If you don't want to look at hobbyjogger results, look at Josh Spiker then. He was on some of the best NCAA xc teams in history at Wisconsin. In high school, he was very fragile and could only manage about 10-20 mpw of running, so he spent a great deal of time on the elliptical trainer, the equivalent of 100 mpw or more and ran a 4:06 mile, 3rd best mile in the U.S. hs in "a very good year," relative to the era, back in 2000. It worked for him. Unfortunately, he was never able to stay healthy for long with the impact of running. http://archive.dyestat.com/rivals/234805.html
Anecdotally, I can see how this training is extremely effective. You can get some tremendous aerobic work done on the arc trainer with basically no risk for injury. About 10yrs ago I ran my 1500m PR 3wks removed from being out for 2mo w/femoral stress frx. As soon as i could arc with minimal pain (about 2wks after initial injury), i went HAM everyday; like HR 150s-180s for 1-2hr sessions; did a 3hr session, lots of "intervals" 3min on/1min off etc. with no recovery days and often 2xsessions/day. Running felt slow and clumsy coming back but with probably the biggest aerobic engine I had ever had; after a single rust buster and 3 total interval sessions I ran a huge PR, and I never actually ended up running faster, despite consistent training at 65-75mpw for the following 3yrs. I think this is a strategy that even healthy runners should tap into.
Runners like to run. And to some extent you need to have the situation where you have easy access to a good machine. I am not sold for example that biking is anywhere near as good. And things like pool running are insanely boring. But I am also not driving 25 mins to the gym 4x week to use the arc trainer.
and if you can actually handle the 120mpw running, it isn’t clear that doing the equivalent with xt is better. Granted few people can do that consistantly…
Agree that runners like to run, grinding on the arc is straight misery and the impracticalities of getting to the gym if you're not in college makes it a tough sell. I do take note that Valby does all her xt on the arc though, because I think stuff like biking and pool running is low yield by comparison. I've never been to get my HR into a high range on the bike without feeling like I was putting my legs through a strength workout and likewise always struggled to get my HR up during pool running.
I think the value in the arc specifically is the ability to really crank that HR up for sustained periods with low impact - and for that reason I think even if capable of running 120mpw, there may be some utility to integrate the arc into the program instead. Why? Because if you can stomach it mentally, you can stress your cardiovascular system at a high level every single day, which is something that hardly anyone does at high mileage because their legs are trashed.
What's higher yield for someone like valby? Doing 1hr thresholds on the arc 3xwk or doing 3 extra training runs at 7-730pace. Of course the actual runs are more specific to her event, but as far as the benefit to her aerobic engine, I think the arc sessions likely provide more bang for the buck.
Agree that runners like to run, grinding on the arc is straight misery and the impracticalities of getting to the gym if you're not in college makes it a tough sell. I do take note that Valby does all her xt on the arc though, because I think stuff like biking and pool running is low yield by comparison. I've never been to get my HR into a high range on the bike without feeling like I was putting my legs through a strength workout and likewise always struggled to get my HR up during pool running.
I think the value in the arc specifically is the ability to really crank that HR up for sustained periods with low impact - and for that reason I think even if capable of running 120mpw, there may be some utility to integrate the arc into the program instead. Why? Because if you can stomach it mentally, you can stress your cardiovascular system at a high level every single day, which is something that hardly anyone does at high mileage because their legs are trashed.
What's higher yield for someone like valby? Doing 1hr thresholds on the arc 3xwk or doing 3 extra training runs at 7-730pace. Of course the actual runs are more specific to her event, but as far as the benefit to her aerobic engine, I think the arc sessions likely provide more bang for the buck.
I will amit I would rather go on the arc trainer than for a long, slow run. I can go fast an extended period of time(without running the risk of injury), listen to music, drink caffenated electrolytes as I please and wipe off the sweat with a towel.
Another positive of use the arc trainer during workouts is that you can really push yourself to the edge with every workout and quicken the pace. Hammering every single running workout and easy runs will likely lead to injury and overtraining. However, the lower impact nature of the arc trainer allows for you to push workouts to "race-like" intensity with very heavy legs, breathing and sweating.
Elizabeth Leachman adopted her methods, and now is the fastest high school two miler ever, in the country, while still only a sophomore.
I said top runners, not high schoolers. It should now be the norm for pros, if it does what many here think it does.
It would require a mindset change: pros brag about miles, not time. Maybe if they bragged about time, they’d do more alternative training that works the aerobic system, and just enough land training to make sure they could implement the aerobic gains.
This is a thread about Valby's training. But even asking questions about that subject isn't permitted by the mods. Of course if she wasn't American it wouldn't be a problem.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
You keep asking the same question, but don’t even want to listen to, let alone accept the answers. Everyone by now realizes you approach the topic like a petulent angry toddler.
Read the article again. Her own coach tells you why this is not a magic bullet in training.
I don't understand why so many of you are having such difficulty understanding her training and why it works.
well - I guess the fact that most on here are just followers and would never try anything new on your own is really the issue.
I trained on 4 days per week myself two years out of college and had big improvements in my times. Why?
