This is of course not correct. As a very fresh example I have coached a now age 39 USA master runner a couple of years , Dallin Dyer, who trains 5-6 sessions per week and yesterday even ran faster at 1500m than he did as young . Placed 3rd in the USTAF age group 35-39 in a 4:17 ( about equal to a 4:33-4:34 mile. His lifetime best at the mile when younger a 4:36). He even told me he thought it felt his tank was far from empty and could have run around 4:10 with better pacing . If you have a coach like me who knows the best way to run on singles it`s even better than running doubles.You can check Dallin Dyer up at Strava( I`ve got his permission.... ) .
So he is correct. What Kvothe said was that there are exceptions.
Try to learn something.
To many 'exceptions' in my care to be correct... )) 👋😁😉🇸🇪🧙♂️
I used to run doubles and some week as much as 180 miles.I couldn't see any improvement at one point in my running career and decided to switch to low volume and only singles. From that day my running results just improved amazingly.. Singles is the way to go but the majority of coaches and runners don't know about this and don't have the knowledge how to perform it excellent and effective.
You were probably exhausted and when you dropped the mileage by -100 or so you had a lot more energy.
isn't is possible that the reason you exceledl on the low mileage was because:
-
-
you did the high mileage first
isn't this kind of the theory of building a base (you put in years of base and then bang you cut back and got the rewards.
take away the years of base and you probably wouldn't have had the results
Don't think so. When I ran the high mileage I was always exhausted and couldn't do the workouts properly. When I switched to low mileage my results just rocketed and kept on like that for several years.Low mileage is the smart and most effective way to go.
I used to run doubles and some week as much as 180 miles.I couldn't see any improvement at one point in my running career and decided to switch to low volume and only singles. From that day my running results just improved amazingly.. Singles is the way to go but the majority of coaches and runners don't know about this and don't have the knowledge how to perform it excellent and effective.
The majority of runners do know this, given that 99% of runners only do singles; they're called hobby-joggers.
They stay hobby-joggers because they only do singles.
The most thing is consistency and fitting your lifestyle.
If I was a pro I would I would start with a bigger run, then do my Instagram/ franchise work, followed by a nap and a shorter run + gym stuff to get 100% of my potential.
If I was a committed amateur I would run in and out of work or run 90min every lunch break, like the Japanese guy who won Boston, to get 90% of my potential.
Now I just run two long runs and 2 workouts and get 80% of my potential.
14 runs > 7 runs > 4 runs
90 min runs on lunch break? This is a complete fantasy. Most lunch breaks are 30 mins - that includes the time to eat, change, run, and shower. If you're lucky enough to get 60 mins for lunch, its still tight. Oh and most employers don't just have showers/locker rooms for no reason, so you'll need to get to a gym in that time too. I can't imagine many employers let you have 90 mins.
isn't is possible that the reason you exceledl on the low mileage was because:
-
-
you did the high mileage first
isn't this kind of the theory of building a base (you put in years of base and then bang you cut back and got the rewards.
take away the years of base and you probably wouldn't have had the results
Don't think so. When I ran the high mileage I was always exhausted and couldn't do the workouts properly. When I switched to low mileage my results just rocketed and kept on like that for several years.Low mileage is the smart and most effective way to go.
Again, if you're being completely accurate you cannot just attribute your performances on low miles and one run a day alone. That high mileage era had effects on you that persist for some time. You ran those best times on low mileage and one run a day AND on doubles and weeks as high as 180 miles. And while it's fine for you to decide the low miles and one run works best for you you have nowhere near enough of a sample size to make a general conclusion.
But just to offer a countering example, a friend of mine was a once a day runner for nearly all of his career. His best marathon time was 2:16:54 done at age 27 on volume similar to yours. A decade later he started running twice a day and doing 120 miles a week. That got him 2:15:31.
We have scientific studies that shows the total amount of growth hormon will be more if you e.g splitting a 10 mile run in two runs at same pace compared to if you run just the 10 mile that given day. Also another benefit with doubles is proved that your ability to recover enough between training sessions will speed up.
