This is just a little observation I have noticed with my own fitness. This year I have done practically all of my base phase workouts in single runs, and last year I did doubles about 3 days a week. I find the boost in my fitness is quite significant since I've started doing the runs as singles.
I feel better running doubles. When I actually examine my mileage I compare the 7 longest runes of the week (or w/e, I don't count the doubles is what I'm saying) because I don't think 4 miles in the AM really contributes to your fitness, what it does is allows me to do more work that can contribute to my fitness.
Running 7 runs a week usually leaves me with less miles/month than looking at the longest 7 runs of weeks with 9-11 runs, just because something always comes up to ruin my weeks of singles, be it injuries or tightness or apathy.
I bet you're not running over 90 miles per week.
KnowItAlll wrote:
I bet you're not running over 90 miles per week.
True -- I probably should have said that. I'm running currently around 80 mpw. I think once I get passed 80 I'll more or less have to go doubles. But I was running 70 mpw last year and it was mostly doubles -- gauging my fitness now in comparison to then, I would have to say that for a moderate mileage week like 70-80 mpw, singles are the way to go.
Thanks for your revolutionary theory!
sfdfsdf wrote:
True -- I probably should have said that. I'm running currently around 80 mpw. I think once I get passed 80 I'll more or less have to go doubles. But I was running 70 mpw last year and it was mostly doubles -- gauging my fitness now in comparison to then, I would have to say that for a moderate mileage week like 70-80 mpw, singles are the way to go.[/quote]
Therefore, you agree with the idea that doubles are good for high mileage runners and would also agree that breaking up a 56 mile week of daily 8 mile runs into fourteen 4 mile runs is counterproductive.
Doubles are far better when you run enough miles to warrant them. Your notion of needing doubles after 80 mpw makes sense and is contrary to your thread title.
Admit it, you don't believe Malmo exists, and your friends dared you to make this thread in an attempt to summon him. Oh, he's all too real, boy. And soon you'll see.
-a doubler
doubling lets me go straight to 80 mpw rather than starting at like 55 and working my way up. This saves a lot of time in getting to max mileage and reduces the risk of injury. Maxing out in singles and THEN adding doubles really, really sucks.
Nice post. This OP's post was clearly malmo bait.
I agree. I hit 80-85 and can't stand doubles, haven't done them in years. I don't think it becomes 'necessary' until about 100mpw. I much prefer 5 runs/workouts of 9-12 miles, one workout day totaling 12-13 miles, and a 15-18 mile long run.
agree. I hate doubles in the base period.
Plenty Fast: I don't think 4 miles in the AM really contributes to your fitness
Having first tried doubles by more or less adding that 4 miler 5-6 days a week to what I was already doing, I'm 100% convinced it helps more than most of us would guess.
That said, I very much agree with your main point that a day (or several days) of 5 + 11 is in some ways easier than just 11.
I always double, hit around 55-60 miles a week. but I also prob avg 5:45 for those 55-60 miles at the end of the week. including workouts and stuff. but i'm also one of those guys you hate who run low mileage and run 1:50 800 all the way to under 30:00 for 10k. It works for me, and everybodys body handles different things.
Let's look at the best distance runner the world has ever seen...Haile Geb....5 days a week he ran 10k to school and then 10k back....those are called doubles....He's the best distance runner ever, point and case...
you'd be faster if you ran more. if you can run that fast on low mileage, you were born with talent and you have little to be proud of other than your genes
wilfredo wrote:
you'd be faster if you ran more. if you can run that fast on low mileage, you were born with talent and you have little to be proud of other than your genes
I'm probably one of the least genetically gifted runners there are. Listen, all I'm arguing is that 80 mpw in singles is better than 80 mpw in doubles. Once you get to 100 mpw -- then yes, I guess doubles are in order.
wilfredo wrote:
you'd be faster if you ran more. if you can run that fast on low mileage, you were born with talent and you have little to be proud of other than your genes
na, ran up to 80 for cross this season and only could manage a 31 for 10k and tanked pretty bad a regionals. I do better off hammering lower mileage and doing workouts that are 1500 based sessions.
Plenty Fast wrote:
I don't think 4 miles in the AM really contributes to your fitness, what it does is allows me to do more work that can contribute to my fitness.
What you just said is that it contributes to your fitness.
but sex with two girls is always better than one no matter how religious you are.
sfdfsdf wrote:
wilfredo wrote:you'd be faster if you ran more. if you can run that fast on low mileage, you were born with talent and you have little to be proud of other than your genes
I'm probably one of the least genetically gifted runners there are. Listen, all I'm arguing is that 80 mpw in singles is better than 80 mpw in doubles. Once you get to 100 mpw -- then yes, I guess doubles are in order.
I would say that you lack perspective. I know guys who've trained for years, and have progressed from 40min 10ks to 33min 10ks. Given your alleged times and training, you are talented, whether you believe it or not. And your average run is on par with Gebrselassie's average run. Maybe you're running too fast too often.