X

The Pros and Cons of Running Once or Twice a Day

In 2011 I spent a few months living in a run-training camp in Iten, Kenya. I was surrounded by some of the best runners in the world and had the chance to see what life was really like for aspiring athletes living in a typical Kenyan training compound. I lived in a compound owned by James Kwalia, a Kenyan-born athlete now running for Qatar, who has personal bests of 7:28 in the 3k and 12:54 for the 5k. Much of the training that the group did was based on the trickle-down of information from his own training regime. That meant that the daily routine of the athletes at the camp was fairly simple and uniform, but also very intense.

During the week, the first morning run took place around sunrise. It was a comfortable effort lasting anywhere from 30 to 60 minutes and would frequently end with a pace build-up. After tea and a small breakfast, the group would head to the track for another higher-intensity workout in the late morning. Then in the evening, there would often be another run similar to the morning when athletes would add extra running volume to the day at a very comfortable pace.

At the time, I was surprised to see athletes training with this kind of schedule. It was so wildly different than what I was used to, especially when it came to the frequency of runs during the week. Watching this kind of training in action made me consider one of the longstanding debates in the running world: the pros and cons of one run versus two (or three in their case) per day.

Since that time in Kenya, I have had a lot more coaching and running experience, but I still have not fully decided where I stand on the singles-versus-doubles debate. There seem to be positives and negatives to each. Let’s break those down with a focus more on real-world application and see if there might be an answer.

Runners training in Iten, Kenya. All photos: Alex Nichols

The Benefits of Singles (One Run Per Day)

  • One longer run provides a sustained training stimulus that enhances endurance adaptations.
  • Long efforts can be especially important to train the gut and develop a nutrition strategy for race settings.
  • Adapting to the psychological stress of a longer run would better prepare a runner for a longer race.

The Benefits of Doubles (Two Runs Per Day)

  • Time between runs allows for rehydration and glycogen replenishment, enhancing recovery.
  • With better hydration and fueling, the quality of the runs could be improved.
  • A busy work schedule may allow for two shorter runs during the day more easily than one longer run.
  • A runner could increase weekly volume more easily with extra runs during the week.
  • Short, easy runs can increase hormonal response and help with recovery from other higher-intensity workouts.

The Drawbacks of Singles

  • One longer run could create more stress on the body and increase the chance of injury when running form breaks down.
  • One longer run requires a longer unit of time during the day.

The Drawbacks of Doubles

  • Increasing weekly volume may be too easy, and lead to overtraining injuries.
  • Multiple shorter runs are less specific training for long-distance running.

James Kwalia.

Surprisingly there has not been much research on this topic, which is probably why the debate rages on. One book has provided several theoretical arguments in favor of doubles including increased growth hormone response (1). A laboratory study found that there was no increase in VO2max for two participant groups who were training once or twice per day when the overall volume was the same (3). In a study using mice, researchers found that mitochondrial and capillary development was similar between continuous exercise and discontinuous exercise groups (2). These studies would seem to indicate that both methods, singles and doubles, create similar physiological improvements.

So what does this all mean in the real world? Obviously we aren’t mice, and we also don’t live in a laboratory. In my experience, I have found doubles to be a helpful addition to my training plan when I need to get extra volume in during the week, but I have other commitments that get in the way of one longer run. I have also found that splitting my total running time into morning and evening runs has allowed me to benefit from food and fluids during the course of the day, and made my second run more enjoyable.

However, if I am in a building phase of my training, I try to avoid doubles to make sure I am not overdoing it. I also think there is no substitute for big long runs when preparing for a long-distance race like a trail ultramarathon. The benefits of a true long run just can’t be duplicated with two shorter runs, even if the distance is the same.

I think both singles and doubles have their place. Doubles are a great way of getting in some more volume while feeling good, but they can never replace the benefits of singles. When scheduled correctly, I don’t think there needs to be an argument for or against doubles or singles. Adding in a few easy doubles during the week can be a comfortable way to maintain a high volume of training. When those days are supplemented by a race-specific long runs to improve endurance, increase psychological toughness, and practice fueling, we can develop realistic and beneficial training plans.

