123

Long run distance (Read 2236 times)

TJN


S Army Kettle run...

    I can only imagine that it is some kind of psychological thing.  I know the 20 mile wall has been built up to scare people (and maybe it should, but I don't know because I've never run a marathon).  Maybe getting people to go beyond that wall breaks some kind of psychological barrier in the mind?

     

    MTA:  I see this has been covered by those above.

     

    First ... don't anyone confuse me with a running expert ...I'm far from it.  During my last marathon training cycle, I did 22's instead of 20's and for me the psychological deal was big.    Knowing there was only 4.2 miles in that "mystery" area rather than 6.2 really helped me get thru. 

    Tim 

      ARRRRMY TRAINING, SIR!

       Srlopez, Don't think this stripes reference was wasted... I laughed out loud for real.... Not just a LOL.

       

      I even read it in Murrays voice. Thanks!

       

      Michael

      mdmccat

        I've got limited use for anything over 20 miles.  If a 22-miler takes about as much time as racing a marathon, why do I need to run over 22 miles in practice?

         

        Exactly.

         

        I figured someone would come up with some facts about damage to the body done over the marathon distance.  I can run 50-60% of my peak distance the week after a marathon, but there's a few weeks of twinges every now and then to remind me of the race.  To me it feels like my bones hurt.  You need to come in on race day with fresh legs, not recovering legs. 

         

        20 miles is more about the confidence, add a minute+ per mile to that pace and it feels totally different on race day.  Two miles on top of that aren't much different than the previous 20, but every step from there onwards feels exponentially worse than the step before (at least when you're starting out).  If you can't do 20 easily, I wouldn't attempt a marathon.  However, do a few 20's and you may peak early, think this is your new fantastic pace, and go out too fast on race day.   


        Feeling the growl again

          20 miles is more about the confidence, add a minute+ per mile to that pace and it feels totally different on race day.  Two miles on top of that aren't much different than the previous 20, but every step from there onwards feels exponentially worse than the step before (at least when you're starting out).  If you can't do 20 easily, I wouldn't attempt a marathon.  However, do a few 20's and you may peak early, think this is your new fantastic pace, and go out too fast on race day.   

           

          Here's a thought....why settle on a set number?  What I've often done as my longest/hardest run prior to a marathon is set out at a solid pace (maybe 20-30sec/mile faster than easy, 6:20-6:30 instead of easy 6:40-7:00) for 12-16 miles and then start cranking it down.  I accelerate until I am working good, this usually ends up around race-day MP (but under full pre-taper training load the effort is higher).  When I decide I have about had enough and begin to feel my energy stores waning (ie not an aerobic issue like taking a tempo run to far), I run one last fastest mile and call it a day.  So the last few miles of the run I'm looping near the finish so I can cut it off anywhere 18-23 miles.

           

          I have had runs like that where I must have been tired and I only made it 18.  I've had a couple that went 22-23.  Each time I was trying to maximize the benefit while not letting myself get tied to what, in the end, was an arbitrary number.

          "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

           

          DoppleBock


            I see no reason to go over say 22

             

            20 is a great distance - Specially if you start adding faster running toward the end.  Like run 15, then run 4@T then run 1 easy.  Or Run 8 then run 4x2 @ T with 1/2 mile recovery then easy to finish the 20.  I get a heck of a lot more out of these runs for Marathon Training then I do going 24-26-30 miles.  Of course I fo long (30+) for ultra training - Learning to shuffle fast.

            http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

            2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

             

              I actually followed Galloway's original marathon plan for sub-3:00 when training for my first marathon.  This was before he was into Gallowalking.  It called for overdistance runs up to I think 28 miles, alternating with weekends where you would go out and do increasing mile repeats - up to I think 12 x mile at something faster than marathon pace.  I found the 28 mile run to be exceedingly difficult (though it was also at the time August and hot and humid) and think I actually bagged that run at 26 miles.  I did run under 3:00 but did not find that the extra distance runs helped overly much.  The last 4 miles of the marathon were still extremely difficult.  When training for subsequent marathons, I found that runs of up to 22 miles with the last 6 or so at marathon pace or faster (fast finish long runs) were far more beneficial for racing the marathon.  I think those runs teach you how to run fast on tired legs, thereby mimicking the last miles of a marathon better than just a long slow 26 mile run. 

              Once a runner . . .

                Here's a thought....why settle on a set number? ...

                 

                Yes! I think this is very wise. A lot of these discussions would seem to lead the reader to guess that there is some hard limit of distance (or time) that all runners must never exceed. IMO that is a stupid conclusion given the wide variability between different individuals.

