She is feeling stronger than ever before. Why do many destroy their bodies when they dont have to?
She is feeling stronger than ever before. Why do many destroy their bodies when they dont have to?
I don't understand. Is 100km (60 miles) a lot for a professional runner?
I'm confused as well.
fluffycat1 wrote:
I don't understand. Is 100km (60 miles) a lot for a professional runner?
No, but 100kvm per week is a lot.
What is a kvm?
FinJ wrote:
She is feeling stronger than ever before. Why do many destroy their bodies when they don't have to?
Okay, I'll bight. Who is destroying their bodies when they don't need to and what does that have to do with Grovdahl running 100k a week and feeling stronger than ever before?
the OP is attempting to communicate the following:
1. The woman in question is very fast.
2. She does NOT run high mileage by pro standards.
3. She makes up for the low running volume with XC skiing for cross training.
4. The OP thinks other runners may do well to copy the woman's recipe for success: moderate running miles combined with big hours of low- or no-impact cross training.
ronald mexico clarke wrote:
the OP is attempting to communicate the following:
1. The woman in question is very fast.
2. She does NOT run high mileage by pro standards.
3. She makes up for the low running volume with XC skiing for cross training.
4. The OP thinks other runners may do well to copy the woman's recipe for success: moderate running miles combined with big hours of low- or no-impact cross training.
This was some kind of revelation, but it might be that low impact but still relevant cross training in fact can be as good or better than just doing running. It might be that the best runners are those that can manage high running mileage and that the ones that cannot endure it never reach the top. It is kind of a reinforced loop. Just because top runners run a lot, it does not necessarily imply that you must run a lot to be a top runner.
Grøvdal har been running a lot too so we will I guess never know. Long term studies with enough participants is impossible to do so we will never know I guess.
Grøvdal is doing more total volume by adding more of the cross training than she would do running. This is maybe special with running that is limited due to the impact, compared to may other sports. She could increase volume, both easy and threshold. Cross contry skiing (not skating) is very relevant to running, but have low impact. In addition it requires more of the core and upper body, making it a better aerobic workout. So in fact doing more volume than running might build a better aerobic capability.
Filip Ingebrigtsen had a spring/summer some years ago with alternative training due to injury. He trained a LOT, I think XT and water running. When he came back that autumn he felt stronger than ever and run very fast.
It can be that the base aerobic engine (what that is?) is developed in general with relevant enough cross training and that everyone aiming high should maximize the time volume with enough cross training.
The interesting with Grøvdal is how she and her coach have had to remind themselves several times that even if she is not hitting the milage of the competitors at all, her performance is steadily increased through feedback from the training and also the races she has done the last 6 months (low 15 5k road in september, 14.40 road 1 week ago, comfortable 30.50 10000 track this weekend). But the facts for her are clear.
As a soon 50 yo I will do more cross training. If it is this effective, why should I run all those miles to just feel like crap sometimes? I feel so much better after cross-training on the bike.
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
This was some kind of revelation, but it might be that low impact but still relevant cross training in fact can be as good or better than just doing running. It might be that the best runners are those that can manage high running mileage and that the ones that cannot endure it never reach the top. It is kind of a reinforced loop. Just because top runners run a lot, it does not necessarily imply that you must run a lot to be a top runner.
Grøvdal har been running a lot too so we will I guess never know. Long term studies with enough participants is impossible to do so we will never know I guess.
Grøvdal is doing more total volume by adding more of the cross training than she would do running. This is maybe special with running that is limited due to the impact, compared to may other sports. She could increase volume, both easy and threshold. Cross contry skiing (not skating) is very relevant to running, but have low impact. In addition it requires more of the core and upper body, making it a better aerobic workout. So in fact doing more volume than running might build a better aerobic capability.
Filip Ingebrigtsen had a spring/summer some years ago with alternative training due to injury. He trained a LOT, I think XT and water running. When he came back that autumn he felt stronger than ever and run very fast.
It can be that the base aerobic engine (what that is?) is developed in general with relevant enough cross training and that everyone aiming high should maximize the time volume with enough cross training.
The interesting with Grøvdal is how she and her coach have had to remind themselves several times that even if she is not hitting the milage of the competitors at all, her performance is steadily increased through feedback from the training and also the races she has done the last 6 months (low 15 5k road in september, 14.40 road 1 week ago, comfortable 30.50 10000 track this weekend). But the facts for her are clear.
As a soon 50 yo I will do more cross training. If it is this effective, why should I run all those miles to just feel like crap sometimes? I feel so much better after cross-training on the bike.
This is the approach Valby and her coaches have taken going on two years.
(Note: Grovdal this past weekend ran a 1:08 Half-marathon two days after running a 14:39 5000m.)