Running 2 or 3 doubles a week any benefit?

I don't think that an 800/1500 runner would suffer any adverse impacts from doubling in the way you suggest.

That' seems like really high volume for someone running the 800/1500.

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Outsiderunner you are the goofball that keeps on giving.

Goofball? Keep up the insults, DSP. They do not bother me.

Since you are obsessed with scientific studies, I will see if I can find that article on the threshold I mention above. Rather than train in lock-step with scientific studies and cookie-cutter plans (which may or may not apply to me as a runner), I would rather try to figure out what works best for my particular body. Mileage and repetition are two necessary ingredients for success, but one must find that happy balance for one's body, and one's mind, too.

After doing two years of the prescribed approaches (given to me by my coach), I have decided to try something different...and do this on my own, listening to my body. In the past two years, I found myself mostly stopping myself on days when I felt good, and, likewise, pushing myself on days when I did not feel good. To me, this is counter-intuitive.

What sense would there have been for me to stop myself today? If I need to stop myself, it will be on a day when I feel bad, not good.

To the other poster: yes, that was my thought later in my run today (knowing that I felt good)...that I will go 10 or 11, and then add 4-5 miles later on today.

All the best....

Goofball is a term of endearment, not an insult.

With all do respect, you had a coach, but you've admitted you didn't listen to the coach and ran however you felt. So again, you aren't really changing anything are you? You're just saving money in the coach...A wise choice for how you were treating him.

I agree that there is a minimum amount of time to run to yield certain benefits, I have read that that's somewhere between 30-60 minutes that the release of beneficial horomones take place, but it was someone's argument that those don't keep increasing so you might do more harm than good after an hour, depending on what you're trying to accomplish....So it may not be the strongest argument for going super long instead of doubling. Who really knows though?

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

Goofball is a term of endearment, not an insult.

With all do respect, you had a coach, but you've admitted you didn't listen to the coach and ran however you felt. So again, you aren't really changing anything are you? You're just saving money in the coach...A wise choice for how you were treating him.

I agree that there is a minimum amount of time to run to yield certain benefits, I have read that that's somewhere between 30-60 minutes that the release of beneficial horomones take place, but it was someone's argument that those don't keep increasing so you might do more harm than good after an hour, depending on what you're trying to accomplish....So it may not be the strongest argument for going super long instead of doubling. Who really knows though?

I am sorry I misunderstood you, DSP--please accept my apology. You may call me a goofball anytime you wish. :-)

I am have been feeling good lately, and am glad to be putting in so many miles.

Yes, who really knows? It is difficult to say which is better (long or doubling), but I lean toward long. My body seems to like it, and I have noticed an almost uncanny sensation, after 6-8 miles, on so many runs.

All the best...

I forgot to add: gotta double now...

David S. Pumpkins wrote:

I have read that that's somewhere between 30-60 minutes that the release of beneficial horomones take place

I've read lots of this stuff all over the place and it's usually something along the lines of: 0-40m gives a huge increase in HGH; 40-60, that particular benefit starts to lessen; 60-90, less still, but now you have fat adaptation benefits kicking in; 90+ no additional benefit.

Obviously that's crap as anyone who has never run more than 90 minutes is going to have a hell of a time with the end of a marathon... Maybe? I don't want to be the guy to try this out!

None the less the 0-40m part is interesting if it's accurate. I think it indicates that ~40m is a reasonable target for secondary run duration.

As someone else alluded to, this isn't an either/or situation, i.e., the issue isn't "long runs vs. double sessions." It's an and/and situation. Clarke thought that your main run should last for about an hour. If you wanted to do a shorter run sometime during the day or night that could be good but you didn't want to shorten that main session just because you'd already run for 40 minutes earlier or would do so later. So someone like Outsiderunner, who needed 8 or 9 miles to feel good in his 11 mile run this morning shouldn't be thinking of splitting the 11 into 7 and 4 or something. He'd do the 11 and add a second run. So yes, part of getting faster is running more in singles and another part is running more by doing it with doubles, again, not an either/or thing.

But again, if you re seriously interested in seeing if adding some doubles will improve your running you aren't going to find out from a message board discussion.

Doubles are great if you have the time and you get to nap mid-day.

And are getting paid to run.

Just like the 'elites'.

Hobby joggers doubling - makes me laugh out loud.

Get a life.

Nitwits.

