splitting up runs

dig dug said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a local
gym was telling me it has the same effect

They are only the same in that they add up to 10. In general it's too hard to look at a single day
without overall history and goals. Disclaimer aside, if you're following a schedule that sets you up
to do a 10 mile run whether it's your long run for the week or a medium distance mid week run the
solid ten is better in that it stresses you more than two 5's a half day apart.

--
Doug Freese [email hidden]

dig dug said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a local
gym was telling me it has the same effect ? thanks

No it does not. It will be equal wise, but it won't beat up your legs so much.

dig dug said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a local
gym was telling me it has the same effect ? thanks

P.S. It's also a great way to increase your mileage without so much risk of injury.

Certainly not the same, but maybe two may help you towards your personal goal as well as one.

If burning calories is your goal, they are the same. On the other hand while two five mile
runs will help build endurance better than one five mile run, they are not as good as one
ten mile run.

They might be better if you are training for shorter ( say 5K) runs and they may help avoid some
kinds of injuries.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"dig dug" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a local
gym was telling me it has the same effect ? thanks

From a training standpoint, not nearly equal. However 5 in the AM and 8 at night might lead to
more training....However, usually adding a second run will only help your training (in terms of
getting faster) once you have reached nearly the top number of miles you can run in a week and
handle it. Andy Hass

Joseph Meehan said:

Certainly not the same, but maybe two may help you towards your personal goal as well as one.

If burning calories is your goal, they are the same. On the other hand while two five mile
runs will help build endurance better than one five mile run, they are not as good as one ten
mile run.

Wrong again my english friend. It makes no difference as long as you go to bed with 10 miles under
your belt, your endurance does not suffer.

ray ray said:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:41:26 GMT, "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Certainly not the same, but maybe two may help you towards your personal goal as well as one.

If burning calories is your goal, they are the same. On the other hand while two five mile
runs will help build endurance better than one five mile run, they are not as good as one ten
mile run.

Quoted message said:

Wrong again my english friend. It makes no difference as long as you go to bed with 10 miles under
your belt, your endurance does not suffer.

Actually it does make a difference. The body undergoes different adaptations

as the length of a run increases. you're not going to get the same effects from 2X10 mile or
4X5-mile in a single day. Also, "miles in a day" is an arbitrary term. If you split them up, you
could do 5 AM 10 PM then 10 AM 5 PM ...now do you count each day seperately, or any 24-hour period?
So for many reasons, splitting runs up does not give you the same effect. I have run 100 mile weeks
running once a day (7 runs) and 10-12 runs too. Doing it in 7 runs is great for fitness and makes me
much stronger, but is also too hard to do every week. If it takes 10-12 runs I don't gain fitness as
quick but I can do it week in week out. Andy Hass

You are the exception, not the rule.

Quoted message said:

ray ray said:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:41:26 GMT, "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Certainly not the same, but maybe two may help you towards your personal goal as well as
one.

If burning calories is your goal, they are the same. On the other hand while two five mile
runs will help build endurance better than one five mile run, they are not as good as one ten
mile run.

Quoted message said:

Wrong again my english friend. It makes no difference as long as you go to bed with 10 miles
under your belt, your endurance does not suffer.

Actually it does make a difference. The body undergoes different adaptations

as the length of a run increases. you're not going to get the same effects from 2X10 mile or
4X5-mile in a single day. Also, "miles in a day" is an arbitrary term. If you split them up, you
could do 5 AM 10 PM then 10 AM 5 PM ...now do you count each day seperately, or any 24-hour period?
So for many reasons, splitting runs up does not give you the same effect. I have run 100 mile weeks
running once a day (7 runs) and 10-12 runs too. Doing it in 7 runs is great for fitness and makes
me much stronger, but is also too hard to do every week. If it takes 10-12 runs I don't gain
fitness as quick but I can do it week in week out. Andy Hass

ray ray said:

You are the exception, not the rule.

Other than reasons already stated, splitting the runs up has other drawbacks. In my case it
takes 1-2 miles sometimes more before I hit a steady HR at the level I desire. Spliting the
run it will cause this "Warm-Up" phase to be duplicated. In other words two 5 milers will
give me around 5-8 miles in the zone I desire. One ten miler will give from 7-9 miles in
that same zone.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ray ray said:

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 14:41:26 GMT, "Joseph Meehan" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Certainly not the same, but maybe two may help you towards your personal goal as well as
> one.
>
> If burning calories is your goal, they are the same. On the other hand while two five mile
> runs will help build endurance better than one five mile run, they are not as good as one
> ten mile run.
>

Quoted message said:

Wrong again my english friend. It makes no difference as long as you go to bed with 10 miles
under your belt, your endurance does not suffer.

Actually it does make a difference. The body undergoes different adaptations

as the length of a run increases. you're not going to get the same effects from 2X10 mile or
4X5-mile in a single day. Also, "miles in a day" is an arbitrary term. If you split them up, you
could do 5 AM 10 PM then 10 AM 5 PM ...now do you count each day seperately, or any 24-hour
period? So for many reasons, splitting runs up does not give you the same effect. I have run 100
mile weeks running once a day (7 runs) and 10-12 runs too. Doing it in 7 runs is great for fitness
and makes me much stronger, but is also too hard to do every week. If it takes 10-12 runs I don't
gain fitness as quick but I can do it week in week out. Andy Hass

dig dug said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a local
gym was telling me it has the same effect

Not identical but I believe that it is considerably better practice to do 2 x 5 miles (I'd say
rather 2 x 45-50 minutes; miles are [censored]) about 6 hours apart. Maybe you could alternate; most
days you do the 2x50 minutes, and once or twice per w you do a 1h30 run.

You'll lose more fat doing 2 x something and, being shorter runs, you reduce traumatism?

What is your source for your statement?

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"ray ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Joseph Meehan said:

Certainly not the same, but maybe two may help you towards your personal goal as well as
one.

If burning calories is your goal, they are the same. On the other

hand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

while two five mile runs will help build endurance better than one five

mile

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

run, they are not as good as one ten mile run.

Wrong again my english friend. It makes no difference as long as you go to bed with 10 miles under
your belt, your endurance does not suffer.

"steve common" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dig dug said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a
local gym

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

telling me it has the same effect

Not identical but I believe that it is considerably better practice to do 2 x 5 miles (I'd say
rather 2 x 45-50 minutes; miles are [censored]) about 6 hours apart. Maybe you could alternate; most
days you do the 2x50 minutes, and once or twice per w you do a 1h30 run.

Both measures have their benifits. Time is especially important for the new runner and I
agree it may well be more important, most of the time for the advanced runner. Howerver both
work well.

Quoted message said:

You'll lose more fat doing 2 x something and, being shorter runs, you reduce traumatism?

I disagree with your fat loss suggestion. It is a common error, and every authority who has done
the full research has found it false. First weight/fat loss, is a simple matter of burning more
that we take in. If you burn more you loose more fat.

Test consistently show that after a run the body is at an elevated rate of burning calories for
some time. The common error is to assume that this is the same total post workout burn unrelated
to the run. The results of the studies I have seen indicate that the total long term burn is the
same for short as for long runs. The body just does not become more or less efficient based on
how exercise is distributed over the day. The test I have seen used runs of at least 30 minutes.

It might be interesting to find how all this plays out if you add the effect of appetite
suppression and overall long term caloric efficiency of the body, but I have not seen any
such studies.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

Joseph Meehan said:

Both measures have their benifits. Time is especially important for the new runner and I agree
it may well be more important, most of the time for the advanced runner. Howerver both work
well.

Be sure to clarify "time is especially important". It sounds like you mean for him to run faster,
but I believe you mean he run for time, or run for as long a time as possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'll lose more fat doing 2 x something and, being shorter runs, you reduce traumatism?

I disagree with your fat loss suggestion. It is a common error, and every authority who has
done the full research has found it false. First weight/fat loss, is a simple matter of burning
more that we take in. If you burn more you loose more fat.

It's not that simple. Running boosts the meatabloism in most people, and they'll burn more calories
sleeping that the sedentary person does.

