Sub 3h15

14424434454474481601

Comments

  • The alternative is to run 10m in one go Moof. The idea behind the double is that any rest between the 4m and 6m makes the run less tiring than 10m in one go. So although the lunch to eve rest is maybe not ideal, it is than nothing.

    Classic movement of head cold to chest due to exercise. When will I learn?
  • moof - fine by me. 12pm and 7pm ? I guess the ideal would be 12 hrs apart but ideal never happens. I put my running doubles around my work commute after Christmas so the gap is well under 12hrs. Come to think of it maybe less recovery is better anyway. And its only a 4 and 6 after all.
  • Moof, P&D seem to contradict themselves over this matter so it isn't exactly clear (I am reading that chapter at the moment). They say that doubles should not be necessary for athletes running "low mileage" and then they put doubles into their up to 70 schedule. The basic idea is, as others say, to knock off 10 miles in one day without it being hard work. They also mention glycogen depletion so it is a way of doing 10 in a day and then doing a MLR the next day without starting on empty. Personally I would think that the extra 4 miles in the second session is of marginal benefit an dis really an artificial way of upping miles and they seem a bit empty to me so I would skip the 4 and just do 6.
  • I think the general consensus is that 70 miles is not low mileage!  I've run those P&D double sessions about 2 hours apart due to schedule constraints - this works a lot better than as a single session.  I also found the double recovery sessions quite useful as recovery sessions.

    Nice torch carrying invitation Martin.

    Love the rant Ant.

    Rest day for me today after 14 miles yesterday.  It was supposed to be 16 but I was developing a twinge in one of the calfs so did the sensible thing and cut the run short.   Fingers crossed it's gone by tomorrow or I shall have to arrange for the sports massageimage

  • So have I gone mad or have the Avitars suddenly moved from the right to the left of the window?  Must be worth a rant Ant ....
  • In contrast - I have to say doubles just didn't work well for me. Seemed to contribute to on overall level of mental fatigue to the point that I felt all I was doing was running and started to resent sessions a bit. I'm not entirely convinced they contributed that much for fitness either. I seem to benefit more from proper recovery ie doing nothing. Agree with PMJ to me they felt like empty somewhat stiff and difficult miles for minimal gain. All anecdotal but hey ho.

    Must check out your r(Ant) - good to see Barca slapping down the "Galacticos" yet again - are they still called that or are they too average now ??

  • I would have thought that the doubles were valuable in a frequency way though. Frequency is good for toughening up running legs which is why the 2nd run felt stiff and difficult. The start of the 2nd run for me feels the same when I do my pre VLM commutes, but I tend to run further in the morning run so expect more tired legs.
  • For me the benefit of the doubles is the reduced recovery time between the 2 sessions.  I like to think it encourages the body to learn to recover more quickly.  I also agree that for a recreational runner ~70mpw starts to be high mileage; certainly my quasi-coach didn't used to do much more than 80mpw when he was running competitively.

  • I run doubles out of necessity: to get to work and back. Only 2.5 miles each way but far easier to fit running into my day that way than find time either early morning or after children have gone to bed. It does help because certain days I can stretch it to 6 recovery miles on Monday morning and a short scoot home or a general aerobic run Friday after work for 5 miles.
    Recently I've been bagging 9 miles home on Wednesday nights that incorporates 2 and a bit miles warm up, 6 miles of quality work and a short cool down. That makes almost 12 miles for the day with the short run into work in the morning
    It fits for me in my current lifestyle and would certainly change if I worked further away from home or had a different job.
  • I quote from P&D, page 144:

    "If you're preparing for a marathon and are running less than 75 miles a week, then you shouldn't regularly be running doubles."  They go on to define regularly as no more than once or twice a week.

  • PMJ

    Some subsequent reflection from Pfitzinger on doubles....

    Pfitzinger 15 yrs on

  • Nice interesting article Moraghan, thanks.
  • Moraghan wrote (see)

    PMJ

    Some subsequent reflection from Pfitzinger on doubles....Pfitzinger 15 yrs on

    So what he says is that he said don't do doubles if you are doing less than 75 and the verdict years later is that he is still right. He gives a counter example which says if you find 11 hard, do a 7 and 4. Throughout the book it says the best runs are those over 90 mins, so he cleverly avoids the issue of the MLR at about 14 to 15, if you do that as 7 and 8 it isn't so good.

    I am quite lucky in how I can organise my time, so can find 3 days to do hard sessions so will do a tempo (10), a MLR (14) and LSR (21) so I get 45 miles plus 3 recoveries to get to 60 which I reckon is good enough for me without doubles. I could pad two recovery days with doubles so 4&6 which would get me to 70 but why?

