Building up my base as summer is fast approaching around here. Is running 2 or 3 doubles a week any benefit to me? Generally it's a 40 to 50 min run each. One long run of about 80 to 90min, all my other runs during the week are about 60 mins.
Building up my base as summer is fast approaching around here. Is running 2 or 3 doubles a week any benefit to me? Generally it's a 40 to 50 min run each. One long run of about 80 to 90min, all my other runs during the week are about 60 mins.
What event are you training for?
5k/10k maybe a late fall/early winter half marathon depending on my progress with the 5k/10k. Currently around 45 to 50mpw.
I think it would be fine to work in doubles under those circumstances. As a general rule of thumb, I would guess that as a 5k/10k runner you should probably be at least in the 65 mpw range before moving to doubles, but my guess is if you are working in 3 days of doubles of 40-50 minutes, you will have 36 miles from those days, another 14-15 from your long run, and another 15-16 miles from the other days of the week getting you to about 75 total.
Probably not the way I would choose to get to 75 miles per week, but certainly a viable approach.
Smoove wrote:
I think it would be fine to work in doubles under those circumstances. As a general rule of thumb, I would guess that as a 5k/10k runner you should probably be at least in the 65 mpw range before moving to doubles, but my guess is if you are working in 3 days of doubles of 40-50 minutes, you will have 36 miles from those days, another 14-15 from your long run, and another 15-16 miles from the other days of the week getting you to about 75 total.
Probably not the way I would choose to get to 75 miles per week, but certainly a viable approach.
I never understood this "you have to run this much in singles before starting to double"
If you want to be your best, run twice a day. Don't overthink it.
Smoove wrote:
I think it would be fine to work in doubles under those circumstances. As a general rule of thumb, I would guess that as a 5k/10k runner you should probably be at least in the 65 mpw range before moving to doubles, but my guess is if you are working in 3 days of doubles of 40-50 minutes, you will have 36 miles from those days, another 14-15 from your long run, and another 15-16 miles from the other days of the week getting you to about 75 total.
Probably not the way I would choose to get to 75 miles per week, but certainly a viable approach.
Where did you get that rule from?
Even Dr.Daniels recommends running doubles over singles, because the runners gets some micro-recovery in, and goes into the second run with less fatigue on the legs. .
I never really feel fatigued after doing a double....but the minor (expected) aches are present after during a single ,because it turns into a quality workout once I go past 70 mins or so.
Smoove wrote:
I think it would be fine to work in doubles under those circumstances. As a general rule of thumb, I would guess that as a 5k/10k runner you should probably be at least in the 65 mpw range before moving to doubles, but my guess is if you are working in 3 days of doubles of 40-50 minutes, you will have 36 miles from those days, another 14-15 from your long run, and another 15-16 miles from the other days of the week getting you to about 75 total.
Probably not the way I would choose to get to 75 miles per week, but certainly a viable approach.
You need to be taking notes. You are unqualified to teach.
Lots of harsh here for a guy who agreed that the poster should go ahead and double if he wanted.
I have one main focus between now and September and that's just try to build up as many miles as possible. Doing doubles lets me run more miles when i keep the runs between 40 to 50 min per run. Doing 60 to 70 min runs are better (in terms of aerobic base) of course but the volume is less. Given my certain lifestyle 40 to 60 min runs are ideal. If i can average a 45 min run in mornings and evenings this would serve me better than one continuous 60 to 70 min run given my particular lifestyle right now. No?
Need a little help here wrote:
I have one main focus between now and September and that's just try to build up as many miles as possible. Doing doubles lets me run more miles when i keep the runs between 40 to 50 min per run. Doing 60 to 70 min runs are better (in terms of aerobic base) of course but the volume is less. Given my certain lifestyle 40 to 60 min runs are ideal. If i can average a 45 min run in mornings and evenings this would serve me better than one continuous 60 to 70 min run given my particular lifestyle right now. No?
Agreed. That's the way most athletes train...A run in the morning and a run in the evening after a meal and a nap,.
