I run 70 miles a week with doubles 4x a week and a long run of only 12 or so miles. Am I doing it wrong?

Too many questions on doubles

come on... wrote:

now why in the world is an 18 minute 5k runner hitting 70 miles per week... completely unnecessary. Might be a sign you are overworking him. I have never broken 55 and run 15:30...

Don't get hung up purely on the number of miles... more is not better

I have to agree with this. I ran 4:21/9:32 in high school off of high mileage weeks in the 30's/40's. And then 30flat 10,000m in college off of highs in the 50's/60's with a few 70's/80's in cross country (but not very many).

A lot of these guys on this board who are running tons of miles seem so consumed about weekly numbers that the training they're doing isn't yeilding results. My take is train smart and bump up the mileage intelligently when the time comes.

1998 wrote:

come on... wrote:

now why in the world is an 18 minute 5k runner hitting 70 miles per week... completely unnecessary. Might be a sign you are overworking him. I have never broken 55 and run 15:30...

Don't get hung up purely on the number of miles... more is not better

I have to agree with this. I ran 4:21/9:32 in high school off of high mileage weeks in the 30's/40's. And then 30flat 10,000m in college off of highs in the 50's/60's with a few 70's/80's in cross country (but not very many).

A lot of these guys on this board who are running tons of miles seem so consumed about weekly numbers that the training they're doing isn't yeilding results. My take is train smart and bump up the mileage intelligently when the time comes.

see some of us lack what you might call "talent" and we supplement it with "work". I probably did the same 30-40 a week in high school and all it got me was 4:59 and 10:19. Obviously everyone is different, but us slow-ass MFers can benefit a lot from high mileage

T-man wrote:

malmo wrote:

Posting on an empty brain is a waste of all of our time.

ok, so the guy is a blunt asshole, but isn't it safe to say that doing the 70 miles in singles will bring you more benefit than doing it in 11 runs a week? 70 miles in singles isn't that much running...

But maybe that isn't the alternative. Maybe he is doing 70 in doubles instead of 60 in singles. I know for me, years ago, I switched to slightly longer singles (11 as a "standard" easy day run) over 13-14 some days in doubles 9 - 10 some days in a single) and I felt better and raced better on the doubles. I'll only quit because I got too lazy to run doubles with work and made the concession to longer singles. As I am getting ready to turn 40 and my mediocre abilities will mean a little something, I am prepping to go back to the doubles plan because it works better. The semi-frequent doubles plan was only slightly more mileage than the "longer singles" plan but it seemed to work better. In 2000, I ran 1:08:26 for Half and 15:02 5k (roads) in one season with a long run that was probably no more than 13-14 (but around 85-90 a week in doubles).

malmo wrote:

T-man wrote:

ok, so the guy is a blunt asshole, but isn't it safe to say that doing the 70 miles in singles will bring you more benefit than doing it in 11 runs a week? 70 miles in singles isn't that much running...

NO. Whoever put that in your head is wrong.

So if the effort is the same, a 5 miler and a 6 miler in the same day bring the same improvement as an 11 miler? Can I do a triple of 2 4s and a 3 miler?

I'm not being a pedantic letsrunner, i'm really curious.

There are many advantages to doubling:

1) It forces one's body to learn to recover in shorter periods of time.

2) It loosens up one's legs so that they can run faster than they would have in the afternoon. A 4 mile and 6 miles double at 7 minute pace is not much better than a 10 mile run at 7 minute pace. However, if the 4 mile morning run allows you to run 6:20 pace on the afternoon run, it is better. Doubles allow one to get used to running lots of fast miles.

3) It allows one to RUN MORE. The problem isn't, I can run 70 in doubles or 70 in singles (70 in doubles according to Malmo is still better!). One can increase one's weekly mileage significantly by adding in doubles. Its 70 in singles vs. 85 in doubles.

addf wrote:

There are many advantages to doubling:

3) It allows one to RUN MORE. The problem isn't, I can run 70 in doubles or 70 in singles (70 in doubles according to Malmo is still better!). One can increase one's weekly mileage significantly by adding in doubles. Its 70 in singles vs. 85 in doubles.

I see it as 60 in singles vs. 75-80 in doubles for a high school upper classmen. As for the debate over whether the mileage is necessary, it's an inane argument. So some had talent and ran fast off of low miles. I knew a guy who ran a 4:01 mile equivalent just busting his balls running about four miles a day very fast. Not something I ever could've done.

