The fact you are using the user name "ZatopekWasTheLastCleanMedalist" proves it's not true.
We don't advertise for the truth.
These athletes are training less than Zatopek and yet improving. Apparently they are doing something Zatopek wasn't.
But do we know how many weekly hours of aerobic work that Cook and Valby are actually doing? In Parker’s interview, she said an hour per day, and then she seemed to say something else (maybe to correct herself), but I couldn’t discern what she added, because the interviewer started talking again at the same time.
These athletes are training less than Zatopek and yet improving. Apparently they are doing something Zatopek wasn't.
But do we know how many weekly hours of aerobic work that Cook and Valby are actually doing? In Parker’s interview, she said an hour per day, and then she seemed to say something else (maybe to correct herself), but I couldn’t discern what she added, because the interviewer started talking again at the same time.
And was that ‘an hour per day’ on the machine, twice per day, and/or followed-up with an hour in the pool? 🤷♂️
These athletes are training less than Zatopek and yet improving. Apparently they are doing something Zatopek wasn't.
But do we know how many weekly hours of aerobic work that Cook and Valby are actually doing? In Parker’s interview, she said an hour per day, and then she seemed to say something else (maybe to correct herself), but I couldn’t discern what she added, because the interviewer started talking again at the same time.
Yes - how do you know, when she says two days training a week? You have to speculate she does more or her explanation completely loses any credibility.
But do we know how many weekly hours of aerobic work that Cook and Valby are actually doing? In Parker’s interview, she said an hour per day, and then she seemed to say something else (maybe to correct herself), but I couldn’t discern what she added, because the interviewer started talking again at the same time.
And was that ‘an hour per day’ on the machine, twice per day, and/or followed-up with an hour in the pool? 🤷♂️
So we are trying the "she really trains hard" argument now? On pure guesswork.
The pat answer typically given for the increase in performances over the years is how much harder athletes train today. But then we hear that some athletes are training so much less than others - in some cases, only two days a week - and getting way better. So one explanation apparently contradicts the other. Training harder, training less - it doesn't matter what they do, athletes simply continue to get much better. Quite obviously it has nothing to do with how much or how little they train.
What about training smarter? Doesn’t it make sense that supplementary cardio machines allows them to get in a lot more aerobic work which is not a physically risky (from an injury perspective) as running, nor takes as long to recover from when compared to running?
Training - like running - is not an intellectual activity. "Smarter" really only means you have to do the work. And work is necessary if you want to succeed in running. Of course - there are shortcuts now.
But do we know how many weekly hours of aerobic work that Cook and Valby are actually doing? In Parker’s interview, she said an hour per day, and then she seemed to say something else (maybe to correct herself), but I couldn’t discern what she added, because the interviewer started talking again at the same time.
Yes - how do you know, when she says two days training a week? You have to speculate she does more or her explanation completely loses any credibility.
The two days per week was with regard to the limited running in the weeks leading up to nationals.
I was referring to the podcast interview linked to earlier in this thread. Near the end of that interview, during the ‘rapid fire questions, the cross training was discussed a wee bit; that’s also when she said she likes the Arc Trainer best.
What about training smarter? Doesn’t it make sense that supplementary cardio machines allows them to get in a lot more aerobic work which is not a physically risky (from an injury perspective) as running, nor takes as long to recover from when compared to running?
Training - like running - is not an intellectual activity. "Smarter" really only means you have to do the work. And work is necessary if you want to succeed in running. Of course - there are shortcuts now.
If you think spending (what some would consider mindless) hours upon hours of cross-training in a pool and/or on a machine as a ‘shortcut’, then whatever.
I’m sort of old school, where it was practically always considered that maximizing the amount of time running was always preferable to getting on a machine. I think that’s what is behind the question posed by the OP, “what am I missing?” But as this thread suggests, and it’s now making more sense to me, Cook and Valby have found something different from the norm that is working for them.
As a considerably older athlete, I’m intrigued, and started getting on a machine, too.
She was still performing cardio work supplementing those two days of running.
So was she training as hard as Zatopek? I don't think so.
