12345

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

Shoe


    Even when I was running my highest mileage it was very, VERY rare for the shorter run to be over 8 miles....average was 6-7.  The most I ever ran in a week, I think it was 131 miles, most days were runs of 8 and 12 per day.

     

    Did I misunderstand?  It's not suggesting the shorter run be over 80 minutes, just that one of the runs on day when you to do doubles.  For example, a 1 hour 30 minute run in the morning and a 40 minute run in the evening would be superior to two runs of just over an hour. 


    Bacon Party!

      And.... it would appear to be working rather well for you!

       

      Thanks Purdey. I've had a rough start this year... my primary goal is just to be able to continue training regularly. We'll see what happens at Cascade Crest (where I'll be completely out of my element... ain't no mountains in Michigan!)

      Liz

      pace sera, sera

        The thesis of the article was not that singles or low mileage was better than doubles and high mileage, but that one can train for a good marathon using singles, and how to do it.

         I took it as saying if you going to run x miles, better do it in Singles,  If one can't get there in singles, doubles are OK too as long as one has a couple runs long enough.

          I don't know how much I can take from the article because it only provides one data point.  We know he ran a 2:08 on this training plan, but we have no idea what he would run on a traditional elite high mileage doubles/triples plan.  If for the next marathon he goes traditional and runs 2:02, we would say apparently this lower mileage plan didn't work out for him very well.  Because we don't know his ability we can't judge what percentage of it he captured.

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

            I don't know how much I can take from the article because it only provides one data point.

             

            It's a pretty damned impressive data point.  Since none of us on this thread will ever run 2:08 except in our dreams, I think this article should suggest strongly that if we're work-a-day schmoes who only have time to run once a day, that the fact we're limited to singles are not what's holding us back.

            Runners run.

              It's a pretty damned impressive data point.  Since none of us on this thread will ever run 2:08 except in our dreams, I think this article should suggest strongly that if we're work-a-day schmoes who only have time to run once a day, that the fact we're limited to singles are not what's holding us back.

               I didn't mean to sound as if I was disparaging his accomplishment....you are completely right 2:08 is amazing.  Maybe I am wrong, but if he goes on to traditional training and sets a large PR it would be possible to argue that lower mileage singles was holding him back.  None of us here will run a 2:08, but likely very very few of us will reach our potential, and we don't know he reached his potential on this training.  I'm happy to hear if I'm wrong, I am relatively inexperienced among you all.

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

                It's a pretty damned impressive data point.  Since none of us on this thread will ever run 2:08 except in our dreams, I think this article should suggest strongly that if we're work-a-day schmoes who only have time to run once a day, that the fact we're limited to singles are not what's holding us back.

                 

                bingo! 

                 

                A few other things stood out to me in that article:

                 

                1) Much of his running was pretty slow. Especially slow for a a 2:08 marathoner... 8 mpm. 

                2) The emphasis on not burning too much glycogen during most of the runs, and emphasize fat burning. Of course, this is related to the pace of most of the runs.

                3) The emphasis on refueling as quickly as possible after the runs.

                 

                These are things my coach points out directly and indirectly on a regular basis, but I tend to forget them.  


                I'm back!

                  Oops, I thought this was a thread about training to run a marathon once per day -- nm.

                   

                  Actually this is very interesting. As I've moved up to the higher-mileage Pfitzinger plans I've generally skipped most of the doubles, wondering whether that was the right tradeoff to make to get the mileage I was running. It's nice to see some justification for this approach.

                    Well, I would personally like a look inside his log to see the details of the training.

                     

                    If you tell me someone runs 70 miles a week on singles,  that could be split up a lot of ways.

                     

                    <colgroup> <col width="126" /> <col span="2" width="64" /></colgroup>
                    Day Plan Plan
                    Sunday 28 28
                    Monday 5 REST
                    Tuesday 5 20
                    Wednesday 10 4
                    Thursday 5 4
                    Friday 5 4
                    Saturday 12 10
                    Total 70 70

                     

                    Just telling me someone runs all their runs in singles doesn't give me enough details to evaluate.

                    And you can quote me as saying I was mis-quoted. Groucho Marx

                     

                    Rob


                    The King of Beasts

                      Maybe the morale of the story is this- make sure you get it when you can, singles for 70 or singles for 100 or doubles for 60 or doubles for 130. When you get your opening for a run, take it.  

                      "As a dreamer of dreams and a travelin' man I have chalked up many a mile. Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks, And I've learned much from both of their styles." ~ Jimmy Buffett

                       

                      "I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."”


                      Feeling the growl again

                        Did I misunderstand?  It's not suggesting the shorter run be over 80 minutes, just that one of the runs on day when you to do doubles.  For example, a 1 hour 30 minute run in the morning and a 40 minute run in the evening would be superior to two runs of just over an hour. 

                         

                        My average easy run pace then was 6:30-7:00/mile.  So the 6 mile morning runs I speak of, the shorter of the two, were around only 40min.  This meant that to get my 100-120mpw I ran at least an hour in the afternoon on top of that...and 80min runs happened at least 3X per week.

                         

                        The mistake a lot of people make when they add doubles is splitting the mileage too evenly across the runs.  That was the point I was trying to get at.  If you do that you're going to have issues getting in the longer runs outside of the defined long run.

                        "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

                         

                           I didn't mean to sound as if I was disparaging his accomplishment....you are completely right 2:08 is amazing.  Maybe I am wrong, but if he goes on to traditional training and sets a large PR it would be possible to argue that lower mileage singles was holding him back.  None of us here will run a 2:08, but likely very very few of us will reach our potential, and we don't know he reached his potential on this training.  I'm happy to hear if I'm wrong, I am relatively inexperienced among you all.

                           

                          No, I guess not.  We can't know that he reached his potential any more than we can know anybody every reaches his or her potential.  That's hardly the point.  He ran a time that only handful of people on this planet of 7 billion or whatever can accomplish.

                           

                          It's safe to say he's a hell of a lot closer to his potential than any of us.

                           

                          The point (as A1 said) is run what you can when you can within the context of the life you have (not the life you would ideally have) and make it count.

                          Runners run.

                            No, I guess not.  We can't know that he reached his potential any more than we can know anybody every reaches his or her potential.  That's hardly the point.  He ran a time that only handful of people on this planet of 7 billion or whatever can accomplish.

                             

                             

                            Yup. People who think they know everything about marathon training love to tell everyone that they are doing it wrong by departing a little bit from some orthodoxy or another. I always hear, "you could be 15 minutes faster if only you would..." 

                             

                            Well, I think it is fairly safe to say that this guy wouldn't be 15 minutes faster if he fixed his "crappy training."

                             

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

                              My average easy run pace then was 6:30-7:00/mile.  So the 6 mile morning runs I speak of, the shorter of the two, were around only 40min.  This meant that to get my 100-120mpw I ran at least an hour in the afternoon on top of that...and 80min runs happened at least 3X per week.

                               

                              The mistake a lot of people make when they add doubles is splitting the mileage too evenly across the runs.  That was the point I was trying to get at.  If you do that you're going to have issues getting in the longer runs outside of the defined long run.

                               

                              In my limited experience I will have to say I agree here. Not only does it seem to be less benefit its much more comfortable and natural for me mentally. An easy 3 in the morning is easy to get out the door for and has me feeling good and loose later in the day when I do a longer or faster run. That and just always splitting 5/5, 6/6, etc gets pretty damn repetitive. 

                              They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."


                              Feeling the growl again

                                 

                                 

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

                                 

                                Ah, but does being faster really mean you know more?

                                 

                                Mikey must really be sand-bagging his races...

                                "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

                                 

                                12345