The Shorter The Race Distance, The More Running Sessions Per Week!!!

Would 3x a day be better still? Why or why not?

For what it's worth, darkness, I ran 2x a day for many years - for middle distance.

Darkness,

Could you explain how running twice a day effects the production of HGH (or do you have an article you could link to)?

Skuj wrote: I happen to think that around the 2hr mark of a training run, much benefit is gleaned for marathoners. And if we do such a duration only once a week, we, as in Marathoners, are sacrificing something. 120min, not 2x60min. OK, 60min obvioulsy works sometimes. But imho, marathoners should go long often. Specificity and all that.

Discuss.

There was a recently thread entitled "2 hour runs" -

I recall a couple runners mentioned as having made two hour runs their bread and butter and enjoyed some level of success for a while.

Me, I think trying to wedge two or more 2:00 runs into a week would crowd out some of the other things I need as part of a balanced marathon training diet - long MP runs, additional tempo-ish running, a few short fast repeats, daily doubles, some easy recovery days. Wouldn't be surprised if some minority of marathoners would benefit from multiple two hour runs a week. We're not all clones; there's some range in capacity for and response to different types of training.

What do you suspect most marathoners should sacrifice to make room for a second long run each week? What's your proposed week look like?

Oh, and as for "specificity and all that" I feel that longish MP runs are even more marathon-specific for me than plain old long runs. I like one of each per week but would drop the long run before I'd let go of the MP day if I hadda pick just one. I also believe there's much overlap in the benefits of long runs vs. those of high overall weekly volume, so if you're doing the latter the former is less of an absolute necessity.

Finally, my trollometer reads 8/10. Is that about right or should I have it recalibrated?

mike musyocki only ran once a day, i have seen his schedule in runners world and the book train hard win easy his scedule for a non week would be.

day 1 an hour run, usually 20 kilometers

day 2 and 3 same as day 1

day 4 8-12 x 400 in 60-65 seconds

day 5 same as days 123

day 6 usually a race if not track workout or hour run.

day 7 off to let the body recover.

musyocki was a top runner on the roads for well over a decade, on the track he got bronze in the olympic 10k in 1984 i believe, he was also outstanding in cross country, he had world road records from 10k to the half marathon, he only ran one marathon that i know of chicago in 21030, after he ran a world road record a journalist asked him about his low mileage 50-70 a week, he said well he does it 52 weeks a year and the races are only a little faster than his regular day hour run.

Skuj wrote:

"But, this is the way it's always been done...."

Are we training perfectly? Are there other methods that we will be exploring in decades to come? Possibly?

I'm trying to look forward, not backwards. Training is a science and an art. Gravity is not art. You cannot argue with it, or debate it.

Look at training 20, 50 years ago.

Kents, they can recover in 10-12hrs from WHAT, exactly?

Guys run multiple 2hr sessions in a week, look at the Jap marathoners. The thing is, you cant do it fast.

Elite marathoners are elite for a reason. One of these reasons is their ability to recover quickly from one session to the next.

Why wait 24hours to run again, when their body is recovered and ready to go in half that time? They can recover from almost anything in 10-12hours. But, running that long takes a bigger toll on your body - so they would have to either 1) not run that fast over the 2 hours or 2) take longer to recover from it...

I'm not saying slower long runs dont have their place every now and again - but for top flight marathoners, these type of runs are few and far between. It's better to go 90 at a steady pace and not get beat up than 120 at a slower pace and get beat up...

What are you trying to get out of running 2hrs? This is not specific to their needs. They need to run fast.

You may be looking ahead - but what your talking about is being done and has already been done. Lydiards marathon buildup, Jap marathoners today, ultra runners. These methods have been/are being explored.

Oh, and it's not "...the way it's always been done...."

Skuj,

I follow your posts well and respect most of what you say (although I disagree most times with your arrogance), but I have to say, you are incorrect in which you state that "even successful 800m/1500m doubling at the highest levels is a thing of the past".

Do I need to mention the names Rachid Ramzi and Kelly Holmes, both within the recent Olympics (2004) and World Championships (2005) that SUCCESSFULLY doubled GOLD. I feel Alan Webb could do the same, as could Medhi Baala and a few others.

So I must no longer read this post, as you must have been in a cave to have missed those two great doubles. Perhaps a better analogy would have been that no one doubles in the 400/800 anymore, a la Juantorena.

Ramzi and holmes are near the end of this era of 800-1500 doubling and winning. Webb and Baala, and others, are good, but they won't win 800-1500 double at major championships. It's over! (Soon.) :) Same with 5000-10000, and especially 10000-Marathon, in my "arrogant?" opinion.