Like I said, training “harder” is not always the best approach, especially if one is injury prone.
Nonetheless, absolutely the machines can definitely end up burning a lot more calories than just running, if one is willing to put in the work, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Valby and Cook are going 1-2 at nationals. I realize that is hard for Tuohy fans to deal with because they always had the age thing to fall back on. But now that younger runners are beating her, they are out of excuses other to accuse better runners of cheating. Sad.
And was that ‘an hour per day’ on the machine, twice per day, and/or followed-up with an hour in the pool? 🤷♂️
So we are trying the "she really trains hard" argument now? On pure guesswork.
It’s not guesswork, based on what she has said, in addition to what her high school coach said, that she definitely puts in the work. Whether you consider that work as ‘hard’ training is not very relevant.
Training - like running - is not an intellectual activity. "Smarter" really only means you have to do the work. And work is necessary if you want to succeed in running. Of course - there are shortcuts now.
If you think spending (what some would consider mindless) hours upon hours of cross-training in a pool and/or on a machine as a ‘shortcut’, then whatever.
I’m sort of old school, where it was practically always considered that maximizing the amount of time running was always preferable to getting on a machine. I think that’s what is behind the question posed by the OP, “what am I missing?” But as this thread suggests, and it’s now making more sense to me, Cook and Valby have found something different from the norm that is working for them.
As a considerably older athlete, I’m intrigued, and started getting on a machine, too.
You're not up with the play. A cross-trainer is not a short cut.
So was she training as hard as Zatopek? I don't think so.
Like I said, training “harder” is not always the best approach, especially if one is injury prone.
Nonetheless, absolutely the machines can definitely end up burning a lot more calories than just running, if one is willing to put in the work, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
So why are so many runners wasting their time on the roads and the track every day of the week? Cross training is obviously superior. I wonder why no one else has figured that out over the last half century or so?
So we are trying the "she really trains hard" argument now? On pure guesswork.
It’s not guesswork, based on what she has said, in addition to what her high school coach said, that she definitely puts in the work. Whether you consider that work as ‘hard’ training is not very relevant.
She doesn't put in as much work as Zatopek did. The old fool trained daily. What a waste of time and energy.
Valby and Cook are going 1-2 at nationals. I realize that is hard for Tuohy fans to deal with because they always had the age thing to fall back on. But now that younger runners are beating her, they are out of excuses other to accuse better runners of cheating. Sad.
The thread isn't about Tuohy. She must be under your skin.
The pat answer typically given for the increase in performances over the years is how much harder athletes train today. But then we hear that some athletes are training so much less than others - in some cases, only two days a week - and getting way better. So one explanation apparently contradicts the other. Training harder, training less - it doesn't matter what they do, athletes simply continue to get much better. Quite obviously it has nothing to do with how much or how little they train.
What about training smarter? Doesn’t it make sense that supplementary cardio machines allows them to get in a lot more aerobic work which is not a physically risky (from an injury perspective) as running, nor takes as long to recover from when compared to running?
That sounds plausible for maintaining fitness, not sure about gigantic running improvements? Wouldn't triathletes switching to track do a lot better?
They’re not telling the whole truth, plain and simple. They’re omitting information that would make it clear their mileage is higher than it would appear. A lot of people due this because it’s “impressive” and makes people think “imagine how good they could be if they could run x miles”. It’s an ego trip for a lot of athletes. Unless I can see your log, and even then I don’t entire trust it, I do not believe anybody when it comes to the “low mileage” types who make it a point to tel you how little they run. Like, unprompted “I only run twice a week” yeah sure kid.
Nah, I now don’t think that is the case, at least with Valby, after listening to that podcast interview. She kind of hesitated with her answer, so maybe she was a bit embarrassed to say how much cross training she actually does do?
From the ‘rapid fire questions’:
QUESTION: How many hours of cross training per day?
ANSWER: …hmmm, like an hour? (giggles)
She then followed that answer up with another (indiscernible) comment, but the Interviewer had already moved on to the next question.
The first sentence talks about them being outliers. What do they lie outside of? If we aren't going to compare them to the other elite runners, there is no perspective.