If you just think about running as the natural way of moving, then you can run a lot during a week.
If you just think about running as the natural way of moving, then you can run a lot during a week.
SprintTriathlon wrote:
If you just think about running as the natural way of moving, then you can run a lot during a week.
Reminds me, I once read about one female Japanese runner(forgot who) who would run everywhere as there way of commuting. Probably a good way to add a lot more mileage to your training without thinking about.
Got to love that Japanese mindset, full on 110% dedication to their job and passion
Does it matter if the short double is the first or second run? 3-5 easy in the am, workout or 7-10 easy in the pm depending on the day
What time is it? wrote:
Does it matter if the short double is the first or second run? 3-5 easy in the am, workout or 7-10 easy in the pm depending on the day
Some like to do a short shake out run first thing in the morning, and there main run in the evening. I would also consider temp. If you are running during the summer, it is probably better idea to do the main run before it gets too hot. And throw another few easy miles after the sunsets. All that matters is time on your feet. How you organize it in the grand scheme of things, does not really matter.
Two or three miles in the morning is fine. That's how I started. The important thing is to do them.
Take a look at Jim Spivey's logs:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=907089&page=3
Defining what’s “worth it” really depends on your values and other time commitments.
I’ve long used an “at least 30 minutes” rule, and usually apply that to mean at least 5 miles (even though 4 usually takes about 30 minutes). I know 1 or 2 miles is better than zero, but I’m not usually going to bother with changing, showering, etc., to just jog 2.
Overall I think this rule has helped. I don’t think it has cut down on the frequency of doubles much, but has gotten me to 5 on days where I only feel like doing 2 or 3.
Sub 6:00 wrote:
Defining what’s “worth it” really depends on your values and other time commitments.
I’ve long used an “at least 30 minutes” rule, and usually apply that to mean at least 5 miles (even though 4 usually takes about 30 minutes). I know 1 or 2 miles is better than zero, but I’m not usually going to bother with changing, showering, etc., to just jog 2.
Overall I think this rule has helped. I don’t think it has cut down on the frequency of doubles much, but has gotten me to 5 on days where I only feel like doing 2 or 3.
To clarify, if you are new to the idea of doubles, I don’t think it’s a good idea to set a minimum. Just get out there and lengthen the second run as you progress.
Sub 6:00 wrote:
Defining what’s “worth it” really depends on your values and other time commitments.
I’ve long used an “at least 30 minutes” rule, and usually apply that to mean at least 5 miles (even though 4 usually takes about 30 minutes). I know 1 or 2 miles is better than zero, but I’m not usually going to bother with changing, showering, etc., to just jog 2.
Overall I think this rule has helped. I don’t think it has cut down on the frequency of doubles much, but has gotten me to 5 on days where I only feel like doing 2 or 3.
Well there is a reason why your username is, "Sub 6:00" and not "Sub 4:00".
If I remember right from Bill Rodgers book. His first hundred mile week, he was at 99 miles as he went to bed. But slipped out of bed, to get to a hundred for the week.
As someone looking to incorporate doubles for the first time in marathon training I'm enjoying this thread. I had been planning to double 3-4 times a week to increase mileage 10-15 total per week over the cycle.
Are those shorter runs more beneficial than say 60 minutes of cycling or ellipticaling? Would probably only be running 25-35 minutes. Should I do a combination of both? 2 running doubles of 25-35 minutes and 2 x-training doubles of 60 minutes? Or does the specificity outweigh the time difference.
My shortest double run is usually 5K. I run quite a few doubles (and occasionally triples) during marathon training cycles when I am trying to run over 80 mpw.
NewToIt wrote:
I've heard 2 miles, but then I've seen the Hansons say nothing under 30 minutes in their programs. I've done 2-3 every morning or lunch before going to another class (it is like
Hansons! What a successful program to reference.
If the international competitive running scene is professional sports, Hansons is a Division 2 college program. At best.
HRE wrote:
Many years ago, Runner's World had a story about Charlie Robbins who had won many US road championships in the '40s and '50s and was still racing well in his age group, he must have been around 70 at the time of the article. He was still running under 40:00 for 10 km then and the article said he ran a mile and a half twice each day.
