20 miler in marathon training -- what's your take? (Read 1327 times)

This blog entry has me intrigued. I recall seeing a few discussion about limiting the longest training runs to 3 hours and wonder what others have found to work around here. In 3 hours I could only manage ~16 miles or so. ...I’ve marathoned best when I back down from 20 miles for my long runs, avoid the body breakdown it delivers, and instead focus on tempo, pace, and recovery runs. Input?

The long run is only one component of your training schedule, and you can certainly have a successful marathon without running over say 16 miles, especially if you have a good mix of tempo, pace and recovery runs. However, for beginners especially, I recommend working up to 19 to 21 miles 3 or 4 weeks before the marathon through a steady progression. Being 3 or 4 weeks out, you have time to recover. Running at an "easy" pace will give you the time on your feet that your marathon is going to take, which will help you physiologically adapt to that level of stress and will psychologically prepare you for that kind of distance. I also don't think that a inexperienced marathoner (who may or may not be a "beginning" runner) will necessarily benefit from a highly structured schedule that includes tempo or pace work or intervals, especially if they don't yet know how to properly pace themselves. It can be really easy to injure yourself with speed work, and it's safer to experiment with that sort of thing for shorter races. Plus, long runs let you practice for your marathon and try different fueling strategies, clothing, etc and to get meaningful experience for your body. Personally, I like my long runs and think that it is probably the most important workout of the week (and the most enjoyable most weeks.) So even though I am experienced and keep a high level of fitness, I still try to work at least 1 or 2 runs of 20 to 22 miles in before my marathons. The two marathons where I only worked up to 13-14 miles for my long run both hurt. I like to finish my marathon and feel like I could have kept going, and not have trouble walking around in the days following the marathon (DOMS: delayed onset muscle soreness.) That means preparing my body for long periods of time on my feet.

I've never heard that 20 miles was some sort of big thing. My opinion is simple: there is no one key to marathon success, which is what the authors seem to claim they thought the 20 miler long run was. Horse puckey. For a first time marathoner, I think it has a certain level of importance to go longer at least once in training. If you can do so more than once, even better. The reason why is because you need to learn about pacing, and how to handle the distance mentally. Using someone like Sell to push the idea that there's no need to run longer is just silly. If you're running over 100 miles in a week, I think your long run probably doesn't need to be so long. Never mind the fact that he has a fair amount of experience racing the marathon as it is. The main reasons I have seen for capping the long run is diminishing returns and injury prevention. However, I think if you cap it based on time, you're missing out. If the longest you've run is 3 hours, and it takes you 4-5, that's a big chunk of time that you're not mentally prepared for. Me, I generally do somewhere between 18-21, and it works for me. I've done longer, and I will use other marathons as practice. This is my opinion, so take it as that. The best thing to recognize here is that there is no one right answer. Why does this article intrigue you? Is it because being out that long for a run has you nervous? All the more reason to actually go out and run for that long.

I like all of the replies so fareveryone. I don't tend to believe that there are any hard and fast one should break the rules. You need to go long enough to give you confidence for the big day, and short enough to keep training trough the following days. Physiologically, I doubt there's much benefit from going beyond 3 hours. Personally, I will have a couple of 30 milers peppered into my training. It has not hurt my times - in fact it has improved them greatly. That's me. I'd rather go out and run 30 miles easy than run a 21 miler with the last 10 miles at MP. (actually, not even sure if I could do that. Pretty sure I could not do that.) There are many paths. I do think that if the supporting mileage and workouts are there, the long run becomes less important. The lower the mileage, the more important the long run. You can do it!

