2 runs a day - good or bad

Slogger Jogger

Due to time constraints I had to split my run today. Before work I did a short session and it was medium paced overall, starting slow as I was still a bit sore from the weekend but got into it before the end.

At lunchtime I had a half hour so got out and was expecting to do much the same, but managed to do a half hour tempo run which I was pleased and a bit surprised with.

I've done 2 runs a day 2 or 3 times a week in recent weeks and I think its working for me. I would struggle to fit the longer single session in so this gives me more flexibility. You can have different objectives for each run too.

Those of you who have done 2 runs a day would you say its been a good or bad thing? Whats the general consensus?

BeepBeep67

Previously I used to run 10 times per week (3 doubles), but would only do this at certain times of the year when trying to hit 60miles + consistently.
I think it's important to ask why you are doing it, is it part of a plan or is it just a relentless chase for mileage. Like everything balance in key, are you untapping your true potential, I see alot of your mileage at somewhere between recovery and tempo, but not really one or the other. I personally like to run easy on recovery days, so I can put the required effort into tough days, sometimes less is more .

ecoli

I try to get 3-4 miles in morning and then my evening run. I think Tergat advocates this as he finds it helps recovery and i have to admit since i have started them i have found recovering after really hard sessions has been alot quicker since i started

Slogger Jogger

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

..is it part of a plan or is it just a relentless chase for mileage. ..

A bit of both. I've a plan which has me hitting certain totals each day and the 1000 mile challenge is in town :rolleyes: Marathon training means getting miles under your belt. I'll need to wean myself towards rest days and increasingly longer runs in the coming weeks, but so far I'm finding the 2 days trick is working for me.

Slogger Jogger

ecoli wrote: »

I try to get 3-4 miles in morning and then my evening run. I think Tergat advocates this as he finds it helps recovery and i have to admit since i have started them i have found recovering after really hard sessions has been alot quicker since i started

+1 to that. I am finding 2 short recoveries on Monday leaves me feeling good on Tuesdays.

TheRoadRunner

I'm lookig into a few doubles myself. Nothing too hectic but want to see if it helps recovery etc. I'll post back in 3-4 weeks on this thread to give my impressions if anybody is interested to read them.

another world

I found them a good way of building up my mileage without injurying myself. Still getting in a longish run but getting a rest between them and eventually joinging them together. It was vital for me.

tunney

Problem with doubles is that they make you consider triples.

misty floyd

tunney wrote: »

Problem with doubles is that they make you consider triples.

shots or sessions?

Sosa

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I think it's important to ask why you are doing it, is it part of a plan or is it just a relentless chase for mileage. Like everything balance in key

+1

Only recently have i started doing doubles.
I would only 1 a week and it would only be if i was targetting an upcoming race.
I tend to put together a 3 week training plan prior to a 5m or 10k i want to have a right cut of it.
Other than that i would not do them at all.

jinka

Where this really works is when you do an easy run say 4/5miles in the morning and then an interval session in the evening. Rumour is you feel great doing the session.
Two runs a day though is really full time stuff. Rarely fits into a
work/family/commitment day.

ecoli

jinka wrote: »

Where this really works is when you do an easy run say 4/5miles in the morning and then an interval session in the evening. Rumour is you feel great doing the session.
Two runs a day though is really full time stuff. Rarely fits into a
work/family/commitment day.

I would disagree i think it is easier to find 1/2 hour or so in the morning to get like four miles in and then an hour in the evening than i would to get 90 min of running time in a day there less pressure in this sense

yop

Thats an interesting thing to do, I was 1/2 thinking the same myself but could only manage to get in a 4 or 5km in the morning and then another 8km in the evening and do this twice per week.

Do you lads think this would help me in cutting my times in 5km, 8km and 10km races? I am a REAL beginner but would love to really get the minutes down now over the next 15 races I have planned for the year.

Thanks

ecoli

yop wrote: »

Thats an interesting thing to do, I was 1/2 thinking the same myself but could only manage to get in a 4 or 5km in the morning and then another 8km in the evening and do this twice per week.

Do you lads think this would help me in cutting my times in 5km, 8km and 10km races? I am a REAL beginner but would love to really get the minutes down now over the next 15 races I have planned for the year.

