Never will anyone ever be able to convince me to air around on a slow morning jog 6-7 days a week as extra running
would make you a better runner compared to concentrating todays energy into a single run that day.
Never will anyone ever be able to convince me to air around on a slow morning jog 6-7 days a week as extra running
would make you a better runner compared to concentrating todays energy into a single run that day.
You've got some wrong notions. Firstly, you don't have a set amount of energy. If you use energy for the morning run, you don't lose it for the afternoon run (assuming you aren't in some place with a famine and have not enough food to go around). Secondly, doubles allow one to run more mileage than they could in singles. Which is easier a 6 and 10 mile run or a 16 mile run? Which do you think you could do every day of the week? I'm not saying doubles need to be a part of your training program (ie you might not need them if you're a beginner or going through other unique circumstances), but its a silly notion that singles are the best way to train.
Kvothe wrote:
You've got some wrong notions. Firstly, you don't have a set amount of energy. If you use energy for the morning run, you don't lose it for the afternoon run (assuming you aren't in some place with a famine and have not enough food to go around). Secondly, doubles allow one to run more mileage than they could in singles. Which is easier a 6 and 10 mile run or a 16 mile run? Which do you think you could do every day of the week? I'm not saying doubles need to be a part of your training program (ie you might not need them if you're a beginner or going through other unique circumstances), but its a silly notion that singles are the best way to train.
You are right that new energy is supplied in the form of food etc, but the morning jog requires recovery that would have been 100% without it. If your goal is to run for many miles a week, it is of course easier to divide the daily dose into two runs. But if your goal is to reach your optimal running performance in a race, it is smarter and more efficient to do just one run that is sufficient in length and effort level to reach the goal.
But....if more miles => optimal performance, then it wouldn't be smart.
You should inform the Olympic and world champions your conclusions, we must be missing out on some amazing performances.
But..... wrote:
Singles girl wrote:
You are right that new energy is supplied in the form of food etc, but the morning jog requires recovery that would have been 100% without it. If your goal is to run for many miles a week, it is of course easier to divide the daily dose into two runs. But if your goal is to reach your optimal running performance in a race, it is smarter and more efficient to do just one run that is sufficient in length and effort level to reach the goal.
But....if more miles => optimal performance, then it wouldn't be smart.
But.....if enough miles done = optimal performance also, then it would be very smart .
Dunning-Kruger wrote:
You should inform the Olympic and world champions your conclusions, we must be missing out on some amazing performances.
I think the best example of this with only single run daily was the American based Kenyan Michael Mysioki back in -70s-80s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_MusyokiAlso his team mate Suleiman Nyambui, silver medal at Olympics 1980 5000m, was told to mostly only do single runs daily. He told he was always too tired to run in the morning.
Singles girl wrote:
But..... wrote:
But....if more miles => optimal performance, then it wouldn't be smart.
But.....if enough miles done = optimal performance also, then it would be very smart .
So your suggesting there's a limit where increasing miles doesn't increase performance ?
Also what about fatigue ?
Be interested to see your sources on such claims. I'm not saying they aren't true, just it generally seems to go against most evidence.
Singles girl wrote:
You are right that new energy is supplied in the form of food etc, but the morning jog requires recovery that would have been 100% without it. If your goal is to run for many miles a week, it is of course easier to divide the daily dose into two runs. But if your goal is to reach your optimal running performance in a race, it is smarter and more efficient to do just one run that is sufficient in length and effort level to reach the goal.
You are quite wrong with this. The short and easy morning run does not require additional recovery. In fact it is active recovery which prepares yourself for the longer and/or more intense sessions in the evening.
Don't think of mileage for mileages sake. Think of the specific purpose of every run.
Partridge wrote:
Singles girl wrote:
You are right that new energy is supplied in the form of food etc, but the morning jog requires recovery that would have been 100% without it. If your goal is to run for many miles a week, it is of course easier to divide the daily dose into two runs. But if your goal is to reach your optimal running performance in a race, it is smarter and more efficient to do just one run that is sufficient in length and effort level to reach the goal.
