You're wrong Mr Marathon - all running develops cardiovascular fitness, and frequency matters, otherwise more than 1 percent of successful marathoners would be running singles.
You're wrong Mr Marathon - all running develops cardiovascular fitness, and frequency matters, otherwise more than 1 percent of successful marathoners would be running singles.
...This is the point where Malmo will chime in and tell us (again) that doubles are always better than singles and we go round and round again as we have done before on this topic.Good call!
malmo wrote:
You're wrong Mr Marathon - all running develops cardiovascular fitness, and frequency matters, otherwise more than 1 percent of successful marathoners would be running singles.
Right on cue, as predicted.
I don't disagree that all running develops cardiovascular fitness. I'm say thing that one run of 90 minutes is more beneficial to marathoners than 2 runs of 45 minutes. But is one run of 90 minutes as good as 2 runs of 60 minutes for cardiovascular fitness? Probably not.
Without going into too much science it has to do with the fibers being used. To best develop the capillary structure around muscle fibers the fibers have to be in use. The body tends to use muscle fibers tell they are drained (or close to it) before tapping into the next set of fibers. So to get to the fibers used in the late stages of marathon running you need to work though some fibers first. If you only run 30-45 minutes at a time you don't get to these other fibers as often as if you do longer runs. Overly simplistic but you get the general idea.
Most marathon runners do get in more than 90 minutes of running per day so most due in fact do doubles. One usually longer than the other (say 20k and 10k). This makes sense. One also needs to consider if significantly more distance can be cover in 2 runs than one. If so then enough fibers may be drained from one run to make the second (or third) run efficient at working the deeper fibers.
But up to 90 minutes one run is superior to 2 run of 45 minutes for developing cardiovascular fitness.
(This is where Malmo disagrees with me again.)
Mr. Marathon wrote:
[quote]malmo wrote:
But is one run of 90 minutes as good as 2 runs of 60 minutes for cardiovascular fitness?
Good question. Whats the answer?
The problem with these discussions is that they end up as "either/or" sorts of things.
If your ONLY choices were two one hour runs a day or one 90 minute runa day, I'd say go with the two one hour runs. There's an extra 4-5 miles of running in the former approach which is about 30 more miles per week or another 1500 miles per year. Also, a lot of people will wear down by doing a fairly long run day after day.
But of course it isn't matter of either/or. You can do some runs of 90 minutes or more on some days and a couple runs of an hour or so on others.
I believe (one of) the expert(s) on this matter would be Dr. Kenneth Cooper of Dallas, who wrote the best seller "Aerobics" in 1968, and later founded the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research. He determined that 12 minutes was the minimum duration to assess one's cardiovascular fitness, and he later revised this to a 1.5 mile test. As a matter of daily regimen, he prescribed a minimum 20 minutes activity at a heart rate of at least 140 BPM.
Even considering in your example the rate of "warm-up" time needed to achieve the goal heart rate once a work-out begins, I think that in any case the two 60 minutes are worth far more than the one 90 minute bout. Cooper's studies were purely concerned with weekly cumulative aerobic benefit, and rest periods, frequency, etc... were secondary considerations. To get a debatable choice, we would need something like one 90 minute vs. two 45 minutes.
HRE. Totally agree that its not an either/or sort of thing. In my own training I usually do doubles about 3 days per week, depending on what my goal is for the day. Singles and doubles both have there place.
Mr. Marathon wrote:
But up to 90 minutes one run is superior to 2 run of 45 minutes for developing cardiovascular fitness.
(This is where Malmo disagrees with me again.)
Of course I disagree. To start off, you are presenting a false dichotomy; but if I have to answer within those boundaries, it's still an easy choice: I'll take to two 45 minute runs any time.
malmo wrote:
Of course I disagree. To start off, you are presenting a false dichotomy; but if I have to answer within those boundaries, it's still an easy choice: I'll take to two 45 minute runs any time.
I understand your opinion but respectfully disagree with you on this one. But we have hashed this one to death before so no sense doing it again.
Peace.
So when I drop my mileage from the 150 range (13-18miler in the morning and a 3-8miler in the afternoon + a long run) down to say 80-100miles am I better off doubling still or running singles? In the past I always did singles and that has worked fine for me. Is doubling supposed to help somehow?
