To Hadd: malmo disagrees with you. Can you explain the disconnect?

run as a Haddite in the AM and like a malmoian at night

Next case!

I don't believe Hadd is against doubles. I believe he would advocate doing doubles when you've maxed out the length of singles (to the point where doing anything longer in singles only, day after day, would be detrimental to recovery). This doesn't mean someone on lower mileage can't do doubles too (malmo's philosophy), but Hadd stresses maxing out the longer session to get the greatest aerobic benefit.

Great post, wonder if malmo/Hadd will reply?

As I understand it:

At the same mileage, singles will allow for greater aerobic development. Doubles will allow for more recovery.

As doubles allow for more recovery, one can handle more mileage.

So the question becomes: less mileage in singles or more in doubles?

My answer: test it out for yourself. See how your body responds. (If your schedule only allows for one and not the other, that's okay.)

Start with doubles. Logic should lead you to conclude doubles, assuming fewer miles covered per workout than in singles, cause less wear and tear on the body.

Then, if the doubles don't work for you - don't provide the boost in fitness and performance you seek - try singles.

not completely black and white wrote:I don't believe Hadd is against doubles. I believe he would advocate doing doubles when you've maxed out the length of singles (to the point where doing anything longer in singles only, day after day, would be detrimental to recovery). This doesn't mean someone on lower mileage can't do doubles too (malmo's philosophy), but Hadd stresses maxing out the longer session to get the greatest aerobic benefit.

He may not be against doubles, but look at how he prescribes a 80 mile week in the document cited above:Mon 60 min easy 140-145 HR (or lower)Tue 90 min incl. 70 @ 160 HR Wed 75 mins easy 140-150 HR (or lower)Thu 75 mins easy 150-155 HRFri 90 min incl. 70 @ 160 HR Sat 75 mins easy 140-150 HR (or lower)Sun 3 hrs easy 145-155 HR (w/60 min @ 160)Approx 80+mpw

If I'm reading malmo correctly, he would advise against a schedule like this. BUT, Hadd's explanation and logic for prescribing the above would sound correct - the longer time you spend running, the greater the physiological adaptations.

Malmo's explanation would simply be, doubles is what worked for me and thousands of others. Who cares why it works, it just does.

And he's right of course. If it works, just do it. But I want to know WHY it works, and I really would like to hear the opinion of someone who seems well versed in the exercise physiology of this all, yet seems to disagree with malmo on his basic approach.

Basically, I plan to be running 80 mpw this summer. I want to know if I should do the above, or something else.

You need to understand that no one knows why anything works. Yes, there are descriptions of various physical systems that work when you do certain kinds of running. But loads of people have succeeded on trainig programs that don't seem to work the proper systems properly.

What malmo is saying about doubles vs. singles is that almost everyone whose gotten to national or international class runs doubles for at least a significant part of the time so if you aspire to get as close to that level as you can you'll do what most of the guys who've gotten to that level have done.

I think I wouldn't make it so black and white either about both methods. I don't think Malmo would say (but wait until he does respond of course) run doubles if you are breaking down from doing too many. I think the idea is run as many as you can to assist with getting in more miles and becoming more accustomed to running. Two real quick things that are proven by all who do them based on experience are:

1)You can generally get in more miles since you are breaking up the runs into two segments

2)The second run is almost always higher quality. After a morning or afternoon run...the body just seems to hit a groove faster for the second run

These are two good reasons to do them. But there is nothing wrong with doing singles on days as well. I like to do about 3-4 doubles a week and reserve other days for singles for mental health. I simply don't like running twice everyday. It feels like a chore and I get mentally fatigued from thinking I 'have to run.' I also don't think it is a big deal if every now and again I take a day off completely or simply cross train. Even so...the point made by both HADD and Malmo (so to me they are not at odds at all) is to run things progressively faster as training continues over the weeks, months, and years. Don't force the issue with pace...let it come to you. Hadd might cite more longish high end aerobic efforts with Malmo doing more intervals...but I am sure that if you carefully look in some of Malmos training posts he got in a lot of higher end aerobic work. There are a lot of 12K, 20K and other such tempo runs. And he points out that most of them are at a pace that isn't meant to break you down, but build you up. This is the same idea behind Hadd's runs starting at 160 heart rate and progressively getting faster as one adapts to the intensity of that run.

