Does it help YOU when YOU do it??????
Obviously it works for some. Others succeed on singles.
Time to figure out who YOU are. Try it. Try not doing it. Succeed. Fail. Take notes. Figure YOU out.
TIME TO STOP STUDYING THE SHMUCKS ON LETSRUN.COM AND STUDY YOURSELF!!!!
why not triples? wrote:
HRE wrote:There are some posts here saying that doing something in training just because the "elites" do it isn't a good idea. Well, what should you use for planning your training if not the stuff that's worked for the most successful athletes? You can read all sorts of articles and not get conclusive answers which is why I found "How They Train" books to be the most helpful running books I ever read and talking with guys who were beating me to see what they did was equally helpful.
The "elites" train they way they do because they are "elite". They have genetic and biomechanical differences that give them advantages over more average people. Oh, and some (probably more than we know) of them use PEDs, so you have to consider that.
You thinking that emulating them will make you one of them is a logical fallacy.
This is 100 percent inaccurate! It has nothing to do with genetics, etc. It's a way of life and formula that was adopted, which is why one should train like the elites!
A kid watches a golden state basketball game, and observes the way Steph Curry plays and shoots. After the game, the kid goes outside and emulates everything that Steph does, and grows into an elite player himself ....and a child grows up and follows him.
That is how they do it in Africa when it comes to running! The secret to african running or proper running is that there is no secret!...It's all about lifestyle and discipline. If those same africans were born in america, they would not be the great runners that they are, because the american practice or american lifestyle degrades the body....so genetics is not a main main factor.
Alright, now saying genetics has no bearing on some people being elite runners and others are not is just silly. It's some of both. You can be good and untalented with hard work, you can be good and lazy with talent, but you can't be great without hardwork and talent.
Also, saying doubles are why someone is a better runner is equally stupid. It's the volume, not the act of doubling.
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
Alright, now saying genetics has no bearing on some people being elite runners and others are not is just silly. It's some of both. You can be good and untalented with hard work, you can be good and lazy with talent, but you can't be great without hardwork and talent.
Also, saying doubles are why someone is a better runner is equally stupid. It's the volume, not the act of doubling.
^^ and this is why americans and europeans suck. Genetics is lazy talk for people who don't have discipline or who can achieve, so they chalk it up to genetics . WRONG!
"So even if Kenyan runners are genetically different than runners from other places, the “Kenyan way†of being naturally gifted for running is not necessarily the only way.
I think that’s fair to say. If we think of genetic diversity, it’s Africa that’s really the melting pot of the world. There’s more genetic diversity in Africa than there is in the United States or Europe.
If you look within the Kenyan athletes themselves, there’s a ton of genetic diversity there as well. So far the evidence is that, if there is some sort of genetic advantage, it’s very subtle, it’s really hard to identify, and it may not be particularly important beyond the environmental characteristics that these people grow up in, where they’re running miles to school at an early age, it’s ingrained in their culture.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard that the children of some of the elite Kenyan runners really have no special advantage. Once the parents have become elite, they move into middle class or upper class housing and the kids no longer have to run barefoot seven miles both ways to school."
matter of fact, the talk of them being genetically superior is frowned up on in kenya and ethiopia, and it is considered a form of disrespect.
http://running.competitor.com/2011/01/features/it%E2%80%99s-not-the-genes_20733If you took a random selection of East Africans from an 8th grade class, and compared them to a random selection of 8th grade kids from the USA, you would see a vast difference in typical body type.
scorpion_runner wrote:
David S. Pumpkins wrote:Alright, now saying genetics has no bearing on some people being elite runners and others are not is just silly. It's some of both. You can be good and untalented with hard work, you can be good and lazy with talent, but you can't be great without hardwork and talent.
Also, saying doubles are why someone is a better runner is equally stupid. It's the volume, not the act of doubling.
^^ and this is why americans and europeans suck. Genetics is lazy talk for people who don't have discipline or who can achieve, so they chalk it up to genetics . WRONG!
"So even if Kenyan runners are genetically different than runners from other places, the “Kenyan way†of being naturally gifted for running is not necessarily the only way.
I think that’s fair to say. If we think of genetic diversity, it’s Africa that’s really the melting pot of the world. There’s more genetic diversity in Africa than there is in the United States or Europe.
If you look within the Kenyan athletes themselves, there’s a ton of genetic diversity there as well. So far the evidence is that, if there is some sort of genetic advantage, it’s very subtle, it’s really hard to identify, and it may not be particularly important beyond the environmental characteristics that these people grow up in, where they’re running miles to school at an early age, it’s ingrained in their culture.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard that the children of some of the elite Kenyan runners really have no special advantage. Once the parents have become elite, they move into middle class or upper class housing and the kids no longer have to run barefoot seven miles both ways to school."
matter of fact, the talk of them being genetically superior is frowned up on in kenya and ethiopia, and it is considered a form of disrespect.
http://running.competitor.com/2011/01/features/it%E2%80%99s-not-the-genes_20733
I didn't say anything about nationality. What I'm saying is there are genetic differences between different people that make some better runners than others regardless of where they're from. You also have to work hard, but some people could work hard forever and not even be locally good. This is true in every sport. The difference between good and pro is often either genetics or hard work, the difference between pro and allstar is a combination of both. This is not disputable.
doubles benefit almost always, unless they are infringing on your ability to have a good workout. Maybe add in an easy 4 miles the morning of a workout, or add 1 easy 5-6 mile run in the evenings. Boom that's 10 miles right there. After you get used to it, add an easy 5 and you are at 15 extra miles for the week, with basically doing nothing extra
all aerobic running can be helpful, especially at your level
David S. Pumpkins wrote:
I didn't say anything about nationality. What I'm saying is there are genetic differences between different people that make some better runners than others regardless of where they're from. You also have to work hard, but some people could work hard forever and not even be locally good. This is true in every sport. The difference between good and pro is often either genetics or hard work, the difference between pro and allstar is a combination of both. This is not disputable.
