Fast Running Blog

General Category => Running => Topic started by: Paul Petersen on March 01, 2008, 04:19:28 pm



Title: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Paul Petersen on March 01, 2008, 04:19:28 pm
I found this thread on TheRunZone.com the other day, I thought it was so good, that I re-posted part of it here. For those not familiar, "Tinman" is a running coach who really knows his stuff. I respect his thoughts a lot, and his comments below (in response to a runner's question) on doubling are priceless. I have bolded and italicized certain part of the original text for emphasis. Enjoy.

Quote
Carson

Hi Tinman

a general query after your suggestion for running doubles:

what would "having mastered running daily" look like. i.e. Running 7 days a week or is 6 ok? What is the daily distance range and pace with someone who is considered to have mastered running daily?

As for introducing doubles, how far, fast per runs? What time(s) of day?

I often wondered if I could "get there faster" by doing doubles but always backed off for fear of overtraining and injury.

Merci', Carson
******************
Tinman

Carson -

You ask, what do I mean about "running daily?"

Generally that means running 3 weeks (straight) without missing a day. Mental habits are formed after 3 weeks of doing something every day!

I look at a runner's commitment to personal excellence based on their daily habits. I guarantee a runner who is doing twice per day running is committed to excellence. A runner who skips days is not and their results will not only be far less but unstable.

The most stable runners are ones who run twice per day. End of story, I'll suggest!

How to introduce doubles?

Simple, set your alarm for tomorrow morning and wake up immediately when it goes off. Get out the door and run 15 minutes at a comfortable effort. Don't worry about the pace. It'll be slower than what you do in the afternoon, at the same effort. Just get out the door and run. You can pick a course - like 2 miles or 3km - and just run it without starting your watch. Just "do the distance!"

At first, set your alarm every other day and do the morning run. After 2 or 3 weeks you'll find that you are waking up without the alarm going off and you sit there thinking "I should go for a run, since I am already awake." You know then you are at the point where running even more doubles is a reality and something you'll stick to.

(When I start doing doubles (I haven't trained and raced seriously in years, but will give it a go soon; starting this spring. I want to run a certain race this summer. Though I have a baby that will keep me from sleeping well, I'll set my alarm and get up, regardless. I'll have to nap right after work for 20-30minutes to catch up on mental fatigue. I'll then go for my second run. I'll run doubles about 3-4 times per week, which is about perfect for me, given my fatigue and situation.)

As the weeks pass, you will find out just how much you can run in the morning, given your commitment, energy, and time available. I have no doubt whatsoever that most runners would (magically) transform their fitness if they would build to 30-40 minute morning runs, as often as possible. I've witnessed 17:00 (5k) runners drop below 16 minutes after 3 months of doubles. I've seen 15:45 (5k) runner dip below 15 flat in that time-frame too. What happens, too, when you double is your fitness and energy become more and more stable. You may be tired the first 3 weeks you run doubles but after that, if you stay steady at doing doubles, you'll find that your pace per mile or km drops at the same effort (your aerobic efficiency will improve!).

I've said this before, most runners are conned into thinking that singles must be done, only, to have great benefits. There is no research at all that shows this is true. IN fact, a good research article I read in the 1980s by a coach from Australia who was working on his thesis showed that doubles were superior to singles in terms of performance. Here's the most important point: VO2 max was no different between those who ran 20km per day and those who ran 2 x 10km per day. But, the big difference was the lactate values recorded! The 2 x 10km group, after 12 weeks of training (6 days per week), had much lower lactates at paces slower than VO2 max velocity.

About the study:

The runners were split into two groups. One group ran 20km per run, one time per day, and the second group ran 10km, twice per day. The coach did not tell the runners how fast to run. He simply said, "Run x distance per run, once or twice per day," depending upon the group they were in. Both groups raced 3 times during that 12-week period. (2 x 5km and 1 x 10km). No interval sessions or fartleks or hill reps or tempos were scheduled. They just ran at whatever pace felt right for 20km or 10km.

At the end of the 12 weeks, they were tested again on the treadmill and they ran a 5km track race to compare to the one time they achieved in a 5km test on the track before the training period (intervention). The results were about as follows (based on my memory):

The 2 x 10km per day (6 days per week of running) group was 18% lower in lactates, on average, for all stages below VO2 max. The final speed (velocity) at VO2 max average .56 km per hour faster than the 1 x 20km group, but the actual VO2 max amount was not significantly different.