Good luck with things.

It doesn't have to be complicated.

The problem with Hadd is that he writes an awful lot of pseudoscience.

Malmo doesn't do this, he talks from his experience. He is aware that there is an awful lotta bullshit written by yer fizzyologist type coaches, because, as well as his running experience, he has studied more than most.

I don't think Malmo would say (...) run doubles if you are breaking down from doing too many.

(...)

Hadd might cite more longish high end aerobic efforts with Malmo doing more intervals...but I am sure that if you carefully look in some of Malmos training posts he got in a lot of higher end aerobic work.

Let's play "what would malmo say." (Because clearly he's something of a shrinking violet about speaking for himself...)

What do you think he'd suggest the response to overdoing it is to run once a day more often, as opposed to say keeping overall volume or pace in check or getting some rest days if really needed?

And I sure don't recall an emphasis, ever, on interval work over high end aerobic work. Entirely the opposite, no?

These questions raise good discussions, but when was the last time Hadd responded? Unless I've missed them, he hasn't posted in years.

Hadd's lengthy posts are mainly about base training, only one of several phases of training. They are targeted at athletes with poor endurance, as demonstrated by a "loose" relationship between race times at different distances. I haven't seen his subsequent phases described in detail (Long runs deserve long posts?) If you already have a "tight" relationship, then it's time to focus on developing other skills.

If you think one objective of training is to maximize volume while minimizing injuries, doing doubles, or doing long runs are two different ways of appealing to the same physiology. You may even do doubles 3-4 days a week, while including a long run.

If you are doing doubles, with your longest days being 2x45 minutes, you may still be racking up high weekly mileage. The questions to answer would be "am I neglecting my endurance?" and "If I work on my endurance with long runs, will that benefit my race times?" Maybe for marathon runners, and maybe not for 10K specialists.

Hadd is certainly aware of other kinds of training. He acknowledged in his lengthy thread that there are many roads to success, and his approach is simply "one" approach to training. He also participated in the "2 kinds of runners" thread emphasizing the point of customizing your training to the athlete.

You can't train harder than your ability to recover. I think that is where Malmo's experience-science lies. A single 15 miler takes much more recovery than a 5am/10pm. Also, there is some degree of potentiation going on. The easy 5 miler makes the 10 miler better. If you have a workout involved with that 10 miler then the 5 miler in the am definetly aids that workout provided that early run is pretty easy.

Alan

canspo wrote:

These questions raise good discussions, but when was the last time Hadd responded? Unless I've missed them, he hasn't posted in years.

I guess I will let his training tell the story. Here is something he posted a while back about he and Craig Virgin Training. Seems like a lot of tempo runs, time trials to round into shape and intervals to me.

LOL! I trained with Virgin for a full year and never noticed "unusually strong shoulders and arms."

When Virgin was in HS, I remember reading an article about him (paraphrased), "Virgin runs 85 miles a week, not much compared to other top HS runners." Obviously "not much" back then didn't mean the same as it does now.

The one thing about Virgin was that he trained with incredible consistency, not leaving it all on the training track, but not very easy either. He regularly ran 20k tempo runs in 61 minutes. The reason why I point it out is because, in my day I've trained with many "hangers-on", you know the type - the ones who show up to the workout to prove themselves. They end up running their Olympics during the workout, and end up shot, and nowhere to be seen for a week - until their next Olympics. That's not training hard - that's training stupid.

Virgin was there for every workout and did them pretty much "on pace." The link below is an example of the training we did (with the obvious exceptions being the steeplechase workouts.) Now I will admit that the training we did together didn't really suit him, he was much more successful coaching himself.

As far as his raw competitiveness goes, there are few, if any Americans, with more. He brought a real tenacity to the track, putting it all on the line. His 8:41 in high school on a melting track is legend, so is the 27:39 in the 1979 Nationals where, in spite of the heat, he nearly lapped the entire field. One of the rare few who been legends in HS, college and internationally.

Always approachable, it seems he has friends in every town in America.

Terminally fastidious, we called him "Felix" after Felix Unger, Tony Randall's charactor in the 60s TV sitcom "The Odd Couple." After his second World XC Championship in Madrid, he had a change of clothes ready at the finish line and was groomed and ready for the post-race interview in minutes.

1/1 - 1/7 1978 75 miles

1/1 S - PM 12 miles easy

1/2 M - PM 13 miles easy

1/3 T - PM 17 miles easy

1/4 W - PM 9 miles easy

1/5 T - PM 2 miles easy, 300 SC Trial 9:11.4, 1 mile jog, 6 x 300 (50,51,46,43,42,42)

1/6 F - PM 5 miles easy

1/7 S - AM 3 mile warm-up, 3 x 100 steep dune, 2 miles easy, 20 X 100 flat dune, 2 miles warm-down

--------------

1/8 - 1/14 91 miles

1/8 S - AM 3 mile warm-up, 3 x steep dune, 8 miles on beach, 5 x flat dune, 2 mile warm-down

1/9 M - PM 9 miles easy plus barrier work

1/10 T - AM 5 miles easy PM 9 miles easy

1/11 W - PM 2 mile warm-up, 4 x 1 mile (4:50, 4:55, 4:38, 5:03), 6 x 300, 2 miles easy

1/12 T - PM 21 miles easy

1/13 F - PM 2 miles easy, 4 x 400 hill, 3 x 300 bounding, 9 x 200 hill, 7 miles warm-down

1/14 S - AM 6 miles easy PM 6 miles easy

-------------

1/15 - 1/21 107 miles

1/15 S - AM 1 mile easy, 20k tempo run 64:11, 1 mile warm-down

1/16 M - AM 5 miles easy PM 4 miles easy

1/17 T - AM 3.5 miles easy, 9 x 100 (easy, medium, hard) PM 2 mile warm-up; 1200-100 (3:39,2:26,1:48,70,49,33,15); 5 miles easy; 4 x 600 over barriers alt 1:49/1:39, 2 x 40 (56.9,59.7), 1 mile easy

1/18 W - PM 22 miles easy

1/19 T - AM 4 miles easy PM 5 miles easy, 800-1200-600-400 over barriers (2:17,3:33,1:40,60.6), 6 miles easy

1/20 F - AM 4 miles easy PM 9 miles easy

1/21 S - AM 1 mile warm-up, 20k tempo run 65:21 with 2:36 control, 1 mile warm-down

--------------

1/22 - 1/28 65 miles

1/22 S - PM 7miles easy

1/23 M - AM 4 miles moderate PM 14 miles easy

1/24 T - PM 2 miles easy, 3000m in 8:34, 6 x 300(50,47,45,45,44,41), 3 miles easy

1/25 W - PM 8 miles easy

1/26 T - PM 5 miles easy

1/27 F - PM 5 miles easy

1/28 S - 3 miles easy, 12k in 40:00, 2 miles easy

----------------

1/29 - 2/4 48 miles

1/29 S - AM 6 miles hard

1/30 M - 0

1/31 T - 0

2/1 W - AM 5 miles easy PM 5 miles easy

2/2 T - AM 4 miles easy PM 2 miles easy, 3x2400 (75-70-65) 2 miles easy

2/3 F - PM 10 miles slow

2/4 S - AM 3 miles slow PM 8 miles slow

-----------------

2/5 - 2/11 97 miles

2/5 S - AM 1 mile easy, 8 mile tempo run

2/6 M - AM 8 miles easy PM 3 miles easy, waterjump work, 3 miles easy

2/7 T - PM 5 miles easy, 3 x 400-300-200 hill, 2 miles easy

2/8 W - AM 9 miles easy PM 14 miles easy

2/9 T - AM 6 miles easy PM 5 miles easy, 800-1200-600-400 over barriers (2:16,3:27,1:36,61) 5 miles easy

2/10 F - AM 5 miles easy PM 10 miles easy

2/11 S - PM 9 miles easy

-------------------

2/12 - 2/18 24 miles (flu)

-------------------

2/19 - 2/25 58 miles

2/19 S - PM 7 miles moderate

2/20 M - AM 4 miles easy PM 6 miles easy

2/21 T - PM 3 miles easy, 4 x 1600 (5:08,4:59,4:50,4:28), 6 x 300(53,50,49,45,44,40), 4 miles easy

2/22 W - PM 10 miles easy

2/23 T - PM 9 miles easy, 6x300

2/24 F - 0 2/25 S - 7 miles easy

----------------------

2/26 - 3/4 91 miles

2/26 S - 0

2/27 M - PM 14 easy

2/28 T - AM 3 easy PM 9 moderate

3/1 W - AM 7 easy PM 9 easy

3/2 T - AM 9 easy PM 4 easy, 800-1200-600-400 (2:16, 3:29, 1:41, 63); 4 easy

3/3 F - AM 9 easy PM 8 easy

3/4 S - AM 1 easy, 10 mile tempo 51:40, 2 warm-down

-------------

3/5 - 3/11 131 miles

3/5 S - PM 13.5 easy

3/6 M - AM 8.5 easy PM 2 warm-up, 2 x 400-300-200 hill, 2.5 fasr, 2 x 400-300-200 hill, 5 easy

3/7 T - AM 8.5 moderate PM 2.5 easy, 20 x water jump, 9.5 easy

3/8 W - AM 9 easy PM 2 easy, 5000m time trial 14:22, 6 x 300 (50,48,45,44,43,42) 5 warmdown

3/9 T - AM 7.5 easy PM 3 easy, 2 miles of 30-40s, 6 easy

3/10 F -AM 9 easy PM 2.5 easy, barriers, 7 easy

3/11 S - AM 1 easy, 10 mile tempo 50:06, 2.5 easy

-------------

3/12 - 3/18 135 miles

3/12 S - PM 13.5 easy

3/13 M - AM 9.5 easy PM 10 easy

3/14 T - AM 7.5 easy PM 2 easy, 3 x 1.5 mile (75-70-65), 6 x 300 (50-40), 3 easy

3/15 W - AM 5.5 easy PM 21 slow 3

3/16 T - AM 8 easy PM 3 easy, 4.5 Holmer fartlek, 3 easy

3/17 F - AM 9 easy PM 2 easy, 6 x 400 hill, 2.5 hard, 8 x 200, 7.5 easy

3/18 S - AM 6.5 easy PM 6.5 easy

------------

3/19 - 3/25 134 miles

3/19 S - AM 1 easy, 10 mile tempo 51:34 (w/ 3 x 1k "controls"), 2.5 easy

3/20 M - AM 7.5 fast PM 14 easy

3/21 T - AM 7.5 hard PM 4.5 easy, 800-1200-600-400 (2:16.3, 3:19.0, 1:37.0, 58.3) over barriers w/ 90, 2:00, 90 rest, 4.5 fartlek

3/22 W - AM 9 fast PM 12.5 easy

3/23 T - AM 7.5 slow PM 2 easy, 30 min Holmer fartlek, 7 slow

3/24 F - AM 9 easy PM 10 easy

3/25 S - AM 1 easy, 10 mile tempo 48:55, 2.5 easy PM 4.5 moderate

-------------

3/26 - 4/1 126 miles

3/26 S - PM 14 easy

3/27 M - AM 9 easy PM 2.5 easy, 4 x 300 hill (58,56,56,53), 2.5 moderate, 6 x 300 hill (60,56,55,56,56,53), 7.5 easy

3/28 T - AM 6.5 easy PM 22 easy

3/29 W - AM 10.5 easy PM 2.5 easy, 6 x 400 (65,64,63,62,61,55), 1 easy, 2 miles of 30-40s, 2 miles

3/30 T - AM 7.5 easy PM 13.5 slow

3/31 F - PM 6 easy

4/1 S - AM 2 warm-up; 10k in 29:28; 3 slow

------------

4/2 - 4/8 118 miles

4/2 S - PM 13 easy

4/3 M - AM 6 easy PM 19 easy

4/4 T - PM 3 easy, 5 x hill circuit (7.5 miles), 2 easy, 6 x 200 hill, 2 easy

4/5 W - AM 7.5 easy PM 5 easy

4/6 T - AM 7 slow PM 3 easy, 10 x hill circuit (13.5 miles), 2.5 easy

4/7 F - PM 5.5 easy

4/8 S - AM 4 easy, 3 x steep dune, 10 miles on beach, 15 x 100m flat dune, 2 easy PM 9 easy

--------------

4/9 - 4/15 112 miles

4/9 S - PM 4 easy, 3 x steep dune, 10 on beach, 5 x flat dune, 2.5 easy

4/10 M - PM 9 easy

4/11 T - AM 4.5 easy PM 3 easy, 4 x hill circuit (5.5 miles), 2 easy, 2 x 800 (2:11) w/:90 rest, 8 x 300 (48 w/45 rest), 4 easy

