I’ll bite again. Like many, I don’t think you’re getting it yet. The difficulty on the Arc Trainer is worse!
That is what she is saying. That is why she burst onto the scene at Nuttycombe and blasted up those slippery hills! Kara Goucher could only describe it as “she is popping off of that (obviously soft) ground!”
A lot of Arc Trainer sessions are only 40 minutes long. It takes her 20 minutes to get the heart rate up into the sweet spot. She is blaring music and just hammering. She won’t watch a video because that’s too distracting. It’s like a long tempo run, slogging under resistance!
She also does interval sessions (repeats) and ‘long run simulations’.
That’s kind of my point though. Tempo runs, intervals, etc can be difficult and even painful, but they aren’t more difficult than what you experience going all out in a race.
A lot of Arc Trainer sessions are only 40 minutes long. It takes her 20 minutes to get the heart rate up into the sweet spot. She is blaring music and just hammering. She won’t watch a video because that’s too distracting. It’s like a long tempo run, slogging under resistance!
She also does interval sessions (repeats) and ‘long run simulations’.
That’s kind of my point though. Tempo runs, intervals, etc can be difficult and even painful, but they aren’t more difficult than what you experience going all out in a race.
The added difficulty comes from the “functional resistance” of the Arc Trainer. Running the race with “functional resistance”, like wearing ankle weights, pulling a parachute or sled, etc, would obviously be “more difficult” than without the added “functional resistance”.
Her legs look noticeably stronger this year compared to last year.
Here is a thread discussing the “functional loading” of the Arc Trainer:
She mentioned the product multiple times and interviews. You think that one of the companies that designs and sells these would make her the face of their newest model. Move over Tony Little. Here comes Parker.https://m.youtu...
I think after watching videos over the past few years, her running form is a bit of an enigma at times.
I wondered if that last 400m in the BU race was representative of her freely opening up her stride ‘unencumbered’, though with the short track (frequent turns)?
Something seemed off, but I couldn’t be sure. But just now, watching the Natty’s race for the umpteenth time, I think I see it!
I think after watching videos over the past few years, her running form is a bit of an enigma at times.
I wondered if that last 400m in the BU race was representative of her freely opening up her stride ‘unencumbered’, though with the short track (frequent turns)?
Something seemed off, but I couldn’t be sure. But just now, watching the Natty’s race for the umpteenth time, I think I see it!
Starting at timestamp 17m23s, maybe you can see it, too? It is subtle, but she appears to be lifting up her left knee higher than her right knee, yes? This is in the latter stage of the race, under extreme fatigue (I don’t see it earlier in the race.):
Florida's Parker Valby captured the individual 2023 women's cross country title after running a time of 18:55.2. Watch the full race here. Subscribe to the N...
I think after watching videos over the past few years, her running form is a bit of an enigma at times.
I wondered if that last 400m in the BU race was representative of her freely opening up her stride ‘unencumbered’, though with the short track (frequent turns)?
Something seemed off, but I couldn’t be sure. But just now, watching the Natty’s race for the umpteenth time, I think I see it!
To be clear, I meant something maybe seemed off toward the end of the Natty’s race (not at BU).
Another thing she appears to (sometimes) do in cross-country, when fatigued, is lean her head back a bit, and to her right.
Something seemed off, but I couldn’t be sure. But just now, watching the Natty’s race for the umpteenth time, I think I see it!
Starting at timestamp 17m23s, maybe you can see it, too? It is subtle, but she appears to be lifting up her left knee higher than her right knee, yes? This is in the latter stage of the race, under extreme fatigue (I don’t see it earlier in the race.):
So if swimming is so beneficial to running, how good a runner was Schmidt, Phelps or Ledecky?
Meh, horses for courses. The athlete still has to physically fit the sport, even if they are doing work that isn't entirely specific.
So we cannot assume that the training that suits one particular sport will be advantageous for another unrelated sport. The athlete will require a talent for that sport and training that fosters that particular talent.
I agree with you that she is nearly 1 minute behind world class runners which makes it likely that she has tremendous upside when she increases her mileage. Graham Blanks is only 20 seconds behind world class runners. I expect a 40 second drop for her if she is able to put in high mileage like him.
Webb was a great runner, but he was also a very solid swimmer. I believe he was close to junior national cuts in 5 events as a freshman in high school. If he stayed on that trajectory, he probably would have received a Division 1 scholarship, but realistically would not have had a chance to make the Olympics in swimming. I do believe all the swimming (I think he swam for Machine Aquatics in NOVA which was more a high yardage team) gave him an amazing aerobic engine. We’ll never know what type of runner he would have been with no swimming.
My sister is a good example. She swam for a high yardage team and didn’t even run her freshman year, but did a 5:12 in her PE class mile spring of her freshman year. The teacher, who was also the CC coach, told her she needed to come out for the team. With only 25ish miles per week her sophomore year, but swimming often 3+ hours per day with doubles, she made Kinney Championships as a sophomore. She would absolutely not be the runner she was without all that swimming. She swam all through high school and both swam and ran in college (although that was very difficult at a top Division 1 school). But no, not every great swimmer will be a good runner.
Are you saying Webb wouldn't have been as good if he hadn't had been a swimmer? If that is so then most runners would add swimming training to their running.
