9 Mile Morning Run vs 3x3 Mile Runs Throughout Day

8AM 2PM 8PM ***

How long does it take you to run three miles? There's a fair amount of research suggesting anything less than 25-30 minutes is not worth it; unless of course your goal is very basic health improvements, rather than actually training to improve as a competitive runner.

You'll spend more time showering rather than running.

Do both

9 in the morning is definitely better for building your aerobic base....9 spread out in a triple does not allow for recovery time. I will at most double in a day. if I'm going for a normal training day of lets say 12 miles, I'll run 7-8 in the morning and 4-5 in the afternoon.

That's a good idea. I was just thinking that I'm too sedentary just working out once a day and several times would be better.

That's a myth.

The adaptations are partially a function of the duration but also myriad other training variables.

Those 9 miles in the morning can be better, worse or about the same as the 3x 3mi.

No difference. 3x3 will take more of your day - that is it.

I know you probably meant fitness, but healthwise there is now strong evidence that if you are sedentary the bulk of the day then going out for one long run doesn't help that much. 'avoid sitting down for a whole hour' is the best advice. So for your long term health several outings much better than one.

dsrunner wrote:

That's a myth.

I find that hard to believe. I can jog 4 miles in about 30 minutes.

I find it almost impossible to believe I would get the same amount of fitness if I did that at 8am, 2pm, and 8pm, than if I went out once a day and ran 12 miles (close to a half marathon) daily at the same pace. I believe I would achieve better capillarization, endurance, and running economy, among other things, if I did the latter for a decent period of time.

I've been wrong before, and I would accept your argument if you offered some peer-reviewed research on this subject that refuted what I said above.

lollerama wrote:

How long does it take you to run three miles? There's a fair amount of research suggesting anything less than 25-30 minutes is not worth it; unless of course your goal is very basic health improvements, rather than actually training to improve as a competitive runner.

There's a fair amount of experience suggesting that runs of less than 25-30 minutes can be worth it.

diora wrote:

lollerama wrote:

How long does it take you to run three miles? There's a fair amount of research suggesting anything less than 25-30 minutes is not worth it; unless of course your goal is very basic health improvements, rather than actually training to improve as a competitive runner.

There's a fair amount of experience suggesting that runs of less than 25-30 minutes can be worth it.

Worth it in what aspect? For general health and basic fitness, absolutely. I agree. My comment was badly worded. I should have said that I believe a longer run is always better than a couple short ones. Read what I said in the post above yours for a better explanation of what I meant. I apologize for my original misleading statement - my bad.

lollerama wrote:

For general health and basic fitness, absolutely. I agree.

... should have also added, also good as supplemental runs for increasing mileage in an overall training program. I've done 30 min runs as part of doubles many times.

I would assume it depends on what you're trying to train for. 3x3 miles might be a decent plan for running a 5K but would leave you woefully unprepared to run a half-marathon.

As someone else noted, however, there's a lot of evidence that sitting still for long periods of time is bad for your health even if you exercise vigorously on a daily basis. I don't think that means you have to run three times or even twice a day, but be sure to get up and walk around at least once per hour or so during the rest of the waking day.

All At Once vs Spread wrote:

3 Mile Run at 8AM 2AM 8PM

or

9 Mile Run at 8AM

What is the difference physiologically? Is it better to be active throughout the day or get it all over with in the AM?

That's interesting. Even if this was a troll it is something that could be hypothetically discussed. I think they both have their place within a running program. The 9 miler is good for a long run, in terms of getting the legs physically ready for that much distance, getting the heart active for that amount of time as opposed to 3x3 mile runs throughout the day. I would say the 3x3 would definitely end up being faster runs than the 9 miler, and since they're spread out, it is basically constantly stressing the muscles throughout the day. So while the 3x3 are faster runs, they wouldn't stress the heart as long as the 9 miler nor stress the legs as much as a 9 miler since you get basically 6 hours between each run. Anyway that's my pseudo scientific look at it. Feel free to dismember it

The guy who had the mile record at my college in the early 70s was primarily a soccer player and only started to train for track at the end of February. What he did was run a two mile loop 4-5 times a day. That got him a 4:20. Another guy I know had a stretch of time where he was getting coached by Gordon Pirie who had him do four 20 minute runs each day and this got him a big mile PR, also around 4:20 I believe. There's a Danish guy called Peder Troldburg who is maybe 50 now and has always trained on 2-3 short runs a day, 6 miles is a really long run for him and he's gotten under 13:50 and 30:00 on that as well as a 2:23 marathon in his early 40s.

The Law of Diminishing Returns suggests that your biggest improvements in fitness on any run are going to come in the early bit and diminish as the run goes on. Back in the 70s, when Runner's World was still interested in running fast, they had an article that referenced a study done on female British marathon runners, I have no idea why that was the reference group, that found that the most accurate predictor of fast times was the number of runs, not number of miles, done during the lead up. Mileage was the #2 predictor. But obviously there must be a minimum length for a run to be useful. Otherwise you could do eighteen half mile runs every day. It doesn't need to be an either/or thing. You could do a nine mile run on a few days and three threes on others. If you do what you're contemplating you'll likely spend a lot more time showering and changing than you would if you went with the single nine mile run.

I don't know anyone who would advise splitting up your mileage if you're only doing 9 miles in a day. If you're doing 12 or more, it can make sense depending on what you're doing that day.

HRE wrote:

The Law of Diminishing Returns suggests that your biggest improvements in fitness on any run are going to come in the early bit and diminish as the run goes on.

I see. So if I go out for a 2 minute run a couple times a day I will improve at a larger level, percentage-wise, than a 20 minute run?

not true wrote:

HRE wrote:

The Law of Diminishing Returns suggests that your biggest improvements in fitness on any run are going to come in the early bit and diminish as the run goes on.

I see. So if I go out for a 2 minute run a couple times a day I will improve at a larger level, percentage-wise, than a 20 minute run?

Did you not read the sentence where I said that there obviously must be some minimum length of time for a run to be beneficial otherwise you could do eighteen half mile runs or just choose to ignore it?