Doubles vs Singles

At pretty much any mileage if you are aiming to be a serious runner.

You don't run twice a day to get to a certain mileage, you run twice a day because that is the optimal way to get fit.

And now be prepared to fend off the "Seb Coe ran 35 miles a week therefore no one should ever run twice a day." guys....

Surprise! wrote:

At pretty much any mileage if you are aiming to be a serious runner.

Yep. The advantage of singles is you have to take one less shower and do 1/2 the laundry, at the expense of seriously reaching your potential.

you mean, I'll have to go from zero to one shower/day if I run doubles?

In all seriousness, would as few as 3-4 morning 3-milers per week help at all?

possible doubler wrote:

you mean, I'll have to go from zero to one shower/day if I run doubles?

In all seriousness, would as few as 3-4 morning 3-milers per week help at all?

Yes it will help. Do as many as you can. If that is 5 or 6 days, great. If it is 2 or 3 days, great (but not quite as great).

Here is one of my favorite threads that contains a very good discussion on singles vs doubles.

100mpw in singles or doubles. Which is better?

possible doubler wrote:

you mean, I'll have to go from zero to one shower/day if I run doubles?

In all seriousness, would as few as 3-4 morning 3-milers per week help at all?

That's a great start.

Any double (non-main session run) should always be at least 30 minutes, otherwise little adaptation is taking place to make a difference.

doublerr wrote:

Any double (non-main session run) should always be at least 30 minutes, otherwise little adaptation is taking place to make a difference.

Nonsense

Hardloper wrote:

Surprise! wrote:

At pretty much any mileage if you are aiming to be a serious runner.

Yep. The advantage of singles is you have to take one less shower and do 1/2 the laundry, at the expense of seriously reaching your potential.

Says the 18 min runner. Ha ha!

idiot alert wrote:

Says the 18 min runner. Ha ha!

I don't do doubles. Case in point!

(I am faster than 18:00 but still admit I'm a hobby jogger right now so w/e)

doublerr wrote:

Any double (non-main session run) should always be at least 30 minutes, otherwise little adaptation is taking place to make a difference.

Completely untrue. I've done double runs as short as ten minutes and they've benefited me. Even done 5-8min shakeout jogs the day of a race.

Seb Coe ran up to 70mpw in the winter

Generally around 70 miles a week is a good time to start doubling. When you are averaging about 10 miles a day, its time to start running 3, 5-6 mornings or evenings a week and build up to 5, so you are hitting 100-110 a week. Then its time to add more mileage to both runs. Hope this helps.

a hundred percent legit wrote:

doublerr wrote:

Any double (non-main session run) should always be at least 30 minutes, otherwise little adaptation is taking place to make a difference.

Completely untrue. I've done double runs as short as ten minutes and they've benefited me. Even done 5-8min shakeout jogs the day of a race.

meh, I think that 30 minutes is a good benchmark, anything below that only really benefits as a shakeout (assuming it is done at a easy run pace).

Comrade of War wrote:

meh, I think that 30 minutes is a good benchmark, anything below that only really benefits as a shakeout (assuming it is done at a easy run pace).

Which is nonsense... "only benefits as a shakeout"? What does that even mean?

virginia runner wrote:

Generally around 70 miles a week is a good time to start doubling. When you are averaging about 10 miles a day, its time to start running 3, 5-6 mornings or evenings a week and build up to 5, so you are hitting 100-110 a week. Then its time to add more mileage to both runs. Hope this helps.

This is simply wrong. Start running doubles right away, regardless of MPW, and you WILL BENEFIT.

[/quote]Which is nonsense... "only benefits as a shakeout"? What does that even mean?[/quote]

It means that if you want to add doubles into your training scheme, that you need to run at least 25 minutes on your short run for the day. Otherwise, you might as well add 15-20 minutes on to your single and forget about training twice a day. It is a complete waste of time to go out the door and run less than 25 minutes.

Hardloper wrote:

Comrade of War wrote:

meh, I think that 30 minutes is a good benchmark, anything below that only really benefits as a shakeout (assuming it is done at a easy run pace).

Which is nonsense... "only benefits as a shakeout"? What does that even mean?

The point of doing a shakeout is to have a better workout/race, not to get better. I don't think going out for a 1 mile run is going to have much if any training effect.

Lydiardo wrote:

Which is nonsense... "only benefits as a shakeout"? What does that even mean?[/quote]

It means that if you want to add doubles into your training scheme, that you need to run at least 25 minutes on your short run for the day. Otherwise, you might as well add 15-20 minutes on to your single and forget about training twice a day. It is a complete waste of time to go out the door and run less than 25 minutes.[/quote]

Completely wrong.

If you can only run 15 minutes for your second run, you will benefit from it. You will not benefit as much as a 30 minute run but you will benefit.