You are quite wrong with this. The short and easy morning run does not require additional recovery. In fact it is active recovery which prepares yourself for the longer and/or more intense sessions in the evening.
Don't think of mileage for mileages sake. Think of the specific purpose of every run.
No, you are wrong. It does need recovery that you dont get from the run itself.
Partridge wrote:
You are quite wrong with this. The short and easy morning run does not require additional recovery. In fact it is active recovery which prepares yourself for the longer and/or more intense sessions in the evening.
Don't think of mileage for mileages sake. Think of the specific purpose of every run.
She's wrong, but I don't think you should talk about "active recovery" as though it's a settled question. The reason that various training tools work is not perfectly understood. What is understood is that they work.
Some of the research that's relevant to doubles/easy runs: After a hard efforts, blood lactate is elevated, sometimes for days. This isn't lactate that needs to be "flushed," as some people say. It's lactate that is being produced at an elevated rate, which is thought to be an indicator of stress and damage. Easy runs have been shown to suppress this elevated lactate level. Also, causes hormonal changes, particularly the release of growth hormone. If you run twice a day, it has been shown that you can maintain growth hormone levels that are constantly elevated above baseline, whereas with one run the hormone levels return to normal before you get your next boost.
My own personal theory on "recovery runs," at least following very stressful workouts and races, is that a great deal of the benefit is biomechanical. A maximal effort causes what we might think of as a minor injury. Muscles are torn. Easy running ensures that as the muscles heal, they do so with a full range of motion. It also can break up adhesions in soft tissue that restrict mobility.
that you just want to argue? If no one is going to convince you why start the thread?
But..... wrote:
Singles girl wrote:
But.....if enough miles done = optimal performance also, then it would be very smart .
So your suggesting there's a limit where increasing miles doesn't increase performance ?
Also what about fatigue ?
Be interested to see your sources on such claims. I'm not saying they aren't true, just it generally seems to go against most evidence.
Of course there is a limit to every individual where increasing miles doesn`t increase performance.Unfortunately too many runners in history have experienced this with overtraining and injuries as a result.
The new smarter way should be to try to find the lowest individual limit to just achieve optimum results.
Ok, so don't do doubles, then. What a simple solution for you!
The concept of active recovery is well known. It even starts directly after an intense training session or race with the cool down. Do you agree that slow jogging as cool down is a first step to recovery, or do you like to argue that this is unnecessary and even adds more stress you need to recover from, then? The same is with an easy jog the next morning. Of course it has to be short enough (4-5 miles is plenty) and very easy to not add much additional stress. It is not that simple, that it only flushes lactate, but also the elevated blood flow delivers all the nutrients needed for repairing muscle damage and fueling up, at a higher rate. So if you like to train somewhat hard again the next day, an easy morning jog is a good idea.
I think "singles girl" has not quite reached the level where she wants to train hard or moderate every day. So she does a single hard session one day, and uses the single easy run the next day or even a few days in a row for recovery. But that's not optimal training for to reach your individual maximum potential, that's just training on a recreational level. Just for fun or because she doesn't know any better.
Singles girl wrote:
But..... wrote:
So your suggesting there's a limit where increasing miles doesn't increase performance ?
Also what about fatigue ?
Be interested to see your sources on such claims. I'm not saying they aren't true, just it generally seems to go against most evidence.
Of course there is a limit to every individual where increasing miles doesn`t increase performance.Unfortunately too many runners in history have experienced this with overtraining and injuries as a result.
The new smarter way should be to try to find the lowest individual limit to just achieve optimum results.
Sounds very interesting. I mean, our world of today has a requirement that everything should be more time-efficient.
Would be great to reach my optimum capacity as a runner and still get more time for other interests , family and friends.
some of them run doubles and some not. at least bernie lagat and nick willis like singles.
So it seems... wrote:
that you just want to argue? If no one is going to convince you why start the thread?
Maybe to convince others? To show them another very effective way of training and make them question their previously
belief.
So you mean that Michael Mysyoki, Suleiman Nyambui , Bernard Langat and Nick Willis are just recreational runners? LoL
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=505848&page=1malmo wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Why would anybody wake up early to run 3 miles?
Because they're serious runners.
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion