Doubles or singles on medium mileage?

With a long run of 12 miles, 50MPW leaves you with 38 miles for the other six days, or about 6.33 miles per day. In my honest opinion, doing two 3 mile runs is a bit short. I think you should stick with varying runs of 5-7 miles throughout the week.

When you hit 60 miles per week, that will leave you at about 47 miles for six days, or 8 miles a day, which is enough to break into two runs per day. (5 miles/3 miles, or 4 miles/4 miles, or maybe a full 8 mile day sporadically.)

That's fair. I was planning on usually taking one day completely off and not having a double digit long run for most of the summer so that my week would look more like:

3 3 3 3 3 0 0

5 7 4 8 5 0 9

for about 50 miles each week. Is that more reasonable? The least I'd run is 7 miles a day, the most about 11 miles. If that's still not enough to justify doubling, I guess I'll just stick to singles haha.

Stay off the pavement. Try to keep a good portion of your runs on grass/trails.

Slightly Fragile wrote:

That's fair. I was planning on usually taking one day completely off and not having a double digit long run for most of the summer so that my week would look more like:

3 3 3 3 3 0 0

5 7 4 8 5 0 9

for about 50 miles each week. Is that more reasonable? The least I'd run is 7 miles a day, the most about 11 miles. If that's still not enough to justify doubling, I guess I'll just stick to singles haha.

There's no minimum requirement to do doubles. Do doubles on 30 mpw if you want.

only start doubling when you hit 70 mpw

Last autumn, I was doing roughly 3 in the morning and 5 in the afternoon during the week and 10 both weekend days; it was pretty nice.

br0ski wrote:

only start doubling when you hit 70 mpw

Correct.

Doubling on 30mpw is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

br0ski wrote:

only start doubling when you hit 70 mpw

False.

Thanks for all the replies. I guess I'll probably not double and just try to stay off pavement. And yes, doubling on 30 mpw is crazy if your daily total is only 4.3 miles! Doubling on 50 sounded a bit odd which is why I asked.

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

br0ski wrote:

only start doubling when you hit 70 mpw

Correct.

Doubling on 30mpw is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

Ever heard of Henry Marsh?

Ok. To clear this up.

I might sound a bit Malmo-ish, but it running is very simple. Find a correct balance betwenn volume & intensity.

When you really want to rock I will tell you something:

It is NOT a question of 50 MPW singles or doubles. When you are fine with 50 MPW on singles I advise you to do MORE miles AND to run doubles.

When you are able to run 7 miles per day, just add 2 or 3 morning runs of 3 miles in week 1. Then increase the number of doubles till you reach 4 - 6. I like 5 doubles per week. Monday - Friday. So I have just one dayly run on the weekends. I you have tuble doing your normal 7 milers, just cut it short. For recovery AND training purpose it's better to do 5 + 5 than 1 x 7. Believe me.

Try to work up to a schedule like this:

Mon: 5 + 5

Tue: 5 + workout

Wed: 5 + 5

Thu: 5 + workout

Fri: 5 + 5

Sat: longer run (could be 9 - 10 miles)

Sun: 5

Or like this:

Mon: 5

Tue: 5 + 5

Wed: 5 + workout

Thu: 8 - 10 (longish)

Fri: 5 + 5

Sat: workout + 5

Sun: longish run (9 - 10)

Very simple. And better than 50 with just singles. When you are able to do this consistently - try to run more. Training is about steady progression.

And one more time: It is NOT about e.g. 100 MPW in singles vs. 100 MPW in doubles. It is about 100 MPW in singles vs. e.g. 120 MPW in doubles. With doubles you are able to run faster and more volume. And in the end that's all training is about.

Pikachu

rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

Correct.

Doubling on 30mpw is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

I'm continually amazed at people who say stupid things while thinking they're smart.

The purpose of doubling is to get two stresses on the body a day. It doens't matter how much you're running. Start, now. I started when I was only doing 20-25 miles a week, and so have thousands of others. Even world class athletes like Jim Spivey and Henry Marsh were running doubles at 30mpw, and they weren't alone.

Somehow you took what you claim to be a simple concept ("running if very simple") and made it very complicated.

If I could, I'd gladly do 70 mpw doubles or singles. The whole point of only staying at 50 is because I'm pretty sure that's about all my body can handle right now. I'd rather work up to 50, stay there for a good portion of the summer, and be well prepared and healthy for the season than do an intense summer of twice my normal mileage, come into the season a monster, and get injured shortly thereafter. I might be a junior this year, but my body isn't yet developed, and I'm not entirely sure it can handle harsh training weeks.

malmo, not to question your knowledge and what many other elites have done, but doesn't having two stresses per day make it even harder to recover? No matter how slow or easy the pace, isn't taking a complete rest better than a 3-4 mile second run at 8:00 pace?

malmo wrote:

[quote]rupp-certified saladbar wrote:

I'm continually amazed at people who say stupid things while thinking they're smart.

The purpose of doubling is to get two stresses on the body a day. It doens't matter how much you're running. Start, now. I started when I was only doing 20-25 miles a week, and so have thousands of others. Even world class athletes like Jim Spivey and Henry Marsh were running doubles at 30mpw, and they weren't alone.

vbvgbv wrote:

malmo, not to question your knowledge and what many other elites have done, but doesn't having two stresses per day make it even harder to recover? No matter how slow or easy the pace, isn't taking a complete rest better than a 3-4 mile second run at 8:00 pace?[quote]malmo wrote:

The goal isn't to recover. The goal is to get in better shape.

The goal is to get in the best shape possible while staying healthy. If that means less mileage, so be it. To the OP: do the doubles for 50, it shouldn't be too hard.

vbvgbv wrote:

malmo, not to question your knowledge and what many other elites have done, but doesn't having two stresses per day make it even harder to recover? No matter how slow or easy the pace, isn't taking a complete rest better than a 3-4 mile second run at 8:00 pace?

Your understanding of the the training rhythm isn't quite all there.

Why would two stresses per day make it harder to recover? Is one stress per day harder to recover than once stress every other day? What is stress anyway? Does stress mean maximal effort, or is it really the entire spectrum of efforts? Easy runs are stresses, as are races.

vbvgbv wrote:

No matter how slow or easy the pace, isn't taking a complete rest better than a 3-4 mile second run at 8:00 pace?

The fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum

Training isn't about maximum stress and then full recovery, it is all about overlapping stresses of variable intensities and overlapping variable recoveries. Every day, when you are not running you are recovering. Every day, when you are sleeping, you are recovering more. Every day, when you are eating you are recovering. Likewise, everytime you lace up your shoes you are training, no matter what the intensity.

malmo wrote:

vbvgbv wrote:

No matter how slow or easy the pace, isn't taking a complete rest better than a 3-4 mile second run at 8:00 pace?

The fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum

Training isn't about maximum stress and then full recovery, it is all about overlapping stresses of variable intensities and overlapping variable recoveries. Every day, when you are not running you are recovering. Every day, when you are sleeping, you are recovering more. Every day, when you are eating you are recovering. Likewise, everytime you lace up your shoes you are training, no matter what the intensity.

He wasn't attempting an argument using reductio ad absurdum or any other named technique; he was asking a question.

Reductio ad absurdum is itself not a fallacy, but a valid argument technique.