Marathon long runs (Read 960 times)

Minderbender: In my opinion, when you try to come up with some sort of forumla based solely on numbers, here we go again, we're in trouble. The issue is not 20-miles; but to see 19 is not enough and it has to be 20... Wait, this is a wrong thread! But at any rate, 20 miles (give or take 1, or 2, or 3 miles) DOES make a difference. Surely, you wouldn't see a guy in suit pulling a rabbit out of his hat on the road side; but you will probably see the benefit next year. This is the tricky part; what you do this year is really for the next year. You won't see the difference that evening after you run a 20-miler (well, you might...negatively! ;o)); next week possibly; but most likely in months or years. It takes about 20 years for your body to grow and develop... How do you expect to see the difference, or benefit of training, in days? Think about what might be happening in your body in microscopic sense; then you may have a different prospective.

Thanks- I always appreciate your perspective. I wasn't expecting any magic, just referring to the content from the previous thread. I have my first marathon coming up, and I'm enjoying learning and trying new things, trying to learn from those with more experience and from my personal experience. My main goal is to cross the line thinking "that was awesome, can't wait to do another one!"

Interesting, however, you mentioned how you trained; run/walk or walk/run...for an 8-hour walk... As I said, when you get down to that level, I think you really need to look at it as ultra marathon. 8-hour walk, I don't think, would give as much pounding, thus not as much muscle trauma. I sort of put 3-hours cap because of muscle trauma and the length of time to recover from it. Faster people, most likely, can get away with doing a loooong run because they are, in general, more efficient. Slower runners, or those who haven't quite learnt to run efficiently, tend to land hard on their heels and "pound" the heck out of themselves. Sure, it's sort of scarey to go so much further when you haven't quite gone 3/4 of the way; but, I'm sure you've experienced it; when you go really far, you don't really feel the pounding during the run, it's the day after when you'll have to walk downstairs backwards. So maybe, right there and then, you CAN go pushing the envelope and go where you've never been before IN the actual race--you just pay a bit more the day after! ;o) Like someone said in the other thread; there are SO MANY different elements intermingle and affect your training. It's really not a matter of going 19 miles vs. 20 miles; or going 3 hours or 4 or 5 or 6. Your body structure, your running style, temperament...all those things DO affect how you train. Considering that fact, all I'm saying is to say you've got to "do three 20-milers in order to run a marathon" probably hurt more people than we realize.

This is the whole idea of walk breaks - it DOES reduce the pounding so you can run much farther and have faster recovery. Let me expand the scope of the discussion beyond road marathons to mountain running or even hilly marathons to get away from the feeling that a 4-hr marathon might be a result of poor training, inefficiency, or something's wrong, etc. There's a 14-mi race with 9000ft of up and down (including a 4500ft up stretch) outside my town. The course record is a bit over 3 hr. I'm not sure the Equinox Marathon (about 3500 ft of hills, been run about 45+ yrs) in Fairbanks has ever had any woman break 3 hr - and that includes a member of US 100k natl team. Then there's Pike's Peak. My understanding is that the physiology of training responds to time and intensity. Why shouldn't the energy management and training aspects be based more on expected time of race, rather than distance? Like you said, perhaps 8-hr marathons should be trained for more like ultras. I agree absolutely. An 8-hr marathoner may be running at the same intensity as an 8-hr ultra runner (say, 50 miles). Hydration, electrolytes, fuel, gear, etc would be more similar for those runners (or "doers" if someone wants to get picky about running vs run/walking) than for a 2.5-hr marathoner. Run/walk may be 98% running or 98% walking. A 6-hr run/walk may have 4 hr of running, even for relative beginners; maybe 5.8 hr of running for more experienced runners. Some people like to run and don't like coming home at the end of 3 hr. It would be like putting a ball and chain on them. There's trails out there to explore. Long runs get one away from trail heads. Don't forget that powerhiking up a mtn for 1.5 hr may be 85% max HR. It's not mall strolling. It's also more energy efficient on hills (aka mountains). If you train adequately for a long run, esp. if run/walk, the "recovery" time might only be a few days - that's time to do another workout, time for easy run is likely the next day or two. Yes, the first year of that duration, it might be hard doing 4-5 hr long run / walks, esp. if up and down mountains. But 5k's may hurt more. There's probably 1000s of people in the United States that do long runs of at least 4 hr and don't get injured. (There's probably also a bunch that do 2-3 hr long runs on too little base and get hurt.) I think most ultra runners do 7-9 hr long runs for 50-100 mi races. Around here, I think the experienced ultra runners can do 4-hr runs weekly (might be wrong on that). The 7-9 hr runs tend to be every 2-3 wks, I think. Key features of these "runs" are they are run/walk - perhaps hike up hills, run everything else - include hills and variety of footing so they're not the repetitive nature that road marathons are; long runs are used to test nutrition and gear. Most people can't test nutrition for a 12-hr, 24-hr, multi-day or whatever race in a 3-hr run. The metabolism is just different. I know I don't need much to get through 4 hr, but to get through 13 hr, I'm consuming more calories. But there's things I can eat in a 13-hr race, that there's no way I can ingest in a 4-hr race - intensity is so different. And we don't have aid stations, so the 13-hr race involves refilling fluids from stream. So yea, we even stop for a few minutes. <rant> (Note: All numbers are fuzzy. That is, 3 hr may be 2.5 - 4 hr or whatever.) This to me is one of the issues with the longer marathon times. Most people writing the books (Daniels, Pfitz) are probably used to faster runners, esp. since their pace tables don't accommodate slow runners. (We can take a hint.) Hence, they don't go into some of the training needed for longer duration runs and not get injured. The philosophy of some training pgms seems to be that at 3 hr or 3.5 hr or whatever, you'll turn into a pumpkin and get injured (being somewhat facetious). So don't do it in training. Save it for a race and get injured / have a miserable time then. (or at least that's the way they come across to me. Race day can have some magic, but I'm betting my money on training, not race-day magic, thank you.) I think that's irresponsible of training pgms to set people up like that. (I'm not necessarily talking about books, but potentially some of the charity training pgms.) JMHO. If a person is slow, then have them train appropriately for the duration expected. That's the responsibility of the training pgm, if they take on that responsibility. If they aren't willing to do that, then suggest that only people expecting to run less than xx hrs should enroll. Learn what it takes to keep moving for 5 hr, 7 hr, whatever. It may take them longer to build their long run. They'll learn about hydration, electrolytes, fuel. Learn how to avoid hyponatremia. And gosh, I wonder if they didn't have mile markers, if people would crash at 20 mi. Maybe if they didn't know they were at 20 mi ... (another of my pet peeves) Now, there are people that gotta do a marathon in their 1st year - ready or not and may take 6+ hr on avg 4 hr/wk training - or whatever. Unless they come from a hiking background and used to moving that long, I would hesitate to suggest they go over 3 hr on flat roads. I would suggest they get more base - whether it's running or walking or whatever - and take more time to reach those goals. Maybe do a later marathon. I don't think I would suggest they do a 6-hr marathon on 3-hr long run nor would I suggest they do a 6-hr long run every other week on avg of 4 hr/wk training. I'd suggest a longer schedule for them. (not that anyone cares what I think ) But there are people out there who may run many hours / wk for several years and train reasonably balanced and may still be slow (trails, hills in races aren't known for resulting in fast times), and they can handle the many hours on feet. They've been willing to do the training. Why question them if they're doing it? They obviously didn't turn into a pumpkin. Would they be faster if running 9-10 hr over 6 days rather than 4-5 days? Or would they be injured or added stress trying to fit more running days in a busy schedule? If they're running injury free and enjoy running like that and improving, why try to fit them in a racing mold of some canned pgm for someone else's objectives - like trying to do a 4-hr marathon. Some folks like flat, fast marathons, some like 'em with texture (e.g. Pikes peak or Equinox). For some people, running is an adventure, and races are a way of seeing new trails. Running shorter, faster runs (rather than going exploring over hill and dale and around the next curve and away from the trail heads, fartleking all the way) can make running more like a chore than the fun that it can be. Fast stuff can be incorporated in the longer runs. Different kinds of running keep different kinds of runners still running. <rant> side note: I've never done a marathon and may or may not ever do one, but I've done the distance a couple times in training and went through it in about 7 hr in a 42-mi (12:48, iirc) self-supported trail run this year (3500 ft of up / down). (need to get faster on muddy downhills) And the organizations that put on the races like our entry fees to support the ski team scholarships, nature centers, etc. So if the sponsors are open to anyone doing the race, why shouldn't we support them?</rant></rant>

