Coaches: What to make of Valby’s success off 2-3 days of running per week?

Well right now, the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule should apply. Why change a winning formula.

But yes, if she wants to move up in distance, more mileage is going to help, but only if it is a gradual build up.

I say injuries are avoidable if you train and eat correctly, but that takes time and experience to learn to do effectively.

Cross training is one of the most undervalued aspects of our sport.

Not saying everyone needs gobs of it, but it can really help to increase mileage/fitness with almost zero possibility of common injuries popping up.

Healthy, non injury prone runners can really benefit from it in the right way.

One would have to be a fool to think running 2-3 days per week with tons of cross training is optimal for most runners. She does what she does given her injury track record and makes the most of it. If she and her coach thought she could run 120 mpw and not get injured, they would.

I’m curious whether 5000m specialists and milers are indeed better off running 3 x week. Sounds crazy saying that out loud but if we’ve vastly overestimated running economy as a contributor to performance and conversely, undervalued CT as a training tool, then maybe it’s true. The quality vs quantity debate is nothing new of course (especially when you compare MD runners like Snell vs Lagat) but I was brought up under the school of thought that the more mileage you can handle, the better, as long as you still run fast from time to time. This has me questioning whether you need the mileage to reach your peak potential (injury prone or otherwise).

Let’s look at CT from an opposite side. Take, for example, XC skiers. For them, running is cross training for about half a year. Have not heard of their "massive migration" to NZ or South America’s Ands in summer in order to remain on the snow. And their world cup season starts only about a month after they get back to skiing in end Oct. Nevertheless, some of the world elite peak quite early, in December.

Drawing conclusions about Valby or any other individual athlete's potential based on limited information is difficult. While running economy is indeed a crucial factor in performance, it is influenced by various factors including genetics, training, injury history, and individual response to different training methods. Paula Radcliffe's example suggests that increasing mileage and training as a marathoner can improve running economy. However, it's important to note that what works for one athlete may not work for another. Some runners may naturally have a higher running economy while others may need to focus more on specific training strategies to improve it.

As for Valby, her potential for faster running times could be positively impacted by lower injury rates and increased training volume. However, it's not possible to determine the extent of the improvement without considering other factors such as her current training methods, physiological characteristics, and injury history.

It's also important to note that there isn't a one-size-fits-all approach to training. The "less is more" concept can be effective for some athletes, while others may benefit more from higher mileage and specific workouts. Each athlete's response to training methods can vary, and finding the optimal approach is a process of trial and error.

Ultimately, a combination of talent, training, and physiological factors contributes to an athlete's success. While Valby's potential could potentially be enhanced by modifying her training approach, it's crucial to consider her individual circumstances.

Warm regards,

Stan Hayes

Valby is successful in spite of running only 2-3 days per week, not because of it. A lot of folks are discounting how much time and effort she's spending with the cross training -guarantee it's more than someone able to run 70-80mpw. She's a special talent working extraordinarily hard. This isn't "less is more" it's "more is more"

Anyone who has been around enough high level running knows the injury prone but talented runners that are on a Valby-like schedule and have still success despite fragility. They're just not quite talented enough to be NCAA champions and when you actually see the work in action you realize that most people don't have the dedication to do this type of training. 1hr easy runs talking with your friends are replaced by sweating in solitude for 2hrs on the elliptical. Most people don't have the drive to do this.

But will 2 hours on the elliptical give you the same benefits as a 1 hour easy run?

I also agree with the previous poster that individuals differ in their response to training. But physiology is physiology.

Another question we could ask is….how much do most world class 5000m athletes run? If it’s closer to 70mpw than to 30mpw, is Valby just an outlier? Or would those athletes run even faster if they dropped their mileage and worked very hard on the elliptical or whatever. I don’t think drive or dedication would be a problem at that level.

How do we know that some days of “cross training” aren’t running with a Lightspeed Lift and just taking 30 pounds off? She could easily be running another 30 miles per week with less gravity. That is what I would have her do. Workouts on land, easy mileage with reduced body weight.

First off, it's wild how talented she is.

Here's a dirty secret with training - if you can hit the paces in workouts and long runs you can race well still. Letsrun is going to flame me about saying that of course. You can throw science and anecdotal references to why you need to train full-time to be successful but the fact is many athletes are forced to train this way when their body simply can't handle the pounding of day-to-day training. If you just do workouts and long runs, you can still hit most of the necessary systems to be successful.

