The great doubling debate - where do you stand?

If it's supposed to be easy just do 3)

I do 1. Can’t stand running in the morning, my body feels like a robot.

if The goal is strictly recovery, my guess is 45/45 is best. If goal is maximizing fitness then my guess is 90 am. I usually take the balance of both and do 60/30.

If I am not particularly tired and have a nice place to run I will do the 1h30.

If I am tired I usually do 40+50

It probably depends what kind of job you work, which time of day you prefer to run, whether you have kids, and a bunch of other things.

Option 2 seems to be the most common, but I'd agree with another poster and go with option 1. Can't stand running in the mornings.

However, option 3 does seem to make the most sense - at least from a "getting the miles in as easily as possible" perspective.

Try each of them and see which you like best.

for me, option 2 is always best when I have the time to do so. hour am and 30 min PM. The weather is generally much nicer in the morning, especially in the summer, to do the longer portion. I feel like (although no evidence) that having at least one run be an hour is beneficial

1 and 2 are essentially the same, it's just a matter of what fits in best with your schedule. I like to do one run longer than the other each day, so I'd go with 1 or 2, but I doubt you'd see a material difference in performance between the first 3 options.

I would definitely do options 1, 2 or 3 instead of 4.

If goal races are under 13.1, then option 1 or 2.

If marathon or longer, then option 4.

I'd probably have done 90 in one shot and then decided later on to do another 30. But if I really was going to limit myself to just 90 I'd have done one of the 30 and 60 options. Which one I'd have chosen would really depend on what my day was like and which fit better, though I always liked getting the bigger run in first.

For the doubling options, I have always thought that as long as each run is more than 20 minutes, it doesn't particularly matter how they are split up (in terms of fitness). Assuming a world without life responsibilities (ha!), I would go with #2 - I just like getting in the "main" run in the morning with a "shakeout" in the PM.

#4 is distinctly different because all the running gets done at once - more aerobic fitness benefits that splitting the 90 minutes between two runs, but probably incurring a bit more fatigue.

To me, the real answer is to sometimes do whichever of options 1-3 works best for you when you want the economy benefits of 90 minutes of running with less fatigue and quicker recovery, and other times to option 4 when you want to maximize aerobic benefits. They serve slightly different purposes, so incorporate both as appropriate to your training needs.

Here's my ranking:

1) 90 mins straight up

2) 60, 30

3) 45, 45

4) 30, 60 (hot climate, so afternoon running is not a good option)

You can’t have a thread about doubling without talking about Cam Levins. A week ago, he indicated on his Strava that he’s doing triples 3-4 times a week. Is that why he’s the greatest North American marathoner ever? Possibly, but you have to imagine that doing triples across a 10+ year time span has gifted him with some incredible ability.

I was always a fan of option 1 (30 in the morning, 60 in the afternoon). I liked the easy shakeout to start my day, then hit it harder in the afternoon.

(Now I just run a few times a week, sad...)

When I am on holiday I do:

1) Easy run on empty stomach on the beach before breakfast, then 60 faster in the evening before dinner.

When I am working I run singles during lunch time so 4)

I think it highly likely that a 30 + 60 will cause greater adaptation than a single 90, and I think it will be significant and not minimal.

think 30 in the morning and 60 later is easier, but if you can get into the habit of 60 in the morning and 30 later, I think that would be better—though I am not as opinionated on this one. We are talking easy efforts btw.

My most productive summer was all singles benefiting from longer rest