This thread has turned into a good one. I will be back to discuss further once I have more time....
This thread has turned into a good one. I will be back to discuss further once I have more time....
Here's my thread where I was injured and ran 12-14 runs a week for a total of 35 miles at the beginning and ending at 50mpw. I switched back to singles because my schedule changed and I didn't have time for it anymore. I thought I was just maintaining fitness while recovering from injury but I actually had pretty good results. I now believe that the only reason to not double is for time constraints. Just make sure to get a long single run in
Ha! I remember this thread. Note that my position has at least been consistent over time:
"I think this goes against all conventional wisdom with respect to conditioning and development of a runner.
And nonetheless, I don't really think it is a bad idea. I mean, you need to accept the fact that this is not doing anything to develop your aerobic fitness; but that is only a part of the conversation.
What you are doing is strengthening the connective tissue and muscles involved in running and, thus, preparing yourself to train in the future. In short, this is a long term investment strategy that is giving you no short term payoff, but which might allow you to realize long term benefits that it sounds like you have thus far been unable to realize.
Sounds like you have a plan to stretch those 2.5 milers into longer runs over time. Good luck and good running."
This is excellent stuff, Smoove. I especially like your last point in regard to the marathoner focusing on runs of 10 miles or more. This has been so important in my development as a runner. Actually, I would say it is critical, and the psychological standpoint must not be overlooked.
For me, a six-miler has now become more of a "rest" than anything else.
No one is ever going to prove anything on this topic, but you could ignore all studies and just look at how national and international class runners train Two runs on at least some days is much more common than one run all the time is. Yes, it's possible that not one single woman, or even a married one, in that group ran doubles, but it's very unlikely because doubling is just so much more common among faster runners. And the study found that number of runs was the most important variable with mileage number two which implies that the faster women in the study were doing more runs than some women who were running more overall miles but in fewer runs.
You can find plenty of examples of people who ran well off of one run, Kawauchi, Ed Whitlock, Harald Norpoth. Bob Deines. Joe Henderson told me that he tried doubling when he started running in college and actually got slower, but we never talked about any other variables in his training at the time that could have come into play. Ron Clarke told me that he thinks he'd have been exactly the same runner on one run a day as he'd been on two. He didn't think of his morning 5-6 mile run as training. His wife rode along with him on her bike and they used it as time to talk. BUT, he did do two runs on most days so we know what happened that way and can only speculate about what would have happened otherwise. Barry Magee told me that when he started with Lydiard he was running once a day, 100 miles a week, during his base phase and became a national class runner from that routine. Then he added a second run of 3-4 miles and quickly became an international class runner.
In every case, by doing one thing you eliminate the possibility of knowing if you'd have been better, worse, or the same doing something else, which is why nothing can ever be proven. But given the prevalence of doubling, why would the OP not try it? That's the only way he can answer the question he asked and there is plenty of information suggesting he'll improve. If he doesn't he can go back to one run a day if he wants to.
I think there is little dispute that increase volume generally tends to lead to better results and that an increased number of runs can generate increased volume.
But I don't think "the elites do it" tells the whole story because the elites also run 100 mile weeks or more. I don't think anyone is suggesting 100 mile weeks be achieved via singles. So I don't think the elites comparison is really applicable when deciding how to best approach 60-70 miles per week for the 5k/10k. You may still reach the same conclusion - that doubles make sense, but I see the elites reasoning is really an apples and oranges comparison.
I always just found that looking at what successful runners did and modelling what I did on that was the best way to get faster. All sorts of us ran 100 mile weeks and doubles decades ago and there was so much more depth than there is now. Of course nothing tells the whole story but there's an idea now that there's a different set of rules for the top people and another for everyone else. But again, if the OP is interested in running doubles a few times a week, even if he's doing 60-70 a week and not 100, how is he going to know if it's a good idea without doing it?
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.
I agree that many people would benefit from longer periods of rest between runs, however I think that many people who are injury prone or currently injured also benefit from a shorter duration workout as it breaks up the damage you are doing to your body into small segments. Also when you double some of your longer days it allows for time to assess who your feeling before the second run so over ambitious mileage for the day can be reduced if needed to manage injury or soreness.
I think the issue might be I'm going right on the cusp of the arbitrary 70mpw line. Another issue is I don't run my easy paces at a 7:00 to 7:30 more like an 8:15 to 8:30. Only because I feel really comfortable at that pace which is crucial to base building without injury. I would like to get to 100mpw some day, but that certainly isn't this year, I have way too much going on to invest that amount of time to get that weekly average in. Now if my easy pace was a 6 or 7min flat pace of course one could cover that mileage in maybe the same amount of time it takes me to do 80mpw or something.
Generally, the universal answer among posts are to run more. Then it's run more but do it in singles, then its run more but once you can do at least 8 to 9 mile singles daily then double up runs. I can run more during the week, but it has to be in the form of doubles (unless i some how get magically faster enough to cover more distance in the same time at a easy pace) so to achieve my weekly average distance, I have to run a few doubles. So it's easy to get confused about what's more beneficial to certain training types. I agree the half marathon and higher events are more crucial to longer single runs, but I think the 10k and lower events would be more beneficial with more shorter time bouts of running.
Relevant, from Pfitzinger:
http://kemibe.com/distancecoach/labreports/twoadays.shtml
TL,DR:
Longer racers need longer training runs, shorter racers can start doubling sooner. Smoove's comments on glycogen utilization is mostly irrelevant to a 5k runner, so anyway you get the volume in is good, but I do think there's a lower limit.
Agree that "elites double so I should double" is the wrong conclusion. Elites run 100 miles so I should run 100 miles makes more sense to me. I don't know why splitting 8 miles/day into a 5-3 would be an advantage unless its the only way to get the volume in without getting hurt. If we think of the extreme...doubling/tripling every run so you have a bunch of sub-30 minute runs doesn't seem all that helpful. It's not the doubling that is the advantage, it's the increased volume.
Do what you want...if your question is "doubling is the only way for me to get the miles in, is there any benefit" then my answer is "yes, because you're getting more volume in."
TL,DR to the TL,DR:
You do you.
Follow up:
http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/pete-pfitzinger-was-he-right-or-wrong
Pfitzinger is now open minded to doubles, especially for those injury prone...
THEN: In the July/August 2000 issue, I discussed when it's
beneficial to run twice per day. My advice was: "Many elite runners
incorporate 'doubles' in some way, and this training pattern offers a
number of benefits. Most runners, however, should resist the urge
to shift from single runs to doubles as they increase training
mileage, and instead add miles to single runs."
I stated, "Do not do double workouts until you have maximized the
training volume you can handle in single daily workouts" and "If you
are preparing for a marathon, do not do doubles unless you are
running more than 75 miles per week."
NOW: I now believe that for older runners, or those with a history of
injury, double runs can be a beneficial way to run relatively high
mileage with less injury risk than longer single runs. Doubles can
also help you improve your stride rate and running technique
because you'll be relatively fresh during your runs and less likely to
get stuck in a marathoner's shuffle. I would now recommend double
runs for runners over 40 preparing for races from 5K through the
marathon any time except their long run day. (My openmindedness
has limits.) For example, rather than trying to get in a midweek
11miler, if breaking it up into a 7mile run and a 4miler will help
ensure you put in the mileage and stay injury free, then that's a smart option.
One reason to run doubles at shorter distances is to simply get into the habit of running doubles if your plan is to increase the volume later. I think it's way easier to get the rhythm down and then push up the miles than it is to add extra runs to an already taxing singles schedule.
Depends on the person, of course.
I strongly feel that doubles are beneficial for about 90% of runners in most situations. I think a big key is to not think of it as "splitting" mileage.
Do whatever you'd do on singles for your primary run, and then add on a lighter secondary run. At first this secondary run might just be 15 minutes of easy jogging. Over time the secondary run can increase in volume and intensity a bit, but they key is to not let it ever really detract from your primary run, and to almost always keep your primary run just about the same as what would be optimal if you were just running once per day.
I generally found that after about 2 weeks of doubling, I'd start feeling better in my workouts and races, and after a month things would really start rolling.
Most athletes I've worked with take a year or two at just 15-20 minute secondary runs (usually morning runs, but evening runs for some of them). After that the big milestone is 30 minute secondaries. When training for marathon races most of my own and my athletes secondary runs were about 40 minutes, but sometimes they'd get up over an hour. Again, I felt the key was that they were never taking away anything from the primary run.
There were occasions when we'd use two specific efforts in a day in hopes of a synergistic effect - similar to Canova & Arcelli's Special Blocks, or two "long runs" in a single day, but these aren't all that common.
In general though - if you're got a hard workout on a day, get in that workout and whatever lighter easy running you can in a secondary run that doesn't take away from the workout. If you're doing an easier recovery day-ish 40 minutes easy run, do that, and then get in another light jog - maybe 15 minutes slow jogging for a newb, and maybe another 40 minutes light for someone more experienced. They key is that the primary run is whatever is optimal regardless of doubling or not.