1) this allows you to feel fresh on the running days = meaning you can get a much better hard workout
2) the cross training day is great for building strength in ways your muscles have never experienced. I was using biking and rowing for mine (but much less volume than she is doing). My method worked well for about 1 year, but I was not getting any volume - so it plateaued. I think she is doing it exactly right.
Unless you are an elite athlete your experiences are not likely to be relevant.
Runners like to run. And to some extent you need to have the situation where you have easy access to a good machine. I am not sold for example that biking is anywhere near as good. And things like pool running are insanely boring. But I am also not driving 25 mins to the gym 4x week to use the arc trainer.
and if you can actually handle the 120mpw running, it isn’t clear that doing the equivalent with xt is better. Granted few people can do that consistantly…
There is no "better," there is only what's best for the individual.
That goes against every expert opinion on the sport. There would be no advances in knowledge if anything goes.
I'm shocked that people are still skeptical on the merits of cross training when the best women's college long distance runner in history is having these types of results. I think some runners are afraid to admit that running less can actually be better in some instances.
It's honestly given me the confidence to reduce my own injury prone mileage in favor of alternative aerobic sources.
Because women aren't believed in general? I couldn't help but notice all the men accusing her of lying about her training all this time. I also love that she keeps proving them wrong.
Aside from that, I think a lot of runners are skeptical because they're afraid to try something new. We get set in our ways sometimes and are convinced running is the purest and best form of exercise.
It's interesting that some people are asking why other pro runners aren't training like her, but at the same time asking why she doesn't train like them. Maybe because one size does not fit all?
I'm not a pro/elite runner, so I'm sure this doesn't matter to many of you, but I was inspired to try this style of training back in November and it has been going really well. No, I don't do the EXACT same training she does, but again, I'm not elite either. I do all of my cross training at a high intensity, interval style. I do think I could add in additional time cross training if I really wanted to and sacrificed more of my other life responsibilities and time (I have 1-year old twins). For example, I haven't been doing any double days unless you count strength training. But here's what I, a "hobby jogger" have been doing for the past several months, training for a half-marathon:
XT Monday: 60 min stationary bike or elliptical + strength training
RUN Tuesday: 8-10 miles total track speed workout
XT Wednesday: 60-90 min stationary bike or elliptical
RUN Thursday: 8-10 miles total tempo workout + strength training
OFF Friday
RUN Saturday: 12-15 miles, sometimes including some tempo
XT Sunday: 90 min stationary bike or elliptical
You say you're not a pro/elite runner so your experiences are of limited relevance to those who are.
Jake Wightman generally runs more than 2 or 3 days a week. If he uses an arc trainer to recover from injury that is a different matter. I doubt it's what he used to win a world championship.
You keep asking the same question, but don’t even want to listen to, let alone accept the answers. Everyone by now realizes you approach the topic like a petulent angry toddler.
Read the article again. Her own coach tells you why this is not a magic bullet in training.
I asked why this method touted for her spectacular improvements doesn't appear to be the norm for elite and professional runners. If it isn't a "magic bullet" for her or anyone then how does it produce better results than more traditional forms of training?
The point is that his coach concluded he could get a 90mile/wk equivalent training by heart rate on the eliptical when he was injured.
I don’t know if he kept any of that cross-training in his repertoire now, but after watching his YouTube video, it is not hard to figure out why he might choose to avoid it, if possible. Reasons why that is the case have been given on this thread.
I am trying to understand how her 60 min arc trainer workouts in which she apparently perspires a lot is like her running 4 miles at 6 minutes per mile which i would think would be fairly. Easy for her.
I'd like to see some research done on this, but my understanding is that 1 minute of Arc trainer is equal to 1 minute of running at the same intensity level. So if she's at a heart rate of 150 on the Arc Trainer for 60 minutes, whatever pace she runs at that heart rate for 60 minutes would be the equivalent. So it allows her to get in very good volume.
The Arc Trainer is one of the best, if not the best, cross training options for runners.
I am trying to understand how her 60 min arc trainer workouts in which she apparently perspires a lot is like her running 4 miles at 6 minutes per mile which i would think would be fairly. Easy for her.
I'd like to see some research done on this, but my understanding is that 1 minute of Arc trainer is equal to 1 minute of running at the same intensity level. So if she's at a heart rate of 150 on the Arc Trainer for 60 minutes, whatever pace she runs at that heart rate for 60 minutes would be the equivalent. So it allows her to get in very good volume.
The Arc Trainer is one of the best, if not the best, cross training options for runners.
If that is so then we should expect it will be the stock in trade for most top runners. But why isn't it? Maybe it doesn't give all the advantages of running training?
The point is that his coach concluded he could get a 90mile/wk equivalent training by heart rate on the eliptical when he was injured.
I don’t know if he kept any of that cross-training in his repertoire now, but after watching his YouTube video, it is not hard to figure out why he might choose to avoid it, if possible. Reasons why that is the case have been given on this thread.
The crucial point is that he did it while injured. It isn't a substitute for his usual training when healthy. The reason for that would be that it isn't as effective as running.
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.