Evidence that two runs per day is better than one?

You'll find it difficult to find any decent evidence because researchers like short-term studies lasting about 6-8 weeks that result in boosts to vO2max and lactate threshold.

malmo has stated it in this forum. That is all of the evidence I need.

Haile Gebrselassie

Which is better, singles or doubles?

The real answer is a training schedule that includes both. Singles offer the advantage of the greater fitness associated with longer runs and longer recovery between sessions. Doubles offer the advantage of increased recovery metabolism, less strain for the same mileage, or the ability to run more total mileage.

Think about this example: Which is better, a single run of 60 minutes, or two runs that total 60 minutes? The answer is "it depends." What is that day's purpose? Is it aerobic fitness? Or recovery with aerobic maintenance? Or what about a single run of 60 minutes vs two runs that total 80 minutes?

I wish someone would do a long-term study, but I think the real answer is already in front of us. What is the purpose of a particular day's training? What better accomplishes the goal, a single session or two sessions? Great, do that.

Running twice per day is only good for the elite runners that have all day to rest up and no other work to do.

They run daily amount of 30-40 k and therefore have to split up to two runs. But is it proven that the elite really have to run that much to reach optimal results? No.

You won't find any decent study on it. You won't even find decent studies on mileage vs performance (think there was one questionable one?), which is astounding given the importance folk typically attribute to it.

Needs to be more studies on this sort of stuff. If only I had access to all the Strava data, I'd code that stuff up.

as indicated by Dudley’s well-known studies of rats, there is little evidence that runs longer than 40-50 minutes are an efficient way to increase aerobic capacity.

Basically the benefit of a run decrease after a certain period of time. But you can double the stimulus by running twice a day.

Anecdotally, my legs feel much better doing a 120 MPW in doubles than 100 MPW in singles.

Bill Bloggers wrote:

Running twice per day is only good for the elite runners that have all day to rest up and no other work to do.

They run daily amount of 30-40 k and therefore have to split up to two runs. But is it proven that the elite really have to run that much to reach optimal results? No.

Wrong, Henry Marsh and Doug Padilla rarely ever ran more than 60 MPW and they still did doubles.

Hobby Dobby wrote:

I have tried to find evidence that two runs per day is better than one but there are actually no such evidence.

The only thing that really indicates that this is the case is of course the many great elite runners who have done so for decades.

But is it really proven?

You sound vegan. "Show me the studies!"

Lydiard didn't wait for any studies. He figured out what worked via experimenting on himself and later on the runners he coached and did it. That is a part of science. Though not academic enough for you. And later on the East German scientist proved him right. However, it is foolish to rely on science over your personal experience. Science, the data can be manipulated or falsified. I just know doing doubles, even when keeping the mileage the same, my legs feel better. I don't need a scientific explanation for this, I just know how I feel and train accordingly.

jcaweiioj fd; wrote:

Doubles offer the advantage of increased recovery metabolism.

There is no evidence for that statement either. Full recovery requires its time.That time most done research

gives 48-72 hours at least between quality workouts

Whatever keeps the ball rolling...

Bill Bloggers wrote:

jcaweiioj fd; wrote:

Doubles offer the advantage of increased recovery metabolism.

There is no evidence for that statement either. Full recovery requires its time.That time most done research

gives 48-72 hours at least between quality workouts

The 90s called and they want their training back. Mileage makes champs and doubles are superior to singles.

There is a big difference between evidence and proof.

When you see that most successful runners do doubles, that is evidence that it is good.

Proof is nearly impossible to ascertain.

the 90s called and they want their training back wrote:

Bill Bloggers wrote:

There is no evidence for that statement either. Full recovery requires its time.That time most done research

gives 48-72 hours at least between quality workouts

The 90s called and they want their training back. Mileage makes champs and doubles are superior to singles.

Yuki Kawauchi 2:08 marathon on singles! The 90s just did it wrong!

Hobby Dobby wrote:

I have tried to find evidence that two runs per day is better than one but there are actually no such evidence.

The only thing that really indicates that this is the case is of course the many great elite runners who have done so for decades.

But is it really proven?

Marathoners, mostly one run a day. 800m runners, mostly two runs (workouts) a day.

End of thread.

Hobby Dobby wrote:

I have tried to find evidence that two runs per day is better than one but there are actually no such evidence.

The only thing that really indicates that this is the case is of course the many great elite runners who have done so for decades.

But is it really proven?

I remember that in grad school we studied research that had found two exercise sessions per day was superior to one. (A third session was not found to offer a statistically-significant benefit.)

I'm sorry, but grad school was 30+ years ago and I no longer have those materials or a memory of their title. But the research and conclusions were pretty definitive.

Different things work for different people and some people have had considerable success with singles, but it seems that most are better served by doubles.

lease wrote:

Hobby Dobby wrote:

I have tried to find evidence that two runs per day is better than one but there are actually no such evidence.

The only thing that really indicates that this is the case is of course the many great elite runners who have done so for decades.

But is it really proven?

I remember that in grad school we studied research that had found two exercise sessions per day was superior to one. (A third session was not found to offer a statistically-significant benefit.)

I'm sorry, but grad school was 30+ years ago and I no longer have those materials or a memory of their title. But the research and conclusions were pretty definitive.

Different things work for different people and some people have had considerable success with singles, but it seems that most are better served by doubles.

I doubt if it makes any difference and just comes downs to preference. Once I got up to about 80 mpw, I found it easier to switch to doubles. We could ask Dave Bedford about whether to run doubles or triples.

Bill Bloggers wrote:

the 90s called and they want their training back wrote:

The 90s called and they want their training back. Mileage makes champs and doubles are superior to singles.

Yuki Kawauchi 2:08 marathon on singles! The 90s just did it wrong!

That's if you don't count his 1 mile jog to work and back.