The Supreme Arbiter of All Knowledge wrote:
she aint running 14.10 and america loves winners
She's running a 3k in a month, what's your prediction?
-
10
-
NCAA sports are changing in general. Valby and Tuohy fit well into the new business model.
I don't understand why Duke is paying a transfer portal QB $4 million/year in NIL$, three times what the Duke president makes. We just lost our former Texas QB to Oregon State because of NIL$.
The new UNC football coach has $20 million in NIL money for next season and is rumored to be going after the Texas QBs. He needs to do something because he inherited a dumpster fire and has already lost several players in the portal. As a former pro coach, he should have an advantage in understanding the business aspects. Duke has an advantage over UNC because we have deeper pockets.
14 -
rush in model wrote:
ue72g2gy2 wrote:
Time will tell. I'm in my upper 40s and have never had a major injury. Longest I've been our was 1 week with an IT band issue. If she can say the same her training is fine. If she misses weeks at a fun time her training isn't.
Also, she is popular because she is attractive. Much like Anna Kournikova she never has to be good. She will always have sponsors.
Really? Kournikova not as bad as often cited, she made it to #8 on the world rankings single list, and won two Grand Slam doubles titles.
That can be a challenge for Valby. Finish a pro year ranked better than world#8 in an event, or win Gold in a relay.
And Kournikova made Wimbledon semis in singles one year.
What about Emma Raducanu?
23 -
Valby is hot and she is an Olympian. Tuohy is not.
810 -
Thebigfatone-erpang wrote:
Parker Valby is a great runner but her running form is just terrible.
so bad that is it painful to watch
i am very surprised that no coach has told her to move her arms properly
I gave up on criticism of arm use when Yared ran 3:43 or whatever his record is.
She looks fine if you watch her over time. Probably her form is related to hard elliptical work.
102 -
Farroblaster wrote:
The 6-time NCAA champion and Olympian doesn’t have to be good, huh? They just gave her the Bowerman because she’s so pretty?
This might blow your mind, but a woman can be both very pretty and a very talented athlete
She could be the ugliest athlete that ever lived, but she qualified for the Olympics in 5000 and 10000, set numerous course/event records, and won a multitude of titles.
The woman won Bowerman. If you don’t understand why she’s popular, you’re not following the sport.181 -
xy.. wrote:
Thebigfatone-erpang wrote:
Parker Valby is a great runner but her running form is just terrible.
so bad that is it painful to watch
i am very surprised that no coach has told her to move her arms properly
I gave up on criticism of arm use when Yared ran 3:43 or whatever his record is.
She looks fine if you watch her over time. Probably her form is related to hard elliptical work.
I everybody criticized Paul's form also !
10 -
This quoted post has been removed.
Go back to your troll hole you vole
50 -
Thebigfatone-erpang wrote:
Parker Valby is a great runner but her running form is just terrible.
so bad that is it painful to watch
i am very surprised that no coach has told her to move her arms properly
If it was that simple, it probably would've been handled years ago, therefore good chance of it being the result of something much bigger and unfixable, such as one leg doing a circular motion in the hip joint rather than a straight back/forth (thus the arms having to adjust to balancing a body where the legs are doing two different things).
11 -
hawksss wrote:
I mean I can tell you why she is popular lmao.
"this post was edited by rojo 11 hours after it was posted. Reason proved: Typo. Tell was spelled fell."
Ok, I'm all about having this discussion about Coach Scannell and him acting like the type of person who says "wow, i've known them for 5 years and didn't know they were black"
Like, of course Parker is beautiful and also an extremely competent runner. She has also reminded us cross training is legit. "Reminded" given Ingrid Kristiansen cross-trained more than Parker ever has and at one point was the simultaneous WR holder in the 5000, 10000 and Marathon.
Anyway, who cares about all that. Can we talk about Rojo apparently editing someone else's post due to a spelling error?! Rojo. Correcting someone else's spelling error? Truly unsure what to even think.
211 -
because.. wrote:
1. It's because she's hot
2. I seriously wonder, though, if all her time on the arc trainer has changed her form for the worse. I had a training partner who, during the (admittedly long and cold) winters, maybe ran outside once per week for his long run and did the rest on a treadmill. Ended up running good times but seemed to develop a bit of a 'hitch' in his stride that he never had before
Just because it looks bad to you doesn’t necessarily mean it’s inefficient:
22 -
look it up wrote:
people (like him) who have never tried what she is doing don't really know what they are talking about.
Here is what he has wrong:
1) you can be fast on low mileage
2) you don't have to cross-train the same amount of time because there is not a 1:1 ratio for whatever reason. For example: anyone who bikes and runs know a 1 hour bike does not equate to a 1 hour run. Most would agree that it is closer to 2-2.5 hour bike = 1 hour run.
I row and feel that :30 on a rower = 1 hour run. I have done 1 hour on the rower and that really equates to a 20 miler run (2 hour effort). I don't know who arc trainer translates time wise but if you really want to know, don't ask mojohns like this, ask those who actually do cross-training because they are the ones who know.
my formula is this:
row = 2x running
run = 2x biking
back to his point about she can't be this fast doing X amount of running miles. He does not know.
