12

Splitting long run on two (Read 2300 times)

higa


    I am currently training for my 2nd marathon (I am slow , first was a year ago in 4.52) In preparation for this one I have been told that the long runs of 4 hours is a waste and that I should run for 3 hours in the morning then 10 k later the same day. Has anyone heard of this approach? I am worried that I won't have any 20 mile runs under my belt. Should I be worried?


    Hawt and sexy

      I would say yes you should be worried, but I am crazy. If you plan on taking more than 3 hours to run the marathon, then by all means, run for longer in training. My longest long run time-wise before my first marathon was longer than 5 hours. I wanted the piece of mind that comes with knowing that i can run for n amont of time longer than it was going to take me to finish the marathon. The 3 hour BS is for those who have some speed. If you are not an elite or close to it, those rules may not apply to you. Do what you feel you need to do to finish the marathon. Don't split your long run needlessly. My only concern is that you do take it slow in training. Some people believe that a person that run a marathon in 5 hours probably trains at their marathon pace. From experience, I know this is not true. Just take your time and get accustom to spending the time on your feet. Race day will be fine.

      I'm touching your pants.

      Mr Inertia


      Suspect Zero

        Hm, I nailed the same time on my first - guess I'm slow,too (but I knew that) Running two shorter distances has its place, but doing so in place of your long run isn't it. Part of the whole idea of training is, in addition to all of the physiological stuff that happens, geting you acustomed to being on your feet at a certain pace for a certain length of time. Splitting your long runs just doesn't do that. I've known folks who have done that in a pinch when schedule doesn't permit 20 continuous miles, but that's not the same as using that as a method of training. I've not heard of it being recommended as part of a training program before (only been running two years, so that's not surprising), who's plan are you following?
          I believe Jack Daniels theorizes that time on your feet, not distance, is what can lead to injury, and therefore slower runners are more susceptible to injury than faster. He also says don't run more than 2.5 or 3 hours at a time. His plans are really targeted for the faster runner, and I'm not a marathoner....Just providing some context for where this may have originated.
            I don't think there's much to be gained, physically, from long runs over three hours. I think by that point you've gotten about all the training stimulus you're going to get and you're just bludgeoning yourself needlessly, leading to a prolonged recovery. If you're new to the marathon or have your doubts about finishing then it makes some sense psychologically and for the learning experience to run longer, but there's no rule that says you have to do 20 mile training runs in order to finish or even race a marathon. At your current long run pace you'll get over 17 miles in 3 hours. That's plenty.

            Runners run

              Well... I wonder if I'm responsible for this!? It was when we were going at it each other with MaryT at former Cool Running message board; I actually contacted some of the people (Jack Fultz, Jeff Galloway, etc.) directly and got their opinion about "long runs". It was when I talked to Coach Squires (does anybody know who Bill Squires is?) that he suggested a long run of about 3-hours + another 6-miler after a relatively short break (just a couple of hours break). Now, I wouldn't say over 4-hour run is a waste. But I personally think any run longer than 3 hours can increase the chance of injury so much that I personally would not recommend to particularly slower people (interesting Dr. Daniels said what he said about long runs...). Can a 5-hour marathon runner live through the actual marathon with "only" 3-hour run as the longest run? Well, Mary didn't think so. Honestly, it was a tough quesiton to me because, luckily I guess, all the first-timers I have been involved actually have all run sub-4 (no, I haven't coached too many people directly). Of course, Arthur Lydiard was the one who promoted "one long run" over two shorter ones. This is because, based on East German exercise physiologists' study, a long continuous run of 2-hours or more would quickly develop capillary beds around the working muscles. He promoted one 2-hour run would be better than two 1-hour runs. Now would that mean 4-hour run is better than 2-hour run? Well, depending on what event you're training for (ultra?), I actually disagree with it. The thing is; would two splitted runs done "faster" outweigh one super long SLOW run? If you train two 1-hour runs at, say, 10-minute-mile pace; would that give you a better chance to run 4:30 marathon instead of staying around 12-minute-pace and go for a 4-hour training run? You know, that's probably your choice. I sort of assume people would like to run the darn thing faster. Of course, this day and age, a book titled "No Need For Speed" be a best-seller (or maybe not quite...???); I'm not sure if people just want to crawl the marathon regardless of how long it takes to complete EVEN IF there is a chance you could do it faster? I don't quite know the psychology of those marathon runners. I tend to look at performance and improvement of performance. I'd rather pick one or two marathons and see if I can run faster next time than the last one. Of course, I realize so many people simply want to run one after the other simply to say he/she did it (them). That's fine too. By NO mean, I do not look down on people who spend 7-hours out on the course--I still get teary eyes watching a grandma crossing the finish in 7+ hours and hugging with her daughters at Grandma's marathon and/or Denver marathon. One thing I did realize is that most of training programs nowadays are focused more on "completing the marathon no matter what" and I don't think it's the most effective way to do it. My wife runs marathons and she trains with a local training group. In most cases, she's the one who runs least--she would bring home the 20-week schedule or whatever; and I'll start cutting workouts here and there... While she would go for an easy strall of 8-mile or so the week before; others might try to do 12 or more simply because that's what the program says to do. She would come back and tell me that so many of them were walking in the last couple of miles simply because they were too tired. They've completed the program and, most likely, they would complete the marathon as well. Could they have run a bit faster? I'd say yes. Would they want to or would they care? Maybe not. Anyways, I'm not sure if I'm actually answering the original question; but the thing is; I think the marathon has become more or less a ultra event for most people. I think someone should look into the effective training principles for ultra races--I think it's a bit different from running a marathon under 4-hours or 3-hours. Continuously running more than 5 hours; I think you'll be getting into something other than running a marathon (or what marathon--26.2 miles--used to be) physiologically.
                (does anybody know who Bill Squires is?)
                Yup.

