100% wrong. The myth that "running" is the only and best way to get into aerobic and vo2max shape is just that - garbage. Swimming, low impact treadmill, elliptical, weights, yoga, etc. are all far more beneficial than running a bunch of garbage easy or even "medium" pace miles. The lack of physiological knowledge amongst the running community and coaches is astounding. If she's using her 3 days per week wisely and intensely (ie 3 quality running workout days per week, then she can certainly get fit enough to have success at the NCAA level. She's obviously insanely talented as well, which of course is the key ingredient for her level of success vs average Joan.
Kids out there, take note. The problem is that there are not many top runners motivated or disciplined enough to stick to that rigorous of a cross training regimen. Kudos to her!
You know what is not a myth? Running makes you a better runner. 2-3 days per week of running is not even close to enough running to destroy most people in running. But feel free to keep falling for it. I wish she would've said she runs 1x per week just to see how many of you would still buy it. I bet many.
Fans will always find excuses for what can't be justified by any realistic understanding of what the sport requires.
If one of the title contenders on the men's side said the same thing, no one would believe it. No one. Tell me I am wrong. Nico young, Ky Robinson, Habtom Samuel, Graham Blanks: "I run 3 days a week and use the elliptical" ya right! Sure you do
100% wrong. The myth that "running" is the only and best way to get into aerobic and vo2max shape is just that - garbage. Swimming, low impact treadmill, elliptical, weights, yoga, etc. are all far more beneficial than running a bunch of garbage easy or even "medium" pace miles. The lack of physiological knowledge amongst the running community and coaches is astounding. If she's using her 3 days per week wisely and intensely (ie 3 quality running workout days per week, then she can certainly get fit enough to have success at the NCAA level. She's obviously insanely talented as well, which of course is the key ingredient for her level of success vs average Joan.
Kids out there, take note. The problem is that there are not many top runners motivated or disciplined enough to stick to that rigorous of a cross training regimen. Kudos to her!
If running isn't the best training for distance runners why is it that all the top runners do it - and a lot of it? We see threads for top athletes running well over 100mpw. How many do more cross-training than running? 3 days a week is virtual hobby-jogger stuff.
You also don't know how hard she runs when she trains - or cross-trains. You're guessing. But since when has 3 days a week of running topped the best 7 days a week runners?
2-3 days a week for her is 30 miles. That’s a lot of miles on those days she’s running. Equivalent to the daily mileage of someone running 70-80 miles.
What? Why stop there? Just extrapolate to the equivalent of running 24/7. That would be a lot of miles.
Absolute nonsense. The purpose of mileage isn't just aerobic. It is practising the skill of running. If the type of training you advocate is do superior, then why aren't the triathletes the best runners?
Gustav Iden, world class triathlete, claims he could easily run a marathon in 2:12h and if he would train more specific faster than that. That would crush most US runners. So much for that.
I improved a lot after college running 4 times per week on 25-40 miles per week (quality running), but i also improved years later running 4 months at 150 miles per week.
It's not that complicated. Anything that stresses the body leads to adaptation given proper rest. and it not an either or.
You are still saying it doesn't matter what kind of training you do - whether you train hard or only a little, you can get big gains. That goes against everything that is understood to be necessary to high performance: training matters - and for a distance athlete there is no getting around the need for mileage. That is, unless you've found another way.
Armstronglivs, you and possibly several others on here are inaccurately creating this dichotomy that it's either training "hard or only a little", assuming that hard= high mileage and a little= low mileage + cross training like Valby.
The way Valby, and clearly many others, get fit from cross-training, is not just hanging out on an elliptical and taking selfies/watching TV. It's going hard for a sustained period of time until you're in a pool of your own sweat, breathing harder than you would on the training run that you are replacing. This happens because it's harder to get the heart rate up in other activities than running, so the perceived effort is actually harder. This is why cross training feels like such a grind mentally and physically if done correctly.
It is also unfair to say that to "train hard" is to run high mileage, when I can think of a lot of people who run just junk high mileage and get mediocre results to back up the fact that they aren't training very hard.
