One of the runners I coach ran 2.12 on just singles long before I started to coach him. He continues that way.
One of the runners I coach ran 2.12 on just singles long before I started to coach him. He continues that way.
https://www.iaaf.org/news/preview/marathon-des-alpes-maritimes-2017-previewJust 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.
Last year I was the coach to the winner in Nice-Cannes...Elisha Kipchirchir in 2.10.44 . It took me 3 months to take him from former PR 2.13.46.
Well, an either/or argument isn't terribly helpful unless someone is trying to figure out their own training schedule. Most of us aren't pros, and are trying to figure out how to fit in the best possible block of training around work and family. Obviously for pros, doubles are the best. But for the others?
laufmutti wrote:
Well, an either/or argument isn't terribly helpful unless someone is trying to figure out their own training schedule. Most of us aren't pros, and are trying to figure out how to fit in the best possible block of training around work and family. Obviously for pros, doubles are the best. But for the others?
You have a good point there. For "normal" runners with other daily pressure as job and so on singles is to prefer.
laufmutti wrote:
Well, an either/or argument isn't terribly helpful unless someone is trying to figure out their own training schedule. Most of us aren't pros, and are trying to figure out how to fit in the best possible block of training around work and family. Obviously for pros, doubles are the best. But for the others?
You can turn something that's not an either/or argument into one if you want. But the topic of what's going to work in training is not "either longer runs exclusively work best or shorter doubles do." Personally, you may debate doing exclusively one versus exclusively the other, but you really shouldn't use a false dichotomy as the starting point for your debate.
COACH J.S å ä ö wrote:
laufmutti wrote:
Well, an either/or argument isn't terribly helpful unless someone is trying to figure out their own training schedule. Most of us aren't pros, and are trying to figure out how to fit in the best possible block of training around work and family. Obviously for pros, doubles are the best. But for the others?
You have a good point there. For "normal" runners with other daily pressure as job and so on singles is to prefer.
I don't think there's one answer to this when you're talking about "normal runners with other daily pressure as a job." I think it really depends on what those pressures are and at what time of day they turn up. I have known of people who have said that because of the pressures of a job they had an easier time getting in a couple shorter runs in a day than they did one longer one. There are people who get to work and back by running. If you can manage that I think it's as efficient a way to get your training in as possible. I had a time in life where I hated running in the winter after work in the dark. Doing a short run at lunch hour and another run after work seemed preferable to doing all of the day's running after work.