Cook and Valby's training vs Tuohy's mileage

Could. Not. Agree. More.

Do you think you can restrain yourself from making stuff up even though you are triggered?

The facts are you simply don’t know what Cook and Valby are doing, both in total hours of training, and the intensities of those hours.

Any reasonable person can see that so far, Cook’s freshman year is turning out much better that Tuohy’s freshman year, so it is a great stretch to start throwing out definite platitudes. We very well could see both Cook and Valby overtake Tuohy’s progression. We currently do not know one way or another.

Any reasonable person knows one cannot achieve Valby's physique without rigorous training. Valby's back muscles is comparable to Tuohy's.

Pics?

Why make an issue on these things, when being biased? You don’t think knee surgery could be a factor contributing to a runner’s ‘fragility’?

They're building their mileage up slowly. Do you think once they're running 80mpw, they won't be able to improve because they've already gotten all the gains from cross training? If that was the case, why would they be building up their mileage when that just increases the risk of getting injured?

Every NCAA champ is one of the most highly trained runners in the NCAA. It's not like Tuohy on 75mpw, weights, and cross training is way more undertrained than Valby on 30mpw and 6-8 hours cross training + weights.

I would agree Cook, Tuohy, and Valby are highly trained. For the 5000m distance and below, 25-30 miles of running ‘intensity’ with additional aerobic cross training is probably sufficient for coming close to reaching one’s potential, although I’m not sure there are studies to show that, either way. There is probably some benefit in reducing wear and tear, while maximizing recovery.

Cook is the youngest, so may have the greatest upside. Years of wear and tear and years of continuous aerobic development will factor into ‘fragility’ and ‘upside’.

And no one knows whether they would continue to progress as they race and run more in college given how their body operate to the tear and wear of running.

Cook's injury happened early in Highschool, Tuohy's injury happened at the end of her Highschool career which affected her transition to college. Valby's injury happened in her first years in college.

The point is, Valby and Cook rarely runs and rarely races compared to Tuohy because of their fragility but it is called as an "upside".

In the men's side, we wouldn't have this conversation.

Maybe, Is it triggering you because you’re not talented in running?

How much do the top D1 men run? Alex Maier said he was doing like 115-120, is that typical?

Bosley runs more than that, no wonder Maeir got whipped.

Why do you say Cook and Valby rarely race? Cook has been racing regularly since entering college, and Valby has been racing regularly since coming back from a broken foot? Does that mean now they should ‘over-race’ in the NCAA mill?

Regarding the men’s side, we can only wonder what may have been for GF when he got injured in college, and then had been encouraged to try out the Cook/Valby training approach in order to get back on track. But back in his era, high mileage was a panacea.

It is silly to argue about mileage and training because as what Tuohy said, it is individualize. What works for her might not work for others, what works for others might not work for her.

Yes, and a takeaway is that what ‘works’ is not necessarily what was thought, for decades now (since Lydiard) to be the standard training model (I.e., high running mileage) that ‘works’ for distance runners.

If Tuohy tries Cook and Valby's training, it will give her a different result. Let Valby and Cook try Tuohy's training and it will also give them a different result.

The one with an upside here is the sport and fans.

Cross training is a supplementary training. I don't think one can win a big title by just cross training. Running is still what works best for most runners, and mostly top runners.

But the interesting thing here is that there are no absolutes in the magnitudes. It is uncharted territory, and we aren’t getting all of the specifics from Coach Solinsky; it would be interesting to see how much new insight has learned through Valby’s ordeal.

Can X athlete run Y workout predictive of Z race?

Nothng else matters.

If X+Y does not + Z then find a different way. If X is very injury prone then try ABCD. If ABCD includes high volume LOW IMPACT high end aerobic work then so be it!!!

Alan

Well, I didn’t take the time to expand upon my thinking, which was that it most likely, Solinsky (and Valby) are not just throwing darts at a board to decide volumes and intensities. Of course they are running timed reps to see if the needle is moving in the correct direction.

I judge Solinsky knows what he sees, when he says, “her previous PR’s are a thing of the past.” (that is probably not the exact quote, taken from the brief LRC Natty’s interview.)

The question becomes how much "specific training" is needed to get to the desired result?

If you can conduct X amount of non-impact training to improve aerobic development then conduct Y amount of specific training to achieve Z result....then that is all that matters.

However, running is a skill like any other. In order to become efficient at it you must practice it. So, how much practice do you need?

It's pretty simple and straightforward to maximize aerobic development. Most of us do this after 2-4 years, if that. The majority of training adaptation is in running economy. You train at a specific pace and it makes you more efficient at that pace.

Alan