12345

Once-a-Day Marathon Training (Yuki Kawauchi) (Read 3057 times)


    Funny also how a lot of the know-it-alls are slower than the people they are giving advice to....

     Crap, I'm guessing that was aimed at me.  If I came off that way I am completely sorry, not my intent at all, it is unfortunate text often misrepresents tone.  I wasn't trying to give advice at all, just trying to get people who know tons more than me to evaluate what I took from the article.  I'm tempted pursue the conversation farther, but apparently I look like the a$$ so I'll just apologize and drop it.

    Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul.


    Consistently Slow

        Yes, most of them run a lot (about 1000 to 1200km per month); yes, most of them run quite a bit slower than most people think (8-minute-mile pace in the case of this 2:06 guy)

       2:06:00= 4:49 pace. Long run  3 minutes off  race pace. Does that mean my 11:30 pace is right? Maybe I need to add the 300+ miles a month to  make it right. Smile

      Run until the trail runs out.

      2014***1500 miles 09/28/14

      50miler 13:26:18

      Race Less Train More

       Pistol 100 ----01/03/15

      Ana Trason  "Living Her Life"

      "The Marble in The Groove"

       

      unsolicited chatter

      http://bkclay.blogspot.com/

         Crap, I'm guessing that was aimed at me.  If I came off that way I am completely sorry, not my intent at all, it is unfortunate text often misrepresents tone.  I wasn't trying to give advice at all, just trying to get people who know tons more than me to evaluate what I took from the article.  I'm tempted pursue the conversation farther, but apparently I look like the a$$ so I'll just apologize and drop it.

         

        No. It was aimed at no one in particular on RA, it is just a long term gripe of mine.

         

        I mean, someone I know who is female, almost 50 years old, and still runs a bunch of sub-3:00 marathons a year gets told "I bet if you ran less marathons you'd be faster." This typically by 35 year old guys who have PR's slower than 3:30. Lord help me.

         

        There is a huge amount of this going around. RA is NOT one of the worst places for spawning this stuff. I just wish people would stop and think: if someone has run a bunch of marathons and many were quite fast, don't you think they have some idea of the merits of various kinds of training? Sheesh!

         

        Sorry for ranting, and it definitely was not at you.

          I like the way Pfitz puts it - he says that when you can, get your long run in, in one go, rather than splitting it across 2 sessions because that mimics your marathon day much closely than the latter i.e. you run your marathon in one go and dont get too much to rest at all if you are trying to run down a time barrier.

           

          Doubles, in addition to whatever workout specific benefit they deliver, seems to have a place in getting overall volumes up, recovering faster, managing time constraints better etc.

           

          I dont do doubles (i have my hands full just managing singles Smile ) but intuitively, i think it will be tough to categorically prove that one is better than the other i.e. singles v. doubles.

          I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.

            I got what Jeff is saying--IF you can only do single; that's the way to go.

             

            So with that, I guess what I'm about to say is not relevant anyways but IF we do argue at all whether or not single is better or double is better; double is ALWAYS better.  Pretty much no ifs or buts to it.  Of course, I'm talking about for those who are serious about improving their performance.

             

            Bear in mind, however, you ADD ON to what you're doing by doing double; not by splitting what you're doing in two.

               

              Bear in mind, however, you ADD ON to what you're doing by doing double; not by splitting what you're doing in two.

               

              +1

              I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.

                I got what Jeff is saying--IF you can only do single; that's the way to go.

                 

                So with that, I guess what I'm about to say is not relevant anyways but IF we do argue at all whether or not single is better or double is better; double is ALWAYS better.  Pretty much no ifs or buts to it.  Of course, I'm talking about for those who are serious about improving their performance.

                 

                Bear in mind, however, you ADD ON to what you're doing by doing double; not by splitting what you're doing in two.

