I work the good ol' 9-5 day and running 10 miles just doesn't sound too appealing all at once (waking up at 6 am or not getting back until 9 pm). So I've been doing five miles in the morning and five miles at night, but is that equally effective as a ten mile run? Does the eight hour break between runs hurt the effectiveness?
Get a longish run in on a day you aren't working and you'll be fine. There's a reason doubles are nearly universal among top runners.
Its not as effective at all. Just man up and run the 10 miles at once. just think an hour a day isn't asking that much.
wigent23 wrote:
Its not as effective at all. Just man up and run the 10 miles at once. just think an hour a day isn't asking that much.
Pretty much universal amongst elites. Running twice a day gets your body used to recovering twice a day. It has its place.
I would say they are pretty affective.http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Rodgers/TrainingLogs/br75traininglog.htm
NIRCAboi wrote:
I work the good ol' 9-5 day and running 10 miles just doesn't sound too appealing all at once (waking up at 6 am or not getting back until 9 pm). So I've been doing five miles in the morning and five miles at night, but is that equally effective as a ten mile run? Does the eight hour break between runs hurt the effectiveness?
Some top masters runner said his times improved significantly after he started adding just 1 mile in the morning. I wish I could remember who.
Sorry, bit of a useless contribution without a name.
Old Billy wrote:
I would say they are pretty affective.
http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Rodgers/TrainingLogs/br75traininglog.htm
Well, yeah, but to be fair, the consistent average of 120-mile weeks might have had something to do with it too ... just, maybe?
Yes, but he is asking about running 5 miles in the morning and 5 in the afternoon. It is effective if you are running 4 miles in the morning and 10 in the afternoon. Make sure you read the initial post first.
10 is better than 2 fives, unless you are running both of those 5's a lot faster.
The best training involves constant change so your body has to adapt to new stimuli.
Running once a day is stupid already because you're destorying your GAINS from the weight room. But running twice is beyond stupid. It's simply IDIOTIC.
But to each their own, I prefer to lift hard and look like a GREEK GOD with body aesthetics and a PHYSIQUE that women lust after.
Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:
Running once a day is stupid already because you're destorying your GAINS from the weight room. But running twice is beyond stupid. It's simply IDIOTIC.
But to each their own, I prefer to lift hard and look like a GREEK GOD with body aesthetics and a PHYSIQUE that women lust after.
Unfortunately said Greek god is the union of Hermes and Aphrodite.
I had my best running on 5-6 miles twice a day. One long run a week of about 15 miles. This worked better for me than longer singles. I don't think that one program is "better" than the other intrinsically, but instead it depends on your recovery capacity (which in turn depends on a lot of other factors, like prior training.)
For me, two small stimuli a day was better for my training development than one large stimulus -- but I struggled through my whole career with recovery from hard efforts and had a tendency to overtrain easily.
At any rate, it's a solid plan, and worth seeing whether it bears fruit. The plan that works with your life and allows you to get your training in stress free is likely better than the plan that has you trying to reorganize your life to get your training in.
Good luck.
Karel Lismont ran 3x30 minutes Monday to Friday. Worked out pretty well for him.
To answer your specific question, my understanding is NO, running 5 miles twice a day isn't as good as running 10 miles once a day...
but...
running SIX miles twice a day (12 total) may be at least as good, possibly better, than running 10 miles once a day*
*Second hand info from runners much better than myself.
5 and 5 are not as good as 10.
Depends on the distance you're training for too though. If you want to race longer, running longer all at once would probably be better.
It depends on YOU. For some people 2 x 5 miles is better than 1 x 10 miles. Like the other guy said, for most people, 2 x 6 miles is better than 1 x 10 miles. However, it is unlikely that 2 x 5 or 2 x 6 miles is better than 1 x 10 miles for a marathoner.
NIRCAboi wrote:
I work the good ol' 9-5 day and running 10 miles just doesn't sound too appealing all at once (waking up at 6 am or not getting back until 9 pm). So I've been doing five miles in the morning and five miles at night, but is that equally effective as a ten mile run? Does the eight hour break between runs hurt the effectiveness?
Doubling is awesome and yes it does have a certain function and is not equivalent to just one long run. To appreciate what role it can play in your life I would try it out.
fred wrote:
The best training involves constant change so your body has to adapt to new stimuli.
Isnt this something thats been proven wrong?
Here is an old article by Steve Magness that you might find useful.
http://www.runnersworld.com/race-training/strategies-for-doubling