30 year old female Norwegian sets new 5k road WR of 14:39. She only runs once a day and skis the rest.

The rule of specificity applies in running, but I guess we don't know how much is needed. Obviously running needs a great aerobic general capability and also a superb running economy. Running economy comes from great form, efficient stretch shortening reflex mechanisms but also great aerobic endurance of the specific running muscle fibers. I don't know how compatible xc skiing muscle fiber activation is to running, but it should be much better than cycling, that is for sure. The general aerobic capability is for sure trained very well in xc skiing, where even more muscle mass is used requiring even more from the heart and lung function.

Karoline has been a great runner for so long that skiing just is a great way to stay injury free and unlock her aerobic capability. Her running economy is already superb.

I think there are many examples of people that can run really fast on a limited milage. Is there some scientific or coach experience that 50-60min running is enough to give close to max running economy adaptations?

If that is true there should be no reason for elites not cross training with a relevant and low impact training form at least 1-2h a day in addition. Triathletes run impressively fast and for instance Blummenfelt or Iden have expressed that in case going only for running fast they would maybe hit 100-120mpw + adding cycling to max out on volume. Not everyone can handle even 100mpw of running and then the only option would be to cross train to proper volume. I also see discussions on this forum that master runners should increasingly use low impact cross training to keep the volume up and adapt to longer muscular recovery needs between running workouts.

I do two days a week almost running free at 50 years of age, doing cycling. I don't need to go at a recovery intensity though as the muscular recovery is great just by not running that day. So a good easy or even moderate pace is fine, increasing the aerobic training impact.

For running I see people doing xc skiing, cross training/elliptical machines, cycling, aqua running. Cycling might be the least effective, but still great

Wondering if she replaces easy running sessions with easy roller skiing sessions, or if she trains hard on roller skis to get even more hard training a week.

UnknownGhost wrote:

Wondering if she replaces easy running sessions with easy roller skiing sessions, or if she trains hard on roller skis to get even more hard training a week.

Go to her Instagram a lot of information right there

Jack Foster was a serious cyclist before picking up running.

HRE wrote:

So the example of one 30 year old woman with a really good result counters the examples of hundreds if not thousands of people who have gotten comparable and better results?

i dont think anyone is arguing that more running is detrimental (if you can stay injury free) but for some athletes it seems to make sense. if you cant handle 100 mile weeks then do 60 miles and cross train for double the amount it would take you to run those extra 40 miles with a low impact sport like cycling.

Nailed it. Roller skiing using the same muscles as running. In Norway they usually include a lot of hills as well which help.

saw her race as a junior. wrote:

These posts are deceiving. Caroline Grovdal has been in the sport a long time. I saw her race as a junior at the European XC Championship. I remember saying she'd be the next Paula Radcliffe, but I think injuries or whatever got in the way. She's popped some great performances over the years. This performance is not surprising at all.

Yes , she had a rough relationship with actor Jeremy Renner. Set her back a couple of years.

There is that Brit 800m guy who only runs 3xweek and set an indoor record. He cross trains a lot.

What we need is a bike type machine - for taking on to roads/trails -that works the legs more like a natural running action. Maybe it already exists. Less wear and tear on the joints, and -if desired - hours and hours of cardio-vascular exercise.

portsea57 wrote:

What we need is a bike type machine - for taking on to roads/trails -that works the legs more like a natural running action. Maybe it already exists. Less wear and tear on the joints, and -if desired - hours and hours of cardio-vascular exercise.

Isn't that what the eliptigo is supposed to be?

gts1234 wrote:

Have run my best distance times off of basically a 5:1 rowing to running ratio. Definitely picked up way more injuries with high mileage running.

What were your meters and miles per week? And what type of rowing workouts and running workouts were you doing? I’m trying to find the sweet spot of rowing and running. Thanks.

Wikipedia says the fastest time on roads by a woman is 14:32, en route to a sub 29:43 10k.

I'm not sure why this time is a 'WR'? Even the IAAF said at the time that her 14:32 was a World Best.

I'm suspicious if a little more balance towards cross training could help. It seems to work for some people.

I remember Ritz crosss trained most of his buildup to the Olympic marathon and said it did not prepare him like running and left him out of shape.

looka wrote:

I'm suspicious if a little more balance towards cross training could help. It seems to work for some people.

I remember Ritz crosss trained most of his buildup to the Olympic marathon and said it did not prepare him like running and left him out of shape.

If your body can tolerate that a 100% of your cardiovascular training is running, then you should run, but some people don´t have that choice.

Steffen wrote:

If your body can tolerate that a 100% of your cardiovascular training is running, then you should run, but some people don´t have that choice.

I agree, but then what about the opportunity to ADD more volume on top of the max running? We know that if the impact of running had been less, we would see more training volume from runners leading to even more training time developing general aerobic capabilities

HRE wrote:

portsea57 wrote:

What we need is a bike type machine - for taking on to roads/trails -that works the legs more like a natural running action. Maybe it already exists. Less wear and tear on the joints, and -if desired - hours and hours of cardio-vascular exercise.

Isn't that what the eliptigo is supposed to be?

But, you can't pedal on a static machine for hours! What is needed is a machine that duplicates the running action, but that can be taken out the roads/trails for extended periods to build up cardio-vascular fitness but without the wear and tear of actual running.

BuckleUp wrote:

Maybe the magic shoes favor the cross-trainers by improving running economy proportionately more than for those who just run.

There maybe something to this.

runderun wrote:

Great time for Grovdal. Looking at the 5000m record now, you've got to think the 5k road record will be down to 14:20-14:25 soon. Maybe Monaco will pay up for Gidey to give it a shot next year.

Yes these are soft records. A Kenyan or Ethiopian could slash 30s of this.

Grovdal's record shouldn't stand it was way more dodgy than Beth Potter's. She had about 8 male pacers, it wasn't a a race from what I saw, whereas Potter actually ran with men but at times was by herself picking off runners a head of her and falling behind others surging. The big thing though is that Grovdal's race had a station wagon with the boot up creating a drafting effect.

Right, I forgot the road times are faster now with pogo sticks allowed for shoes.