RunningAHEAD - Topic: Infrequent long runs vs. frequent short runs?

123 4

Infrequent long runs vs. frequent short runs? (Read 952 times)

JakeKnight view log	posted: 2/21/2008 at 10:20 PM
	Quote from Jim24315 on 2/21/2008 at 9:32 PM: I don't think the long run is overrated at all. The first book on running I ever read was by Lydiard and I remember him saying "the weekly long run is the backbone of any good distance runners program". That stuck with me and I've found long runs help me as much or more as any form of training. The problem is that a lot of beginners read that sentence and think: "Ah, ha! As long as I at least get that long run in, I'll be fine. It's the 'backbone,' after all! So I'll just get my 20 in this weekend and that'll be swell." No. It won't be swell. It'll be a disaster. This is what I mean by over-rated. The backbone needs the rest of the skeleton. Quote from Jim24315 on 2/21/2008 at 9:32 PM: Take a 25-mile week, for example. Give me a 9-miler and four 4's and I'll bet everything on the guy who does it this way against someone of equal ability who runs five 5-milers every week. Maybe. I'd say it would depend on what mixture and type of hard runs and easy runs the 5 x 5 mile guy was running. Obviously, if all else is equal, there is enormous benefit to the long run. But I'll take the 5 x 5 mile guy any day of the week over the guy that does 25 miles on Saturday and sits on the couch eats HoHo's the rest of the week. And because it is indeed so over-rated, this is what some people do. I used to be one of them. Well, except the HoHo part. I like Twinkies. Quote from Jim24315 on 2/21/2008 at 9:32 PM: That said, I would pick five 5-milers spread over 5 days over any combination of 25 miles spread over 2 days. What you said. Quote from Jim24315 on 2/21/2008 at 9:32 PM: It's hard for me to believe that so many people can't find 30-40 extra minutes in a day to get in a few easy miles on many of those days they take off. They really make a difference. That's why they are called "maintenance runs". They enable you to hang on to the fitness you developed during your key workouts and races. I don't get it, either. Skip one bad TV sitcom and you can get your 3-4 miles in. More if you're speedy. But again, this is why I say long runs are over-rated: a lot of folks either skip your advice, don't do it, or ignore it. And although I'm a fan of Galloway, I blame him and other folks with similar "plans." Some of his marathon plans literally call for a couple 30-40 minute runs and a 29! miler on the weekend. Way, way too much backbone. And the worst part is that its not that hard to understand how somebody could look at that plan and ask why even bother with those two little mid-week runs. After all, you're running 5 hours on Saturday. Why not just have some Twinkies instead? Personally, I think every beginner should spend a year building up consistent mileage, 4-6 days a week. Or more. Then start doing longer runs.
	E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com -----------------------------

Gopher Ryan view log	posted: 2/21/2008 at 10:29 PM
	Quote from Jim24315 on 2/21/2008 at 9:32 PM: Take a 25-mile week, for example. Give me a 9-miler and four 4's and I'll bet everything on the guy who does it this way against someone of equal ability who runs five 5-milers every week. Pit these two against each other in a 10k match race, I'll bet the bank the 9-miler guy wins easily, all else being equal.

Gopher Ryan view log	posted: 2/21/2008 at 10:34 PM
	Imagine two 36/mi week runners. One does a weekly long slow 16, and four 5 milers. The other does six-6 milers. My money is bet on the first guy in a half marathon, all else being equal.

