Is it better to do doubles or longer runs?

i think it would be better if you just ran the 10.

it would be better to run doubles and run more than 70 mpw ("always add, never take away")

Doubles should always add and never take away.

If you have a 8 mile run planned. Don't cut it in two, add an easy 3 or 4 in the morning or afternoon.

Even though I'm training for the 5000 and my long run is 13?

DUBBLES!

70 mpw is roughly the neighborhood where you start doubles. Only add more doubles if you add more miles

doubler wrote:

70 mpw is roughly the neighborhood where you start doubles. Only add more doubles if you add more miles

Don't let Malmo hear you say that! I'm gonna get out of here before he shows up.

P.S. He's gonna say you do doubles not only to add mileage, but as an additional training stimulus. Personally, I'm a pussy and couldn't handle it, but it's supposed to be better.

it also depends on how you're feeling. if you're tired, split it up. if not, don't.

Don't run doubles at 70. I've run 85s in singles and can't imagine going double until at least 90, probably closer to 100.

The only way I could imagine needing to do doubles at 70 would be if you didn't have enough consecutive time to do 6-10 every day (pretty unlikely) plus your long run.

Experiment, see what works for you. Anyone who claims to know exactly what works best is wrong. I know people who do singles up to 80 MPW, and I know people who start doubles at 50 MPW.

Morning Zoo w/Dick Gobbler wrote:

Don't run doubles at 70. I've run 85s in singles and can't imagine going double until at least 90, probably closer to 100.

This advice is idiotic.

Another advantage of doubles is that they allow you to run your mileage at a faster pace while still recovering. If you're running, say, 80 mpw in singles, you're doing 12-13 miles most days. That's going to limit how fast you're running. On the other hand, 80 mpw with 6 doubles is much more manageable and you can work in a lot more quality. Check out Ritz's and Salazar's (and Malmo's) training logs, you'll see a bunch of 6-10 mile runs at a quick pace rather than 13-15 milers at medium to slow pace.

I've seen Malmo's logs, not Ritz's, would love to see a link to that if you have it.

Morning Zoo w/Dick Gobbler: Don't run doubles at 70. I've run 85s in singles and can't imagine going double until at least 90, probably closer to 100.

Heh, why should your lack of imagination guide what others do?

I don't agree, but even supposing singles were unanimously agreed to be superior up to at least 90 MPW... if a runner aspired to run twice a day (at whatever mileage "justified" that), then:

(a) Why deprive himself of the runner's single most effective tool in ramping up the mileage - running twice daily - for weeks and months of inching up the volume? (My perception is, most who espouse a "singles until N MPW" rule will also subscribe to the 10% rule or similar.)

(b) Why not acclimate mind and body to the stress of training twice daily at a lower mileage, when he's fresh and the cumulative training load is nowhere near his limits? Why wait to get to a point where, presumably, the training is just about all he can take, and then start training more often?

I suggest, anyone who plans on running doubles eventually, start ASAP. The sooner you start training twice daily, the sooner (and probably smoother and safer) you'll get where you're going.

themanontherun wrote:

I've seen Malmo's logs, not Ritz's, would love to see a link to that if you have it.

Damn, I'm trying to find it but I can't. I think it was posted on his blog at some point, but it's not coming up on any searches. Wish I had saved that link

From what I remember he was doing 8 mile doubles every morning, even in high school

malmo wrote:

This advice is idiotic.

My advice was to not run doubles at 70mpw. I followed it with thoughts on my own running. Having a hard time seeing how "Don't run doubles at 70" is idiotic advice. In my experience, having every run you do be as long as possible (save for rest days) is very effective. Lets break this down.

20% of 70 is 14 miles. That leaves 56 miles for the other 6 days.

Hopefully there would be 1 long workout in there for 11-12 total (warmup, workout, cool down) and another 11-12ish 'long' run. 33 left for 4 days.

Lets say one rest day of 6 miles. 27 miles left for the last 3 days.

That's 3 nine mile days, 2 tens and a 7, whatever.

If you can show me a way to break down 70 miles in 8 or more runs that isn't adding a run 'just to add a run', I'll congratulate you.

For the record, here's my idiotic 85 mile week:

M 11 relaxed

T long repeats, 11-12

W 12 relaxed

T short repeats, 8-10

F 10 relaxed

S tempo, 12-14

S 18 jog

malmo wrote:

Morning Zoo w/Dick Gobbler wrote:

Don't run doubles at 70. I've run 85s in singles and can't imagine going double until at least 90, probably closer to 100.

This advice is idiotic.

AGREED!!!! GO MALMO!!!!

well since you can handle 85 in singles, why NOT then ADD some DOUBLES and be running 110-120ish?...also 18mile long run is a lot to do each week. and why a jog? why not "comfortably fast" as JK suggests?

i just mean that for most only doing 70-85mpw, an 18mile LR each Sunday without fail can be kinda taxing going into the next week, no?

and yeah, why a jog? im just saying that because i think people benefit more from a pretty SOLID long run pace, correct me if im wrong.