Evidence that two runs per day is better than one?

Twice is better than once wrote:

Anything you do twice a day you'll get better at than doing it just once a day. If you get two groups to study the same amount of time, but one group brakes it up into doing it in doubles. Guess which group will do better on their test? Every other sport I can think of, the best train more than once a day. My dad played high school football, and they did what he called two a days. Where they practiced twice a day.

In principle that's correct. However it would also suggest that triples must be better than doubles and quads must be better than triples.

So at some point there is a cut off where all that training becomes too much.

The reality is that you train as hard as you're able to recover from. That's why although most elites double every day, they usually don't on a long run day.

You have to find out what your body is capable of. That might be doubling and you might have to build up over a few years to get there..

supercam wrote:

Cam MF Levins did triples. Maybe still does.

I'd say that's worked out for him. His only down period was when he joined NOPE;

+1

"I think Cam is going to do well [Sunday] because he's been training at such a high volume for a long time," says Coolsaet of Levins, who averaged 150-160 miles a week during his senior year at Southern Utah University and maintained that range during his Toronto marathon build.

More recently, he has been putting in big miles and believes he is in better shape than ever before. “Most days I am running about 20 to 30 miles (32-48K)” says Levins,

MILEAGE MAKES CHAMPS

You can train harder more often if you do doubles(even for beginners). The amount of uptempo quality runs I can do, by doing doubles,( even if it is low mileage ie less than 100 km a week) in singles vs doubles is greatly more by doing doubles. I don't know what it is, but just doing a second run per day even if it is just jogging a 2-3 miles makes the second run so much better. Than you did a reductio ad absurdum, by saying where does it stop? Well, let's be practical. Most people have jobs that only allow them to run twice a day. Sure, there have been people who run 3x a day with jobs i.e. Karel Lismont. I mean in nature, we probably ran dozens of times a day. I heard of a story of one Japanese female marathoner who ran everywhere for her chores and to go to the store and what not. But that's not practical for most people.

Star wrote:

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.

This is very true.

For under 90mpw I never felt the need for doubles. But if you’re up above 120 I cannot imagine doing it in singles. You’d be doing a run of 15 miles or more everyday. Runs over a certain length dig a little deeper into the energy stores and you don’t want to do them everyday. I found if I double after workout I do feel a little better the next day but others may not experience that.

And to those saying work interferes with doubles I disagree. I have worked full time while doubling everyday. You just have to prioritize the double over some other activity after work.

Singles>doubles (unless you’re injury prone)

I’ve also heard rumors that you can do singles some days, and doubles on other days! Like, in the same week and stuff! It’s like YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE

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?

Here is the best analogy I can give:

George has two $5 bills.

Sam has one $5 bill.

George has more money than Sam.

Tristate 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?

Here is the best analogy I can give:

George has two $5 bills.

Sam has one $5 bill.

George has more money than Sam.

George has two $5 bills and Sam has one $10 bill. George and Sam have the same amount of money.

I encourage you to give it a try and see if it works for you. I think you will find that to be sufficient evidence.

a better analogy wrote:

Tristate wrote:

Here is the best analogy I can give:

George has two $5 bills.

Sam has one $5 bill.

George has more money than Sam.

George has two $5 bills and Sam has one $10 bill. George and Sam have the same amount of money.

George has a $10 bill and a $5 bill.

Sam has a $10 bill.

George has more money than Sam.

a better analogy wrote:

Tristate wrote:

Here is the best analogy I can give:

George has two $5 bills.

Sam has one $5 bill.

George has more money than Sam.

George has two $5 bills and Sam has one $10 bill. George and Sam have the same amount of money.

If you're cutting or trying to get leaner, incorporating two-a-day training (and eating a clean diet) is like throwing gasoline onto a raging fire. Research shows that splitting a 30-minute moderately intense cardio session into two 15-minute sessions, separated by roughly six hours, can burn more calories compared to slogging through the full 30-minutes at once (Almuzaini et al., 1998).

Researchers attributed this to an increase in EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) - and this was seen during only moderate intensity cycling! Imagine the potential increase in EPOC when doing two high intensity weight training sessions!

Doubles Are better than singles wrote:

a better analogy wrote:

George has two $5 bills and Sam has one $10 bill. George and Sam have the same amount of money.

If you're cutting or trying to get leaner, incorporating two-a-day training (and eating a clean diet) is like throwing gasoline onto a raging fire. Research shows that splitting a 30-minute moderately intense cardio session into two 15-minute sessions, separated by roughly six hours, can burn more calories compared to slogging through the full 30-minutes at once (Almuzaini et al., 1998).

Researchers attributed this to an increase in EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) - and this was seen during only moderate intensity cycling! Imagine the potential increase in EPOC when doing two high intensity weight training sessions!

https://www.t-nation.com/training/2-a-day-training-for-radical-gains

OMG You won't get much from cycling 30 minutes a day, no matter how you do it. Even if you burn a few more calories by splitting it up, you still burn VERY few calories. Moreover, there's no indication of performance gains from the doubles.

an even better one wrote:

a better analogy wrote:

George has two $5 bills and Sam has one $10 bill. George and Sam have the same amount of money.

George has a $10 bill and a $5 bill.

Sam has a $10 bill.

George has more money than Sam.

I don't think anyone disputes (1) that more mileage is better, and (2) it is easier to get more mileage though doubles than singles. Neither of these provide any evidence that doubles are inherently better at a fixed amount of mileage.

this is going downhill fast wrote:

Doubles Are better than singles wrote:

https://www.t-nation.com/training/2-a-day-training-for-radical-gains

OMG You won't get much from cycling 30 minutes a day, no matter how you do it. Even if you burn a few more calories by splitting it up, you still burn VERY few calories. Moreover, there's no indication of performance gains from the doubles.

If just breaking up 30 minutes of cycling into two sessions is better. Why wouldn't breaking up 10, 15, 20+ miles into two sessions be better?

Let's think this through wrote:

this is going downhill fast wrote:

OMG You won't get much from cycling 30 minutes a day, no matter how you do it. Even if you burn a few more calories by splitting it up, you still burn VERY few calories. Moreover, there's no indication of performance gains from the doubles.

If just breaking up 30 minutes of cycling into two sessions is better. Why wouldn't breaking up 10, 15, 20+ miles into two sessions be better?

Better in what sense? Calories burned? That's all you can conclude here and that's a dubious benefit.

Vivamarathon.com

we're at the bottom of the hill wrote:

Let's think this through wrote:

If just breaking up 30 minutes of cycling into two sessions is better. Why wouldn't breaking up 10, 15, 20+ miles into two sessions be better?

Better in what sense? Calories burned? That's all you can conclude here and that's a dubious benefit.

Link to the study in question if you want to look more into it.

"We ran twice a day, sometimes three times. Twenty miles a day, sometimes more. There were a couple of 170-mile weeks... All we did was run - run, eat, and sleep." - Frank Shorter detailing his training with Jack Bacheler and Jeff Galloway prior to the 1972 Olympics (Frank won the gold medal in the marathon)

800m v. Marathon 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?

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

End of thread.

That is not true.

LetsEatDoughnutsInstead wrote:

I encourage you to give it a try and see if it works for you. I think you will find that to be sufficient evidence.

I have already tried it late in my running career and I ran faster than ever! Singles are more effective than doubles if you know how to handle them the best way.