Thanks

My advice would be to build up slowly and i feel that it is not quite needed till you start hitting the higher mileages. I have been running 12 years now and only in the last six months have i got to a stage (50+ miles) where doubles make it easier to increase the mileage without my whole life being too bogged down by training

yop

ecoli wrote: »

My advice would be to build up slowly and i feel that it is not quite needed till you start hitting the higher mileages. I have been running 12 years now and only in the last six months have i got to a stage (50+ miles) where doubles make it easier to increase the mileage without my whole life being too bogged down by training

Thats sound Ecoli, I am barely running 12 weeks!

Suppose I am a little impatient Will stick to my 2 8kms during week and a 8km or 10km run/race at weekend.

Thanks and sorry for highjacking.

ecoli

yop wrote: »

Thats sound Ecoli, I am barely running 12 weeks!

Suppose I am a little impatient Will stick to my 2 8kms during week and a 8km or 10km run/race at weekend.

Thanks and sorry for highjacking.

Keep training consistent and try increasing the mileage very slowly. This alone will see you improve without a doubt. Take training like a bank you look to put a little bit regualrly and build slowly. If you put too much in too quick you are going struggle with day to day living. After a while this money (or training) will build up for a big dividend that can be withdrawn when needed (race day)

tunney

misty floyd wrote: »

shots or sessions?

???

mloc123

Are extra 'easy' runs on top of a training plan worth doing to get mileage into your legs or are you better of resting. Any opinions?

ecoli

mloc123 wrote: »

Are extra 'easy' runs on top of a training plan worth doing to get mileage into your legs or are you better of resting. Any opinions?

quite a debatable topic. I know from reading tergats posts he would advocate recovery days rather than rest days. This should be a couple of miles roughly about half the distance of your usual easy day runs and pace should be about half a min slower than your LSR pace. I myself follow this rule for the main reason that if something unexpected comes up during a week i have my recovery day for a few miles so i dont feel as bad if i have to take a day off for what ever reason (work commitments, niggling injury etc). Some people feel however that their body doe not recover properly and as a result need a rest day. one idea would be to try one rest day over a two week period and if you feel okay try then going for a three week period. This is a way to phase it out slowly if able.

misty floyd

tunney wrote: »

???

shots or sessions?........its bad when you have to explain a joke. You mentioned doubles make you think of triples. I meant shots (as in shots of whiskey) or sessions (as in training sessions). Doing doubles on a regular basis would drive me to drink......hardy har.

Two elephants and a symbol go off a cliff..........da dum tichhh!!

Gringo78

jinka wrote: »

Where this really works is when you do an easy run say 4/5miles in the morning and then an interval session in the evening. Rumour is you feel great doing the session.

+1 Its something I'm considering doing at the moment, a 20min easy run in the morning to get the blood flowing and then an interval or tempo session at lunchtime. Mon to Fri I have only time to run in the morning or lunchtime due to family committments and running at lunchtime I don't think i warm-up enough i.e typically my tempo run at lunchtime is 0.6 miles at 8:00 pace, 6 @ 6:10 pace and then 0.6 at 8:00 pace. I think I'm asking for an injury with so little warmup whereas if I had run in the morning I should be be well warmed up already for the lunchtime tempo or interval.

I think that would be the main advantage of doubles??

T runner

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Due to time constraints I had to split my run today. Before work I did a short session and it was medium paced overall, starting slow as I was still a bit sore from the weekend but got into it before the end.

At lunchtime I had a half hour so got out and was expecting to do much the same, but managed to do a half hour tempo run which I was pleased and a bit surprised with.

I've done 2 runs a day 2 or 3 times a week in recent weeks and I think its working for me. I would struggle to fit the longer single session in so this gives me more flexibility. You can have different objectives for each run too.

Those of you who have done 2 runs a day would you say its been a good or bad thing? Whats the general consensus?

I heard somewhere that it may depend on the race distance you are targetting. Middle distance types would do doubles after 50 mpw, marathon guys after 70mpw.

Due to constraints I need to use them above 50mpw though even though currently training for marathon.

