I have to work early in the morning and I only have time for one short run. My plan is to get in a two-a-day in twice a week. What are the results of running the shortest run of the 2 first. For example I am thinking something like this for a Tuesday/Thursday: A.M = 4-5 miles, P.M. = 8-9 miles.
Does it matter that I put the short run first because I usually only hear of runners running theit longest run first? Thanks.
doubles wrote:
Does it matter that I put the short run first because I usually only hear of runners running theit longest run first? Thanks.
For most runners its the other way around.
You'd be better off doing one 12-14 miler. Forget the doubles and sleep in.
I did what you are discussing--3-4 in the AM and longer at night in order to bump my miles and have a normal life. I felt it really helped my running this summer by giving me a chance to shakeout my legs before the longer (and harder) run at night.
Give it a shot--the worst thing than can happen is that you don't like it.
I'm with Sir Octane. The single best thing to happen to my training was probably the addition of a 4-5 mile morning run. Give it a couple months, see what happens.
I have used a 4 mile loop on weekday mornings for years. First mile is sometimes 8-9 min pace as I "wake up". I do doubles every weekday. I find the legs at my age do better with harder work (intervals, tempo) in the afternoons after work instead of the mornings. Add one hard, longer effort/race on Saturday and one very long run on Sunday and you're set.
Two goes at getting your metabolism racing, two goes at working on your form and your cadence, two goes at burning off a little fat - what's not to like? Just be wary of carrying it on to the point of overtraining, but it is certainly the path to better fitness if you can handle it.
i know wrote:
You'd be better off doing one 12-14 miler. Forget the doubles and sleep in.
I think everyone would agree with this, if:
1) you would be doing the same pace in the AM and PM,
and
2) you have a block of time to complete the longer run.
If you are doing two different types of workouts, or you have two smaller blocks of available time, then doubles makes sense. Otherwise, one long run is always better that two shorter ones.
Coach K wrote:
i know wrote:You'd be better off doing one 12-14 miler. Forget the doubles and sleep in.
I think everyone would agree with this, if:
1) you would be doing the same pace in the AM and PM,
and
2) you have a block of time to complete the longer run.
If you are doing two different types of workouts, or you have two smaller blocks of available time, then doubles makes sense. Otherwise, one long run is always better that two shorter ones.
I have a lot of trouble waking up to run early and an early morning workout feels much, much harder than it would in the afternoon. Am I not getting the same benefits in the morning even though my pace is slower because of the increased effort needed to complete the workout?
gallagher wrote:
I have a lot of trouble waking up to run early and an early morning workout feels much, much harder than it would in the afternoon. Am I not getting the same benefits in the morning even though my pace is slower because of the increased effort needed to complete the workout?
No. Perceived effort =/= actual effort.