3 Hour Long Run - How Often (Read 2921 times)

mikeymike


    I guess it depends on your definition of opportunity.

    Runners run


    Why is it sideways?

      Is this a question of units of measure? Instead of asking if one should run over 3 hours, maybe the question should be something like this: "Should I spend as much time in a long run as it takes me to run a marathon?"

       

      That's why I referenced my performance in a hilly trail 50k, which took me 3:51. I finished 5 minutes behind Mark Lundblad, who won the largest ultra in the country, the JFK 50 miler just a few months prior.

       

      My longest training run in the 6 months prior to that effort was 16.6 miles, just under 2 hours. (I did have lots of 80-90 mile weeks, and I ran a certain hilly marathon in November.)

      Trent


      Good Bad & The Monkey

        Maybe if you had run some 3 hour runs you would have finished first.


        Why is it sideways?

          Maybe if you had run some 3 hour runs you would have finished first.

           

          Maybe so, ya troll.

           

          All I'm saying is that I was able to run a strong effort for 4 hours without doing a single 3 hour run in training--an effort that came within probably 15 minutes of any record that will be set on that course over the next 10 years. So, perhaps we can assume from that the addition of 3 hour training runs wouldn't be the "key" to completing a 4 hour race.

           

          If you like 3 hour runs, go for them. Just don't assume that you are doing them because they are a necessary aspect of training.

          Trent


          Good Bad & The Monkey

            Dangit, you are turning my trolling into seriousness:  but were did you not believe going into the race that you had trained to break the course record?  You did indeed put forth a strong effort, but if I recall, it was only available to you for about 40k of the course.  And we are not talking about completing the 50k, we are talking about racing it.


            Just don't assume that you are doing them because they are a necessary aspect of training.

             

            Agreed.

               

               

              So, perhaps we can assume from that the addition of 3 hour training runs wouldn't be the "key" to completing a 4 hour race.

               

              If you like 3 hour runs, go for them. Just don't assume that you are doing them because they are a necessary aspect of training.

              I guess not 3-hour training runs per se.  But I just looked at the runs prior to my 4:05 marathon.  All around 3 hours.  I don't think a 3:30 marathoner ever really needs to do 3 hour training runs. But for a 4-hour marathoner, the 20-milers seem to work out to about 3 hours. 

               

              I think I just gained a new kind of respect for people who run 4:30+ marathons. 

               

              Man, I need to get faster.  It's gonna be a new kind of Spring (I hope).

              "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

              mikeymike


                I guess not 3-hour training runs per se.  But I just looked at the runs prior to my 4:05 marathon.  All around 3 hours.  I don't think a 3:30 marathoner ever really needs to do 3 hour training runs. But for a 4-hour marathoner, the 20-milers seem to work out to about 3 hours.

                 

                Right but I think part of the point some are making is that the 20 milers (otherwise known as 3 hour runs) are unnecessary, even for the 4-hour marathoner.  All you can do by looking at the runs you did prior to a performance is affirm the consequent.

                Runners run

                  True.  And for whatever reason, those 20-milers didn't get where I wanted to be at all. Plus, my gut feeling is the reason for this was that I did not run enough of them (and 2 other excuses/lessons learned). 

                   

                  mta: Next time around, I will not consider myself ready for a marathon unless, 4 weeks out, I can run a 20-miler with the same ease with which I ran a 12-miler 8 weeks out.   


                  "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus

                     

                    That's why I referenced my performance in a hilly trail 50k, which took me 3:51. I finished 5 minutes behind Mark Lundblad, who won the largest ultra in the country, the JFK 50 miler just a few months prior.

                     

                    My longest training run in the 6 months prior to that effort was 16.6 miles, just under 2 hours. (I did have lots of 80-90 mile weeks, and I ran a certain hilly marathon in November.)

                     

                     

                    A good question would be "how long does Mark Lundblad run in training?"

                    Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                    mikeymike


                      True.  And for whatever reason, those 20-milers didn't get where I wanted to be at all. Plus, my gut feeling is the reason for this was that I did not run enough of them (and 2 other excuses/lessons learned). 

                       

                      mta: Next time around, I will not consider myself ready for a marathon unless, 4 weeks out, I can run a 20-miler with the same ease with which I ran a 12-miler 8 weeks out.   


                       

                      That's a pretty common gut feeling after a first marathon.  I'm pretty sure that was my gut feeling after my first few marathons.  Much later I proved to myself beyond a doubt that the number of 20+ mile training runs I did in a cycle had little or nothing to do with my marathon performance and if anything the fewer of them I did, the faster I ran.

                      Runners run

                        duly noted.

                        "If you have the fire, run..." -John Climacus


                        Why is it sideways?

                           

                          A good question would be "how long does Mark Lundblad run in training?"

                           

                          Why?

                           

                          I bet Mark runs much longer runs than I do in training. But he is also a much more experienced ultra runner, and he focuses on the 50 mile distance, which is 6+ hours of running. I'm a newbie to marathoning and particularly to ultras. I've only been at it three years. That's why I don't do many of the really long runs. I don't have the experience or the strength to benefit from them. If anything, my experience is more relevant to the newbie marathoner (it was the third ultra of my life) than Mark's would be.

                           

                          (FWIW, in reference to Trent's earlier comment, Mark put those 5 minutes on me over the first half of the course. I was actually closing over the last third of the run--though we both slowed some. Might have had something to do with the fact that miles 27-30 were straight uphill. I also beat a guy who got third at the US 100 mile trail championships the July before. He does much longer runs than I do in training, but less overall mileage.)

                            As much as I like to take opposite sides I have to admit that I can't make a clear connection between number of 20-mile training runs and marathon success. However the clearest connection by far that I can make between success at all distances including the the marathon is annual mileage. Without exception...and I have a pretty large sample...the years when I've run the most miles are the ones I've run my best races.

                             

                            Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                            Scout7


                              So a fair assessment of this thread would be that it's not specific workouts that bring success, but rather looking at training as a whole over the course of months and years.  It also would show that there's a correlation between consistency and frequency over long periods of time (which again is looking at a total volume, rather than individual workouts).
                              LedLincoln


                              not bad for mile 25

                                So a fair assessment of this thread would be that it's not specific workouts that bring success, but rather looking at training as a whole over the course of months and years.  It also would show that there's a correlation between consistency and frequency over long periods of time (which again is looking at a total volume, rather than individual workouts).

                                 Yes, and I would add that each person has his/her own desires and goals.  Sometimes on this thread, it seems like the posters are talking different languages.