Doing a “Double:” The Fitness Industry Canary in the Coal Mine

It’s all the rage in fitness class communities, it’s celebrated, and it’s not good. I’m talking about this phenomenon that’s been brought to my attention where patrons of HIIT class studios, cycling studios, and the like will finish their class and opt to take another. 

On one hand, there’s something to building capacity and having the capacity to do two sessions, on some level, demonstrates progression.

But, what does it say about the training? 

When a proper training stimulus is written, it behooves the mover to maximize the training effect of that session with how they attack the session. You can imagine a scenario where a mover is tasked with three sets of five reps in a front squat. If the mover performs that work at 200 pounds and then repeats the session an hour later, the only proper response isn’t
“GREAT! You’ve done twice what a normal person would do!” 

The proper response is, “Well, could you have made 215 pounds if you didn’t have to repeat the training session?” 

This is at the heart of the misunderstanding of doing a “double” in the fitness industry. 

This isn’t just a strength adaptation issue, either. From a cardiovascular endurance perspective,  if we assume the training session is written well, say six 400m run repeats with two minutes rest. The mover who withholds intensity in the name of repeating the session later that day is driving less adaptation than the mover who maximizes the session as it was intended. 

When men and women are primely doing “doubles” at a facility, it’s at least a misuse of the training if not a “canary in the coal mine” for baseless training methods.