I had nary a summer base (maybe 15-20 miles per week with a couple races) going into my senior year, finally figured out I needed to train and ran 55 miles per week over the winter (mostly in singles), and ran the sea-level equivalents of 9:18 and around 15:00+/-. Big deal. Think I wouldn't have benefited more by actually putting in a 1000-mile summer and winter with doubles? Might've gotten me some real scholarship offers back then.

"So if the effort is the same, a 5 miler and a 6 miler in the same day bring the same improvement as an 11 miler? Can I do a triple of 2 4s and a 3 miler? I'm not being a pedantic letsrunner, i'm really curious."

I understand the initial intuitive logic that would make one think that a long single is better than the same distance in two runs, and I don't think Malmo is suggesting that you just take whatever mileage you are doing now and just do it in doubles. I think he is saying that it is better to run some doubles for the sake of even slightly more weekly mileage. So I wouldn't go 5 and 6 for an 11 mile day, but I do think it is better to get 12 in a 8/4 than 11 in a single sometimes.

The issues is benefit vs. fatigue cost and while you may get a bit less aerobic benefit from a 8/4 rather than an 11 single, it is at much greater fatigue cost. I think everyone has a different swing point where a long single becomes disproportionately costly in fatigue compared to the benefit. And another thing about doing long singles I have found is that it is much easier to get into a training monotony situation beause you can't get, in my case, 80 a week without going 11 every single day. With doubles, you can get more variety and still get your mileage totals and even get your totals up some without so much monotony.

The plan that worked best for me was a longish run on Sunday (13-15 and my semi-steadiest "easy" day of the week), a single of 10 on Mon./Wed. (because I had to work 1pm-9pm those days), a double totalling 13-14 split as 4/9 or 4/10 on Tues/Wed/Fri and a single 10 on Sat. I was doing two workouts a week as well - one AT run and one interval workout, usually Tues/Fri.

The last several years, I have been doing 11 in a single most easy days, a long run of 15 and working out maybe every 5 days. I feel more tired all the time and have trouble working out frequently enough. Ran some decent times off that, but feel semi-flat all the time now as I am getting older, especially after pneumonia and sports hernia surgery last year. I am transitioning back to my old plan.

1998 wrote:

I have to agree with this. I ran 4:21/9:32 in high school off of high mileage weeks in the 30's/40's. And then 30flat 10,000m in college off of highs in the 50's/60's with a few 70's/80's in cross country (but not very many).

A lot of these guys on this board who are running tons of miles seem so consumed about weekly numbers that the training they're doing isn't yeilding results. My take is train smart and bump up the mileage intelligently when the time comes.

I don't know where you get the idea that, because you ran well off of low mileage, you wouldn't have run faster off of high mileage. You ran 30 flat off of 50-60? Wejo ran 28:06 off of 100's.

I don't follow the "run low mileage, you can be mediocre like me" logic, and I don't think you guys understand how mileage works. You don't run a certain mileage after running a time, you run that mileage so that you can run that time.

"The issues is benefit vs. fatigue cost and while you may get a bit less aerobic benefit from a 8/4 rather than an 11 single, it is at much greater fatigue cost."

I meant the 11 single is a much greater fatigue cost - I know it was unclear.

If you ran 60mpw in HS you would have been close to being a 9 flat guy. Granted most people need to build up to that but with 3 years of training running 60mpw isn't unreasonable. Hey but if you were happy winning your conference instead of your state, then there was no need for more mileage.Yeah people get hung up on mileage a bit but if your under ~60, increasing it is a no brainer method of getting faster. After that some guys really thrive on cranking it up while others don't seem to benefit as much.

wilfredo wrote:

1998 wrote:

I have to agree with this. I ran 4:21/9:32 in high school off of high mileage weeks in the 30's/40's. And then 30flat 10,000m in college off of highs in the 50's/60's with a few 70's/80's in cross country (but not very many).