The time they recorded in the post-intervention (post-12 weeks training period) was 1.6% better for the 2 x 10km group than the times of the 1 x 20km group. You might ask, "Is 1.6% a big difference?" My answer is yes! The groups started out at about 17:24 (5km) before the study and the 1 x 20km group finished at close to 17 minutes (I think 17:01 was the final average, but I am not sure). The other group finished 1.6% faster. Thus, their average 5k time (if 17 minutes flat is used) would be 16:43.94. So, the 2 x 10km group improved about 16 seconds more (over 5km) than the 1 x 20km group. The overall time improvement for the 1 x 20km group was roughly 23 or 24 seconds. The overall time improvement for the 2 x 10km group was closer to 39 or 40 seconds, as I recall.

Further, I concluded this:

1) Ideally the study should have had a control group which did not run, but did the tests.

2) The relative VO2 max amount, in terms of quantity of oxygen consumed per minute, was identical or at least non-significant, showing that well trained runners have limited or no ability to raise their VO2 max higher, at least not in a time-frame of 12 weeks.

Note: perhaps some hard interval work would have raised it. However, that's no guarantee that the subjects will run faster. It depends upon how good the interval workouts are at transforming a runner's ability to consume more oxygen into faster running. *Just because you can consume more oxygen at maximum exertion doesn't necessarily mean you can run faster in a test or race over a given time or distance.

3) Improved VO2 mas speed (velocity) was not related to increase VO2 max in terms of oxygen consumed. Thus, something was happening that caused the speed at VO2 max to rise. This is important!

4) Lactate dynamics were improved more for the 2 x 10km group than the 1 x 20km group. Hence, something relevant in the first set-up was happening compared to the second set-up. I posit this is the result of running faster during the 2 x 10m than during the 1 x 20km.

The research study did not have any control over the pace they athletes ran daily, so we dont' know for sure what happened. * My guess: the 2 x 10km group felt less fatigue when running 2 x 10km, compared to the 1 x 20km group, and thus had the (natural) capacity to run faster during some of the runs each week. And, as the weeks passed, the speed of the 2 x 10km runs naturally progressed faster than the overall speed of the 1 x 20km group.

*The author and coach made none of these connections. He said he had no idea what was going on. He only stated the the results of his study showed the 1 x 20km per day was less effective than 2 x 10km per day. There was no difference in VO2 max gains, but there was a difference in VO2 max speed. Lactates were lower for the 2 x 10km group than the 1 x 20km group.

Again, because I have observed and talked to hundreds of runners over the years, plus I've done a lot of personal experimenting with singles versus doubles and used my heart rate monitor to measure changes in pace vs heart rate, I state with confidence that running more often results in improved efficiency. It doesn't necessarily result in greater VO2 max test results, but who cares if the really important thing is the performance of the goal race?

Conclusion: if you can run faster races as the result of running daily doubles, who cares if you can take in more oxygen? What counts is performance!!

Regards,

Tinman


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Tom on March 01, 2008, 04:26:00 pm
Great article Paul, thanks for posting. I've been doing alot of doubles lately just for scheduling purposes and to get in some good weather runs to go along all the nasty cold winter morning runs. Glad to know I'm also getting a running boost as well.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Fredrick Teichert on March 02, 2008, 08:45:41 pm
I'm thinking five days of doubles during the week, a long run on Saturday with a rest day on Sunday. Since I'm nursing a stress fracture in my foot, it will probably help increase my volume when I'm cleared to run again, with less stress on my body and more work on speed. Thanks for the post. You might have saved my life, career and marriage!


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Jon Allen on March 03, 2008, 07:30:28 am
Interesting article. 


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Craig Green on March 06, 2008, 06:52:46 am
That's a great article. Thanks for sharing. I was doing doubles twice a week until I started traveling in mid-February, but this article has motivated me to look for a way to implement it again.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Paul Petersen on March 18, 2008, 11:51:19 am
More pure gems on doubles and frequency of running...read if you have the time!

