The never ending debate - singles or doubles?

No, you don't understand my and Nick Willis reasoning. These extra easy runs are perhaps completely superflous for the end result. Maybe it's enough to do that single easy run and then rest up 24 hours to get the very best effect from it?

That's a reasonable question to which no is absolutely the answer. I had that problem when I was a kid and hadn't begun running, I had it after I got less serious about running and went to one run a day which was almost always done by 5 or 6 PM and I have it now when I'm nearly always done no later than mid afternoon.

You are of course right that the majority of other runners look at what the absolute best runners do and try to copy it. It's human nature, to just follow what the majority of the successful runners do. Then you have those few who critically examine privailing beliefs and seek new, even better ways to move development forward.

If we get to a time when nearly everyone who wins major races, sets records, wins medals, etc. is running once a day then you'll likely see most serious runners running once a day. If the big winners and record setters begin running four times a day you'll see lots of serious runners doing that. If the Wizard ever starts getting the results he's trying for it could revolutionize running. But you only have so much time to reach your potential and while trying something different might yield great results it's also possible that you'll end up re-inventing the wheel.

It sounds like a good idea to first see what can be achieved with singels and then switch to doubles if development comes to a standstill I think.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that most newcomers to the sport start off running once a day and perhaps not doing it everyday. And if they're getting results that satisfy them I'd imagine many would stay with the one run, then maybe doing doubles if they are looking to get to a higher level.

The most thing is consistency and fitting your lifestyle.

If I was a pro I would I would start with a bigger run, then do my Instagram/ franchise work, followed by a nap and a shorter run + gym stuff to get 100% of my potential.

If I was a committed amateur I would run in and out of work or run 90min every lunch break, like the Japanese guy who won Boston, to get 90% of my potential.

Now I just run two long runs and 2 workouts and get 80% of my potential.

14 runs > 7 runs > 4 runs

Just some correction there. The Japanese guy you refered to is Yuki Kawauchi and most interesting in this debate.As an amateur he worked eight hours daily at a school office and did his only daily run in the morning before work.That way he ran a 2:08 marathon.Then he won Boston marathon and decided to give it a go as a pro.He started to train doubles but after some time just got worse in races.Never ran close to or sub 2:10 again. He then decided to switch back to his old one session per day and it took not long before he ran a new pb and 2:07 at the marathon. Then some say the guy must be an outlier and his training not transferable to the great mass of runners.Some other examples of top runners in history with similar once a day training shows that this is hardly the case.

I've thought about doing something like this myself. I'm already tight on time in the am. My worry would be the 2nd run causing me to stay up late and then still getting not enough sleep. Did you feel that night runs caused you go to bed later or would you go to bed around 1 regardless?

Why don't you first try one single run pm to see what happens before you try this late double thing? And I think HRE already answered your question that he couldn't sleep before 1am whatever a late run or not?

A good point there I think HRE.By the way, where is the Wizard, the LRC expert when it comes to low mileage training?He is conspicuous by his absence in this interesting debate I think.How could he have missed this thread?

I get the feeling you might be the Wizard? LoL

I sort of answered his question and sort of didn't. He asked about when I went to bed and I wrote about when I went to sleep. Anyway, when I was doing this I was almost always done running by nine or so. The earliest I ever tried going to bed was 10:30-11:00 PM whether I'd done a night run or not.

Although I almost always come down on the side of doubles in these discussions there are some people who do really well on singles that make me wonder if the real reason so many of us who are serious run doubles is...well, that so many of us run doubles. Guys like Kawauchi and from an earlier time, Harald Norpoth do make a case for doing one run. But they are in a very distinct minority among world class runners in terms of how many times a day they ran or run. And in my own case the biggest improvements I made came from the years when I doubled frequently (marathon from 4:34 to 2:41, 10 km from 49 plus to 32:29, 5 km 15:34, etc.) BUT in 1978 I was not getting anymore PBs and decided that I really only ran doubles to get as fast as I could. I'd always preferred running once and decided to go back to just one run. I had no expectation of running any distance faster than I'd already done but actually got another brief round of PB setting on just the one run. (marathon to 2:35, 10 km to 32:20, 5 km to 15:33.)

I have tried that, or when I've missed doubles due to limited sleep/time I will only do a pm run (bc of work), and only an evening run if I miss doubles typically when its hot and humid (all summer basically). I'm still thinking about how it would work. For myself, I think I may not be able to finish my first run after work early enough to do another (and still get to bed early enough), but for some who get off early pm (or don't work), it might work well.

Hey folks! The Kool-Aid man jumps into the interesting debate. Would you mind show us a normal training week for you? Maybe I can find something in it that helps you improve fast just on singles so you don't have to worry about late doubles. Maybe I have magic power to help you out.))

There is a bit more to the Kawauchi story. He did some incredibly long long runs on weekends. If I remember correctly it was like half day long unstructured runs.

Singles until your running for more than about 70-75 minutes, then start breaking it up, except for the long run which is obviously supposed to be long. So an 80 minute run can become a 50 minute, 30 minute double. But not much sense in splitting a 60 minute run.

So someone running 7 minute pace would get up to a 10 mile run, but 12+ would start breaking it up to an 8, 4 double or eventually big mileage days like 10 mile 8 mile doubles, or for Cam Levins 12 mile 10 mile doubles or even triples.

The exception to this is if you're training for a marathon and you incorporate the 'mid week long run' and do a 90-100 minute run in the middle of the week and your long run is 2-3 hours.

I've found huge value in doubling at a variety of weekly mileages. You don't need to be running 10 miles a day in one run to start doubling.