I have osteoarthritis in my knee but I’ve been able to work up to running 8 miles in a single run without pain. I’m hesitant to push further yet, but not so hesitant, as I signed up for a 70.3 for next summer. Thinking that it would be better to minimize the number of long runs, so wondering if I will get similar physiological benefit from two-a-day sessions than a single long run. Before the knee issues I was consistently under two hours for the half. The plan would be no single run longer than 9 miles in a two week period, with a two-a-day workout once every three weeks (4+4, 4+5, 5+5, 6+5, 6+6). Everything subject to change depending on the knee. Goal would be to comfortably (not walking) finish the half.
It’s not the same, but it may still work. Have you also considered a run/walk strategy in training (and/or racing)? I’d probably recommend that before two-a-days.
My sample size is N=1 and had lots of good results with no long runs other than on race day. My best marathons were no runs longer than 1:30, but I had many days that were 50 min in the morning and 1:30 in the evening. Or some days were 45-60-45 (morning, lunch, evening) but all of this was in the context of 100km run weeks (did several marathons this way in the 2:48 to 3:05 range…more towards the low range in my 20s, the higher range late 30’s). After that, never ran open marathon, just Ironmans in my 40’s. I probably would go faster on proper long runs, but as long as body parts are working and body composition is good, aggregate mileage rules.
Not equivalent, but it’s a great way to increase volume while decreasing stress on your body, better than just doing a 6 mile run and way better than being injured
.
My sample size is N=1 and had lots of good results with no long runs other than on race day. My best marathons were no runs longer than 1:30, but I had many days that were 50 min in the morning and 1:30 in the evening. Or some days were 45-60-45 (morning, lunch, evening) but all of this was in the context of 100km run weeks (did several marathons this way in the 2:48 to 3:05 range…more towards the low range in my 20s, the higher range late 30’s). After that, never ran open marathon, just Ironmans in my 40’s. I probably would go faster on proper long runs, but as long as body parts are working and body composition is good, aggregate mileage rules.’
This definitely varies between individuals.
I ran a bunch of marathons in my younger days, a fe years with Pfitz 70mpw programs that used the traditional weekend and midweek long runs, with good results for myself.
I then tried the “Hanson method” training program which cuts the long run shorter (but makes it faster, at MP pace), with somewhat less mileage. That program absolutely did NOT work for me - I bonked way earlier and ran way slower on race day than I even knew was possible for myself (despite setting 10k PR in the same training block.)
For sure, splitting my long runs and avoiding the 20 milers for ME is a big no-go. I can race everything up to HMs really well with this but no-go for 26.2
Mostly been a said above, but the mistake I think you are making is you are trying to replicate/follow a standard programme. For food reasons that wouldn’t work for you so you need to develop a programme for you
I used to include a split run day to increase volume, 16km at strong pace in the morning and then 6-10km at recovery/Ironman marathon pace in the evening. This was normally a Tuesday or Wednesday with the long run on the weekend.
The key here is to get to the start line slightly under trained as with injuries if you go slightly over there’s a chance you don’t even start, let alone finish well.
yes.
miles are miles.
lets put it this way. do you think you would be better off doing 50 1 mile runs at tempo, or doing two 25 mile runs at slower than marathon pace?
quality training is better, always.
I’ve had coaches say that doubles are worth 80% of singles. It’s probably in the ballpark. So 2x6m~=~9.5m.
…wondering if I will get similar physiological benefit from two-a-day sessions than a single long run. \
Not the same for the reason that as duration increases the physiological demand & response becomes greater. You won’t get the same physiological result from two 6 miles runs as you would from a single 12 miler.
The flip side of that is two 6 milers may allow you to actually run more total miles and there is a benefit to overall more volume.
I might recommend actually increasing your swimming, kicking while swimming and riding while maintaining a run volume that you can tolerate reasonably well.
I wish aquabikes were more popular as this would be the perfect avenue for you as your knee osteoarthritis progresses.
yes.
miles are miles.
lets put it this way. do you think you would be better off doing 50 1 mile runs at tempo, or doing two 25 mile runs at slower than marathon pace?
quality training is better, always.
If the purpose of the double run is to build weekly mileage, yes. However, if you are building for a marathon race for example, most of us need to do 30-32 km marathon long run workouts (i.e. fast finish, sections at marathon race pace, etc.) to really train the body for the demands of the race.
