ak4runnin wrote: I just said you will get more fit if you can handle singles.
That's complete nonsense.
ak4runnin wrote: I just said you will get more fit if you can handle singles.
That's complete nonsense.
ak4runnin wrote:
My answer to that is if a hs kid is doing a 50 mile week how is it too high how is a 12.5 mile run too long? Even someone doing 70 miles a week 17.5 is not too long.
Short Answer: unnecessary acute overload, potential drawbacks outweigh potential benefits.
This is a really good thread. I'm gonna bookmark this for sure.
I don't agree with malmo on everything, but running doubles we see eye-to-eye.
Distance runners are some of the only athletes who think to be on the highest level you can train once a day.
I know other sports aren't completely comparable, but you'd never see a football or soccer player working out just once a day. They break their workouts into two sessions, with different goals for each.
What makes distance running so different? If you can run twice a day you can accomplish two different training goals in a single day. Most days it will be recovery and something else [endurance, strength, speed, vo2max, etc] but recovering and then doing a workout will make that workout better, and help you not overtrain. Compare that to trying to run those miles all at once, now you've got no recovery and one higher volume workout that puts more stress on your body.
I've always said you need to focus on one training stimulus at a time, trying to do everything at once just lowers the accomplishment of all of them.
Not sure of the necessity of doubles every day for a 1500-3000 type, but it does have a scientific physiological basis for the longer distances. It leads to further development of glycolytic enzyme production. Doubles for others could lead to a powerful psychological advantage as well as increased metabolism, recovery etc. A good rule of thumb would be if the morning workout interferes with the afternoon workout, don't do it. Of course this depends on which is the primary workout. Hey....they should all serve a purpose.
Ninetonite wrote:
I did one 20 miler in university, in 2:20, more for the mental benefits of having run one
Those benefits are mythical.
Ray wrote:
Doubles for others could lead to a powerful psychological advantage as well as increased metabolism, recovery etc.
How does running more often improve recovery?
I'm going for my first 70 mile week this week, and this is what I have scheduled.
[MON] PM 5mi easy/shakeout. + Shin exercises
[TUE] 11 total
AM 3mi easy/shakeout
PM (8) 3x1mi tempo w/1mi rest. 1mi warmup, 1mi cooldown.
[WED] 10 total
AM 3mi aerobic threshold 0.5mi wu, 0.5mi cd.
PM 5mi aerobic threshold 0.5mi wu, 0.5mi cd.
+Isometric Abdominal routine
[THU] 11 total
AM 3mi easy/shakeout
PM (8) 6x800m tempo w/800 rest. 1mi wu, 1micd.
[FRI] 10 total
AM 4mi aerobic threshold 0.5mi wu, 0.5mi cd.
PM 4mi aerobic threshold 0.5mi wu, 0.5mi cd.
+Back routine.
[SAT] 11 total
AM 4mi easy/shakeout
PM 5mi tempo run. 1mi wu, 1mi cd.
[SUN] AM 10 mile LR. + 0.5mi wu, 0.5mi cd.
Initially, this increases blood flow, which improves recovery, and after it becomes routine, the body will learn to recover in order to allow it to run twice a day.
After running doubles for months, running once a day may seem like a day off and two days may seem like an entire week off, since you miss 4 runs!
The body adapts specifically to a specific stress.
You can run 15 miles in one run every day but at what cost? Unless you are at an elite level, adhering to perfect nutrition, getting 10 hours of sleep, and possibly getting shot up full of stimilants like you're on the Biggest Loser you'll likely just tear down your body faster than you can rebuild and adapt.
The amount of training you do is limited by the amount of rest/recovery you need.
Instead run a 10/5 double and your body adapts to running every 6-12 hours. That improves the body's ability to recover. Also, A 10/5 is easier to recover from than a 15 straight. Most of your recovery/adaptation occurs during sleep, while some of it occurs while you are not running. Example:
8am: Run 10 miles.
9am: consume mass quantities of carbs and protein to start the recovery/adaptation process
9am-5pm: eat, daily activities....your body is in the recovery process
5pm: Run 5 miles.
5:30pm: consume mass quantities of carbs and protein to start the recovery/adaptation process
Compare to a single run of 15 in which the recovery process is so great that it may negatively effect the next day's run. The stimuli of 10 and 5 miles is LESS than the single stimulis of the 15 mile run.
Something like that...:)
Alan
I would say 10/5 is MORE of a stimulis then the 15 single run. Neuromu-stim would be greater with two runs per day then one run. You are doing the activity twice a day with 4-12 hours between compared with 24 hours between the exercise bout.
myo-worker wrote:
I would say 10/5 is MORE of a stimulus than the 15 single run. Neuromu-stim would be greater with two runs per day then one run. You are doing the activity twice a day with 4-12 hours between compared with 22-23 hours between the exercise bout.
