What do you think is better for training, running once a day or twice a day, with the same weekly mileage. I know that training is very subjective, and running 100 miles a week on singles isn't easy, but getting in the morning for a two a day is just so damn hard. Holla back!
Everyone is different!
If you dig through the old posts here, you'll see that this question has come up before on a few million occasions.
Guys like Malmo and Hodgie-san have advocated double sessions. If you go to Hodgie's website and look at his "Starter Kit," you'll see that he has two a days scheduled from the start.
Arthur Lydiard always wants people to get the hundred miles in on one session a day. He advocates a second sesion, but only after the initial hundred miles are done. Barry Magee told me that when he started with Arthur, he only did one run a day, as did some of Arthur's other athletes. Some other athletes ran to work and got their miles to 120-130, which Barry did later.
Ultimately, you'll need to see what works best for you. If you think you'll be more likely to get the hundred in on one session, maybe that's the way you should go. Undeniably, the best runners in the world run more than once a day for the most part, but how much of that is due to the effectiveness of doubles and how much is imitation of successful runners is unclear.
one a day is always better. runing 5 and then running 5 again, or just running 10 straight out. I mean come on. any idiot could run 3 in the morning and then 3 at night but it would be harder for a normal nonrunner person to just run 6 straight out. why do you think that is? I only do two a days once or twice a week. not only that but it gives your body a solid day to recover so you can get good quality runs in. just look at CU.
i run 85 with 4x4 in the mornings. its terrible doing a morning run but personally i feel that running in the morning loosens up my legs for the later run and allows me to train more uptempo instead of going out there and doing shit miles.
"Just look at CU" Actually, Wetmore himself says he'd prefer twice a day. Said something about time constaints being the reason. I've always thought Mountain Time to have 24 hours too?
malmo wrote:
"Just look at CU" Actually, Wetmore himself says he'd prefer twice a day. Said something about time constaints being the reason. I've always thought Mountain Time to have 24 hours too?
1. We don't have enough time to train twice a day.
2. We have a disadvantage at altitude. Can't go out fast enough.
3. We don't get the recruits like some of the other schools.
Wetmore's a good coach but he whines too much.
A single 10 might be better than a 5 and 5 double, but a 10 and 5 double is better than both of them.
Try twice a day for a while and see how much better that second run becomes.
The routine of twice a day running will get you fitter faster and you will hold onto your fitness longer.
Twice a day will help you adapt and cope to an increasing amount of running, which for most of us made us better athletes. (more running)
Simple.
actually lydiard emphasizes 100 miles of fast-pace aerobic work in the base phase, and up to an ADDITIONAL 100 miles of supplementary running/jogging b/c your body recovers faster when youre heart rate is up, subsequently pumping out wastes (aka lactic acid) that have built up in the legs during the harder sessions. he mentions in his book "running the lydiard way" that many of his athletes run not twice, but THREE times a day, with the evening runs always being the harder efforts, and usually only one session on sunday, a prolonged, sustained effort of AT LEAST 2 hours. people seem to often misunderstand or misinterpret exactly what lydiard was saying.
ryan_s wrote:
A single 10 might be better than a 5 and 5 double, but a 10 and 5 double is better than both of them.
i would have to say ryan is correct, if you want to have the time you will make it. i dont believe the idea that there is not enough time
I find I'm much looser and ready to roll on a hard 10 miler or a workout in the evening if I've gone for an easy 6 in the morning or at lunchtime. I always double on my hard days.
Wetmore is a good coach, but I think that he is just stating the facts, with the exception of that first point.
1: "We don't have enough time to train twice a day"
He says that his athletes are students first. There is more to life than running, believe it or not, and you can't be a competitive runner much past 30-35. So, that leaves you with another 25-30 years of working in the real world, which requires an education. I don't think this is whining.
2: "We have a disadvantage at altitude. Can't got out fast enough"
True. You simply cannot train as fast at altitude, meaning that your legs are weaker than those training faster at sea-level. So, when they go out fast, their legs are definately going to feel it far more than a sea-level trained person. That is the fact of the physiology. Its not whining, its stating a legitimate problem that he has to deal with.
3: "We don't get the recruits like some of the other schools."
This one is definately changing, they had a bumper recruiting crop this year, on both mens and womens sides. Then again, they don't get as much talent as Stanford; but then again, nobody does. This, methinks, is a bit of whining. Tho' truth be told, I haven't heard him say this since he was quoted as such in Running With the Buffaloes.