professionals that don't run doubles?

47 wrote:

I'm curious about what Malmo thinks of this...

BK401 wrote:

Why? Malmo has stated many times to not model your training after the anomalies. Is there anything about it that's confusing.

That pretty much sums it up.

Look, the purpose of these threads is not to advance any real discussion, it's to grasp at straws to find a reason, any reason at all, to not do doubles.

Not only do elites train twice a day, it is the anomalies - few and far between - that do not.

If you want to look in every nook and cranny to find runners whose training frequency will justify your own lack of commitment, then be my guest.

Please explain how running 90mpw on singles shows less "lack of commitment" than doing it on doubles?

Er...scratch the "less" in that previous comment.

Can you argue that making time for two training sessions a day isn't more commitment than one? Running twice a day shows tremendous dedication.

Now are doubles more commitment than 90 mpw on singles? Not necessarily but then again you're throwing out the anomaly of 90 mpw in singles.

Generally speaking, a runner performing doubles is going to be more committed than a runner only performing singles. How can you not understand this? The people advocating singles are citing Lagat and similar athletes, not ones running 90 mpw in singles. Laziness and delusion are what fuel these people -- reread Malmo's comment.

Huh? wrote:

Please explain how running 90mpw on singles shows less "lack of commitment" than doing it on doubles?

Malmo never suggested breaking up single runs into double. If there's a guy running 90mpw, the likely suggestion would be to add doubles on top of that.

malmo wrote:

Look, the purpose of these threads is not to advance any real discussion, it's to grasp at straws to find a reason, any reason at all, to not do doubles.

Not only do elites train twice a day, it is the anomalies - few and far between - that do not.

If you want to look in every nook and cranny to find runners whose training frequency will justify your own lack of commitment, then be my guest.

+1. Why do people at letsrun always so desperately want to find out some elite runners who did low mileage or train singles? The only reason why I can think of is to find some justification not to train too hard.

The guy running 90 on singles would (9 times out of 10) be a better runner on 115 with doubles.

The Lone Wolf wrote:

The guy running 90 on singles would (9 times out of 10) be a better runner on 115 with doubles.

but wouldnt a logical way to do that be to run 90 in main runs plus a 4 mile shake out type run 6 days a week? sounds like that couldnt be worse than just the 90...

The Lone Wolf wrote:

The guy running 90 on singles would (9 times out of 10) be a better runner on 115 with doubles.

You sir, are very bad at math, and you know next to nothing about distance running.

Come on now wrote:

Malmo never suggested breaking up single runs into double. If there's a guy running 90mpw, the likely suggestion would be to add doubles on top of that.

Wrong. If someone is running 90mpw I'd certainly suggest that he broke it up into doubles.

malmo wrote:

Wrong. If someone is running 90mpw I'd certainly suggest that he broke it up into doubles.

or, if you aren't from West Virginia or Kentucky, break it up into doubles. ;-)

The guy is a late-starting 49 year-old woman. She thinks 90mpw is probably a good place to level off since her interest is in Half Marathons, not Fulls. But she does wonder why her commitment is in question because she chooses to run singles. She also wonders why she's writing in third person, which is probably more worrisome than her lack of doubles.

The Lone Wolf wrote:

The guy running 90 on singles would (9 times out of 10) be a better runner on 115 with doubles.

I wonder about sammy wanjiru did he run mostly once a day like stated in some articles?

120 km week but normally a 10 day cycle with one long run of 38 km slow (4'30" per km) or 30 km fast (1 h 34') and then two workouts and 7 easy morning runs of 15 kilometer progressing from 4.00 -> 3.30 -> 3.06 per km (lets average 3.30 per km this would mean about 52 - 54 minutes run).

Or do you have any sources stating he did do two workouts a day?

Also on the claudio berdellini (don't remember the name exactly) thread there was talk of marathon runners running only once a day and 70 - 80 miles a week with a lot of specific training.

Would it thus be more logical for longer distance runners to do singles and the middle distance to 5 - 10 km to do doubles?

Mike Musyoki, if memory serves me right.

malmo, I don't get your comment.

90 miles a week in singles versus 115 miles a week running doubles = better most of the time.

I used to run 13 miles a day in one run but added doubles to get to 115 and set my 5k PR - 14:09 3 months later.

The Lone Wolf wrote:

malmo, I don't get your comment.

90 miles a week in singles versus 115 miles a week running doubles = better most of the time.

I used to run 13 miles a day in one run but added doubles to get to 115 and set my 5k PR - 14:09 3 months later.

I misread your post. "The guy running 90 on singles would (9 times out of 10) be a better runner on 115 with doubles."

as being "90mpw on singles (9 out of 10 times) is better than 115 miles of doubles.. Sorry.

I've read 4 aticles on Wanjiru's training and they all stated he ran twice on most days.