7 days or Double days

shels4ever

Just wondered what people do in this regard , If your going to intorduce an extra run into a training plan and already on 6 days a week, would you go with

1. 6 days with 1 double day, so keeping a rest day
2. 7 days with no doubles but no rest days.

ecoli

shels4ever wrote: »

Just wondered what people do in this regard , If your going to intorduce an extra run into a training plan and already on 6 days a week, would you go with

1. 6 days with 1 double day, so keeping a rest day
2. 7 days with no doubles but no rest days.

Personally of the belief of 7th day being a recovery day (1 min - 90 sec slower than normal easy pace) This should be kept to under 45 min. For me I have seen significant benefits from this approach this year compared to trying to make the mileage difference on days doing doubles

shels4ever

ecoli wrote: »

Personally of the belief of 7th day being a recovery day (1 min - 90 sec slower than normal easy pace) This should be kept to under 45 min. For me I have seen significant benefits from this approach this year compared to trying to make the mileage difference on days doing doubles

Think it I was going 7 days It would be prob 30 min run to start with to see how that goes, Did your coach get you running 7 days a week ? as I see in the past you did do double days at times.

TFBubendorfer

You should only do doubles if you have already maxed out the mileage you can do in singles. Doing a double just so you can have a completely free day seems very strange to me - I'd definitely go 7 days a week.

ecoli

shels4ever wrote: »

Think it I was going 7 days It would be prob 30 min run to start with to see how that goes, Did your coach get you running 7 days a week ? as I see in the past you did do double days at times.

Coach was the one who introduced the idea of 7 days a week running yes. The other thing I found was that the extra day even though I was running (though at a much slower pace) I was recovering and also it was taking pressure off in terms of weekly mileage.

I still do the odd double but that is on top of the 7 days a week

Other mental thing for me was running became such a routine that i didnt have to think about it i just did it. In previous years rest day might have been strecthed out to two the odd time just because the body got a taste for not running.

Recently consistency been missing slightly but i getting back to it and would definitely recommend it. Main thing is to be smart about it and adjust your pace to allow you to run 7 days a week comfortably.

tunney

Both?

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

Both?

Given his injury history would not suggest going for both until his body has adapted to the news stresses of the training (an extra session per week regardless of the choice)

shels4ever

tunney wrote: »

Both?

Baby steps...
In an ideal world yep i'd go for both, but hoping to stay injury free so introducing new things slowly. Taken months to get used to increased miles and 6 days a week.

tunney

ecoli wrote: »

Given his injury history would not suggest going for both until his body has adapted to the news stresses of the training (an extra session per week regardless of the choice)

The sorta thing that should have been included in the OP.

ecoli

tunney wrote: »

The sorta thing that should have been included in the OP.

That would be cheating:D we all know you have to go digging on this forum for good information:p

zico10

ecoli wrote: »

(1 min - 90 sec slower than normal easy pace) This should be kept to under 45 min.

I need to emphasise this is a question rather than a statement, but is that not a ridiculously slow pace? If you're already running a normal easy pace, is it really necessary to make it that much easier?
Maybe this isn't the right place for the next point, but I'd have similar feelings about the LSR in marathon training. I went for a long run with a club mate one time and it was almost painful, how much slower I was running than what I'd normally do. I didn't really see the benefit to running this slowly, am I right or wrong about this?

tunney

zico10 wrote: »

I need to emphasise this is a question rather than a statement, but is that not a ridiculously slow pace? If you're already running a normal easy pace, is it really necessary to make it that much easier?
Maybe this isn't the right place for the next point, but I'd have similar feelings about the LSR in marathon training. I went for a long run with a club mate one time and it was almost painful, how much slower I was running than what I'd normally do. I didn't really see the benefit to running this slowly, am I right or wrong about this?

I've always raised this as well. Usually shouted down by a few "we do marathons you just do triathlons" people.

I prefer the term long EASY run. People get too hung up on the slow business.

ecoli

Again the comment was personal opinion some people may feel that they can handle the extra mileage at more easy pace, some seem to struggle with seven day running in terms of tiredness (this could be down to just running to fast granted). The recovery day is just that, a way of aiding the body more so for coping with the rest of the weeks training, as such it has different benefits than just the aerobic gains.Slow running facilitates recovery by moving out damaged tissue and supplying nutrients for repair, it keeps the capillaries open and the mitochondria of slow twitch fibers stimulated.

I would agree with you guys Regarding LSR though. I think people get hung up on the pace of this as many "training plans" etc seem to suggest 30 sec slower per mile. I think this is more a cautionary thing in that most who design the plans are making the assumption that people are running their shorter easy runs a little too fast and as such when they get to their longer run the pace is not "easy" in relation to that of the distance covered. As such I think it is a concept which has crept in to mentality that you have to run slower on your Long run. Personally most of my Long Run paces are similar to that of the rest of my runs during the week

TFBubendorfer

tunney wrote: »

I've always raised this as well. Usually shouted down by a few "we do marathons you just do triathlons" people.

I prefer the term long EASY run. People get too hung up on the slow business.

Well, if it's any consolation to you, I "do marathons" but never got the hang of "recovery" pace either. It's just easy running and anyone who's hung up on the pace for those is doing it wrong anyway.

David Matthews

shels4ever wrote: »

Baby steps...
In an ideal world yep i'd go for both, but hoping to stay injury free so introducing new things slowly. Taken months to get used to increased miles and 6 days a week.

Hi guys,
Interesting stuff regarding increasing you workload/milage, someone once said to me "Its better to be slightly under cooked than over cooked!"
I suppose increasing you work load and staying injury free is like walking a tight rope. It differs for everyone, I worked on the simple principle that I would increase my Sessions/run/workout at a rate of one extra per year.
So at 16 years old training 5 times per week,17 yrs old 6 times per week and so on,right up to 23 yrs old when I was maxed out at 12 sessions per week.Alot of workouts coupled with a lot of sleep!
Its different for everyone but the extra session per year allowed the body to slowly become accustomed to the increased workload and reduced recovery time.

Gringo78

tunney wrote: »

I've always raised this as well. Usually shouted down by a few "we do marathons you just do triathlons" people.

I prefer the term long EASY run. People get too hung up on the slow business.

What pace would you run the LSR at? (S could be steady maybe rather than slow?) Standalone marathon pace +10% might be approx IM marathon pace so would you run it at IM pace? Or would you run it at say expected IM HR which would be probably a faster pace in training than would generate the same HR on race day?