How important is a long run? (Read 1166 times)

Nobby... Nice to see the response. What do you feel is the best way to "BALANCE" the training when doing high mileage? thanks j

Man, I feel like I opened up a can of worms... Jayr: It all depends on your current fitness level, background of training, what race you're training for, where you are in terms of your over-all development program, and your strengths and weaknesses. Quite blantly, first of all, when we talk about high mileage, that means you're not racing during that period; your goal is to elevate your oxygen uptake level without creating too much shuffling action. Specifically, I'd say something like you'd do one long run on weekend, maybe a medium long run mid-week; perhaps one day of what Jack Daniel would call "cruise interval" or some tempo run... Including lots of hills would help. When I first moved to the US, I could see MY problems. I included one day of hill training (pretty much original Lydiard hill circuit) to my "build-up" phase. If you are one of those people who want to race quite frequently, you should then include some race specific workout but not to the point where your long runs would start to suffer. It also depends on the background of your training which would lead to the next point...

Thanks Nobby for posting that Earlier on this year while training for my 2nd marathon read in a few places by respected coaches about capping the long run at 2½-3 hours. For me that is about 15-18 miles. I remember having discussions with others they would tell me i should do 20 miles even for confidence. Its an arguement that still divides people. Well i didn't run 20 miles longest i did was 18 just the once, but still took 43 minutes of my first time only difference i ran more miles over the weeks and months beforehand but not as many long runs (i did run long for me) as other marathoners So i agree with everything you said there. and will do the same next time

Pammie: I don't have any intention, however, of souding like I'm actually against doing twice or three times of 20-milers. I'm sure whoever started saying this "3 X 20-miler" deal must have had a good reason for it. Now, originally what and how he/she said it I'm not sure. If the intention was to say something like "Before you attemp to run a marathon, you should have done at least three 20-milers (in whatever the time span it might have taken)", then I'm more opt to agree. If this person tried to come up with some sort of a formula like "between 3 and 6 weeks before your marathon, you should have done 3 X 20-miler...", well, I'd more likely to disagree. I think far too many beginners would get "too tired" trying to complete such a formula. I absolutely believe they'd be better off if they do it maybe just once. Now, in your case, however, you've already run a marathon. That's got to be somehting to be accounted for. In other words, you may have been able to get away with "building up from the get-go". I don't know how long between those marathons or what kind of program you did for the first one and the most recent one. But you may come to the point, somewhere along the way, that you may want to consider building up a decent foundation again. In other words, just because you did really well with no long run at all (after you've built up and run a marathon already); that may not be the simpliest winning formula either.

I don't know if you've seen it Nobby, but the runners from the Hanson Brooks distance project post their training logs. You don't see any 3-hour runs. Going back to July, Brian Sell's longest is 2:25. What you see, though, is consistency. Day in and day out. Lots of easy runs in the 75-90 minute range. http://www.hansons-running.com/odp/logs.htm I remember Mary at CoolRunning and her spiel about the need to run 4 hours every other weekend. She never could justify it, except to say it worked for her -- but it really didn't because she'd only run a handful of marathons in 30 years and bonked on all but one or two. Good times. I think McMillan has a RunningTimes article in which he suggests a couple superlong runs. He recognizes earlier the benefit of consistency, though. http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=11725&PageNum=3

As I alluded to earlier, for some of us, the long run is the fun to live for - at least on trails. BUT it definitely needs a supporting cast - both in terms of current volume and time at prior volume. I recognize that many marathon pgms suggest a max long run of 3 hrs or something along those lines - and not sure where that idea originated (I have my hypotheses). But if you get into ultra running, which is usually on trails, most normal folks consider their long runs to be at least 4 hrs and may reach 8 hrs - several times before a race. 4 hrs, from what I've been told, is when the endocrine system starts adapting to running longer. Keep in mind these are usually up and down hills so there's lots of variety in footing, but one does have long downhills. Are these different species of humans or do they train differently? Following on Nobby's comments about many elites doing 30 miles and being a matter of training, I'd definitely agree it's a training issue. For some perspective on volume and long runs, take a look at these two blogs. One guy was 3rd at Miwok 100k and 1st at Wasatch 100 mi (4th fastest time in race history) this year. The other (currently injured) won LT100 the last 2 yrs (missed this year). http://akrunning.blogspot.com/ (Goeff Roes) http://www.antonkrupicka.blogspot.com/ Kyle Skaggs just whacked 3 hr off course record at Hard Rock 100, but he's so low key, I don't think he even has a blog. He just runs. But look at how long they maintain those volumes and long runs. If they do any "speed" work, it's usually embedded in another run. They basically run - and run lots - up and down hills in the mountains. Some of these younger ultra runners, like Skaggs and Krupicka, have been referred to as the running equivalent of ski bums. Contrast that approach with Matt Carpenter, who trains more traditionally and whacked a bunch of time off LT100 record a few years ago. He doesn't like the super long long runs, but runs back-to-back longish runs. http://www.skyrunner.com/story/2005lt100.htm From my own experience, the first year I trained for a 38-miler (part of 50 miler), I struggled with the volume and long runs - partly because I was increasing both faster than I had in the past, but wanted to run 60k the year I turned 60 - and I'd been working toward it for several years. (marathons weren't convenient and require more travel, so didn't use one as stepping stone beyond 15 mi race). I barely got 2 runs in the 7-8 hr range when it had been suggested to have 3. I struggled to get to 38 mi as my hips were tightening. I was a bit sore and dead legs after the race, but not too bad. This year I kept the 3-4 hr long run (sometimes on snowshoes) every 2 wks or so through much of the winter, esp. after Dec, but I was considering a winter ultra, but decided not to do it. When the roads were safe in the mountains, I started adding hills. Evenutally I ended up with four 8-hr runs (25-29 mi, 4500-5000 ft of up and similar down) between May 25 and July 7 - every 2 wks. They gradually got easier, although never really easy. Uphills were frequently walked, all downhills were run. The 4-hr run 3 wks out seemed like a piece of cake. Besides the long run (about 40% of 2-wk volume, my microcycle), I usually had 3 workouts in a 2-wk period, 2 of them with hills, which supported the long run. This year, I had no problems getting to 38 mi about 1.4 hr earlier (about 11.5 hr) than last year and got to 42 mi by the 13-hr cutoff. My legs were barely tired or sore the next day and probably could've run in a few days, but had some hiking chores to do first. I need to get faster to finish the 50-mi race. This race has no aid stations for the 38-mi of trail, so we need to carry food and water with us, although water can be refilled at streams - so it's not like tooling along on a flat road with water being provided every 3 mi. My biggest weakness is being slow running downhill in mud since that takes me longer than run/walking uphill. Specificity in training. I would structure my training differently next year - not because I felt that what I did this year didn't work, but because I feel like with this level of training, my body can tolerate more intense work now. It couldn't handle that much last year, but this year - after a year at near similar levels - it can tolerate a lot more. And that's for a 61 yo female. Post-race, most of my runs have been a bit faster and stamina a bit better as I prep for a 13 mi race (that starts with 3000ft up in 4 mi) - and no 8-hr long runs. My point is that if someone, even slow people, want to train long, esp. on trails, these things can be built up to given enough time. Even though I'm slow. fast people may train with similar long runs, just because their races may be 15 hr to 48 hr or multi-day. Tim Tweitemeyer uses something like 8-hr long runs for race prep, and he's run WS100 under 24 hr for 25 yrs and won it 5 or 6 times. Would I suggest a new runner with 20mpw base do a 6-hr long run on asphalt so the marathon wouldn't be that painful? No. But if I were anticipating taking 6 hr for a race, I'd probably build my volume over years to the point where it could support at least a 4-5 hr long run - and maybe a few of them. In my mind, having someone cap their long run at 3 hr (aiming for 6 hr race time) for fear of injury is just postponing the injury from training to the race - and borders on irresponsible. For me, I found I could get by with one long run of near race distance / duration / elevation for shorter races, but when I'm using long runs of less than race distance / duration / elevation (like for ultra), I felt I needed at least three to adapt to the distance.

I don't know if you've seen it Nobby, but the runners from the Hanson Brooks distance project post their training logs. You don't see any 3-hour runs. Going back to July, Brian Sell's longest is 2:25. What you see, though, is consistency. Day in and day out. Lots of easy runs in the 75-90 minute range. http://www.hansons-running.com/odp/logs.htm I remember Mary at CoolRunning and her spiel about the need to run 4 hours every other weekend. She never could justify it, except to say it worked for her -- but it really didn't because she'd only run a handful of marathons in 30 years and bonked on all but one or two. Good times. I think McMillan has a RunningTimes article in which he suggests a couple superlong runs. He recognizes earlier the benefit of consistency, though. http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=11725&PageNum=3

The only perspective I'll add here is that when you look at the logs of people like Sell, remember that he runs a marathon in 2:10-2:15. So a 3-hr training run would be close to 30 miles for him and way over the time he'd spend in a race. Even for me in the 2:30 range, typically my longest long runs would be around 22 miles, which would take almost exactly the same time as my projected race. I have only run over 2:50 three times in my life -- prior to my first marathon as I was training with a couple slower friends (22-miler in 3hrs), my first marathon (2:53), and this past Saturday (19.25 miles in around 2:50 with a friend training to break 4 hrs). For people on the fast end, a long run about as long time-wise as the race with some good quality in is sufficient since you're usually doing much higher overall volume. On the slower end, I tend to recommend capping at 3hrs no matter the race goal as I think the negatives outweigh any benefits of going longer (pounding, fatigue, recovery, etc).

Lots of great responses. So I think the answer is yes I need to start doing long runs. I like the idea of going by time, it isn't something I've done before but it sounds like a good idea of just getting time on your feet.