We changed the title to make it accurate. It was initially titles, "Parker Valby calls out Letsrun Users Armstronglivs and Astro on TikTok". She didn't mention any posters by name.
Whether or not she is doping i dont know. But I don't think she's suspended or serving the mythical silent ban. I think she just doesn't actually like running. She never seemed all that enthused about going pro, and it's no secret she didnt enjoy Boston (can't blame her. I hated my time there too). I think she's milking the injury a bit as a way to not have to compete
It's not about being equivalent but being effective in both cases. It worked wonders for her but saw Ingebrigtsen get buried at the world's. The contrast is too great to be credible. Either it is an effective form of training or it isn't.
I'm not following your logic here. If two situations are to be compared, shouldn't they be equivalent or at least similar enough to be reasonably comparable?
Valby ran in the Olympics after a prolonged time period of being healthy, racing, and using cross training as a supplement to running. Ingebrigtsen ran in the world championships after months of injury, no racing, and doing 100 percent cross training while recovering from a devastating injury (except for a small number of weeks when he was finally able to do track workouts leading up to Tokyo). Those situations aren't comparable.
Evaluating the effectiveness of cross training as a supplement to running for a healthy actively competing athlete is not the same as evaluating its effectiveness as the sole training done for an injured and non-competing athlete.
You are misconstruing the point. It isn't that Valby and Ingebrigtsen should have got exactly the same results from cross training but that the results were extremely disparate. Valby used cross training as her main form of training for years with very little road mileage. She got her best ever results with this. It got her to the Olympics. Ingebrigtsen used cross training for a relatively short period after injury. Running has always been his main form of training. Cross training may have kept him on his legs but failed to enable him to recapture his previous form. So my conclusion is that he has shown that cross training, like an arc trainer, isn't as effective as more conventional forms of training for pro distance runners. That is why it is used sparingly and typically in situations like that of Ingebrigtsen, when an athlete is recovering from injury. It is a "second best" form of training. Except for Valby.
The difference here is that Valby uses the arc in addition to running. Jakob was just desperately trying to maintain his fitness just only cross training.
She did very little running; reportedly only 30 mpw. Her results with cross training were outstanding. He only used cross training for a period, it wasn't his sole training before the world's. His direction was virtually the complete opposite of hers.
Admit it, if this 90’s style board stuck to only safe topics about training and racing it would have disappeared years ago. Bullying people into suicide and killing thousands with conspiracy theories on vaccines tends to gin-up the interest.
I don’t think they are comparable situations, but let’s say they were: then cross training allowed Valby to finish 11th in the 10000 in Paris, and Ingebrigtsen to finish 10th in the 5000 in Tokyo. So cross training got them to almost the same place, in fact one better for Ingebrigtsen.
What an absurd and misleading argument. She was never going to be better than an also-ran in an Olympic final; he has been an Olympic champion - twice over. So they didn't improve from the same base to reach the same level. He has declined sharply - and cross training didn't prevent that. To add, he wasn't injured at the world's but his preparation has been less than optimal, and so cross training didn't help him regain his best form. As I have always argued here, it is a poor substitute not an effective alternative to elite and pro training.
That’s why they aren’t comparable situations. But since you insist on comparing them, then they both got the two athletes to the same place. So on your n=2, Ingebrigtsen could only get to tenth because he was limited to cross training in the months leading up to Worlds, and Valby could only get to 11th because she was limited by cross training as well.
Thus one can conclude that cross training cannot get you to the very top elite levels, a point made by many posters on this board. This is not really debated. But one can’t conclude that it had a lower impact on Ingebrigtsen, as you did earlier. It got him as far as Valby — pretty good but not the very top.
This was well below Ingebrigtsen’s ceiling, but we don’t know what Valby’s ceiling could be if she trained like prime Ingebrigtsen (which she probably can’t do). It is likely below hers as well.
We changed the title to make it accurate. It was initially titles, "Parker Valby calls out Letsrun Users Armstronglivs and Astro on TikTok". She didn't mention any posters by name.
Not to derail the thread and with the understanding that questioning the moderation policies is frowned upon, but I'm struggling to understand the logical consistency in changing a thread title to remove an unwarranted personal attack and leaving the original post with the same personal attack.
I'm not following your logic here. If two situations are to be compared, shouldn't they be equivalent or at least similar enough to be reasonably comparable?
Valby ran in the Olympics after a prolonged time period of being healthy, racing, and using cross training as a supplement to running. Ingebrigtsen ran in the world championships after months of injury, no racing, and doing 100 percent cross training while recovering from a devastating injury (except for a small number of weeks when he was finally able to do track workouts leading up to Tokyo). Those situations aren't comparable.
Evaluating the effectiveness of cross training as a supplement to running for a healthy actively competing athlete is not the same as evaluating its effectiveness as the sole training done for an injured and non-competing athlete.
You are misconstruing the point. It isn't that Valby and Ingebrigtsen should have got exactly the same results from cross training but that the results were extremely disparate. Valby used cross training as her main form of training for years with very little road mileage. She got her best ever results with this. It got her to the Olympics. Ingebrigtsen used cross training for a relatively short period after injury. Running has always been his main form of training. Cross training may have kept him on his legs but failed to enable him to recapture his previous form. So my conclusion is that he has shown that cross training, like an arc trainer, isn't as effective as more conventional forms of training for pro distance runners. That is why it is used sparingly and typically in situations like that of Ingebrigtsen, when an athlete is recovering from injury. It is a "second best" form of training. Except for Valby.
