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.
Wrong. He may be a coach. What is not relevant is your spamming of every Valby thread implying that she is doping. Go away.
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.
do you know of any comparisons with the Versaclimber. The Versaclimber is so tough, but does it mess up form for running vs Arc Trainer?
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.
Training isn't just about heart-rate but building muscle strength. So how do they compare in that regard?
What is your question? You know what her training is. You also know that if she ran more and cross trained less, she would be even better. She will likely slowly transition if she stays healthy. Other elite runners don't follow her plan because running is better. End of story.
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?
Most top runners have never tried, it's that simple. Most coaches either. In fact, most runners and coaches are unwilling to introduce crosstraining as a corner stone right from the start.
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?
Most top runners have never tried, it's that simple. Most coaches either. In fact, most runners and coaches are unwilling to introduce crosstraining as a corner stone right from the start.
Exactly. And pure running training isn't perfect. If it was "all advantages," we wouldn't see so many runners, including the pros, getting injured all the time.
Wrong. He may be a coach. What is not relevant is your spamming of every Valby thread implying that she is doping. Go away.
It still isn't relevant if he is coach because he is using himself as the example for effective training for an elite when he isn't an elite athlete.
This is a thread about the training methods of an elite athlete. That is what my questions are about.
You are not interested in Parker's training. You ask the same questions day after day, you get answers, you keep repeating the questions.
All you want is to attack her, accuse her of doping. You have said it many times, that she can't be running the times she is running on the training she is doing.
What is your agenda, going after this girl? What is your problem?
Recreational. I started the XT doubles because of access to a gym at work and am returning from an injury.
I looked back at the training I was doing before and I averaged about an hour a day five days a week with a 90 minute long run and Fridays off. I ran ~6 hours/week.
Now, I average 7 hours a week (6 hours if I skip the easy elliptical sessions on Mondays and Wednesdays), but run slightly over 4 hours a week right now.
Granted this is a sample size of 1. But I feel fresher than what I was purely running, am making faster improvements, and have more discipline because I'm working out more consistently.
Most top runners have never tried, it's that simple. Most coaches either. In fact, most runners and coaches are unwilling to introduce crosstraining as a corner stone right from the start.
Exactly. And pure running training isn't perfect. If it was "all advantages," we wouldn't see so many runners, including the pros, getting injured all the time.
This is worth reading and understanding (from the article):
"And she’s going hard all the time. She says her average heart rate is higher when she’s on the Arc Trainer than it is when she runs. Few people can put that much effort in on a single piece of equipment, day in and day out. That’s what makes her an outlier."
“People look at cross-training as this silver bullet that she’s uncovered to make everyone great, and that’s just not the reality of it,” Will Palmer said. “There are things very unique to Parker, certain skills that she has that I think people overlook—her competitiveness and her ability to push herself beyond what most people can.”
We are talking about a high level elite endurance athlete here. I think most everyone can benefit from applying this general methodology to some degree, but it's an immense physical and mental undertaking to do what she's doing and get the payoff she's getting.
yes, cross training can work. especially for those of us that are highly motivated and have the right equipment available. i've put in what would seem like ungodly hours on indoor trainers, with some weeks exceeding 30 hours.
i used to bring my own battery powered fan to the gym because over-heating and dehydration are a serious issue, especially for someone like me with a peak perspiration rate of 9lb/hr.
it is incorrect though to think you can just blast your cardio system everyday. global fatigue is still very much a thing in non-impact endurance sport.
in additon to the arc trainer, walking on an incline treadmill can absolutely get the job done. but you've got to get to a point where you can walk faster than most are comfortable doing so, can't use the arm-rails to support yourself, and if you're fit an incline treadmill that goes above 15% will be a necessity. 4.0-4.3mph at 21-24% was the sweet spot for high intensity in my experience. steeper than that, like 27% or 30% the motion starts to become too similar to cycling or using a stepmill.
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?
Most top runners have never tried, it's that simple. Most coaches either. In fact, most runners and coaches are unwilling to introduce crosstraining as a corner stone right from the start.
So you are effectively saying it is better training than what is typically followed by the pros. Strange, then, that it isn't the norm.
Most top runners have never tried, it's that simple. Most coaches either. In fact, most runners and coaches are unwilling to introduce crosstraining as a corner stone right from the start.
Exactly. And pure running training isn't perfect. If it was "all advantages," we wouldn't see so many runners, including the pros, getting injured all the time.
But we see top pros running records and winning championships running miles without using an arc trainer. How can they be so dumb?
Most of the posts on this thread are silly. If replacing a lot of the running with hard cross-training was superior to 100% running then we would see a lot of triathletes running world class times and we don't.
Even sillier is the obligatory argument that runners are afrsid to try something new because they are conservative. Elite runners and their coaches are not idiots. If a lot of crosstraining would give them an advantage they would do it.