Malmo what's the best way to structure a 100 and 110 mile weeks?

Malmo, I'm sure you have explained it before, but:

a) why do you advocate doubles at practically all mileages? anectdotal evidence, scientific evidience, or both?

b) shouldn't the way you break down your doubles (5/10, 3/12, 7/8) depend on what races you are training for? For example marathoners would have more extreme doubles (like 3/12) and 3k, 5k 8k guys would have more even doubles (like 7/7).

flats, you're thinking way to much.

I started doing doubles when I was 15 years old. Just 2 miles every morning. It made a dramatic difference.

unregistered miss wrote:

malmo, do you still run every day? Just curious, thanks.

I don't run any days. I had my knee scoped in June, the PTs aggravated the injury in August, had it re-scoped in December, doing the PT thing as we speak. Been doing one hour walks. Last Sunday I added 50m shuffling jogs with 150m walks. Didn't turn out very well. We'll see how this one progresses.

Best of luck with your rehab. Have you ever considered taking up cycling as a sport?

malmo wrote:

I don't run any days. I had my knee scoped in June, the PTs aggravated the injury in August, had it re-scoped in December, doing the PT thing as we speak. Been doing one hour walks. Last Sunday I added 50m shuffling jogs with 150m walks. Didn't turn out very well. We'll see how this one progresses.

That sucks. Hang in there. Makes me feel bad that I CAN run and I haven't been, because I know what it's like to want to run and not be able to. I spent a lot of my "career" in that situation.

Living in the Past wrote:

Best of luck with your rehab. Have you ever considered taking up cycling as a sport?

I have been thinking of buying a bike, but its so damn confusing. So much gay gear to buy. Just give me a Viking helmet and a bullhorn on the handlebars and look out, maniac coming through! Spring is just around the corner.

Zat0pek wrote:

That sucks. Hang in there. .

There's always a bright side. For the first time in over a year I can walk on it without feeling it catching and then swelling up afterwards. So I got that going for me .... which is nice.

malmo wrote:

Doubles. Doubles. Doubles. As many days a week as you can. If you can't do six then do five. If you can't do five then do four. If you can't do four .... then, you get the picture...

You say doubles but Lydiard and Pfitzinger say that you get more benefit from one run a day rather than breaking it into 2 runs, the idea being that it increases your aerobic capacity. Sounds like your training has more doubles and higher intensity over the week. Is this the correct assumption, or am I totally off base?

Malmo is very correct on this.

In my summer training after my freshman year I decided to get serious. I ran doubles every day I could, and a long run on sunday of about 15. I averaged about 90 mpw high intensity which was about 30 mpw more than the previous summer. That XC season I went from a 26:30 8K guy the year before to a 24:00-24:30 guy. A complete transformation.

The next summer my coach convinced me(probably after reading Running With The Buffaloes) to run singles instead of doubles. With the same diligence I ran between 90-110 mpw on 7 runs. My intensity dropped naturally due to doubling the distance of my runs, which didn't feel right to me, but I kept plugging away. That season I was about 20 places and 30 seconds slower than the year before.

Looking back I believe that my body wasn't conditioned for fast running as it was the year before. With doubles, I would run a 7 miler at a moderate/controlled pace and look down and see that I'd just averaged 5:35/mile. Hard days were low 5s, which is pretty close to race pace for XC.

Try the doubles, focus on intensity and train your body to run fast.

Holyjoe wrote: Lydiard and Pfitzinger say that you get more benefit from one run a day

Lydiard had the morning jog + the daily run. Pfitz never trained like his books.

Holyjoe wrote:

You say doubles but Lydiard and Pfitzinger say that you get more benefit from one run a day rather than breaking it into 2 runs, the idea being that it increases your aerobic capacity. Sounds like your training has more doubles and higher intensity over the week. Is this the correct assumption, or am I totally off base?

Pfitzinger never trained the way he advises. All running, by the way, increase aerobic capacity.

Killa Mike wrote:

The next summer my coach convinced me(probably after reading Running With The Buffaloes) to run singles instead of doubles. With the same diligence I ran between 90-110 mpw on 7 runs.

That's the surest way of killing yourself i can think of. THe best way to find out was to experience it for yourself. Good for you.

Even Wetmore, a self-described Lydiard disciple has said he'd prefer his runners do doubles, but claimed they do (mostly) singles because of "class schedules."

i realize i am thinking too much, but I just wanted to stir up some discussion about doubles. There are so many different ways to double, and I just like hearing and thinking about all of them.

Allow me to offer yet another opinion, gleaned from my days as a mid-29s 10k runner and as a coach. I followed a schedule that would seem to be a compromise between the two schools of thought, which was 100 miles per week in roughly 10 runs or 90 minutes a day in one or two runs and a two-hour run on Sunday. The problem was that I hammered a lot of my runs, which isn't necessarily a bad thing IF you are prepared for it. I wasn't, and I got injured. That's the problem I have with doubling in general. Most kids are inclined to hammer most of their runs, especially if they are running two shorter runs on most days instead of one longer one, and they don't allow enough time for recovery. The mileage isn't the problem; the intensity is. On the other hand, the Lydiard schedule proposed here with three consecutive days of 15, 18, and 13, followed by a 22-miler two days later is also excessive if one hasn't prepared properly. Personally, if you're going to go the 100 in singles route, I would prefer to see a 10,15,10,18,10,22,15 approach so you are getting plenty of "shorter" 10-milers in to allow for some recovery.

Running is not nearly as complicated as many of us make it out to be. And while I would generally agree that starting out by doubling with "unplanned" tempo running depending on how you feel on a given day is not a bad way to go. But you mustn't underestimate the importance of recovery. If you don't have the temperament to build in a good amount of slow, recovery running, then doubles are probably folly. The running isn't the hard part actually, nor is it the most important part. The recovery and diet and stretching and massage and therapy and core is. Running is nothing more than applying physiological stress, to which the benefit of ADAPTATION only comes when you do EVERYTHING ELSE correctly. Otherwise, you WILL end up sick or injured or both. If getting that second run in is forcing you to get up too early in the morning (if you have a busy, early schedule) when you would be better off getting the sleep and recovery, or if you push the pace constantly, then the 100 miles in singles is probably a better approach for the base phase anyway, after which you can "shift" down to faster doubles. But, frankly, I believe that 100 miles in 10 or 11 runs is about the right mix, e.g.

M- 30 minutes am, 60 pm

T- 90 pm

W- 30 am, 60 pm

R- 90 pm

F- 30 am, 60 pm

S- 90 pm or 30/60

S- 120 am

Sagarin wrote: If getting that second run in is forcing you to get up too early in the morning (if you have a busy, early schedule)

A disciplined athlete never has to worry about getting up too early. A day still has 24 hours, as far as I can tell.

HAH.Had to think for a moment, but only a moment.

Gunga gunga la gunga.

Absolutely correct, but, college athletes in general tend to stay up late for whatever reason (leaving the studying for late in the evening), and if the morning run is FORCING you out of bed when you NEED the sleep, then you are asking for trouble. Then again, perhaps I wasn't as disciplined as others. But that's my point. The individual's circumstances and personality should dictate the schedule. Hammering twice a day, every day is also a very dumb strategy in the long run without the proper buildup.

flats wrote:

i realize i am thinking too much, but I just wanted to stir up some discussion about doubles. There are so many different ways to double, and I just like hearing and thinking about all of them.

Hearing and thinking about them isn't nearly as good as doing them. The great thing about the action vs yacktion methods is that the action method allows you to experience for yourself the many different ways of doing doubles. Try them, do 2/12, 4/11, 5/9, and yes, even 0/15 or 0/10. They all have a place in your training schedule.

Sagarin wrote: Hammering twice a day, every day is also a very dumb strategy in the long run without the proper buildup.

It's a dumb strategy in the short run with proper buildup, as well.