That doesn't make sense. Why would you expect the results to be similar if the contexts are so vastly different?
Most of the Letsrun community, myself included, engages in fair, balanced, learned, and nuanced discussion about pro runners, training, nutrition, current events, scientific research, etc.
This site has daily transphobic threads, and one of the co-owners posts regularly about "non-African born" people as if it's an important category of runners to track.
The brojos went on a midnight ambush with a thread claiming a Valby drug ban was imminent. To my knowledge, those claims were baseless, no evidence was offered for the claims, and months later she has doubters spewing nonsense like this.
The brojos stoked the fire, and no real apology was offered. They just moved on to spreading uncertainty and doubt about some other athlete to drive up clicks.
The only reason I wouldn’t call it a betrayal is, who in their right mind would trust these clowns enough to be betrayed in the first place?
This isn't what happened.
Parker Valby deleted her instagram. She is one of the most popular American distance runners. People started speculating as to what was going on.
Some people started wondering/speculating/stating she had tested positive. People started making more declarative statements on and off of LetsRun.com.
We reached out to her team and her dad gave us a statement.
We have always said we let people speculate about doping. We don't want every thread to go that direction , but we think it leads to a cleaner sport. When I had a big breakthrough at 10,000m people on this website wondered if I was doping. I took it as a compliment. Comes with the territory.
#1 rule to succeed in pro sports, never argue with the fans
Go to almost any other fan forum for an NFL and NBA team and you will read truly ugly and nasty comments about individual players and coaches that are far worse than anything I have seen on the LetsRun message board.
Go to a pro sports game and listen to the ugly heckling, comments, etc. that fans yell at players.
Any kind of perceived abuse that pro runners receive from fans is tame compared to what pro athletes receive in many other pro sports.
So Ms. Valby needs to learn that the #1 rule to survive in pro sports is to never pay attention to the fans that do not love you.
Great post.
Letsrun is the one place where people discuss and care about the performance of competitive runner. In major sports there are tons of places where players are praised and trashed by fans.
Too many creepy stalker types here fawning over her. Yes, she is pretty but she was even faster. Kind of lost interest in her story. She was incredible from her NCAA to the Olympics year. Now I wonder if she is really capable of going to the next level because of her injury issues. This appears to the MO of a lot of top female runners. They come and go.
You wouldn’t like running either if you had to cross train 80% of the time and could only run a couple days a week.
For what is worth, I think she has been really injured. Probably pretty depressed on top of it. She tried to run too much in Boston where it is cold. A train wreck waiting to happen.
I swear posters here have never run before. They just think runners never get injured. This is an athlete that has always had major injury problems. It is certainly possible she never races again.
Half the topics on the message board are complete right wing trash that has nothing to do with running at all, and of the running topics a significant number of posts are just claims that everyone is doping
It's 4chan for running enthusiasts
Unfortunately it is also the best place to keep up with running stuff, but its not exactly confusing why someone might not want to filter through topics about F**KKIng B*ITCHEs in the A$s, Gang BANGErs, and TR*MP, or ignore the constant trans panic bigotry
Half the topics on the message board are complete right wing trash that has nothing to do with running at all, and of the running topics a significant number of posts are just claims that everyone is doping
It's 4chan for running enthusiasts
Unfortunately it is also the best place to keep up with running stuff, but its not exactly confusing why someone might not want to filter through topics about F**KKIng B*ITCHEs in the A$s, Gang BANGErs, and TR*MP, or ignore the constant trans panic bigotry
When has there ever been posts about anal intercourse or groups of men fornicating with one female?
Interesting what she has achieved through cross training and what it did (didn't do?) for Jakob.
You could actually make an argument that what Jakob achieved at world meet was hugely positive.
From serious injury to making 5000 final and running at least a competitive 1500 was quite impressive.
No one on the cross training support squad claims that it is better than running. The claim is that it can reduce injury by reducing your weekly high impact volume, and it can keep you fit during injury. Not race fit, but less unfit than doing nothing while you recover. This gives you a higher fitness startpoint when you resume training, allowing you to compete again quicker.
What an absurd and misleading argument. She was never going to be better than an also-ran in an Olympic final; he has been an Olympic champion - twice over. So they didn't improve from the same base to reach the same level. He has declined sharply - and cross training didn't prevent that. To add, he wasn't injured at the world's but his preparation has been less than optimal, and so cross training didn't help him regain his best form. As I have always argued here, it is a poor substitute not an effective alternative to elite and pro training.
That’s why they aren’t comparable situations. But since you insist on comparing them, then they both got the two athletes to the same place. So on your n=2, Ingebrigtsen could only get to tenth because he was limited to cross training in the months leading up to Worlds, and Valby could only get to 11th because she was limited by cross training as well.
Thus one can conclude that cross training cannot get you to the very top elite levels, a point made by many posters on this board. This is not really debated. But one can’t conclude that it had a lower impact on Ingebrigtsen, as you did earlier. It got him as far as Valby — pretty good but not the very top.
This was well below Ingebrigtsen’s ceiling, but we don’t know what Valby’s ceiling could be if she trained like prime Ingebrigtsen (which she probably can’t do). It is likely below hers as well.
They didn't "get both athletes to the same place" because they were arriving from OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. She was continually improving over a period of years as a college athlete whereas he was in a sharp decline from being an Olympic champion. Yours is a totally false argument.
This post was edited 36 seconds after it was posted.