European runners has the hunger gone?

thirstywork2

Good article here

http://www.runblogrun.com/2014/12/john-treacy-majority-of-euro-distance-runners-have-simply-given-up-by-cathal-dennehy.html

Ghost in Cratloe

No I believe most marathon courses in Ireland are measured correctly these days. Pretty sure Arne Gabius, Sergei Lebid, Danny Mecucci, Lalli, Scozt, Rothlin etc might argue otherwise.

bonaparte2

Article says treacy won bronze. He won Olympic silver

Letyourselfgo

bonaparte2 wrote: »

Article says treacy won bronze. He won Olympic silver

He says silver further down.
The point that stands out for me is going to US on scholarship, so that you'll have a dozen plus training partners of high ability to chase, makes sense.

bonaparte2

Ya, larry eders intro is wrong,
Dennehy is correct

leftism

Letyourselfgo wrote: »

The point that stands out for me is going to US on scholarship, so that you'll have a dozen plus training partners of high ability to chase, makes sense.

I definitely agree that there are fewer European runners training at the appropriate volume to compete at the highest level internationally. And John Treacy is right, that a big cause of this decline is the East African invasion into distance running.

However, I respectfully disagree with his opinion regarding the US collegiate system. I work as a physiologist at an NCAA Div 1 programme here in the US. I have attended many races including the last two XC nationals so i have observed the training and competitive system in a some detail. The US system is far too attritional, resulting in a staggering loss of talent from the sport. Kids drop like flies due to illness, injury and general burn-out.

With notable exceptions, most of the coaches push their runners incredibly hard for 4 years to try get the most out of them. They have little regard for long term athletic development because after their eligibility is up, the athletes are no more use to them. They are racing from September to November (XC), then from December to February (Indoors), then from March to May (Outdoors). Every week, another hard race. If they are lucky to still be healthy by the age of 22, most are happy to walk away from the sport.

And when Treacy talks about recent US success in distance running, who is he referring to? Rupp? Meb? These guys are not typical products of the US collegiate system. Rupp has been coached by Alberto Salazar since he was 14. He is the very definition of long term athlete development. And Meb was born in Eritrea so he's hardly a good example...

Even if we look at runners like Ryan Hall or Shelane Flanagan, it is not sufficient evidence. If you're going to evaluate the US collegiate system, you cannot judge it on one or two individuals. You need to look at the overall picture. Based on a sheer numbers game, it is without a doubt the most inefficient and wasteful system i have ever experienced. It is staggering how many distance runners there are at a high school level in the US! The talent is literally limitless! Yet so few are still running by the age of 22. Even fewer are running at an elite level. In Ireland, we have a fraction of the US talent, yet we hold on to more runners, for longer careers and with comparable results. In the economics of sport performance, Ireland is far more efficient with our natural resources.

The fact that runners like Mark Kenneally (TCD) and Fionnula Britton (DCU) chose Ireland instead of the US for their collegiate careers, speaks volumes about the progress that the Irish Sports Council has made in the last 25 years. These runners felt the support structures were in place to achieve their goals at home. I think it is rather ironic that the chief executive of that very same organisation would suggest we return to the dark old days, where we ship off our best talent across the Atlantic. But then again, maybe he was just drumming up a bit of recruitment for his brother Ray (head coach at Providence)...

Letyourselfgo

@Leftism

Great reply. I've no experience of the system, I was just thinking it would be a huge benefit to have numerous quality training partners.

Treacy talks about the low mileage (40) of late teens, could it be a case that teens going over to US haven't sufficient mileage built up to handle the collegiate system and that this is the root of the problem?

Clearlier

leftism wrote: »

I definitely agree that there are fewer European runners training at the appropriate volume to compete at the highest level internationally. And John Treacy is right, that a big cause of this decline is the East African invasion into distance running.

However, I respectfully disagree with his opinion regarding the US collegiate system. I work as a physiologist at an NCAA Div 1 programme here in the US. I have attended many races including the last two XC nationals so i have observed the training and competitive system in a some detail. The US system is far too attritional, resulting in a staggering loss of talent from the sport. Kids drop like flies due to illness, injury and general burn-out.

With notable exceptions, most of the coaches push their runners incredibly hard for 4 years to try get the most out of them. They have little regard for long term athletic development because after their eligibility is up, the athletes are no more use to them. They are racing from September to November (XC), then from December to February (Indoors), then from March to May (Outdoors). Every week, another hard race. If they are lucky to still be healthy by the age of 22, most are happy to walk away from the sport.

And when Treacy talks about recent US success in distance running, who is he referring to? Rupp? Meb? These guys are not typical products of the US collegiate system. Rupp has been coached by Alberto Salazar since he was 14. He is the very definition of long term athlete development. And Meb was born in Eritrea so he's hardly a good example...