In short and all things considered I recommend you cut your training miles in half.;)

TFBubendorfer

I tried doing double runs, but the time management isn't feasible. I can run in the morning, no problem. But in the evening there is no time between coming home from work, dinner, and getting the kids to bed. The wife would not be too impressed if I even suggested going out for a run at that time.

Having said that, I tend to run twice on race days (well, not for marathons). Unless this would require getting out of bed too early, I always run 3 easy miles first thing and then do the race several hours later. All my best efforts have come from that, and I suppose it would be helpful for afternoon/evening speed workouts as well if you had the time.

Just don't be tempted to cut your long runs into two halves. You won't get anywhere near the same benefits.

tunguska

I think theyre great slogger. At first it felt like a bit of a chore, doing a hard session in the morning and then having to go out again at night. But in truth it was just psychological pussyfootin'. I mean Id procrastinate all day long, feel sorry for myself and make excuses to be lazy. But when I stopped the moaning and actually went on the second run it was great. Now (although not right now as Im injured) I look forward to the second run. I also do my second one at about 10:30pm so the roads are pretty much deserted and I have the place to myself which makes it so much more enjoyable. Although I usually do the harder run of the day first and leave the easier run til late, makes it more palatable that way.

yop

tunguska wrote: »

I think theyre great slogger. At first it felt like a bit of a chore, doing a hard session in the morning and then having to go out again at night. But in truth it was just psychological pussyfootin'. I mean Id procrastinate all day long, feel sorry for myself and make excuses to be lazy. But when I stopped the moaning and actually went on the second run it was great. Now (although not right now as Im injured) I look forward to the second run. I also do my second one at about 10:30pm so the roads are pretty much deserted and I have the place to myself which makes it so much more enjoyable. Although I usually do the harder run of the day first and leave the easier run til late, makes it more palatable that way.

10.30 for a run and then up again for a morning run?

IF you did a 10.30pm run, what sort of time would you do and what fuel do you take on afterwards?

Thanks

tunguska

yop wrote: »

10.30 for a run and then up again for a morning run?

IF you did a 10.30pm run, what sort of time would you do and what fuel do you take on afterwards?

Thanks

Hi Yop,
At the very least it'd be between 5 - 7.5miles but most of the time it'll be 10 miles.
In regards to fuel afterwards I'd have something like: brown rice + vegetables + chicken(or tofu). A good solid meal.

Slogger Jogger

T runner wrote: »

..In short and all things considered I recommend you cut your training miles in half.;)

I was going to say the same to you. I practised the consensus of advice again today. Medium paced run at lunch. Easy run (with headtorch) just there. Time flew by and legs feel great.

aero2k

tunguska wrote: »

I also do my second one at about 10:30pm so the roads are pretty much deserted and I have the place to myself which makes it so much more enjoyable.

Hi tunguska,

Do you have any trouble getting to sleep having run so late in the evening, especially with refueling afterwards?

Hope that knee is on the mend.

Raighne

I haven't used "doubles" much and then only for slower runs, so my personal experience is limited to saying that morning runs tend to lack quality for me but I'd like to try Noon-Afternoon.

However, I finally managed to find some literature from the pros on the topic (the only material I've ever found specifically addressing the when to/when not to). In "Advanced Marathoning", Pfitzinger and Douglas write several good tips, here's a few samples:

"Marathoners have a tendency to start running twice a day before their weekly mileage warrants it. Doing doubles sounds like serious training, so runners often assume it must be better marathon preparation. The reality is quite different; as you increase your mileage in preparation for a marathon, you should resist the urge to switch from single runs to doubles."

"You'll provide greater stimulus for these adaptations (endurance-based red.) through a single 12-mile (19km) run than by doing a 7-miler and a 5-miler (8km) at the same pace."

"It might sound counter-intuitive, but runners preparing for shorter races should run more doubles at a given level of weekly mileage than marathoners. Runners focusing on 5ks, for example, should start adding doubles when their weekly gets above 50. That's because the 5k specialists' main emphasis is high-quality interval sessions, and more frequent, shorter runs will help keeptheir legs fresh for these workouts."

"For marathoners, the basic guideline is to not do double workouts until you've maximised the amount you're running in single workouts. If you're preparing for a marathon and you are running less than 75 miles (121km) a week, then you shouldn't regularly be running doubles. If you're running less than 75 miles a week, by the time you get in your long run and a midweek medium-long run , there's no reason to double more than once or twice a week to get in the remaining miles. It's better to get in longer runs and give your body 22 to 23 hours of recovery between runs."

