I'm convinced that singles are far better for base training than doubles.

You guys are talking about two different people, both using a sequence of sdfddsda for their names. The OP never mentioned going 5:45 pace for 55-60 miles a week. That was someone else.

LOL I was going to say when the hell was I talking about my paces. My PB's right now are quite umimpressive. But I've only been running a year. They are:

5k: 18:58

10k: 39:48

So there you go, GEB would probably beat me I suspect haha

sfdfsdf: I've only been running a year.

That one year plus the two mentioned in your original post = at least three years, which include one year of 80 MPW in doubles and another in singles.

Well, you've clearly done your homework and made an experiment of your own running, not unlike many of the other greats like Arthur Lydiard.

Just curious: if you're going to claim 18:58 off the good (singles) training, what kind of times might you have run from the bad (doubles) training?

And what can I run for 5k?

sfdfsdf wrote:

LOL I was going to say when the hell was I talking about my paces. My PB's right now are quite umimpressive. But I've only been running a year.

So, you only been running a year... You don't think that THAT is the reason that your fitness has increased?

jolanda stevens wrote:

but sex with two girls is always better than one no matter how religious you are.

Two fives don't make a ten!

agree once you get over 100mpw it would involve most of your singles as long runs.

Remember recovery and rest are as important as sessions. So single runs enable the mind and body to recover for longer.Therefore more beneficial surely?

try doubling. I've found that I recover much faster when I'm doing doubles than when it's all in singles (maybe because I have a tendency to hammer everything when I'm only doing singles)

athletics freak wrote:

agree once you get over 100mpw it would involve most of your singles as long runs.

Remember recovery and rest are as important as sessions. So single runs enable the mind and body to recover for longer.Therefore more beneficial surely?

This is way too simplistic. Doubles create two recovery sessions in a 24 hour period--two cycles of growth and regeneration. Singles create only one. Does your body respond better to one recovery session with a deeper stimulus or two recovery sessions with a bit shallower stimulus? That's the question of singles vs. doubles.

Most likely the answer depends upon what you've been doing recently, your training history, your training goals, etc. Should you be doing 6, 7, 10, or 13 runs per week? How long should these runs be? These are contextual question, one that you have to work out on your own, experimentally--and the answers will change as you move through your training cycle and through your career.

Great post deleuze. Just out of curiosity, when you run recovery runs, how slow do you run them? I know this is subjective, but are you challenged aerobically whatsoever?

Plenty Fast wrote:

I don't think 4 miles in the AM really contributes to your fitness, what it does is allows me to do more work that can contribute to my fitness.

This doesn't make any sense.

sfdfsdf wrote:

wilfredo wrote:

you'd be faster if you ran more. if you can run that fast on low mileage, you were born with talent and you have little to be proud of other than your genes

I'm probably one of the least genetically gifted runners there are. Listen, all I'm arguing is that 80 mpw in singles is better than 80 mpw in doubles. Once you get to 100 mpw -- then yes, I guess doubles are in order.

You're forgetting something. Doubles aren't simply because the mileage becomes too much for singles. It's to trick your body into thinking you have done another workout by getting your heart rate up in the 130-145 range for 20-30mins. That way, the short run allows your body to recover as if it were at rest, but you still get a cardio boost from the extra run.