Now we come to the tricky part as I see it. How is it possible some runners reach equivalent running results on just single daily runs? There must be some physical explanation to this I think? As far as I know there is no scientific study that managed to explain this phenomenon. I know coach Brad Hudson gave his thoughts on this in an interview long ago and told it partly must have to do with longer complete recovery about 24 hours and more production of mitochondria and enzymes in a single run of 70-80 min compared to shorter runs 60 min and less. Also we have scientific evidence mitochondria is produced even at faster pace than easy steady runs, not as much but stronger and more efficient. I guess this must have something to do with the total explanation to this mystery?
Well, I will give my quite qualificated guess from have coached all levels of runners during now eight years and experience from my own running career as a national elite runner. A runner can only reach his/her individual optimal aerob capacity . Everyone has a limit for it regardless how much mileage is done. At one point there comes a diminishing returns and there must be other main factors to emphasize for the result to keep on develop. This individual maximal aerob limit maybe can be reached faster by doing doubles, but it can also be reached by singles on relatively low volume. Infact my experience and knowledge from running and coaching during now over 50 years in practise points to that this individual aerob limit even seem to be faster reached by one session per day training. One of the causes to this, as I see it, must have something to do with increased continuity and less risk of injury when the runner gets `complete ` recovery between the daily single sessions. The key to individual success on singles is just to know how to most effective perform this low volume training.
I'm sorry so many runners here can't understand what asset you are to this forum. Don't bother your detractors, just continue with your interesting experiences.You are an innovator who is a wonderful counterbalance in the debate on the forum.
Well, I will give my quite qualificated guess from have coached all levels of runners during now eight years and experience from my own running career as a national elite runner. A runner can only reach his/her individual optimal aerob capacity . Everyone has a limit for it regardless how much mileage is done. At one point there comes a diminishing returns and there must be other main factors to emphasize for the result to keep on develop. This individual maximal aerob limit maybe can be reached faster by doing doubles, but it can also be reached by singles on relatively low volume. Infact my experience and knowledge from running and coaching during now over 50 years in practise points to that this individual aerob limit even seem to be faster reached by one session per day training. One of the causes to this, as I see it, must have something to do with increased continuity and less risk of injury when the runner gets `complete ` recovery between the daily single sessions. The key to individual success on singles is just to know how to most effective perform this low volume training.
I'm sorry so many runners here can't understand what asset you are to this forum. Don't bother your detractors, just continue with your interesting experiences.You are an innovator who is a wonderful counterbalance in the debate on the forum.
In what way is he an innovator? He uses science from the 1930s, and the tables Daniels created.
He only innovates with the number of fake handles.
Decades ago, some good research established that two training sessions per day were more productive than a single of similar total length. (We studied this when I was in grad school.) The researchers did not find significant additional benefit with a third session, by the way.
In more recent years an observational study of high-level female marathoners established that marathon time corresponded more strongly with number of runs per week than with total weekly mileage.
Anyone have a link to the studies on that? I've heard that mentioned on here a number of times, but no link to a/the study.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
bolded
Well, I will give my quite qualificated guess from have coached all levels of runners during now eight years and experience from my own running career as a national elite runner. A runner can only reach his/her individual optimal aerob capacity . Everyone has a limit for it regardless how much mileage is done. At one point there comes a diminishing returns and there must be other main factors to emphasize for the result to keep on develop. This individual maximal aerob limit maybe can be reached faster by doing doubles, but it can also be reached by singles on relatively low volume. Infact my experience and knowledge from running and coaching during now over 50 years in practise points to that this individual aerob limit even seem to be faster reached by one session per day training. One of the causes to this, as I see it, must have something to do with increased continuity and less risk of injury when the runner gets `complete ` recovery between the daily single sessions. The key to individual success on singles is just to know how to most effective perform this low volume training.
I'm sorry so many runners here can't understand what asset you are to this forum. Don't bother your detractors, just continue with your interesting experiences.You are an innovator who is a wonderful counterbalance in the debate on the forum.
Thanks 'Martin Gale' even if 2 years ago 🖐....like Don Quixote who fought against the old windmills, haha ! 😃
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.