I agree that singles provide greater training stress than doubles. That said, doubles allow me to get in more miles without injury than I can manage with singles. Therein lies the benefit.
I agree that singles provide greater training stress than doubles. That said, doubles allow me to get in more miles without injury than I can manage with singles. Therein lies the benefit.
HRE wrote:
Pullyourselfupbyyourbootstraps wrote:
This is why you don't get your info from fast runners. They are often not able to accurately describe WHY they are so good.
So you should take your advice from slow runners because they are able to accurately describe WHY they are not so good? You should take any information you can get and evaluate it.
As lease said, take advantage of the research, the plural of anecdote is not data. How often are the best athletes the best coaches?
Note, my point was not that his training didn't work. I take issue with the idea that he received NO benefit from those easy efforts.
Old and slow wrote:
I agree that singles provide greater training stress than doubles. That said, doubles allow me to get in more miles without injury than I can manage with singles. Therein lies the benefit.
+1
And doubles give you the mindset that you are serious about running well. Most examples of lower mileage doubles are short AM, longer or workout PM. Any examples of the opposite?
Another giver of +1 wrote:
And doubles give you the mindset that you are serious about running well. Most examples of lower mileage doubles are short AM, longer or workout PM. Any examples of the opposite?
Sure, Julien Wanders and his group always do the speed workout in the morning and an easy run in the afternoon.
I did the opposite since I perform better later in the day and that the rest of the group did it then.
Pullyourselfupbyyourbootstraps wrote:
HRE wrote:
So you should take your advice from slow runners because they are able to accurately describe WHY they are not so good? You should take any information you can get and evaluate it.
As lease said, take advantage of the research, the plural of anecdote is not data. How often are the best athletes the best coaches?
Note, my point was not that his training didn't work. I take issue with the idea that he received NO benefit from those easy efforts.
Yes, I question that too but it seemed to go with the topic here to some extent. As for research as most people define it, it can be interesting but far less useful than looking at what successful athletes and coaches actually do.
I will double more this year.
When I did my first full in 2019 it made a big difference in terms of the second run that day. I'd run 1-3 miles (lol) in the morning, at EZ pace or slower (9:30 or slower), but would shake my legs out. My afternoon runs, despite the heat, were much more tolerable.
Even with a modest program, under 70 mpw, you can still make doubling work for you, esp. if you have a tight schedule.
So if you think of it this way, you could start like this now (March)
Sun-no run
Mon-2, 6 hard
Tues-2, 4 EZ
Wed-2, 7 tempo
Thurs-2, 4 EZ
Fri-2
Sat-12-15
43-46 mpw as an early-ish marathon training week
Later on, by August (for a fall Marathon)
Sun-4-6 EZ
Mon-3, 7 hard
Tues-2, 5 EZ
Wed-2, 9 tempo
Thurs-2, 5 EZ
Fri-3
Sat-18-21
60 on the low end
65 on the high end
A bump but
I think one benefit of doubles (even at low mileage) for us hobby joggers is keeping us lean. For me I don’t like to run on a full stomach… so I do not eat before morning runs and make sure lunch is light and digested before my evening run. It also stokes the metabolism fire 2x a day
What was his mileage when he ran 19:50 for 3 years?
I've been running 70 miles per week as part of my marathon training. In my opinion, doubles make no inherent difference, they only allow you to get more miles in.
There are two things which are guaranteed to improve fitness - threshold running and time on your feet. As my fitness has improved, I have also been running 5-6 days in a row which is something I never did before, so I am also tempted to say that running more frequently will boost fitness. However days off are also essential to allow full recovery.
run789 wrote:
However days off are also essential to allow full recovery.
I used to think that, too. But think about it. A lot of pro's don't frequently take full days totally off. They might do a lower volume day, at very easy pace to recover. But the "Must take days completely off" rule, is a rule like the "10% rule," that I think some people can break, and benefit from. That might only be a few lucky people, unusually durable people, or people that have gradually trained to a very high volume. But I think there are exceptions.
There is risk with reducing recovery time. But every day with zero miles makes it that much harder to get in high volume (if high volume is what you're going for).
Risk vs reward. We all have to find the right balance for ourselves.
Ace_of_Base wrote:
No, you gain more from running more. Get up to 7 days a week before you double a day.
Doubles 5 days a week > singles 7 days a week
You get more from one longer run than two shorter runs but I used to live in Houston where the weather is unbearably humid most of the year and it was very difficult to run long and felt that two shorter runs allowed me to get in higher quality miles. It was also a lot easier getting out the door to run shorter rather than trying to get all psyched up to suffer and sweat through a crappy extended run.
It's common sense that doubles help:
2 hard sessions are likely to give you more time in the zone
2 easy sessions are easier than one longer easy session (also, training frequency is a kind of stimulus as of itself)
Hard session + easy one to loosen up your legs would at least make you feel better, not sure about long-term benefit
The only thing you should not split up is long run especially if your goal distance is upwards of 10K, that's also common sense.
You probably would waste a lot of time to change, get out , shower etc if you double at lower mileage and it might be more beneficial if you used that extra time to run longer singles instead. But I can easily imagine daily schedules that would make short doubles feasible like run commute and such.
A 2 mile run doesn't do much wrote:
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.
I agree with this, and not due to some study, just my personal observation.
I would add in a 4-6M AM run, then do a hard track or tempo effort in the PM. That gave me two days of doubles (which is pretty easy to work into a schedule), the morning runs were short enough that I didn't dread them but long enough to get some benefit, and my weekly totals we're bumped up some.
With doubling i see pros and cons here.
Having a 2h training session compared to 2 times 1h (as example) can’t generate the same adaptation to the body with respect to energy depots, capillarization, muscle fiber recruitment and other stuff.
On the other side, we train also the brain each time. It is well known, that if you learn an instrument (e.g. piano) it is better to practice 2 x 30 minute, instead of 1 x 1h. This is possible transferable to running, as the brain controls the running and this could lead to a faster improved running economy, which is important for running. More fresh input for the brain.
I tried both, having 2h sessions one week and double sessions (around 2 x 1h) the other week (all easy pace), and for me more demanding was the doubling week.
Why? Because the recovery time was reduced from training unit to training unit. This is especially important and to consider for older athletes like me (49yo).
The practical side was already mentioned (laundry, time management). Here the clear winner is 1 time/day.
Putting everything together, possibly a mixture of both versions is best for an amateur runner or a runner were the weekly milage is not so high. For a higher mileage per week doing doubles is inevitable.
So for the OP you can try doubling for one day/week. The rest of the week I would do one training unit/day.
I feel doubling on a recovery day is better than one longer. It feels like it accelerates the recovery process with less training stress, still getting decent volume that day.
Also the rule of diminishing returns apply to one session. The first 10min running is more effective than the next 10, and the next 10 and so on.
Still I agree and research show that digging deep is better than digging shallower, more often (2 shorter or 1 longer workout)
This is a question of how to balance the whole training plan with digging and recovery
Jon Arne Glomsrud wrote:
I feel doubling on a recovery day is better than one longer.
I agree, and to explain I will quote Jack Daniels;
If you run doubles, you will probably feel better on both of them. (...) What I would suggest, if you have the option, you might some days do one and some days do to two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixTO4dtSLGU