At your pace - and to be clear, how crappy a runner you are - do whatever you want, doubles, singles - you seem to know whats best. I have no idea why you'd want to run 100 miles a week other than some notion it will make you appear to not suck as hard as you do. But, you are a crap runner - you suck. Thinking you need to build to 100 miles is just stupid and ignores your real issue which is that you are slow af. Start a new thread asking how you can stop being so slow, and nobody is going to tell you to concentrate on doing a lot of slow doubles to build up to 100 miles per week.
HRE wrote:
I always just found that looking at what successful runners did and modelling what I did on that was the best way to get faster. All sorts of us ran 100 mile weeks and doubles decades ago and there was so much more depth than there is now. Of course nothing tells the whole story but there's an idea now that there's a different set of rules for the top people and another for everyone else. But again, if the OP is interested in running doubles a few times a week, even if he's doing 60-70 a week and not 100, how is he going to know if it's a good idea without doing it?
And this is where the thread should end.
I like listening to running podcasts, especially Strength Running's podcast, because the podcast focuses on the performances and mechanics of running.
Well, recently, the show interviewed Jared Ward.. He explained that in major sports everyone follows the elite players when it comes to training and techniques, which is why everyone is on the same page when it comes to playing those sports. However, in running, runners don't follow the elites, and just go with the latest information that they read or heard, and do a lot of experimentation. He continued to explain that there is a lot of confusion in the running world because of it, and is one of the main reasons why a lot of regular runners don't prosper.
With the NBA, NFL, and MLB, if you were to go up to a semi-pro athlete, prospect, or even a recreational player, he or she would know everything about the players of those sports, and how they train. In running, the majority of non-elite runners who run throughout the world don't even seriously watch track and field, or know anything about the top runners in the world, or how they train. However, those same people will go and buy a running book by some unknown professor, who has developed an over the top way of running, and follow it religiously.
Decades ago, when most runners ran for performance and results, the majority of those runners followed what the elites did. That was the only information that was being produced, and running magazines didn't focus on trends,gimmicks, or feel-good running stories. And there were a lot of quality runners because of it.
I firmly believe in following the techniques and formulas of the elites, but taking bits and pieces here and there. That does not mean to go out and run 130 miles per week, but to base the mileage that you do run off of the running principles and plans that the elites utilize.
Another 11-miler this morning, and another case in point. I was not feeling bad early on, but did not feel good until the ninth mile of today's 11-miler. I felt much better in the last three miles of today's run than I did in the first seven or eight. I am planning on doing a double today, and so I could have cut it off at eight miles, but I thought: "Let's see what happens if I keep going." Sure enough, something kicked in, and I felt great. I did 11.25 miles, and finished 6:47, 6:43, 6:43, and 1:34, all done without pushing hard (though I did kick it some in the 1:34 last quarter, since I felt so good).
Now, what would have happened if I had cut it off at eight miles? In my view, I would have lost out on some very beneficial running.
Perhaps I am simply better suited to longer distances. Perhaps. I will see if I can find that article that discusses the 45-60 minute threshold I mention here in a previous post.
All the best...
Outsiderunner you are the goofball that keeps on giving.
outsiderunner wrote:
Another 11-miler this morning, and another case in point. I was not feeling bad early on, but did not feel good until the ninth mile of today's 11-miler. ....
Now, what would have happened if I had cut it off at eight miles? In my view, I would have lost out on some very beneficial running.
OR you could double by doing your 11 miler in the morning, and then going out for an easy 3-4 miles in the evening.
That's what I'd advocate for. Do whatever you're going to do in your primary run whether you're running once or twice per day, and then add on some supplementary jogging at another time in the day.
Doubles should be adding, not splitting.
Had Some Myself wrote:
outsiderunner wrote:Another 11-miler this morning, and another case in point. I was not feeling bad early on, but did not feel good until the ninth mile of today's 11-miler. ....
Now, what would have happened if I had cut it off at eight miles? In my view, I would have lost out on some very beneficial running.
OR you could double by doing your 11 miler in the morning, and then going out for an easy 3-4 miles in the evening.
That's what I'd advocate for. Do whatever you're going to do in your primary run whether you're running once or twice per day, and then add on some supplementary jogging at another time in the day.
Doubles should be adding, not splitting.
Closing statement is my whole logic. Just trying to add in more. I wouldn't double an 8 mile day into (2) 4 mile runs. I have doubled a 12 or 16 mile day into 6/6 and 10/6 mile runs.
What about an 800/1500 runner trying to maintain 70-80mpw during base phase? Would a 5/6 mile split for the day be better than a 20min run and a 65 min run?
What if the 5/6 mile split lets them be fresher for top speed work and strength work? Would this runner be missing crucial endurance adaptations by only running longer than 60 minutes once a week (long run up to 14-15 miles) or would this way work fine if it meant he could keep a higher quality and stay fresher? What's the cost-benefit of this way of splitting mileage?