                 

                I love these kinds of discussions. I am not a terribly talented runner, better than most, but I know my place is not alongside guys like Spaniel who could beat me like I owed him money over any distance. There is another level of runner that is simply unattainable for most of us, and that is not due to 140 mile weeks filled with doubles and triples. There's a woman here named Christa Iammarino, a 37 year-old nurse, who just finished her third marathon (Grandma's Marathon) in 2:38:06 on a 70 mpw peak, good enough to put her in the "A" group in the Olympic trials in Houston next January. We share the same coach and I have talked to her, so I know the training philosophy. Her training is packed with harder efforts and singles, is she not reaching her potential? I doubt it. I am skeptical about such absolute statements as "doubles (are) always better". What we see in this article and in what people like Krista are accomplishing, is that there are many different ways to reach your potential as a runner.
                  I love these kinds of discussions. I am not a terribly talented runner, better than most, but I know my place is not alongside guys like Spaniel who could beat me like I owed him money over any distance. There is another level of runner that is simply unattainable for most of us, and that is not due to 140 mile weeks filled with doubles and triples. There's a woman here named Christa Iammarino, a 37 year-old nurse, who just finished her third marathon (Grandma's Marathon) in 2:38:06 on a 70 mpw peak, good enough to put her in the "A" group in the Olympic trials in Houston next January. We share the same coach and I have talked to her, so I know the training philosophy. Her training is packed with harder efforts and singles, is she not reaching her potential? I doubt it. I am skeptical about such absolute statements as "doubles (are) always better". What we see in this article and in what people like Krista are accomplishing, is that there are many different ways to reach your potential as a runner.

                  All due respect, I'm not throwing an argument here.  I know this sounds very egotistical and arrogant but I believe I probably have more experience than most here, just as long as anybody in years and probably a hell of a lot wider range of experience with helping out some 5-hour marathon runners to coaching national level athletes to hanging with the Olympic champions, and I'm just making a statment--doubles is always better (by the way, here I actually meant "training on doubles" so it shouldn't be, grammatically, "doubles are...").  That is not to say you can't get the best out of you by doing singles--there are always situational and environmental and such conditions.  If your friend is a nurse and working some odd hours and maybe has a family that she wants to spend time with...  That, to me, is her situation and choice.  She may have a very fragile physique that breaks down by lots of pounding and can't handle a lot of miles of running--it COULD happen.  2:38 is a damn good time.  But not as good as 2:28 and sure as hell not as good as 2:18.  And I'm not making a speculation; I HAVE dealt with runners between 2:18 and 2:28 and I'm making a statement: doubles is always better than singles.


                  Got Hills?

                    Who was this guy? Did he, an amateur runner who had previously run 2:12 despite holding down a nine-hour-a-day job while training for the marathon, really just outrun an entire field of full-time, triple-digit-mileage-logging Japanese pros?

                     

                    So, what is 2:12?  Chopped liver?

                     

                    Smile

                    "Not to touch the Earth, not to see the Sun, nothing left to do but run, run, run..."

                      All due respect, I'm not throwing an argument here.  I know this sounds very egotistical and arrogant but I believe I probably have more experience than most here, just as long as anybody in years and probably a hell of a lot wider range of experience with helping out some 5-hour marathon runners to coaching national level athletes to hanging with the Olympic champions, and I'm just making a statment--doubles is always better (by the way, here I actually meant "training on doubles" so it shouldn't be, grammatically, "doubles are...").  That is not to say you can't get the best out of you by doing singles--there are always situational and environmental and such conditions.  If your friend is a nurse and working some odd hours and maybe has a family that she wants to spend time with...  That, to me, is her situation and choice.  She may have a very fragile physique that breaks down by lots of pounding and can't handle a lot of miles of running--it COULD happen.  2:38 is a damn good time.  But not as good as 2:28 and sure as hell not as good as 2:18.  And I'm not making a speculation; I HAVE dealt with runners between 2:18 and 2:28 and I'm making a statement: doubles is always better than singles.

                       

                       

                      I respect your experience of course, and I don't think it's arrogant to state the facts.  Still, I think your argument is highly speculative and impossible to prove.  No matter how well someone performs on singles, we can always say, "Imagine what he would have accomplished on doubles."  It's weak because there's no way to prove or disprove it.  There's not much terribly fragile about Christa, she's a pretty compact muscular little power cell, so I am sure she could physically handle doubles.  If a runner like Christa goes from gym rat and 18:40 5K runner to a nationally competitive marathoner in 18 months on singles, and if the Japanese marathoner can do a 2:08, that appears to be a pretty effective training plan.  Really, how much faster than 2:08 do you think you could make that guy?

