3 Hour Long Run - How Often (Read 2921 times)


an amazing likeness

    I got lost during the 3 hour tour because of a storm and wound up on some strange island with hot chicks, headhunters, and The Mosquitos.

     

    Ahhh...so you've met Bingo, Bango, Bongo and Irving ?

    Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.

    xor


      Yes!

       

      Just before I met Fleagle, Bingo, Drooper, and Snork.

       

        While for some, the 3-hr or longer long run may not be appropriate and maybe not optimal, there may be others where it is. I'm thinking like Hudson's different approaches to training, but like many pace-based books, it doesn't account for the slower runners (think senior citizens starting running late in life). People that have trained for 3+ hr long runs can do them fairly readily (when in condition) and not impact the rest of the week.

         

        For those doing longer duration events (whether slower runners, slower marathon courses, or longer distance races), the time on feet is really important to figure out hydration, electrolyte, and fueling strategies not to mention shoes (some shoes work fine for 2 hr but are miserable for 4+ hr in the heat) and gear (depending upon aid).

        "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

           

          This is the crux of the conflict between the fast and the slow.  If we are measuring by distance, for many, this is a 3-4 hour run.  If we are measuring by time, this would be equivalent to a 15 mile run for them.  So is time on your feet or distance on your feet more important?

           

          It's time x intensity that's important.

          Runners run

            And as a reminder the OP stated he does not have a marathon on the horizon and is just looking to become a better runner.  I think most of the people who've answered "never" were answering in that context while others have worked hard to come up with scenarios where really, really long runs make sense even for slower runners.


            Again if you like 3 hour runs, go for it.  But they are absolutely not required to become a faster runner or even to become a faster marathoner as many have proven.  And in most cases they are definitely not the most efficient way to spend 3 of your precious training hours per week, particularly if you are also trying to do workouts.

            Runners run


            I'm noboby, who are you?

              And as a reminder the OP stated he does not have a marathon on the horizon and is just looking to become a better runner.  I think most of the people who've answered "never" were answering in that context while others have worked hard to come up with scenarios where really, really long runs make sense even for slower runners.


              Again if you like 3 hour runs, go for it.  But they are absolutely not required to become a faster runner or even to become a faster marathoner as many have proven.  And in most cases they are definitely not the most efficient way to spend 3 of your precious training hours per week, particularly if you are also trying to do workouts.

               New to here but not new to running. When you say absolutely not required... well nothing is absolutely required. Just a little play on words.  For every one you feel did not do well or better with 3 hour runs, I can show you some that did.  I will agree that if you narrow the discussion to beginning  marathoners I would strongly suggest that less is better. Lots of data to show that too much, too soon, too fast is highly counter-productive.

               

              Personally, and yes experiment of one(although there were others in our  group) that did quite well on 3 hours runs. In fact we found that slowly working up to a run of  26-28 miles in a training worked very well.  How long or far you want  your long run to be, should be proportional to your recovery rate. You don't want to go so long that you spend an entire  week recovering.  An adage that I tend to use often "know thy recovery rate." If not sure do less.

               

              Rest assured I'm very conservative and often catch hell for being too conservative. IMO I find the classic three month marathon training program too short and fraught with injury potential especially for the person new to the distance. Too many runners are Type A and in a hurry to run fast and far.

               

               

              Even when I was doing marathons off 45-50  miles a week and working 60 hours a week,  I found the "long" run did wonders and never thought of it as inefficient use of time. The long run, a speed workout and one other mid-week 10-12 were in fact, my bread and butter.

               

              So you are correct 3 hours is not required but let me assure you, they can make some people faster AND stronger. One has to be very careful not to extrapolate what works or does not work for themselves to the general population. One of the common counter arguments is, look at  the elites they only run for 2 hours. They also run 90-150 miles a week.  How an elite runner trains does not translate well to mortal mid-pack or beginners.

               

               


              Why is it sideways?

                 New to here but not new to running. When you say absolutely not required... well nothing is absolutely required. Just a little play on words.  For every one you feel did not do well or better with 3 hour runs, I can show you some that did.  I will agree that if you narrow the discussion to beginning  marathoners I would strongly suggest that less is better. Lots of data to show that too much, too soon, too fast is highly counter-productive.

                 

                Personally, and yes experiment of one(although there were others in our  group) that did quite well on 3 hours runs. In fact we found that slowly working up to a run of  26-28 miles in a training worked very well.  How long or far you want  your long run to be, should be proportional to your recovery rate. You don't want to go so long that you spend an entire  week recovering.  An adage that I tend to use often "know thy recovery rate." If not sure do less.

                 

                Rest assured I'm very conservative and often catch hell for being too conservative. IMO I find the classic three month marathon training program too short and fraught with injury potential especially for the person new to the distance. Too many runners are Type A and in a hurry to run fast and far.

                 

                 

                Even when I was doing marathons off 45-50  miles a week and working 60 hours a week,  I found the "long" run did wonders and never thought of it as inefficient use of time. The long run, a speed workout and one other mid-week 10-12 were in fact, my bread and butter.

                 

                So you are correct 3 hours is not required but let me assure you, they can make some people faster AND stronger. One has to be very careful not to extrapolate what works or does not work for themselves to the general population. One of the common counter arguments is, look at  the elites they only run for 2 hours. They also run 90-150 miles a week.  How an elite runner trains does not translate well to mortal mid-pack or beginners.

                 

                If you think this post is at odds with anything I have said, then you are mistaken.

                 

                You say:

                 

                a) 3 hour runs are probably not the best for beginning runners.

                b) In some instances people have used 3 hour runs in training and still run well.

                c) Even you did not use them in your own training (your long run at 45-50 miles per week was not 3hrs).

                d) 3 hour runs are not necessary for marathoning.

                 

                Where is the disagreement? Only in the assumption that some of us think that beginners should do what elites do. No one has made that assumption.

                xor


                   

                  If you think this post is at odds with mikeymike or with anything I have said, then you are mistaken.

                   

                  Aren't you two the same person, though?

                   


                  Why is it sideways?

                     

                    Aren't you two the same person, though?

                     

                    I modified my post (before I saw your post.) Sorry. I shouldn't speak for mikey.

                      pithydoug, I said, "absolutely not required," which is not the same thing as saying, "not absolutely required."  Otherwise yeah nothing you said is at odds with what I said.

                      Runners run

                      JimR


                        Ed Whitlock's training:

                         

                        http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3200366

                         

                        I had read in an interview he gave that he had run twenty runs of 3 hours in length over a 60 day period leading up to his sub-3.

                         

                          Good one JimR! How could I have forgotten Ed, one of my idols and greatest sources of inspiration? I MUST be getting old. Yes, master of the 3-hour run.

                           

                          Looks like this thread still has legs. This important addition should be good for at least a couple more days. Thank you Jim!

                          Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33
                          kcam


                            Thanks for linking to that letsrun thread, Jim.  Good read.
                              This is the first thread that I have started that went 8 pages.....but there is a lot of good training information here....

                              Champions are made when no one is watching

                                This is the first thread that I have started that went 8 pages.....but there is a lot of good training information here....

                                 

                                 

                                Hey John. I wondered if you were still around. You got a good one going here.  Your training program looks pretty solid too, btw.

                                Age 60 plus best times: 5k 19:00, 10k 38:35, 10m 1:05:30, HM 1:24:09, 30k 2:04:33