Even if we look at runners like Ryan Hall or Shelane Flanagan, it is not sufficient evidence. If you're going to evaluate the US collegiate system, you cannot judge it on one or two individuals. You need to look at the overall picture. Based on a sheer numbers game, it is without a doubt the most inefficient and wasteful system i have ever experienced. It is staggering how many distance runners there are at a high school level in the US! The talent is literally limitless! Yet so few are still running by the age of 22. Even fewer are running at an elite level. In Ireland, we have a fraction of the US talent, yet we hold on to more runners, for longer careers and with comparable results. In the economics of sport performance, Ireland is far more efficient with our natural resources.

The fact that runners like Mark Kenneally (TCD) and Fionnula Britton (DCU) chose Ireland instead of the US for their collegiate careers, speaks volumes about the progress that the Irish Sports Council has made in the last 25 years. These runners felt the support structures were in place to achieve their goals at home. I think it is rather ironic that the chief executive of that very same organisation would suggest we return to the dark old days, where we ship off our best talent across the Atlantic. But then again, maybe he was just drumming up a bit of recruitment for his brother Ray (head coach at Providence)...

You're absolutely right about the collegiate system but I think his views on mileage, training partners and attitude are not that far off the mark. It's my general perception that the US has started improving their performance levels. It's just anecdotal but they had 4 go sub 2:10 at the 2012 Olympic trials and a team silver medal at the last World XC championships neither of which had been done for a very long time by them. It would probably take something like the average of their top 10 marathon times over the past 20 years to get a more realistic indication but without having the evidence to back it up I do think that he's right to say that the US have been doing better at distance running over the last few years.

I'm not sure that I'm disagreeing with you here at all, just thought that some aspects of his thoughts merited a little more highlighting.

leftism

Letyourselfgo wrote: »

Treacy talks about the low mileage (40) of late teens, could it be a case that teens going over to US haven't sufficient mileage built up to handle the collegiate system and that this is the root of the problem?

No, the same problem applies over here for US high school runners. I've seen a lot of high school programmes that would average about 30 miles a week, most of it at race pace. My first recommendation to them is double the mileage and half the intensity. The main problem is not necessarily the volume, but the intensity at which they run.

I'll give you an example from the university here:

Last week I tested a sophomore athlete that was running ~80-90 miles a week in high school. So when he arrived in as a freshman, he was already running good mileage and was relatively prepared for the volume. But he was entirely unprepared for the intensity at which that mileage would be run. Now he was training with a squad of 12 seasoned vets, all trying to convince the coach to select them. He was being asked to "hang in there" and "run for the team" and "get mentally tougher ". So now his recovery runs are at tempo, his tempo runs are at threshold, and everything else is basically at race pace.

This kid came in as a freshman, in good shape and having performed well at high school level. 2 years later, he's running slower times than he was at high school and the coach thinks its because he lacks "mental toughness". I ran him through a VO2max test and about 6 mins into the test, he had a relatively serious cardiac event. He's due to go in for heart surgery next week. Now the two issues could be completely unrelated, but I've seen enough evidence to form the opinion that the training is hurting a lot of these kids. Too many stress fractures. Too many serious illnesses. Too many kids that after 4 years of training are still running slower than they were at high school. Completely burnt out and over-trained.

Running with a squad of 12 runners might sound great, but if those 12 guys are all older, stronger and faster than you, then you're basically just cannon fodder. This "sink or swim" approach to training at a US college might work for the Eamon Coughlans and the Sonya O'Sullivans of the world, but for everyone else it is a recipe for disaster...

Clearlier

leftism wrote: »

No, the same problem applies over here for US high school runners. I've seen a lot of high school programmes that would average about 30 miles a week, most of it at race pace. My first recommendation to them is double the mileage and half the intensity. The main problem is not necessarily the volume, but the intensity at which they run.

I'll give you an example from the university here:

Last week I tested a sophomore athlete that was running ~80-90 miles a week in high school. So when he arrived in as a freshman, he was already running good mileage and was relatively prepared for the volume. But he was entirely unprepared for the intensity at which that mileage would be run. Now he was training with a squad of 12 seasoned vets, all trying to convince the coach to select them. He was being asked to "hang in there" and "run for the team" and "get mentally tougher ". So now his recovery runs are at tempo, his tempo runs are at threshold, and everything else is basically at race pace.

This kid came in as a freshman, in good shape and having performed well at high school level. 2 years later, he's running slower times than he was at high school and the coach thinks its because he lacks "mental toughness". I ran him through a VO2max test and about 6 mins into the test, he had a relatively serious cardiac event. He's due to go in for heart surgery next week. Now the two issues could be completely unrelated, but I've seen enough evidence to form the opinion that the training is hurting a lot of these kids. Too many stress fractures. Too many serious illnesses. Too many kids that after 4 years of training are still running slower than they were at high school. Completely burnt out and over-trained.