Good points here...I did my second run a short while ago, and it was five miles. So, I did 16 today.

All the best...

There are some posts here saying that doing something in training just because the "elites" do it isn't a good idea. Well, what should you use for planning your training if not the stuff that's worked for the most successful athletes? You can read all sorts of articles and not get conclusive answers which is why I found "How They Train" books to be the most helpful running books I ever read and talking with guys who were beating me to see what they did was equally helpful.

Smoove talks way too much for someone as arrogant and misguided as he is.

Doubles are good if you use the morning run for an easy run 4-6 miles and save your longer, more intense runs after work.

Smoove wrote:

I don't think that an 800/1500 runner would suffer any adverse impacts from doubling in the way you suggest.

That' seems like really high volume for someone running the 800/1500.

I've heard varying numbers about how long you have to run to get certain benefits, whether aerobic or hormonal. Some hormonal 0-40min and certain aerobic 60+ minutes. That's why I was concerned since I'd only be running over an hour once a week.

And I don't think it's a lot of volume. I have a lot more natural speed than I do endurance. I've run 49high and 1:52 but my longer times are lacking. I like to use the summer to increase my endurance (and top end speed) so I'll be ready for the harder speed work in the winter and spring. My in season mileage is usually 45-60. Hoping to keep that higher next season too.

I resent that comment - I'm not misguided!!!

STFU now wrote:

Smoove talks way too much for someone as arrogant and misguided as he is.

Smoove wrote:

I resent that comment - I'm not misguided!!!

STFU now wrote:

Smoove talks way too much for someone as arrogant and misguided as he is.

I don't agree with some of your comments, but you are not misguided or a nitwit. Disregard the troll, continue with your narrative. Everyone has A particular way of training, and there are going to be some disagreements along the way.

K man Imma tell you what to do

So you wanna run doubles? Why even ask here man, just go run doubles. See how it goes. Maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't. Just run them man, see how it goes

If you want an anecdotal experience, I ran doubles 2 times per week at 50 mpw through winter and spring and never felt fitter. Seriously

HRE wrote:

There are some posts here saying that doing something in training just because the "elites" do it isn't a good idea. Well, what should you use for planning your training if not the stuff that's worked for the most successful athletes? You can read all sorts of articles and not get conclusive answers which is why I found "How They Train" books to be the most helpful running books I ever read and talking with guys who were beating me to see what they did was equally helpful.

The "elites" train they way they do because they are "elite". They have genetic and biomechanical differences that give them advantages over more average people. Oh, and some (probably more than we know) of them use PEDs, so you have to consider that.

You thinking that emulating them will make you one of them is a logical fallacy.

And where did I say that imitating elites would make someone into one of them? If you want to talk about logical fallacies it would be logical to respond to actual comments. Logically, if you want to attribute elite performances to "genetic and biomechanical differences" you should be able to identify what those differences are. No one has been able to do that and the physical markers that have been identified are as likely to have resulted from training as from inborn characteristics. Yes, I certainly have considered the possibility of PED use helping elite performances. But what would prevent "more average" people from using PEDs? Not that I'm advocating that.

"Elites train the way they do because they're elite" tells us nothing. Of course they do. Their training is part of what makes them elites. They wouldn't be elites if they didn't train. And unless a person tries to train like an elite runner that person has no way of knowing that training in such a way won't make him or her elite as well. Statistically the odds are against that happening but a low statistical chance becomes a nonexistent statistical chance if you don't try.

That takes me again to what I've said about the OP's question. If you look at the training of runners who finish in maybe the 90th-95th percentile of races you will find a lot more of that group running doubles than you'll find as you look further down the field unless the race you're looking at has a field which requires entrants to have attained some sort of elite status. If the OP is serious about wanting to move toward that group he has evidence that running some doubles can help with that and can only find his answer by trying it.

At your pace - and to be clear, how crappy a runner you are - do whatever you want, doubles, singles - you seem to know whats best. I have no idea why you'd want to run 100 miles a week other than some notion it will make you appear to not suck as hard as you do. But, you are a crap runner - you suck. Thinking you need to build to 100 miles is just stupid and ignores your real issue which is that you are slow af. Start a new thread asking how you can stop being so slow, and nobody is going to tell you to concentrate on doing a lot of slow doubles to build up to 100 miles per week.[/quote]

thanks for encouragement dad!