If you had to pick, which will yield better results? 80mpw in doubles isn't an option.
70mpw in doubles would probably be able to be done at a faster avg pace.
If you had to pick, which will yield better results? 80mpw in doubles isn't an option.
70mpw in doubles would probably be able to be done at a faster avg pace.
Is this the real Sage or a troll?
The answer to this is: singles work better than doubles for some and doubles work better than singles for others. Try each.
It depends on what you are training for.
Doubles worked better for me. Made me less injury prone and I seemed to recover faster.
I think generally as long as you are recovering enough, singles are better. I think doubles can be a good way to increase your weekly mileage, though. Do your first few weeks at 70mpw doing doubles so you are recovering adequately then transition to singles.
Always a popular question. Just for the heck of it, why is 80 in doubles, or in singles for that matter not an option? That's maybe 15 more minutes per day.
Anyway, here are two conflicting opinions.
In the late 70s, when Runner's World was still sort of interested in running as well as possible, they had an article on the benefits of various lengthed runs. Almost as an aside, they cited a study done on British female marathon runners to see what variable was most predictive of success. It turned out to the NUMBER of runs done in their prep period. More runs lead to faster times than fewer ones did. The variable was simply the number of runs done, not total miles run. That was the #2 predictor. So that argues for doubles, though I'd still have a longer run in the mix.
Going to really ancient history, when I moved to the DC area in 1974 I just missed the era when Bob Scharf was perhaps the best runner in town. He made a huge jump in performances in the middle and late 60s. He told me up to that time he'd been doing 120-130 mile weeks in one run a day. (Yeah, this is beyond the range you're asking about but there's a punch line.) He said that he was talking about his training with Gerry Lindgren at the 1965 national 6 mile championships and said Lindgren told him he'd be faster if he did that same volume but in two runs a day. He took the advice and said he improved loads. I don't have specifics. And check out vivamarathon.dk. Apparently several Danes have done OK in long races with fairly low volume and a good bit of doubling.
On the other hand, Ron Clarke was not a fan of doubling even though he usually did it. He once wrote and article suggesting that your main run should be at least an hour long. He also told me that he thought he'd have been exactly the same runner on one run a day as he'd been on two. He'd been doing a 5-6 mile morning run but told me it wasn't "training." His wife rode alongside him on a bike and they considered it time on their own away from their kids. And Yushi Kawauchi has done quite well off of one run. And I forget the title of Marty Liquori's book, but I know he addresses this topic and argues for singles until you're at higher volumes. He calls doubling "pretentious."
I think a lot depends on what suits you but if pressed I'd be inclined to do the 70 with at least some double days. doubling is so universal among top runners that I think it's worth doing. Note that both Clarke and Liquori actually ran doubles most days despite arguing against them.
The question wasn't: is "doubles better for me"?
Sany discussion about whether or not it helps you avoid injury/recover better is completely irrelevant.
Assuming you are not getting injured, not overtraining, not failing to recover, etc., ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, is it better to run doubles or singles?
The science seems to point towards doubles. But I understand the doubles have to be of succifient length (i.e., 30-45 minutes minimum, or at least 4 miles) to make it beneficial. Something about significantly declining returns on aerobic development and HGH production after 45 minutes or so of running.
That means by default, doubles only are worth it if you're doing at a minimum 8 miles a day (2 runs of at least 4 miles a piece) which is at least 56 miles a week. If you have a long run each week, you're looking at a minimum of 60 miles a week before it makes sense to start doing doubles.
Doing 3-4 runs a day of 2-3 miles a piece obviously wouldn't be worth it for the above reason.
Liquori's training book was titled "Marty Liquori's Guide for the Elite Runner" although a paperback edition was titled "Real Running".
Isn't Wetmore a fan of singles? I seem to remember this from "Running With the Buffaloes" or some other thing on Adam Goucher
No
Flamethrower wrote:
Doubles worked better for me. Made me less injury prone and I seemed to recover faster.
Yeah but you also did short useless runs.
Wetmore is NOT a fan of singles. The question of singles vs double is ALWAYS about the fact that EVERYTHING else is NEVER equal. So for college students attending the U of C at altitude and doing Wetmore's training and racing schedule, he has determined that generally, singles fit into their schedules better than doubles.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
No
Thank you for your detailed and well thought out response regarding this discussion.
Sage Canaday wrote:
If you had to pick, which will yield better results? 80mpw in doubles isn't an option.
70mpw in doubles would probably be able to be done at a faster avg pace.
If this is really Sage Canaday, why would a guy racing 100 milers ask this question.
If it is Sage, he's already done marathon training with the Hanson's.
Here's the answer for Sage. 70 miles in 3 runs @ 5 minute pace every day for a week, then do something else.
Activities for 30 May 2016 - 5 Jun 2016
153.4mi
15h 3m
19,385ft
Looks like you got a 153 mile week there, Sage.
8 minute pace?
To go out in the 100 miler, first 40 miles at what pace?
So for college students attending the U of C at altitude and doing Wetmore's training and racing schedule, he has determined that generally, singles fit into their schedules better than doubles.
I had all the time in the world in college...
Now, as busy worker with family, it is doubles all the way. I can find one hour to run twice a day, but never have two hours for singles during the work week.
Doubles are for the time constrained.
Which works better? Doubles for me.
Sage is reconsidering his training.
He is now focused on ultras and just placed an atypical 13th or so at the Western States 100-Miler.
He is probably reassessing how he trained in order to improve, just like any good coach/athlete would.
Good post, HRE.
Most important factors:
1. Frequency of runs
2. Intensity of runs (I.e average volume)
You get gains in fitness when your body recovers, so putting your body through a stress/recover cycle 12 times a week is better than doing it 7 times a week.
Only caveat then becomes: are each of those stresses adequate enough to trigger a fitness gain? I'd argue that even at 70 mpw, doubling is the way to go.
"I had all the time in the world in college..."
I never ran only singles even on 40 mpw in HS. Doubles allowed me to jump to 90 mpw as a 14 year old. My 90 mpw turned me from a scrub into a scorer at our state meet. I would have been the first one to argue with Wetmore if he let my slow @$$% on his team BUT he has the national champions and I have a bronze from a tiny state meet.
Maybe it is an altitude thing? Or a lack of sleep or getting sleep before midnight in college thing?
100 miles in 17:16 = 1036 minutes.
If he ran a 153 mile week, he was already doing doubles, maybe some triples.
Western States wasn't atypical. It was a learning experience from 60 through 100 miles.