On your most recent comment, I totally agree that running is the best training for distance runners! That's why most of the best runners do high mileage. But as old grumpy pointed out, it is simply not a realistic/healthy possibility for many athletes, especially young women in the HS/NCAA system that is unfortunately plagued by an unhealthy culture around food, body image, and performance.
I'm sure if Valby and her coach had the option to run a lot more, she would. She clearly loves the sport and the activity of running. I hope that if she chooses to run at the next level she can solve those underlying health issues and find a healthy way for her body to build more resilience and tolerance to the impact of running. For now, I'm gonna root for her as she keeps working her hardest with the next best training for distance runners: cross training.
100% wrong. The myth that "running" is the only and best way to get into aerobic and vo2max shape is just that - garbage. Swimming, low impact treadmill, elliptical, weights, yoga, etc. are all far more beneficial than running a bunch of garbage easy or even "medium" pace miles. The lack of physiological knowledge amongst the running community and coaches is astounding. If she's using her 3 days per week wisely and intensely (ie 3 quality running workout days per week, then she can certainly get fit enough to have success at the NCAA level. She's obviously insanely talented as well, which of course is the key ingredient for her level of success vs average Joan.
Kids out there, take note. The problem is that there are not many top runners motivated or disciplined enough to stick to that rigorous of a cross training regimen. Kudos to her!
If running isn't the best training for distance runners why is it that all the top runners do it - and a lot of it? We see threads for top athletes running well over 100mpw. How many do more cross-training than running? 3 days a week is virtual hobby-jogger stuff.
You also don't know how hard she runs when she trains - or cross-trains. You're guessing. But since when has 3 days a week of running topped the best 7 days a week runners?
Also, given your username it is kinda ironic how you seem to lack belief in other endurance activities. In the broader running community there is a general sense of superiority over the other endurance sports. This is not only very unwarranted, but limits us as athletes and coaches in running from learning more. The best minds in the sports of skiing, triathlon, cycling, etc. take lessons from the other sports, but.for some reason many runners are too closed-minded to do so.
Everyone is obsessed with double threshold these days, popularized by the Ingebrigtsens. It's well documented at this point that they got that knowledge from Marius Bakken, but Bakken got a lot of the framework for threshold training from all the sport science in Nordic skiing that was already happening in Norway! Skiing learned and adopted that training philosophy before running did, and I'm sure there are plenty other examples of this.
As an runner and endurance athlete, one of my favorite resources is the manifesto that Nils Van Der Poel wrote after winning double Olympic gold over 5k and 10k in speedskating. He built an insane aerobic engine to become the best ever at his sport, but his training didn't involve skating itself until his specific/competition phase later in the year, after months of biking, skiing, etc. Here's the link:
I believe it, mostly because it'd be an odd thing to lie about and if she was secretly doing 80 mile weeks in Gainesville I think someone would have noticed by now. There have been highly successful NCAA runners on very low mileage & fewer days running. Peter Callahan from Princeton was a really good 1500 runner, and there's a workout Wednesday where Vig talks about keeping his mileage down to keep him healthy.
The best XC skiers do long runs throughout their training builds too, even though the action is not specific to their sport and obviously skiing is the best way to train for skiing, just as running is the best way to train for running. But there is some muscular benefit in variation.
If anything runners have more to gain from other endurance sports, because it is by far the highest impact of them all. A lot of athletes mentally have the willpower and desire to train hard all day, forever. But why can't they? Impact is without a doubt the biggest limit in how much we can train, especially when touching anything above threshold. Fortunately, the heart muscle doesn't really know if you're running or swimming or on the arc trainer, it just knows to pump more blood and make those positive adaptations accordingly.
I might piss a lot of people off with this take, but I think that runners do not train as "hard" as athletes in these other sports, at least aerobically in terms of how many hours a week they can are getting their heart rate up. Triathletes rack up a much higher weekly total of hours in this regard. So really I would say that if you're interested in training "hard" you should supplement your running with other endurance exercise. If you're a perfectly healthy runner averaging 80 miles a week but want to eventually make that jump to over 100, why not do an extra few hours a week of cross training in the meantime? As long as an athlete is fueling really well and takes recovery seriously, I don't see why they wouldn't take some free fitness.