http://www.therunzone.com/VB/showthread.php?t=936


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Paul Petersen on September 08, 2008, 12:08:19 pm
Another gem:
Quote

oasis 

Default Time off during season
Hello Tinman,

I have had a brutal summer of training, been quite sluggish and feeling not 100%, I had a good winter/spring of training and racing then in May my fitness level dropped dramatically, I ran a 1/2 marathon PR in late April just training through it with the intent of running well in late May/early June for some 5k/10k races but after the 1/2 I felt sluggish in workouts as well as easy runs, tried a few of my goal races but they were sub-par and I even had to drop out of one, in June and July I just got back to running mileage with some occassional tempo pace stuff but still felt sluggish, over the last month ran some low key road races and my times were extremely slow, I have tried to incorporate more rest in my training with taking one day off per week for the past 2+ months but still feel nowhere near how I felt in April, I have never really taken an extended time off after a season of training, now I am getting ready to compete in some XC races in late Nov and wondering if I should take a week or so off to maybe recharge but not sure what to do, any thoughts?
Thanks


********************
Oasis -

You may need 3-5 days off, but I doubt more than that. Typically people run into problems when they work harder than their body can adapt. Usually it is a lack of daily modulation of intensity that is the culprit, along with doing hard workouts too often.

#1) Be sure to run slow enough between key workouts. Typically running about current (not goal) 5k race-pace plus 2 minutes per mile is a good easy-run pace. The majority of people who go into short or long-term slumps are running too fast on a daily basis.

2) Pick two days per week you will push the pace, only. I recommend doing something quite simple. The first day do repeat miles at 5k pace plus about 30 seconds per mile (today's 5k pace). Jog a couple of minute between each rep. Don't run too many reps. Start 3 and do that for a couple of weeks. Here is a rule of thumb I use: 90 divided by your 5k time is the maximum number of reps you should do at 5k pace plus 30 seconds per mile. So, if you can run 18 minutes in a 5k race today the most reps you should do is 5 because 90 / 18 = 5. I normally don't give my formulas to anyone, but I am getting a lot of email from people who have run into slumps like yours, and it's just better if I give the formula so that I don't get 2-3 emails every day with people wanting help. I don't have the time or energy to do repeated emails because of school work, working, family, etc. Remember, I suggest 5k pace plus 30 seconds as a way of getting out of a slump while still improving fitness. Later, if you feel better you can do CV work which is more along the line of 5k plus 12-16 seconds per mile.

The other key training day you should do a tempo run. Add 45 seconds per mile to today's 5k pace and, after a 15 minute warm up run, do a few miles at that pace. You should probably start your first mile, maybe two, at about 5k pace plus 60 seconds per mile. The reason is simple:

a) gradual progression ensures you are thoroughly warmed up and ready to roll;

b) if you are having an off-day and you start at 5k pace plus 60 seconds per mile you will quickly figure out that you should cancel the workout. I'd rather you run a mile at 5k pace plus 60 seconds, even two, and then nix the workout then run 5k pace plus 45 seconds per mile for a mile or two and realize you are working way too hard to keep that pace going. By that time you have dug a whole of greater fatigue that will require about 3 days to recover from.

*All the other runs and days per week run easy. Seriously 5k pace plus 2 minutes per mile will still improve your aerobic endurance but it won't deplete your body of adaptive reserves.

Now, I'll throw another thing out there: run more often. Yep, run more often! Cut the length of your runs and run more often at the easy pace I suggested. Instead of doing an 8 miler at your normal pace run two 4 milers on some of your days. Your body will start to feel better when you do this on your easy days.

Have you ever noticed that many of the elites do a lot of double days? Often, elite runners won't run more than about an about an hour in any single run. Why do you think that is? Is it because they are too lazy to run further? Not a chance!

It's because they know that they can do more volume per day and per week if they keep individual runs under a certain limit. There's a lot of trauma to connective tissue and cell membranes that happens beyond a certain amount of distance work. I estimate the ideal amount of running on days between key workouts can be found by using my mileage times .5 formula. If use this formula you have to do a lot of doubles, but in the long-term you feel a lot better.

Look at this example:

Joe is a 29:34 10k runner (he has a lot of dedication but he's not quite the elite genetics that could take him to the world class level). He runs ~120 miles per week (the secret that got him to the 29:34 level given his genetics talent for distance work which was above average but not elite). He found the hard way that 120 miles per week works for him only when he runs doubles often. He can't possibly run more than baout 90 miles per week in singles because he feels beat, and he runs poorly in workouts and races too. So, because Tinman is his coach and suggests using the mileae * .5 formula, he sets his training up as follows:

120 miles per week *.5 = 60. Sixty is the average number of minutes for most runs he should do. So, a 60 minute run in the morning and evening 4-5 days per week gives him about 19 miles for those days. He runs several doubles per week but has 1 or 2 days that he doesn't double (like the day before and after a race). It varies a little, depending upon whether he is racing or not.

