Myth of the 20-mile long run

1 lurker | 49 watchers

First
Prev
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Next
Last

Brunski Aug 2017 11:08am, 17 Aug 2017 404 posts	0 Brunski Chrisull, yeah there's definitely something around mitochondria deterioration that occurs after just a few days rest, and can even occur if you over taper for a marathon. Tim I think there's any number of different types of runner, and the amount of time you choose/have available to train will help you set what you can best do to get through the 26.2 miles. If you only have the one day where you can run I'm sure gradually increasing the distance to a point (say 19.467 miles) would be the way to go. If you can run 3 times a week that's better, if 6 or 7 you might get close to training to your peak.
Chrisull Aug 2017 11:23am, 17 Aug 2017 11,623 posts	0 Chrisull >>Whilst I respect the learning from the L4 coach that Chrisull refers to, does that imply >>that for runners covering ultra distances too that 2hr max runs should be the limit for >>them as well? Nope it doesn't. Probably important to mention this was an "injury avoidance and prevention workshop" and a lot of the focus was on marathons and training and the average runner doing a marathon for the first/second time (which to be fair the vast majority of runners we actively coach are - the experienced ones know what they are doing, know what works, probably follow a training plan and seek far less advice) and the "need" for 20 mile long runs. If you're going to run 100 miles, I would not advocate only doing 2 hours max long runs! HOWEVER - it was given as something to consider for the more experienced, and I know P&D has the mid week MLSRs and also Ed Whitlock's training plans. Check Canute's wonderful blog on the training of Ed Whitlock: "My training is now without coaching and consists of daily long runs, typically 2 hours I don’t measure the distance and purposely keep the speed down. I don’t have any streak going but try to run every day, no hard easy day routine. I do the odd semi “speed” work out, but not on the track. I race frequently to give me speed and to make me race tough." canute1.wordpress.com Later Canute acknowledges some of Ed's training runs were 3 hours. But a daily LSR anybody? There's lots more caveats, and modifying thoughts from Canute, but you're better off reading them.
simbil Aug 2017 11:23am, 17 Aug 2017 7,524 posts	0 simbil Chrisull, " Here is one thing not yet considered here... the slower your pace (and this isn't meant in any way as a disparagement), the more steps you will take (your stride length will be shorter), the more contact with the ground, therefore the more stress on your body." Sorry to knit pick, but that's not quite the whole story. As you run faster, you spend more time in the air and less time on the ground, but the time on the ground carries a greater impulse force. Walking has no air time between steps and so each step is just 1 x body weight. When running, if you spend half your time in the air, each step carries 2 x body weight. Sprinting gets up to 3-4x body weight on each step. So the most stressful thing you can do is run long and fast. If you need/want to run long, you need to decrease the pace in order to lessen the stress. The art of training is to produce enough stress to encourage adaptation, but not too much stress which instead can cause injury or burnout.
Chrisull Aug 2017 11:25am, 17 Aug 2017 11,624 posts	0 Chrisull simbil - yes fair enough, I was slightly misrepresenting to emphasise the point that high duration on its own carries its own problems. I would agree there is more to it.
Chrisull Aug 2017 11:29am, 17 Aug 2017 11,625 posts	0 Chrisull I would also add a small anecdote from someone doing the GUCR run, who quit at 85 miles, not because they couldn't face running further, but because they couldn't face the walking in between. They would run for a couple of hours, then walk an hour, but the walking became too painful, and eventually they couldn't get going again.
larkim Aug 2017 11:37am, 17 Aug 2017 2,534 posts	0 larkim @Chrisull - the title of that workshop then is key. In the debate about whether running long is beneficial, the coach was suggesting (in context) that running only up to 2hrs is best for a runner planning a marathon if injury avoidance and prevention was a key to their plan. If performance was sought rather than injury avoidance (I appreciate there is a link of course - you can't perform if you are injured, but injury avoidance is a risk management approach - even if your risk of injury is higher, it doesn't follow that you will get injured etc), might the coach have been advocating an alternative approach which maximised running potential, rather than one aimed at minimising running injury risk?
HappyG(rrr) Aug 2017 11:47am, 17 Aug 2017 27,171 posts	0 HappyG(rrr) Good point larks. And be careful about conflating marathon and ultra (esp over 50 mile, off road, hilly ultras vs. road, flat marathon with best time/pace goal) training. So many variations between these. Trust me, I have some experience in this regard! G
Fragile Do Not Bend Aug 2017 12:06pm, 17 Aug 2017 2,171 posts	0 Fragile Do Not Bend Chrisull- the back of the pack marathoners are more likely to have walked a fair chunk of it which is a lot less strain on the body than running the whole thing.
Chrisull Aug 2017 12:16pm, 17 Aug 2017 11,626 posts	0 Chrisull Totally agree, I think there was a percentage given of injury dropouts in training and it was alarmingly high for novices. I just like to highlight thoughts on other approaches, as there's always more than one way to skin the marathon cat. I know people who didn't go beyond 15 miles and got sub 3.10 on the Cornish (I would not advocate that), but it's always good to be unfixed in your thinking.
larkim Aug 2017 12:42pm, 17 Aug 2017 2,535 posts	0 larkim Absolutely agree with that Chris - though I suspect I'm becoming more homogenised by the day!