Running doubles at lower mileage

No, you gain more from running more. Get up to 7 days a week before you double a day.

I'm sure you gain more from running more (to a certain extent) but I meant you gain more from running singles or doubles at the same mpw? Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post.

Why are you comparing singles at 35 miles per week to doubles at the same mileage?

Who would add a secondary run to their routine at that level and then cut back on their primary run? The more realistic comparison in this situation would seem to be 35 miles per week in singles OR those same 35 miles per week plus 4 more 2 mile morning runs. And in that case, what's the argument against adding the morning runs?

All of my experience and all of what I've seen over the years tells me that running more frequently will produce better results except in bare newbs.

Though it's somewhat more nuanced, it's probably easy enough short-hand to just think about it as: Run whatever is best for you in your primary run the same as you would if you were training with singles, and then add in 5 or so runs that are short and easy enough that they don't really detract anything from your primary.

I think peoples attitude on here is always that you dont HAVE to run doubles until you get to 80 miles plus. Therefore the logic is that since it's not necessary, it's stupid and there must be no benefit.

I run commuted to work and back for 6 months and was running doubles on about 45 miles per week. I felt like it got me pretty fit. More so than running singles. Just my opinion

Back when LRC was actually about RUNNING and not about Oprah and wannabe youtubers:

Jim Spivey. on training and doubling

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=907089&page=4

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2380976&page=3#2383241

Had Some Myself wrote:

Who would add a secondary run to their routine at that level and then cut back on their primary run? The more realistic comparison in this situation would seem to be 35 miles per week in singles OR those same 35 miles per week plus 4 more 2 mile morning runs. And in that case, what's the argument against adding the morning runs?

I do 35-40 mpw with 3 double days per 14 days. I cut back from 45 running and introduced 2x30min easy cycling. The doubles are 2 shorter tempo/intervals at threshold or a bit faster, but not too hard (but could try faster repetitions). Instead of 40min intervals, I do 55min on the double days. So what I did was basically crank up the hard days and then I eased down on the recovery days (2 days cycling and 1 day recovery run).

I did this due to 2 reasons. First I wanted to try this double threshold stuff which evreybody in Norway does. And I wanted to be fresher in the legs. I have achieved both. The double days are not that hard each workout and I kind of recover some during the day and get soft and responsive in the legs on the second workout. I then do good recovery on the running free days still having decent intensity on the bike (easy, but not super slow) . I am soon 50 and longer running is not that easy on the legs as before. Now I kind of worked aorund that problem.

Rocket Mann wrote:

I'm sure you gain more from running more (to a certain extent) but I meant you gain more from running singles or doubles at the same mpw? Sorry if that wasn't clear in my original post.

My answer wasn’t clear. No you don’t gain more from 35 on doubles vs 35 on singles, maybe a boost to metabolism. Use doubles to run more. If you can get to 50 in singles you can get to 60 with doubles.

Doubles with just 35 mpw?

I guess the main reason double are only recommended of higher mileages is, that the preparation and cleanup time doubles as well and with not much of running in between it will be a significant time factor.

For my normal runs I probably need 10 minutes to get ready and 15 minutes to clean up. In between I have a 75 minute run. That are 1:40 hours total time not including any driving if needed.

I guess if you have plenty of time and or don't shower in between the runs this is a plan. But for most people I can't imagine that will work.

My opinion is that miles are miles and it doesn’t matter too much if you’re doubling or not.

Doubling is just an inefficient way to use the finite amount of time that you have each day. You would save time that you spend showering and stretching twice if you didn’t double. Eventually when your mileage really gets high, double becomes useful. It’s still inefficient in terms of time, but when you’re running that much you’ve chosen to have the time for it.

The science indicates that plain and simply running a higher volume, regardless in singles or doubles, leads to better performances. Even at low miles, doubles work as they are more likely to add to your total mileage. One of the other benefits is that you are teaching your body to recover faster between exercise bouts at 10 hours on average as opposed to 22 hours on average, which can even leave you feeling better for your primary run effort. As mentioned above, adding a simple 15 minute shakeout plus stretching as a morning run 3-4 days a week would have a really great benefit. That’s potentially 6-9 more miles per week plus added blood flow to promote recovery and increased mobility. All great things.

Ace_of_Base wrote:

No, you gain more from running more. Get up to 7 days a week before you double a day.

This sounds like a liberal arguing politics. You gain more from running more but don’t double to run more? Ok, then.

Whatever it takes to get your mileage up. I personally do not have time to do an hour and a half run on some days but I can pull off one 30 and one 40-50 minute run. Days off and weekends I can do more but I still prefer two 50-60 minute runs over one hour and a half to two hours single. I just don't really enjoy running for that duration right now.

I did low mileage doubles as a way to get my musculoskeletal system adapted to the process. When I first started running, my shins would get brutalized when I tried to do consistent 4-6 mile daily runs. I started to do an easy 2m to start every weekday, and would double in the evening when my legs felt up for it. Eventually I adapted, and it became 2/4, then 4/4, then a 6/whatever double. Now I can't stop!

I hate doubles & I would agree that they are an inefficient use of time. When I am in peak mileage (65-75 miles) I will do one double a week, on my hardest workout day (a short 20 min in the afternoon). Other than that I do 75 min easy runs, 1:45 long runs, etc. Anything under 65 I usually get away with not doubling. I do run 7 days a week though. I have found that in my main event, the 10k, running for 65-75 minutes each easy day helps my endurance more than two 35 minute runs. Doubling just takes extra time for me to drive somewhere safe to run, an extra shower, etc. Get it all done at once is my philosophy

For reference:

34:55 10k, female

Years ago--decades ago, now--there was some fairly good research demonstrating that more progress is made with two daily sessions than with one, even if the total load is similar. (The researchers found no statistically-significant benefit to a third session, however.) I learned this is grad school BITD.

I have disagreed with malmo more than once, and I acknowledge that different things work for different people; but I agree with him here: For most people, if not all, double sessions are a help, even if they don't result in an increase in total work. (But I found that they made moving up my modest mileage, from ~50mpw to ~70mpw, incredibly easy.)

"...learned this IN grad school..."

Nerts.

Frank Shorter here wrote:

Doubles with just 35 mpw?

I guess the main reason double are only recommended of higher mileages is, that the preparation and cleanup time doubles as well and with not much of running in between it will be a significant time factor.

.

That is a large part of it where between the time and scheduling, it is easier to run another 10 mins on the main run.

At the low end, I am not sure doubles make sense if you can't run like 5x/week for 30 mins. But after that if you want to make your easy days 20/30 instead of 45? Go for it. Want to do 10 runs in 5 days during a week instead of running once every day? Go for it.

How is it even possible to double at 35 MPW? I guess you're not doing any sessions or long runs? If you're following the standard plan of 2 sessions + a long run, I guess if your 'long run' is like 10 miles and your sessions only accumulate around 7 then you're at 24 and have 11 miles to run in yourother 4 days? So maybe 2 days of running two 2.5-3 mile runs with 2 days off?? Or if you're running every day then your runs would barely be over a mile, not even far enough to get properly warmed up.

Adding a double to add 2 miles doesn't do much in my mind. Around 4 miles starts to be worth it for me as a double. And if 4 miles is your shorter double run, your other run is probably at least 6 miles, and your total weekly mileage is probably around 60 miles or more... So in my mind around 60 or 70 miles is when I'd start doing doubles. Keeping most runs in the 6-10 mile range except the long run and mid-week long run if you're training for a really long race.