I ran 25-40 miles per week when I was 24 for about 9 months after college (where i was running 70-90 most weeks with lower weeks as well). By running just 4 days per week and running fresh all the time and cross training on what used to be my easy days, I got considerably better/faster. By his logic, this would not have happened. I did not lower my mileage for injury issues or because i couldn't handle high mileage (years later I have run as high as 210 miles in a week = with no injuries). Which type of training made me fastest?
actually the low mileage did with high quality and cross-training (the exact opposite of what he is claiming)
If you want to be a good runner, go run. If you want to be a good swimmer, jump in the pool. You didn't get better because you cut your mileage in half, you got better because you already had the miles in the bank and probably overtrained in college. I don't actually know this to be true, just saying.
39 -
look it up wrote:
people (like him) who have never tried what she is doing don't really know what they are talking about.
Here is what he has wrong:
1) you can be fast on low mileage
2) you don't have to cross-train the same amount of time because there is not a 1:1 ratio for whatever reason. For example: anyone who bikes and runs know a 1 hour bike does not equate to a 1 hour run. Most would agree that it is closer to 2-2.5 hour bike = 1 hour run.
I row and feel that :30 on a rower = 1 hour run. I have done 1 hour on the rower and that really equates to a 20 miler run (2 hour effort). I don't know who arc trainer translates time wise but if you really want to know, don't ask mojohns like this, ask those who actually do cross-training because they are the ones who know.
my formula is this:
row = 2x running
run = 2x biking
back to his point about she can't be this fast doing X amount of running miles. He does not know.
I ran 25-40 miles per week when I was 24 for about 9 months after college (where i was running 70-90 most weeks with lower weeks as well). By running just 4 days per week and running fresh all the time and cross training on what used to be my easy days, I got considerably better/faster. By his logic, this would not have happened. I did not lower my mileage for injury issues or because i couldn't handle high mileage (years later I have run as high as 210 miles in a week = with no injuries). Which type of training made me fastest?
actually the low mileage did with high quality and cross-training (the exact opposite of what he is claiming)
Proof or it didn’t happen! Your post is the antithesis of all that is propounded on old school running, and as Armstronglivers (the expert that doesn’t even run) has repeatedly, incessantly, told this forum over and over, the very best do not train that way so it obviously doesn’t work!
😝
11 -
Arc my words wrote:
Valby …As far as I can tell, she's never done much mileage. So she's achieved what she's achieved off low mileage and cross-training. ?
But wait! What about all the incessant posters that would occasionally pop up telling the forum she ran big mileage in high school?🤪
11 -
Precious Roy wrote:
I would want a coach to be trying to figure out why Valby has been able to do so well with such a very different training program instead of just dismissing it out of hand. There is definitely groupthink in distance coaching that is definitely shown by Scannell's comments. Valby's success with minimal mileage presents a big opportunity to rethink training orthodoxy and experiment with a new approach to training.
And kind of the same feeling about Valby's popularity. Distance running has been terrible at marketing its athletes. Valby uses social media well with a very minimal amount of posting. She is funny and lets her humor and personality show in her media appearances and on social media. The groupthink of the distance running world is that athletes need to laser focus on training and competing and their results should be what drives their popularity.
I guess the best Africans should give up all this high mileage nonsense and start training like a 30,50 runner.
24 -
ue72g2gy2 wrote:
Time will tell. I'm in my upper 40s and have never had a major injury. Longest I've been our was 1 week with an IT band issue. If she can say the same her training is fine. If she misses weeks at a fun time her training isn't.
Also, she is popular because she is attractive. Much like Anna Kournikova she never has to be good. She will always have sponsors.
anna was way hotter.
210 -
darkcloud wrote:
ue72g2gy2 wrote:
Time will tell. I'm in my upper 40s and have never had a major injury. Longest I've been our was 1 week with an IT band issue. If she can say the same her training is fine. If she misses weeks at a fun time her training isn't.
Also, she is popular because she is attractive. Much like Anna Kournikova she never has to be good. She will always have sponsors.
anna was way hotter.
pics please
13 -
Actually many people like Mike are confused about Valby's training. She is actually training harder than anyone else in the USA, men or women.
She is doing 600-800 minutes per week of aerobic training. She is an extremely high volume trainer, much higher than anyone else. High volume works and Valby is proving it. Many people want to hear about less is more success stories so they have an excuse to do less.
Don't look to Valby for less, she is doing way more than any American has ever done. She sweated 3 gallons of water a day in Florida.
141 -
Mostly agree wrote:
I’d agree with all but the “good personality” - not that she has a bad personality by any means, but she is an odd duck and can come across as a bit self-involved/entitled. I always enjoy watching John Anderson try to interview her because she drives him nuts 😄
OMG, a person whose personality is slightly different to mine and the people I hang out with...she must be mentally ill!
Seriously, doesn't she know there are strict rules about how to behave as an interviewee? You praise all the other "girls", you thank your coaches and God, and you act like it was a pure fluke that you won (again). That's just how it's done. Someone needs to stop this nonsense from Valby!
02
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.