Malmo what's the best way to structure a 100 and 110 mile weeks?

My gear: shorts (2 pairs, rotate daily for an entire week), shirts (2, same thing), watch, shoes, socks (7 pairs, use multiple times for doubles). I do laundry once a week.

I have to say that was a pretty lame excuse. Laundry...isn't that part of why you got married in the first place :)

In all fairness my wife won't be doing my laundry....my housekeeper will :)

malmo,

i dont know if it was covered or not, but is there any physiological difference between doubling up with a shorter run in the morning and longer in the afternoon and vice versa?

yeah laundry is a lame excuse. I've never understood the whole time argument in general.

Actually, what I like about competitive running is that you could be semi-decent and train at a high level and it still wouldn't take as much time as most sports would to be high level at least.

Even running twice a day takes less total time per day than it takes to be good at most other major sports. Yeah, it can wipe you out sometimes but I'm still able to work 50 hrs a week.

In college I had a varsity baseball player and later a football player as roommates. They both said I had it easy spending roughly 2 hours a day running. The football player had 2 a days in the summer lasting hours each. He also spent a lot of time in the weight room. Then he had to watch film. Even in season, he was spending probably 6 hours a day doing something to improve himself at his sport.

And then there are professional cyclists who train 6-8 hours a day.

Well, done; Not well-done: I mean your diversionary tactic to focus on a minor/secondary point and snark it into primary position with your psycho-phants. I'm talking about the impact of all this training obsession based on clearly unproven practices--notwithstanding your anecdotal personal opinions--on personal life and family life, using the bathing and laundry and family-time sacrifices for the wishful thinkers who are looking for a magic formula to ....win the lottery of competition....

For those who do, more's the power to you; for the great majority who find "only" personal satisfaction (and blessings on you) good on you too.

But this quest for the grail of training perfection, it isn't any more your "doubles" (why not "quadrouples" for further development? :)) theory than any other theory that involves hard work, ambition, rest, consistency, experience, learning by doing, and enjoyment of the exercise.

"Doubles" is one of a whole list of possible, viable training methods. One that imo takes a bit more time away from another valuable experience--normal, healthy life, whether with a family or not. You chose not to see or respond to that obvious theme, and went to the dirty socks...!

Quit perseverating on and smelling the socks, man, and look around at the roses, the rest of life. Geez, you've got your acolytes doing it, too!! That ought to give you pause, but I guess it won't.

The thread isn't about leading a normal life. It is about maximizing running abilities. This is a running forum.

jamese1045 wrote:

. I'm talking about the impact of all this training obsession based on clearly unproven practices--notwithstanding your anecdotal personal opinions--

.

If you´re saying that doubles is "unproven practices" then you are a moron. I don´t know what the hell you´re getting at. If you want to maximize your running ability, you should do doubles - everybody does them - but if you want to be a recreational runner, fine. Stick with singles.

Well, to be honest, you can't complain. Your original post in no way alluded to the supposed efficacy of doubles. Were we supposed to assume this is what you meant by "Do you "doubles" people do double showers and laundry, too?" What else could we go on?

Who speaks like this!! Also, if you're going to write as pretentiously as you do at least get it right: what's a "psycho-phant"? Surely you mean "sycophant"?

Anyway, I believe in doubles. As you rightly say it is only one approach but it works for me and i've seen it work for others which is evidence enough for me.

Clearly hyperbolic but people are not saying merely 'the more you run the better you become.' If this was the case then why not run 18 hours a day? You've got to get the balance between extensive exercise and allowing your body to repair and recover right and, for people who can dedicate large periods of their day to running, this balance seems best achieved by doubling. Indeed many Kenyans do triple: personally if i was a professional athlete i would certainly try it out to see if it worked for me.

I was the one being "snarky" there. For one the psycho-phant was I thought obviously a play on (however dumb) the word "sycophant," just to add a touch of meanness. Sorry.

And I was not focused in my first post as to my main idea. I obliquely asked (more of a statement or rhetorical question) how people doing doubles manage a balanced family life when they're running around doing two or three training sessions per day? The laundry and the shower components were just a couple of elements that I ran into when I tried to follow a "doubles" pattern; working out a marriage and child care and full-time job were more significant "complications. I should have kept it to my own "anecdotals" and experience. And not been so snarky myself.

