Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Random Running Questions
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
On the first question - if you're talking 'aerobic development' with 'easy runs' and 'experienced runner' then there is little to none but that depends what you mean by aerobic development. Dr Billy's post about the benefits of 20 min shakeouts is valid and also there are some structural benefits to runs shorter than 30 mins. And again, if you're coming back from injury or coming back after an end of season break, 20 min easy runs can have a role.
On the second question, I'm surprised at KC's response given that he's an ardent follower of Magness. Magness advocates two 4's over a single 8 for recovery runs and maintenance. Here's Steveo Magnesseeo on that very subject:
'...instead of running 8 miles all at once in the morning at practice, they had to split it into a morning and afternoon run of 4 miles. As a coach, I was initially worried that my runners might not be able to maintain or increase their endurance with such short 4-mile runs. It turns out that my fears were misplaced; athletes not only maintained their endurance, but also increased it. In investigating the effects of running twice per day, it turns out that our old adage, “Get in as many miles as you can in one run before you start adding a second run,” might be wrong.'
There are many reasons why two short doubles are better than the single run. In terms of injury prevention, two shorts, where the intention is to develop one of the runs from say, 4/5 to 8 miles and keep the second run at 4/5 miles makes sense. Both ecoli and I use this sort of approach. If you dive straight into 8 milers after a break you are more likely to suffer with overuse injuries. It also depends on the athlete. A beginner might do 3-4 miles in 35 mins and 8 miles in 80-90 mins. Two 35 min runs would be far safer and better than an 80-90 min run. Although the longer run does have it's place. And that's the key, it depends on what you are trying to do and for whom.
But just to give you some things to think about, here are some bullet points:
Less biomechanical damage
Replenish glycogen stores twice
Less oxidative damage
Double hormonal release - HGH (increase @ 500+% in first 40 mins of a run and then drops to only 40-55% from 40 mins to 60 mins ) and cytochrome c.
Double stimulus to the cardiovascular system - contributes to sustained adaptations
Helps clear metabolites that settle in the peripheral circulation.
At rest, the majority of our blood resides in peripheral venous circulation. Without muscular activity, that blood just sits there, and triggers inflammation. A second run moves that blood out of peripheral circulation and filters out the crap.
Slow twitch muscles can become detrained. Since they can handle a lot of training, and need it to maintain maximal adaptation, doubles work well, especially if one is up to 60 mins and one is a touch over 35 mins.
But I suspect what we're really talking about is Ososlo, should Ososlo really be doing doubles if she's running less than 50 miles a week. Yes, she most certainly should. Why should she? Ah well, that's a big secret so tough diddies:p
Actually we aren't talking about Ososlo at all Stazza. The guy asked a question and I in good faith answered it. I appreciate your answer on Magness and tbh I'm far too lazy to go digging around to see what else he or anyone else says on the subject. I do however think you could be wrong bringing in Ecoli to back up your argument. I feel like I have a decent enough handle on his philosophy running wise and I'd be pretty surprised if he advocated 4 and 4 doubles over 8- perhaps he could answer for himself on it.
The reality is many of the coaches getting the best results right now are using a very old school approach and the get in as many miles as you can before adding the second is very much part of that type of philosophy - but sure what do I know anyways...
Btw I have been trying to declare a truce with yer stable for a while... Last thing I'm trying to do is take a pop at one of them especially when I was ranting about the exact same thing last week
0 -
Actually we aren't talking about Ososlo at all Stazza. The guy asked a question and I in good faith answered it. I appreciate your answer on Magness and tbh I'm far too lazy to go digging around to see what else he or anyone else says on the subject. I do however think you could be wrong bringing in Ecoli to back up your argument. I feel like I have a decent enough handle on his philosophy running wise and I'd be pretty surprised if he advocated 4 and 4 doubles over 8- perhaps he could answer for himself on it.
The reality is many of the coaches getting the best results right now are using a very old school approach and the get in as many miles as you can before adding the second is very much part of that type of philosophy - but sure what do I know anyways...
