How much if any, will doubles help?

junk master wrote:

Very interesting. I'm starting to think doubles are the way to go, especially for masters.

___________________________________

Excellent point.

More recovery.

More rest.

Modification of race goals and workouts. That is the key to longevity in running as we age.

ding wrote:

I'm surprised by the answers in this thread. I always thought doubles were a key to the pro's way of running.

Wouldn't doubles allow better workouts while keeping the mileage up?

So there is such a thing as "junk" mileage. Wejo, Hadd and JK seem to disagree?

All pro runners double - no matter what their mileage is. A low mileage runner like Jim Spivey did doubles.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Q

'How much if any, will doubles help?'

A's '

'after a year off due to knee surgery'

'I'm almost 52 and trying to minimize the risk of injury'

Pithy and pertinent.

I disagree. In my mind, the primary purpose of doubles is to increase the frequency (e.g. times per week) that you go running. Whether or not you use doubles to increase mileage is a somewhat separate question, although the two often do go hand-in-hand.

I'm at 30-40mpw and would like to increase to 50-60mpw over time.

However I want to keep running 5 days a week as taking Mon and Fri off feels right, like having two training "blocks" per week Tue-Wed-Thu and Sat-Sun.

So would it make sense to double while only running 5 days a week?

To me adding a 3 miler on Wed and a 3 miler on the weekend seems "better" (injury wise) than using those two short runs on my OFF days (Mon and Fri).

Anyone agrees with that? or should you not even think about doubling if not running 7 days/week?

Thanks!

When i was in my top shape i had one little program

run 15 x 20 - 25 minutes at 5.30 per mile. It almost helped me drop a minute in the 5000 (14 high -> 14.08 min). One session was at 4.50 per mile and one an interval session at 4.30 per mile. Intervals felt really easy.

This year i am doing about the same but hope to run a sub 4 mile.

My lactate at 3.30 per km (5.40 per mile) was only 1 mmol. This year i need to speed up the pace 18 km/h if i want to have a chance in getting fit enough for the mile as well as do 2 workouts a week (volume remains around 6 km each).

I also swim and lift some weights. So in fact i do tripples.

If i run long my knee gets tendonitis, if i keep it short i feel fine and energetic.

I'm 50 and run 60-65 mpw with 1 day off - all in single runs. 1 long run (12-15 mi) and one tempo or interval session per week. I find the one run per day gives me much better recovery, refueling, and accomododates the busy schedule much better than doubles....at least for me, any run includes some stretching, warm-up, cool-down, shower etc....so singles definitely saves time.

If I'm not mistaken, Wetmore is a big fan of singles as well...like him or not.

since you either ran 2:57, 3:19 or 3:27, and you suggested that you were a 3 hr marathon, I'm going to assume you ran 2:57. That's a hell of a time for your age. If you get up to 80 on doubles AND stay healthy, you can break 2:50, but that is a tall order.

Don't forget about all the additional obligations of double running:

2 times the showers

2 times the stretching

2 times the preparation (changing, etc.)

If you have family or work commitments, doubles probably aren't a very efficient way to get your training.

doubles are going to rev up your metabolism between runs and throughout the day more- which is another benefit.

of course for marathon training, running single longer runs are more specific to race demands. 5k runners could do shorter, more frequent doubles....but then again it depends on the density of your workouts, your genetics (ie injury tendencies) your time commitments and your peak weekly mileage.

All those variables aside, an extra hour of aerobic training per week could give the OP about a 5min improvement in his marathon time range (around 3 hours flat). That is a total guess.

I might have missed it, but why hasn't anyone pointed out the easiest answer here? Running 7 days a week consistently should probably come before running doubles consistently. Even if you move to taking a day off every third or fourth week you will probably see a better result than taking a day off every week.

ray charles wrote:

I might have missed it, but why hasn't anyone pointed out the easiest answer here? Running 7 days a week consistently should probably come before running doubles consistently.

This is specifically the question I was asking: does anyone think that running 5x/week with 2 day with doubles (3 miles pm recovery after am workout) is more beneficial than doing these 2 recovery runs on OFF days?

To me the former seems to allow better training stimulus and less injury (two full recovery days)...but then again I'm speculating. Anyone who tried please let us know as I'd like to increase my mileage this way (as opposed to running 7x)

jjjjjjj wrote:

since you either ran 2:57, 3:19 or 3:27, and you suggested that you were a 3 hr marathon, I'm going to assume you ran 2:57. That's a hell of a time for your age. If you get up to 80 on doubles AND stay healthy, you can break 2:50, but that is a tall order.

I nudged just under 3 hours in three races in the few years before I was injured in 2007, with the best being 2:57:10. I tried the physical therapy route until mid-2008 but ended up with surgery 11/08 and was not able to train until about a year after the procedure.

I realize that age is going to be, or already is a factor and that improvement can't go on much longer; thus the idea to attempt to more mileage to make a run at the faster times times you suggest.

This makes a lot of sense, but it begs an obvious question; "What does 4+12 equal in terms of a single?" What about 6+10? 8+8? If my day works out so I could run 6 easy in the morning by getting up early and a moderate paced longer run of about 10 after work but before my kids come home OR get to work a few minutes early so I can dash out maybe a couple of minutes early and push hard to squeeze in a fast 12 ... what's better?

Similarly with mileage, it's obvious if you compare 70 in singles with 70 with 3-4 doubles which is doing more for you. What about 70 in sinlgles vs. 80 with 3 doubles of 6/8 instead of singles of 10/10/12?

Why do people say that doubles lead to better recovery? Maybe if they lead to better fitness, OK I could buy that.

But I tried running doubles every day for about 6 weeks this past summer. It kicked my ass. Just nice and easy 30 min AM, 30 min PM should have been simple, but it wasn't. So I stopped, my body simply couldn't recover while running every 12 hours.

Now I run an hour a day every day and everything feels fine, I've even incorporated hard workouts. Don't kid yourselves. Doubles are hard. There's a reason not everyone does them.

Yes, it isn't true that it does NOT occur.

sgghhhhhh wrote:

Isn't it true that the phenomenon of increasing your capillary beds through higher mileage does NOT occur on runs shorter than an hour?

rekrunner wrote:

Yes, it isn't true that it does NOT occur.

sgghhhhhh wrote:

Isn't it true that the phenomenon of increasing your capillary beds through higher mileage does NOT occur on runs shorter than an hour?

takes me a hour to run 5k so I'm good to go !

HarryPlopper wrote:

Don't forget about all the additional obligations of double running:

2 times the showers

2 times the stretching

2 times the preparation (changing, etc.)

If you have family or work commitments, doubles probably aren't a very efficient way to get your training.

If you get up in the morning and run, you are using one of the showers you would have taken before work anyway. And do you really stretch before or after every run?

how bout one long run plus one short and easier run as a double?? say 60min in the morning at 640 per mile then 20min in the evening at 7min per mile 2-3x per week?

example week base phase:

mon 60min tueam60 pm20 wed60 thursam60 pm20 fri 60min satworkout sun long run 90min

How effective is this?