Easy wrote:
So when I drop my mileage from the 150 range (13-18miler in the morning and a 3-8miler in the afternoon + a long run) down to say 80-100miles am I better off doubling still or running singles? In the past I always did singles and that has worked fine for me. Is doubling supposed to help somehow?
You're fooling no one kid. Doubling is way better than singles.
malmo wrote:
Easy wrote:So when I drop my mileage from the 150 range (13-18miler in the morning and a 3-8miler in the afternoon + a long run) down to say 80-100miles am I better off doubling still or running singles? In the past I always did singles and that has worked fine for me. Is doubling supposed to help somehow?
You're fooling no one kid. Doubling is way better than singles.
Much though I usually agree with malmo, I disagree here. I think there has been very little actual research done on this, and in any case it is probably a point on which individuals vary.
My old coach once told me that at Athletics West they tried to do an experiment comparing (I think) 2 easy runs of 6M each to 1 of 12M, and found that it made no difference. Perhaps others know more details of this?
In any case, part of the issue is that the problem is poorly posed. If the question is: As a professional runner, with no other obligations, and a good support team (massage, etc.), should I do doubles for optimal marathon training? then I would say the answer is an unqualified yes.
If, on the other hand, the question is: How can I optimize my training, given that I have a full-time job and need to squeeze training around it? then I think the added overhead in both time (change, stretch, shower, etc. twice) and wear on your body may not be worth it.
But I am a sample of one. And I have always been inclined to run my easy runs comparatively slowly (for someone with my race times) and long. If you tend to run more quickly and find that a 13M run never feels like an easy recovery run towards the end, then maybe for you doubling is better. (Note: 'you' here is meant generally, not specifically addressed to either 'Easy' or malmo, though I suspect malmo might fit in that second category).
What does doubling help with then?
If you are busting out 140 miles a week, then doing singles is downright ludicrous. But 80-100 in singles seems like it gives you more of a training effect than doubles. Think about it: two runs of 5 miles each, or one run of 10 miles? Vigil at Adams St. used this approach, as did Wetmore for a period of time, haiving his runners put in 80-100 per week in singles, and he had some pretty good success.
Benji Durden....
Simple regimen that led me to 2.22 pr, despite long working hours for a period. I’ve tried bigger miles and doubles since on 4 build ups and whilst I’m sure they’ll work for me eventually I have yet to break this pr!
Mon - 10 miles moderate (5.48 - 6.30 pace)
Tues - Long session alternating between 1) 20-22 miles with 12-16 miles at 90-95%MP and 2) 15-20 miles with 3-4 5k efforts off 4 mins jog or 15-20km alternating 95 and 105%MP
Wed - 10 miles moderate, normally slower than Monday after session
Thu - 10 miles moderate including a few strides of racing on Saturday
Fri - rest
Sat - 10 miles with a race (6-10k) or 5-7k of 10k pace reps (72”). These started at 12x400 and built up to 6x1200, increasing rep distance and always running off a 200m, 1 minute jog.
Sun - 8-12 miles easy
Mileage for the training period was always around 70 with a high of 72 and a low of 65
I can think of a low-2:08 guy who only trains once a day.
internal expat wrote:
I can think of a low-2:08 guy who only trains once a day.
Yuki Kawauchi. 2:08:14.
Some guy wondering stuff wrote:
I think I remember it as well, it was something like:
Mon: 10 miles recovery
Tue: Threshold-Tempo
Wed: 13 miles easy
Thu: 13 miles easy
Fri: VO2 Max Intervals
Sat: 13 miles easy
Sun: 23 miles progression
Total: 95-100 per week
5K wrote:
I remember someone posting there training as singles and listing a sub 2:24 I think. I thought I saved the thread, but can't locate it. Basically was a 2 week cycle, 13m most easy days, 2 days of reps per week, and a long run once per cycle. If I remember right it was about 26-28m long run.
Looks very similar to a training system I know a lot about, hehe!
Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:
internal expat wrote:
I can think of a low-2:08 guy who only trains once a day.
Yuki Kawauchi. 2:08:14.
Of course he must be the guy looking for. But if the question was fastest marathoner who mix singles and doubles
frequently I would say Wilson Kipsang.