                Runners run

                  No, I've never heard of running 3 hr in am then 10k later - except maybe some experienced elite ultrarunners where 10k might be a recovery jog. As to benefits of runs longer than 3 hr, like 4 hrs, I think a lot depends on where you're running (flat, straight asphalt vs hilly, twisty trails). The impact of trails on your body is much less than roads. For long runs, many people will take a short walk break, esp for rough terrain or hills. The recovery effect during your run as well as after the run is amazing. Many people look down at walking during a run, but if you can run safely for, say, 3.5 hrs in a 4 hr run (about 1.5 min break every 15 min), you've gotten that much more training for your body. This, of course, assumes that you have built gradually to that duration. FWIW, I'm a slow trail runner (also older female), and 5 yr ago 2 hr on roads was painful. Assuming I've been training consistently, 3-4 hr on trails now is an intermediate run which I can usually run at my normal easy effort, ie. no slogging. When I've out in the 5-8 hr range, it's much slower, but I'm also carrying more gear and more / bigger hills - but that will improve as I get stronger and build endurance - over years. (my goals are hilly trail ultras, no aid stations) If however, you're on roads and not willing to use walk breaks and haven't built the volume to support the long runs, I'd be hesitant to suggest the longer runs, as it may turn into a slog fest with poor form and result in injury. I'd think if you were doing a 4-hr long run that you should be running about 12 hr in a 2-wk period, so your long run is about 1/3 that volume. That might be 5 hr one week and 7 hr (including the long run) the other week. (I'm retired so don't hold anything sacred about weeks, and may use 12-15 day microcyles.) At least this is a ratio that has worked for me on trails. It may not work for others and may not work for me on roads - just providing some thoughts. In my minimal experience, I've found if I can do the distance/duration and elevation at least once in training, I can do it in a race (emphasis on "do", definitely not racing), and that's my usual approach. When I do a distance I haven't done in training (say a long run of 23 mi for a 38 mi trail race), then I need to do it a few times for my body to adapt to it and be able to go longer. The "few times" also enables me to do it under variable conditions.
                  "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog


                  Hawt and sexy

                    Oh GAWD Nobby. Don't get me started on maryt. MTA-Oh looky what i found in my log. Longest timed training run. This was before my first marathon, 5:26:39. I finished my first marathon in 4:48ish.

                    I'm touching your pants.

                      Just for the record, though...it's not that I'm AGAINST going very long. My longest run ever (and I respect you, Willamona) was 3:36 or something like that... It was a 30-miler. I did my first marathon within a year of that run and it was 2:59:48 (I think Lance beat me by 15 seconds or something! I respect him more as well!)


                      Hawt and sexy

                        I know you respect me Nobby. LOL But I know we agree to disagree somewhat on this one. It's ok. You just want people to wait until they are ready. I understand that. But, I was a jump in and do it girl. LOL I did it whether I was ready or not, and a ton of people are just like me out there. Some of them will never run again, but others will love running and come to be with the rest of us runners forever. I will cheer for the underdogs and hope they stay with us. You can have them after they realize they need to get better, ok?

                        I'm touching your pants.

                          Just for the record, though...it's not that I'm AGAINST going very long. My longest run ever (and I respect you, Willamona) was 3:36 or something like that... It was a 30-miler. I did my first marathon within a year of that run and it was 2:59:48...
                          Well, I'm inherently a much slower runner than most of you all, maybe that's why I like going long. Going long seems to work for me,... perhaps I'm just 99.9% slow-twitch. Longest run before my first marathon was 21 miles, three 7-mile loops, each in a little under an hour - giving time for a stretch/drink/potty break before the next loop on the hour. Marathon in about 3:18, about 8 m/m pace for 1st 20 miles, under 6:30 pace for last 6.2. Most enjoyable adrenaline rush ever. Longest run before my marathon 1.5 years later was 40 miles (on 40th birthday.) Time was "the better part of 6 hours" (around 5:40 or so.) I also did a few 25 - 30 mile runs. Pace for the marathon was even, though I had to concentrate to keep it there. An all-time PR, 2:57 at age 40. Woke up at 2 AM after 3 hours sleep and on a whim drove 180 miles and ran another marathon the next day (3:41.) The thing that makes me the most happy about my PR marathon is that I did it at 6:45 pace. Now consider that my best mile time is 5:45. I'm very happy at having run a marathon pace only 1 m/m slower than my best 1 mile pace. My most enjoyable long training runs have been in a local park on dirt trails and varied hills, maybe 4.5 hours or so (in my 40's) and probably around 28 miles. That was then... it worked for me. Maybe it doesn't work for everybody, but perhaps many do their long runs too fast and end up getting injured or sick. I don't think you *have* to do longer training runs (apparently Pam Reed doesn't) but if you don't it sure helps to have the mpw instead (unless you're made like Sebastian Coe... but then you're an 800m, 1500m, 1 mile, 2 mile kind of person anyway...) I like the idea of knowing that I can handle the "time on the feet" that the marathon is going to require. That being said, my longest training run before my 100K was only 41 miles. My guess is that there are some individual differences in physiology that make some training approaches work better for some than for others.
                            Of course, Arthur Lydiard was the one who promoted "one long run" over two shorter ones. This is because, based on East German exercise physiologists' study, a long continuous run of 2-hours or more would quickly develop capillary beds around the working muscles. He promoted one 2-hour run would be better than two 1-hour runs. Now would that mean 4-hour run is better than 2-hour run? Well, depending on what event you're training for (ultra?), I actually disagree with it. The thing is; would two splitted runs done "faster" outweigh one super long SLOW run? If you train two 1-hour runs at, say, 10-minute-mile pace; would that give you a better chance to run 4:30 marathon instead of staying around 12-minute-pace and go for a 4-hour training run? You know, that's probably your choice. I sort of assume people would like to run the darn thing faster. ... Anyways, I'm not sure if I'm actually answering the original question; but the thing is; I think the marathon has become more or less a ultra event for most people. I think someone should look into the effective training principles for ultra races--I think it's a bit different from running a marathon under 4-hours or 3-hours. Continuously running more than 5 hours; I think you'll be getting into something other than running a marathon (or what marathon--26.2 miles--used to be) physiologically.
                            Nobby, You're probably anticipating what I'm going to say Wink (didn't see your post until after I posted and I was headed to a meeting). I agree if the longer run is becoming a slog fest, then it's better to do 2 shorter runs. But if you're trying to train your endocrine system to go long (as in ultras), then the 4-hr run does have a specific benefit as you suggest. The number I've seen most is that the endocrine system training doesn't really begin until about 3 hr. Most, but not all, ultra runners that I'm aware of take the long run approach - focusing on time on feet and amount of climbing. (Specificity in footing may also come into play, although may not do it with the long run.) Keep in mind that many 50-mi races will have 10,000+ ft of climbing (plus that much downhill if start/finish in same area). The long runs are also when you figure out what works for hydration, electrolytes, and fuel for that many hours. In contrast, Matt Carpenter is one that generally focuses on speed. He runs 2 hr / day - some as 2-hr runs; some as doubles. Not sure of length of long run, but probably in vicinity of 3 hr. He doesn't see the logic of the long slogs. When he set the LT100 course record a few years ago, he ran the entire course except for the stream crossings.The previous year he walked about the last 30 mi iirc with similar training (hadn't recovered from San Juan Solstice 50 record setting). Most of his races are marathon length (granted they're things like Pikes Peak and many at elevation), and he's only done a couple ultras. But he has goals like course records, not walking, winning, etc. FWIW, the suggestions that were made to me last year while training for first ultra were to get long runs in the 7-8 hr range with the needed climbing and descent, carrying pack, etc. Another included alternating 4-hr back-2-back runs with the 7-8 hr runs every 2 wks (ie each of last 3 months would have one 7-8 hr run and one b2b 4hr pair). The 4-hr runs are long enough to train endocrine system, but short enough to be run more crisply. The 7-8 hr runs are going to be slower, but they're when you deal with drinking and eating plus general endurance. Because I got a slow start in early winter last year, I wasn't able to reach that goal, but I did get a couple 7-8 hr runs in there. I'm off to a better start this year and hope to have long run to 6 hr by mid Feb, so I can start 7+ hr runs in March. I'm hoping I can increase the quality of the runs this year. I do enjoy being out there and the challenge. Yea, if I were on roads, I'd have a whole different perspective, and might just be running 5-10k stuff then off playing in the woods for my real recreation. As it is, running has replaced some of my prior recreation or at least modified it substantially. I agree and several others have mentioned that the last year or so - that training for 4+hr marathons should maybe have some ultra aspects in the training. One really big difference is that most (not all) ultras are on trails where there's lots of variability in footing and it's quite acceptable to run/walk for terrain. Most marathons are on pavement and have a lot of opportunity for repetitive stress injury. But with the increased popularity of trail running, there's more and more trail marathons, which will take longer than flat roads. Some of the issues like hyponatremia didn't become an issue until people started being out there for over 4 hrs. I think it's irresponsible of training groups to not adequately train slower runners in aspects of hydration and electrolytes. It's like training someone to drive a car, but not tell them where the brakes are - potentially headed for trouble. If they're going to train folks for 6+ hr marathons, they better tell them how to deal with everything that goes with being out there for 6 hr. It's more than paces or run/walking to beeps of watch or whatever. And that annoys the heck out of me with some of the canned programs. <end> I do think there's enough people out there running 4-8 hr training runs (look at ultra forums and their training threads), that the concept of getting injured beyond 3 hr must have some qualifiers to it - like being on asphalt (hurts just thinking about it), inadequate prior training, running too fast, maybe not using walk breaks, etc. Yes, it may be a struggle the first time or two, but so was 30 min. If you train to go long, your long runs become easier. I've found as long as I keep my daily runs (I run 2 on / 1 off or something close to that) in the 1.5 hr plus/minus 15-30 min range, 3 hr runs aren't that long (just 2x normal run, and maybe only 1 hr longer than some normal runs). If I run a bunch of 45 min runs, then suddenly 3 hr is looking longer since it's 4x my normal run. It's what you train your body for. Or at least that's my perspective, IMHO. I hear/read people saying one thing (don't run over 3 hr), and I see many real people actually running much longer (5-8 hr). The scientist in me goes with what I see.</end>
                            "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
                              It was when I talked to Coach Squires (does anybody know who Bill Squires is?) that he suggested a long run of about 3-hours + another 6-miler after a relatively short break (just a couple of hours break).
                              Nobby, For curiosity, what's the reasoning behind a couple hours break between a 3-hr run and another 6 miles. Is that in a particular context - like new, slow runners; any level of experience slow runners; well trained elites (if they're doing marathons, they're probably not using 3-hr runs); ...? Does a person just go about rest of life in that time period or refuel or ...? I was wondering if that break serves the same function as walk breaks in ultra training - or something completely different. (It's not something I'd realistically consider because of logistics and goals, but I was thinking about this while out snowshoe running today.) Thanks.
                              "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
                                Nobby, For curiosity, what's the reasoning behind a couple hours break between a 3-hr run and another 6 miles. Is that in a particular context - like new, slow runners; any level of experience slow runners; well trained elites (if they're doing marathons, they're probably not using 3-hr runs); ...? Does a person just go about rest of life in that time period or refuel or ...? I was wondering if that break serves the same function as walk breaks in ultra training - or something completely different. (It's not something I'd realistically consider because of logistics and goals, but I was thinking about this while out snowshoe running today.) Thanks.
                                AKTrail: So good to see you here. I know, I know... You're probably disappointed in me with my behavior with our (in)famous friend, Richard99 at CR. But I was just messing around, having fun (as I actually mentioned there) for my last hurrah there. It must have been a bit ugly, I confess, so sorry! I was actually thinking about you and Kim Stevenson--you two are probably two most level-headed people I know on running message board. Anyways, this splitting idea; it actually came from coach Bill Squires. It might have been me posting it at CR thread; it could be from someone else who actually trained under Coach who mentioned it somewhere else (Joey raising his hand saying "I'm Ken Adams!" in "friends"... Remember that episode? "I was back-packing in Western Europe..."). I kinda sorta vaguely remember him (Coach Squires, not Ken Adams) saying that it's physiological as well as psychological. He, as do I, thinks spending over 4, 5, 6 hours on the road continuously IN TRAINING can be pretty tough on your legs; so you break it up. You still run the entire required distance (or duration) in the day's end so you feel it was a success. I thought he said something about taking a couple of hours break; just enough to change, slip into clean dry clothes, get your feet up and relax a bit, have something to eat and drink; then get out again... I think psychological advantage of this type of set-up can be quite important. It seems that most people trying out a marathon believe that they'd have to run 22-miles in training (or whatever the distance) in order to feel comfortable and confident to tackle marathon. For slower people it may take, well, a long time. My reasoning for 3-hour cap is simply muscle trauma issue. In my regular training routine, I would do 1:45~2:30 training run pretty much every weekend. Sometimes, certainly not all and this doesn't happen too often either, I might go to the club and jog nice and easy for 20~30 before I get myself situated in saune and jacuzzi. I feel fine and actually sometimes I feel like going for a nice easy slrall after the "main" workout. Granted, it's a bit shorter run; but if you do it just for once as a preparation for the marathon and most probably as the last long run, it may not be too bad of an idea. I think, like I said, psychological reason for a workout like this is extremely important. Actually, you know what, in a way, I feel like it might be better if you (as a first-time marathon challenger) don't k now much about marathon running. My wife ran her first marathon in 1991 with 3-hour cap training. She did 3:54 so her last 1/4 was a complete unknown. I remember her telling her friend, "You just have to get out and see what happenes in the last 6-miles..." I remember thinking, "Yeah, good luck!" but of course, I was the one who prescribed this program and kept telling her "see what happens." The thing is; she didn't know. She didn't have this pre-engraved notion of "THE WALL". Sure, she dyed badly in the final 3-miles; but she survived. Today too much information is out there; everybody, for those who never run a marathon, is talking about surviving the wall and carbo-loading and all... Consequently they will have "engraved" the image of THE WALL in their head. And the only way to overcome that is to run far; some, to me, even run beyond the marathon distance to see if they can actually run a marathon. Well, that's no longer "unknown" is it? If you need to do that to feel comfortable, well, so be it. But everybody is an expert today. They all talk about shin splint and ITBS and Plantar Fasciitis...or even compartment syndrome (I believe it's still quite rare but the slightest ache in the shin could lead some to believe that they "have a compartment syndrome"!). You know, if you absolutely convince them that they can complete a marathon (with training, say, 20MPW with the longest run of 16) if they eat 3 pumpkins before the marathon; they would probably do it without going through such bodily trauma. I'm quite convinced, almost half of the first time marathon runner's failuer is from over-training; being too tired on the race day.
                                12