Forums >Running 101>3 Hour Long Run - How Often
Why is it sideways?
Jeff: I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. Except perhaps one thing--I feel "getting faster" should come naturally if the training (balance between stress and adaptation) is done correctly; not by trying to run faster. Many of MAF runners here can probably share the experience of maintaining the HR but the pace is getting faster and faster.
Jeff:
I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. Except perhaps one thing--I feel "getting faster" should come naturally if the training (balance between stress and adaptation) is done correctly; not by trying to run faster. Many of MAF runners here can probably share the experience of maintaining the HR but the pace is getting faster and faster.
Yes--the you know the balance is right if you are getting faster. But actually, I think that proper training does require playing with intensity, maybe even sometimes "trying to run faster." The problem is when intensity is only understood in an "all or nothing" type of way. Either no intensity or all out. Most good training sits in the middle, and we have to develop familiarity with a variety of intensities in training.
MTA: This means that the first step for the new runner is to learn the intensity of "easy." And to be able to distinguish it from "jogging around" and running hard.
Yup, hense I like the original Lydiard's effort chart of 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 effort. I mean, what else would you need? But today, most of us like to putz around with such-and-such minutes and such-and-such seconds pace--add so many seconds per mile to your current 5k pace... Auugh!! Who cares? Just go by how you feel.
But you're dead right about this; this is why I would probably recommend ANYBODY, fast or slow, to get up on their toes and do some strides one a week...or once every other week. I mean, certainly, nobody needs to try to run fast. But I really do sense many of slower people having this certain attitude...
Tom: All due respect, for some who trains 3 hours regularly (or could possibly because of that???), 22 minutes 5k at the age of 55 is not that impressive. Okay, I'm not saying you have to be impressive. But I really feel far too many people go through life settling for much less, never realizing what they really CAN do. Don't care about finding that out; fine. But then it becomes a question of: what do you want? I thought the question from the OP is: "In order to become a better runner, how often should I do a 3-hour run?"
Oh, I know its not impressive, but its faster than I used to be able to do it. The really strange thing is that, a few years ago, when I was running less mileage but at a faster pace, and doing track workouts once a week, I dreamed of getting under 25 minutes in a 5K. That was a big goal for me. For some reason, lots of slow miles has brought my race times down a bit, but I really have no idea what the right mix is for my training.
The King of Beasts
I like this information.
Thanks.
"As a dreamer of dreams and a travelin' man I have chalked up many a mile. Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks, And I've learned much from both of their styles." ~ Jimmy Buffett
"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit. "No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."”
This is probably a good place to do "self (well, sorta...) promotion". Lots of slow running (and here I call it "lots" but to a degree...) would build, as you know, good aerobic foundation. This is, as I've been repeatedly saying here, your ability to take-in, transport and utilize oxygen. You CAN get faster to a degree by just doing that and a l ot of MAF runner had experienced that--you'd be running at faster pace at the same HR. But the improvement would be quite limited. You'll still have to improve strength and flexibility in your legs; then work on the ability to withtstand oxygen debt; or, in other words, being able to sustain faster speed while you're breathing hard. You see, if you are doing way too much long slow distance, you'll increase "muscle viscocity" and your whole body is used to running, say, at 9-minute pace, or 10 or whatever. Your range of motion would be limited (restricted). And you'll have to work at it to regain it. If you don't do it for too long, wel, it'll be harder and harder to regain it especially as OUR bodies get older (I'm 50). I'm sort of relying on whatever the aerobic base that I'd built up in the last 2 or 3 years and, if I work on faster running as Jeff would suggest, I could get my 5k time down by 2 or 3 minues in 4 weeks. So this is the structure of Lydiard training. If you want to do some reading, check out: http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/al_training_eng.pdf or http://www.lydiardfoundation.org/pdfs/OSAKALECTURE.pdf and they basically tell you about what I just summarized. As you stated, there's balance to it; and there's a timing to it. So why worry about running fast during the winter when you have no race coming up in the next 3 months? With the same token, why work on going for 3-hour run when you'll be racing in 3 days?
