Forums >General Running>Optimal long run distance for 10k.....apparently zero.2 miles
according to this logic. The article follows this thought process...Marathoners long run about 20 and can go 26, therefore if you are running a half your long run only needs to be 7 miles because you get six bonus(?) miles. I decided to extend it one step further, I guess a single loop around a track should cut it for a 10k.
Clearly my example is asinine, however, the half-marathon assumption the author makes seems almost equally so. What I am missing here....why is this article not just crazy. Did I misread somehow?
Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well with my soul.
Did I misread somehow?
Yes. You missed the point of the article.
Runners run
Why is it sideways?
I like the article. For most new runners a 7 mile long run is about all the body can take without breaking down, and it's all the runner would need in training for a half marathon.
Most people put way too much emphasis on the long run for psychological reasons. Physiologically, it's not necessary, and it could be even detrimental, especially if you are not strong enough to handle the distance well.
And 5K runners should run backwards for 2.89 miles or so. Makes sense to me.
The article also mentions Mo and Rupp never racing that far before...seemingly ignoring that they had certainly done long runs in training.
(MTA: I'm just being an ass--but the article does make sense if not extended beyond the half. Long runs are, far as I know, less and less important the more consistent overall mileage is._
"When a person trains once, nothing happens. When a person forces himself to do a thing a hundred or a thousand times, then he certainly has developed in more ways than physical. Is it raining? That doesn't matter. Am I tired? That doesn't matter, either. Then willpower will be no problem." Emil Zatopek
If you think of the "bonus" as proportional, it makes sense.
I.e. 20 out of 26 is ~ .75 (3 quarters)
For half marathon you get 21.09 Km * .75 = 15.8 Km (~9.8 miles).
.75 out of 10k is 7.5k.
A Saucy Wench
If you think of the "bonus" as proportional, it makes sense. I.e. 20 out of 26 is ~ .75 (3 quarters) For half marathon you get 21.09 Km * .75 = 15.8 Km (~9.8 miles). .75 out of 10k is 7.5k.
Yes but that is specifically what the article is saying is not necessary "Of course, first-timers don’t readily accept this sort of analysis. Lacking confidence, they think they should do a long run of 10 miles--half of the marathoner’s 20-miler--"
The key words really are "if you slow down enough" Yeah, sure. I've done marathons on long runs of 7 miles. It's totally doable IF YOU SLOW DOWN ENOUGH - I wasnt even any more sore the next day (except for the chafing - f'n monsoon monkey)
If "finishing" is your goal, then really the long run is not necessary and you would be far better off with day after day of consistent miles than the weekend warrior mindset.
The problem with these articles really comes down to missing that second piece. "IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO RUN 12 MILES BEFORE YOUR HALF" is heard more than the "because then you'll be able to run more than twice a week at a shuffle"
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
Good Bad & The Monkey
20 out of 26 is ~ .75 (3 quarters)
Incorrect.
In a marathon, mile 20 is the halfway point.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Feeling the growl again
The is so much bad logic in that article, I don't know where to start.
-The title includes "BEST long run distance for half-marathoners", however what is then discussed revolves more around just getting to the finish line by "slowing down enough" than training for your BEST race.
-The Farah/Rupp example is absurd, who cares if they had never raced the distance. They're training 80-100+ mpw....probably rarely going a day without a 7+ mile run.... and being used as an example for an audience running 20-odd mpw.
-To quote, "you can never go wrong by building your total slow miles per week, especially your long run distance." Then why did the bulk of the article try to imply you can stop extending your long run at a measly 7 miles?
I can't believe Burfoot wrote that. Ugh.
I get it, I get it...people over-emphasize the long run. Then write and article clearly discussing that, which is not what this one is.
I run 20-22 miles preparing for a marathon, and 16-milers if specifically focusing on the HM. I guess I'm just stupid and wasting my time.
"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
I am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills
Seems like Burfoot's time would be better spent trying to convince people to run the race they've trained for, not some random distance that they have not. If seven miles is a bit of a stretch, why not run a 10k? Or even a 10 miler? I'm pretty skeptical that you can run a passable half when you're only up to 20ish miles a week. That you could or should do so seems to be the premise of the article. I guess you can probably hobble through, but I'm not 100% clear why you'd want to do that. It would probably feel like a death march.
Consider what the time looks like for people doing 7-mile long runs. If a new runner is trudging along at 11:30 min/miles for 7 miles, that's an 80-minute long run. Compare that to how long you'd run in an 80-minute long run.
Fair point I think. if you were to take that same person training for a marathon a 22 mile long run would take them almost 4 hrs 15 minutes. There would be those taht would argue that that is way too long because it will take too much time for your legs to recover after that run. So maybe they should talk about long runs more based on time than on distance - maybe max out at 3 hrs for a marathon and 2 for a HM.
I'm sorry, the article never claimed that half marathoners should only run 7 miles as their long run. It only noted that if we are thinking analogically to the classic 20 mile long run for marathon prep, we would come up with an absurdly short distance for the long run. In fact, Burfoot is using the absurdity of the analogy (which he himself recognizes!) to criticize the analogical thinking between HM and Marathon training. The logic of his argument employs the very absurdity that the OP criticizes!
Obviously the article could have been clearer, and the title was certainly misleading, but hey Burfoot's no TanyaS.
I'm just glad I don't make a living writing for a running magazine. There are only so many ways to say, "This sport isn't that complicated, you idiots!"
I guess I'm just stupid and wasting my time.
The first bit of actual sense in this thread.
I'm sorry, the article never claimed that half marathoners should only run 7 miles as their long run. It only noted that if we are thinking analogically to the classic 20 mile long run for marathon prep, we would come up with an absurdly short distance for the long run. In fact, Burfoot is using the absurdity of the analogy (which he himself recognizes!) to criticize the analogical thinking between HM and Marathon training. The logic of his argument employs the very absurdity that the OP criticizes! Obviously the article could have been clearer, and the title was certainly misleading, but hey Burfoot's no TanyaS.
I can see how you may see that in it, but I think you are giving too much credit for sophistication for the article. RW makes its money off simplistic, repetitive, take-the-easy-route-to-instant-gratification-and-results snippets.
In other words, you see the absurdity as a clever tool to make a point. I'm just seeing it as...well...absurd.
In the end, I'm just angry that someone tricked me into reading something from RW without warning me.