Login

Forums  > General Running  > Infrequent long runs vs. frequent short runs?


1234

Infrequent long runs vs. frequent short runs? (Read 952 times)
turboterie1
posted: 2/22/2008 at 5:17 PM
I've been trying to do a little of both.

I try to set up my weeks so I have one long run, one medium long run, and two short easy runs. I also try to keep my runs 4 miles or more so that way if I feel I need a particularly easy day, I can do 3 and still feel like I did something.

I'm not following a training schedule right now I'm just going with what feels good and what is going to keep me consistent and to help me build a good base before I train for my second marathon.

My marathon coach told me and kept preaching that consistency is key and it finally stuck after I made a lot of major mistakes during training over the winter.
Finished my first marathon 1-13-2008 in 6:03:37 at P.F. Chang's in Phoenix.
PR in San Antonio RnR 5:45:58!!!!!! on 11-16-08
Marathon coach for Albuquerque Fit

The only thing that has ever made any difference in my running is running.

Goal:
Sub 5 marathon in 2009
markb457
posted: 2/22/2008 at 6:22 PM
This has been a very interesting thread to read over. I have about 2 cents on the subject so I will throw them into the pile. I have to say that the long run is not an over emphasized part of anyone who races training program. If you are running just to stay in shape, the long run probably is not that important but if you are training to set new personal records in any distance (1 to 300 miles, for you ultra-freaks out there) the long run will help to make a major difference in your end result.

Based off of my experience the long run helps to make my harder workouts stronger (i.e., finishing the last interval of a track workout as strong if not stronger than my first) and helps to make my easy days easier.

Now in this particular case, it sounds like the runner wants to just stay in shape, well consistency will be the key to doing just that but will not necessarily get them winning any races anytime soon. If you want to run 4 miles 5 days a week at the same pace, don’t expect a miracle on race day, expecting that you will run much faster that day than any other day you run. Overall, my recommendation is to keep on running your consistent mileage but when and if you want to start training for a race, throwing in the long run will make a huge difference in the end.
Mr Inertia
Heck of a Guy
 posted: 2/22/2008 at 6:52 PM
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.



So for the 35-40 MPW runner who is running 3-5 (usually 4) days per week, would you reccommend filling in all or perhaps all but one of the days off with a 30-40 min run? I've always rested on my rest days. Do you think I would benefit from going to 6 days per week as long as the fill ins are short and easy? I know that when it comes to aerobic benefit more miles = more benefit. But for rest and recoup, do you think 3-4 miles is better than I day off?

Scout7
CPT Curmudgeon
 posted: 2/22/2008 at 6:59 PM
I think the issue of rest days is highly personal.

I personally feel that, for me, rest days are easy running. Short, easy runs. Even after races, I need to get out and do something, or the next week is shot.

Try it. If it becomes too much, then you have your answer.
Amat victoria curam.

Sine labore nihil.

Dulcius ex asperis.
HMhopeful
posted: 2/22/2008 at 8:20 PM
Quote from Tchuck on 2/22/2008 at 4:09 PM:
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


Todd,

That sounds like a plan that I can bargain for and stick to. I do an occassional 8 -9 miler and don't feel that I am spent and can go another few few miles if I had the time (wife sometimes works over the weekend and I have to get back to feed the kids Wink ). The progression/faster finish is something I have to start doing. I have a moderately hilly HM coming up in April and a hard trail HM in Mid May, So I better start running a bit longer.
Tchuck
posted: 2/22/2008 at 8:35 PM
modified: 2/22/2008 at 9:23 PM
Sounds good. If possible and if doable, it would be of benefit to do 2-3 miles slow on two other days per week. Just depends on how many miles you want to do per week and if this is feasible in your schedule. YES, even 2 miles is better than no miles and can yield a benefit. Just depends on goals and time. Sounds like you are very comfortable with the schedule I suggested which would work just fine for you and the miles you do weekly. Just be cautious with increasing long run distance and adding quality/faster running at same time. Listen to your body.
Those who try, fail! Those who do what it takes to succeed, succeed!!
cgerber
posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:10 PM
modified: 2/22/2008 at 9:11 PM
Quote from Jim24315 on 2/22/2008 at 6:26 AM:
Don't kid yourself. Long runs matter a LOT for those distances. This is a fact, not a theory.


You're definitely right... I was placing my idea of "long" into this theoretical plan. I don't consider a run "long" until it's 4 or more hours (for my slow carcass that's normally mid-20s or longer)... which obviously skews things.

I'm a big proponent of running the race distance before the race (within reason... it's probably not very useful at 50 or 100 miles because the training run is so taxing to the endocrine system). Marathons didn't become an easy distance until I started running that distance all the time. After running a marathon distance 15-20 times in a year, it doesn't become such a daunting task. (Disclaimer: I'm slow, and just running them to have a good time and use them as supported training runs, not win or place or anything like that).