"Once you get above 75 miles (121km) a week, however, double workout have a definite role in your marathon program."

"Start by adding one double per week and then another, as you gradually increase your mileage."

"The minimum time for an added second run should be 25 minutes. If you run less than that it's hardly worth the extra time and effort-bothy physiologically and in taking time from your busy life...this is especially true if a too-short, not-crucial run means cutting into precious sleep time."

If you believe in the coaching school of Lydiard, Wetmore, Livingstone and others of similar conviction, every runner for distances above 800ms goes through a marathon-type go through a "marathon-conditioning" phase before their specific training later in the season. In that case obviously apply the marathon-guidelines to any type of runner during that phase of training.

ecoli

Raighne wrote: »

I haven't used "doubles" much and then only for slower runs, so my personal experience is limited to saying that morning runs tend to lack quality for me but I'd like to try Noon-Afternoon.

However, I finally managed to find some literature from the pros on the topic (the only material I've ever found specifically addressing the when to/when not to). In "Advanced Marathoning", Pfitzinger and Douglas write several good tips, here's a few samples:

"Marathoners have a tendency to start running twice a day before their weekly mileage warrants it. Doing doubles sounds like serious training, so runners often assume it must be better marathon preparation. The reality is quite different; as you increase your mileage in preparation for a marathon, you should resist the urge to switch from single runs to doubles."

"You'll provide greater stimulus for these adaptations (endurance-based red.) through a single 12-mile (19km) run than by doing a 7-miler and a 5-miler (8km) at the same pace."

"It might sound counter-intuitive, but runners preparing for shorter races should run more doubles at a given level of weekly mileage than marathoners. Runners focusing on 5ks, for example, should start adding doubles when their weekly gets above 50. That's because the 5k specialists' main emphasis is high-quality interval sessions, and more frequent, shorter runs will help keeptheir legs fresh for these workouts."

"For marathoners, the basic guideline is to not do double workouts until you've maximised the amount you're running in single workouts. If you're preparing for a marathon and you are running less than 75 miles (121km) a week, then you shouldn't regularly be running doubles. If you're running less than 75 miles a week, by the time you get in your long run and a midweek medium-long run , there's no reason to double more than once or twice a week to get in the remaining miles. It's better to get in longer runs and give your body 22 to 23 hours of recovery between runs."

"Once you get above 75 miles (121km) a week, however, double workout have a definite role in your marathon program."

"Start by adding one double per week and then another, as you gradually increase your mileage."

"The minimum time for an added second run should be 25 minutes. If you run less than that it's hardly worth the extra time and effort-bothy physiologically and in taking time from your busy life...this is especially true if a too-short, not-crucial run means cutting into precious sleep time."

If you believe in the coaching school of Lydiard, Wetmore, Livingstone and others of similar conviction, every runner for distances above 800ms goes through a marathon-type go through a "marathon-conditioning" phase before their specific training later in the season. In that case obviously apply the marathon-guidelines to any type of runner during that phase of training.

This is a debatable topic and i can see the logic behind the first part. While i advocate keeping the medium and long run as singles but the other days i feel that doubles can be used to benefit. True you may not gain the endurance of a 12 miler but one must also look at the other side in terms of what a twelve miler takes out of the body this can leave your body tired for sessions etc. shorter runs can allow you to maintain a quicker pace while not being as taxing on the body

i.e some people running twelve miles at 8.00 pace and beiong tured next day or 7 and 5 mile @ 7.30 pace. This can allow you do your sessions to a better quality.

Different people are on each side of the fence and there are good and bad to support either side

This is a very valid point that it takes anything between 30-40 min running before any aerobic improvement can be seen according to some researchers

ss43

ecoli wrote: »

This is a debatable topic and i can see the logic behind the first part. While i advocate keeping the medium and long run as singles but the other days i feel that doubles can be used to benefit. True you may not gain the endurance of a 12 miler but one must also look at the other side in terms of what a twelve miler takes out of the body this can leave your body tired for sessions etc. shorter runs can allow you to maintain a quicker pace while not being as taxing on the body

i.e some people running twelve miles at 8.00 pace and beiong tured next day or 7 and 5 mile @ 7.30 pace. This can allow you do your sessions to a better quality.

Different people are on each side of the fence and there are good and bad to support either side

This is a very valid point that it takes anything between 30-40 min running before any aerobic improvement can be seen according to some researchers

These sort of comments/studies confuse me. If you got someone to go running for 20 mins a day, they wouldn't be any fitter aerobically than if they didn't bother?

Anyway, when doing doubles, the function of one will often be recovery so it wouldn't matter if it improved your aerobic fitness. The function would be to increase blood flow and thus recovery.

Krusty_Clown

That's a good point. Surely one of the key reasons to do a double is purely to add an additional recovery run, which would only be required if you can't fit it into a typical 'once a day' schedule. I mean if you're following a specific program, or coach plan, which advocates something like a 14 mile steady-state run, you can't split that run over a morning and evening session.

Must have a look at the P&D high mileage marathon plans, which include a lot of doubles, and see if one of them is always a recovery run.

ecoli

ss43 wrote: »

These sort of comments/studies confuse me. If you got someone to go running for 20 mins a day, they wouldn't be any fitter aerobically than if they didn't bother?

Anyway, when doing doubles, the function of one will often be recovery so it wouldn't matter if it improved your aerobic fitness. The function would be to increase blood flow and thus recovery.

Sorry prob should have used the word any there is some improvement but it is very minimal in order for optimum benefit in a ratio of time spent training to benefits yeilded 30-40 min of aerobic training necessary

I think often is the key word here and while this may be true of runners up to perhaps 5k-10k I think the objective of doubles for many marathon runners would be more than just recovery as there is alot of aerobic development within marathon training as almost 99% of running comes from the aerobic session therefore their is a lesser need to be completely recovered for each session as you are not trying hitting the fast speeds of intervals in training that the likes of a middle distance would have to hit. Here is where the second run is individual to your training as MD guys need this extra recovery to maintain there training but longer distances dont shcook the system as much in terms of muscle tears and attempt to build strength slowly and gradually

Brendan Foster (27 min 10k guy) believed that "Being a distance runner you are tired when you get up in the morning you tired when you train and your damn sure tired when you get into bed at night. That is the life of a long distance runner"

Raighne

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

That's a good point. Surely one of the key reasons to do a double is purely to add an additional recovery run, which would only be required if you can't fit it into a typical 'once a day' schedule. I mean if you're following a specific program, or coach plan, which advocates something like a 14 mile steady-state run, you can't split that run over a morning and evening session.

Must have a look at the P&D high mileage marathon plans, which include a lot of doubles, and see if one of them is always a recovery run.

I'd apply this general principle to doubles, they are good if A) and both prove true:

A) Double usage does not impact performance on subsequent key workouts
Double usage does not appear to increase your injury proneness

Not an exact science, but I think you're better off applying generic principles to yourself and then twisting the specific to the reactions you get from your body. It's worth noting that some physiologists believe there are definitely paces that are "too slow", e.g. where the physiological benefit is so limited that it does not warrant the additional pounding into the legs (which is the tricky principle that more running is always better until you break down, so its about finding the point just before breaking point).

In the P&D plan that I have currently started, the first double appears after 6 weeks (this is during one of the 12-week plans, the book also has 18-week). The double is a 10k (morning/Noon) and 6k (Noon/Afternoon) recovery run (both are recoveries. This replaces the normal Tuesday run which is a base run (standard aerobic slower than marathon pace) with 10x100m strides. That week the Wednesday features a 5x1200m @ 5k pace session instead of the normal Medium-Long run which seems to be why the authors preferred splitting the 16k of Tuesday into two segments to ensure optimal freshness for that session.



On the topic of whether slow doubles provide more benefit for shorter distance runners, this is not easy go gauge for the following reasons:

1. Even a 5k runner draws up to 97% of his energy from the aerobic energy system (an argument for extra slower runs being useful)
2. Not all limitations on performances at faster speeds are cardiovascular, many are neuromuscular (an argument against as recovery runs provide almost zero neuromuscular stimulation but can potentially reduce performance in faster sessions as above)