Doing doubles

IMO the shorter daily runs are just a "supporting act" to the key workouts & LR's. They exist to further develop aerobic endurance while being short & easy enough to promote recovery/adaptation from the previous workout/LR.

If combining them i think a reasonable approach could be to reduce the duration by 25%.

So two 5's would turn into one 7.5

Dropping the doubles completely to just one 5-6 daily and increasing workouts & LR volume(duration/intensity) is also an option.

Combining the two into one run defeats the purpose, these are easy recovery runs. If you start to increase the distance/time too much it moves away from that into an endurance build/middle distance run. The purpose of the second double is usually active recovery. If life gets in the way and you can't get that double in accept that and move on, or see if you can replace it with something else (an easy bike ride with kids, etc?)

Re: "...that's quite a time commitment."

Well how about that? You want to run fast and be good, but it takes a 'quite a time commitment'.

Well son, that is life. Make your choices.

And yes they absolutely do make a difference. They also allow you to tackle higher mileage without breaking down as easily as you may if you just piled everything into one workout.

As others have mentioned the first workout is meant to be easy. Also I doubt the family will miss you if you are doing that second run at say 5:00 or 6:00 a.m.

Another upside is that if by chance you have to cancel that second workout due to a legit reason seriously severe weather, true family emergency, being held over at work, at least you have one run already in the books.

Now quit your whimpering and suck it up or lower your expectations. It is highly unlikely you can have it both ways.

BTW, I have run at least 15 marathon or ultras, winning two and placing third in another (and add in for good measure a 35Km -21.75 miles - that I won outright). In every single race that I did well (by my self imposed standards) , doubles played a critical role in my preparation.

When I say “quite a time commitment,” I should clarify that it’s not the overall time that is difficult, but giving up time at night. Most of my running starts at 4:30 or 5 in the morning so as to have evenings free to help with cooking, homework, watch the game, etc.

honestly, I think doubles are easier to run than single runs. They legit take less time imo.

doubles are less taxing than singles, same volume. I also feel better in the evening. One way is to do like 4 and 7 so that the morning is so short and the evening still the "main" one, but still not 11. 25-30min is doable before breakfast and a quick shower...

I have ended up really liking doubles especially due to the great feeling the rest of the day after a morning activity

I do double workouts twice a week and double recovery days 3 times a week. Mostly I do a lunch run and an evening run. In the weekends I am with the family and do a single late in the evening.

Double the Fun wrote:

I'm training for Boston using one of the Pfitzinger plans, and it calls for a lot of a.m./p.m. doubles - sometimes 4-5 days a week.

Like most people who have lives outside of running (i.e. all non-pros), that's quite a time commitment - and takes away a lot of family time.

Is there a point to doubles other than injury prevention? And would it be OK to combine some of them, such as the 6-5 doubles into 11, instead?

Just curious about others' experience. Thanks.

Same boat, same plan. I’ve been stretching the AM run so I can cut the evening run down to 3 miles. I do that run on our treadmill so I can jump off if needed to help wrangle kids, help with homework, etc. I find that anything over 3 miles gets tough to finish in the PM with a job, wife and two little girls.