100 mpw on singles/doubles

Depends on how you do it, but constant cardiac pressure over an extended period of time is the name of the game for developing your circulatory system. Do this every day in the form of singles is more beneficial.

Running on singles for 120 a week might slow your daily run and sabotage the reason for doing the long runs to begin with. So in this case you should mix some doubles in. I would still make about 100 miles in seven of my runs a week.

Except for recovery days it is better to run one longer run then the other on days with doubles. Like 11 and 7 instead of 9 and 9.

Unless you have other commitments that prevent you from running twice a day, you should concentrate on running as much as possible and still allowing fresh legs for quality twice a week. Running 14 mile runs every day will drain you if you're not used to 100 mile weeks.

People need to get over this fixation of "singles". The key is increasing weekly volume but more importantly having the legs to get the most out of your weekly quality sessions. Its hard to do that at one 14 mile run every single day if you are hitting 100 miles a week.

Just go to bed early and get up in the morning.

You are better of doing singles until you exceed 90 minutes per day.

I.e 90 minutes is better than 2 x 45 mins

Once past 90 minutes keep you longer run in at or in excess of 75 mins. (75 mins + 30 mins)

slaps wrote:

Unless you have other commitments that prevent you from running twice a day, you should concentrate on running as much as possible and still allowing fresh legs for quality twice a week. Running 14 mile runs every day will drain you if you're not used to 100 mile weeks.

People need to get over this fixation of "singles". The key is increasing weekly volume but more importantly having the legs to get the most out of your weekly quality sessions. Its hard to do that at one 14 mile run every single day if you are hitting 100 miles a week.

Just go to bed early and get up in the morning.

Depends on what season you are in. In base season what you have said is absolutely wrong. In base season you want to get long runs at aerobic paces. As Hadd has pointed out (and he's correct) your body uses certain muscle fibers until they are drained fully before moving on to the next group of fibers. Its only when they are being used that capillary development takes place. so if you never tax beyond those initial fibers you won't get to the deeper fiber. You get much better capillary development from 90 minutes then you do from 2 x 45 minutes.

Now if you are in season and your distance runs are purely recovery in nature then 2 x 45 mins may be appropriate.

I am VERY interested in this thread. I'm a master and in '05 ran most of my 1st 3 months with doubles averaging 350 miles a month with about 6 in the a.m and 8 in the p.m because of work, etc.

I ran the New Bedford (Mass) Half in March '05 and PR'd on the 5M, 10K, 15K,10M and 1/2 in the same race!

Tried again in '06 but got pneumonia.

I'm on track for 300 miles for December but want to go to 350+ for 'Jan, Feb, Mar of '07 training for Boston.

I CLEARLY think it's easier to run 95 in doubles vs 75 in singles but would welcome any opinions.

Mr. Marathon wrote:

Depends on what season you are in. In base season what you have said is absolutely wrong. .

You are the one who's absolutely wrong. Doubles are always better than singles.

I am on pace to hit 100 on singles this week. I am at 58 right now with 3 days to go. Last week I did 107 but in doubles. This week I have a lot more time to devote to just running.

Just do it.

malmo wrote:

Mr. Marathon wrote:

Depends on what season you are in. In base season what you have said is absolutely wrong. .

You are the one who's absolutely wrong. Doubles are always better than singles.

Malmo, could you expand on this a bit? Would this hold true for someone running 70 mpw? I'm in my mid 40's and have some time issues and 2 a days would be a big aid. Once a week or more than that? Thanks in advance for the tips.

malmo wrote:

You are the one who's absolutely wrong. Doubles are always better than singles.

Care to qualify that? Do you really believe that doubles are always superior to singles? Are 2 x 20 minutes better than 40 minutes? In your opinion is there a point below which runs should be done in singles? I stand by what I've said but I'm interested in if you really believe what you've said. Or if you were over generalizing to make a point about by abrasive response to the question.

Doesn't it depend on the season your in, what your purpose is, and the event your preparing for?

I stand by the statement that you are better of in base season doing 7 runs of 90 minutes per week then 14 runs of 45 minutes per week. Do you really disagree?

slaps wrote:

Unless you have other commitments that prevent you from running twice a day, you should concentrate on running as much as possible and still allowing fresh legs for quality twice a week. Running 14 mile runs every day will drain you if you're not used to 100 mile weeks.

People need to get over this fixation of "singles". The key is increasing weekly volume but more importantly having the legs to get the most out of your weekly quality sessions. Its hard to do that at one 14 mile run every single day if you are hitting 100 miles a week.

Just go to bed early and get up in the morning.

Without a good conditioning period of extended long running, "quality" running is basically worthless.

I think the point is if you are serious about you're running than start running twice a day.

If your'e only running 70 miles a week and you are a marathoner and are trying to run you're best, 100 miles a week plus during your base phase with 4-6 mile morning runs.

People have a hard time understanding how a 5 mile easy run in the morning is important. But it does wonders to your running in a short period.

slaps wrote:

People have a hard time understanding how a 5 mile easy run in the morning is important. But it does wonders to your running in a short period.

Even a three mile morning run will work wonders.

Mr. Marathon wrote:

Care to qualify that?

I did qualify it. Your advice isn't sound. Like the "less is more" fad of the late 80s/early 90s, that set back US running, the singles fad of today is just as detrimental.

Mr. Marathon wrote:

I stand by the statement that you are better of in base season doing 7 runs of 90 minutes per week then 14 runs of 45 minutes per week. Do you really disagree?

Not trying to speak for malmo, but I disagree. I also consider the premis a bit off.

Also, I don't think anyone's talking 45x2x7 vs 90x7, but more like 30+60x5 and 120+ on the long and another day of singles. (simplistic yes, and if you're doing a 10 day cycle totally different, but you get the idea).

In reality 2/3 if the time you're running is getting time on your feet and the other 1/3 is the money shot. You build muscle during recovery, but recovery doesn't need to be idle. You run hard every day, soon you're really running medium every day and you're stagnant as a swamp.

So, you look at some of the common training schedules and you'll see a hard evening workout, following by an easy morning, easy evening, hard morning, easy evening, easy morning. You're building time, but allowing recovery. In addition you're going to get more residual training effect from 30+60 than 90 with less stress on your body. Your body just doesn't turn off after you stop exercising, so while that extended period is somewhat related to the length of exercise, the total time is more for two workouts of the same duration than a single one.

Obviously there is significant variety from a simple 30+60, 90x1, etc, but you should get the idea. A lot of people training 50-70 on singles can make an easier than they expect jump to 80-90 by simply adding an easy 30 minutes in the morning 3 days a week.

If you want to geek out get the Noakes book, but a simple description is in Train Hard Win Easy. Look at the schedules. 2-4 runs a week that count, out of 10-12.

Oh yeah oh yeah?

Malmo, if you say doubles are always better than singles, what about me?

I ran 106 miles last week, this week I'm planning on running on 7 miles. Should I run doubles? Hmm?

What does "always" mean? I know always is an adverb that means: For all time, and Forever. Do you really mean always? No, you don't.

So, you are absolutely wrong.

-Mr. Expert of Everything

TRNR wrote:

Malmo, could you expand on this a bit? Would this hold true for someone running 70 mpw? I'm in my mid 40's and have some time issues and 2 a days would be a big aid. Once a week or more than that? Thanks in advance for the tips.

Especially for some guy like you. Try 3-4 mile mornings, the balance in the afternoon. If you insist run singles 3 times, hopefully just twice a week. Don't believe a damn thing I say, you go out and try it for yourself. In three to four weeks report back to me. I suspect the answer will be the same as when a young buck by the name of Terrance Mahon came to me with the same question back in 1989 (or was it 1988?)

(full disclosure: Terrance bumped up to the 90/100 range)

an immature post wrote:

Oh yeah oh yeah?

Malmo, if you say doubles are always better than singles, what about me?

I ran 106 miles last week, this week I'm planning on running on 7 miles. Should I run doubles? Hmm?

Yes you should.

malmo wrote:

Mr. Marathon wrote:

Care to qualify that?

I did qualify it. Your advice isn't sound. Like the "less is more" fad of the late 80s/early 90s, that set back US running, the singles fad of today is just as detrimental.

With all due respect the singles fad isn't something new.