It’s not the same but also that doesn’t matter. 1 method keeps you running and uninjured and the other has a high to potential to cause you to take time off which has the slowest improvement path
Goal would be to comfortably (not walking) finish the half.With your goal in mind, I think it is beneficial for you to split the runs up. The best path to success is a plan that allows you to consistently train over time. If this allows you to stay healthy then go for it.
quality training is the most important. i see too many people out there running 12 minute pace 20 mile runs so they can “get in” their long run. complete and utter shit.
you’re better off doing two 10 mile runs at 9 min pace.
your body doesn’t know if it’s monday or tuesday. we like to look at this 7 day window, because that’s how our week is shaped. but our body looks at cumulative fatigue and recovery.
for the overwhelming majority of people, 20 mile runs are a compete waste of time and detrimental to training.
For marathon training I def disagree with you. For that it’s better to slog out the long run even at 12:00 pace than to run 2 separate runs.
For triathlon though it’s a different emphasis and even Im distance folks aren’t running many 20-22 milers.
Don’t underestimate the training effect of a 20 mile run at 12:xx pace if that’s your limit. It’s quite substantial and unlocks the faster long runs afterwards
quality training is the most important. i see too many people out there running 12 minute pace 20 mile runs so they can “get in” their long run. complete and utter shit.
**you’re better off doing two 10 mile runs at 9 min pace. **
your body doesn’t know if it’s monday or tuesday. we like to look at this 7 day window, because that’s how our week is shaped. but our body looks at cumulative fatigue and recovery.
for the overwhelming majority of people, 20 mile runs are a compete waste of time and detrimental to training.
It really depends on what intensity 9 min/mile pace is for that particular athlete, if well within Z2, agreed. If this is Zone 3 marathon effort, then this would be a really hard double workout day and likely counterproductive begging for an injury or overreaching. A better workout would be 6 miles slower than 9 min pace, 6 miles at 9 min pace, 4 easy, 4 on, etc. or start with less then build up.
I am told that Camille Herring, who is a super star in the Ultra Marathon running world, did post graduate work on running frequency and the test group that the type of training that you are suggesting with two 6-mile runs a day rather that one 12-mile run saw greater gains than those who did one run at 12 miles. I haven’t seen the research but was told this by a friend in Oklahoma that Camille was coaching. My friend said that she was being subscribed a lot of these two-a-days at half the distance to get to her target volume. She said it was a lot different than what she was used to doing for training. I don’t know what my friend’s personal results were from that training but two 6-miles could be better than one 12-mile run.
I was searching for the results of a study when I saw this post confirming what you have already said. I haven’t found it yet, but it was linked to something in the world of ultra marathoning, so I think we’re thinking about the same thing.
What I took away from it was that the adaptations were actually better because of the recovery principle. And the risk for injury was reduced. There was something about the magic sweet spot of about 6 hours between runs.
Now, this might also mean you can push that concept even further, which is what I see some of the US Olympic marathoners doing: a 20-24k and a 10-15k in the same day a few hours apart.
I was searching for the results of a study when I saw this post confirming what you have already said. I haven’t found it yet, but it was linked to something in the world of ultra marathoning, so I think we’re thinking about the same thing.
What I took away from it was that the adaptations were actually better because of the recovery principle. And the risk for injury was reduced. There was something about the magic sweet spot of about 6 hours between runs.
Now, this might also mean you can push that concept even further, which is what I see some of the US Olympic marathoners doing: a 20-24k and a 10-15k in the same day a few hours apart.
On the 6 hours apart to maximize adaptions, you basically get TWO meals in between and the potential for your metabolism to come waaay down (like take a knap or do low energy things like work on a computer) before coming back “up” for the next workout completely replenished.
Whether this is two runs or two workouts, go and play with it and try two workouts 2 hrs apart and 6-8 hrs apart and the latter always results in a better quality workout assuming both workouts are reasonable load.
In talks with many swimmers from all day meets, it seems like most of us like a concentration of events in an earlier session in the day and a big gap before late afternoon events. It kinda sucks when you race literally every 45 minutes all day 
yes.
miles are miles.
lets put it this way. do you think you would be better off doing 50 1 mile runs at tempo, or doing two 25 mile runs at slower than marathon pace?
quality training is better, always.
How are you defining “quality”?
Recovery times are supposed to be individual and some the recommendations you see posted don’t always seem to be right, but after my 2 mile run this morning at my marathon pace my Garmin Watch said I needed 48 hours of recovery. I laughed at that. Yes, 6 hours seem to work well for two-a-days. When I first crossed ever to triathlon I was doing an hour work out in the morning and a 30 minute lunch workout every day. I was recovered and ready to go with every workout.