Here is mo farah's training format. However, he does one long 20-22 mile run per week: ...other than that, nothing but doubles. How else would a serious runner get the mileage in? No way are they doing 2 to 3 long long runs per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQjUIDiVErESmoove wrote:
Lots of harsh here for a guy who agreed that the poster should go ahead and double if he wanted.
I agree with Smoove. I would not double until I reach the mid-60s in mileage. Below this, I prefer singles, though I am not saying it is mandatory. I am currently making this transition right now. Last week, I ran 63 miles, and will probably add at least one double this week to get into the upper 60s or perhaps to 70.
Happy running...
Depends what you are training for but when I see marathoners running less than 60 miles a week and doubling, I cringe. If you are aiming for a 10K, then by all means double, but if you are shooting for 26.2 miles then you need more time on the legs.
Another thing is if you are injury prone, I would avoid doubles. Not everyone feels better after a slow 3 miles, for those an extra 20+ hours of rest would be more worthwhile. You could also exchange "injury prone" for "old" in this example.
The question is not as simple as a yes or no.
Interesting. I'm an older runner who used to use Daniels plans and he unambiguously noted that above 50 mpw, most runners would benefit from doubling. During some of my best training cycles I doubled easy days, anything above 8 miles, long runs and quality days excepted. I was always happy with the results and have been building miles recently for a Fall race. Are you saying that for an older runner it is better not to double? Why? I was planning to double up on ten milers in the short term at least.
Frommeled wrote:
Depends what you are training for but when I see marathoners running less than 60 miles a week and doubling, I cringe. If you are aiming for a 10K, then by all means double, but if you are shooting for 26.2 miles then you need more time on the legs.
Another thing is if you are injury prone, I would avoid doubles. Not everyone feels better after a slow 3 miles, for those an extra 20+ hours of rest would be more worthwhile. You could also exchange "injury prone" for "old" in this example.
The question is not as simple as a yes or no.
It's not a yes/no question. If your target event is a marathon, then you need some days with long runs. It would not help to double on a very long day.
You should double other times in the build-up to get endurance volume.
Generally speaking doubles are double plus good.
outsiderunner wrote:
Smoove wrote:Lots of harsh here for a guy who agreed that the poster should go ahead and double if he wanted.
I agree with Smoove. I would not double until I reach the mid-60s in mileage. Below this, I prefer singles, though I am not saying it is mandatory. I am currently making this transition right now. Last week, I ran 63 miles, and will probably add at least one double this week to get into the upper 60s or perhaps to 70.
Happy running...
I understand the hot topic right now is the marathon especially with Boston a few days out, so maybe everyone has the "longer is better" mantra. In my case I doing specifically nothing more then 5k/10k a possible late HM at the end of year.
I've done Daniels Formula not that long ago and just coming off his phase4. Currently I just wanna build back up my base. I know running longer than 60 min per day is ideal among most minds, my issue is I can get more distance in if i double up a few days during the week which would be roughly 100min of running vs 60min of running in the same day. My other days I'm not doubling would be 60min on average.
The only way I can reach 60+ miles a week would be through doubling those few days, other than that my volume would be lower in the week.
Would I have more success doubling those few days in the week vs just running 60min everyday except my long run?
Many, many, moons ago, when Runner's World was still somewhat interested in performance running and most people who post here were not even born, they had an article that referenced a study done on British female marathon runners, no idea why the study chose that group, to see what variable was the best predictor of racing success. It turned out to the overall NUMBER of runs done during the prep period. It was number of runs at number one, not total volume. That was number two. Yes, there will be benefit.
This is an interesting study mentioned by HRE. I was not aware of it. In any case, in my opinion, a distance runner needs distance. I will be able to get around 70 miles this week with just one double. I have done 70 on singles, too.
These are difficult questions, and people respond differently to certain training stimuli. In my case, I never feel stronger than when I am running 10 or more miles per day, nearly all in singles. I am currently in a base phase, hoping to build up to 80 mpw (or perhaps a tad more), and I feel strong right now. For instance, on Monday I ran 11 hilly miles at a moderate pace, with a bit a of a fast finish. Yesterday, I ran a 9-mile workout, including a 4x1 (mile) track segment with 1/4-mile active rests, none of which were over 2:00...(1:49, 1:56, 1:57, 1:58). Today, my aim was 10 miles, but even after yesterday's workout, I was able to do 11 miles, on the same hilly route as Monday, am I finished a tad faster.
