the Kenyan upbringing which need to be taken into account. Genetically they have better running economy due to less leg mass and longer lower limbs (on average)

It is also worth noting that from the Kenyans 75% of elite runners come from less than 11% of the overall population (Kalenjin). If the aerobic development from the early childhood was the primary factor this ratio would be a lot different.

Also interesting to note is that the likes of Paul Tergat and Wilson Kipketer lived just more than a mile from their schools so didn't have the same aerobic engine development that many claim. Proximity to schools will widely vary depending on the Kenyan also.

Sacksian

Notwork Error wrote: »

But you said that the club system was right in the way that they develop kids which is a low mileage approach. I could've picked that up wrong?

I understand what you are saying about time consumption and the problems that lie in that area but is it the actual best way of developing runners purely from a development strategy of course? Would you agree that a long slow approach would develop runners in this range better over the approach in place now if the clubs could do it?

Well, endurance running is a specialism. And, at the age we're talking about (11 and younger), the clubs are developing athletes that could take on one or a few of a range of disciplines.

My personal feeling is that, for young kids, and possibly even older ones, a variety of sports is best for their long-term development. I'd probably be uncomfortable with a kid spending 3 hours a day running but I'd have no problem with them playing in a field or playing football for 5!

Notwork Error

]I think the point that is being missed here is that kids are no longer running around for 5-8 hours a day on top of formal training. 2-3 hours of structured training a week are better suited focusing on form, developing motor skills and neural pathways.

I'm not missing the point, I understand the battles that clubs have with consumption. But why is there a problem with kids running long just because the clubs don't do it?

It should also be noted that there are other factors in the Kenyan upbringing which need to be taken into account. Genetically they have better running economy due to less leg mass and longer lower limbs (on average)

That's really a point for highend performance. Doesn't change a kids ability to run more much.

It is also worth noting that from the Kenyans 75% of elite runners come from less than 11% of the overall population (Kalenjin). If the aerobic development from the early childhood was the primary factor this ratio would be a lot different.

The kalejin and masai tribe are well known for huge amounts of activity and even rely on persistence hunting.They are doing far more exercise than the general population of Kenya. I don't see your point here?

Also interesting to note is that the likes of Paul Tergat and Wilson Kipketer lived just more than a mile from their schools so didn't have the same aerobic engine development that many claim. Proximity to schools will widely vary depending on the Kenyan also

How can you say that they didn't have an engine because they lived close to school?

demfad

I'm just getting stuck into a long awaited book about John Lenihan's (world mountain running champion '91) career and life. Might be relevant here.

He lived at at 350m above sea-level on the Stack's mountains between Tralee and Castleisland. Every step he took outside the house was either up or down. Although he is not much over 50, this was a different era where blackbird, hare etc were hunted and eaten as meat or broth. Otherwise you didn't eat meat. In the winter, conditions were harsh with the farm often cut off by the elements.
Ergo, he spent his childhood on foot, helping on the farm, hunting, playing in the glens and woodlands in tough surroundings. He spent several years in school and had to travel 6 miles down the mountain to Tralee and back up every day.

He only started running for races in mid teens and joined a club a few years later. In his career he managed (I think) 13 high on the track for 5000m, 47 low for 10 mile, 62.xx for the half and his mountain running ability is up a level or two on those achievements.

I've heard him talk on this a few times and I think he is pretty certain there is a strong relationship between his active childhood and his later ability physical and mental ability.
That could be due to early development of muscular/aerobic/endurance/exercise capacity in a growing body; could be due to Central governor adaptions due to continous tough activity in tough conditions. The point is IMO it was clearly of vital benefit to John and it was clearly of benefit for others (further afield) who grow up with similarly very active childhoods.
Interestingly, his coaches maintain that he could have raised his flat performances to a higher level had they got him a little earlier.

That would seem to me to suggest that in earlier childhood lots and lots of mucking about is most necessary for physical development and into teenage years some focus on form may be necessary, relaxed running etc. The ratio would always weight heavily on the lots of mucking about side.

Drills, and structured anaerobic stuff etc will speed them up in short track races in the short term. We don't even know if that's good or bad for them at that age and surely 'structured' training cant be 'general' training at that age?

Id go for more throwing stuff about, unstructured running, chasing games, nature runs for kids, with the minimum relaxed short strides to hold form.
The child will do what he/she enjoys best within the unstructure. The mucking about alone brought Lenihan to greatness. A few strides might have been the icing on the cake. The cake is not made of icing though. (cake time now)

Myles Splitz

Notwork Error wrote: »

]I think the point that is being missed here is that kids are no longer running around for 5-8 hours a day on top of formal training. 2-3 hours of structured training a week are better suited focusing on form, developing motor skills and neural pathways.

I'm not missing the point, I understand the battles that clubs have with consumption. But why is there a problem with kids running long just because the clubs don't do it?

It's not so much a problem more a case of they can't ensure the are sufficiently developed to handle the training. If you have a 12 year old twice a week where you have to develop motor skills, tendon strength, co-ordintation, proprioceptive skills, cognitive development there is no way you can have them doing enough mileage. I wouldn't recommend anyone doing racing 5ks off 10-12 miles a week no matter what age least of all when bones are actually growing at a faster rate than muscles.

It should also be noted that there are other factors in the Kenyan upbringing which need to be taken into account. Genetically they have better running economy due to less leg mass and longer lower limbs (on average)

That's really a point for highend performance. Doesn't change a kids ability to run more much.


Actually it makes a huge difference, following on from the development points I made previously there is actually more of a need for form development in European and American children again taking away from the precious training time, not to mention the injury risk factor which again during puberty is of huge importance

It is also worth noting that from the Kenyans 75% of elite runners come from less than 11% of the overall population (Kalenjin). If the aerobic development from the early childhood was the primary factor this ratio would be a lot different.

The kalejin and masai tribe are well known for huge amounts of activity and even rely on persistence hunting.They are doing far more exercise than the general population of Kenya. I don't see your point here?

You could say the same about the Turkana tribe who are very closely linked to the Masai yet outside of Paul Ereng have produced a very small number of runners proportional to the previous figures.

Also interesting to note is that the likes of Paul Tergat and Wilson Kipketer lived just more than a mile from their schools so didn't have the same aerobic engine development that many claim. Proximity to schools will widely vary depending on the Kenyan also

How can you say that they didn't have an engine because they lived close to school?

I didn't say that they didn't have an engine I have said that there are exceptions and not every East African runs copious amounts in childhood. My point was to highlight that while just increase workload and all train like the Kenyans do as is generally portrayed amongst many might seem like a good idea in theory ultimately I think society issue are the biggest cause for declines in performance levels rather than training idea's which are built towards optimizing what society is handing out (a progressively more sedentary, commercial driven society)

demfad

Myles Splitz wrote: »

I think the point that is being missed here is that kids are no longer running around for 5-8 hours a day on top of formal training. 2-3 hours of structured training a week are better suited focusing on form, developing motor skills and neural pathways.

I would respectfully disagree with that assertion. It is precisely because children are no longer running about for 5-8 hours a day that the clubs should take up some of this slack to keep an optimum ratio for development.

It is also worth noting that from the Kenyans 75% of elite runners come from less than 11% of the overall population (Kalenjin). If the aerobic development from the early childhood was the primary factor this ratio would be a lot different.

It can be a major factor without being a differentiating one. John Lenihan's exceptional childhood may show the results of when the volume of early work was major, differentiating and therefore decisive.