I'm shocked that people are still skeptical on the merits of cross training when the best women's college long distance runner in history is having these types of results. I think some runners are afraid to admit that running less can actually be better in some instances.
It's honestly given me the confidence to reduce my own injury prone mileage in favor of alternative aerobic sources.
People wed to orthodoxy are always highly reactive to things that challenge their world view. Their way is the correct way and the only way. Those that advocate cross training blaspheme Arthur Lydiard and all past athletes that never cross trained and the faithful old guard must fight the new thinking!
When you factor in the intensity of her cross training (harder than her easy runs), it looks like her training is surprisingly similar to Harvard and Graham Blanks who runs easy days at sub 6 miles.
This actually shows she might not have the significant improvement in fitness if she can ever run 100% because it means her intensity will be going down. Currently she is going hard 5 days a week, so she might be close to her ceiling already.
Doesn't bode well for her professional future if a healthy athlete has to train like an injured athlete. Due to her lack of a kick, her best distance going forward is likely the marathon. Don't think anyone has cross-trained to a successful marathon career.
have you ever heard of Ingrid Kristiansen?
i reckon she did alright in the marathon, not to mention the 5000 and 10000
She also doesn’t hydrate during workouts. “There’s not a water bottle holder in the front of the machine,” she said. “It’s behind the machine, and I can’t be bothered to turn around.”
The legend continues to grow.
Imagine how much faster she will run when she pulls a Jakob and grabs water in the middle of the race. I predict Olympic gold.
When you factor in the intensity of her cross training (harder than her easy runs), it looks like her training is surprisingly similar to Harvard and Graham Blanks who runs easy days at sub 6 miles.
This actually shows she might not have the significant improvement in fitness if she can ever run 100% because it means her intensity will be going down. Currently she is going hard 5 days a week, so she might be close to her ceiling already.
I don't know that it means she is close to her ceiling (I doubt that). But Geordie Beamish kind of said the same thing about Valby's training. She isn't 'only ' running 30-40mpw or whatever because she is doing all the cross training so she won't get the same boost if she drops the cross training and replaces it with more miles.
I think the timing of this article is interesting from a PR standpoint. Nobody would believe someone running 25 mpw can go out and run the Olympic standard in the 10k. Her NIL PR team likely set this interview up. Probably means she is going for the standard tonight.
She runs 35-40 miles/week of quality running, then does 5.5-6.5hrs/week on the Arc Trainer, generally ‘hard’, at an average heart rate higher than that when running.
In a 5 HR zone system, suppose she were to do those 6 hrs in easy running, at 70% HRmax. For her, that would be faster than 7:30/mile, but assume it’s 7:30/mile of easy running. That would be 40miles. So that’s 75-80 miles/wk if she were running. But her average heart rate on the Arc Trainer is higher than that for easy running, so she aerobically is exercising the heart more than if just running 75-80 miles/wk.
The leanest I’ve seen her, through the face, was that 2022 Outdoors, where she had come off of mainly cross-training. She probably went a little overboard, and maybe didn’t take in sufficient calories. She looked healthier that fall in Cross-country, IMO.
Doesn't bode well for her professional future if a healthy athlete has to train like an injured athlete. Due to her lack of a kick, her best distance going forward is likely the marathon. Don't think anyone has cross-trained to a successful marathon career.
In the thread from November, after the Chevez interview, peeps said her training would not work for the 10k. We find out in less than four hours.
(Granted, she seems to be running a bit more weekly mileage, including long runs, since that interview.)
When you factor in the intensity of her cross training (harder than her easy runs), it looks like her training is surprisingly similar to Harvard and Graham Blanks who runs easy days at sub 6 miles.
This actually shows she might not have the significant improvement in fitness if she can ever run 100% because it means her intensity will be going down. Currently she is going hard 5 days a week, so she might be close to her ceiling already.
She can still continue to develop the aerobic system and physically get stronger, just maintaining what she is doing. At altitude may see even greater improvements.
She runs 35-40 miles/week of quality running, then does 5.5-6.5hrs/week on the Arc Trainer, generally ‘hard’, at an average heart rate higher than that when running.
In a 5 HR zone system, suppose she were to do those 6 hrs in easy running, at 70% HRmax. For her, that would be faster than 7:30/mile, but assume it’s 7:30/mile of easy running. That would be 40miles. So that’s 75-80 miles/wk if she were running. But her average heart rate on the Arc Trainer is higher than that for easy running, so she aerobically is exercising the heart more than if just running 75-80 miles/wk.
first of all mr "check your math" 7:30/mi for 6 hours will net 48 miles, not 40
during the winter, ingrid kristiansen would put in 75 miles of running (almost all of it at or below 6:00/mi) and add another 9 hours of xc-skiing
in the summer her mileage would peak at 110-120 with no cross-training
now, if we are adding 8-9 miles equivalent running per hour of cross-training, that would mean ingrid was doing 75 miles of running and another 72-81 miles via her cross training
how likely is it that she could handle 150mpw of equivalent running load? and if she could, why would she reduce that to just 110-120 building up to her peak races?
is it more plausible that every hour of cross training ingrid did was equivalent to about 4 miles of running, thus adding the equivalent of 36 extra miles in addition to the 75 that she ran, coming to a total of 111 mpw?
