I've heard 4 hours, but I'm not sure if that's between the start of each run or between the end of the first and the start of the second
I've heard 4 hours, but I'm not sure if that's between the start of each run or between the end of the first and the start of the second
20-30 minutes.
No minimum time exists
Jerry2 wrote:
I've heard 4 hours, but I'm not sure if that's between the start of each run or between the end of the first and the start of the second
For what it's worth, I'm several weeks into running doubles on 2 out every 10 days and I see a big improvement in my energy with 7 hours between workouts rather than the 4 or 5 hours I first tried.
Just do all your mileage into one run per day and rest for 22+ hours.
Lydiard Cerutty wrote:
Just do all your mileage into one run per day and rest for 22+ hours.
Research supports splitting it into two runs instead of one for multiple reasons.
two is better than one wrote:
Lydiard Cerutty wrote:
Just do all your mileage into one run per day and rest for 22+ hours.
Research supports splitting it into two runs instead of one for multiple reasons.
Links? There are multiple examples of people running just once a day, running world class times. Yuki Kawauchi as the best example. Bob Deines is another excellent example. If you can hit the nail on the head with one hit, why take two?
There is a confounding factor about doubles which is that it pretty much forces you to do one of your runs in the morning. There is plenty of research showing that running in the morning--especially before breakfast--leads to the greatest gains in fitness.
3hr-marathoner wrote:
There is a confounding factor about doubles which is that it pretty much forces you to do one of your runs in the morning. There is plenty of research showing that running in the morning--especially before breakfast--leads to the greatest gains in fitness.
yes, we need a double-blind study. But how do we not let the runners know they are running in the morning?
tacobell wrote:
3hr-marathoner wrote:
There is a confounding factor about doubles which is that it pretty much forces you to do one of your runs in the morning. There is plenty of research showing that running in the morning--especially before breakfast--leads to the greatest gains in fitness.
yes, we need a double-blind study. But how do we not let the runners know they are running in the morning?
: )
5-10 minutes. I've had good success with old man doubles: run a while, stop for a long bathroom break and a drink, run some more. Sometimes I do old man triples.
Lydiard Cerutty wrote:
two is better than one wrote:
Research supports splitting it into two runs instead of one for multiple reasons.
Links? There are multiple examples of people running just once a day, running world class times. Yuki Kawauchi as the best example. Bob Deines is another excellent example. If you can hit the nail on the head with one hit, why take two?
There are many, many, more examples of people who run world class times who run twice a day. Once a day successes stick in the memory because they're exceptional.
tacobell wrote:
3hr-marathoner wrote:
There is a confounding factor about doubles which is that it pretty much forces you to do one of your runs in the morning. There is plenty of research showing that running in the morning--especially before breakfast--leads to the greatest gains in fitness.
yes, we need a double-blind study. But how do we not let the runners know they are running in the morning?
Easy, they train in a subterranean environment for 3 months. Studies have shown that after several days our natural 24 hour clock gets reset to 25 hours.