AKTrails:
I think Matt Carpenter runs ultras on pretty short long runs. I read where his longest run before winning Leadville was only 23 miles. Anton Krupicka is at the other end of that spectrum. Before he won Leadville in '07 he was doing 225 mile weeks. Shocked Shocked
JakeKnight
posted: 2/22/2008 at 9:48 PM
Quote from cgerber on 2/22/2008 at 9:10 PM:


I think Matt Carpenter runs ultras on pretty short long runs. I read where his longest run before winning Leadville was only 23 miles. Anton Krupicka is at the other end of that spectrum. Before he won Leadville in '07 he was doing 225 mile weeks. Shocked Shocked


Take a look at our own JLynnBob's log sometime. He routinely seems to run pretty decent 50 and 100 mile races off pretty short training runs. Check the weekly graph. Look at the 8 weeks before his last 100k. Or before his last 100 mile race.

Of course, he may not be entirely mortal. Being a minor deity probably helps.
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
finney
Resident pinniped
 posted: 2/23/2008 at 12:59 AM
I think the answer to this question depends on a lot on the individual. I'm injury prone, so I do longer runs every second day...say, run on Mon, Thurs, Sun.

If I do more frequent shorter runs, I get fatigued and start to suffer overuse injuries. I've made MUCH more progress running longer on less days, in distance, speed, and endurance.
PerfesserR
Jazz, happy dog
 posted: 2/23/2008 at 2:19 AM
I'm the opposite (or was when I was running a lot), If I can run short-to-medium just about every day I do a lot better.
No, I don't want the damned combo special. Now quit asking me that.
AKTrail
posted: 2/23/2008 at 5:13 AM
Quote from cgerber on 2/22/2008 at 9:10 PM:

AKTrails:
I think Matt Carpenter runs ultras on pretty short long runs. I read where his longest run before winning Leadville was only 23 miles. Anton Krupicka is at the other end of that spectrum. Before he won Leadville in '07 he was doing 225 mile weeks. Shocked Shocked

Thanks. Yes, they make an interesting comparison. I peek in at Krupicka's blog occasionally, where he's recovering from injury, getting back into shape (although closer to back in shape than recovering at this point). Just shows what training for tolerance of long runs does.
http://www.antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/
"So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
Narsi
Man in Tights
 posted: 2/23/2008 at 7:28 AM
Quote from Anya_ on 2/21/2008 at 2:03 PM:
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?


You've got to be very fit to break a 25 mpw target into a two run per week schedule. It's like runnig two half marathons a week. Wow. I'd be surprised if you really could do this consistently?

If you're running for the joy of it then this target can be split up into a combination of 4-5 short and medium runs which you'll find far more enjoyable and easier on the legs.

You may want to try this is out. When not training usually used to run 28-30 mpw and broke it down as follows:-

Tuesday - 4 miles
Wednesday - 5 miles
Thursday - 6.1 miles
Friday - 4 or 5
Sat/Sat- 8-10

During training I simply upped the mileage on Wednesday and the weekend and got to 40 mpw per week without injury or fatigue.

Cheers
Bugs34
Bugs
 posted: 2/25/2008 at 2:29 AM
modified: 2/25/2008 at 2:30 AM
JakeKnight,
Thanks for bringing up XTing. I'm shocked there is not more discussion on how XTing fits into a training plan. Jack Daniels says your LR should not be longer than .25 of you weekly mileage. During marathon training once I had to aqua jog all my easy runs, running only 3 days a week. This is not the same as only running 3 times a week.

I personally try to have two runs during the week that are half the distance of my LR.
Bugs
Save Cheevers
posted: 2/26/2008 at 2:23 AM
How can there be three pages and no definition of a "long run?" More than 2 hours? More than 3 hours? It makes a difference. For my money, I generally don't want to run more than 3 hours in training (i might throw a couple 3:20s in there). The "long run" stamina benefits start to accrue after 90 minutes. I feel pretty confident about a 2:30 long run at a good effort -- MUCH more so than a 3 or 4 hour run at an easier effort.

Come to think of it, what's a "short run?" Half hour? 45 minutes?

Too many variables here.


JakeKnight
posted: 2/26/2008 at 1:02 PM
Quote from Save Cheevers on 2/26/2008 at 2:23 AM:


Too many variables here.


Good point.

But I think the original poster's point didn't really have anything to do with specifically short or long runs. She seemed more interested in just knowing if you're planning to run X number of miles per week, is it better to run them all at once in one or two runs? Or spread them out out over the course of the week?

I actually agree with your assessment of long runs, by the way. At 20-25 miles per week, assuming she doesn't do them all in one run, I'm not sure any of it would meet your definition of "long." Maybe "longer" and "shorter" was more accurate.
E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
-----------------------------
1234


Forums  > General Running  > Infrequent long runs vs. frequent short runs?

Feedback  |  Help
© 2005 – 2009 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved.