When it comes to running does 1+1=2 ?
When it comes to running does 1+1=2 ?
It's more like 1+1 = 1.62
5+3 = 6.5
8+5 = 10.5
10+10 = 16.2
120 on doubles = 100 on singles
Obviously simplified.
Coach^3 wrote:
It's more like 1+1 = 1.62
5+3 = 6.5
8+5 = 10.5
10+10 = 16.2
120 on doubles = 100 on singles
Obviously simplified.
And dead wrong
It seems to me that in these discussions, posters always assume that one will either run all singles, or all doubles.
Why not mix it up? Do it as singles some days for a "medium-easy" day, and split into doubles on other days when you want to get the mileage in but really prioritize recovery?
doubles > singles wrote:
Coach^3 wrote:It's more like 1+1 = 1.62
5+3 = 6.5
8+5 = 10.5
10+10 = 16.2
120 on doubles = 100 on singles
Obviously simplified.
And dead wrong
Harsh
Thanks for all the responses (and the tshirt, Wejo!)
Was a little loathe to reply because I really am in hobby jogger territory. Am supposed to run a 25k race in mid-Dec. but routinely run no more than 5 miles at a time. I'm not at my limit on an easy run, but have experienced shin splints and knee pain trying to increase mileage before, even by 1-2 miles a week. (Maybe because I run on trails and it's a lot of downhill.)
So, I did want to increase my endurance but spread out the mileage gently.
Also, the light is waning so doubles would be good for weekdays when I work. From the responses, I get that two shorter runs are not the equivalent of the long distance but is more than the value of the individual run if run on separate days.
I'm going to try running 4 in the morning and 4 at night 3x a week and gradually increase the night run very incrementally by half a mile a week. And then do one long run on the weekend, starting with 6. And increase that by 1-2 miles a week, depending on how it feels. It'll be an experiment to see if the strength gained from doubles will lessen aches and pains on knees and shins as I've tried increasing at this rate before.
We can spend all day long going over the benefits of doubles v. singles, citing all sorts of really cool "sciencey" stuff. In the end, it depends on what you are trying to do.
If, on the one had, you want to see what's what, and plunge the deepest depths of ability, then you are probably wisest not to bet against the field. You run doubles, because 99% of those at the very top have successfully run doubles. How you do that is up to you.
If you're looking for a little something more than general fitness, and maybe you really want to get after it on occasion, but perhaps there are the attendant time constraints that we all have to negotiate, then you do what allows you to train within the context of your daily life.
giancarlo wrote:
We can spend all day long going over the benefits of doubles v. singles, citing all sorts of really cool "sciencey" stuff. In the end, it depends on what you are trying to do.
If, on the one had, you want to see what's what, and plunge the deepest depths of ability, then you are probably wisest not to bet against the field. You run doubles, because 99% of those at the very top have successfully run doubles. How you do that is up to you.
Very poor logic, and missing some key facts.
Most at the very top may double, but they are doubling on high mileage, not on a measly 60mpw. So their runs are still all a decent length.
Those performing well on lower mileage have usually done it in all singles. (Lagat, Bannister.)
Rules of thumb: don't split a day that's less than ten miles (or less than an hour).
no 3-milers ever wrote:
giancarlo wrote:We can spend all day long going over the benefits of doubles v. singles, citing all sorts of really cool "sciencey" stuff. In the end, it depends on what you are trying to do.
If, on the one had, you want to see what's what, and plunge the deepest depths of ability, then you are probably wisest not to bet against the field. You run doubles, because 99% of those at the very top have successfully run doubles. How you do that is up to you.
Very poor logic, and missing some key facts.
Most at the very top may double, but they are doubling on high mileage, not on a measly 60mpw. So their runs are still all a decent length.
Those performing well on lower mileage have usually done it in all singles. (Lagat, Bannister.)
Rules of thumb: don't split a day that's less than ten miles (or less than an hour).
Perhaps you should ask Jim Spivey about that...
I'm in agreement here. also would add that instead of doubling it might be best to do a run and then do a pool run. Most people are doing doubles for the aerobic benefits so might as well take the pounding off the muscles for the second workout. Would also boost recovery by promoting blood flow to the muscles. Doubles aren't necessary if you're doing less than 70mpw.
cha2 wrote:
I'm in agreement here. also would add that instead of doubling it might be best to do a run and then do a pool run. Most people are doing doubles for the aerobic benefits so might as well take the pounding off the muscles for the second workout. Would also boost recovery by promoting blood flow to the muscles. Doubles aren't necessary if you're doing less than 70mpw.
Ha! A typical LRC poster who assumes every runner does his easy run at 6min/mile... oh, I forgot, if you are slower than that, you are not a runner, but a hobby jogger.
So when should a hobby jogger (who does easy runs @ 8-9min/mile) start doubling?
no 3-milers ever wrote:
giancarlo wrote:We can spend all day long going over the benefits of doubles v. singles, citing all sorts of really cool "sciencey" stuff. In the end, it depends on what you are trying to do.
If, on the one had, you want to see what's what, and plunge the deepest depths of ability, then you are probably wisest not to bet against the field. You run doubles, because 99% of those at the very top have successfully run doubles. How you do that is up to you.
Very poor logic, and missing some key facts.
Most at the very top may double, but they are doubling on high mileage, not on a measly 60mpw. So their runs are still all a decent length.
Those performing well on lower mileage have usually done it in all singles. (Lagat, Bannister.)
Rules of thumb: don't split a day that's less than ten miles (or less than an hour).
questionable.
whenever they feel like it, but if they want to improve they'll avoid doubles until they've gained the adaptation to make them useful.
think about it this way. the only difference between one three mile run in a day and two of them is that your muscles didn't recover on the day you did two runs. you gained nothing of significance aerobically by doing two short runs which is the whole point of doubling.
Is diurnal cycled repetition of dynamic physical systems superincumbent on unique occurrences of commensurate aggregates?
Just my opinion, frequency is often the most overlooked part of training. I have always felt the best, run the best on 10-12 runs a week, regardless of mileage. Of course in general, you will run better on higher mileage, if you can handle it. Adding doubles at any mileage will increase mileage without increasing the load on your legs. Of course it's good to get to 10 miles at a time every day, but might take a while to get the if you are a beginner. I found it very easy to get from 6-7 miles a day to 10 by splitting it with 5+5.
wejo wrote:
This is an interesting thread and the thread starter is our LetsRun.com tshirt winner for Thursday. (We're giving out LRC tshirts to starters of interesting threads).
Email me at
wejo@letsrun.comHowever, the title needs to be changed. Clearly people who have found this thread like it, but I never would have clicked on it , not knowing what it was about.
Anyone have a suggestion for a new title?
Yes, " The Value of Doubles: One long & short run or two short runs in a day?" Which is more beneficial or not?