Running doubles every day is really working!

Prepare to have a bunch of people tell you to run all singles all the time, despite most every elite distance runner finding the same thing you have. Running doubles works. Congrats on the training/fitness improvement.

I wish I could drag my butt out of bed early enough to run every morning. Evening workouts always end too late to get to bed in time for 8 hours by 5:30.

Amazing how more running more = better times.

I dropped from 36:30 to 30:50 over a 2 year period - gradually increased from 25 mpw to 90-100.

Good luck.

You'll find this 3 part article interesting:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/10/is-9mi-once-better-than-45mi-twice.html

I was especially intrigued by this statement:

"If we look at growth hormone release during easy running, there's a swift rise intitially for the first 30-40min of a run, and then it levels off significantly to 60min. In one study, it showed an increase of about 550 percent from 0-40min, yet from 40-60min it only went up another 40-50percent."

The name of the study was not cited but maybe the ideal day would be something like three 30-40 min. runs? Brother Colim O'Connell, the great Kenyan coach, believes in this approach.

About the same age and have had the same results as OP. I find I get in shape MUCH faster running 2 a days. What used to take 12 - 14 weeks of marathon training, I can get done in 8 weeks.

Of course, 14 weeks of doubles should yield some very good results. I am soon to find out.

I'm going to try the three runs a day approach. Starting tomorrow.

Follow my YouTube channel for results.

http://www.youtube.com/user/commonrunner

I found that also. When I had time last summer I trained for a short time with two runs, and the continous runs were 30 minutes mostly. Looking back I was astonished how good I got in shape even though I had to stop some workouts because of stomage issues (problem of the second run, because of lunch) and had something like 2x800m, but it seemed to work.

I didn't do that for very long, for the recovery I found not so easy. Another thing I tried was to double on weekends with long runs and good workouts and take monday off, so a bit like crash training.

[quote]Bell Lapper wrote:

You'll find this 3 part article interesting:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/10/is-9mi-once-better-than-45mi-twice.html

I was especially intrigued by this statement:

"If we look at growth hormone release during easy running, there's a swift rise intitially for the first 30-40min of a run, and then it levels off significantly to 60min. In one study, it showed an increase of about 550 percent from 0-40min, yet from 40-60min it only went up another 40-50percent."

This is exactly why Pete Magill suggests running doubles. And it sure seems to work for him.

If you're serious about this, don't do anything more than 20 minutes for a week or two on your two easier runs. And run them slowly to start. I speak from experience. Better yet, start with three "triples":

M 20 / 20 / 20

T 20-30 / workout

W 20 / 20 / 30-40

T 20-30 / workout

F 20 / 20 / 30

S 20-30 / workout

S long run / 20-30 (or two runs 90 / 30)

You'd be surprised at how easy a second run is on your long dy if the long run is relatively short.

Jim Spivey was one of the most successful low-mileage runners ever, yet he ran doubles everyday:

"Then, I would train from March through June, putting in the volume intervals. Hard days (M-W-Sat) would consist of 11-13 miles, including a 3-4 mile morning run. But my easy days, I think even my team laughs at now. 30 m's am, and 35-40 m's in the pm. 60-70 mins total for the day, and at 7:00 pace, or on a good day, 6:50 pace."

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=2434

Set a school record in xc by running doubles all summer during hs.

What I found out is that (generally) the first run was a good warm up--loosened up the legs a lot--then the late run usually was faster and easier due to getting legs loose in am.

Usually put the longer runs in pm (2nd run).

Doubles are good.

Congrats. Not sure a half a mile run is worth running a double, even for tempo - I would just add another mile to the major run of the day if you are only able half a mile. 3 miles is worth it though. I'd set that as minimum and go from there.

Thanks for the advice. I've done 120 mile weeks on singles in the past, but I've been injured for a long time and looking for a fresh start and motivation. An experiment like this might be the trick.

common wrote:

Thanks for the advice. I've done 120 mile weeks on singles in the past, but I've been injured for a long time and looking for a fresh start and motivation. An experiment like this might be the trick.

I ran about 105-110 at my peak and hit my best middle distance times on this routine. Contrast that with my best 5k run off of 55-60 a week. I have suggested for years that some of this double/triple work be done at ridiculously slow speeds and people always scoff. But, it worked for me. This isn't run slow all the time. But, if you're recovering, recover. I always used 65% of heart rate max as my top speed on recovery runs. Regular aerobic runs are not recovery runs. Those are done at 65-80% max heart rate. My rule of thumb was take your current mile PR and double it for recovery runs. Sounds crazy, but, if you're dumping tons of stress on the body, why not try it. Also, anything beyond 45 minutes of "recovery" is not wise until you've been at it for at least 6 months, preferably more like a year.

Dinner's done with the kids...I can keep at it. If you want real controlled evidence (most people don't want to spend the time) run 2 cycles in singles and watch the pace, heart rate and recovery rates, then run 2 cycles in doubles or triples. Glenn McCarthy once pointed out to me that 100 in singles is like 130 in doubles. So, I am not sure what the scale out would be for triples. Maybe 150-160? At any rate, you can do significantly more total volume, but, realize that the cumulative effects will require more total work too. Many Kenyans do doubles and in training camps triples to really maximize the pre-season stress. It is something to be used in base and pre-competitive segments of your program, but, not year/season round. If you're doing triples the day before your big race, you're doing yourself a disservice. Think of it as something best used in what Lydiard would call his base phase. I.e., the 10 week period before real training. The real focus is on the ligaments, muscles and cardiovascular system, that is, the aerobic development period. As stress increases, volume should drop. At some point, you'll need to drop to doubles and shift the emphasis.

This is good stuff. My coach is a Lydiard disciple, and he is always keen to remind me that Lydiard's athletes weren't running 140 miles a week more than 20-25 weeks a year.

The bottom of the mineshaft is where I am at right now, so it's as good a time as any for this experiment. Thanks again.

minimalist North wrote:

Congrats. Not sure a half a mile run is worth running a double, even for tempo - I would just add another mile to the major run of the day if you are only able half a mile. 3 miles is worth it though. I'd set that as minimum and go from there.

See, your reasoning is where I made the mistake before when I tried doubles. 3 miles sounds innocent enough, but considering *every day*, that's 21 more miles a week, which is significant. 1/2 mile or 1 mile runs might not seem like anything but they are, especially if you're running in the 30-40 mile/week range to start with. Not all runs have to be workouts. You can just get out of bed and jog around the block, or before dinner. 5-15 minutes. This kind of thing can be done every day indefinitely and is sustainable for just about anyone, even someone totally injured or out of shape. It doesn't require getting sweaty or taking another shower. You don't even need to put on "running clothes" for it.

So what are your race times now?

The next race I'm going to do is an open XC in two weeks and then a turkey trot 10K road race in late November, a half in February and a marathon next march. So I have no new race times now.

If you're trying to point out that the only measure of results are faster race times then you make a good point. I was just saying that I feel better than I have for a long time. And this seems to correlate with running more frequently over the last month.