Charlie, that was a lovely post. And Kents....thanks for your thoughts....digesting....morning coffee....

you are entitled to your opinion, but the marathon stars of tommorrow are the 5/10k stars of today, anyone who wants to beat gebs 20426 will have to be capable of under 13 for 5k and 27 for 10k, same with the 21525 that will be broke probably by werknesh kidane or meseret defar or tirunesh dibaba or vivian cheriyiot, the people who are good in the 5 and 10k have more potential then some guy who runs 20-30 miles a day, but rarely goes under 6 minutes per mile, the marathon has become a race where you basically have to be comfortoble at 444 per mile, speed matters. the men most likely to break the marathon record keninisa bekele, tadesse wanjiru, sihine, note none have run a marathon yet.

Skuj wrote:

This is what I meant, then: :)

postulate

verb postulated, postulating

Let me help you. To 'postulate' means to claim or assume the existence or truth of something. It is not a guess. When you say future WR holders in the marathon will run only once per day, you are stating an unwavering belief in the truthfulness of that statement. Therefore, either you did not understand the meaning of the word 'postulate' or you are a marathon training neophyte. Perhaps you are both. Either way, you are wrong about something.

douglas burke wrote:

you are entitled to your opinion, but the marathon stars of tommorrow are the 5/10k stars of today, anyone who wants to beat gebs 20426 will have to be capable of under 13 for 5k and 27 for 10k, same with the 21525 that will be broke probably by werknesh kidane or meseret defar or tirunesh dibaba or vivian cheriyiot, the people who are good in the 5 and 10k have more potential then some guy who runs 20-30 miles a day, but rarely goes under 6 minutes per mile, the marathon has become a race where you basically have to be comfortoble at 444 per mile, speed matters. the men most likely to break the marathon record keninisa bekele, tadesse wanjiru, sihine, note none have run a marathon yet.

Agree somewhat, and I say that it will be after they move away from 5k/10k focus. Either / or, but not both at once.

I'll give my 2 cents here. Since I've started running more mileage over the last year and a half in preparation to finally run a marathon I've completely re-sculpted my body. I was 150 lbs+ (5'10.5") from 18 years of age until 30. I'm now between 140 and 143 lbs. I haven't tried to loose this weight (I still eat multiple servings of ice cream each week!) but I think the mileage that I've been doing has changed my body from a middle-distance type into a distance type. I don't think this would have happened if I had only run three 2 hour runs per week with short recovery runs in between.

However, it may be the case that once an efficient body type has been achieved (either genetically or through training; side note: I've noted that a lot of the naturally light elite runners I've met often do less mileage than naturally heavier runners; this could be because they are injury prone, but could also be because they just don't need to do the "sculpting work") you can then focus on specificity. Steve Jones apparently ran a schedule that looks something like this:

M, W, F - 40 minutes easy

T, Th, Sa - am 90 minutes fartlek (paces between 5k-marathon)

pm 40 minutes recovery

S - 90 minutes steady (5:45/mile pace)

Benji Durden also advocates a schedule like this.

So, why not multiple 2 hour+ runs a week with recovery in between. The whole run doesn't need to be easy. In the pattern of Steve Jones (but perhaps without the second 40 minute run) something like this could be tried:

Workout 1 - marathon specific - 2:15:00 (60 minutes easy, 75 minutes alternating 5000m at goal marathon pace with 1000m float)

Workout 2 - long easy-moderate run - 3:00:00 plus ala Gebre

Workout 3 - progression run - 2:15:00 (15 minutes easy, 30 minutes at 85% marathon effort (not pace), 30 minutes at 90%, 30 minutes at 95%, 30 minutes at 100%)

Runs on recovery days would include 30-45 minutes easy

Above are two examples of runners who used the type of schedule that Skuj speculates about (one being a former marathon world record holder). Perhaps other equally or more talented runners actually haven't attempted this type of schedule.

Hey Skuj, I'm going to be visiting your neck of the woods over the next couple of weeks (I'll send you an email to let you know why).

Jerry

Jerry!!!

You gonna pace me to a sub 35 10k tomorrow? :) 11am, Miracle Beeatch! Do you know what 3:30/km feels like? Hahaha (JZ ran a 2:17 Marathon just recently.)

I swear I was about to provide an example of a week with 2-3 Biggies in it, and tiny ones inbetween.

What exactly had Geb been doing, anyone?