Here is a paper by Bob Bowman (Michael Phelps' coach) that discusses utilization training. I was trying to find the talk he gave at a clinic. But the gist is that research has shown that you can increase heart and lung size through aerobic training BEFORE puberty. Back in the 90's NBAC was a team that would swim up to 10-12,000 yards a day for the very top swimmers, but even the 12 and unders were swimming 6-8000 yards a day. I don't think Michael Phelps could have accomplished what he did if he swam for a lower yardage team. Now getting back to running, Alan Webb swam for a high yardage team for years before switching to just running. There is a strong possibility that he developed a larger heart and lungs during those years leading up to high school that gave him an advantage when he transitioned to running. The amount of running it would take to reach those same aerobic gains of swimming would probably be detrimental to the bone development of many children 12 and under. You can swim hard most days and recover, the same can't be said about running (and coaches tend to be smart about mixing up the strokes, pulling and kicking to avoid overuse injuries in swimming).
Just want to emphasize that I believe it was Alan Webb's EARLY swimming (swimming at ages 8-13) that made the difference. Wouldn't be the same effect if a high school runner tried to both begin and add swimming to their training program.
As a general rule, I think runners run too much. Or maybe more accurately, don't cross train enough.
In every other endurance sport to reach your max aerobic potential you need to be doing 20+ hours a week of training. The majority of that is just "easy" endurance work. Elite endurance training is basically a game of how much "easy" hours you can accumulate while also executing about 2 hard workouts a week well. It takes years to build the body up to high levels of endurance training without compromising faster work.
The best runners in the world can MAYBE run 15 hours a week. MAYBE. More than that and injury is a guaranteed.
In my experience, the specificity and speed of "easy" training is the least important thing in training. As long as your hard/fast workouts are specific to your race and you are doing some easy hours running, you can add on other non-impact sports to great effect. For example, addding an hour of uphill treadmill walking prior to actually running outside can significantly improve endurance.
Parker is extremely, extremely talented. No doubt. But she also has figured out that cross training is a tool that can make you incredibly fast when dosed correctly into a more conventional running program.
I agree with you that she is nearly 1 minute behind world class runners which makes it likely that she has tremendous upside when she increases her mileage. Graham Blanks is only 20 seconds behind world class runners. I expect a 40 second drop for her if she is able to put in high mileage like him.
Here is one thing I don't understand.
How can one say she is working as hard or harder then all other runners in college with this cross training program, and getting more aerobic work in... etc. But simultaneously say she has upside because of limited running?
Isn't it one or the other?
Beamish does a lot of coss training and he said on Coffee Club recently Valbys improvement will be less. Because she is working out so much cross training you cannot expect big drops with mileage basically.
No it isn't one or the other. The point is that she will add some running to her current schedule. So if she runs 30 MPW and does 6 hours of cross training, she will do 45 MPW and 6 hours of cross training. That would be a 50% increase in activity specific training which will yield huge results.
No it isn't one or the other. The point is that she will add some running to her current schedule. So if she runs 30 MPW and does 6 hours of cross training, she will do 45 MPW and 6 hours of cross training. That would be a 50% increase in activity specific training which will yield huge results.
This is a version of the argument that running is better and will yield more improvements.
Generally I would agree but that is the opposite of what many here are saying.. that she is getting equal or more benefit from cross training.
As I mentioned Geordie Beamish commented that Valby is starting from a place further along than someone really only doing 30 mpw (because of the cross training), so a return to full running won't benefit her as much.
You are missing the point. First of all, Beamish is one runner. He is not a coach or any type of expert. Don't rely on his opinion above data gathered from many years of research and results. Secondly, running at the same intensity as cross training will produce better race results. Nobody is saying otherwise. But Valby and many people are able to maintain a higher level of intensity during cross training than what they are able to do while running due to impact. Thirdly, I said that she would increase her mileage by 50% while Beamish is using my second point. He insinuates that she is doing higher inensity while cross training and assumes that she would merely replace it with running. In that case, her improvements would be minor. It would be similar for an female college runner doing 70 MPW and then going pro and continuing to run 70 MPW. They will improve slightly over time but not by as much as someone who was running the same times on 50 MPW who goes pro and slowly imcreases to 70 MPW.
Can you site one lacrosse player who made it as a "overnight sensation" in track?
I coached men's lacrosse and while its a wonderful sport the players were generally slower than the skilled football players.
Miss Valby is a prime example. Gave up lacrosse and promptly won the Florida high school 3200 championship in her junior year. Some track background along with her swimming base but, nothing to write home about until she focused.
At my school, I have had many women lacrosse players use XC as conditioning for lacrosse. Several have earned varsity spots and qualified for state over the years. The girls play a different style of game - less physical, more finessed, with more emphasis on fitness, speed, and wide-open play. Many come from established club programs while most of the guys take up the game late after washing out of football, usually for size or speed deficiencies - my observation.
You're right about girl's lacrosse. My daughter (steeplechaser) played a summer league for the fun of it and one of her games was against the girls who would be her school's lacrosse team in the spring. They won the sectional championship. My daughter scored every goal in the summer game and beat them by simply out running them.
She never played lacrosse again and got a scholarship for track.