A lot of these guys on this board who are running tons of miles seem so consumed about weekly numbers that the training they're doing isn't yeilding results. My take is train smart and bump up the mileage intelligently when the time comes.

see some of us lack what you might call "talent" and we supplement it with "work". I probably did the same 30-40 a week in high school and all it got me was 4:59 and 10:19. Obviously everyone is different, but us slow-ass MFers can benefit a lot from high mileage

I'm thinking about increasing my evening run so that it is around 8 miles. The thing is that my long run, I rarely go above 11-12 miles. Often it is just around 10. I should work on increasing that but I have bonked often on these longer runs.

ummm what now? wrote:

This is what my schedule looks like now:

day 1 - AM: 4 PM: 7

day 2 - AM: 4 PM: 8 (some sort of workout)

day 3 - 7

day 4 - AM: 3-4 PM: 6-7

day 5 - AM: 4 PM: 8 (some sort of workout)

day 6 - 6

day 7 - 12

This looks pretty good The only thing I would change would be on day 5. Make the PM run a 10 miler. Start out running it easy. In subsequent weeks, if you're feeling good that day, run the last 5 progressively faster.

1998 wrote:

I have to agree with this. I ran 4:21/9:32 in high school off of high mileage weeks in the 30's/40's. And then 30flat 10,000m in college off of highs in the 50's/60's with a few 70's/80's in cross country (but not very many).

A lot of these guys on this board who are running tons of miles seem so consumed about weekly numbers that the training they're doing isn't yeilding results. My take is train smart and bump up the mileage intelligently when the time comes.

No offense but it seems like you were undertrained, and you underachieved, especially in college. If you ran 30 flat off 50s/60s, then you probably could have run 29 flat or better off 100s.

In high school, I ran 4:27/9:29 off of 70 to 90 mpw. Then in college off of 90 to 110, I ran low-29's. You're certainly more talented than me.

Not to troll or anything, but I really wish I could bring you down to Miami and you could tell my coach. Everyone here has the mentality that you can run sub-16 off of 40 mile weeks. I got kicked off the team for running more than 40 mile weeks(?) So ridiculous in my opinion. Not to mention can everyone here agree that a 16 flat runner should not be running easy runs at ~9:00 pace?

Ayn Wrong wrote:

I don't know where you get the idea that, because you ran well off of low mileage, you wouldn't have run faster off of high mileage. You ran 30 flat off of 50-60? Wejo ran 28:06 off of 100's.

I don't follow the "run low mileage, you can be mediocre like me" logic, and I don't think you guys understand how mileage works. You don't run a certain mileage after running a time, you run that mileage so that you can run that time.

malmo wrote:

Posting on an empty brain is a waste of all of our time.

Malmo-

First, you are an idiot. Get a life.

Second, this argument that doubles are always better is ridiculous. The only reason to double at 70mpw is that your body absolutely can't handle ten mile runs. In that case, don't bother with mileage

Otherwise, why stop at doubling? Why not run a mile at the top of every hour for ten to fifteen miles per day?

Finally, malmo is a dork.

wasteit wrote:

Malmo-

First, you are an idiot. Get a life.

Second, this argument that doubles are always better is ridiculous. The only reason to double at 70mpw is that your body absolutely can't handle ten mile runs. In that case, don't bother with mileage

Otherwise, why stop at doubling? Why not run a mile at the top of every hour for ten to fifteen miles per day?

Finally, malmo is a dork.

malmo concerns himself with training that will leads to fast races. If you want a gold star for your body being able to handle ten mile runs, great, knock yourself out and build up to 70 mpw in singles. If you want to race faster, you will follow the advice of malmo and run that 70 mpw in doubles.

wasteit wrote:

Malmo-

First, you are an idiot. Get a life.

Second, this argument that doubles are always better is ridiculous. The only reason to double at 70mpw is that your body absolutely can't handle ten mile runs. In that case, don't bother with mileage

Otherwise, why stop at doubling? Why not run a mile at the top of every hour for ten to fifteen miles per day?

Finally, malmo is a dork.

Res ipsa loquitur

Not trying to beat a dead horse, just still confused a little Malmo. Doubles are still more beneficial in the base phase correct? Is this even if a workout will not be taking place for a few weeks? And than instead of 10, i'm better off doing 8-4 or 7-4, so more mileage, but less stress and I now have the ability to hypothetically go faster on the runs is this correct?

What about when training for halves and marathons, is there a purpose for a medium long run to your week? Or just similar length days in training, such as every day at 15 with 6 of those days being doubles and one long run of 15?