Once a week I'm running 11 miles to work, working, and then running the 11 miles back in the evening. It obviously doesn't feel as hard as if I did the 22 miles in one go and I don't know what to log it as on my training, mainly because the break makes it hard to compare to other long runs. I wondering what people think, should i think of it as my weekly long run at 22 miles, or two runs at 11?
I have no idea how to answer your question. But on a purely practical note (as I've thought of doing the same thing), do you carry your work clothes and other stuff on your back, or do you leave them there and take them home the next day? The hardest part of running to work and back isn't, it seems to me, so much the mileage as organising how to make sure all the right stuff ends up in the right place every day!
i think the bigger question is how does that run sit in amongst the rest of your week?
If you're doing 80 odd miles, it probably is in keeping with the week, but if you're doing 40, then 22 in one day is ridiculously stacked.
2x11 isn't the same benefit as a 22. The long run is about time on feet in a go, o clearly splitting it into 2 stops it being the long run, and instead you get 2 xmedium long.
Treat it as two separate runs. If you ran in the late evening and then ran early the next morning, you'd treat it as two separate runs even though they may only be eight hours apart.
The run home will be a bit harder on you as you've only had eight hours to recover, but this does depend how hard you run on the way into work.
Well obviously its not quite the same as 22 miles straight. But I'd imagine that for as long as you are running both at an easy pace, there should still be excellent aerobic benefits.
I'm intrigued about which of these options the OP is following
If it's option 1, that looks fair enough, with just the lost benefit from 2x11 rather than a continuous long run, which is the whole point.
If it's option 2, I'd say you've got an incredibly serious training plan to be asking such a basic question!
If it's option 3, the mileage is horrendously weighted towards one day, and looks like the classic RW "do a marathon on the cheap" technique from people adamant they can do a marathon on 30miles a week.
Which is it OP?
I'd imagine doing any marathon is a right strain, so that back catalogue of events is impressive.
Off that mileage though, as I'm sure you'll admit, you're not unlocking much of your potential.
11 miles to work, and 11miles home on top of a day of work sounds pretty gruelling!
Stevie's answered the logic that I'd go for.
Is there an opportunity to cyle to work, leave the bike and run home? Run to work and bike home? That would get a fantastic mileage in a 7 day week. I found, along with others, that 6 to 7 day training was the most effective. Is that what you wanted to hear?
I run to and from work (9 km each way) twice a week. I count it as two separate tempo runs (the first day), and then an easy 2 runs the second time (its the last training day of my week). Since I'm still only in my first year of running I consider the twice daily efforts as simply putting some extra kms on the legs, and keeping the metabolism high. I'm training for a sub 2 hour half marathon (next week in Munich), with an eye on the Berlin marathon 2013.
I carry clothes in on the days I take the train - yes they get a bit crumpled, but not too badly.
I am not concerned whether the rest of my training appears bad. I've ramped it down for various unchangable non running reasons over the last few weeks, but kept the double as it works well logistically doing it. I'm not looking at any changes before November at the moment with a marathon 3 weeks off.
My question really was that I've read a lot about pros doing double runs in a day and I'm interested in the difference between say 10 miles twice a day and 20 miles in the morning. There must be a reason for that split. I'm running the 2 runs significantly harder then I would if i did it the same distance in one go and I wondered what the effect of the faster pace with a small recovery windows is? Doubling seems to be a technique that is mentioned a lot, but never with much science behind it. Is it just time saving or a good way to get a faster longer distance in in one day? At the very least I must be burning more calories through more effort and with a bit of luck i'm pushing my lactic acid limits. Anyone seen or read any good science on it?
M Mariane - good luck with the half in Munich
Justin, forget science, the idea of doubles is simply to get more mileage in and to break up what might become too many taxing longer runs.
An earlier run often gets your body prepared to handle an evening tougher run too. Also a short easy run can have good recovery benefits the next day.
The double is always an easy paced run.
The template that fits most runners is 1tempo, 1 speedwork, 1 long run, and as much easy paced running as you can fit in.
In your week, you're doing the hardest 2 runs of the week on 1 day, probably running both medium hard, rather than 1 hard and 1 easy. You lose out on the key benefits of either type of run, and then the rest of your week kind of whimpers out,
However, like you say it's not worth changing anything before a marathon.
But i'd be astounded if you couldn't get better results with a very easy change round to your week.
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |