[Closed] Kids and running.

It is really just a case of folowing common sense. 10k isnt an issues for a 12 year old as such as long as the build up is slow and the training isnt too intense.
I would suggest joining a local running club. An affiliated one with a childs section as oppose to one of the "jogging" group type clubs. That way she will get access to coaching from qualified coaches and the opportunity to train with chilren of her own age.

Wasn't she training at Ilkeston a while back or have I mixed you up on with someone else? A few friends have kids with the Erewash club, all seem fairly happy, plenty of races all year round, track and cross country

Not sure by what you mean "make the cut" if she joins a club she will get access to all the XC racing she wants. As a merseysider I would typically run 3 x Liverpool and District races then a championship. Then the Merseyside championships (and if you qualify in the top 6-10 may get a run in the Inter Counties)then the Northern champs then the National. On top of that there are a host of other leagues and most weekends you could race XC without any qualification other than being a member of a club (some let you enter as a guest without being a member)

[url= http://www.runtrackdir.com/ukclubs/ ]UK Track and club directory[/url]

She is a member at av athletics club but really isn't enjoying the indoor training.
It was more the distance I was concerned with so if 10k is OK she'll work to that.
Making the cut was more to do with running for the county.

One of the triathletes in my club got his daughter running longer distances too young and she is now unable to run at all. At that age your daughter would be better off concentrating on speed rather than distance. As a one off with a couple of weeks of recovery after she'll probably be OK but regularly running more than 3-5km at that age is likely to be counter productive long term. Too far too soon IMHO.

Edukator - got any actual science to back up your opinions?

I dont think its necessarily "bad" for young children to run up to 10k but like anything it depends on frequency/intensity and their natural ability to adapt and most importantly their level of enjoyment.
There are a lot of old wives tales about knee damage ete etc but these are not bourne out by any evidence I have seen a number of people who have knee issues for example who have barely trained and others who have ran significant mileage and have no issues at all and still run into their 70's.

Having said that I would be reluctant to let my children at that age do that type of distance regularly.

Sorry Edukator, there's always unfortunate individual examples but your talking piffle really. this is worth a read OP.

http://www.runnersworld.com/high-school-training/should-kids-run-long?page=single

In my experience 10k would be a lot for a 12 year old. I'd concentrate on getting faster for 5k through a fun training programme run by a local club. Lots of the bigger running clubs have great junior sections, eg:
http://www.bingleyharriers.co.uk/juniors/

Our under 14 junior section typically compete in 2km to 5km events I dont see the coaches suggesting longer events yet

Well I'm with Edukator. Speed not distance. All my opinion, I did quite a bit of running as an early teen (older than 12 though) and regret running so much distance when I should have concentrated on getting faster at shorter distance. But that's just my opinion and every kid is different. Most importantly the kid has to enjoy it (and not get ill/broken).

There's "science" on both sides Phinbob. I've read all sorts of stuff but would rather not link any of it because it's all biased one way or the other - just like me. My son is pretty good in a variety of sports and I've tried to guide him without pressure to get the most enjoyment and best results possible without injury. He won the French ski-cross cup in his age group last year and is off to the French school athletics championships next weekend.

"Science" and "sports-science" are pretty inexact sciences. I'll add a few more guidelines (or piffle if you wish) which have more to do with sense than science. Madame is an ex-national Winter triathon champion and I used to regularly get into the top 10 so we have a little experience of what works:

Too little is more effective than too much.
Undertraining is more effective than overtraining
When you're injured you can't train.
When you're ill you can't train.
Listen to your body.
You are stronger after you've recovered not when you are still recovering.
You get faster by training faster (but not for too long)
If you feel crap, give up and walk home.
Don't fix artificial distance or time objectives when training, if you feel great go harder and longer, if you feel crap don't destroy yourself for the sake of keeping to a programme.

And specifically to this case, try to train at your own pace where possible. Running with your wife your daughter is likely to be in a false rythme - much to slow.

Too little is more effective than too much.
Undertraining is more effective than overtraining

Thats just "motherhood and Apple pie" though isnt it.

If 10 miles per week is too little and 200 miles per week is too much where is the optimum point? 11? 199? What you have said means nothing.
As a distance runner there is a direct correlation between distance trained and performance (of course there are other important factors such as speed and intensity as well as specifity etc) however if a club runner is running 30 mpw and his counterpart is running 70 mpw then all things being equal the latter runner will always come out on top because within reason mileage improves performance. You will get high mileage runners who underperform and low mileage runners who over perform but as a rule of thumb it is generally reliable.
Most "serious" 5/10k/XC types will run upwards of 70 mpw and the ones that dont do so for reasons such as excessive tiredness or injury. IME benefits start to tail off above this but many full time runners run in excess of 100 mpw even though the returns are diminishing.
The bottom line is as a competitive athlete you walk a tightrope in terms of what your body can handle and that is why people get ill or injured. Not because they are stupid but because it is often impossible to predict these breakdowns.