                 

                Beyond say 30K, there are a bunch of new hazards and concerns that crop up. At some point, they make the costs (to your training) of a longer run higher than the benefit; they may even cause an injury. But the calculus for different people can vary. If you learn enough about your response to those runs, you may be well served to make them a few miles more or a few miles less than some rule of thumb number like 20 miles.

                 

                IMO the fast finish long runs (of any length that seems "long") are in the same category. They are an awesome tool for those in a place to do them, but should be approached with caution if you don't have experience that you are ready to do them. I'd bet that some people could mess up their training with a fast finish 19 a lot more than by doing a slow 24.

                 

                It depends.

                  See Nobby's post (and for kicks, the massive thread at coolrunning)

                   

                  http://www.runningahead.com/forums/post/d067fa966a9d4e9f8bd3a3eec0f7fd16#focus

                    See Nobby's post (and for kicks, the massive thread at coolrunning)

                     

                    http://www.runningahead.com/forums/post/d067fa966a9d4e9f8bd3a3eec0f7fd16#focus

                     

                    yes, i have read pretty much every thing on RA discussing the long.  every thing by nobby.

                     

                    I'm just getting nervous i guess.  it is still two months out but long runs now decreasing. maybe just a psychological thing.

                    i'll just keep pushing the i believe buttonSmile

                    steph  

                     

                    OCD  If you don't laugh...   

                      yes, i have read pretty much every thing on RA discussing the long.  every thing by nobby.

                       

                      I'm just getting nervous i guess.  it is still two months out but long runs now decreasing. maybe just a psychological thing.

                      i'll just keep pushing the i believe buttonSmile

                      I totally understand that it's a bit scarey...  But, at the same time, I kinda shake my head, thinking, "Some guys in the past REALLY screwed up people's head..."  Some of our pred....what's the word, the guy before us kinda thing....???  Anyways, they came up with a simple formula like 3 X 20-milers when people were thinking 3-hour marathon was "slow" for recreational runner.  Now, many run 5 hours or slower and, yet, they still stick with 20-milers...  They TOTALLY sacrifice quality and go after ONLY the distance.  And it CAN be done fairly easily if you throw a bunch of walking breaks--and that's why it's so popular. 

                       

                      Master Run Coach, however great it may or may not be, is still a standarized training program.  We are talking about even more individualized program--perhaps something like "Survival Marathon Training" program??? ;o)  But that would be probably next, next, next step... 

                       

                      Yes, after Aerobic Phase, the long run would actually decreases.  But, bear in mind, quality of some workouts will go up and you really don't want to risk injury.  You should still be keeping up with pretty long run (100+ minutes) every weekend all through the rest of the program until the final few weeks even if your starting point was 60-minutes being the longest run.  I mean, let's face it, if your longest run was an hour, it's pretty big challenge to get to the point where you can run a full marathon in however many weeks you've picked... 

                       

                      I guess we felt that there are fundamentally 2 approaches to your first marathon; one is to forget everything else and go after the distance.  I mean, my wife did that for her first marathon.  She only trained 3-days-a-week and she had 10-weeks to get ready (though she was already to the point where she could run for 2 hours comfortably).  We threw everything else and concentrated on going-the-distance.  Even then, she "only" did one 18-miler and that was it.  With that kind of preparation, she did 3:54.  The second approach is to work more on well-rounded, balanced program where you'd be doing hills, intervals, tempo-ish runs...  What it would do actually is; while your 20-miler (if you do do a 20-miler) would have taken 3:30, because you had strengthened your legs, worked on your speed, pushed your VO2Max....; now you might, if you choose to do a 20-miler, be able to do it in 2:45. 

                       

                      I totally agree with confidence factor.  I mean, don't get me wrong; I'm not against super long run at all.  I can see the point of doing some ultra distance work; beyond 26.  In fact, I have discussed why he has a 28-miler in his program with Jeff (Galloway).  And we (Lorraine, Dick Brown and myself) decided to go the other way.  Lydiard had his "joggers" do a 4-hour marathon.  But he also said, if you can't run 8-minute for a mile, you're not fit enough.  So I guess we combined all that into one program.  And, while confidence could be important, having FAITH in the program and just carry on could be just as important and powerful.

                       

                      This guy from Germany wrote to us last week and he told me that he ran a 23-minute PR in the marathon last weekend, using MRC.  It turned out, to my surprise as well, he used (only) 16-week program with 5-days a week program.  Even more surprising was that he started out with 60-minutes being the longest run!!  That means he "only" went up to 114 minutes being the longest run!!  He was not a slow poke (his previous PR was 3:20 something) but he made his first sub-3 now.  He also PRed 10k by 40 seconds 2 weeks before the marathon too.

                       

                      TeaOlive:

                       

                      If you have any question, do feel free to write to me; I'll try to answer it, even with Lorraine chipping in, as much as we can.


                      I'm back!

                        I find training value in running a few marathons at slightly-faster-than-training pace leading up to a goal marathon. In addition to the normal physiological benefit from the long run, they build confidence at the distance, and your body learns better how to handle the last few miles. 

                         

                        But I wouldn't do it if it meant more than a minor impact on the following week's training.

                          I find training value in running a few marathons at slightly-faster-than-training pace leading up to a goal marathon. In addition to the normal physiological benefit from the long run, they build confidence at the distance, and your body learns better how to handle the last few miles. 

                           

                          But I wouldn't do it if it meant more than a minor impact on the following week's training.

                           

                          How many weeks out do you consider "leading up to?"

                           

                          What would be "a minor impact?"

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


                          I'm back!

                            I would do one as close as two weeks before, but then I would dial it back to normal long-run pace. A minor impact might mean skipping the next day, and maybe pushing speedwork to later in the week.

                              I find training value in running a few marathons at slightly-faster-than-training pace leading up to a goal marathon. In addition to the normal physiological benefit from the long run, they build confidence at the distance, and your body learns better how to handle the last few miles. 

                               

                              But I wouldn't do it if it meant more than a minor impact on the following week's training.

                               

                              I've done something similar, run a marathon with the first half at moderate effort and then hammer home the finish: end result about 10 minutes slower than goal time. One of the biggest values in this is direct experience. I think a lot of people underestimate the value of experience in marathon performance and then complain that random events always crop up and slow their finish times.... Umm, no.

                               

                              I'll echo bhearn's note of caution. Marathon recovery is trainable for some people and can end up being quite fast. But if you don't know what it is, plan on it being a bunch of weeks and thus very disruptive to continuous training.

                                This can be debated a number of ways.

                                 

                                -Duration considerations.

                                 

                                It's not really a long run until probably 90 minutes. I can't find the article I wanted to link on this, but to edify Trent some I'll at least link this one http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=21172&PageNum=3 where Magill mentions growth hormone diminishing after 75 minutes. I once saw a great article outlining how the body produces ideal growth hormone during 30-45 minutes of running, still does okay from 60-75 minutes, and then after that you start getting to the point where going further is a calculated risk. The crux was that going at least 90 minutes for a true long run is probably good, but over 2 hours begins to be more risk than reward.

                                 

                                There was a study conducted (usking some kind of EKG?) within the last year on ultra runners that showed they didn't take any permanent damage by running for hours on end, but combining this with other information like what I previously said will show you that it's really easy for a runner to get into that gray area where it's anyone's guess whether the run is actually helping or hurting them overall. My empirical experience for myself and what I've seen is that 90 minutes is a little low and 150 minutes is a little high, so 2 hours is a pretty good deal.

                                 

                                For an elite marathoner, that's going to mean 20ish miles if the aim for the middle ground, as much the whole marathon distance if they aim higher, and maybe just 18 miles if they aim a little lower. For slower runners, this means a much reduced volume total. When a runner reads that professionals are doing 20 milers, duration is closer to what's applicable than mileage and even still that is somewhat inprecise. But let's say pros do 20 miles in 2 hours. That means a person running a 10:00 pace should probably go 120 minutes and not over 150 minutes and get maybe 12 to 15 miles. That's what is still within the range of being HEALTHY for this individual's long run.

                                 

                                Then this runner wants to do the marathon. Running the marathon isn't healthy for these individuals (which I'd argue makes the achievement quite a bit more extraordinary when they do it). What I mean by this is that during that run obviously the risk of damage far exceeds the reward from the run. This is the case for most marathoners, but especially for non-professionals. And the problem is that the non-professionals try too often to do 4 hour long runs in their preparation when this only puts them in the risk zone much more than the reward zone for getting a positive physical adaptation from the run. This is why the Hansons will tell most runners to do 16 or 18 mile long runs (per their public training plan) and why Daniels on in a Flotrack interview said average runners should stay below race distance.

                                 

                                -Distance considerations.

                                 

                                Calorie burn is more directly related to distance and if you consider things in terms of glycogen and fat depletion and the consequential adaptations the body makes, then runs that approach "the wall" may provide a training impetus. For a generic athlete that might be around 18 miles, but for some it will be less and others it will be more depending on usage efficiency and other factors.

                                 

                                -Conclusion.

                                 

                                In decently trained athletes, the ideal duration in the risk/reward debate coincides with the duration the athlete needs to run to hit the correct distances to also impact their fueling adaptations. So 16-24 mile long runs become the norm for a lot of people depending on what kind of shape the individual is in.

                                 

                                The ideal distance is highly individual and in my opinion the cited Galloway figure is sadly too high for the runners willing to consider Galloway a trustworthy reference.

                                123