Something like, at 7 am, do a 7 mile easy. At 8pm, 2 hours after dinner, do 6 x 400m at 80% effort.
Because I've been doing this "easy run-interval" doubles for three days per week during my base phase (50 mpw), and it seemed to help me drop a huge amount of time in the 10k... (37:00 to 35:00)
Is it the part about running an interval session after an easy morning run you're asking about or doing intervals after dinner? Neither is unusual though I'd guess most people do their serious runs before dinner.
I typically run 80-90 a week. I only double on Tuesdays and Thursdays which happen to be my workout days. I tend to run 4-5 easy in the morning then do my workouts (fartlek, tempo, intervals, etc.) around 5:00 pm. Been doing this for awhile and I feel like it helps warm my legs up for the workout while getting in extra miles.
When I used to do doubles I doubled every day except long-run day. That would include interval days.
While in my prime I made the mistake of doubling on my hard days. We did truly hard days, not the panzie threshold intervals people do now. Total volume would regularly be 12-14 miles. No need to run 6-7 in the morning.
there is nothing even remotely unusual about this so I'm not sure what this post is for
xenonscreams wrote:
there is nothing even remotely unusual about this so I'm not sure what this post is for
Because the OP lacks your vast experience in distance running, and therefore may not know that he's close to doing something akin to van Aaken style training.
Weirdness wrote:
Something like, at 7 am, do a 7 mile easy. At 8pm, 2 hours after dinner, do 6 x 400m at 80% effort.
Because I've been doing this "easy run-interval" doubles for three days per week during my base phase (50 mpw), and it seemed to help me drop a huge amount of time in the 10k... (37:00 to 35:00)
You are doing three days per week of intervals during your base training?
Yes, that is a bit unusual.
But, doubling on a workout day with an easy "shakeout" run in the morning is not unusual at all, and yes, I've done it. Also doubled on tempo days, easy days, and long run days. The only one of those I don't regularly do is the double on long run days.
The Donger wrote:
While in my prime I made the mistake of doubling on my hard days. We did truly hard days, not the panzie threshold intervals people do now. Total volume would regularly be 12-14 miles. No need to run 6-7 in the morning.
Are you bragging about making a mistake in your training?
People are faster now.
Agree with HRE, xenonscreams. Most hard training programs include a morning run on interval or tempo days. Running an easy 5 in the am won't compromise the key workout, as long as you remember that the pace of the am run is not important.
Also agree that 3 interval sessions a week is unusual for base phase (or any phase, for that matter).
People have well covered that this isn't unusual, to double with an easy run on intervals day.
What is unusual is to do three doubles per week when your mileage is only 50mpw. Consider doing that all in singles.
runnerdnerd wrote:
People have well covered that this isn't unusual, to double with an easy run on intervals day.
What is unusual is to do three doubles per week when your mileage is only 50mpw. Consider doing that all in singles.
Doubles give you more consistent signaling, whereas singles give you stronger, less frequent signaling. There might be a cross in those graphs in terms of results but I don't think anyone for sure knows where it is. 50 mpw with three doubles may be quite effective because of the signaling frequency, in spite of the lack of signal strength. Personally, I think doubles speed recovery. The all-singles movement and doubles just for more mileage is pretty clearly missing half the picture when it comes to training response.
Grbyhn wrote:
Doubles give you more consistent signaling, whereas singles give you stronger, less frequent signaling. There might be a cross in those graphs in terms of results but I don't think anyone for sure knows where it is. 50 mpw with three doubles may be quite effective because of the signaling frequency, in spite of the lack of signal strength. Personally, I think doubles speed recovery. The all-singles movement and doubles just for more mileage is pretty clearly missing half the picture when it comes to training response.
I agree that there is something to the doubles beyond just mileage.
I have gone through three training cycles where I transitioned from singles to several doubles, and the mileage stayed pretty consistent. I felt like I went from slogging and generally feeling lousy with the singles to things really starting to click and feeling great after a short time of the doubles. The mileage at the time was relatively low (between 40-60 mpw).