These days, when I think back to those runners I got to know in Kenya, I realize that they were really just doing what worked for them, which is the most important aspect of this whole debate. There weren’t coaches out there on the dirt roads telling them to do their evening run at 11:00-minute-mile pace. Those runs were slow and easy because that is what the athletes felt like doing. In order to balance intensity and volume, they would run slow when their bodies were tired, and drink tea when they needed a quick boost of energy between workouts. It is a nice reminder that there is no perfect training plan for everyone, and deciding the “ideal” training frequency for all runners neglects the fact that we are all very different people with different lives. What works for one person might not work for another, but we can at least try out new things and see if they make sense for us. So give doubles a chance if you haven’t, or try sticking to singles if you’re a frequent doubler. Each of us is an experiment of one!

Call for Comments

  • What pros and cons would you add to or emphasize from these lists?
  • Do you generally run once or twice per day? Can you share your reasoning behind that choice?

References

  1. Magness, S. (2014). The science of running: How to find your limit and train to maximize your performance. San Bernardino, CA: Origin Press.
  2. Malek, M. H., Hüttemann, M., Lee, I., & Coburn, J. W. (2013). Similar skeletal muscle angiogenic and mitochondrial signalling following 8 weeks of endurance exercise in mice: Discontinuous versus continuous training. Experimental Physiology, 98(3), 807-818.
  3. Mostardi, R. A., & Campbell, T. A. (1981) Effects of training once vs. twice per day and improvement in maximal aerobic power. Ohio Journal of Science, 81(5), 207-211.

Training in Iten, Kenya.

Alex Nichols: coaches at Colorado College as well as at Trails and Tarmac. He's a graduate student pursuing his master's in Sport Coaching at the University of Denver. On the trails, Alex has won the Pikes Peak Marathon, Mont Blanc 80km, and Run Rabbit Run 100 Mile; he holds the supported Nolan’s 14 record; and he's fallen on his face roughly a million times. He's supported by SCOTT Running and Honey Stinger.

View Comments (7)

  • Alex,

    You might want to visit with Camille Herron she did her thesis on enhancing bone recovery with whole body vibration training. If memory serves me she concluded that multiple runs per day were better for the skeletal system.

    Henry

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

    • Sounds really interesting Henry. Seems similar to the increased growth hormone argument that comes from multiple runs. I'd be curious to learn more about the participants in her study - gender, training background, age, sample size, etc. There are just so many variables. I think that's one of the reasons this debate keeps showing up.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

      Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

  • Interesting and helpful! Used to be a double guy, but rarely anymore as I head deeper into my 40’s

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

  • Hey Alex - long time reader, first time commentator. When I've added afternoon second runs I typically feel "bonkish" for the first few miles and tend to actually sweat more than usual. This happens regardless of how much I've eaten/hydrated after the first run. Any thoughts on why? It could be because I'm built more for hockey then running...

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

    • Jeff - Thanks for chiming in! I know exactly what you mean. I often have evening runs when I bonk horribly regardless of my diet that day. I have found that if I am able to run through the bonk, I end up feeling ok though. I have never really understood it.

      When I think of that bonkish run in terms of this discussion, my guess is that it comes down to either overall glycogen depletion or some type of hormonal response. I didn't get into it in this article, but Magness (2014) also talks about two exercise bouts per day creating a kind of overall fatigued state that leaves the person in a glycogen deficit. In that fatigued state, researchers have found that adaptations such as enzyme activity increased. To me, this is kind of a weird, counterintuitive finding, but it supports something I strongly believe in: there is no such thing as junk miles. Those miles when you are out feeling bonkish might actually be benefitting you in a different way than a nicely fueled morning run.

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

      Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

  • Great article and research thanks much. Like most such issues in our sport unfortunately, the science is just not definitive. What is the ideal weekly mileage training for a 100? Can 3 runs per week be as good as 7? The answer is that absolutely no one knows! 99% of what we get fed is pure anecdote and what has worked for a select few historical influencers. Wouldn't it be cool to see what happens if a few elite Kenyans decided to buck tradition and throw in rest days, single days, and lower their weekly miles. There is some data that long run benefit actually flattens out once you go longer than 3 hours, but that data is limited and I'm sure not going to shorten my long training runs yet, nor would I want to anyway. thanks for the great work.

    Cancel reply

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

    • Todd - I completely agree. I hope that I have conveyed with this article and previous articles, that I am skeptical of the way a single study or anecdote can often be regarded as a universal truth. One of my main goals for this column is to help people see that there is more than one way to get from A to B. I am very excited that you are thinking critically about the article!

      Cancel reply

      Leave a Reply

      Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*