A Single or Double Shot?
I vaguely remember having this discussion with Jim and Carter a few months ago, and as it was probably while running, helps to explain why I can't recall whether we reached a satisfactory conclusion.
After recently reading, "Running with the Buffaloes", it became apparent the emphasis that Mark Wetmore and Adam Goucher place on achieving mileage through singles (one longer run a day vs. two shorter runs, a double). There are also those, Andy Palmer, Ph.D (former Running Times Senior Writer, 2:16:25) who advocates doubles for 20 of a 24 week marathon build (Mondays and Fridays).
And perhaps this discussion quickly becomes moot when we throw variables like: training goals, experience, training phase, recovery, and available time into the mix. But, the questions I'll pose still stand:
- Do you run doubles, and if so, why?
- If you don't run doubles, is this a decision based on commitments (family, work, a social life)?
Having spent five years in a past life training for triathlons, performing two workouts a day became a necessity. After stopping in 1999, it wasn't until training for Knee Knacker (a local 50-km trail race) in 2005 that I revisited, however infrequently, the twice-a-dayworkout routine. Having worked with my current coach since February (training for Ottawa), I was surprised when he introduce doubles in several of my peak mileage weeks (at times 8 runs/week with one day off) while training for Sacramento this December.
Having talked with him before, at the time he wasn't a huge fan, fearing that running twice a day can negatively effect the following days run. Personally, I like running doubles as:
- they are usually logistically easier for me to fit in (2x45' vs. 1x90');
- they are physically easier on my body; and
- they seem to aid my body with recovery.
Thoughts...
I was going to jog a variation of the Seven Sisters this evening but after running three hills I bumped into an up-and-coming local female athlete and ran (insert: struggled to keep up) with her for the next 25’. If this was an easy run for her, I’m going to have to talk to her coach about pacing as she put me to shame. Once home and warmed up (it was -2), I hopped into the tub for an Epsom salt bath and then stretched (the legs feel better for it now).
Training: 45:51, AHR 145 (78%), MAX 160 (86%), 6:40 pace
3 comments:
This recent thread on letsrun.com has a fair amount of arguing and fist-shaking, but it also has some interesting comments on singles vs. doubles. I'm curious about the article mentioned in one post that mentions that training with doubles leads to general training in a "semi-depleted state", which the author of the article says is one of the reasons the Kenyans and Ethiopians run so well. The hypothesis is that by always running a bit depleted the body learns to sip glycogen more slowly and use more fat as fuel. Wish the guy had posted a link to the article in question though, since I have trouble believing this stuff without seeing tests/proof or citations.
If I wasn't married with two kids I would probably run doubles 5 days a week or so, skipping the second run the day before and the day of the long run. As it stands, the marriage/family dynamic can tolerate 1-2 doubles a week for me so that's where it stays for me.
Interesting post. Funny, I considered doing two short doubles today, but ended up not. I've sort of had it in my mind (often) to fit two-a-day in , but it seems it would have to b in an ideal situation.
Like mike, marriage/kids tends to be a limiter on doubles.
Double workouts are like any other workout: they need to have a purpose.
Two 45 minute runs do not serve the same purpose as one 90 minute run. They produce two different training outcomes. Depending on what training effect you need, choose accordingly.
I like Mike's comment of the "semi-depleted" state. Interesting concept.
Post a Comment