Marathon long runs (Read 960 times)

Come December i'll be starting training for my 3rd Marathon I was just wondering what peoples thoughts were on the long run There are AFAIK 2 camps The ones who believe that the long run should equal the length of time you expect to finish in (My last marathon was 4h 36) Others suggest you should cap the long run at 2½-3hours even if this is just 15-18 miles I can understand the reasoning between the two. You don't want to wear yourself out between sessions and get to the start line healthy But you don't want to sacrafice lack of long runs

PH, I don't see it there on the list, specifically, and I'm too lazy to go to each link and search for the few replies that might address this topic. (ok, I'm grumpy today) Just as an aside, my recent longlong runs were around 21-22 miles, a bit over 3hrs 30min. I'm thinking of increasing the longlong runs to 24 miles or so on my next marathon cycle. Very interested in hearing the discussion on this topic.

Thanks for that, must have missed that thread, blame it on worhking nights all week

I'm so confused. I'm in the slower runner camp. I've done one 20 mile run for my marathon training (strained a muscle, out 2 days. So the 20 miles cost me an additional 10 miles of training). I have at least one more 20 scheduled. Is it a good idea to do it or not? There was an awful lot of great info my Mikeymike, Nobby and others but if that doesn't apply to us slower runners than what should I do?

If you've got lower weekly mileage, getting that long run in, and making it longer, becomes more important. The more weekly mileage you've got, the less important it becomes.

While I understand it's important, psychologically, to have crossed the 20-mile barrier at least once in training, there's probably not a whole lot to be gained, physiologically, from doing training runs much longer than 3 hours.

This statement here agrees with my first marathon experience. I was shooting for around 4 hours. That's not fast. My longest training run was 22 miles, and it took about 3 and a half hours. I really only did that so that mentally I knew I could cover the distance. For my next marathon I plan on capping the long run at about 3 hours, but run more total weekly mileage. Because I know I'll be able cover the distance, I see no sense in plodding along for another 20-30 minutes during the long run. I can throw that time into some quality work during the week.

While I understand it's important, psychologically, to have crossed the 20-mile barrier at least once in training, there's probably not a whole lot to be gained, physiologically, from doing training runs much longer than 3 hours.

As a newbie runner and someone who is old and slow, I think it is both psychologically important and physiolgically important to go long for distance and time. I'm transitioning from walking to running. My first marathon took 7 1/2 hours to complete. I needed to know that I could stay on my feet for 8 hours and also how my body would react to that time and distance. At 3 hours, I hadn't even made it to the half way mark. Once I'd done the first 8 hour long walk, I knew what to expect from my body and once I finished the first marathon, I knew I could do the distance. Since then I'm faster, but have still walked most of the way. This upcoming marathon will be a first time to try it as a run/walk instead of a walk/run. Going out for 21 miles two weeks ago was important to me to know that I could still be running after 20 miles and I was thrilled that I did it in less than 6 hours. My goals for this one: have fun, don't get injured, finish, finish between 6 1/2 and 7 hours. Rose To date: 6 marathons. 1st in age group twice and 2nd in age group once.

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. Roses Revenge: I have one word for you: WOW! Not too many people can claim 2-hour improvement! Congratulations; totally hats off to you. So I had Srlopes on one hand (for running, what was it, 60+ marathons last year) and now you, at 66, running 6-hour marathon... I'm sort of tipping toward you now in terms of level of respect! ;o) 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. I posted this at Cool Running thead (I should go back and revisited what I exactly posted...); I like the idea of coach Bill Squires'. He said he would have slower runners do, say, 3-hour run in the morning; have them go home, change clothes, dry up, have something to eat/drink...then go straight into anohter 6-miles/1 hour run. This would break it (a super long run) up in to two segments, not as demanding mentally as well as physically, and you'll probably get just as much benefit from straight super long run. Sully: I took a look at your log. Interesting... So you did almost 2-hour run only 2 days after near-4-hour run... No wonder you "only" plodding at 13+ minute pace! You also did 2 days of hill training back to back... Any particular purpose for those? If you can't answer this question, you should think a little harder about following any pre-determined training program. Econo: Hmmmm... Hard to say; most (almost all?) of whom I've helped only gone 3-hours and broke 4 hours. One thing I can say is; you've run sub-1:50 half and 24 minutes for 5k. I'd be surprised to see you NOT making BQ time! My suggestion would be, yup AKTrail would have guessed it, hills. Do hill training to strengthen your legs. I have NO doubt you can make it under 4. Arla: Hey! It was my line to you; "I love your name!" ;o) So what am I doing writing so much here? I should be spending more time writing to my own website! ;o)