JakeKnight view log	posted: 2/21/2008 at 10:42 PM
	Quote from Gopher Ryan on 2/21/2008 at 10:34 PM: Imagine two 36/mi week runners. One does a weekly long slow 16, and four 5 milers. The other does six-6 milers. My money is bet on the first guy in a half marathon, all else being equal. Of course. Assuming all else is equal. As already stated. But that's not the point of the thread. The poster's question was whether to do all of her 20-25 miles per week in just 1 or 2 runs. All else being equal, the runner who runs 25 miles once per week is not going to win many races. They're likely to not be running at all.
	E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com -----------------------------

Gopher Ryan view log	posted: 2/21/2008 at 10:49 PM
	If runner A did a weekly 12 miler and 13 miler with several rest days in between, and runner B did a 5x5, I'd put my money on runner A beating runner B in a half marathon, again, all else being equal. Same body dimensions, same V02max, age, etc.

mikeymike view log	posted: 2/21/2008 at 11:19 PM
	Quote from Jim24315 on 2/21/2008 at 9:32 PM: Take a 25-mile week, for example. Give me a 9-miler and four 4's and I'll bet everything on the guy who does it this way against someone of equal ability who runs five 5-milers every week. I agree but that wasn't the question. Both guys in your example are running the same frequency--5 times a week.

goat view log	posted: 2/22/2008 at 12:10 AM
	nice thread... I do agree that the long RUN is over rated, but if you are training for something that will take 4 hours or more I do think it's important to have some training that takes a long time. Just to get the mind and body used to activity at a similar effort level for an extended period of time. I've done some good sized trail runs - the best ones have been when I've run regularly and used half day mtn bike rides in my training.
	woooga woooga woooga!

crb81 view log	posted: 2/22/2008 at 2:31 AM
	I'm sure this has been asked before, but, here we go again. Is it better to run short runs everyday, or a long run once or twice a week ? Let's say you're shooting for 20-25 miles a week. Does it really make a difference if you break it up with small runs? Or is best to do one or two long runs? Or, does it even matter? What are you doing on the other 5 days? If you are riding a bike or stationary or elliptical for three of those days, then maybe two long runs would work. If not, then I agree with Jim. Specificity of training would say to do exactly as he said with a 25 mile limit.
	crb81 2008 goals sub-20 5k, sub-43 10k, 1:35 half, 3:20 marathon

Marcus L S Monkey Scratch	posted: 2/22/2008 at 2:40 AM
	Quote from crb81 on 2/22/2008 at 2:31 AM: I'm sure this has been asked before, but, here we go again. Is it better to run short runs everyday, or a long run once or twice a week ? Let's say you're shooting for 20-25 miles a week. Does it really make a difference if you break it up with small runs? Or is best to do one or two long runs? Or, does it even matter? What are you doing on the other 5 days? If you are riding a bike or stationary or elliptical for three of those days, then maybe two long runs would work. If not, then I agree with Jim. Specificity of training would say to do exactly as he said with a 25 mile limit. This depends on what you're training for if anything. If you only do shorter races like 5 and 10K, then I say stay with more frequent shorter runs. But if you have 1/2 marathon or longer ambitions you need to work in at least one longer run every 10 days at least. If you're not racing then I have no idea.
	all you touch and all you see, is all your life will ever be Obesity is a disease. Yes, a disease where nothing tastes bad...except salads.

cgerber

view log

posted: 2/22/2008 at 4:45 AM

I agree that it depends on what you're training for. At HM or lower, I probably doesn't matter much. At 50k, 50mile, or 100 miles, it matters a LOT! The long run is absolutely key for longer events... you'll fail miserably without them.

Another thing to consider is that recovery days are as important as the quality training days. The body gets stronger during the off days/recovery days. If you can't run your easy days VERY EASY (and most people run their easy days way too hard), you'll do more harm than good.

My $0.02 from a not-so-speedy-guy-anymore who runs LONG distances.

- Chris

Jim24315 view log	posted: 2/22/2008 at 6:26 AM
	Quote from cgerber on 2/22/2008 at 4:45 AM: At HM or lower, I probably doesn't matter much. - Chris Don't kid yourself. Long runs matter a LOT for those distances. This is a fact, not a theory. and mikeymike, regarding: "I agree but that wasn't the question. Both guys in your example are running the same frequency--5 times a week." You got me. I should have abstainted--I hate both options. Running only once or twice a week sucks, and so does omitting the long run.
	Masters PR's: 40's - 5k 16:39; 10k 33:48, 10m 56:25, HM 1:15:27, Marathon 2:43:12 50's - couch potato 60's - 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33

