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.
My question is that if arc training with low mileage is so effective why doesn't it appear to be the norm for top international runners?
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.
So Valby should be able to run faster than she does if she adopted more conventional training methods? How much faster?
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?
I am asking questions relating to her training (which is the subject of the thread) because it is argued here that it is the key to her dramatic improvement. But it only seems to work for her amongst athletes at an elite and professional level, as it is not typically followed except by athletes dealing with injury.
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.
I don't dispute your experience. It speaks for itself. But it may not achieve the same kind of results at a professional level.
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.
i'm pretty sure we are on the same page, as my experience agrees with what you're saying
i do think the case of Ingrid Kristiansen is an important one, though
i don't have her entire careers worth of training records, of course, but she essentially stayed fit year round aerobically by supplementing 8-10ish hours a week of xc-skiing in the winter while reducing her running mileage by an amount i've found to be "equivalent" in terms of max global load one can sustain on their organism.
essentially that 8-10 hours a week of xc-skiing was akin to about 40mpw of running training stress on her body, which is the amount she typically reduced her running load in the winter
she simultaneously held the 5000, 10000 and Marathon WR if I'm not mistaken
in my opinion, this is a great way to stay fit year-round while not burning out just doing one single activity, but outside of xc-skiing, the arc trainer and fast uphill treadmill walking i've not found any other exercises modalities that allow one to keep their runner-body so to speak.
cycling adaptations lead to a shorter stride, rowing and swimming are at much slower cadence and promote muscle mass gain so while these three are theoretically great for aerobic capacity. all three can still be great for amateurs still, but for elites they aren't really ideal especially considering they will likely be learning a totally new movement pattern.
that's another thing unique with Kristiansen, she wasn't learning a new movement pattern, rather it was something she excelled at as a youth and thus could handle higher loads at intensity without it making her a less well-adapted runner. her results should indicate that at least if the circumstances are correct, there may be very high potential in certain forms of cross-training at certain periods of the year even for athletes that are not injury-prone.
as a refresher, Kristiansen ran about double the mileage Valby currently does and she put in about 50% more cross-training hours than Valby does.
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.
No, I would rather say that I don't know a case of a top runner who has consciously been cross-training throughout his entire career since he was a teenager. I don't know of any coach who encourages young talents to stick to this model adamantly. That's why it's not the norm. But it would actually be worth a try because there's nothing wrong with it. All of the names mentioned in this thread (missing Elliot Giles, 800 in 1:43, only three runs per week, but lots and hard ElliptiGo sessions) have an injury history in the background before crosstraining began. So cross training was used as a necessary but unpopular replacement for running. Parker Valby and Elliot Giles show that it could be more.
The triathlon objection in #160 makes no sense because the training of triathletes prepares them for 8-hour competitions (Ironman), not for track distances of short but much higher intensity.
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.
No, I would rather say that I don't know a case of a top runner who has consciously been cross-training throughout his entire career since he was a teenager. I don't know of any coach who encourages young talents to stick to this model adamantly. That's why it's not the norm. But it would actually be worth a try because there's nothing wrong with it. All of the names mentioned in this thread (missing Elliot Giles, 800 in 1:43, only three runs per week, but lots and hard ElliptiGo sessions) have an injury history in the background before crosstraining began. So cross training was used as a necessary but unpopular replacement for running. Parker Valby and Elliot Giles show that it could be more.
The triathlon objection in #160 makes no sense because the training of triathletes prepares them for 8-hour competitions (Ironman), not for track distances of short but much higher intensity.
I understand it as an alternative for an athlete recovering from injury or susceptible to injury. What I don't see is that it can achieve the same results or better than the training most typically followed by the top runners. If it did it would be routinely adopted. It hasn't been. Coaches would certainly be aware of this method, so it isn't through lack of knowledge.
Why are you still posting? I gave the comprehensive answer to your question but you asked the same question again. Are you just incapable of reading basic English? I realize that it is difficult for you to see an American woman who is superior to Tuohy but I really gave you credit for being capable of putting that aside in order to at least grasp the facts.