Our under 14 junior section typically compete in 2km to 5km events I dont see the coaches suggesting longer events yet

Yes but thats racing. Athletes train over distance so a longer run say twice a week is typical I would not let my child race 10k.

I’m caught in two minds on this one;

Firstly there’s a young lad in my club who’s 13 and ran a 1:40 half marathon a few weeks ago. He’s a very good prospect, regional champ at 1500 and he’s kept in check by his dad who’s a very, very good runner. So I wouldn’t say 10k is too far on occasion if it's steady.

The flip side is why does she want to run 10k? I’m not sure of the distances of the races she runs, but 12 year olds here would typically run 1500-2000m for a cross race so 5km for a long steady run seems more than enough to me, and quick intervals like 200 to 400 repeats would seem to be a better fit in terms of improvement.

Edit: I guess the crux is what went wrong in her trial? Did she keep in the lead group and die in the final ¼ or did she lack the basic speed to go with the leaders or was it a tactical mistake?

I dunno what the science says & purely subjective but I was running about 30 miles a week at that age did the Huddersfield marathon (waited round corner for my mum & ditto finish) when I was 14. I would also go on long runs on a Sundays with my dad & others up to 16 miles, whilst racing in the colts & youths cats. No injuries or owt just a heap full of happy memories & a foundation to build on for the return to athletic sports later after doing a fair bit of 'life research' 🙂

If 10 miles per week is too little and 200 miles per week is too much where is the optimum point? 11? 199? What you have said means nothing.

For whom? For the 12-year-girl 11, for someone doing 100km races then maybe 70. I'd say 199 is too many for anyone training for any distance.

What I've said means something too everyone but what it means in terms of distance and time that person has to find out for themselves. And even for the same person; what is fine one week won't be fine for another week. You need periods of building up, periods of competition with races but very low levels of training and recovery periods in which both volume and intensity are reduced.

Triathletes are notorious over trainers, generally only properly resting when ill or injured. I try to avoid that. That said, today I did 1000m vertical on rando skis, swam yesterday, X-C skied the previous three days (and rock and roll danced in the evening), rando last Sunday, MTB and rando last Saturday. So it's over a week since I had a rest day.

Just checked my local xc league U13 Girls course is set at 2.4km each round.

10km for the sake of matching mums run seems pointless, not linking it to goals makes it junk miles (or km's in this case).

[quote=taxi25 ]Sorry Edukator, there's always unfortunate individual examples but your talking piffle really. this is worth a read OP.
> http://www.runnersworld.com/high-school-training/should-kids-run-long?page=single
br />

Interestingly that article is 3.5 years old

Alana is still an experiment. No one knows if she'll go on to high school and collegiate success

It seems she probably will
http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/17-year-old-alana-hadley-wins-indianapolis-monumental-marathon

What I've said means something too everyone but what it means in terms of distance and time that person has to find out for themselves

So basically "be careful out there" and let us know how you get on?

Thats an interesting clip Aracer. The original article refers to African children who run more miles at that age every day simply as a means of transportation. We do tend to err on the side of caution (this is a general point not aimed at the OP) when we think about distance running. It simplistic but I think over the last 2-3 decades theres has been a change in attitudes towards how are bodies can adapt. As my post above I have trained with a significant number of good athletes many of whom ran not only significant distances but ran them at high speed. I am not aware of any "damage" other than those experienced by their peers who didnt run. In fact there are a number who suffer from injuries allegedly as a result of playing football, something as parents we encourage our children to do.
We are creating a generation of sedentary children who are fed a diet of whatever minimum a mount of exercise they can get away with (whatever fad it is this week.. 2 x 30 seconds up the stairs once a week etc is enough to keep you fit etc!)

Funny this came back up today. Was pondering it over the weekend, and it struck me as odd that we seemed a bit wary of a child running distances the week after mini pips came 61st at Strathpuffer and became a hero ( quite rightly)

Funny this came back up today. Was pondering it over the weekend, and it struck me as odd that we seemed a bit wary of a child running distances the week after mini pips came 61st at Strathpuffer and became a hero ( quite rightly)

I have had a few people say to me that my son shouldn't be riding his bike such long distances. Not based on any science, but on their gut feeling that kids shouldn't do such things. Whilst I would expect that from the sedentary types, a number of the critics are fit people with their own children which I find depressing.

If a kid [b]wants[/b] to run faster or ride longer then I don't see a problem.

Haile Gebrselassie ran 10k each way to school every day carrying his books under his arm (which apparently explains the fact that one arm sticks out further than the other!)

Depends on what you're running on, at that age 10k on roads isn't the cleverest idea I'd suggest.

More to the point she's not going to be competing over anything like that kind of distance so the benefit will be limited. Even 5km is going to be double her competitive distance. Train for strength/speed if she's after 'making the cut', go do hill reps, proper irregular intervals and drop distance but go harder.

Depends on what you're running on, at that age 10k on roads isn't the cleverest idea I'd suggest.

Or so you would think..... There is little evidence that running on hard surfaces is more damaging than running on "soft" surfaces. That appears to "sound correct" but I dont think there is any evidence to back that up.