You are still saying it doesn't matter what kind of training you do - whether you train hard or only a little, you can get big gains. That goes against everything that is understood to be necessary to high performance: training matters - and for a distance athlete there is no getting around the need for mileage. That is, unless you've found another way.
Armstronglivs, you and possibly several others on here are inaccurately creating this dichotomy that it's either training "hard or only a little", assuming that hard= high mileage and a little= low mileage + cross training like Valby.
The way Valby, and clearly many others, get fit from cross-training, is not just hanging out on an elliptical and taking selfies/watching TV. It's going hard for a sustained period of time until you're in a pool of your own sweat, breathing harder than you would on the training run that you are replacing. This happens because it's harder to get the heart rate up in other activities than running, so the perceived effort is actually harder. This is why cross training feels like such a grind mentally and physically if done correctly.
It is also unfair to say that to "train hard" is to run high mileage, when I can think of a lot of people who run just junk high mileage and get mediocre results to back up the fact that they aren't training very hard.
On your most recent comment, I totally agree that running is the best training for distance runners! That's why most of the best runners do high mileage. But as old grumpy pointed out, it is simply not a realistic/healthy possibility for many athletes, especially young women in the HS/NCAA system that is unfortunately plagued by an unhealthy culture around food, body image, and performance.
I'm sure if Valby and her coach had the option to run a lot more, she would. She clearly loves the sport and the activity of running. I hope that if she chooses to run at the next level she can solve those underlying health issues and find a healthy way for her body to build more resilience and tolerance to the impact of running. For now, I'm gonna root for her as she keeps working her hardest with the next best training for distance runners: cross training.
I appreciate the time and effort you put into explaining your point of view. However, it still amounts to saying her achievements are based on less than ideal training. Is that really credible?
If running isn't the best training for distance runners why is it that all the top runners do it - and a lot of it? We see threads for top athletes running well over 100mpw. How many do more cross-training than running? 3 days a week is virtual hobby-jogger stuff.
You also don't know how hard she runs when she trains - or cross-trains. You're guessing. But since when has 3 days a week of running topped the best 7 days a week runners?
Also, given your username it is kinda ironic how you seem to lack belief in other endurance activities. In the broader running community there is a general sense of superiority over the other endurance sports. This is not only very unwarranted, but limits us as athletes and coaches in running from learning more. The best minds in the sports of skiing, triathlon, cycling, etc. take lessons from the other sports, but.for some reason many runners are too closed-minded to do so.
Everyone is obsessed with double threshold these days, popularized by the Ingebrigtsens. It's well documented at this point that they got that knowledge from Marius Bakken, but Bakken got a lot of the framework for threshold training from all the sport science in Nordic skiing that was already happening in Norway! Skiing learned and adopted that training philosophy before running did, and I'm sure there are plenty other examples of this.
As an runner and endurance athlete, one of my favorite resources is the manifesto that Nils Van Der Poel wrote after winning double Olympic gold over 5k and 10k in speedskating. He built an insane aerobic engine to become the best ever at his sport, but his training didn't involve skating itself until his specific/competition phase later in the year, after months of biking, skiing, etc. Here's the link:
Just keep in mind a crucial difference between running and those other sports. They are not weight-bearing. You have to gradually build your legs to handle the impact of running. In speed-skating, skiing and cycling you are effectively gliding along the ground on your equipment. Running requires more specialization over time to build up to a reasonable training volume. X-training can be added in, but if you primarily cycle or ski for a couple months and then try to jump into 60 or 70 mile weeks that's a recipe for injury. Your fitness will be high, but your frame is not adequately prepared to handle running.
If running isn't the best training for distance runners why is it that all the top runners do it - and a lot of it? We see threads for top athletes running well over 100mpw. How many do more cross-training than running? 3 days a week is virtual hobby-jogger stuff.