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.
i'm pretty sure we are on the same page, as my experience agrees with what you're saying
i do think the case of Ingrid Kristiansen is an important one, though
i don't have her entire careers worth of training records, of course, but she essentially stayed fit year round aerobically by supplementing 8-10ish hours a week of xc-skiing in the winter while reducing her running mileage by an amount i've found to be "equivalent" in terms of max global load one can sustain on their organism.
essentially that 8-10 hours a week of xc-skiing was akin to about 40mpw of running training stress on her body, which is the amount she typically reduced her running load in the winter
she simultaneously held the 5000, 10000 and Marathon WR if I'm not mistaken
in my opinion, this is a great way to stay fit year-round while not burning out just doing one single activity, but outside of xc-skiing, the arc trainer and fast uphill treadmill walking i've not found any other exercises modalities that allow one to keep their runner-body so to speak.
cycling adaptations lead to a shorter stride, rowing and swimming are at much slower cadence and promote muscle mass gain so while these three are theoretically great for aerobic capacity. all three can still be great for amateurs still, but for elites they aren't really ideal especially considering they will likely be learning a totally new movement pattern.
that's another thing unique with Kristiansen, she wasn't learning a new movement pattern, rather it was something she excelled at as a youth and thus could handle higher loads at intensity without it making her a less well-adapted runner. her results should indicate that at least if the circumstances are correct, there may be very high potential in certain forms of cross-training at certain periods of the year even for athletes that are not injury-prone.
as a refresher, Kristiansen ran about double the mileage Valby currently does and she put in about 50% more cross-training hours than Valby does.
Your example of Kristiansen is an interesting one. When you say she reduced her winter running load by 40mpw what was the base this was reduced from - 100mpw or higher? It is also significant that this was only undertaken seasonally and the cross-training was calculated to match the reduction in mileage. So it's still a pretty rigorous training programme. Much more rigorous apparently than for Valby.
It does understand specificity. Running is not just about aerobic fitness. It's a neuromuscular skill that has to be practiced. Cheptegei is not fitter than the best xc skiers, and still he runs a lot faster.
I stated that running is superior to cross training. If you don't believe that, nobody can convince you. I stated that Valby would be better if she ran more. Again, I don't know how you can't understand that. Nobody can convince you. You really are so obsessed with Tuohy that you have lost your ability to comprehend anything. Your posts have everything to do with Tuohy. Tuohy is the likely doper yet you accuse women like Wiley and Valby.
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.
No, I would rather say that I don't know a case of a top runner who has consciously been cross-training throughout his entire career since he was a teenager. I don't know of any coach who encourages young talents to stick to this model adamantly. That's why it's not the norm. But it would actually be worth a try because there's nothing wrong with it. All of the names mentioned in this thread (missing Elliot Giles, 800 in 1:43, only three runs per week, but lots and hard ElliptiGo sessions) have an injury history in the background before crosstraining began. So cross training was used as a necessary but unpopular replacement for running. Parker Valby and Elliot Giles show that it could be more.
The triathlon objection in #160 makes no sense because the training of triathletes prepares them for 8-hour competitions (Ironman), not for track distances of short but much higher intensity.
Most triathletes on this planet don't train for ironman.
If Parker Valby's secret were talent, when her creator handed out God given talent, he would have allowed her to be an elite swimmer. A mediocre youth swimmer, switches to running, has injury issues, is willing to cross train on aerobic equipment and is allowed to race while training on aerobic equipment. Most college runners who suffer injuries, train on aerobic equipment while stress fracture(s) heal then are expected to run 5 to 7 days a week once stress fractures heal. Read posts here on this site. How many runners get stress fractures, heal, start running again 5 to 7 days a week, get stress fractures again then often quit. What is unique: U of Florida are allowing Parker Valby to race while only running 3 or 4 days a week. There have been so many talented runners over the decades not allowed to do what Parker Valby is doing. It's not talent, it is smart coaching.
It does understand specificity. Running is not just about aerobic fitness. It's a neuromuscular skill that has to be practiced. Cheptegei is not fitter than the best xc skiers, and still he runs a lot faster.
That is correct. To be the best at running you can be you have to run.