LetsRun note: We have seen no evidence that there was a podcast where Valby said this. So we are locking this thread to new posts and changing the title adding FALSE at the start.
Injured senior year of high school, injured freshman year of college, injured indoors/outdoors sophomore year of college, healthy as a junior in college so far. So, it is true that she gets injured often. However, her current system has produced two NCAA championships and an NCAA 5000m record indoors.
doesn' surprise me. i get the vibe from her that she has other interests. doesn't strike me as the kind of person that wants to spend countless hours shacked up in some crappy apartment, sitting around and taking naps between workouts.
She obviously cannot run as a pro running 30 mpw. She has to get passed (sic) her injuries, which is going to be tough because she never really got a diagnosis on the nerve issue. But she has made progress and who knows where she will be this summer at the US trials. If she makes the Olympic team, she will definitely turn pro because Nike is going to write her a huge check. If she is broken down at the end of the collegiate season and cannot run the trials, then it is hard to imagine how she could turn pro after her senior year.
She obviously won NCAA XC and broke 15 for 5000m, so it is not all obvious that she cannot get faster doing the training that appears to be working for her.
Even so, a long distance runner will have a fairly low ceiling if they can't train more than 50 miles per week. Some mid-d runners manage it but how many are real contenders on the global stage? There's no avoiding the need for a massive aerobic base and strength that only comes from a lot of volume. And that becomes increasingly important as you go up the distances. So if Valby maintains her current approach to training, what's her realistic ceiling? 14:45 and remaining in the 5k for her whole career? She could have a domestic career, maybe make a world final at a push, but the opportunity cost of that probably isn't worth it if she has other options.
And why would you say that the fastest woman in history has limited upside? That's silly. Limited upside is probably some college woman running high mileage already who is racing 16 minute 5k races.
Giles, Mu, Hodgkinson, Brazier are all 800m runners with the occasional 1500m foray, so they don't need much mileage. Valby is not ever going to be an 800m runner and is not likely to make an imprint on the world stage at the 1500m either, so she needs mileage or the equivalent of mileage. I would agree that she won't reach her ceiling without being able to tolerate a lot more mileage but she gets a great deal of aerobic base already from two hours of arc trainer/swimming/cycling every day, and that is as much aerobic work as any runner below the marathon is getting. Moreover, she is not at all capped in potential on her current regimen right now, because she closed that 14:56 in 2:53 (14:25 pace), looking fresh and with no 14:40s goal. With higher level runners, she would be in the 14:40s already.
She obviously won NCAA XC and broke 15 for 5000m, so it is not all obvious that she cannot get faster doing the training that appears to be working for her.
Even so, a long distance runner will have a fairly low ceiling if they can't train more than 50 miles per week. Some mid-d runners manage it but how many are real contenders on the global stage? There's no avoiding the need for a massive aerobic base and strength that only comes from a lot of volume. And that becomes increasingly important as you go up the distances. So if Valby maintains her current approach to training, what's her realistic ceiling? 14:45 and remaining in the 5k for her whole career? She could have a domestic career, maybe make a world final at a push, but the opportunity cost of that probably isn't worth it if she has other options.
She's training 80 mpw with all her arc trainer miles
And why would you say that the fastest woman in history has limited upside? That's silly. Limited upside is probably some college woman running high mileage already who is racing 16 minute 5k races.
They're all 800m specialists. Name just one successful 5k runner who is running less than 70 miles per week in training. Even Laura Muir, a superb talent, only has a 5k PB of 14:48 from her 50-60 mpw training (which includes easy runs at 6 minute pace).
I assume you meant the fastest woman in NCAA history, but I only said her upside is limited for as long as she runs limited mileage. If she ever gets to a place where she can do appropriate volume for a distance runner, then there's no reason she can't at least get into the 14:20s. She clearly has talent, just lacks durability
That was your question. You asked how many middle distance runners are competitive on teh world stage on low mileage. Now you don't like the asnwer to your own question. Valby is the all-time fastest college runner doing the training that she is doing so why wouldn't she continue on a path to be faster than all of the slower college women?
I find the discussion confusing. On the one hand cross-training is held up as being just as or more effective than running. On the other, these same people claim she has a huge upside if she can up her running mileage.
I've seen no evidence that there was a podcast where Valby said this. So we are locking this thread to new posts and changing the title adding FALSE at the start.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.