All this, or course, IF you're interested in improving your performances...
A Saucy Wench
+1 I couldnt break a 10 minute mile until I did the long slow miles, then things started happening and happening fast. I have to start over again it seems though.My times may not be impressive, but for someone who couldnt run a 12 minute mile in highschool I will take it. I think ymmv, that that long slow base is what a lot of us need to get started, but then you have to put the work back in at key points to continue to progress. You built your foundation, now go build your house.
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
Yes. I borrowed the concepts of intensity and extension from Renato Canova, but the ideas are there, earlier in Lydiard. These are two great coaches--one from an earlier time, one from today--but both of them understood that subjective effort was the most basic measure of running. It's funny that people are always wanting translations of Lydiard's effort chart into more objective terms like pace or heart rate, but the most important skill that a runner has as he rides the thin line of effort--monitoring intensity--is precisely what is lost in that translation! That's what these coaches were telling their athletes: to train well, you have to know yourself!
ymmv, I totally agree that running lots of easy mileage is the best way to improve--I've got the log to show it, as do you. But, in my opinion, that mileage is better taken in shorter individual runs so that the runner can build both intensity and extension gradually and in a measured way, as his body lets him. Instead of deciding on a certain distance (20 miles is the common target), we approach the point of fatigue at a particular intensity, and if it cannot be maintained, if we have to slow down, then we're messing up the balance. To train well, you have to know yourself...
If you look at Bill Rodgers' training log from back in the day--he is almost never running more than 20 miles in a single session, but piling up 140 mile weeks. Now, obviously nobody here is training at the level of Rodgers, but if the best runner in the world thought that three hour runs were too taxing on his body, then why would a beginner jump into them? To train well, you have to know yourself...
To paraphrase William James, there is always a pinch between our ideals and experience. We are forced to do violence to one, and the path to wisdom is learning to butcher the ideal...
My first thought when reading John A’s original post was that it looked very reasonable, and to some extent I still do. Regarding the 3 hour runs I believe that 2 or 3 of them, spaced over a few months would be ok while preparing for a marathon. If I planned on being out there 4 hours or longer on marathon day I’d want to have at least a couple practice runs that lasted 75-80% of that time. When there is no marathon on the horizon I believe that 2 hours is generally enough, but an occasional 2 ½ hour run wouldn’t hurt, especially when preparing for a longer race in HM-30k range.
That said I have not personally done a training run as long as 3 hours during the 3 years since I started posting my log on RA even though I have consistently averaged more than 7 hrs or running per week. In fact I can only remember doing one in the 31 years since taking up the sport although there could be 1 or 2 more I’ve forgotten about. However I’ve done a boat load of runs at 75-80% of the time I expected to be out on the course for my longest races. Well, “boat load” might be an exaggeration but I count 10 of them in 2:30-2:50 range during the past 3 years, which works out to an average of 1 every 3 months.
For the most part I agree with everything that’s been said. If there was only one thing I could recommend to John A it would be to work on beefing up time spent running during those those in between days rather than worrying too much about super long runs. Consistency is so, so important.
This, I thought was one of more interesting comments and imo some good advice:
“Jeff: I pretty much agree with everything you've said here. Except perhaps one thing--I feel "getting faster" should come naturally if the training (balance between stress and adaptation) is done correctly; not by trying to run faster.”
Good thread.
I go out and run by how I feel on that day. One result is that my long run average pace is usually faster than my daily 7 mile run pace. I'll often run faster during the last miles of my long run. That's just how I feel at that part of the run.
I have friends who are close to me in speed (slowness? ) and they do not run as many miles. They include track work, and train at something approaching their 10K pace. In the past, when we raced, they would routinely beat me. From running a year of slow miles, I've found that I can run a 5K or 10K faster than they can, and they have also gotten faster. I like that a lot. Yes, I do want to improve.