  • PMJ - i think the "why" would be for increased frequency, which is more important than the miles IMO, although they might say its to bag miles.

    I run doubles before VLM cos its an easy way to build miles and frequency into my life and I dont get anywhere near 75 mpw, and doing that on 4 running days/week. PnD have a midweek 15, 12 on a Friday and an LSR so there's not that many days left to run doubles on anyway. My doubles are more like 8 and 5 and 12 and 5 at times cos its the best way of bagging miles. If I was only running once a day I certainly wouldnt be doing any 4 or 6M  runs though !.......dont think PnD would approve of my method but I'm not after their approval !

  • I might be misreading your last sentence, but the why would be that you've increased overall volume by over 15% and by doing it via doubles the extra mileage is less likely to compromise the rest of your training.
  • Thanks for all your input into running doubles.  I will follow the P&D 50/70 schedule including the doubles, running them at 12pm/8pm and see how I cope.   There are only 6 doubles in the18 week plan, so dropping the evening 4 miler (24 miles total) shouldn't have a major inpact in the grand scheme of things...... or will it!.

  • Agree 100% with Moraghan, 70 miles a week is better then 60 miles a week provided your body can take it and 70 miles with a couple of doubles (6&4) on recovery days is an easier way to hit 70 than do 10 on two recovery days.

    OK, so let me reset the problem: when does a recovery day cease to be a recovery day?

    I am getting into the swing of hard day/easy day. It therefore strikes me as odd to try to do 10 on a recovery day. I can see that a double is easier than a single 10 but I personally feel that it would compromise my hard days by trying to do too much on an easy day: maybe I should make my easys so much more easy. 

  • PMJ- it's taken me a fair while to get my head around 'recovery runs'.. From my background in lifting weights,recovery meant doing nowt. Less was more. Short high intensity workouts plus plenty of rest otherwise any progress in strength gains came to a grinding halt.  And endurance fitnes was never a factor.  But with running, and endurance being the key factor, too much time sitting on my arse doesn't do me any favours.  Weights three time a week was enough,  running three times a week (for me) isn't.

    I always do my recovery runs on my own otherwise the pace always picks up and I don't feel recovered at the end!

    Hi Moraghan,  just read the 'Pzitfinger 15 years on' article. The P&D schedule has two MLR per week, plus the LSR..  So would it be more benificial to split one of the MLR into a double day, rather than just drop it, so as to keep the milage up?  I have been prone to the odd injury and am the wrong side of forty.

  • Following P&D 55-70mpw last year, I did doubles on Tuesdays and Thursdays for various weeks, just 4-6m in the evening on the way home from work. I found it really easy, and a very good way to recover from harder sessions. In fact, so easy did I find them that I probably did  them too fast. No surprises there, then.

    I would totally recommend them, unless you're feeling tired. As always, listen to your body. But I will definitely be doing them this time around, too.

  • Moraghan - fair point, maybe they would then !

    PMJ - the hardest thing about marathon campaigns is making the training time day after day, week after week. It becomes more about finding time than effort, the easy runs are indeed easy and are boring. If I was only running once a day an easy day would be something like 8M even 10M. So 3 easy runs is adding ~25 to 30M/week, but I like the impact miles of doing two runs a day so if the 3 (?) easy days became something like a 4+6, a 10 and an 8 +4 look at the amount of impact miles and frequency..........but I guess that if you are putting in hard running days then you have to be careful. However there are quite a few weeks in the build phase where there doesnt need to be much hard running at all, and the hard running can be included later. I would chase miles and frequency over hard running esp in the build phase.

  • Love these debates.  I used to be in the slow miles are junk miles camp - and therefore never did recovery miles, or slow miles or doubles etc - as I felt that all I needed was 3/4 hard sessions a week and I would rest all the other time.  Now I am trying to do 60 miles per week and doing a couple of doubles a week (Comrades is target) - I am doing lots of very slow runs in the 8.30-10.00 camp.  I am doing this as (a) For me it is the lowest risk way of increasing mileage (b) I think these runs are really beneficial physiologically (c) I can only run (and only really want to run) 5 days a week so I need to do doubles (d) I have been doing lots of reading on Hadd base training which is all based on running to HR, and in the early stages running slowly.

    I have to say though I never lace up the shoes for less than 7 miles - just do not see the point and cannot be arsed to get all ready...(only exception might be interval training but I am not doing that at the moment)

    For me this week to date has been 9 mile tempo yesterday (3 slow, 4 quick, 2 slow), 10 miles in at 80% this morning, then I will do slow 8 miles home tonight at probably 9/9.30 per mile and I am expecting that will leave me refreshed to do some hills, an LSR and a recovery the rest of the week to hit 60+ for the week.