4/12 W - AM 6 easy PM 10 easy

4/13 T - AM 4.5 easy PM 3 easy, 8 x hill circuit (11 miles), 3 easy

4/14 F - AM 9.5 easy PM 3 easy, 1 x 200-300-200 hill, 3 easy

4/15 S - Am 6 easy PM 5 easy

-------------

4/16 - 4/22 106 miles

4/16 S - AM 1 easy, 20k Tempo 62:51 (with 4th, 10th, 17th km in 2:49, 2:34, 2:40), 1 easy

4/17 M - AM 4.5 easy PM 10 easy

4/18 T - AM 6 easy PM 3 easy, 4 x hill circuit (5.5 miles), 2.5 easy, 6 x 200 hill, 3 easy

4/19 W - PM 3 easy, barriers, 1 mile of 30-40s, 3 easy

4/20 T - AM 7 easy PM 3 easy, 8 x hill circuit (11 miles), 3 easy

4/21 F - PM 7 easy

4/22 S - AM 5 easy, 3 x steep dune, 1 mile easy, 15 x flat dune, 2 easy

------------

4/23 - 4/29 99 miles

4/23 S - AM 12.5 easy on beach

4/24 M - AM 4.5 easy PM 9.5 easy

4/25 T - PM 3 easy, 2 x hill circuit, 4 x 400 hill (bounding), 3k easy, 1200 (3:05), 800 jog, 4 x 600 (1:35, 1:33, 1:38, 1:29), 6 x 300 (50,48,45,43,43,40), 2 easy

4/26 W - AM 4.5 easy PM 2 easy, barriers, 6.5 easy

4/27 T - AM 4.5 easy PM 3 east, 2 x hill circuit, 4 x 400 hill (bounding), 2.5 easy, 9 x 400 (66,62,58), 600 (1:35), 400-300-200-100 (62,43,29,13), 9 x 200 (32,30,28), 1 mile easy

4/28 F - PM 9 easy

4/29 S - AM 1 easy, 10 mile tempo 50:33, 2.5 easy

-------------

4/30 - 5/6 92 miles

4/30 S - PM 15 easy

5/1 M - PM 4.5 easy, 800-1200-600-400 (2:14.9, 3:16.3, 1:38.9, 60.0)over barriers w/ rest of :75, 1:45, :75; 5 easy

5/2 T - AM 5 easy PM 4.5 easy, 1000 (2:42), 4 x 400 (66,65,64,54) w/:60 rest, 3 miles easy, 4 x 400 (59,57,57,54) w/2:00 rest, 4 x 300 (44,43.5,44,42.5) w/:60 rest, 1 mile easy

5/3 W - AM 6 easy PM 10 easy

5/4 T - AM 4.5 moderate PM 3 easy, 2 x 300 (40,41), 800 jog, 4 mile of 30-40s, 800 jog, 2 x 200 (28,27), 2.5 easy

5/5 F - AM 3 easy PM 4.5 easy strides

5/6 S - PM 3 easy, 5000 in 14:05, 3 easy

------------

5/7 - 5/13 101 miles

5/7 S - PM 14 moderate

5/8 M - AM 6 moderate PM 5 easy, 1.5 miles of 30-40s, 20 minutes Holmer fartlek, 3 x 200, 1.5 easy

5/9 T - AM 9 easy PM 4.5 easy, 1200 (3:12), 2 x 800 (2:08, 2:07), 4 x 400 hurdles (66,65,65,65) w/:60 rest, 2 x 200, 3 easy

5/10 W - AM 6 moderate PM 9 moderate

5/11 T - PM 4.5 easy, 4 x 1 mile (4:49, 4:38, 4:28, 4:10), 800 jog, 6 x 300 (60,47,47,43,42,39.8), 3 easy

5/12 F - PM 9 moderate

5/13 S - AM 7 easy PM 4 easy

--------------

5/14 - 5/20 76 miles

5/14 S - AM 3 easy PM 3 easy, 3000m steeple 8:44.8, 3 easy

5/15 M - PM 3 easy, 800 (2:13), 400 (62), 4 miles fartlek, 3 x 400 (61,61,60) 2 easy