Running with a squad of 12 runners might sound great, but if those 12 guys are all older, stronger and faster than you, then you're basically just cannon fodder. This "sink or swim" approach to training at a US college might work for the Eamon Coughlans and the Sonya O'Sullivans of the world, but for everyone else it is a recipe for disaster...

That's just straight up bad coaching isn't it? I know that the system hasn't got a long term focus but anything that burns kids out in a year or two is just stupid or am I missing somethign?

BTW - from my memory of Sonia's book the training system in her college didn't work for her. She only started recovering when she went back to ask her coach from school for some schedules. Ironically her coach at university (judging by what she wrote about it) seems to have had an approach that would generally suit long term development. It just wasn't appropriate for Sonia and it's to his credit I think that he didn't try to insist that his way was the only way and let her follow the schedules sent to her by her coach from school.

Chivito550

Personally I think JT should keep quiet on this. He competed in an era where there was nowhere near as many East African runners about, and in comparison to today's Ethiopians and Kenyans, most of them were second rate. There wasn't much depth there, and it was only in the 90s that we saw a true emergence of East Africans running crazy times, and it has only been in the last 10 years that we have seen them really taking to the marathon in championships. John Treacy is a legend of Irish sport. No doubting that. But if he was running now, he would be an also ran, so I think it's a bit rich of him to come out with all this.

leftism

Clearlier wrote: »

It's just anecdotal but they had 4 go sub 2:10 at the 2012 Olympic trials and a team silver medal at the last World XC championships neither of which had been done for a very long time by them. It would probably take something like the average of their top 10 marathon times over the past 20 years to get a more realistic indication but without having the evidence to back it up I do think that he's right to say that the US have been doing better at distance running over the last few years.

And who were those runners that went sub 2:10 and got selected for the US Olympic team?

Meb (born in Eritrea)
Abdi (born in Somalia)
Ryan Hall (an absolute freak of nature!)

Since 2000, there have been 20 occasions where a US runner has gone under 2:11. Those times were performed by 7 individual runners. Of those 7, you have one born in Eritrea, one born in Morocco, one born in Somalia and one born in Kenya. So basically you have 3 US born distance runners that have gone under 2:11 since the turn of the century. Hardly a great return for a country of 300+ million people...

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3818594

If you look at the US Nationals over the past 30 years, there have only been 3 occasions where it has been won in a sub 2:10 (twice by Meb, and once by Ryan Hall). The rest of the times are entirely comparable with our own national winning times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Marathon_Championships

My point is that when you consider the population of the US and you see the sheer numbers of kids running at high school, in all honesty they should be a dominant nation in the sport of distance running. But that simply isn't the case.

leftism

Clearlier wrote: »

That's just straight up bad coaching isn't it? I know that the system hasn't got a long term focus but anything that burns kids out in a year or two is just stupid or am I missing somethign?

Absolutely it is bad coaching! But if you're being paid $100k a year to coach an athletic programme and your job is dependent on winning conference championships and qualifying for NCAA nationals, what would you do?

Many of these coaches are acutely aware that they are burning kids out. But the NCAA doesn't give a damn. The system is set up in such a way that the coaches are forced to push these kids right to the limit for 4 years. If they get hurt, the programme just recruits another talented teenager, and the factory goes right along grinding up fresh meat...

Netwerk Errer

leftism wrote: »

Absolutely it is bad coaching! But if you're being paid $100k a year to coach an athletic programme and your job is dependent on winning conference championships and qualifying for NCAA nationals, what would you do?

Many of these coaches are acutely aware that they are burning kids out. But the NCAA doesn't give a damn. The system is set up in such a way that the coaches are forced to push these kids right to the limit for 4 years. If they get hurt, the programme just recruits another talented teenager, and the factory goes right along grinding up fresh meat...

I agree completely. But isn't this the exact same as what they do in Kenya? It's a case of, if you can't take the training load, you were never going to make it in the first place.

leftism

Netwerk Errer wrote: »

I agree completely. But isn't this the exact same as what they do in Kenya? It's a case of, if you can't take the training load, you were never going to make it in the first place.

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! Now my theory is that the most talented runners over here get around this paradox by racing sluggish. Basically, the top guys are so good, that they can go out and win races at a canter. So they schedule heavy blocks of training during the season but even in a fatigued state they can remain competitive within the system. But for the rest of the runners, this approach is not an option...

Ceepo

leftism wrote: »

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! Now my theory is that the most talented runners over here get around this paradox by racing sluggish. Basically, the top guys are so good, that they can go out and win races at a canter. So they schedule heavy blocks of training during the season but even in a fatigued state they can remain competitive within the system. But for the rest of the runners, this approach is not an option...

Boom !!!!!

Nail in the head