Double runs? Are they worth it?

If you miss the second run you miss it, training is not about weekly totals but about the total training you’re doing to race

Bikini season’s around the corner. Don’t skip the evening double.

Some years ago--decades, now--there was some fairly good research that established two work sessions are superior to one. (They found there was no statistically significant advantage derived from a third session.)

That said: In training, recovery is as important as physical work. If trying to get the second session in cuts into your recovery, or is a source of stress (which also limits recovery), then you have to decide--in the context of your entire daily life--whether the second session is worth it.

lease wrote:

Some years ago--decades, now--there was some fairly good research that established two work sessions are superior to one. (They found there was no statistically significant advantage derived from a third session.)

That said: In training, recovery is as important as physical work. If trying to get the second session in cuts into your recovery, or is a source of stress (which also limits recovery), then you have to decide--in the context of your entire daily life--whether the second session is worth it.

Do you have links to the research you speak of? I wouldn’t mind reading it.

If your question is whether to run the same distance and split it into 2 runs, it comes down to personal preference. Mileage is mileage. I didn't like long runs so I ran doubles and a morning 6-mile run was no stress at all.

An Irish guy I coached a couple of years ago had a busy life with night shift work and a family with 2 kids to take care of. He used to train 5 sessions per week before my coaching of him and that I didn`t change. Then he was age 43 with a master PB of 16:30 at 5000m . After my coaching only 2 months he ran a master PB of 15:37.

The Wizard JS wrote:

An Irish guy I coached a couple of years ago had a busy life with night shift work and a family with 2 kids to take care of. He used to train 5 sessions per week before my coaching of him and that I didn`t change. Then he was age 43 with a master PB of 16:30 at 5000m . After my coaching only 2 months he ran a master PB of 15:37.

You are a compulsive liar, so how about you show some evidence of you coaching that Irish guy?

spinozza wrote:

Do you have links to the research you speak of? I wouldn’t mind reading it.

Well, this was when I was in grad school--the 1980s, well before common use of the Internet--and I didn't keep a hard copy. I can take a look for it with Google, but I suppose you could as well.

The Wizard JS wrote:

lease wrote:

Some years ago--decades, now--there was some fairly good research that established two work sessions are superior to one. (They found there was no statistically significant advantage derived from a third session.)

That said: In training, recovery is as important as physical work. If trying to get the second session in cuts into your recovery, or is a source of stress (which also limits recovery), then you have to decide--in the context of your entire daily life--whether the second session is worth it.

Many years ago there was a fairly good research that established single sessions for the day was superior to doubles ( given that the speed gave the right individual pressure and that the length of the run was sufficient. This is one of the explanations why the Japanese marathoner Yuki Kawauchi was able to run 2:08 on just singles.

Just about every elite runner or serious collegiate runner uses doubles and at a wide range of paces. Over distance running is not stressful.