5/16 T - AM 3 easy PM 8 moderate

5/17 W - PM 7.5 easy, 4 x 200 (28,27,26,25), 2 easy

5/18 T - AM 5.5 easy PM 7.5 easy

5/19 F - AM 6 easy PM 5 easy

5/20 S - PM 2.5 easy, 3000m steeple 8:32.1, 4.5 easy

--------------

5/21 - 5/27 96 miles

5/21 S - PM 11 moderate

5/22 M - AM 7.5 moderate PM 8.5 moderate

5/23 T - AM 7 moderate PM 4.5 easy, 20 x barriers, 2 x 800, 4 x 400 (over barriers), 4 x 400 (62), 1.5 easy

5/24 W - PM 8.5 slow

5/25 T - PM 3 easy, 1500 (3:45.8), 20 minute jog, 3000 (8:07.7), 4 easy

5/26 F - AM 6 moderate PM 3 easy, 4 x 600 (1:39,1:37,1:34,1:32), 3 easy

5/27 S - AM 14 easy, 5.5 easy

---------------

5/28 - 6/3 79 miles

5/28 S - PM 3 easy, 2 x 400 barriers (66,65), 4 x 400 (62,61,60,52.2), 3 x 200 (30), 6 easy

5/29 M - AM 3 easy, 2 x 300 (42,42), 4 x 150 (strained soleus), 2 miles easy PM 5 easy

5/30 T - AM 3 easy PM 4.5 easy

5/31 W - AM 6 easy PM 3 easy, 5000m in 14:06.7, 1 mile easy

6/1 T - rest

6/2 F - AM 6 easy PM 3 easy, 2 x 1.5 miles, 6 x 300 cut-downs, 5 easy

6/3 S - AM 4.5 easy PM 13.5 easy

----------------

6/4 - 6/10 86 miles

6/4 S - AM 5 miles PM 13 miles

6/5 M - AM 7.5 miles PM 10.5 miles

6/6 T - AM 6 easy PM 3 easy, 1x600 (1:25), 3 easy

6/7 W - PM 6 easy

6/8 T - AM 4 easy PM 3 easy, 3000 SC in 8:52, 2 easy

6/9 F - AM 3 easy PM 5 easy

6/10 S - AM 3 easy PM 2.5 easy, 3000 SC in 8:30.4, 5 easy

----------------

6/11 - 6/17 64 miles

6/11 S - PM 3 easy

6/12 M - AM 3 easy PM 9 easy

6/13 T - AM 4 hard PM 3 easy, 800 (2:02), 600(1:32), 400(58), 2x200(27,26), 2 easy

6/14 W - AM 4.5 hard PM 6.5 easy

6/15 T - PM 3 easy, 1500 in 3:44.9, 5 easu

6/16 F - AM 5.5 easy PM 3 easy, 800 (2:00.4), 1.5 easy, 800(1:59.7), 3.5 easy

6/17 S - PM 3 easy

-------------------

6/18 - 6/24 86 miles

6/18 S - AM 4 fast PM 4 easy

6/19 M - AM 2 easy PM 4 easy, 5000m in 14:07, 3 easy

6/20 T - AM 6.5 easy PM 10.5 fast

6/21 W - AM 4.5 easy PM 3.5 easy, 2 x 1 mile(4:13.5, 4:08.0), 2 easy, 2x200(27.4, 26.0), 2x150(18.4, 17.6) 1 mile easy

6/22 T - AM 3 easy PM 7 easy

6/23 F - AM 3.5 easy PM 3.5 easy, 3000m in 7:59.8, 3.5 easy

6/24 S - AM 2 easy PM 4 easy, 1500 in 3:46.4, 3.5 easy

-------------------

6/25 - 7/1 84 miles

6/25 S - AM 7 easy PM 8 easy

6/26 M - AM 4.5 easy PM 9.5 easy

6/27 T - AM 4.5 easy PM 5.5 moderate

6/28 W - PM 3 easy, 3000m SC in 8:26.8, 2 easy

6/29 T - AM 5 easy PM 17 easy

6/30 F - PM 5 easy, 2x400(62,61), 2x400(56,60), 3x300(40.9,43.9), 2x200(28,27) 2 easy

7/1 S - PM 6 easy

-----------------

7/2 7/8 66 miles

7/2 S - AM 5 easy PM 5 easy

7/3 M - PM 5 easy

7/4 T - PM 3 easy, 3000SC in 8:21.72, 3 easy

7/5 W - AM 8 easy PM 3 easy

7/6 T - AM 4 easy PM 3 easy, 1500m in 3:40.21, 3 easy

7/7 F - AM 6 easy PM 5 easy

7/8 S - PM 7 easy

-------------------

Hellfire, another thread! Well, I don't have time for a decent reply today, but I will make a point of getting back to this thread tomorrow.

