Incorrect. Marathon and shot put are completely different events. Steeple and discus are completely different. 5k and 800 are pretty close when comparing the dozens of track and field events. Training is 80-90% in common. Shot put and discus training would overlap about 5% with the 5k. You really don't understand the sport.
Keely herself has said that there is more correlation with the 400m to her and she trains more like a sprinter.
‘I’d say I almost train like a sprinter, but I think the 800m is getting towards that now. There’s a whole new science – a whole new perspective – on 800m training that says you actually need the speed, and it’s not about doing miles and miles.
FWIW, I suspect Valby will up her mileage as a pro, while still doing some cross training. She was just doing what she had to do to make it through the college seasons. She’ll have more support around her going forward, to figure it all out.
I think you should start making an argument that Bolt and Bekele should have been doing the same training, since they were both runners.
That's not the topic. Why are you here?
It is about an athlete's training, who his the subject of the thread. Obviously following debate is above your pay level. You should go back to fantasizing about female athletes' looks.
"Training like a sprinter" and runs more mileage than every person that was on my high school team. Be serious. You are training precisely like an 800m runners.
I think the term low mileage is misleading now. Can we agree that it's ultimately about the training volume and not just 35 miles of running? 35 miles of running is a lot if that running volume is combined with aerobic training volume on the cross trainer.
"Training like a sprinter" and runs more mileage than every person that was on my high school team. Be serious. You are training precisely like an 800m runners.
She said she trains "almost like a sprinter". The emphasis is on speed rather than endurance. She didn't say she trains just as a sprinter would. Your high school team isn't a measure of what a top international would do.
‘I used to be a swimmer. I swam a stupid amount of times a week and it gave me really good fitness for cross-country at my school. But it’s quite funny because in my first year of school cross-country, I didn’t get picked.
I should have been because I actually lapped people, but they thought I was at the back! I remember going home to my mum and saying, “Mum, I swear that I won that. I should be on that team.” But my mum isn’t really the type to go in and start shouting at the teachers, so I didn’t get picked.
it's weird to bring up the marathon like "but not for this" when you have coverage for all the on-track stuff between the two ladies. yes, i don't think you can go 26 mi running 25 mi a week. duh. but this girl and valby say if you don't have to go further than 6.2 mi a race then do you really need it all, particularly if you are cross-training seriously. answer? no.
now, underline seriously, because i assume their idea of an elliptical is not 5 mins like joe down at the gym. in light of that, comments like "that's not mileage" miss the point. they have work ethic. they are merely dividing it out and not making it all "surface running." a lot of this thread, to me, is people with egos who want all the work to mean something and measure it in miles. her response, you can cross-train, you should maybe reduce the mileage and the pounding. it's not go put 2 feet up in a chaise lounge. it's it doesn't have to be all running.
personally my theory is you don't need more than 2-4x the race distance per day. if you run 800m you only need a few good miles, and 3-4 miles a day gets you her total. i also believe you can offset some of that with other cross training endurance work, if you do enough. emphasis on enough. i think people are getting into "doesn't count" arguments because they're not considering how long a machine workout for the two ladies probably is. it is likely not messing around. and as such it's not lazy, it's just intended not to be ground pound work. it's about saving legs rather than not putting in miles per se. and i am sure they are measuring by time/distance the machine work.
i personally loved pool work for aching legs and thought i was best/freshest/healthiest when given a dispensation for how much soccer i played. i also found it telling my best efforts -- and others' -- often came off the taper which to me suggests over-training (if your best time comes when rested i am not sure if that is really saying all the work is bearing fruit, it could also be saying your body is responding well to reduced practice). and we did 30-40 mi in HS XC.
circling back around, i definitely think you don't need all this for the 800. further out i think you need more mileage to have legs ready for the distance. i personally think a lot of the mentality, though, is like taking ideas meant for 8k+ college types and applying it to people on down to 800 if they show up for XC or even some TF programs. my personal experience as you pushed out towards 40 you started losing top gear.
but anyhow, my point was they're not spending 5 min on the machine, it's probably a ton, and "does it count for mileage" then misses the point.
also lost in the back and forth is the lady said she was fast when she showed up for track off "swimming." a lot of swimming. it's then getting it backwards to be like, "oh, but she quit swimming," except she still does a little, and at an early stage she was a strong junior runner out of the box just for the swimming.
there was salazar's people -- and i know they had the doping -- with the water running.
there's some people doing a lot of elliptical.
keely's colleague on the bike, etc.
my guess there is some magic number that needs to be physically running on the ground and then after that you could get it how you want it, and if you get beat up legs, it maybe even shouldn't be running. now, to be fair, you would have to get it, and i mean serious work.