Joseph Meehan said:

What is your source for your statement?

I am the source. He may actually burn more cals in a 24 hour period by upping his metabolism.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

"feds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Joseph Meehan said:

Both measures have their benifits. Time is especially important for

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

new runner and I agree it may well be more important, most of the time

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the advanced runner. Howerver both work well.

Be sure to clarify "time is especially important". It sounds like you mean for him to run faster,
but I believe you mean he run for time, or run for as long a time as possible.

Correct, I was refering to running for a given amount of time rather than running for a given
distance, I was not intendeing to reference the speed of the run.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You'll lose more fat doing 2 x something and, being shorter runs, you reduce traumatism?

I disagree with your fat loss suggestion. It is a common error, and every authority who has
done the full research has found it false. First weight/fat loss, is a simple matter of
burning more that we take in. If

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

burn more you loose more fat.

It's not that simple. Running boosts the meatabloism in most people, and they'll burn more
calories sleeping that the sedentary person does.

Clearly your simple fact has been supported by test, however your conclusion is not. Go back and
read the part of my message you sniped out.

"feds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Joseph Meehan said:

What is your source for your statement?

I am the source. He may actually burn more cals in a 24 hour period by upping his metabolism.

Since you are the source, have you published your research?

As I have noted elsewhere, the statement you made after "I am the source." I have seen credible
research supporting. However that research does not support any difference in running two
shorter runs or a single one. It could be just as likely that someone splitting up their run may
actually burn less. Frankly I would expect any difference to be small and not material, but I
have never seen research results. Maybe you can supply your research results.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math

steve common said:

dig dug said:

is it the same to run 5mi 2x a day, one 5m run in morning then another 5m run in evening rather
than running 10m at one shot? i wouldnt think it would be the same but another person at a local
gym was telling me it has the same effect

Not identical but I believe that it is considerably better practice to do 2 x 5 miles (I'd say
rather 2 x 45-50 minutes; miles are [censored]) about 6 hours apart. Maybe you could alternate; most
days you do the 2x50 minutes, and once or twice per w you do a 1h30 run.

You'll lose more fat doing 2 x something and, being shorter runs, you reduce traumatism?

I would think it would depend on goals. Most people on the thread seem to be focusing on weight loss
/ fitness. My perverted mind immediately thought in terms of distance training - where 2x5 does not
equal 1x10 in 1 day (in my case that would be close to 2 1+hr sessions vs 1 2+, maybe
2:30 session, depending on hills, etc, but I'm not back up to these durations yet).

I'd prefer to view your "traumatism" as "conditioning" for longer runs / adventures 😉 - training
the musculoskeletal, endocrine, digestive sytems, etc. - and I'm sure you recognize this, but it
wasn't the general trend of the thread. The overall effort level of 2x5 *may* be greater, but as
Matt J. pointed out, you need to include warmup time in there.

In my case, running for 2+hrs gets a person farther off the road than 1 hr and into some prettier
scenery 🙂

Just a different perspective.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

Joseph Meehan said:

Clearly your simple fact has been supported by test, however your conclusion is not. Go back and
read the part of my message you sniped out.

Sorry, I delete all messages after reading them. It's loooooooooong gone.

Joseph Meehan said:

"feds" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Joseph Meehan said:

What is your source for your statement?

I am the source. He may actually burn more cals in a 24 hour period by upping his metabolism.

Since you are the source, have you published your research?

Yes, several hundred times, here as a matter of fact.

Quoted message said:

As I have noted elsewhere, the statement you made after "I am the
source." I have seen credible research supporting. However that research
does not support any difference in running two shorter runs or a single one.

Then isn't it irrelevant to our discussion?

Quoted message said:

It could be just as likely that someone splitting up their run may actually burn less. Frankly I
would expect any difference to be small and not material, but I have never seen research results.
Maybe you can supply your research results.

Explain please. It's not possible for them to burn less. The difference being small or large would
depend on the mileage. If they're doing 4 miles a day it'd be small, if they're doing 20 miles a day
it'd be huge. I've supplied my research results hundreds of times, here.