Once again, my thanks to the buddy that pinged my email.

why must this be so complicate wrote:

Hadd, what gives? How do you doubles work for malmo, Salazar, and Geb, but your physiological explanations (which I do trust and make sense to me) suggest for us to do singles?

I think it's less complicated than even you make out... You're taking a piece of advice aimed at a single individual ("Joe") and extrapolating it to a general rule valid always and everywhere.

First of all, you are calling me out on an article I wrote one time based on the example of a single individual way back in 2003. Do you really think I advise everyone, always and everywhere, to do the same?

I, myself, ran up to 137mpw ... do you really believe I did that all as singles? That'd be a lot of 20-milers, don't you think? I even went so far as to experiment with triples, but that got old real quick and I just felt I was doing nothing but changing into, and out of, running gear all day.

So, it's never ALWAYS singles, or ALWAYS doubles. And even then you'd have to define "doubles" for me. Is doubles, 2x per week 3x per week? 4x per week? Every day except Sunday? What exactly is "doubles" anyway?

For more general guidelines, I might take into account things like:

Training opportunity. Many folks can make a morning run, but not get back home from work/free enough of commitments to also make an evening run on a regular basis. So, in that case, a longer morning run suits them better (perhaps not optimally training-wise, but lifestyle-wise).

Total mileage. Not everyone benefits from running more than 100mpw on a regular basis, perhaps only when in deep serious training for a long event. The rest of the training year might see their focus change to shorter events (5-10k), quicker paces, and shorter weekly mileage (eg: 70-90mpw). There is a lot less need for doubles off of a 70mpw than there is off a 110mpw.

Target event... (5k vs marathon); Time of the year... (peak track season being much different from mid-winter, even in the same athlete).

So, it ain't either/or, like you make out. Few things in life are that clear cut.

When it comes to the importance of the long run, then again it can fall off the radar in terms of importance in certain circumstances: (eg) if you are running a steady 100mpw+ and aiming for 5k-10k-HM, then there is way less need for a long Sunday run than if you are maxed at 60mpw and (are mad enough to be) aiming for a marathon. High consistent weekly mileage can do a much better job (training wise) than a hit-and-miss week with a 20-miler bolted on, every Sunday.

Given all the above, I'm sure you can see that when I was giving the training example for "Joe", I was not simultaneously offering up a training programme that would be suitable for "malmo, Salazar, and Geb".

Sorry, I guess I was not specific enough in my question. I understand that the Hadd article cited above is just Phase 1. It's base training, the training you do over the summer before the "real training" begins.

But given a 80 mpw base training week, I still don't know whether I should follow the sample schedule you prescribed that has two 90 minute runs, three 75 minute runs, and a 2 hr+ run, or follow a Summer of Malmo where I run doubles as much as possible and place less emphasis on my long run than the standard 20-25% of weekly mileage rule states.

I don't mean to call you out. The singles vs. doubles debate has been around forever. I referred to you by name because I think you give the best explanations WHY we do what we do out of anyone on this site. I figured you could tell me either WHY the "malmo" plan is less optimal, or show me where my logic is flawed in thinking that it's one or the other. I mean, if I want to run 80 miles this week, there is an optimal way to do it, right? And the sample week you gave doesn't look like one that malmo might give. I'm a prime example of paralysis by analysis right now.

Runningart2004 wrote:

You can't train harder than your ability to recover. I think that is where Malmo's experience-science lies. A single 15 miler takes much more recovery than a 5am/10pm. A

Alan

Does that depend on the individual? I find that two 12 mile runs separated by 24 hours take much less from me than does two days of 8 in the morning and 4 at night. But my experience is counter to the common wisdom.