                       

                      That doesn't make your approach any less effective, I am sure doing doubles and triples is an objectively effective way of making someone faster at the marathon.  The idea that more running equals faster running has a sort of intuitive logic to it, I am just saying that it also makes sense that there are other ways to get to the same point.  For me, I get enough sh_t about my running from my wife as it is with only a 70 mpw peak.  Doubling my mileage is only an option if I am also comfortable seeing my kids every other weekend, in between child support and alimony payments.   

                        Often when discussing doubles vs. singles people put these into opposition, as if the only option in training were to run once a day or twice a day. While there are no firm training rules, runners at the highest levels, collegiate and professional, will as a general rule run 10-14 times a week. That's pretty fixed across the board. As Nobby says, this can change according to environmental or personal factors, but that's simply the unquestioned rule of how to train at the highest level. You can call this "doubling," or "singles" but I think it's best to think of each of those sessions as simply being a run that serves its own purpose: pace work, recovery, general aerobic work, etc.

                         

                        That 10-14 (or more) sessions a week is the ideal way to train doesn't mean that every runner would improve simply by adding more sessions. You've got to do it in the right way, at the right time, developmentally. Runners who have "figured out" how to train well using singles might not be successful going to doubles immediately. And it is certainly possible to train better on singles than to train using doubles (for example, you might be running some of the doubles too hard or not recovering adequately, or bumping mileage too quickly, etc.)

                         

                        In short, all things being equal, 10-14 sessions a week is better than 7 sessions a week. Doubles are better than singles. But of course if you can pull off 7 sessions well, really training according to your body's ability to adapt, hitting things right, learning from your mistakes, then you will be doing much better than running doubles blindly, just because "doubles are always better than singles."


                        Feeling the growl again

                           The idea that more running equals faster running has a sort of intuitive logic to it, I am just saying that it also makes sense that there are other ways to get to the same point.  For me, I get enough sh_t about my running from my wife as it is with only a 70 mpw peak.  Doubling my mileage is only an option if I am also comfortable seeing my kids every other weekend, in between child support and alimony payments.   

                           

                          I see what you're saying, but the fact remains that there is a limit to what you can do in 7 weekly sessions, vs the 10-12 that are probably average for more really serious runners.  You simply can't pack the volume into 7 sessions and still have ones that are short enough to recover.  So while there are multiple workout strategies that I agree may get different runners to the same place, I simply don't see any way someone can max themselves on only 7 sessions.  Been there, tried that, got the T-shirt.

                           

                          As for the wife and family etc, that's out of the equation.  You're either trying to maximize your running, or you are not.  If you are not because you actually have a life outside running, that's perfectly fine of course.  But it has nothing at all to do with what would make you the absolutely best runner.

                           

                          2:08 is an impressive time for sure, but let's remember there is a HELL of a difference between a 2:08 and a 2:06 guy these days, and if doubles took another 2 minutes off for him he would go to being another no-name pro runner chasing behind the leaders at the major events, to contesting with them.

                          "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                           

                          DLJ


                            Alright. Let's for argument sake say that there is no question that doubles are better than singles, and it certainly appears to be what those with by far the most experience are suggesting is the case, and one wished to try to start adding some doubles, I have a few questions.

                             

                            What I have gleaned so far is that the first and critical thing is to do doubles not simply split singles but what I want to know is you are already trying to run a balanced program with tempo's, intervals, recoveries, long, easy etc etc and all of this is as singles (in the morning for arguments sake) what do you do for the double (i.e. the afternoon run)?

                             

                            Is it simply all aerobic just to build a greater base or are you supposed to mix it up - e.g. running a track session the afternoon of an easy run and running an easy run the afternoon of running intervals in the morning.

                             

                            The second question is, are the doubles better in general or only better once you have maxed out your training capacity in singles? That is, if you had the time to run 20 miles each day as a single would a double running 8 miles and 12 miles be better.

                             

                            Thanks for your thoughts as I ponder whether I should try to add some doubles. Specifically I try to run around 10 miles on my easy days and could probably spare the time to run for an extra hour (6-8 miles for me) as a double on maybe 2 x per week. Advantageous or simply "junk" miles ruining the running for the next day?


                            Feeling the growl again

                              Alright. Let's for argument sake say that there is no question that doubles are better than singles, and it certainly appears to be what those with by far the most experience are suggesting is the case, and one wished to try to start adding some doubles, I have a few questions.

                               

                              What I have gleaned so far is that the first and critical thing is to do doubles not simply split singles but what I want to know is you are already trying to run a balanced program with tempo's, intervals, recoveries, long, easy etc etc and all of this is as singles (in the morning for arguments sake) what do you do for the double (i.e. the afternoon run)?

                               

                              Is it simply all aerobic just to build a greater base or are you supposed to mix it up - e.g. running a track session the afternoon of an easy run and running an easy run the afternoon of running intervals in the morning.

                               

                              The second question is, are the doubles better in general or only better once you have maxed out your training capacity in singles? That is, if you had the time to run 20 miles each day as a single would a double running 8 miles and 12 miles be better.

                               

                              Thanks for your thoughts as I ponder whether I should try to add some doubles. Specifically I try to run around 10 miles on my easy days and could probably spare the time to run for an extra hour (6-8 miles for me) as a double on maybe 2 x per week. Advantageous or simply "junk" miles ruining the running for the next day?

                               

                              If you have time for 20 miles per day, you will have to double to do it at a reasonable pace or the recovery need will be excessive.  IMHO at any reasonable pace, anything over around 80min is going to cause the next run to need to give you some recovery (ie no workout, shorter).  The one time I tried to run a full 140 miles in a week I did a lot of 12/8 doubles because that was what I found doable recovery-wise.

                               

                              Most guidelines will say to start adding doubles around 60-70mpw, but there is no hard and fast rule.  But doubling should certainly lead to higher weekly mileage, not just splitting runs.  So if I had 10 miles planned for a day and decided to double, I'd do 4/8 or 6/10 instead.

                               

                              As for timing, I like to do a very easy 4-6 miles the morning before an evening workout, to loosen up for the day.  Also the morning after an evening workout.  What I do not do is double on a day when I really need some good recovery.  When you get to the point that you are doubling 3-5 times a week, running a single easy run all of a sudden feels like a day off.

                               

                              And no, it is not "junk" by any stretch.  It's increased training volume.  But you have to manage the pace and your recovery, or it could ruin your running for the next day.  I remember once when my easy runs were normally in the 6:30 range, I felt good one day and did a 7/10 double, both runs under 6:20 because I felt good.  Then the next day I went to do a workout, and I could really feel that I'd put too much into my "easy" runs the day before.

                              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                               

                                Alright. Let's for argument sake say that there is no question that doubles are better than singles, and it certainly appears to be what those with by far the most experience are suggesting is the case, and one wished to try to start adding some doubles, I have a few questions.

                                 

                                What I have gleaned so far is that the first and critical thing is to do doubles not simply split singles but what I want to know is you are already trying to run a balanced program with tempo's, intervals, recoveries, long, easy etc etc and all of this is as singles (in the morning for arguments sake) what do you do for the double (i.e. the afternoon run)?

                                 

                                Is it simply all aerobic just to build a greater base or are you supposed to mix it up - e.g. running a track session the afternoon of an easy run and running an easy run the afternoon of running intervals in the morning.

                                 

                                The second question is, are the doubles better in general or only better once you have maxed out your training capacity in singles? That is, if you had the time to run 20 miles each day as a single would a double running 8 miles and 12 miles be better.

                                 

                                Thanks for your thoughts as I ponder whether I should try to add some doubles. Specifically I try to run around 10 miles on my easy days and could probably spare the time to run for an extra hour (6-8 miles for me) as a double on maybe 2 x per week. Advantageous or simply "junk" miles ruining the running for the next day?

                                There has been a quite a few comments here, and as far as I'm concerned I found Willamona use this phrase first, is that you need to have certain mileage base (foundation) "to support hard workouts."  In my opinion, and the example of most elite runners would prove it, you need as much "junk miles" as you can get throughout the week to build this foundation.  Here's one of the stories that I put together a few years back: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/blog/EntryDisplay.aspx?EntryID=93

                                 

                                Whenever I read the "argument" like this, I feel discouraged and annoyed with the fact that faulse "physiology" information had already poisoned the majority.  A training program such as FIRST is one of the examples of this.  You do all the "point" workouts and remove all the other "junk" miles...  Let's cut all the foundation building and do some gut-busting oxygen-sucking sprint work like Tabata sprints...  So better yet, let's worry about what color our room should be and the hell with the foundation on which our house is going to be built upon...

                                 

                                Take runners like Ryan Hall or Meb; they run about 120 miles a week.  They do some interval work, say, 5 X 1 mile, at 4:50 pace.  Hard workout.  Or Hall likes to do about an hour of tempo run at near marathon pace so that's about 10~12 miles.  Those would be their signature workouts.  Then they'll do a long run at comfortable pace on weekend about 2-hours.  The long run is done at comfortable pace so let's not count that (unless, nearing a marathon, they would do a long tempo run)...  So they do about 15 miles, let's say 20 tops, of quality workouts.  That's about 15% of their total weekly mileage.  I'd say a half of the rest would be, by physiology research definition, "junk miles".  How else would you call Toshi Takaoka's 8-minute-mile running as a 2:06 marathon guy? 

                                 

                                How would you start your doubling days?  Let's suppose, as you said, you do your "main" workouts in the morning and you want to add on doubles.  Go for a 15-minutes jog in the afternoon.  Try that twice or 3 times a week and see how you feel.  Wear extra pants to slow you down if you are a good aggressive runner and tend to train too hard.  Doesn't matter if it's so hot (unless it's right now in midwest!).  It is, to me, just a loosening exercise--kinda like warm-up or cool-down.  I don't give a damn about theory or debate or "argument" about doubling--I don't need it because it's a fact--, you double like that and see how you feel.  I will bet you will be running your "main" workout (that follows) faster and stronger.  You need scientific evidence for that?  I ain't got none.  I'm not suggesting this for those who can't even remember their own name without a birth certificate or name tag.  You do that and you'll be a so much better runner.  It is a recovery run, it is a loosening up run, it is a aerobic development additional run.  Once you start doing faster runs such as intervals or tempo runs (if you do it in blocks like we do, that is), this supplementary jogging will become doubly important.  This is what I've termed one of "5 missing links" in Lydiard training that people don't talk about.  For a starter test, suppose you do a long run on Sunday morning--kinda standard, right?  Go for a 15-minutes slog--don't even worry about putting your Garmin; just a shuffle along the neighborhood is fine.  See how your Monday's workout would turn out?  Whether or not you need a easy workout or whether or not you can go right back into a real workout?  Experience the power of junk mile first hand yourself.  Within a few weeks, you'll know, by heart, whether doubling will make you a better runner or not.

                                 

                                Most people on here are a hobby runner.  Take the next day's run as an easy recovery run.  That'll do.  Any young aspiring runner here; who want to see how far they can go, trying to see if they can place or even win some local races, maybe even going to the state champs or beyond, start doubling as early as possible; forget how many mile you're runing right now, forget all the guide-line of "you shouldn't start doubling unless you run 70MPW" or anything like that.  Whatever the level you are, get up early and get out and do some EASY jog; for 15 minutes as a starter and see how you feel.  Start with twice or three times a week and see how you feel.  If you never ran doubles, and simply because you happen to know someone who ran alright doing singles and you happen to have chosen training only singles because of whatever the reason; don't conclude that singles are just as good as doubles and you can "fulfill your potential" with only singles.  Doubles are ALWAYS better than singles. 

                                12345