I am trying to decide at what distance a second run of a double gets too short to bother, that is, it adds fatigue without training benefit. If I do 10 in the morning, is it worth doing a double if my second run is only 25 minutes? 20 minutes?
I am trying to decide at what distance a second run of a double gets too short to bother, that is, it adds fatigue without training benefit. If I do 10 in the morning, is it worth doing a double if my second run is only 25 minutes? 20 minutes?
i think in JK's training wisdom it was suggested 20min is about the minimum. could be less though if you're just doing it to shakeout the legs for the main workout/race later in the day
Brian wrote:
I don't get why throw two days away with a mere 5 mile run. I think in this scenario, I'd run 9 instead of 5 on those days and ditch the AM run on T/Fri. I don't see why I would even leave the house for a mere 5 miles unless it was a second run or a double. It takes me that long just to get warmed up.
Because 9 miles is not a recovery run for me when my long-run is 13 to 14 and my medium-long run is 10. Frankly I'm amazed that people can run that far and call it recovery.
The schedule is planned with doubles on workout days to make those days that much longer/harder. Then the easy days are especially easy to allow for recovery.
Also, between the long run, medium long, sprint day, and two workouts, I feel like I'm doing something "quality" 5 days out of the week. In that context two very easy recovery days seems reasonable. To me, at least.
"Because 9 miles is not a recovery run for me when my long-run is 13 to 14 and my medium-long run is 10. Frankly I'm amazed that people can run that far and call it recovery."
Easy means pace, not distance. When I ran my best (14:56 5k, 31:13 10k, 1:08:30 half) I did 90 a week with a long run of only 14 or occasionally 15. Easy runs always slower than 7:00 pace. Tempos in the 5:10-5:20 range and nothing in between. I don't know how so many people got so fixated on an unalterable slavish weekly long run that is so much longer than their regular daily total. In Lydiard's system, the long run was only 2 hours in a 100 mile week. As Malmo says, why do such a long single run if you are picking your nose the rest of the week.
Why a "sprint day" and two workouts or 5 days of quality. More is not better with workouts - you can only benefit from so many. This would be like benching or doing curls 5 days a week for a bodybuilder - you can benefit from a shitload of aerobic volume, but your neuromuscular system can only benefit by so much hard quality - it has to recover between efforts. Read Lydiard and Snell's training. Too many middle distance runners hammer away at their "speed" when what they need is more endurance. How many middle distance runner do I know that can run a set of 400's in :60 but can't run a mile in 4:10? It isn't more speed they need, but more stamina. If you can, for example, do 8 x 400m at a significantly faster pace than you can race a mile, you need to stop doing 400's (as this kind of speed is largely geneic and you won't lose it) and do some 5k/10k work (higher volumes/longer intervals with shorter recovery) and more aerobic volume so you can run closer to your top end for longer.
The answer to the original question is "YES"
middle distance guy: Because 9 miles is not a recovery run for me when my long-run is 13 to 14 and my medium-long run is 10. Frankly I'm amazed that people can run that far and call it recovery.
Brian: Easy means pace, not distance.
But on page 2 you said:
I will feel like ass after 90 minutes of running when my breathing is so slow I could recite the Gettysburg Address.
If you "feel like ass" after a very easy 90 minutes, surely it's not a huge stretch from there to admitting 70 minutes might not be "recovery" for most of us.
Two easy quickies, now that's a recovery day. Get eight or ten miles, get the blood moving and the muscles limber, and keep the body on its routines, living like a clock.
Brian wrote:
Why a "sprint day" and two workouts or 5 days of quality. More is not better with workouts - you can only benefit from so many. This would be like benching or doing curls 5 days a week for a bodybuilder - you can benefit from a shitload of aerobic volume, but your neuromuscular system can only benefit by so much hard quality - it has to recover between efforts. Read Lydiard and Snell's training. Too many middle distance runners hammer away at their "speed" when what they need is more endurance. How many middle distance runner do I know that can run a set of 400's in :60 but can't run a mile in 4:10? It isn't more speed they need, but more stamina. If you can, for example, do 8 x 400m at a significantly faster pace than you can race a mile, you need to stop doing 400's (as this kind of speed is largely geneic and you won't lose it) and do some 5k/10k work (higher volumes/longer intervals with shorter recovery) and more aerobic volume so you can run closer to your top end for longer.
I completely agree with you about the need for more stamina. That's why I run XC in the fall, that's why I'll spend the next few months trying to be the best 5k/10k guy I can be. However, I can't completely transform myself. I need to keep an eye to the future, and that means understanding that come January I go back to the track and my primary events.
As such, I still need to keep in touch with the tools that I'll need to run a fast 800 - and that means sprint speed. I can't ignore it from now through the end of December. I have to maintain it, or hell, maybe improve upon it. All this while doing the tempos, long runs, repeats at 5k and 10k race pace, double days, etc. that will help me run a fast 5k.
That's part of why I love the middle distances, I'm a hybrid of distance runner and sprinter, and I get to work it from both ends. Well...ok, I'm like 80% distance runner, 20% sprinter (or maybe less), but there is still that sprint component that I can't ignore, even while emphasizing endurance work.