AKTrail	posted: 2/22/2008 at 7:45 AM modified: 2/22/2008 at 7:54 AM
	Quote from Jim24315 on 2/22/2008 at 6:26 AM: It's hard for me to believe that so many people can't find 30-40 extra minutes in a day to get in a few easy miles on many of those days they take off. Not sure if it's a time issue or if folks need recovery time when they're first starting. And for some of us that are running mostly on snow, "easy" may not be that easy, especially when new and feet / ankles are still strengthening. Quote from Jim24315 on 2/22/2008 at 6:26 AM: Don't kid yourself. Long runs matter a LOT for those distances. [reference to HM and shorter by cgerber] This is a fact, not a theory. I think it depends on what you consider a long run. Many folks can finish a half in 2 hr or less (not me). Many people (including me) run 1-2 hr for their normal runs, and long or intermediate runs are 3 hrs or more. I noticed in your log that you have some hill runs that are longer than your long runs and many runs that aren't that much shorter than your long runs - certainly adequate to finish a HM, even if not racing the distance. Some folks describe long runs as runs 30% or more longer than your normal runs. Some describe them as 17 mi or more (iirc). Some as runs longer than 4 hrs. For someone new to a distance, the long run is definitely helpful. When I was new to 6-8 mi, those were my long runs and 3-4 miles were my normal runs. Now 4-6 mi are normal (probably longer if not for snow and hills), and I'd be looking at tempo and hill runs for 6-8 mi races, not long runs. But long runs of 6-8 hrs are essential for my goal race now, since I'll be on my feet 13+ hrs (if I were faster, I'd get done sooner, but ain't happenin' for awhile. ). For Chris and you, a HM and shorter probably doesn't require long runs. For others it does. But when you get into ulltras, long runs by anyone's standards are pretty essential except for a few people. (I understand Matt Carpenter trains about 2 hr/day - every other day "hard" - and his long runs might be about 3 hrs, but maybe they're longer. Not sure if Chris knows.) I have heard of one person who does only run once a week - and runs long. He survives his ultras, but he's been doing it for awhile.
	"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

Tchuck	posted: 2/22/2008 at 4:09 PM
	Quote from HMhopeful on 2/21/2008 at 5:25 PM: Warning - Thread hijack I too have this nagging feeling that I am not putting in the long run, but with two small kids , I never seem to have the time to do a run longer than an hour. I have a couple of Half marathons coming up this spring, and wondering if it is better if I drop a couple of running days and go on a 2 hour run on the alternate weekends. My longest run so far has been a 10 mile race in November. So the question is, is it better to do 6 X 5-6 miles/day for a total of 30-35 miles/week or do 3 X 5-6 miles/day and a 10 -12 mile long run for a total of 25-30 miles/week (tell me if I am over thinking this). At my current speed I dont think I can go longer than 12 miles without it affecting my "running privileges" Race distance is a factor. For a half marathon, you need the long run for best race time. To race 13 miles and never run longer than 6 miles in training isn't the way to go. The race will be a shock and you won't know how to handle being on your feet so much longer. I would vote for option 2. With option 2, this would give you best results. Day 1 5 miles comfortable Day 2 6-8 w/ progression run finishing last couple miles at goal pace (be reasonable) or 3-4 miles faster (within the run Day 3 5 comfortable Day 4 10-12 w/ faster finish
	Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!

Jeff view log	posted: 2/22/2008 at 4:14 PM
	The long run is a workout, not a training plan.
	a vagabond,..highway-beater; a rolling stone, one that does nought but runne here and there. ~Cotgrave, Randle A dictionarie of the French and English tongues, 1611

Scout7 view log CPT Curmudgeon	posted: 2/22/2008 at 4:19 PM
	Quote from Jeff on 2/22/2008 at 4:14 PM: The long run is a workout, not a training plan. What he said. It's no more or less important than any other workout.
	Amat victoria curam. Sine labore nihil. Dulcius ex asperis.

123 4