Any HSer running that kind of mileage should be able to Gallowalk a 4:30 mile. This is BS. 18 mile long runs at 6:45 over a hilly route will produce much faster 2 mile times.
Any HSer running that kind of mileage should be able to Gallowalk a 4:30 mile. This is BS. 18 mile long runs at 6:45 over a hilly route will produce much faster 2 mile times.
I Smell Troll... wrote:
Any HSer running that kind of mileage should be able to Gallowalk a 4:30 mile. This is BS. 18 mile long runs at 6:45 over a hilly route will produce much faster 2 mile times.
Probably true, unless he's just exhausted from the mileage which is also a possibility. I definitely smell some BS, or some poor training. Sometimes they smell the same.
maybe the kid with 90 in singles has just improved and is running more than he was during the winter/track season last year. Who knows, maybe he'll run a 9:20 3200 next year.
I'm sure if you look through some of the old Hanson boys logs...120-150 miles a week at some point...and count up the longer of the daily runs you'd almost have to count close to 100 in singles. I think a 14/6 day would be much easier than a 10/10 day.
Alan
dude you should be running 8:59 with that kind of training.
I do 100 mile weeks on singles once and a while. Mostly just because I hate doubles. Here is how I did it earlier this year:
May
Monday - 14 Easy
Tuesday - 14 Easy
Wednesday - 3.2 w/u, 1/2 strides, 6x 600(200 jog), 200(400 jog), 3.2 c/d
Thursday - 14 Easy
Friday - 6.25 w/u, 6 @ 5:19, 2 c/d
Saturday - 12 Easy
Sunday - 20 Easy/Med
Usually when I run a 100 mile week it has 1 double in it. Now when I get to 140 it's a different story, usually 5 doubles.
Runningart2004 wrote:I think a 14/6 day would be much easier than a 10/10 day.
I'm 100 percent positive it's the other way around.
im sorry but you suck for all that running you are doing
you are leaving 42 miles on the table by not running that easy 6, every morning, like i did when i ran 2 a days and 100-130 mpw
simple math.... wrote:
you are leaving 42 miles on the table by not running that easy 6, every morning, like i did when i ran 2 a days and 100-130 mpw
Please tell me what this has to do with the discussion at hand? It isn't IF you should do 100, it's IF you should do them in singles or doubles. You are "leaving on the table" 70 mpw if you don't run 10 miles per day longer on your singles too.
Serious? wrote:
simple math.... wrote:you are leaving 42 miles on the table by not running that easy 6, every morning, like i did when i ran 2 a days and 100-130 mpw
Please tell me what this has to do with the discussion at hand? It isn't IF you should do 100, it's IF you should do them in singles or doubles. You are "leaving on the table" 70 mpw if you don't run 10 miles per day longer on your singles too.
Yes
Um, there is something seriously wrong with your race times vs. training volume and paces. I am a fan of volume but don't think that it is working for you.
To be honest, I don't buy the fact that you training pace can be 6:30-7 but you can't run faster than 9:59. What have you run for the 5K?
I also don't see what your cross team "sucking" has to do with anything. Those 7:00-pace runs are just about where you should be for aerobic training with those PR's. Your times frankly aren't any good, even for a HS frosh.
Runningart2004 wrote: I think a 14/6 day would be much easier than a 10/10 day.
malmo wrote: I'm 100 percent positive it's the other way around.
Maybe Alan and I are just odd. Well, OK, for both Alan and me "maybe" is a little weak.
But malmo, I'm tellin ya, I've fooled around with the mileage split and though my intuition and some others' experience said 50/50 ought to be easiest, that's not how it plays out for me.
If I'm running about as high a weekly volume as I can tolerate, with a 50/50 split I seem to just keep accumulating fatigue until I must cut back. Same volume but keep one run per day easy and around 4-5 (30-40 minute range for me) (1) and let the other one be considerably longer, and I get enough recovery to keep it going ad infinitum.
Maybe that's an artifact of needing more recovery at my age, and/or maybe in another year or two I'll be stronger and running higher volume at closer to a 50/50 balance.
(1) If we can believe Noakes, Deek was but one of several guys who also liked one run per day of this duration.
I started running 100 mpw this summer to get ready for an upcoming marathon. After a few weeks of running them i got used to the miles but im still tierd physically and mentally all the time.
Sunday-16
Monday am-10 pm-6
Tuesday am-10 pm-5
Wednesday am 13
thursday am 10 pm 5
Friday am 13
Saturday am 12
Higher mileage (80+) is really quite simple if you alternate long/hard with short/recovery days. Emerica you are tired because you never have the opportunity to recover. 16, 16, 15, 13, 15, 13, 12=no recovery. Try something like 10 (single), 17 (11,6), 10 (single), 19 (12,7), 8 (single), 18 (12,6), 18 (single). Should help you feel better...
Depends what you're training for really, but doubles are almost always safer and easier on the body.
A marathoner may want to do singles because, hell, he has to run a lot farther than say a 5k guy.
Typically your miles will be faster in doubles. When you have to run 14 miles on Tuesday, are you gonna run faster doing an 8 and a 6 or a 14-miler? Obviously the two shorter runs will be faster which may be better for someone training for track or most xc races.
Mentally, doubles are easier if you're running your mileage at the pace you should. I've run singles for up to 100 mpw and am spent every week I'm over 85ish. I've felt better doubling 100+ mpw.
Work/school/life also factor in... if you have to sacrifice sleep for the double then obviously it's gonna make that harder.
Overall, doubles are going to be the best fit for most high school and college runners while singles are more suitable for guys running longer races, imho of course.
I'm not a troll. This last track season was my junior year. I got injured my sophomore (track) and took 11 months completely off of running before I could return. I was running 85 mile weeks in doubles (70-15) before I was injured. Mileage had nothing to do with the injury it was weird and I don't wanna go there. I had ***NO*** base for track. I used track as a means to get back into form with my running. By the end of the season I was running 61 miles. I only ran 4:51/9:59 because of this. Okay? Sorry for the confusion. I don't have a lot of natural talent, but I still think with training I can break 15:30 for the 5k in XC this year and break 15 on the track next spring. These are high goals, but I'm dedicated to achieving them. I've been at work since my last post, and just got done with a 12 mile run now. I swear to you all that the 18 milers at 6:45 were done, and I am in shape to break 9:45 on any day I want right now.
BTW frosh year on almost no training I ran 4:43/10:13. I ran 9:31 3k soph year at an indoor track while running through an 85 mile week in doubles. I'm not bragging (times arent even worth bragging) just trying to defend the training I've been doing and make you understand that I'm not terribly unnaturally talented, just haven't trained to race for a very long time.
Doubles give you another source of variation in your running (quite apart from all the other potential benefits). There's few sensible routes to 100mpw in singles that aren't small variants of Lydiard's famous schedule.
20 miles is a long way in a single run for nearly everyone. 2 x 10 miles is surprisingly easy. Once you've done 20 on Sunday, 2 x 10 on each of Tuesday and Thursday you've only got to do 40 miles the remaining 4 days which can easily be something like 8,9,11, 12. Now, that's not an ideal way to 100, but if real life gets in the way of your running, so be it.
If you are training for 5K xc in high school, I wouldn't do singles for 100MPW. You do need some speed, so a balence should try to be found. But races longer than 90 minutes you should probably experiment with singles for 100MPW.
Long slow runs produce long slow runners.