    Dreadmill running - I love it!! I do every other LSR on the dreadmill. Always at 1.5% incline. But I love just switching off and running on the dreadmill, no earphones, no music, just me and the monotonous noise - think my longest dreadmill run is 3 hours 15 - but regularly do 2.45 or so.  Luckily I am a member of a big city gym with 000s of dreadmills so everyone ignores me!! I think from all the comments I must be mad though!!!

    Jezza_B - Have you every read - 'Run Less Run Faster' - I loved it and sounds like your sort of plan...

    BOTF - very sensible and right call - ditto Joolska - you have done the work

    Minni - T-shirt and shorts - wow, I really am a Southern softy, I am in running tights, thermal t-shirt, even got the headband and gloves out the other day!!

  • I've never done a high mileage to warrant doing doubles - or at least no need to do them. My body doesn't seem to cope with 50+mpw. In my last mara campaign, I picked up an injury after 2 or 3 weeks in the low 50s. e.g. 4M recovery / 14M MLR / Rest / 10M inc. 6M @ HMP / 4M / 20M LSR / Rest. Maybe that's too many 10M+ runs for a 52M week? Paradoxically, I'd need to do more overall mileage (say 60M per week) to make the 20M LSR 33% of my total? If I stick rigidly to the no more than one-third rule, then I shouldn't do more than 17.3 miles for the LSR. Oh well, I don't have to worry about that for a good while yet.
  • X-post - Rat. Maybe the answer for me would be the same. More slow miles will allow my body to adapt to the higher mileage. Just worried that I will eventually blow up again!
  • Gul - Think it would make sense - looking at your schedule - IMHO it looks quite tough for an average week as you have an MLR and an LSR in there and a tough tempo run, and not much recovery runs.  If you reduced your MLR by 5/6 miles, and increased each recovery run by 4/5 miles, you would end up with more miles, but less stress on your body I think. However I do think we are all different - and what works for us all will be different....
  • I used to never run recovery runs.  I couldn't see the point in going out and doing 3 slow miles so would either ditch it or make it into a 5 or 6 miler. Now they form an important part of my weekly schedule and I really feel the benefit of them and I'm starting to include more.   I remember reading, or being told, that you should feel better at the end of a recovery run than you to at the start and I wasn't convinced if I'm honest, but that's they way it is with me now. 

    I followed the P&D up to 55 miles in the Spring and really felt it when I hit the higher mileage weeks but now I'm regularly running closer to 50 miles each week and have found I'm less tired with the constant weekly mileage.  Last week I hit 62 and don't feel any worse for it so I'm hopeful that I can maintain a much higher mileage in the Spring - and most of that will be easy running. 

    Rat its bliddy freezing here now! 

  • I started to do recovery runs a couple of campaigns ago, and I found they really helped, especially as I usually had a speed session due the next evening after the recovery. Didn't do one last night though - I took one look at the weather and completely bottled it.
  • Weather here is minging.  I ran in the rain and howling wind last night and not looking forward to having to do that again today!  Sports massage tonight.
  • Weather was lousy here this am too - bitter cold wind and colder rain.  Sun came out as I finished my 5m!

    The Rat wrote (see)

    Dreadmill running - I love it!! I think from all the comments I must be mad though!!!

    Jezza_B - Have you every read - 'Run Less Run Faster' - I loved it and sounds like your sort of plan...

    yes Rat, you clearly are mad.  Entering Comrades is all the confirmation necessary imo.  Thanks for mention of book - haven't read it but from looking at reviews sounds like Firman First, which I've always thought made sense.  Still do, but think it might be time to try the slower, longer approach for a change

  • Interesting debate about doing doubles. We are getting a wet/shower room installed here so hopefully after Christmas there will the “option” for me to run into work - wouolod then obviously have to run home again! Got a question, would you use a double run day on a Monday (4 miles am & 6 miles pm) if you had done a 18/20 mile LSR the day before? I think morghan ahs said before that anything over 5 miles is not a recovery run, so would the fact that ahveing done a 4 in the morning, 6 miles (or more ) in the evening would be okay? It's all very confusing. Might just stick to 1 run a day at this rate.

    Went out last night in the gales and wind for a gentlee 6.75 miles - loving this winter weather!

  • Jezza_B - Indeed it is the Firman stuff...I loved it and it really helped me early on - am now going for higher mileage approach so have had to slow slow down, and have cut out intervals for a while as I know they are injury issue for me...

    KR - I hate this weather!! Not sure what Moraghan would say - but I am not convinced that anything over 4 miles cannot be a recovery run - I often run 7.5 miles home and run very slowly 9-10 minute miles, and I always feel better at the end of the run than I started, and always feel better the next morning having done the run than not - so to me feels like it is a recovery run....

Sign In or Register to comment.