Btw I have been trying to declare a truce with yer stable for a while... Last thing I'm trying to do is take a pop at one of them especially when I was ranting about the exact same thing last week
First off, I'm not bringing in ecoli to back up my argument; when he's coming back off a break, he uses the short(ish) doubles to get things kick-started. Yes, it would be very interesting to see where ecoli stands on the 2x4 for easy/maintenance runs over an 8 recovery run, especially given his recent post on Tbl''s log that, IIRC, you gave a thanks. Now, that's not me trying to rile you or anything. I'm just stating facts and keeping them within the 'boundaries' of the original post.
On the old school approach of the longer single before the second run is dropped in, again, it depends on the runner's experience, ability, goals etc, time of the year and what the purpose of the run is, injury history - there are so many different things that need to be taken into account. But I think you'll find ecoli agrees with me on the 'going long too soon' as he's well aware of the overuse problems associated with this approach - he's mentioned it several times.
I didn't mention your name with regards to Ososlo. I assumed the op meant Ososlo given that she is probably the only person on Boards running doubles and is running less than 50 miles a week - and then with the added thing of training for 5k etc. I didn't think for one minute that you were having a go at Ososlo: even given our differences, I think you're more of a man than to be attacking women etc. On the truce thing, for me there was never a problem, even with your stables and crest stuff etc - all of that merely amused me. But, I'm not here to break any truce. May the truce last and I hope you break 2:40 in Dublin/Frankfurt. And it was great to see you back racing last night. Good man.0 -
Firstly, I think you may be over-personalizing things and defending imaginary scenarios. Secondly, I'm not sure why you are you referring to me in the 3rd party, instead of addressing me directly?On the second question, I'm surprised at KC's response given that he's an ardent follower of Magness. Magness advocates two 4's over a single 8 for recovery runs and maintenance. If you dive straight into 8 milers after a break you are more likely to suffer with overuse injuries. It also depends on the athlete. But I suspect what we're really talking about is Ososlo, should Ososlo really be doing doubles if she's running less than 50 miles a week. Yes, she most certainly should. Why should she? Ah well, that's a big secret so tough diddies:p
I'm as ardent a follower of Magness as I am of any of the other coaches whose materials and programs I have read/followed.
At 50mpw (that's approximately 7 miles per day), someone targeting 5ks in the 16-17 minute range is not going to benefit significantly from splitting an 8 mile run into two. In my view (and that's what we're doing here, representing our opinions), two 4 mile runs is not going going to provide a significant amount of training stimulus. From the same article (page 2):Steve Magness wrote:The take-away message is that if you are training to improve performance, there is a time to run once, twice and even possibly three times per day. It all depends on the purpose of the run: If the purpose is to build endurance, such as during a base phase, you want to make sure to include at least one longer run per day. It’s OK to do doubles to build mileage, but these should be completed in an unbalanced way, such as a 60-minute run in the morning followed by a 25-minute run in the evening. The longer run serves as the primary stimulus to increase overall endurance.0 -
Krusty_Clown wrote: »Firstly, I think you may be over-personalizing things and defending imaginary scenarios. Secondly, I'm not sure why you are you referring to me in the 3rd party, instead of addressing me directly? I'm as ardent a follower of Magness as I am of any of the other coaches whose materials and programs I have read/followed.
At 50mpw (that's approximately 7 miles per day), someone targeting 5ks in the 16-17 minute range is not going to benefit significantly from splitting an 8 mile run into two. In my view (and that's what we're doing here, representing our opinions), two 4 mile runs is not going going to provide a significant amount of training stimulus. From the same article (page 2):
Apologies KC, didn't mean to personalise things. And I should have addressed you directly.
On the 2x4 over the 8 as an easy run/maintenance runs, I think it still stands there are many more benefits with the doubles than the single. But like you've now said - with the Magness quote - and like I' said, it depends on what the purpose of run/runs are etc.
Once again, apologies for the hasty and thoughtless response.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement