Yes. That is how the world works. If you are a top 50 girl in the country, you are demanding a large scholarship. If I am a parent of one of those top girls, I am having my daughter go where she earns a large schoalrship. Despite that, Solinsky is succeeding. Amazing how people could question a coach who is developing the next great American runner.
So how many top African women are succeeding on 25mpw and some cross training? I would pick that none are. Indeed, where is the data also that shows women distance-runners are more injury-prone than men?
If aerobic training could be accomplished just as well with alternatives to running then most top coaches and athletes in the last half century have been barking up the wrong tree. Valby's formula would have long ago been the norm. It isn't. All I read here are rationalizations of the implausible.
Men have higher bone density, stress fractures are considerably more frequent in women. You can look up data yourself as a I am not your lab assistant. You are also mistaking what I wrote. I don't at all think that alternative training is as good as running and wrote this explicitly. And also that otherwise people would have done lots of additional low impact aerobic training a long time ago. The claim was merely that injury-prone runners can go quite far with a lot of alternative training and I named one prominent example, Eilish McColgan. The point is not that someone would not be better if they could stand higher mileage without injuries, of course they would. The point was that one can be quite good with a lot of alternative training. Especially if it's not running all that fast (i.e. ~3:05 pace in a 5k or slower in XC, not 2:42 pace in 1500m, or 2:22 pace like elite men in the 1500).
Correct. It is clear that running is the best training yet Cook and Valby are as good as Tuohy while running less. It stands to reason that they will be significantly better as they gradually increase their training.
Correct. It is clear that running is the best training yet Cook and Valby are as good as Tuohy while running less. It stands to reason that they will be significantly better as they gradually increase their training.
Running volume from an early age doesn't seem to dimish the continued success of east Africans or runners like ingebrigtsen. Kelati was running 85-90 per week in school in Eritrea. Tuohy will be fine.
Correct. It is clear that running is the best training yet Cook and Valby are as good as Tuohy while running less. It stands to reason that they will be significantly better as they gradually increase their training.
What "stands to reason" is that they will be even better if they run less - as running less is being argued as the basis for their success. Or that they are so talented they don't really need to train.
What does that mean ' the men's field is deeper' ? The women's fields are just as competitive.
Also, you absolutely have to have a kick to win women's races at the highest level, so that makes no sense.
There is nothing physiological to say heavy x training should work for women but not men, if it indeed works.
In the European yearly best list in 5000m the difference between the first man and the 50th is 30 secs. This is the same difference between the first and the 10th woman. The difference to the 50th woman is around 1:06. (Sure, the difference is less in percentage but still very pronounced.) That's a difference in depth and it is similar at worlds level. I am not sure about the NCAA, but how frequent is a win in a men's 5000m with two men frontrunning and one of them winning and the other getting second without the field running them down, like Tuohy vs. Valby last spring? All this is far more frequently possible in women's fields (especially when one goes from worlds to national or European level). But you are missing the main point as the other guy did. It's not that running more would not be better than alternative training. It would be better. It's that alternative training is better than getting injured and having long breaks for healing. And that alternative training works quite good for some athletes, so it's feasible for them and preferable to injury cycles.
What does that mean ' the men's field is deeper' ? The women's fields are just as competitive.
Also, you absolutely have to have a kick to win women's races at the highest level, so that makes no sense.
There is nothing physiological to say heavy x training should work for women but not men, if it indeed works.
In the European yearly best list in 5000m the difference between the first man and the 50th is 30 secs. This is the same difference between the first and the 10th woman. The difference to the 50th woman is around 1:06. (Sure, the difference is less in percentage but still very pronounced.) That's a difference in depth and it is similar at worlds level. I am not sure about the NCAA, but how frequent is a win in a men's 5000m with two men frontrunning and one of them winning and the other getting second without the field running them down, like Tuohy vs. Valby last spring? All this is far more frequently possible in women's fields (especially when one goes from worlds to national or European level). But you are missing the main point as the other guy did. It's not that running more would not be better than alternative training. It would be better. It's that alternative training is better than getting injured and having long breaks for healing. And that alternative training works quite good for some athletes, so it's feasible for them and preferable to injury cycles.
You are effectively saying that less than optimal training still enables some athletes to succeed. Only against greatly inferior competition.
So how many top African women are succeeding on 25mpw and some cross training? I would pick that none are. Indeed, where is the data also that shows women distance-runners are more injury-prone than men?
If aerobic training could be accomplished just as well with alternatives to running then most top coaches and athletes in the last half century have been barking up the wrong tree. Valby's formula would have long ago been the norm. It isn't. All I read here are rationalizations of the implausible.
Men have higher bone density, stress fractures are considerably more frequent in women. You can look up data yourself as a I am not your lab assistant. You are also mistaking what I wrote. I don't at all think that alternative training is as good as running and wrote this explicitly. And also that otherwise people would have done lots of additional low impact aerobic training a long time ago. The claim was merely that injury-prone runners can go quite far with a lot of alternative training and I named one prominent example, Eilish McColgan. The point is not that someone would not be better if they could stand higher mileage without injuries, of course they would. The point was that one can be quite good with a lot of alternative training. Especially if it's not running all that fast (i.e. ~3:05 pace in a 5k or slower in XC, not 2:42 pace in 1500m, or 2:22 pace like elite men in the 1500).
If "injury-prone runners can go quite a long way with alternative training" then injuries aren't much of an impediment to success, are they? "Alternative training" is just the ticket.
Obviously, the implication from your argument is that Valby would be much faster if she trained more than 25mpw. So how much faster? In the national xc - 30 secs? I minute?
No. Running is the best training so Valby and Cook will improve more than Tuohy when they run more. Do you think cross training is as good as running? I don't.
No. Running is the best training so Valby and Cook will improve more than Tuohy when they run more. Do you think cross training is as good as running? I don't.
So they are so talented they are her near equal while on a fraction of her training and that of most of their other competitors? Bollocks.
Valby and Cook are the same type of runners that rely on aerobic endurance to run fast. Tuohy seems to rely more on strength.
Who wins a 5000m race? A runner with more strength resulting to faster turnover? or A runner with more endurance being able to hang a fast pace?
Based on the past championships, the runner with more strength resulting to faster turnover wins a 5000m race.
Not true. Aerobic fitness is crucial to distance running - or we would see decathletes, with their superior strength and speed, succeeding in longer events.
Decathletes and distance runners are two completely different athletes with different training. If decathletes train like a distance runner then they will have better success at longer distances, but they don't.
If "injury-prone runners can go quite a long way with alternative training" then injuries aren't much of an impediment to success, are they? "Alternative training" is just the ticket.
Obviously, the implication from your argument is that Valby would be much faster if she trained more than 25mpw. So how much faster? In the national xc - 30 secs? I minute?
No. It would not be an obvous implication. Like McColgan was not faster (or maybe in the 1500m but not 10k/half marathon) before she did more alternative training. Unlike the crazed fans I don't think at all that Valby could easily become better than Tuohy with different training. I assume that Tuohy is faster on her feet generally (no recent 1500m best by Valby, thus I don't know exactly by how much).
This is not at all an exotic stance. To be good at long distance running one needs a great aerobic engine but also certain efficiency and foot speed and usually slight/lanky anatomy. That's one reason why Europeans are very good rowers, swimmers, cyclists, nordic skiers but rarely up to East Africans in long distance running. Valby has a good anatomy and apparently a great aerobic engine but not the greatest speed and seems injury-prone. So I doubt she will catch up in speed, running efficiency and kick. If she ran more instead of whatever alternative training she does, she might get better in these but there are also limits to this (cf. Radcliffe who could only win if she could run the wheels of everyone else early on). I have no horse in this race and certainly not enough data on Valby (and I doubt anyone besides her coach/team does), let's wait another full indoor/outdoor season and we will know more.
No. Running is the best training so Valby and Cook will improve more than Tuohy when they run more. Do you think cross training is as good as running? I don't.
Cross training is better in raising your aerobic endurance, it is about heart rate and you can get going on it with lesser tear on your body compared to running but real running is what helps you develop a more powerful kick and stronger body. Both Valby and Cook spend hours and hours cross training while Tuohy only runs and does not really do cross training much because of her high mileage.
Given Tuohy's mileage was 70, and Valby's was at 35-40 but spends 2 hours for 4 days a week cross training. Results show us that Valby has phenomenal endurance because of cross training but lacks running strength like Tuohy.
Not true. Aerobic fitness is crucial to distance running - or we would see decathletes, with their superior strength and speed, succeeding in longer events.
Decathletes and distance runners are two completely different athletes with different training. If decathletes train like a distance runner then they will have better success at longer distances, but they don't.
But the argument is that aerobic fitness is not as important as strength and turnover. I used the example of decathletes - who have strength and turnover - to show that is sheer nonsense. In endurance events aerobic fitness is crucial; strength and turnover do not replace it.
If "injury-prone runners can go quite a long way with alternative training" then injuries aren't much of an impediment to success, are they? "Alternative training" is just the ticket.
Obviously, the implication from your argument is that Valby would be much faster if she trained more than 25mpw. So how much faster? In the national xc - 30 secs? I minute?
No. It would not be an obvous implication. Like McColgan was not faster (or maybe in the 1500m but not 10k/half marathon) before she did more alternative training. Unlike the crazed fans I don't think at all that Valby could easily become better than Tuohy with different training. I assume that Tuohy is faster on her feet generally (no recent 1500m best by Valby, thus I don't know exactly by how much).
This is not at all an exotic stance. To be good at long distance running one needs a great aerobic engine but also certain efficiency and foot speed and usually slight/lanky anatomy. That's one reason why Europeans are very good rowers, swimmers, cyclists, nordic skiers but rarely up to East Africans in long distance running. Valby has a good anatomy and apparently a great aerobic engine but not the greatest speed and seems injury-prone. So I doubt she will catch up in speed, running efficiency and kick. If she ran more instead of whatever alternative training she does, she might get better in these but there are also limits to this (cf. Radcliffe who could only win if she could run the wheels of everyone else early on). I have no horse in this race and certainly not enough data on Valby (and I doubt anyone besides her coach/team does), let's wait another full indoor/outdoor season and we will know more.
But you said Valby's training was less than optimal - so she has to be faster with better training (more running). So how much faster?
No. Running is the best training so Valby and Cook will improve more than Tuohy when they run more. Do you think cross training is as good as running? I don't.
Cross training is better in raising your aerobic endurance, it is about heart rate and you can get going on it with lesser tear on your body compared to running but real running is what helps you develop a more powerful kick and stronger body. Both Valby and Cook spend hours and hours cross training while Tuohy only runs and does not really do cross training much because of her high mileage.
Given Tuohy's mileage was 70, and Valby's was at 35-40 but spends 2 hours for 4 days a week cross training. Results show us that Valby has phenomenal endurance because of cross training but lacks running strength like Tuohy.
How does cross training give "phenomenal endurance" that running doesn't?
In the men's side, we wouldn't have this conversation.
I mostly agree, but what about someone like Geordie Beamish? He still only runs 3-4 times/week and has had some amazing performances even as a pro. He won his NCAA mile title on like 3 weeks of training. I think he has huge upside just because of how much he improves when he's healthy.