Alabama Viking wrote:
devashish_paul wrote:
Alabama Viking wrote:
Quite contrary to those who 'rank' from 36-100 now with 3 runs (just looking the American continent now, as it's easier to compare because of time zones). Those are 65 participants who seem to follow a more conventional training approach, with most of them logging a long run in the weekend, a focus run, and a recovery run. I wish we could do a proper research study on this. Let everyone do a controlled half marathon (as much as that's possible), then after 100 days do a repeat. At that point use this goldmine of data to determine possible effectiveness of training programs.
Who would see most gains? The 100/100's? That one guy with 876/100? The big median with 81/100??
I already have the answer for you.
The most effective training plan if you can handle it and build up to it is 1 hour in the morning, 1 hour in the afternoon 6 days a week and 2 hours on Sunday for 339-40 at 20 kph average speed. This is roughly the top level macro Kenyan marathoner plan. It's basically the 185 runs out of 100 days for 3600km plan.
Most of us don't have the genetics to aspire to 2x per day all week like the Kenyans, but 2x per day is pretty standard for elite runners. The goal of the challenge is to get people to at least 1x per day. This does not preclude long runs, hills, track or days off. A conventional plan is not 3 runs per week. I am not sure how that even got into the triathlon vocabulary, just like 3x swims per week is a pretty bad swim plan.
I came from a track background doing 2x per day for Mon to Fri (most weeks) and a longer run on the weekend and a day off. Pretty well every swimmer on here did 2x per day their entire swimmer life. It's pretty proven that 2x is a pretty good approach where volume can be accrued, while getting intensity in, without totally trashing the body (if you were to do the same volume on 1x you'd deplete easily).
Whether it is 1x per day or 2x per day, it's going to be better than 3x per week. We don't need to get data to prove this. Coaches already figured this out in the 1960's in both running and swimming.
Now if people can intelligently use the challenge for a run focus (or in my case, I've been applying the approach for a multi year swim focus), then athletes MAY lift their game in running. Most who apply the challenge intelligently and listen to their bodies, they come out ahead off frequent running.
That is not the answer, because we don't have any pro runners on here (just assuming). I'm interested to see where the median lies for the average person interested in endurance sports. Like you, who is trying to get smoother running after injury. Like me, who is a full-time single dad of a 10 year old, less than 4 years off a pack-a-day smoking (and who is taking a day off today because he;s really tired).
I'm predicting that the most gain will be recorded by someone with a 95/100. That's 6.65 /week. The median for max gain will likely be lower, probably 84/100. Over 95 will decline improvement because either fatigue, injury, or high run level before challenge. Below 84 you will see decline because of undertraining,existing injury, or diminished ability.
To recap, I'm interested in what real people do.
I don't think you will have a "real people" answer because there is such a wide range. I THINK the number of runs however is meaningless other than it is a means to accue more distance.
I bet you would see roughly the same improvement from one person who does 700km of running in 70 runs as someone who does 700km of running in 100 runs. But I bet the same 700km 70 runs runner actually ends up doing more like 800-900km if you do 100 runs. For the same athlete, the bigger improvement will come just by more mileage (up to a point). The number of runs is somewhat meaningless....the aggregate mileage is what is most important, and aggregate mileage is more easier each achieved through frequency....swimmers and runners have known this since the 60's
Let's simplify it on a weekly basis. Its easier to get to 7 hours of running in a week off 8 runs than it is off 4 runs. Its actually easy to log a 7 hour running week (or lets say an 84 km running week at 5 min per K) than it is doing that 84K running week off 4 runs. Scale it up or down based on the distance you're trying to log in a week. Once your mileage gets higher more frequent runs is the way to go....it's why that Kenyan targeting 300km per week of running is doing it off 13 runs and not off 6 runs.