To me, it is all in the distance. My body seems to benefit greatly when running at least 80 minutes. Both Monday's run and today's run were 80-minute runs.
Before I forget...I read somewhere (about a year or so ago) that a certain hormone kicks in at some point from 45-60 minutes into a run, and that running at least this amount of time is very beneficial. I have had numerous runs wherein I do not feel good until the 6th or 8th mile, which is right in this time frame. Sometimes, I do not feel good until even the 10th mile, and then I start picking up the pace.
All the best...
HRE wrote:
Many, many, moons ago, when Runner's World was still somewhat interested in performance running and most people who post here were not even born, they had an article that referenced a study done on British female marathon runners, no idea why the study chose that group, to see what variable was the best predictor of racing success. It turned out to the overall NUMBER of runs done during the prep period. It was number of runs at number one, not total volume. That was number two. Yes, there will be benefit.
There is nothing in what you just wrote that actually proves that doubles are better for race success than singles. Your logic is flawed. You would very much need to look at the specific data to make any sort of real argument. It is, for example, very possible that not one single woman in that test group ran doubles. Even with the data, these kind of studies are generally meaningless. Correlation studies are crap.
It would be far more helpful if you could find a study where the mileage (and pace) is fixed and then you have two (or three) groups, one that doubles (or two groups with different amounts of doubles) and one that just runs singles (control group), and see the end results. Even then you will have issues with the length of the test race.
I remember reading something that outlined what adaptations take place after a given length of time. Is anyone able to explain this? I think this explains why the 70 mpw threshold is used when determining if you should double or not.
I've been poking around on this for a while and never really came up with anything concrete. My best guess on this is that it is something along the lines of what outsiderunner alluded to - adaptations that occur after a certain duration of running.
This is admittedly not well researched on my part, but it is fueled by a combination of intuition and anecdote.
Our bodies carry enough glycogen to cover about 2000 calories worth of activity (lots of variability there, but let's accept that as a rough estimate). That glycogen primarily comes from two sources, your liver and the muscles engaged in activity. Based on body weight ratios, etc., using a 50-50 split of those calories between those two sources is close enough for purposes of this discussion.
The theory is that when you exercise in excess of an hour, you burn through the primary source of glycogen and start to utilize the secondary source. In theory, regularly making that switchover would result in you adapting to making the switch over such that you are doing it more efficiently.
Comparing doing two runs of 8 miles each or one run of 10 miles and a second of 4 miles, you would see that at 7:30 pace, you never get over the 1v hour mark in the first scenario (and thus presumably no adaptation relating to switching fuel source), but in the second scenario you get over the 1 hour mark by a comfortable margin of 15 minutes (presumably effectuating the desired adaptation). So in both instances, you have two runs totaling 16 miles but with different degrees of adaptation.
A few caveats:
- I have been unable to find any evidence whatsoever to support the assumption that you primarily draw on one source of glycogen (presumably muscles) and then draw on the other (presumably liver) rather than draw upon each relatively equally throughout the duration of your exercise.
- Even if everything above is correct, if you are not running races that require a fair amount of efficiency in switching fuel sources (that is, the marathon or an ultra), the efficacy of this adaption is fairly limited. This is why my first question to the OP related to his goal event and why I concluded that there was no real issue with him doubling.
- This entire analysis goes to the reasoning behind duration of runs, not frequency, so it doesn't speak directly to doubling. Instead, it speaks to the reason why you should get in as many runs of 70 or more minutes, which impacts the analysis of doubling, but only indirectly.
- I generally see very little harm in a marathoner focusing on runs of 10 miles or more as much as possible even if the adaptation that I discussed simply never occurs or the efficiency gains resulting from it are limited. I think that consistently moderately long runs help from a psychological standpoint in any event, regardless of the adaptation.
Allow the trolls to personally attack, despite my acknowledgement of my own uncertainty on these points!