Hooray! Nobby says I can go sub-4!

Econo: So am I going to be held accountable if you didn't!? Just to clarify, though; I said you "should be able to" go under 4, or you should be capable of; didn't say you WILL! ;o) Now, I went back and checked your log a little more closely. It seems that you did 20-miles every 10 days. That's quite systematic. Good. However, you seem to have done interval and tempo, or hill training and tempo one after another. Then you had a 2-day period where you did hill training back to back. I would spread those workouts a bit further apart from each other; you are stimulating (almost) same kind of energy system one after another. I would concentrate on one long run a week (or 10 days), one quality workout (hill OR interval OR tempo) a week, and I would add more (recovery) easy days. This is something Willamona said and I like it; you need to have more recovery jog days to support other workouts (point workouts). You did your last long run (20 miles) before your last marathon a month before the marathon--which is good. I don't know when your next marathon would be but tapering is very important. It's always better to be slightly under-trained than over-trained. "If in doubt, do less." In other words, I have no doubt that sub-4 marathon is already in you. Now you need to learn to get that out of you.

Geez, I'm pretty confused now. I have my first marathon on Nov 23rd (Philadelphia).I have a solid base and have gone 20 miles twice now,each in about 3.5 hrs.. Psychologically, I like the idea of going 20 or more so I know what it's like. Should that be enough of the 20's? I have 2 more on my schedule with plenty of time to taper.

How do you feel when you are done with the 20's. I really think that is the core of the argument here is are the 20's beating you up or not.

Great thread and lots of good information here. Thanks to everyone! Nobby, I haven't improved that much yet, but thanks for the comments. I think you are right that a marathon for me is more like an ultra for a lot of people, but I'm still improving and still enjoying what I'm doing. One of the coaches in the local USA Fit group commented awhile back that we are all runners. Even the walkers in the group are runners, because we are out there every Saturday at 6 AM doing whatever the scheduled miles are rain or shine. I hang out on several running related internet forums because I relate to the runners better than I do to the walkers. Fortunately, most of them understand where I'm coming from and encourage me. I'm just finishing up three years of training with the marathon next week and have enjoyed almost all of it. After the first marathon, my biggest problem was a blister on the bottom of my left heel. Nothing really hurt all that much other than moving from standing to sitting and back. After the second marathon six months later, I felt fine and went out for a long (slower) walk the next day. Since then, I can tell that I've been physically active, but taking an ice bath solves the soreness and taking it easy for a few days has me ready for the next adventure. Doing three marathons in three months this spring taught me a lot about my abilities. I doubt if it would work for everybody, but it works for me and that's what's important. Rose Who should probably not be reading running books/magazines/web sites this week.