You also don't know how hard she runs when she trains - or cross-trains. You're guessing. But since when has 3 days a week of running topped the best 7 days a week runners?
Also, given your username it is kinda ironic how you seem to lack belief in other endurance activities. In the broader running community there is a general sense of superiority over the other endurance sports. This is not only very unwarranted, but limits us as athletes and coaches in running from learning more. The best minds in the sports of skiing, triathlon, cycling, etc. take lessons from the other sports, but.for some reason many runners are too closed-minded to do so.
Everyone is obsessed with double threshold these days, popularized by the Ingebrigtsens. It's well documented at this point that they got that knowledge from Marius Bakken, but Bakken got a lot of the framework for threshold training from all the sport science in Nordic skiing that was already happening in Norway! Skiing learned and adopted that training philosophy before running did, and I'm sure there are plenty other examples of this.
As an runner and endurance athlete, one of my favorite resources is the manifesto that Nils Van Der Poel wrote after winning double Olympic gold over 5k and 10k in speedskating. He built an insane aerobic engine to become the best ever at his sport, but his training didn't involve skating itself until his specific/competition phase later in the year, after months of biking, skiing, etc. Here's the link:
Firstly, my username doesn't reflect my beliefs about running; it reflects the fact that doping remains alive and well in all sports today.
On your point about the origins of some training methods I will offer this: all sports have training programmes that are focused on producing what those sports require. One size doesn't fit all. That is why different running events will employ different training programmes and different sports will have programmes that aren't those of elite distance runners - and vice versa.
A distance runner who is training like a triathlete or, alternatively, an amateur runner - low mileage with cross-training - is not a serious distance runner. They would generally only do it seriously to recover from injury. Hence, I remain sceptical about the training programme being discussed on this thread.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
I don't see the confusion you people have with her training. It makes total sense for her to achieve this fitness for a 6k race with just 3 running days and the rest cross training. She's only demanding about 20min of intense racing from her body. No doubt runners would struggle with anything over 10k, maybe 8k, with this type of training; the benefit of time on feet and getting the body used to pounding is the real benefit of higher mileage.
In fact, I think this is probably an ideal training philosophy for young runners (high school / early college)who don't have the discipline to take easy days easy or who are injury prone. Think of all the careers of college runners that could have been saved with less pounding on the body.
The best XC skiers do long runs throughout their training builds too, even though the action is not specific to their sport and obviously skiing is the best way to train for skiing, just as running is the best way to train for running. But there is some muscular benefit in variation.
If anything runners have more to gain from other endurance sports, because it is by far the highest impact of them all. A lot of athletes mentally have the willpower and desire to train hard all day, forever. But why can't they? Impact is without a doubt the biggest limit in how much we can train, especially when touching anything above threshold. Fortunately, the heart muscle doesn't really know if you're running or swimming or on the arc trainer, it just knows to pump more blood and make those positive adaptations accordingly.
I might piss a lot of people off with this take, but I think that runners do not train as "hard" as athletes in these other sports, at least aerobically in terms of how many hours a week they can are getting their heart rate up. Triathletes rack up a much higher weekly total of hours in this regard. So really I would say that if you're interested in training "hard" you should supplement your running with other endurance exercise. If you're a perfectly healthy runner averaging 80 miles a week but want to eventually make that jump to over 100, why not do an extra few hours a week of cross training in the meantime? As long as an athlete is fueling really well and takes recovery seriously, I don't see why they wouldn't take some free fitness.
The problem is the peripheral adaptation to running and also motor learning. So if someone wants to transfer peripheral adaptation to running, you have to select a cross-sport which tranfers good to running and that means used muscle groups are broadly overlapping (peripheral adaptations). E.g. elliptical and also cross country skiing is known to fullfill that in a good way, but not 100%. The running pros do endurance train 12h/week give or take and this is compared to e.g. cycling and triathlon, 25-30h/week quite little. The high impact with running is the problem. Modern supershoes might change that in future a little bit.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
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.
