It's always refreshing to see you jump in a thread, HRE, because you always participate earnestly, as apposed to the trolls whose only interest is vandalizing, disrupting, fighting or disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable.
Sometimes I think you and I are relics of a time when serious runners generally respected each other and the sport and a lot of that has been lost. But maybe that respect is still there in person but takes a beating over the internet. Whatever, I much appreciate the compliment and return it.
what's your hypothetis for why something like 10x7 is better than 7x10?
train your body to recover quicker? less wear and tear? more consistent practice for your body?
or "who knows, it just is!"
Not a direct comparison, and not fair to compare the two, performance wise, but speaking of recovery, I've tried 75 mpw on doubles (10-12 sessions per week) and 60 mpw on singles. I felt noticeably fresher on doubles (except for the first week, which felt like sh!t), despite actually running more.
what is your definition of long runs though? For some that's 2-hour plus run, for other it could be anything longer than your regular easy runs (like 80-90 mins v.s 60 mins)
As I read this thread, I was thinking the same thing. Is there some absolute consensus on how long a run has to be to be long? Or is the long run simply relative to the rest of the week?
I don't know who I'm quoting or misquoting, but when asked which workout is most important, he said "all of them".
With respect to the usefulness of long run, it seems like it depends on what you are doing the rest of the week, both in terms of running, as well as not running, e.g. doing some cross-training or simply having an active versus sedentary job/lifestyle, and possibly other factors like your diet.
At one point I was more interested in physiological things like capillaries and mitochondrial density, and VO2max and a whole catalog of thresholds, but then it seemed like this physiological deep dive isn't for everybody, and seemed to miss the point, at least for me.
I resonated more with pragmatic explanations, thinking in terms of the running purpose of each workout, and finding the right combination that best achieves these purposes needed for each individual's goals. It seemed much simpler to think in terms of desired outcomes like "endurance", "stamina", "speed" and "sprint", and then trying to figure out how your workouts can best improve what you need when you need it.
The purpose of the long run is to train your body to improve endurance for the duration you need. But there are many ways to skin a cat, and the relative importance of endurance depends on your race distance and goals, as well as the time in your training and racing season.
if Jakob hasn't debunked the myth of the long run, at least from 5k and lower, I don't know what to say at this point.
total volume is king.
For most runners NO. Total # of efforts is more important. 70mpw on 10-11 sessions per week are much better than 70mpw on 6-7 sessions per week.
How many doubles per week do you recommend for aspirational athletes? I've always viewed as a kind of maximum, 13 sessions per week, consisting of 6 days of doubles plus a long run on the day of rest.
Not asking for me, as these days, I'm just happy when I get in 5 runs a week, and my goal is more weight maintenance and heart health than setting new personal bests.
For most runners NO. Total # of efforts is more important. 70mpw on 10-11 sessions per week are much better than 70mpw on 6-7 sessions per week.
How many doubles per week do you recommend for aspirational athletes? I've always viewed as a kind of maximum, 13 sessions per week, consisting of 6 days of doubles plus a long run on the day of rest.
Not asking for me, as these days, I'm just happy when I get in 5 runs a week, and my goal is more weight maintenance and heart health than setting new personal bests.
6 days a week, but realistically 4 or 5 days is plenty, depending on what works for you.