Difference between 100 mpw in singles and doubles

One is a lot harder then the other.

i've done the singles, but that's with a long-ass marathon workout and a long-ass long run. but in the end, you'll feel stronger than ever. as you build up and get used to it, you'll feel fatigued, but strong. eventually the fatigue will wear away, so stick with it. dont shy away from a double or two a week, though, if you can. putting in 15 a day in singles can wear on you mentally.

I am running 90 miles a week in singles right now. I've ran 85 in doubles (70-15) before. Am I going to create more fitness doing 90 in doubles (70-20) or keeping it in singles. I know malmo is big on doubles, but I find it so much harder to do two runs a day. It is easier for me mentally to just run once, and add a few miles to that one run.

I've done the 100 miles in singles and I felt a great deal stronger. It was fine, since i built up to it over a couple of weeks. I was also racing during that time, and it set up a strong base for track season. But to be honest I have never ran 100 mpw in doubles before, so I could not compare the difference between the two. But I think doubles might be better on the mind and body over a longer period of time.

I've done 90+ mpw in singles and the same for doubles. I had a lot more success running that kind of mileage in doubles. I think it decreases the chances of injury and also adds more to your fitness.

DGU wrote:It is easier for me mentally to just run once, and add a few miles to that one run.

There's a reason why NO top runners do singles don't you think?

Depending on how you split up the days, the normal reckoning is that doubles give you about 15-30% more miles for the same fatigue at the end of the week.

As always, ask yourself

1) what is your running aim for the week/month/year ahead, and

2) how can you fit the most running possible in with your other commitments?

Sometimes that suggests singles, sometimes doubles. There's no right answer. If you can do doubles, they do help. But don't split up your long run or long tempos. Add easy doubles on workout days, and split up general aerobic runs if the rest of your life permits it.

flightless wrote: Depending on how you split up the days, the normal reckoning is that doubles give you about 15-30% more miles for the same fatigue at the end of the week.

That sounds about right to me - and is the obvious logical argument for doubles if you can afford the time.

But there's also a difference in the way they feel, the daily rhythm and the way your body processes it. I think adding short, easy morning or evening runs somehow cranks up the recovery. Some say that's because the relatively gentle running does good recovery things like gets the blood moving to the muscles or whatever. Recently I read someone here say something about turning on genes. Hell if I know anything about the genetic science but it smells plausible to me: in some ways it seems my body prefers say 12+4 to just 12. Yes, it's not just easier to split a given mileage into two chunks than one, but maybe easier or better to run *more* miles by adding an easy recovery run to your singles.

It's hard to convey this verbally. Try it both ways, you get a feel for the difference. Give it at least 3-4 weeks to acclimate to the doubles if they're new to you.

If I'm cranking up the mileage after a period of slacking off, like right now, I find it much much easier to get the frequency up then build the mileage vs. the other way around.

Disclaimer: I'm just an untalented nearly 40 year old guy who likes to run a lot and finds both relatively high mileage and doubles improve my modest performance. I'd think younger, more talented runners might have even more to gain and quicker recovery. Then again you younger guys can probably also recover better from massive singles too.

its an individual thing. Some runners cant perfom to their max first thing in the morning. Because of high weekly mileage try a couple of double days but on singles make sure you put in extra maximum effort to make up for not doing doubles every day.

Whatever suits your lifestyle. Unfortunately your not an elite full time runner who can afford the luxury of just training 2 or 3 times a day as dictated by their top class personal coach- jealouus? or they dont know just how lucky they are-doing something they enjoy and excel in every day! Beats working eh?

When looking at Brian Sell's and Deena Kastor's training they do like 100-110 miles in singles and in addition to this 30-40 miles of recovery jogs.

But don't think mileage think duration. Shoot for 10 hrs of singles per week. For an elite this will mean 100 miles a week for a normal runner 80 miles. This is straight Lydiard.

Split up any additional running to 30-45 min runs.

So if you can manage 80 miles in 10 hrs you should add 3 recovery runs of 45 mins to get up to 100 miles. A very simple formula that works.

You need some doubles for shorter recovery runs, such as the evening after or morning after a track session. Those slow and short runs have a purpose. You need to know the purpose of each run and not lose focus on what that particular run is for.

on a side note, this summer I switched from doubles to singles and I weigh about 8 pounds more than I did a year ago....my assumption is that its from not "jump starting" my metabolism in the morning with an easy 3-6 miles

Well, all these posts have made me want to add doubles. I'm a HS senior, and my season starts this next week. I'll literally HAVE to do doubles otherwise my mileage will drop a lot. My XC practice is at 8:30 am, but during summer I'd do my single run at 7-7:30 pm. The mileage in the mornings won't total more than 30 miles a week (if I did doubles on Sat/Sun). Can I just add that to my mornings and run 90 in the afternoons? Will this effect my season in a negative way, other than being tired a lot?

You are not providing enough information for any of us to help you out. What is your current milage, PR and etc.?

I am over 40 training for a marathon. My current work and commute schedule is crazy at the moment. I was wondering how much I would be losing if I split my mid-week 12 mile runs into an early 8 miles and then 4 miles at lunch? Anybody forced to do something similar?

90 a week. I ran 9:59 for 3200 last year, but only 4:51 for 1600. I have put in 5 80-87 mile weeks in singles this summer, and this week will be my third consecutive 90 mile week in singles. I wish I could go back and add 3-5 mile morning jogs 3-4 days a week, but I can't now. My XC team sucks and if I run with the team the pace will be 7:00/mile at the fastest (realistically avg will be 7:45/mile). I usually run between 6:30-7:00 for my 90 in singles. I do a 18 mile long run on sundays usually running between 6:45-7:15/mile. All my mileage is over a moderately hilly route. I'm sorry for the disorder, but I just wrote things down as they came in my head.

This is similar to what I have done in the last couple months. I took the Lydiard 102 mile week in singles and toned it down a little bit to ~90 miles a week with five 3-4 mile doubles. It has worked well for me and now I am running 105-110 miles a week. Here is my training from last week:

Mon: pm-10

Tue: am-4 pm-12

Wed: am-4 pm-14

Thu: am-3 pm-10

Fri: am-4 pm-14 (with 9 mile tempo run)

Sat: am-10 pm-3

Sun: am to pm:20

total: 108 miles

DGU wrote:

90 a week. I ran 9:59 for 3200 last year, but only 4:51 for 1600.

Is it just me or is it odd that this kid runs 90 miles a week and has only run 9:59 for 3200? If anything i'd say cut down on the mileage my goodness.

no no no. to each their own. Once you guys realize this the smarter you'll be. Everyone has a different talent level. If he ran 60 mpw he probably could only manage 10:30.