She runs 35-40 miles/week of quality running, then does 5.5-6.5hrs/week on the Arc Trainer, generally ‘hard’, at an average heart rate higher than that when running.
In a 5 HR zone system, suppose she were to do those 6 hrs in easy running, at 70% HRmax. For her, that would be faster than 7:30/mile, but assume it’s 7:30/mile of easy running. That would be 40miles. So that’s 75-80 miles/wk if she were running. But her average heart rate on the Arc Trainer is higher than that for easy running, so she aerobically is exercising the heart more than if just running 75-80 miles/wk.
first of all mr "check your math" 7:30/mi for 6 hours will net 48 miles, not 40
during the winter, ingrid kristiansen would put in 75 miles of running (almost all of it at or below 6:00/mi) and add another 9 hours of xc-skiing
in the summer her mileage would peak at 110-120 with no cross-training
now, if we are adding 8-9 miles equivalent running per hour of cross-training, that would mean ingrid was doing 75 miles of running and another 72-81 miles via her cross training
how likely is it that she could handle 150mpw of equivalent running load? and if she could, why would she reduce that to just 110-120 building up to her peak races?
is it more plausible that every hour of cross training ingrid did was equivalent to about 4 miles of running, thus adding the equivalent of 36 extra miles in addition to the 75 that she ran, coming to a total of 111 mpw?
Think of in terms of TIME exercising the aerobic system, rather than a mileage equivalent for the cross training. Now granted, it’s just not any cross-training. It also improves ‘functional strength’, building muscles specific to running, as discussed in this thread:
She mentioned the product multiple times and interviews. You think that one of the companies that designs and sells these would make her the face of their newest model. Move over Tony Little. Here comes Parker.https://m.youtu...
Think of in terms of TIME exercising the aerobic system, rather than a mileage equivalent for the cross training. Now granted, it’s just not any cross-training. It also improves ‘functional strength’, building muscles specific to running, as discussed in this thread:
The “functional strength” is an important point. In her post-race interview after cross-country Nationals, she said the inclined Arc Trainer sessions were harder than the hilly race.
The “functional strength” is an important point. In her post-race interview after cross-country Nationals, she said the inclined Arc Trainer sessions were harder than the hilly race.
She followed that up with the analogy of sprinters training with weighted vests.
I don't know that it means she is close to her ceiling (I doubt that). But Geordie Beamish kind of said the same thing about Valby's training. She isn't 'only ' running 30-40mpw or whatever because she is doing all the cross training so she won't get the same boost if she drops the cross training and replaces it with more miles.
I think the timing of this article is interesting from a PR standpoint. Nobody would believe someone running 25 mpw can go out and run the Olympic standard in the 10k. Her NIL PR team likely set this interview up. Probably means she is going for the standard tonight.
Yup. Announcers just confirmed. She is going for the standard
Doesn't bode well for her professional future if a healthy athlete has to train like an injured athlete. Due to her lack of a kick, her best distance going forward is likely the marathon. Don't think anyone has cross-trained to a successful marathon career.
have you ever heard of Ingrid Kristiansen?
i reckon she did alright in the marathon, not to mention the 5000 and 10000
Not sure how much skiing Ingrid did once she started serious marathon training.
I'm shocked that people are still skeptical on the merits of cross training when the best women's college long distance runner in history is having these types of results. I think some runners are afraid to admit that running less can actually be better in some instances.
It's honestly given me the confidence to reduce my own injury prone mileage in favor of alternative aerobic sources.
People wed to orthodoxy are always highly reactive to things that challenge their world view. Their way is the correct way and the only way. Those that advocate cross training blaspheme Arthur Lydiard and all past athletes that never cross trained and the faithful old guard must fight the new thinking!
The question is really what are you recovering from on your easy days? Your beat up legs from high impact, or your heart and lungs from hard aerobic stress?
In non impact sports like cycling, swimming and xc skiing there isn't the same need for rest and recovery that there is in running. That's the how Tour de France can go 3 straight weeks of hard riding. That's how Phelps or some Norwegian xc skiier can compete every day of the Olympics, heck every swim workout is intervals even when doing doubles every day.
This leads me to think that it is the legs that need recovery from hard workouts. What Valby seems to be doing is finding a way to train her heart and lungs at a high level every day, while allowing her legs to recover from the 3 hard running workouts.
Curious when do you have to give the heart and lungs an easy day?
People have speculated various things about her training here. There was a lengthy thread back in November after the Chris Chavez interview, in which she conveyed her cross-training can be intense, with “pools of sweat”.
Indeed, it was suggested that this actually might be a genius aspect in her training: the ability to achieve overall, a higher volume of aerobic-intensity for the week, higher than if one were to just run miles. The typical collegiate female trying to achieve that amount of quality aerobic training strictly from just running would likely break down.
Even if this is the case, I find it interesting her ‘old school’ coach still doesn’t seem to be completely sold on the idea. Rather, he points out that in order for it to work, the athlete has to be exceptionally motivated (and maybe a bit odd) to be able to consistently train like that.
The HS 5000m record girl does similar training due to injury issues. You can tell from their arm carry that they're fitter athletics. They go to arms through out the race because they can. They're powering their strides with more core and upper body movements.
nope, all movement comes from force applied to the ground. Arms are for rhythm and preventing you from over rotating while running.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.