All else being equal, which is better for realizing performance improvements?
All else being equal, which is better for realizing performance improvements?
Obviously the singles would theoretically be more beneficial, because you are running 14-15 miles on average all at one time. But realistically, who can handle that? If you plan on running 100 mpw, I'd double a minium of 3-4 days out of the week.
doubles, look at Adam Goucher
what type of race do you want to run?
5K - id say dont go a hair over 60 mpw, all the top guys in the 5 run at most 70... just be careful
10K- id say start touching the 70s, same thoughts as before, be careful
20K - you know work it around the 80s
Marathon - keep it right at like 120 or so, but be smart, remember long slow distance makes a long slow runner !!!!
Joe Peoples wrote:
what type of race do you want to run?
5K - id say dont go a hair over 60 mpw, all the top guys in the 5 run at most 70... just be careful
10K- id say start touching the 70s, same thoughts as before, be careful
20K - you know work it around the 80s
Marathon - keep it right at like 120 or so, but be smart, remember long slow distance makes a long slow runner !!!!
Or you can start running 100+ in doubles now and be good like kenya and ethopia
oh boy wrote:
Obviously the singles would theoretically be more beneficial, because you are running 14-15 miles on average all at one time.
Singles are not better than doubles any time.
malmo wrote:
oh boy wrote:Obviously the singles would theoretically be more beneficial, because you are running 14-15 miles on average all at one time.
Singles are not better than doubles any time.
So I should not do my long run, since doubling 6 and 8 is clearly better than the 14 all at once. Okay, thanks for the training advice.
Obviously for you, that would be good start.
dude you know what he meant, im just sick of those pound em out mileage whores, you gotta be smart, you gotta be willing to say no to that urge.. its hard, i know in college i was surrounded by people trying to push 80 mpw but honest, they didnt do any better for it, they pretty much all ended up hurt or tired. I was alway fresh. you can debate all you want, but the proof has been clear pretty much universally between all levels of competition, less is in fact more, and doubling DOES help more than singling. you do doubles you are more fresh and you hit the same amount in miles, boom, you are in there. you are going to be running fresh feeling good on race day, and more consistent. if you get anywhere near 100 or over in college you just flat out wont be as successful as you could have been if you were at 70s or 60s... it is a progressive over loading process the body must go through, if you are still young, and only 4-5 years into it, 60s or 70s is perfect, MAYBE after running there for like 10 years, you can get up to 80s, then when you are in your 30s and it is marathon time, you can start with the 100s. basically all the literature I have read has lead me to the same conclusion.
Joe Peoples wrote:
what type of race do you want to run?
5K - id say dont go a hair over 60 mpw, all the top guys in the 5 run at most 70... just be careful
10K- id say start touching the 70s, same thoughts as before, be careful
20K - you know work it around the 80s
Marathon - keep it right at like 120 or so, but be smart, remember long slow distance makes a long slow runner !!!!
Well, Jordan Hasay runs 70. She runs the 1500, mile, and 3k.
I think there is a misunderstanding. What I meant vs. what you and malmo meant aren't the same. I was using a narrow example, such as there are more aerobic benefits from a 14 mile run done continuously, vs. splitting it in two runs, 6 and 8.
I do agree with both you and malmo that for overall health and maximum benefits, there is no way anybody can do singles and get a lot of mileage in and not get hurt or too tired. Therefore, doubles would be the way to go. However, I did say that in my original post when I said "who could handle that?" I also like how doubling seems to keep your metabolism high and if you run say 30 minute am run, when you do a track workout later on in the day you might tend to feel better.
All that aside, sorry for the misunderstanding.
It depends on how experienced you are and how fast you are. For instance if you go out for a 60 minute easy run and get in 10 miles no problem, then 100mpw isn't that big a stretch in singles. If you run much slower on easy running days then you can still do it, but your runs are going to be pretty long, and unless you are training for a marathon or longer they probably don't need to be that long so in that respect it's good to run for time instead of distance.
I ran 40 miles a week in high school. I ran 80 miles a week my freshman year in college and dropped 15 seconds off my mile time. Then I ran 100 mpw as a sophomore and took off another 7. The time I took off my 5k in those two years was over a minute and a half. My teammates who ran the same milage in highschool and had similar times but ran less in college did not see the same gains. Please explain this to me using your logic.
That said, I think doubling 3-4 times a week is really helpful for recovery, but it's important to get 4+ runs a week that are in the double digits.
oh boy wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding. What I meant vs. what you and malmo meant aren't the same. I was using a narrow example, such as there are more aerobic benefits from a 14 mile run done continuously, vs. splitting it in two runs, 6 and 8.
There is no misunderstanding. There are not more aerobic benefits by doing 14 miles continuously over splitting them up. You are not doing doubles to "get a lot of mileage in" (although that is an ancillary benefit) you are doing them for two stresses a day, which has be proven to be the optimum training frequency.
If you need a break, it's OK to skip a double a day or two per week and do a single.
Can you state your coaching acumen? I don't know if you are a respectable source of information (an "armchair" coach, if you will).
malmo wrote:
oh boy wrote:I think there is a misunderstanding. What I meant vs. what you and malmo meant aren't the same. I was using a narrow example, such as there are more aerobic benefits from a 14 mile run done continuously, vs. splitting it in two runs, 6 and 8.
There is no misunderstanding. There are not more aerobic benefits by doing 14 miles continuously over splitting them up. You are not doing doubles to "get a lot of mileage in" (although that is an ancillary benefit) you are doing them for two stresses a day, which has be proven to be the optimum training frequency.
If you need a break, it's OK to skip a double a day or two per week and do a single.
Ok fine. Not to be argumentative at all, then why do the long run? Thanks.
oh boy wrote:
Can you state your coaching acumen? I don't know if you are a respectable source of information (an "armchair" coach, if you will).
Sorry, forgot to Log In. Obviously not me since I know full well who you are.
oh boy wrote:
Can you state your coaching acumen? I don't know if you are a respectable source of information (an "armchair" coach, if you will).
Young grasshopper, you just got set up bad. Malmo - former American half marathoner record holder and legendary pain in the ass (but listen to him - what he says about doubles (and most things running) is dead on). Just do what he says and have faith...
ScabbyMcPeter wrote:
oh boy wrote:Can you state your coaching acumen? I don't know if you are a respectable source of information (an "armchair" coach, if you will).
Young grasshopper, you just got set up bad. Malmo - former American half marathoner record holder and legendary pain in the ass (but listen to him - what he says about doubles (and most things running) is dead on). Just do what he says and have faith...
Yes I know that. Read the above post. I forgot to Log In (it autofills username whenever I type) and someone used my log in name. All I want information on is what are the benefits of the long run since there isn't any greater aerobic benefit doing 14 all at once vs. 6 and 8. I'm sure there is a good reason I am just curious as to what that is and/or what the experts think about it. Thanks.
Well, then I'd say MOST runners do not learn it the proper way. Like malmo says, it is not to get in a lot of mileage, but for 2 stresses and this is the optimum training frequency. Most other runners, at least in the US, learn that if you double you can get a lot of mileage in, and this is the way to run a lot of miles. Not the other, or correct way. Thanks for the discussion.