is 70mpw in singles better than doubles?

HRE wrote:

Just for the heck of it, why is 80 in doubles, or in singles for that matter not an option? That's maybe 15 more minutes per day.

What if they're currently at 60 and this is incorporating your 15 minutes more per day?

That would be a reasonable answer but neither of us know if that\'s the case.

HRE wrote:

Always a popular question. Just for the heck of it, why is 80 in doubles, or in singles for that matter not an option? That's maybe 15 more minutes per day.

Anyway, here are two conflicting opinions.

My guess is he is doing a training talk on singles vs. doubles and wants the number of miles to not be a variable.

Most people are limited by time as well. For me, it takes less time to do singles overall, because I only have to get dressed once, shower once, etc. With two kids, work, it's much easier to carve out 75-90 minutes a day to exercise once, than two 45 minute chunks to exercise twice.

If Nobby was posting on this thread, would he say 100 miles a week in singles for Lydiard.

70 mpw in doubles is better.

I averaged 60+ mpw for three years in the mid 90s running doubles and I was the strongest and fastest of my life.

The previous year was my first after grad school. I TRIED to average 50+. I got sick often (I work in education - lots of little leaky noses), felt like falling asleep at work, and started skipping workouts. I barely ran much that hot summer. I lived in Louisiana and the heat+humidity (even running @ 5am) was making me chronically dehydrated.

I started doubles training for Houston the next Fall. After January, I kept doubling. My mileage became more consistent, I really enjoyed running the same 4 mile loop at sunrise every weekday before work, and I stopped getting sick.

My college coach made a quick suggestion which probably helped me the most. He wanted to make sure I didn't forget to do a couple of longer runs per week as single days. I started running single days on Wednesday night (2nd longest run) and Sunday morning (longest run). "Long efforts keep that form strong son..."

After the first cool front the next Fall, after running through that summer heat consistently, I was a different runner - much stronger and faster.

TL;DR: Doubles are better because you can run consistently without side affects that destroy the best training plans.

#$%#

*side effects

You think running doubles made you less sick because you weren't dehydrated? Why not just carry water?

fred wrote:

If Nobby was posting on this thread, would he say 100 miles a week in singles for Lydiard.

Not necessarily. First of all, a post like that wouldn't answer the question. And Nobby is a big advocate for doubling, as was Arthur.

ew4564543 wrote:

You think running doubles made you less sick because you weren't dehydrated? Why not just carry water?

I found, no matter how hot it was, I didn't need water running just four miles in the morning. Running intervals, tempo, or a simple seven mile easy loop after work didn't require much fluid either.

Ten and twelve+ mile runs in Louisiana are another story. I seemed to always be trying to catch up from the day before. I could never drink enough doing singles, even carrying water with me. Part of my being sick was not just a weak immune system catching student's bugs, but also GI problems from dehydration. I was losing too much weight doing one strong run then being in a classroom all day. I remember being lightheaded and "seeing floating stars" every time I stood up or bent over.

I felt like a completely different person once I switched to doubles.

Try doubles 2-3 days a week, see how it goes for a month. Do some little changes, don't change things drastically.

Fred!

Robbie Young averaged 195 miles per week for 52 weeks of the year with 0 days off by doing 0 to 0.5 runs per day.

You should ask him about his ultrarunning training secrets.

You know he said that the secret to his high volume training with no injuries is to "just have fun".

Unfortunately…at this present moment …Robbie has a broken tiny toe.

What fun!!!

rjm33 wrote:

Fred!

Robbie Young averaged 195 miles per week for 52 weeks of the year with 0 days off by doing 0 to 0.5 runs per day.

You should ask him about his ultrarunning training secrets.

You know he said that the secret to his high volume training with no injuries is to "just have fun".

Unfortunately…at this present moment …Robbie has a broken tiny toe.

What fun!!!

Yes, I signed up for his special training secrets seminar. Special guest speakers are CoachKev and Laz.

Laz is going talk about raising your RBCs while smoking a pack of camels in the Barklay.

CoachKev is giving a demonstration on proper hand techniques for holding on to a RV while running 5 minute miles uphill in the Rockies.

I)UH*&)uidji67 wrote:

Wetmore is NOT a fan of singles. The question of singles vs double is ALWAYS about the fact that EVERYTHING else is NEVER equal. So for college students attending the U of C at altitude and doing Wetmore's training and racing schedule, he has determined that generally, singles fit into their schedules better than doubles.

Singles are definitely more time efficient if you have big blocks of time. If you are worried about your athletes sleeping enough (i.e. if the double causes them to sleep 7 hours instead of 8), then yeah singles make a ton of sense.

If trying to just log miles for miles sake - doubles everyday

if trying to increase aerobic running - no doubles

if trying to increase speed - a couple doubles a week on recovery days

you're welcome

dwarfism wrote:

If trying to just log miles for miles sake - doubles everyday

if trying to increase aerobic running - no doubles

if trying to increase speed - a couple doubles a week on recovery days

you're welcome

^this is phrased somewhat idiotically but yeah if you're trying to get faster do doubles a few times a week ad not always on recovery days

The science quoted on the epic Hadd thread suggests that up to 2 hour singles produce the greatest increases in capillaries and mitochondria in the muscle fibers most important to sustained speed in distance running.

Jack Daniels says something in his books about long tempo efforts being more beneficial than cruise intervals but offers varied workouts to keep things fresh. I know; not exactly the same issue but close enough to chew on.

fred wrote:

If Nobby was posting on this thread, would he say 100 miles a week in singles for Lydiard.

Arthur Lydiard in "Running the Lydiard Way"(1978) also advises an extra easier run in the morning, with even 15 minutes being of benefit.

I still have my original Bible version written on papyrus scrolls.

There is a guy named Ken Young that came up with the concept of 'collapse point' which he determined was about 3X the daily average mileage over the past 6 to 8 weeks of training. For a marathon, a runner would want to have a daily mileage of 9 miles per day to not collapse, with a drastic slowdown at the end of the race. Actually, 10 miles per day would be better to have some margin of error. Even at 140 miles per week, that gives a collapse point of ~60 miles, so everyone should have problems after that and fueling, cramping, etc. become limiting factors.

Ken has a marathon PR of 2:25:46. He is also a very interesting guy.

I remember an old article by Ken. He describes his training for a marathon with few, if any, runs over 15 to 16 miles. He would run 4 runs of around 12.5 miles each at around 6:00 min. mile pace or even faster on the weekend. His theory was that he could increase the intensity and get in a total of 50 miles of quality running on the weekend which would have been impossible in single runs.

There are all kinds of different training methods that work for different people.

Almost all the different methods of training usually involve...running a lot.

Shocking.