I appreciate your clear response. One of the things I like about this board is that there's more than just running topics on it, more than screeds devoted to detailed running "systems," and there's room for opinions that differ, even some that question the entire "running lifestyle." My questioning of the lifestyle does not come from out of nowhere: it's based on many years of training, racing, coaching track and xc, and hundreds of thousands of miles.

I simply do not believe the specific systems that are often touted as "the" system or a "scientifically based" or "proven" system are any more proven than are the many diets that come along and tempt the consumer with yet another "solution" to lead them to a trim figure or running success. I have the opinion that too many people spend too much time working on specious systems and theories rather than running for the basic elements of work/play, rest/stress, personal/social balance. And I do understand and apologize to those who take the path of running ambition and care deeply about times and distances--road and track warriors are my heros. I have followed running and track for over fifty years, I will always follow it, and I will always put in my two-cents. I will try in future to be less snarky myself about my views on all of the methods and systems..

But I do have a system, since there's always room for one more: it contains all the elements you need to become a world-class runner: the "tortoise," in which one of your three sessions per day is to do several miles following a tortoise, turtle, or other slow-moving critter as a warm-up; next, your second daily phase is "the rabbit"run) run, in which you follow a bunny down the bunny trail and get in your sprints, hops, fartleks; and at least once per week you do "the train," (the Nurmi Express,) in which you pace alongside a moving railroad train for twenty or so miles. It's all there, all you need. Don't be discouraged by all the costume changes and clean up--the outcomes are worth it. After all, we want a well-balanced running system and lifestyle. Don't we?

Oh, I have to mention, my system is just like the others, though, in that you first must have the genetics and the talent.

I'm re-wearing a pair of shorts that i rinsed out in the shower yesterday-- not the picture of hygene but but i'm not out to impress anyone-- i just wanna run

I will admit that the problem of juggling running with "life" has not yet hit me given that i'm still at university :) i appreciate it may well be a difficult balancing act unless you are a full-time athlete. So perhaps we did avoid answering the question you posed... but of course im not in a position to give an opinion.I agree with you that people seem too obsessed with systems: the number of people on letsrun who deify Lydiard etc is astounding. What works for one person should not definitely be taken as running lore, though ultimately i suppose we have to decide on one ourselves. The Nurmi Express seems like it would probably lead to some sort of heart-failure!Finally (and im slightly cautious of going off on a massive tangent from the original theme of the thread) the one thing i disagree with is your statement:

jamese1045 wrote:

you first must have the genetics and the talent.

Personally i think that genetics and talent are wildly overrated. I don't think that they are irrelevant but that people massively exaggerate their importance in becoming a world class runner. I genuinely believe (at the moment) that if almost anyone really wanted to run in the Olympics then they could. This is not to say (which annoys me) for example "that X won because he wanted it the most." No matter how much i want it im not going to be able to beat Bekele tomorrow at any distance. But its a long term mentality. Paula Radcliffe at younger age groups showed (arguably) a distinct lack of natural talent (299th in the English School's Cross Country at U15 or something) yet for the past 15 years she has dedicated her life to being the best in world. If someone truely wanted to run in the olympics so much that they were willing to dedicate their whole life to this cause then i believe they would probably be successful. Clearly some people cannot afford to do this. Moreover i think talent would have an impact: say 10 people all totally dedicated their lives to running then there would be a difference between them, but currently so few people do truely dedicate themselves that genetics and talent don't even come into consideration. Training trumps gentics. Is Radcliffe really the most naturally talented woman ever over 26 miles? Or has her lifestyle, training, diet, recovery, tactics etc been better than everone else?

People use genetics as an excuse for their failures. We do not want to accept that we are fully responsible for who we are and what we do in our lives. People do not want to look back on their lives and acknowledge the counterfactuals... It is a lot easier to tell ourselves that the reason why we never made it as a runner is because our DNA prevented us, than it is to accept it is because we chose not to. This is apparent not just in running but throughout life: we cannot accept the anguish and so construct excuses to allay the responsibility.

Perhaps my view is very naive and romantic, perhaps Bowerman is right and Prefontaine wrong (sorry, had to get a Without Limits reference in somewhere), and perhaps i'll have changed my opinion in 10 years time. But currently (going slightly back to the theme of the thread) im of the opinion that if you get your system right, and more importantly if you are willing and able to dedicate every moment of your life for 10 to 15 years to achieving your goal (clearly a big "if"), regardless of your genetics you can still become a top class runner.