I'm not saying it's ideal to run two to three days a week but you can get a lot done doing that and rigorous cross training. I think what makes Parker very special outside of her talent level is her mentality to come off the bike and still believe she can compete with the best every time out. She has unwavering confidence. It's really impressive. What a special athlete.

We know the answer to this and it’s 70-90mpw+ on the womens side. Mileage works. But if you can’t stay healthy you won’t run well.

Here is the top lists for women, Battocletti is the only low-mileage runner I can spot. Tsegay, Kipyegon, Hassan, Gidey all run in the 80mpw range of higher:

worldathletics.org

5000 Metres - women - senior - outdoor - 2023

Link:worldathletics.org/records/toplists/mi...

In the 10,000 there is McColgan though her mileage was up doing marathon training this year before injuries. The ceiling so far if these low mileage runners seems to be around 14:40. If there a sub 14:40 runner historically under 50mpw I’ll happily eat my words but I haven’t seen it. It seems like Eilish was around 60mpw in 2021 when she ran 14:29. Remarkable, but still twice Valbys running.

I would think that 2 hours on the Arc Trainer (Valby's favorite form of non-running aerobic training) would give comparable general cardiovascular and muscular endurance benefits to 2 hours running at a comparable heart rate.

One of the advantages of the Arc Trainer is that it uses more muscle mass than running and so tends to result in higher heart rates at identical levels of perceived exertion. Thus Valby is probably training harder, from a cardiovascular standpoint, than if she were able to run for the same number of hours that she runs + crosstrains.

The key, of course, is that Valby does a normal amount of race-specific work (read: running at, near, or faster than race pace) in addition to a very large total volume of cardiovascular work (running + Arc Trainer + bike, etc.) using her legs, glutes, lower back, etc.

I have a kid who has been wildly successful with this type of training for the mile, but not quite as much for 5Ks and up. Im talking National level results on less than 10 miles per week.

My feeling is that you can get maybe 95% results with this kind of training...in the short term, but it will ultimately stunt long term growth if you aren't able to transition into more running. But that's just speculation.

Running more is always going to be the ideal, but if you can't handle it, this is absolutely the way to go. The problem is, most people will wait until they are broken to do it, and then they can't even get the 15-20 miles per week of quality to work with the cross training. And once healthy again, there is always the temptation to try to run more.

How many times do you have to get injured before you decide this is the way to go?

A perfect subject for the Magic Wizard to jump in like the Cool-Aid man to help out. It's just a very big myth that a runner absolutely have to run fulltime and double training sessions daily to reach the world top. And running just 3-4 sessions per week can lead to unexpected great individual results. Well, 3-4 running sessions per week is of course not enough to reach individual highest possible level , it's more like 5-6 sessions per week to reach perfection.

Well, as usual the high mileage friends/ believers point to the vast majority of elite runners go the high mileage way and then say it proves it can't be possible to reach individual optimal results on less. Many examples in running history have shown they can't be more wrong....it's just a human normal way of thinking in most matters in life , " Most people who succeed in this do like this and then it must be this way to go for me to succeed"......COACH J.S. 🇸🇪🧙‍♂️🇸🇪💯

Grant fisher was in the shape of his life after banging out 2+ hours a day of cross training.

This is women's NCAA XC and the average level of talent is very far from World-Class. Someone with world-class talent will be able to dominate even with suboptimal training.

Tuohy is doing great for an early developer. It won't be surprising when she goes on to have a mediocre career as a pro.

great genetics!

Verzbickas comes to mind. both he and valby had/have good looking strides. I see one advantage in that your body focuses on fast running technique, and spending time on slow running technique adaptations may be of limited benefit if your mechanics are good. you need power in certain muscles to run fast, which are not developed as much by slow running. this coming from a guy who ran 80+ mpw

Just a ton of cross training. I had a teammate in college who did the same thing. He was super injury-prone so only ran the workouts and long run, every other day he put in a ton of time on the bike. He was always one of our top two runners. It seems it's not a very good long term thing though, I think you reach a certain point where you've got to do some more running to get better. And the longer the race, the less it will work.