Here is how Joe might schedule his training:

Mon - am - 1 hour EZ (around 6:30-6:15 per mile)
pm - 1 hour EZ (around 6:15 per to 6:00 per mile)

Tue - am - 1 hour EZ (6:30-6:15 per mile)
pm - 1 hour, including 6 x 1 mile at CV pace (about 4:46-52 per mile). He adjusts to how he's feeling on any given day, adjusts to the course he's running on, and adjusts to the weather he faces.

Wed - am - 1/2 hour EZ
pm = 1 hour EZ

Thu - am - 1 hour EZ
pm - 1 hour, including light fartlek to put some spring in his legs (he might do some15-30 second pickups during his run)

Fri - am - 1 hour EZ

Sat - am 3 miles warm up, 10k race, 3 miles warm down. pm - 1 hour EZ

Sun - 1-1.5 hours EZ
---------------------------------
That's about 120 miles per week for Joe. Because he is doubling often and seldom exceeds 1 hour per run his body can absorb the workload. Had he tried to do 1.5-2 hour single runs to get that mileage he probably wouldn't last very long!

Have you ever read Malmo's posts on letsrun.com? Why do you think he is adamant about doubling? He knows that to run big mileage you have to do doubles. But the truth is the same principle can be used for lower mileage runners. Focus on doing your key workouts twice per week well (very well) and just put in easy distance in whatever way makes your body feel good the remainder of the days.

Doubling takes organization and sacrifice, it costs you sleep if you are not disciplined enough to get to bed early, but it does pay big dividends - even as short as 3-5 weeks for some runners.
__________________
Tinman
(coaching available)
Inquire via email:
runfastcoach@gmail.com


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Kory Wheatley on September 08, 2008, 03:35:08 pm
I noticed a difference when I started doing doubles.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Tom on September 08, 2008, 03:46:04 pm
Nice post. Having been in a similar slump since spring as the one described here, this was very timely information for me. Good to see that most of the modifications I've made in the last couple of months are in line with what Mr. Tinman recommends. Makes me hopeful that between now and SGM good things could happen. Now if I can just be smart enough to keep doing the right things and not do stupid stuff. Seems like some of us must just really like doing stupid stuff.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Jon Allen on September 08, 2008, 07:47:37 pm
I have found it easier to do doubles early in the morning and had more success than last year.  Not sure why- maybe my body just gradually adjusted to it.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Michelle Lowry on September 09, 2008, 08:50:36 am
I am excited for winter training (I know that sounds dumb). 

Right now I just do a couple of short afternoon runs to help get the miles in.  I find my body wants to run faster in the afternoon (maybe just because it knows it isn't running long?).  I am hoping this afternoon energy will make winter training better, where I will switch the long runs to afternoons a couple days a week, and actually do speed work with the sun shining, and hopefully the roads will be clearer midday or at least I'll be able to see where there's ice.  I just don't see a way around doing doubles in high mileage.  Running 15 miles each morning turns every day into a medium effort day.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Paul (RivertonPaul) on September 09, 2008, 12:58:46 pm
Even for me the average joe, I've found the few doubles I've done to be beneficial, having never done them before.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: jtshad on September 09, 2008, 01:17:17 pm
I find that doubles work great for me both from an effective training perspective (mix of recovery and faster miles) but also from a quality of life/time management perspective.  There is no way that I could get in 80-90 miles a week trying to do solo runs with my work and family commitments.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Bob on September 12, 2008, 04:09:03 pm
Just do a quick study of what the great runners did back in the day (check out the book Lore of Running) and still do now.  It's all doubles.  Based on what I've read, most Kenyan schedules go with three-a-days with 30% of their weekly mileage at 10K pace or faster!!

What really blows me away is the pace Buddy Edelen and Jim Peters sustained during their daily runs.  No hard-easy principle in their training.  According to Peters "there is no time for any mucking around and the body has to be prepared to meet the demands that will be asked of it during a race".  From what I read, all of his running was at marathon pace or faster.  Today's wisdom doesn't agree with that approach and neither do I, but they are legendary runners, I am not.