Well put. Lays a good foundation early and then allows for increasing mileage and intensity later on.
There are some people who just do singles that run high mileage, but not as many do doubles. It is funny how many people get so bent out of shape on this subject. The reality is many have never done both to really compare the two. I have done both and for right around two years for both stints (purely singles and majority doubles). For me I found that for singles I did feel stronger, but it was a lot of running. I really could only handle about 4 days of 90 minutes or more. The other 3 days I did 45-60 minutes. I was aerobically strong, but felt my turnover was lacking even when doing a lot of strides and faster work.
When doing doubles I did recover better and my second runs were much easier and rhythmic, but it was very difficult to run 2x 5days or more a week. I found after doing both that doubles 3-4 times a week was optimal for me. Less mentally taxing than going out everyday 2x, it allowed me to have a couple of days a week 90+ min, and also build in enough high quality to run well.
Zat0pek wrote:
I once (many years ago) did a very informal and unscientific review of guys who were major high school studs AND (this is the tricky part) kept getting better after high school. I looked at the high school training of guys like Liquori, Virgin, Pre, (I don't include Ryun because he's the exception to practically everything) etc. and a pattern emerged.
The pattern was essentially no fewer than 50/week and no more than 70/week, with a lot of variety of paces and distances. Long runs weren't more than 15. Virgin has said that his senior year (in which he never ran a 2M OVER 9:00) he only had three workouts: 10 x 400, fartlek on a golf course, and a ten-mile run and he just rotated through them each day. His explanation? "You need all three, speed, strength and endurance, so I just kept repeating that."
If there is a "key" for high school runners, I think that's it. No extreme in any direction and a lot of variety.
this makes sense and matches my own experience. 50-70 week and mix it up a lot - fartlek, intervals of different distances, hills, easy runs, thresholds, LR of ~20% of total weekly mileage, etc.
777 wrote:
I'm not malmo, but on his "manifesto" here:
http://pih.bc.ca/malmosmanifesto.htmlHe has these "rules" for training:
1. Run twice a day, as many days as you can. Hopefully five, six or seven days a week.
2. Run more. How much? I dunno. You figure it out, but find out for yourself.
3. Run it faster.
4. Love running and LOVE racing.
5. Stay focused.
6. Set goals and don't be afraid to fail.
7. Listen to your body and don't be afraid to rest.
8. Compete WITH your comrades in sweat - never AGAINST them.
9. Smile a lot.
I think they are great suggestions. You can't tell a high school runner "you must run X miles per week to win a state title." How the hell do you know how much someone else needs to run? The ONLY way is to find out for yourself.
Exceptional synopsis for aspiring runners and conscientious coaches at all levels of the sport. Recommended copying and posting for regular review.
wondering wrote:
Ray wrote:Doubles for others could lead to a powerful psychological advantage as well as increased metabolism, recovery etc.
How does running more often improve recovery?
Who knows but as one who has experience weighing longer single runs per day vs. running doubles with shorter "upsides" both personally and through a ton of other runners, I can tell you that the doubling works a whole lot better.
If doing 16 miles per day is the right training for you, then doing 3 in the morning and then the normal 16 later will most likely make you a faster runner.
Morning runs (or secondary runs if your morning run is your primary one) shouldn't take anything out of you. Take them easy and slow enough so that you can still get the most out of your primary session, and it'll make you a better runner.
I don't know what the mechanisms are, but they just flat out work. Maybe not 100% of runners will benefit, but I'd put big money on it being in the upper 90s. I've seen it help runners of all levels.
If you don't want to make the extra commitment to get to bed earlier or squeeze out a little bit of time from something else, that's fine, but don't pretend that you're trying to optimize your running. Really though, how difficult is it to try and find a little extra time to get in a jog of 15, 30, 45 minutes per day?
If you're trying to see how good you can get with running and you don't try doubles, you're just in denial.
For those of you who don't want to double because of family/work/school/social commitments--fine. That's your priority, but it's silly to say that running once per day will make most runners better than if they'd run twice per day.
Sorry, I was replying to this post.
ak4runnin wrote:
My answer is this... if I am running a normal run of 16 then why do a 3 mile run in the morning. That would give 21 extra mile for the week, but 21 extra pointless miles.
slightly off topic but still a question for Malmo. On your website you have a comprehensive list of mens results at Outdoor NCAA's all time. Do you have a similar set of results for Women? Or even men/women Indoor? It would be brilliant to have them. Thanks
stato wrote:
slightly off topic but still a question for Malmo. On your website you have a comprehensive list of mens results at Outdoor NCAA's all time. Do you have a similar set of results for Women? Or even men/women Indoor? It would be brilliant to have them. Thanks
Yes I agree, it would be brilliant to have lists like that. If you can find them I'd gladly post them for you.