HRE,
I thought I read that Arthur Lydiard said something about running 15 minutes in the morning as one of your doubles. Then, your second run would be your main run.
(If I'm correct, I would have read it in one of the Lydiard PDF files floating around on the internet).
Son of HRE
Son of HRE wrote:
HRE wrote:
Many years ago, Runner's World had a story about Charlie Robbins who had won many US road championships in the '40s and '50s and was still racing well in his age group, he must have been around 70 at the time of the article. He was still running under 40:00 for 10 km then and the article said he ran a mile and a half twice each day.
HRE,
I thought I read that Arthur Lydiard said something about running 15 minutes in the morning as one of your doubles. Then, your second run would be your main run.
(If I'm correct, I would have read it in one of the Lydiard PDF files floating around on the internet).
Son of HRE
FOUND IT!
It is wise to train twice a day, everyday, even while doing this training and track training and racing,
even if it is only for 15 minutes each morning. (Page 12)
http://www.fitnesssports.com/lyd_clinic_guide/Arthur%20Lydiard.pdfrvrunner wrote:
Does anyone feel like 10-15 minutes helps? Better than nothing, or actually no?
I do. Pedaling every day down from a mountain to work in the morning (10 or 12 minutes in the summer) and back home (about 20 minutes of pretty good aerobic work, pedaling uphill). Of course in the winter I need more time. It helps to loosen my legs and I think it really stimulates my hormone system (the theory says so). Next to this only three runs per week, every other day: 1 x hard intervals, 1 x short and fast tempo run, 1 x long tempo run, about 22-25 miles per week in total of running. I consider the whole week as a typical example of low mileage on short doubles (running and cycling). Performed 5k in mid 16 on this at 48 years of age. I tried to do more and failed to run better, got injured. I feel good on races up to 5 miles, longer distances are no fun.
SprintTriathlon wrote:
If you just think about running as the natural way of moving, then you can run a lot during a week.
One of my coworkers doubles by running to and from work everyday. He’s doing about 110-120km/week and it works for him. Granted, he’s used to that kind of mileage despite being on his feet all day.
Yes. Arthur said that "even a fifteen minute run can be very beneficial." Robbins was not a "Lydiard guy." His best years were before anyone knew of Arthur outside of his group in New Zealand. In the mid to late 70s, Runner's World ran an article that referenced a study done on female marathon runners in the UK trying to isolate the variable that was the best predictor of a fast time. It turned out not be mileage, that was predictor #2. The #1 predictor was the total number of runs taken.
This was not the point of the article and there was nothing more about that study. There are loads of questions one could ask about it so take it for what you want. But running doubles was also a big part of the Bowerman System and some of the doubles some, not all, his guys ran were pretty minimal, maybe 2-3 miles. And some of the "supplementary runs" that some of Lydiard's guys did were short. The guy who had our school record in the mile at the college where I ran almost never ran more than 12-15 minutes at a time. But he'd do that 4-5 times a day. Gordon Pirie once coached a guy I knew to his best mile time and had him doing four 20 minute runs a day.
HRE wrote:
Yes. Arthur said that "even a fifteen minute run can be very beneficial." Robbins was not a "Lydiard guy." His best years were before anyone knew of Arthur outside of his group in New Zealand. In the mid to late 70s, Runner's World ran an article that referenced a study done on female marathon runners in the UK trying to isolate the variable that was the best predictor of a fast time. It turned out not be mileage, that was predictor #2. The #1 predictor was the total number of runs taken.
This was not the point of the article and there was nothing more about that study. There are loads of questions one could ask about it so take it for what you want. But running doubles was also a big part of the Bowerman System and some of the doubles some, not all, his guys ran were pretty minimal, maybe 2-3 miles. And some of the "supplementary runs" that some of Lydiard's guys did were short. The guy who had our school record in the mile at the college where I ran almost never ran more than 12-15 minutes at a time. But he'd do that 4-5 times a day. Gordon Pirie once coached a guy I knew to his best mile time and had him doing four 20 minute runs a day.
It raises the question of endurance though, right? Can you build endurance for, say, a 5K or 10K by only running multiple 15 minute runs?
I remember one of the runners when I interned at Disney World would be hitting insane mileage running to different parts of the Disney parks in the tunnels underneath everything, that was a sight to see