Anyone who thinks Malmo hasn't enjoyed life and doesn't have a diverse life full of different interests isn't worth listening to, whether he rambles on or not. Phycho-babble is just that, phycho and babble. Doubles being an unproven training method is laughable.

Actually, "talent" as a real sign is a bad word for us coaches and ex-coaches. And it only leads to frustration and resentment when it is perceived but undeveloped. Able does little; production and performance are real. As a coach I paid only guarded attention to rumors of talent because, like rumors, it is an intangible and can be a heartache and disappointment for the alleged possessor and the hopeful others.

Positive attitude and a strong work ethic/effort is by far the greater value for the coach and the athlete--for the overall values of developing skills and improving personal and team performance.

Here comes the big BUT in the road:

BUT, when the elements of work, attitude, skills development ARE in place, then, my friend you will have to step aside for the more talented, genetically-gifted athletes. How do you get to Carnegie Hall or the Olympic games? Practice practice practice--as important as it is--isn't going to quite cut it when all of the other pieces are in place with the gifted athletes, and we hard-working lovely folks who love our sport go up against them. Read Dr. Faustus (Thomas Mann) or any number of other stories about heroically hard-working performers with a love of their art or sport and you'll find a common theme: life isn't fair because, although you may have worked like Salieri (sp?), you will not ever beat Mozart.

Given any two athletes with the complete package of motivation, smart and consistent training programs, good coaching and fine programs, tell me who is going to prevail in the end, the well-developed, hard-working genetically disposed athlete (enter family name here) or Joe Shmo from Kokomo, who "has a dream?"You think it's coincidental that so many family names keep cropping up in running?

Ever gone to try-outs or auditions for music, art, or athletics and observed the difference between the apparent ease and effortlessness (relative) for one guy or gal and another?

I can also relate on a personal level in both music and running: I trained(practiced and followed the best practices and teachers) in music for twenty years (like the guy in Dr. Faustus), and in running I put in the mileage, did all the workouts of all the "schools" (including "doubles"--that's not a new idea by any means; we were doing that forty years ago), and raced and *lived the life.* (stars indicate emphasis and lots of blood sweat and ... joy) And improved well into my fifties. But guess what? On several occasions guys I just sort of nudged into running with me around the area and coming to practice, club and team, shortly started whipping me (I'm talking sub-six and better 8-20 mi runs.)

Anyway, you can say what you like about genetics and "talent" (I still dislike that toxic word) being trumped by attitude, training, desire, and I'll still say you can only get to Carnegie Hall on the "T" train, talent, and you are not going to top a guy who is motivated, healthy, trained and experienced on your training methods or desires.

But you'll only be able to tell how talented you really are if you "go for it." Some runners' gift is not so much a natural ability to run fast, but a natural ability to improve from training.

Running doubles, rather than taking time away from my family, enhances it. My son can't handle the longer runs I do at his age, so my shorter double runs are the ones we do together as a way of bonding. My wife likes the fact that I'm out of the house in the afternoon because it gives her time to relax by herself or her friends without feeling like she's leaving me out. Speaking from my experience, doubles are a great way to improve your family live, when compared against taking one huge chunk of time out of every day.

James, there are more appropriate forums for your goals and ambitions. Click on this link, I’m sure that you’ll find many like-minded jogging enthusiasts that you can bond with. Good luck.

http://forums.runnersworld.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/608106477

Betsy Sue for a few laundry tips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6FWK47lH_g&feature=related

777 wrote:

Some runners' gift is not so much a natural ability to run fast, but a natural ability to improve from training.

I love that!

FooBar wrote:

777 wrote:

Some runners' gift is not so much a natural ability to run fast, but a natural ability to improve from training.

I love that!

More importantly, the true gift is the ability to sustain a heavy training load without injury or burnout. Some of the fastest guys I ever knew, guys that could seriously run under 13:50 for 5k off of 40 miles per week, could never sustain a training load over 60-80 miles per week it seemed and never reached their potential.

Malmo, quick question, what are your thoughts on trail running? In HS I ran almost all of my summer and winter mileage on the roads, with the XC and spring track seasons all on the grass XC loops by my HS. Now that I'm in college, I run roads year-round and I find I'm acutely aware of the stress on my joints. I'm only 20 years old, so it's sure as hell not my age that's causing this. I think it's gotta be the surface I'm running on.

My question to you is, how much of your mileage did you typically do on roads vs. trails, and how much effort did you put forth towards recovery (ice baths, stretching, rolling out muscles with a "stick")?