I won't be there until the afternoon or evening tomorrow. Otherwise I would've helped you out for sure. Geb apparently got his mileage up to about 156 miles per week with his long run up to 4 hours. So, not every naturally slight runner does lower mileage obviously! However, I wonder if, at his level, the extra mileage is done just because he can. Did his breakthrough occur because of any small increase of mileage of because (as he mentioned in his interview after the race) he focused on long endurance workouts rather than speed. Perhaps it's workouts like his 4 hour run that allowed him to make this jump? I don't know what his training looks like, but if he has 2 days that equal 30 miles each and another as far as 40, then on the other 4 days he only needs to average 14 miles to get to his 156 mile total. Hmmmm ...

JZ wrote: Above are two examples of runners who used the type of schedule that Skuj speculates about (one being a former marathon world record holder).

Huh? You mean Jones, that that schedule you quoted? So you're counting three or four runs of 90 minutes as "close enough" to multiple 2 hour runs?

Hey, if that extra 30 minutes (or 45 to 90, as you go on to suggest) doesn't seem like much to you, doesn't take more out of you and demand greater recovery, by all means go for it and pack in more of those 2-3 hour runs! Let us know how it works out for you.

Although there is little correlation between male US elite marathoners' times and # of runs/week, there is a almost 100% coorelation between more # of runs and faster times in elite females. -Running Times

Also according to Pete Pftzinger lab report, you decide whether they are credible or not, the race distance just determines the mileage at which double days are added. The shorter the race the lower mileage at which you do doubles. For a marathon there is no point to doing doubles unless your over 80 mpw, but for the 1500 you can throw them in at 55mpw. At least that's what Pete says.

Bedellympian wrote:

Although there is little correlation between male US elite marathoners' times and # of runs/week, -Running Times

This is because the national class and elite males were all running 12-14 times per week.

I'm am speculating of course, but I'm also taking out that extra 90 minute steady run (Sunday) and the extra 40 minutes that Steve ran on his hard days (if you add it up he was running 2:10:00 three days/week plus the extra 90 minute steady). So, why not combine the volume of 2 of those days to do two 2:10:00 runs and on the third day go long and easy? You don't need to do any more intensity during those efforts. Instead, you are just running that extra 40 minutes before going into the hard section of the workout. This is something that Canova actually recommends for some of his 20km fartlek workouts like 10 x 1000m with 1000m float (E.g. 15km easy, 20km fartlek, 3km easy) If you do a long run before it you deplete some of your glycogen stores and increase the effectiveness of the float recoveries (the purpose of these floats being to teach your slow twitch muscle fibers to use lactic acid as a fuel).

And for the 3-4 hour long run you don't necessarily have to make it more stressful than your 2 hour+ progression or pace change sessions. If it's done at a comfortable pace the main benefit (besides fat burning) is muscular endurance; just learning to be on your feet for an extended period.

Anyways, perhaps I might try something like this in the future, but like I said, for now I am still in the process of doing higher mileage in order to first become a distance runner. Still not there yet!

JZ wrote: I'm am speculating of course, but I'm also taking out that extra 90 minute steady run (Sunday) and the extra 40 minutes that Steve ran on his hard days (if you add it up he was running 2:10:00 three days/week plus the extra 90 minute steady). So, why not combine the volume of 2 of those days to do two 2:10:00 runs

Having done plenty of ~2:10 runs and 90 + 40 days - as it happens, each is a staple for me - I can tell you with absolute assurance that these are far from equivalent in terms of what they take out of me and how I recover. Sounds good on paper, works out differently on the roads. For me.

Your mileage may well vary.

And for the 3-4 hour long run you don't necessarily have to make it more stressful than your 2 hour+ progression or pace change sessions.

I've done a number of runs around 3 hours too, though not in these last couple years. Prior to that I was both a bit slower and more convinced of the need for the standard twenty miler, which took me close to 3 hours. My experience was, they're inherently more stressful because even at an easy jog, that third hour just beats up my muscles too much. This has meant either the rest of my week really suffered as I ran short and easy to recover and/or eventual injury.

Could be that if I were younger (than 40), lighter, quicker, more symmetrical (I have something - leg length? hip alignment? muscular imbalance? - which keeps my right side tighter and more injury prone than my left, but have learned to work around it), that I'd tolerate these runs better. Then again a number of people have tried very long long runs and very few recommend them as a regular thing. I assume many have experiences broadly similar to mine, not worth it.

Again, your mileage may vary. We're not all exactly alike. Though we're also not so radically different that broad principles don't apply to at least 98% of us.

General principle: anything that requires extra days of recovery better be doing you more good than whatever you're sacrificing because of it.

JZ, off topic a little: I'm home now. Hope all is well. (ie Regarding the reason for your visit.)