1234

Minimum Time Between Doubles (Read 320 times)

    Looks to me that if a lot of people don't care for you, perhaps you should look inward for the reason rather than outward.

     

    What Spaniel's saying is that you're a douchebag extraordinaire and that if you stop being one then people might be nice to you.

       

      We've had a discussion about this before because on the one hand you are stopping and the very act of stopping provides a partial recovery - even stopping long enough to wait for the light to change provides miniscule recover vs. running straight through.  On the other hand, if you dont refuel in between you arent recovering as much as you might with a traditional double.

       

       

       

      At the risk of bringing this back close to the topic .... does anyone think that stopping for a traffic light makes any measurable difference during a run that is not a specific 'workout'?  I have a friend who cannot bear to stop at all during any run.  I've never understood it as I think nothing of stopping during an easy or long run and believe it doesn't affect the purpose of the run whatsoever.  I sure wouldn't call it a 'double' if I did 5 miles and then stopped for even 15 minutes (to, say, talk to a runner I encounter) before resuming my run.


      Feeling the growl again

         

        At the risk of bringing this back close to the topic .... does anyone think that stopping for a traffic light makes any measurable difference during a run that is not a specific 'workout'?  I have a friend who cannot bear to stop at all during any run.  I've never understood it as I think nothing of stopping during an easy or long run and believe it doesn't affect the purpose of the run whatsoever.  I sure wouldn't call it a 'double' if I did 5 miles and then stopped for even 15 minutes (to, say, talk to a runner I encounter) before resuming my run.

         

        This is old info so I haven't looked for a link, but back in the days of the Eastern Bloc countries there was talk of a philosophy they had that there should be no stopping at all because that would stop the pressure that pushed new capillaries into the muscles and thereby reduce the aerobic value of the runs.  Of course we know now that capillaries are not "pushed out" into the muscles, but rather grow in a process driven by local hypoxia stimulating VEGF and angiopoetin growth factors to drive vascularization.

         

        So, in other words, their hypothesis was complete bunk with no scientific basis.

         

        On a typical run I would not worry about infrequent stops doing anything to the value of your run.  Personally I don't like prolonged breaks during a run but stopping for a light or something, I don't even worry about it unless I'm doing a tempo or a real workout like that.  In that case, I want to be as continuous as possible.

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         

           

          At the risk of bringing this back close to the topic .... does anyone think that stopping for a traffic light makes any measurable difference during a run that is not a specific 'workout'?  I have a friend who cannot bear to stop at all during any run.  I've never understood it as I think nothing of stopping during an easy or long run and believe it doesn't affect the purpose of the run whatsoever.  I sure wouldn't call it a 'double' if I did 5 miles and then stopped for even 15 minutes (to, say, talk to a runner I encounter) before resuming my run.

           

          I try not to stop during a run unless it's necessary, and if it's a quality workout then I'll use a route that minimizes unplanned stops. But will it make any real difference to stop for a few seconds here and there? Seems unlikely, at least at my modest abilities.

           

          Besides, getting clobbered by a truck will really put a crimp in your training.


          King of PhotoShop

            Here is another take on it, from the point of view of "specificity of exercise" that when you do that second run of the double, you are not sufficiently recovered, which makes that run a bit tougher, much like the way you have to perform late in a long race.  Coincidentally, I just wrote this post on the Dallas Morning News running blog if anyone is interested:

             

            http://runningblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/specificity-of-exercise-a-distance-running-training-tip.html/

             

            Spareribs


            A Saucy Wench

               

              At the risk of bringing this back close to the topic .... does anyone think that stopping for a traffic light makes any measurable difference during a run that is not a specific 'workout'?  I have a friend who cannot bear to stop at all during any run.  I've never understood it as I think nothing of stopping during an easy or long run and believe it doesn't affect the purpose of the run whatsoever.  I sure wouldn't call it a 'double' if I did 5 miles and then stopped for even 15 minutes (to, say, talk to a runner I encounter) before resuming my run.

               

              Yes and no.  I have done enough runs with friends who need to stop and stretch out throughout the run to know that it IS different than running straight through.  It's really just an extension of the reasons behind Gallowalking...walk early, walk often and you extend the time you can maintain a hard effort.

               

              I dont think it is significant enough that I would reroute my long runs or my easy runs to avoid it and I wont call it a double either, but it does exist.

               

              My point was more to that "recovered" is a continuum, not a off on.  All doubles are partially unrecovered...that is part of the point.  But as is often pointed out 6 miles in the morning and 4 miles in the afternoon does NOT equal 10 continuous miles.   The microstops are microrecovery.  The longer the stop the longer the recovery.    I've tried to deal with the question of what is running 5 miles then stopping for 40 minutes to take my kids to school and then running 5 more.  It's more recovered than 10, it  is less recovered than a normal double since I dont take the time to eat in there.  It is what it is.

              I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

               

              "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

                When I double I tend to run at about 0630hrs and then again at about 1200hrs, so for me it is probably about 3 1/2 to 4hrs.  This isn't by choice, it is just when I get to run.  Ideally I'd start them 12hrs apart.  I guess I could run in the evenings, but Mrs Purdey does not like that idea.

                  Fwiw, my coach has at times prescribed my weekend long run as 1/2 the distance in the morning, and the other 1/2 about 3 to 4 hours later.  The first run was almost always as easy paced run (say 10 miles), and the second run also about 10 miles usually around MP (or slightly slower),or included MP intervals.  In fact about 1/2 of my long runs (not all of them) while in key marathon training last year were of this fashion. There was a rather lengthy discussion on his web stie about the differences between a single 20 vs 10/10 3 to 4 hours apart, and he explained the rationale for it.   Doing 20 miles in this fashion I would feel less beat up, but still felt I got a marathon specific workout. Steve Magness on the "Sciene of Running" has also written about this.

                  spinach


                    Fwiw, my coach has at times prescribed my weekend long run as 1/2 the distance in the morning, and the other 1/2 about 3 to 4 hours later.  The first run was almost always as easy paced run (say 10 miles), and the second run also about 10 miles usually around MP (or slightly slower),or included MP intervals.  In fact about 1/2 of my long runs (not all of them) while in key marathon training last year were of this fashion. There was a rather lengthy discussion on his web stie about the differences between a single 20 vs 10/10 3 to 4 hours apart, and he explained the rationale for it.   Doing 20 miles in this fashion I would feel less beat up, but still felt I got a marathon specific workout. Steve Magness on the "Sciene of Running" has also written about this.

                     

                    This is the way I feel about running the nine miles with my club easy, taking a social break with coffee and then running another 10 mile run, the last several miles of the second run are the fastest   I figure that this gives me a three hour time slot for a long run, I am running my fastest miles at the end of the time period when i am tired, but the break gives me some time to recover so I am not as beaten up as I would have been if I did it all at once


                    Feeling the growl again

                       

                       

                      My point was more to that "recovered" is a continuum, not a off on.  All doubles are partially unrecovered...that is part of the point. 

                       

                      It is not the case that all double are partially unrecovered, if I am understanding correctly what you mean by this.  There is no rule that running singles you are fully recovered, and doubling does not allow time for full recovery.  As you indicated recovery is a continuum, you can accumulate fatigue and get over it and the rate at which this happens depends on more than just time.

                       

                      I did back-to-back long runs this weekend so I have a couple recovery days in front of me.  I plan on doubling both of them.  If by definition doubles were partially unrecovered, it would be impossible for me to end a day that I doubled more rested than I started....but I do.  A shorter, easy run can actually help with some aspects of recovery, and if you manage your effort appropriately you can still recover through easy runs.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       


                      A Saucy Wench

                        no you are right, that sentence was not phrased right.  Just the first half I'll keep

                        I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets

                         

                        "When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7

                        JimR


                          Mine are separated by about 4 hours when I'm on them in earnest.  Mainly out of necessity but it always seems like plenty of time.

                          J-L-C


                            Here is another take on it, from the point of view of "specificity of exercise" that when you do that second run of the double, you are not sufficiently recovered, which makes that run a bit tougher, much like the way you have to perform late in a long race.  Coincidentally, I just wrote this post on the Dallas Morning News running blog if anyone is interested:

                             

                            http://runningblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/specificity-of-exercise-a-distance-running-training-tip.html/

                             

                            Spareribs

                             

                            That's the opposite of my experience. My seconds runs are nearly always EASIER, not tougher.

                             

                            The first run is generally a bit slower at a bit higher hr and higher exertion level. The second one is the one that usually "flows" much better.

                               

                              That's the opposite of my experience. My seconds runs are nearly always EASIER, not tougher.

                               

                              The first run is generally a bit slower at a bit higher hr and higher exertion level. The second one is the one that usually "flows" much better.

                               

                              If you're doing doubles then at least one of them should be an easy run in any case.

                              J-L-C


                                 

                                If you're doing doubles then at least one of them should be an easy run in any case.

                                 

                                But some easy runs are certainly "tougher" than others. In my experience (and seemingly that of many), the first run is generally tougher than the second even though they're both actually "easy".

                                1234