Forums >Running 101>Is there any science behind the long run rule
I've been breaking the rule for the last couple months, with my long run sometimes being 50% of my weekly. But I never met a rule that I didn't want to break.
Also, Dean is my spirit animal.
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
Thanks, DavePNW and mcj001. I did my long runs about 30 seconds slower than marathon pace. I often find myself just inching up the pace and running in a zone, usually somewhere close to race pace. I guess it could be too fast a pace for me for the distance. L ran my first FM last year at age 60, just to do one. When I found out I BQ'd for 2018, I said I'd try another before Boston to try to figure out a better plan - fueling and mileage in training. I changed a few things, but got the same results. And almost the same time - just 1 minute, 26 seconds difference. (But it was faster!). 2018 Boston may be my last one, and I'm not going to go for anything other than the experience, but I am hoping to run the whole thing. I'll have to look into those caps.
"No man can ever know all he needs until he first knows himself."---- James Steele
PRs:
5K - 20:39. 4-mile - 28:15. 5-mile - 35:36. 10k - 44:51. HM - 1:38:23. FM: 3:36:25
I think that the direct answer to the question is 'No'. There is no 'science' that I am aware of that predetermines the appropriate maximum percent of weekly miles to which the long run should be limited. There is simply opinion. Perhaps good opinion, in some cases, but still just opinion.
be curious; not judgmental
To be clear, I was being somewhat facetious suggesting to run your LRs at MP. My point was only that late-race crashes are a due to the body being unable to handle that distance at that pace, not just that distance. Anyway - most plans do include LRs with fast finish - ending the run with some number of miles at MP, to get your body accustomed to the pace on fatigued legs.
Dave
Just common sense thinking without any empirical data on hand to support it; for a race as short as a marathon (or less), having a couple over-distance workouts seems beneficial both physiologically and most importantly psychologically. Not RP obviously, and probably including walking and other rest breaks. The other workout is to total the race distance in a single day with 2 runs; like a 15 miler and an 11 miler.
For ultras, I like the idea of a 2-day training session that totals the distance of the race (100k or less). According to some, this may include as many as 4 runs; morning and afternoon both days. This is done several weeks out from the race.
I haven't done any of these, and I don't race, so I can't speak from experience, but these sound like plausible ways to do an over-distance in preparation for a long race.
most plans do include LRs with fast finish - ending the run with some number of miles at MP, to get your body accustomed to the pace on fatigued legs.
Not only the body but, maybe more importantly, the mind.
I haven't seen it. Seems like a made-up rule. People do different things and find success. Ed Whitlock ran 3 hours a day. I'm not sure how far he covered each time, but it had to be close to a long run each day. Some manage on 3 "quality" runs a week with the 3rd being a long run, like the FIRST program. I've done anywhere from 20-35%, but not as a rule. I think rules of recovery and rest are the most important ones to follow. There is science on recovery.
Truth.
Obviously, you can do whatever you want. If you want to get faster over time, it may pay to not put so much emphasis on the long run. I doubt there is any science to 20% vs 25% vs 33%. I haven't checked. Science is great. I love science. But, as for many things in running and in life, experience far outweighs numbers. My understanding after spending lots of time on these forums reading and paying attention to what the experienced people have to say is that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on the long run. You want to put the right amount of emphasis on the long run. Probably 2-3 hours or somewhere in there for the average person with a serious-ish intent to train for average distances from the 5k to the marathon. Maybe less if you run less overall. I think it's as simple as that. And run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard.
A classic:
https://www.runningahead.com/forums/post/900ddbd2232c4ee38ac5d6e06becb0f5#focus
Why is it sideways?
Obviously, you can do whatever you want. If you want to get faster over time, it may pay to not put so much emphasis on the long run. I doubt there is any science to 20% vs 25% vs 33%. I haven't checked. Science is great. I love science. But, as for many things in running and in life, experience far outweighs numbers. My understanding after spending lots of time on these forums reading and paying attention to what the experienced people have to say is that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on the long run. You want to put the right amount of emphasis on the long run. Probably 2-3 hours or somewhere in there for the average person with a serious-ish intent to train for average distances from the 5k to the marathon. Maybe less if you run less overall. I think it's as simple as that. And run lots, mostly easy, sometimes hard. A classic: https://www.runningahead.com/forums/post/900ddbd2232c4ee38ac5d6e06becb0f5#focus
+1.
And of course, the training that fits with the rest of your life is the training that is most likely to be sustained and therefore successful.
Prince of Fatness
Back when I wasn't an injury magnet and gave a crap about racing I had two simple guidelines.
I didn't think that up .... it came to me over time and was based on feedback from more experienced runners here.
The long run becomes a problem when it violates rule number 2 above.
Not at it at all.
http://www.logicoflongdistance.com/2009/02/keep-it-simple-yo-distance-training.html
Lots of good advice here.
Of course there is some science behind the long run rule. But, first, calling it a rule is a mistake. And training is not science. It's philosophy backed by some science. One of the most important things about your training is that you believe in it and have confidence in it. When you're out there racing, confidence will take you a lot further than some blanket "rules" trying to cover as many runners as possible.
There was a point in my life when I ran. Now, I just run.
We are always running for the thrill of it
Always pushing up the hill, searching for the thrill of it
This and what Jeff has written I think are incredibly important.
Our watches are great for measuring training and trying to follow science, but running by effort can produce results just as spectacular.
Training is 100% science.
Running for personal enrichment is philosophical.
The two overlap more often than not.