I agree, I find doubles the best way to go given my life commitments.  It took a while, but I no longer hear Pfitz whispering the contrary.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Jon Allen on September 12, 2008, 04:56:42 pm
One thing to remember about "legendary" runners is that they were legendary in their own time, compared to their own peers, so we can't take that away.  But if today's runners are faster (sometimes much faster), then that means something in terms of who we should mimic.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Paul Petersen on September 12, 2008, 06:02:17 pm
Also, some people were great runners in spite of how they lived and trained, not because of it.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Dale on September 12, 2008, 06:32:23 pm
Modern day case-in-point of that is Usain Bolt...


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Jon Allen on September 12, 2008, 06:50:42 pm
Speaking of Bolt, there was an interesting interview posted yesterday of Carl Lewis.  He said some things I hadn't thought of regarding Bolt's running.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1145268/index.htm


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Dale on September 12, 2008, 07:02:24 pm
Wow, he doesn't pull many punches, does he?

Guess I should've posted the article that spawned my comment in case folks haven't seen it...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article4727520.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article4727520.ece)


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Bob on September 12, 2008, 07:20:34 pm
I don't disagree that great or lengenday runners are blessed with the right genes, but I wouldn't go as far as to say that hard training isn't a factor either.  Years of dedicated work involved.  Derek Clayton didn't break 3 hours in his first marathon, but eventually made it to 2:08 in 1969.  His training was no different then what is applied to today's great runners.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Sasha Pachev on September 15, 2008, 02:56:09 pm
Peters could only run 2:18, and that on a good day. When racing Zatopek he lost even though Zatopek was tired from 5000/10000 double, had never previously run a marathon, and could only pull off a 2:23. Back in the 50s in order to win you had to have a moderate measure of talent, do some reasonable, but not necessarily optimal training, and show up at a race. Nowadays it is not enough. As more and more people are running, things are getting more competitive. Several things have to come together at a high level to be a champion nowadays. And it is probably going to get more competitive in the future. Eventually a champion will not be able to get away with even a little mistake either in training or recovery because the moment he does he will be pushed off the podium by somebody of equal natural ability who does not make that mistake.

We should however give credit to the pioneers of running for breaking the ground for us. One thing I admire about Clayton is that he introduced the concept of marathon being a long sprint where you start hard and keep pushing.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Kory Wheatley on September 15, 2008, 11:09:57 pm
To kind of twist the doubles thing.  Do you find it more beneficial doing a double run in the morning than lunch, or morning and then evening?  Or does this really matter?  I really haven't see a difference other than I might feel more fresher in the evening.  Only because there's more hours in for recovery. 

What times do the elite runner's do their doubles?


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Paul Petersen on September 16, 2008, 07:17:45 am
Kory - I don't think it matters too much. Yeah, I prefer morning-evening because of more rest, but I've done it both ways. The biggest factor is probably just getting it to work with your own schedule and balancing other things.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Bob on September 16, 2008, 08:20:33 am
Sasha - I disagree in that Peters or Edelen did more than just "some reasonable" training.  Take a look at their running logs.  Now, I do agree that he might not have been training "optimal" because they didn't have enough easy running.  However, to infer that the running pioneers from the 50s onward were just a bunch of talented wonders that didn't train as hard as great runners of today is way off base.  Not to mention, great runners today simply know more now and have more now then runners did back then in terms of training (science, tapering, nutrition, recovery, altitude, new equipment, etc.).  Finish times don't tell the whole story.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Greg Harris on September 18, 2008, 01:14:20 pm
I have only started running doubles a few weeks ago and I can notice a difference in my fitness.  I wanted to jump up to closer to 80+ miles from 60-70.  Running doubles seemed like the most logical way to do it.  Talking to people like Logan, Dave, and Clyde and getting advice from them as well as reading advice from people like Paul, Jon, and others have really helped my training and confidence.  Doubles take a lot of dedication and discipline, but I will make them a part of my training cycles from now on.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Sasha Pachev on September 18, 2008, 03:17:24 pm
Bob - they were not even that talented compared to what you see on the roads today. But they were the pioneers. With that comes the challenge of discovering what works but also the privilege of not having to race those with more talent who are using the effective methods that have already been discovered.


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Bob on September 18, 2008, 04:21:55 pm
Sasha - I understand what you are saying, but using your logic means that great runners of today will be proved "not even that talented" as finish times continue to get faster and new records are set.  I simply see the great runners of the past just as talented and hard training as those today. 


Title: Re: great post on the positives of doubles
Post by: Sasha Pachev on September 18, 2008, 07:26:46 pm
Bob - possibly. I hope so but, we do not always move upwards. But if so, then we have to face the truth about our current level of fitness and knowledge of running.