My friend has been running doubles everyday with 5 miles in the morning and 5 miles in the afternoon. I have been doing a little over 8 in a single run. So he is getting more mileage but my runs are longer. Which is better for getting ready for cross country season?
Is this for 5k cross country? If so I think doubles of five miles are better. He's getting more repetition of running a distance that is slightly longer than race distance. He's getting lots of repetition of the distance than you and will become a more efficient runner than you. However I don't know who will be faster during season since I don't know your talent. It'll be interesting to compare who'll improve more in the fall. But my bet will be on the guy doing doubles.
One would think the doubles are better since its more mileage, but he really isn't building aerobic strength since 5 mile runs are to short.. Runs that exceed 40 minutes are where you start really getting benefits. 5 miles is most likely shorter. Another thing to be considered is what kind of workouts yall are doing. Are you running a long run once a week and throwing in tempos and fartleks? If it is straight up just miles I would say 8 a days are better, but if you incorporate the workouts, whoever is doing them will ultimately be training more effectively for the 5k.
FYI wrote:
One would think the doubles are better since its more mileage, but he really isn't building aerobic strength since 5 mile runs are to short.. Runs that exceed 40 minutes are where you start really getting benefits.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
Your friend is training better than you.
And even if you upped it to 10 per day I would still put money on your friend's 5+5 doubles.
Top_Hat_Enthusiast wrote:
My friend has been running doubles everyday with 5 miles in the morning and 5 miles in the afternoon. I have been doing a little over 8 in a single run. So he is getting more mileage but my runs are longer. Which is better for getting ready for cross country season?
it depends on the athlete. Different guys respond to different things differently. Just believe in what you do, do not question it, and see the results when the races come.
Doubles.
/Thread
I believe doubles are better because there is less chance for injury. I can't speak for the physiological difference between singles and doubles when the mileage is equal.
That being said I think 3/7 is better than 5/5.
You also have to remember that mileage isn't everything. If person A is running 50 mpw and doing workouts, lifts, core, and long runs and person B is doing 60 mpw without the other stuff, then I believe person A will be more fit.
What pace are you running for your runs?
Well, 2 & 8 is certainly better than just a straight 8,and probably a good place to start if you're just starting doubles. This could soon become 3 & 8 or 4 & 8 once you're comfortable with it. Just keep the secondary runs all free and easy until you're really comfortable with them, which could be a year or two.
I don't really like to do the same every day, so for me these would be averages, but some thrive off of that kind of monotonous routine (e.g. Sydney Maree).
more is more.
I'm running between 7:00 and 7:30 pace and usually my last four miles are faster than the first for. He seems to just trot along at 8 minute pace with a fast mile every now and then. I do have a tempo run, long run, and a fartlek workout every week also
Methods of Success wrote:
FYI wrote:One would think the doubles are better since its more mileage, but he really isn't building aerobic strength since 5 mile runs are to short.. Runs that exceed 40 minutes are where you start really getting benefits.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
So your telling me if I run 24 times a day, once an hour, for half a mile, which is a 12 mile day, I am going to be stronger then someone doing 8 mile runs?
While that example is a little extreme that is ultimately what it is. Your body becomes stronger from the longer runs because it must learn to become effective longer, and overall make your running more efficient. I would argue miles 6,7,8 alone are better then the 5 miles done on the double. I hate to be "that guy", but when your running real mileage, you build up with doubles and then slowly you lessen the amount of doubles and just have longer single runs because it is harder to do that, because its more tiring, therefore making it more work, ultimately making it more effective.
FYI wrote:
Methods of Success wrote:Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
So your telling me if I run 24 times a day, once an hour, for half a mile, which is a 12 mile day, I am going to be stronger then someone doing 8 mile runs?
Are you telling me if I run 3 times a week but do 20 milers each time, then that's better than running 60 miles a week in 7 days because the runs are longer?
See how easy it is for me to create an extremist slippery slope analogy too?
FYI wrote:
While that example is a little extreme that is ultimately what it is. Your body becomes stronger from the longer runs because it must learn to become effective longer, and overall make your running more efficient. I would argue miles 6,7,8 alone are better then the 5 miles done on the double. I hate to be "that guy", but when your running real mileage, you build up with doubles and then slowly you lessen the amount of doubles and just have longer single runs because it is harder to do that, because its more tiring, therefore making it more work, ultimately making it more effective.
How come no elite runners do it this way?
Besides, 8 miles in one go is not more work than 4 + 4. It takes a couple miles to get warmed up. It would be much easier to just continue and tack on another 4 in the same run than to stop and have to get warmed up again several hours later for a second run.
Le Foot wrote:
FYI wrote:While that example is a little extreme that is ultimately what it is. Your body becomes stronger from the longer runs because it must learn to become effective longer, and overall make your running more efficient. I would argue miles 6,7,8 alone are better then the 5 miles done on the double. I hate to be "that guy", but when your running real mileage, you build up with doubles and then slowly you lessen the amount of doubles and just have longer single runs because it is harder to do that, because its more tiring, therefore making it more work, ultimately making it more effective.
How come no elite runners do it this way?
Besides, 8 miles in one go is not more work than 4 + 4. It takes a couple miles to get warmed up. It would be much easier to just continue and tack on another 4 in the same run than to stop and have to get warmed up again several hours later for a second run.
Ok with 2 miles to warm up twice is 4 miles out of the 10, so his friend is only benefiting for 6 miles. if you run 8 miles with the first 2 as warm up then u are also benefitting 6 miles, but aren't working your muscles so you recover better...
also to clarify im not saying singles are better then doubles, im just saying that the double he is doing is to short to need doubles. At higher mileage doubles are very beneficial. But it can be assumed they aren't running high mileage if they are debating between 5 mile runs and an 8 mile run
FYI wrote:
Le Foot wrote:How come no elite runners do it this way?
Besides, 8 miles in one go is not more work than 4 + 4. It takes a couple miles to get warmed up. It would be much easier to just continue and tack on another 4 in the same run than to stop and have to get warmed up again several hours later for a second run.
Ok with 2 miles to warm up twice is 4 miles out of the 10, so his friend is only benefiting for 6 miles. if you run 8 miles with the first 2 as warm up then u are also benefitting 6 miles, but aren't working your muscles so you recover better...
No
You get benefit from all the miles you run
And in many ways the first couple miles are harder when you're not warmed up yet so that makes it a harder, more beneficial effort when you do two runs instead of one
None of his runs are "too short"
FYI wrote:
also to clarify im not saying singles are better then doubles, im just saying that the double he is doing is to short to need doubles. At higher mileage doubles are very beneficial. But it can be assumed they aren't running high mileage if they are debating between 5 mile runs and an 8 mile run
According to your line of thinking singles should always be better, even if it's 20 miles a day instead of 10 + 10
Also if you are going to increase your mileage later it is better to already be in the habit of running twice a day. It's easier to add miles to the end of runs than to add in extra runs to the week.