Train for strength/speed if she's after 'making the cut', go do hill reps, proper irregular intervals and drop distance but go harder.

All good stuff however in practical terms what does training for "strength/speed" mean? Running "over distance" is important and Longer runs build both strength and speed given thst event "specific" training is the most effective. Also for example (I know this is a more extreme example) a good 5km runner may run in excess of 70-80 mpw and typically run 15 miles on Sunday. I know from experience that my hill sessions including my warm up and down will be in excess of 8-10 miles.
Of course this is extrapolation but we shouldnt be too worried about 10k as a "number"

It means training for the specifics of what you're racing. It's no good getting to the end of a race thinking I could have gone 4 times as far if the winners finished before you.

Osgood-Schlatter disease

http://kidshealth.org/parent/general/aches/osgood.html

Part of the reason that so many young footballers get problems when they are "bulking up" into the premier leagues

Only some of your training should be at goal pace. A training schedule should include a range of speeds. Some slower some faster. There are a range of responses and adaptions that require different stimuli.
Training in excess of your race distance provides significant benefit (as long as it is not done too slowly) any schedule would also include a variety of sessioms to build speed such as hill efforts and intervals of various lengths and recovery periods.
I am not sure why you have just assumed that the athlete who trains over distance loses out to one that doesnt. That doesn't make sense.

and

http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/bones/growth_plate_injuries.html

So there can be problems

Osgood-Schlatter Disease - "OSD can be quite painful, but usually resolves itself within 12 to 24 months"

growth plate link makes no mention of overuse or sport being a factor.

I am not sure why you have just assumed that the athlete who trains over distance loses out to one that doesnt. That doesn't make sense.

I'm not but training at 4 time the race distance isn't usefully running overdistance. The current 5k runs serve that purpose, pushing it out to 10k is unlikely to be particularly beneficial. And if she's doing that then endurance is unlikely to be the reason that she's not making the cut.

If she's targeting making county level then it's not about running fast, it's about winning races and that needs a slightly different approach.

I'm not but training at 4 time the race distance isn't usefully running overdistance.

Again thats incorrect. Ovett was the Olympic 800m champion and during winter he ran up to 110 miles per week. Coe (and a great many 800m and upwards) did similar.

And if she's doing that then endurance is unlikely to be the reason that she's not making the cut.

I dont understand what you mean by that?

If she's targeting making county level then it's not about running fast, it's about winning races and that needs a slightly different approach.

If you cant see the fault in that sentence then I cant help.

I think until the op answers this question

I guess the crux is what went wrong in her trial? Did she keep in the lead group and die in the final ¼ or did she lack the basic speed to go with the leaders or was it a tactical mistake?

It's all going to be a but hypothetical.

If she's targeting making county level then it's not about running fast, it's about winning races and that needs a slightly different approach.
If you cant see the fault in that sentence then I cant help

Oh dear God, at the pointy end every bugger runs fast and unless you're David Rudisha you ain't winning by just hitting a fast pace, you need to be able to cope with upping effort at key points in a race. But what do I know eh, when I was on national junior squad training sessions the coaches must have been talking crap.

no 10k is too far.. the max distance for u 13 xc is 3.5k so why run to 10? max distance for u12 fell races is about 3k and you certainly couldnt run more than a mile at an athletics meet.

dd1 is 12 and was runner up in the BOFRA champs 3rd in the fra and 10th or so in the county champs ( although she dpesnt actually qualify for any of the counties that have champs..

she races every weekend during the summer ( fells) and frankly kicks back during the xc season ( its boring she says) she trains twice a week with her club distance on tuesday eves and intervals on thursdays she plays hockey netball does triathlon and swims 3 times a week.. she will go for a jog if shes not much on or thrown a tantrum and wants some space but shes nevr run more than 5 mile in a session...

get in a decent club that has structure and wants the kids to race.. some clubs are nothing more than childcare.. enjoy.

race craft is difficult to coach to a kid as young as 12 the most important thing as dd1 says is PMA and frankly been a bully at the start.. and as mentuioned above been able to vary effort which is a skill many/most of the kids do not have.. just let em have fun..enjoy.. theres that word again...

This has moved on a fair bit since I last checked in. Missing out on the county qualies was a combination of not sticking with the leading pack and actually being physically unable to stick with them this year. The group was year 8 and 9 this time as opposed to just year 7 last year and I don't think that helped either.
She's really enjoying going out with mum and I think they'll just stick at 5k for a bit. It's only once a week and has to fit with all the other stuff she takes part in. Being happy to go out after school at this time of year says enough to me so as long as she's enjoying it long may it continue continue.

Running fast is everything. I dont know what your coaches told you but its first across the line that wins. If you are talking about a fast start then only an idiot follows a ridiculously fast face that they know they cant sustain. I am sure you were taught that! You can follow as many mid race surges as you want but if you follow a surge and exhaust yourself then thats not about fitness but naivety and thats not what we are talking about.