Until the genes that govern how good or bad a runner someone is are identified it certainly is disputable. I'm not denying the likelihood of genes having a role, it seems very likely that they do, but until someone actually shows how that works like they have done in showing how genes give some of us blue eyes and others brown ones, it's still a hypothesis and all hypotheses are disputable.
Colin McCourt seems to be doing well with his doubles on Strava. Went from a 24 min 5k guy to a current sub 19 min 5k guy in less than 4 months after being dormant for about 5 years. Of course he was previously elite, but nothing of the same guy anymore. But doing doubles definitely show some strength on his part even if they are only a short 4 mile run!!
I'm fairly certain the reason that it's frowned upon to double for being a nooby is that most noobs run one of the doubles each day way to hard.
Smoove is most likely right physiologically
The way i think is. Do what approach gets you the most mpw
To the OP: I got in 72 miles this week with just one double (the 11/5 on Thursday). Did a 15-mile long run this morning, and I felt great. Actually, it went as usual--I felt okay in the first seven or eight miles, and felt good thereafter. I felt very good in the last four miles. Nothing like a good long run. They are like medicine.
I forgot to note that I did this over six days, not seven. I like to have a rest day, and like having it on Sunday. Thus, seven runs in six days, totaling 72 miles. You can do what works for you, but if you run seven days per week, that should get you lots of mileage.
All the best..
outsiderunner wrote:
I got in 72 miles this week with just one double (the 11/5 on Thursday). Did a 15-mile long run this morning ...
Outsiderunner, would you be willing to regularly post your weekly training ... maybe on the "road racing and training" thread that is started anew each week? I have some similar goals for the year, and would be very interested in following your training schedule and progress. As others likely would be, I imagine.
Regarding doubles, I have no special insights ... for just a few weeks in March 1981, I did easy 5-mile morning runs and longer base-mileage runs in the afternoon ... but no doubles before or since! I do recall it being a fairly painless way to add mileage.
Doubles have massive benefits, but not the way you are structuring your week. It shocks me how little is actually known about training. Read everything you are able to. Ask the coaches you respect most a billion questions. And, nervet listen to an elite runner's advice - always go to the coach.
Simply Me wrote:
Doubles have massive benefits, but not the way you are structuring your week. It shocks me how little is actually known about training. Read everything you are able to. Ask the coaches you respect most a billion questions. And, nervet listen to an elite runner's advice - always go to the coach.
Well, what way should he structure his week? What about doubles 5 days a week?
outsiderunner wrote:
To the OP: I got in 72 miles this week with just one double (the 11/5 on Thursday). Did a 15-mile long run this morning, and I felt great. Actually, it went as usual--I felt okay in the first seven or eight miles, and felt good thereafter. I felt very good in the last four miles. Nothing like a good long run. They are like medicine.
Well thanks for the post. I plan to start my new running schedule in a few more weeks. I'll be doubling about 2 or 3 times a week and the rest will be singles. I appreciate the feed back!
Allen1959 wrote:
outsiderunner wrote:I got in 72 miles this week with just one double (the 11/5 on Thursday). Did a 15-mile long run this morning ...
Outsiderunner, would you be willing to regularly post your weekly training ... maybe on the "road racing and training" thread that is started anew each week? I have some similar goals for the year, and would be very interested in following your training schedule and progress. As others likely would be, I imagine.
Regarding doubles, I have no special insights ... for just a few weeks in March 1981, I did easy 5-mile morning runs and longer base-mileage runs in the afternoon ... but no doubles before or since! I do recall it being a fairly painless way to add mileage.
No problem, Allen. I will look for that thread. I love runnning, and love discussing training.
Since you asked, my proximate goal right now is a 10k in early May. I have not run many 10k races (my area is steeped in 5k races), and this particular one has been tough for me...have run it twice, both times coming off of an injury and so not much success. So, while my current training is more along the lines of marathon work (marathon base), I plan on doing a 10k. To me, marathon-type training has kind of an all-around benefit. Building mileage is never a bad thing.
With regard to today, it was just wonderful--what a nice cap on a 70+ week. I am out of town for Easter, and ran in the rolling countryside of Maryland. It was rolling the whole way, and I started to feel really good in the second half of the run. I went 15.25 miles at an overall 7:18 pace, finishing 6:43, 6:47, 6:51, 6:36, and feeling great and very much "alive" in those last four...not pushing, just cruising.
Good to hear from you Allen, and all the best...
Hey, Alllen...
I just posted my 4/9 week to the road racing and trainng thread for the week ending on 4/9.