You know we've gone on at great length on this topic (in the Swamp particularly, but elsewhere, too), and you know how to find those threads, so I'll keep this short. My version of short, anyway. Most beginner marathoners seem obsessed with a handful of arbitrary rules: the 10% rule, the 35% for the long run rule, the 3-week taper, and the need for multiple 20 mile runs in training. Of all of them, I think the last one might be the one that's repeated most often like its unchangeable writ-in-stone Gospel. And you know it, of course, since you hang out here (a little bit); you've seen more than one thread that started with this: "So I had my third 20-miler planned for Saturday, but I'll be out of town this weekend. Can I run it next weekend? Is my marathon ruined completely if I do it Monday? Is this the end of civilization?" I think those rules exist for the reason Lynn and Blaine hint at: if a beginner follows them, they'll at least do the minimum to reach the finish line. But are they necessary for every runner? And does X-number of 20-mile long runs = maximum performance for everybody? Not a chance. You know I think the long run is ridiculously over-rated, and this "rule" is the origin of all that. Not that there's anything wrong with the long run (and like Blaine, I love them, so I'd do them even if I knew for a fact they weren't needed). But since so many beginner programs stress x-times 20-milers, beginners neglect daily runs and focus on the 20-milers. Which you also know was my downfall at the 2006 CMM. Stupid ol' me. I know I'd much rather run a marathon on 50 miles per week with no run longer than 13-15 ... then to try and run one on 25 mile weeks with 3 20-milers. No question on that. I also know that I've personally had a lot of success never going past 17 miles. I felt awfully fresh at last year's Monkeython when I tried that. I know that for me, there is a big difference between 17 and 20. 17 milers leave me energized, ready for more. 20 milers feel like effort, like I actually need some recovery. I also know that "20 miles" is kind of stupid to begin with, since it should be based on time on your feet and effort, not mileage. I think 3 hours really is pretty close to the time where you start risking diminishing returns. So if you can do a 20 mile run at very easy pace in 3 hours, great. But if it takes you 5 hours? If it takes weeks to recover? Then maybe 20 isn't so smart. Training runs aren't supposed to destroy you. That's what race day is for. I also know that all of the above may be horseshit, since I did run two 23 milers, one 26 mile training day, and even a slow 42 miler, ran a hard 26.2 ... then set a very, very easy PR 2 weeks later. And part of it was that ridiculous long run - because when I started hurting at mile 21, I just laughed and said "you can go twice this far, so HTFU and run ..." Sigh. That wasn't very helpful. Or very short. I tried. Bottom line: like all the rules, this one ain't magic. For your very first, I wouldn't skip doing at least one 20-miler (or 21 or 23 or 19 ... nothing magic about 20). Mostly for mental reasons. I also wouldn't tweak out if you don't get to one, if your mileage stays high and consistent. In the end, like almost all of the Advice That Must Not Be Questioned - how far to run your long runs, and how often, is going to be depend on you. Experiment and see what works best and what doesn't. For what its worth, I'm not sure you qualify as a beginner runner anymore. You're consistently in the 30-35 mile range, you've run races, you've run for years, and you're now hitting 40 miles per week. For a true beginner, I'd say quit asking questions, ignore everything I just wrote, and follow the dumb program. Do that 3 X 20 milers. For you ... if you've got time ... I might tell you to experiment a little. My 4.2 cents.

My best marathons are those where I had a 20-21 mile training run. My worst marathons were with max runs of 15-16. Not a direct correlation but for me, the lower milieage races are the ones I didn't put all of the proper base miles together (ie I tried to short or cheat the road - bad idea). I saw you had 2 or 3 planned. IMHO if you run 1 or 2 of these you'll be well prepared.

I can't comment on the training for a marathon, since the longest race I've ever run was a 10k in high school. However, I read the blog that was posted and thought people might like a little more on that subject. This is an article about the Hanson's marathon training from the Running Times website, and although it's a little older than the blog post it's an informative read if you're interested in the Hansons.

I can't comment on the training for a marathon, since the longest race I've ever run was a 10k in high school. However, I read the blog that was posted and thought people might like a little more on that subject. This is an article about the Hanson's marathon training from the Running Times website, and although it's a little older than the blog post it's an informative read if you're interested in the Hansons.

Interesting stuff. I love this:

"The necessity of the 20-miler for marathon success is a farce," says Kevin Hanson... To prove his point, Kevin notes that European training plans often top out at 30 kilometers (18.6 miles). "Does that mean they’re 1.4 miles less prepared than Americans? It’s ridiculous."

And I really love this:

To people who question whether the elite Hansons-Brooks athletes do longer runs, he replies, "Sure, they’ll do a 20 to 22 miler, but it’s part of a 130-mile week. So it’s actually a smaller percentage of their total volume than it would be for someone doing less mileage."

And I love this most of all:

The last week of the schedules is a modified taper. "The body thrives on consistency," says Kevin. "The taper is a way of resting without letting [your body] know that something’s up. [A full taper] is like sleeping 11 hours when you normally sleep eight—you sometimes feel groggier."

I know tapering more than 7-10 days does nothing for me. I'm very curious about the rest of their ideas. I think I'll try this in the fall, with a few minor modifications. Thanks, Bell.