I think that my main problem is aerobic deficiency. My pace in longer races falls off faster than I think it should. Using some measure like 'add 15 sec/mile and double the distance' does not work out for me, by a long shot. Lots of slow miles has helped me more in the shorter distances. I'm hoping that more of that, plus learning how to race smarter, will improve my endurance so that I can pull down my times in longer and longer races.
There are some fabulous runners on here, they think a lot about what they are doing, and they share. Is it hard to compare training between someone who can run a 6:00 pace marathon and someone like me? I don't play guitar like Jimi Hendrix or write lyrics like Bobby Zimmerman either. 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?"
i sacrificed the gift
Good Bad & The Monkey
Yeah. Sure.
But I like running for 3 hours.
I want to go out and run for 3 hours.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
Is it hard to compare training between someone who can run a 6:00 pace marathon and someone like me? I don't play guitar like Jimi Hendrix or write lyrics like Bobby Zimmerman either. 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?"
No, and no.
To the first question, the way that you compare training amongst different runners is by taking into account that runners goal, determining what kind of training stimulii are required to meet that goal, and then code each run to meet those stimulii in the desired amount.
Say your goal is to run a 4 and a half hour marathon. You first need to realize what it takes physiologically to run for 4 and a half hours. And what you will find is that beyond a base level of aerobic fitness, it is simply a matter of dealing with the biomechanical stress. Now this sounds completely unorthodox because as everyone knows the marathon as classically a race where the best aerobic system wins. Definitely true for 2:30 and under marathoners. Probably true for most 3:00 and some 3:30 marathoners. Not at all true for 4:30 marathoners.
The fact of the matter is that you cannot run at the upper end of this aerobic range, what a training manual would call steady-state or MP (though MP is a misnomer for these slower runners), for 4 and a half hours. It is impossible. The pace that a 4:30 marathoner runs his race at is beyond aerobic limitations, and much more often than not the limiting factor is simply musculoskeletal stress.
How to deal with this in training? Well we still need to build the aerobic system. We can do this with doing the large number of our runs in the 60-90 minute range, and 2 hour runs on the weekend. Maybe every two weeks one of those 90 minute runs includes some high-volume moderately-hard stuff. In the 8 to 12 weeks leading up to the race, we can do a 2.5 hour run every 2-3 weeks for simulation.
Why not run for longer? It is almost always a negative stimulus. If you run for 3 or more hours, two things will happen: Either you will get a good 2 to 2.5 hour aerobically-stimulating run, and then an extremely painful death march home, in which you will be recovering from for a week, or you will be jogging at an intensity that wouldn't stimulate your aerobic system like a real run. Why not just take the 2 to 2.5 hour run, but without the death march?
As far as dealing with the pounding, the biggest hurdle in slower runners races? It's clear that the best way to deal with this is the three words that these runners most hate to hear: miles per week. Unfortunately, miles per week is often in conflict with recovering from their epic 3+ hour runs that take all week to recover from.
Summation:
The training objectives that a slower marathoner must meet are aerobic fitness and musculoskeletal fitness.
Aerobic fitness is best met by running a large number of runs at an easy and sometimes moderate pace, in the 1 to 2 hour range.
Musculoskeletal fitness is best met by total volume, in terms of miles per week, not in terms of volume in one run.
3+ hour runs are either run in such a way that they provide no direct stimulus to these systems themselves, or provide a negative stimulus to aerobic fitness and musculoskeletal fitness in that they have an extremely expensive recovery cost.
It is not by any means necessary to run in training for as much time that it takes you to run the marathon. All that is necessary is the above. To run for 4 and a half (as our example), or even 3 and a half hours is going to have a negative effect on the overall training.
Required reading for hobby marathoners: http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4447
Yeah. Sure. But I like running for 3 hours. I want to go out and run for 3 hours.
That's cool. I like skiing.
Runners run