|
Aug 2017
8:01am, 14 Aug 2017
2,186 posts
|
Tim of MK
I think that perhaps there is no 'right' answer. That's unsurprising, as we're all different.
Personally, I'll likely go to 17 or 18 miles in my last three pre-taper weeks, putting more emphasis on faster and stronger mid-week runs.
|
|
Aug 2017
3:20pm, 14 Aug 2017
7,814 posts
|
Little Nemo
Good luck, let us know how it goes 
|
|
Aug 2017
4:22pm, 14 Aug 2017
2,513 posts
|
larkim
We do too much "round number" thinking generally don't we? Why use a 7 day training cycle? Why not 8, or 5, or 13, or 17? Why 90 minutes to 2 hours as "optimum"? Why not 85-127 minutes? Why 20 mile long runs?
There's psychology at play too of course. Into the 20s and you feel your close to the required distance. But that's a function of measuring things by miles.
Even our targets are set with arbitrary numbers in mind. Why is "sub-3" a thing? Why running a marathon in under 10,800 seconds is relevant? Why not sub 11,000? Or sub 200 minutes?
Saying that, the majority of marathon plans from the established authors tend to go up to 20 miles. Why? Is that because if they don't people will imagine they are not good plans? Possibly, it's all about drawing a line "somewhere".
|
|
Aug 2017
5:02pm, 14 Aug 2017
27,139 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Tim, I haven't read all the other comments, but in your original post you don't state what the goal is (or have I misread?)
20 mile runs are not necessary for general aerobic condition. Agree.
But: 20 mile (plus) long run(s) are necessary or at least beneficial training for a marathon.
Did you mean "for a marathon"? If so, I'll go on to say why... (in my humble opinion, non-expert view, limited experience etc.!)
G
|
|
Aug 2017
5:04pm, 14 Aug 2017
27,140 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
(Obviously you do say, "in marathon training..." but then go on to talk about "for aerobic benefit", so I'm just trying to be clear about your question and topic. Ta. G )
|
|
Aug 2017
8:11pm, 14 Aug 2017
2,187 posts
|
Tim of MK
My goal is to complete a full-marathon not too long from now. But my question is not about me personally.
Rather, it is about whether slogging around one or more 20-milers in training (as opposed to say a cluster of 16-milers) has benefits that are backed by evidenced sports-science, as opposed to tradition.
Yes, a lot of British and American marathon training programmes do indeed 'peak' with a 20-mile effort. But why?
Also, I wonder if French or German equivalents do training schedules peak with a 32.2kms run (the equivalent to 20 miles), or whether they culminate with say a 30kms run (ie circa 18.5 miles).
|
|
Aug 2017
8:38pm, 14 Aug 2017
2,188 posts
|
Tim of MK
An article that I've just read (one of many, many similar ones to be found)
"Myth - You have to do a 20-mile run to do a marathon.
Think about that in time for a second. If your goal is a four-hour marathon, it would take you over three hours to finish 20 miles at race pace—and,........you’re not going to do an entire long run at race pace, you’ll do it slower. “There’s a law of diminishing returns after three hours,” Berard says. “And being out there that long requires a substantial amount of recovery.” Therefore, he prefers to think about time spent running rather than distance—and your longest long run shouldn’t top 2 hours, 45 minutes. He caps this program at 18 miles, which he says is akin to European plans that often max out at 30 kilometers. [Note that if, for your own psychological reasons, you'd like to do more than 18, you can do so if your "easy" pace training miles are at/faster than 8:30/mile. If that's the case, you could bump each 18 mile run to 20 miles and leave the remainder of the week(s) the same. But, Berard's advice is to not go faster than your “easy” pace and to not surpass that 2-hour 45-minute mark.] Also, the bunched run (two longer runs back-to-back) that you'll see on the plan is designed to simulate a long run (from a physiological perspective) with a diminished injury risk. Translation: runners aren’t required to run for as long, at one time, but bunching the runs on consecutive days will simulate the physiological stress/benefits required to elicit desired response."
(Thanks to Men's Fitness)
|
|
Aug 2017
9:03pm, 14 Aug 2017
7,660 posts
|
Watford Wobble
I know of a very well known runner that frequents this site that does no longer than 15 miles for his marathon training.
I on the other hand like 21 mile long runs.
|
|
Aug 2017
10:01pm, 14 Aug 2017
15,917 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
As someone on their first marathon you would not do 20m at race pace. More experienced runners may. But weeks if not monthd beforehand to guage progress.
My old coaches told me, and they had run many maras. Your lsst 5 runs before tslering would add up to 100...sounds daunting but if you taper for 3 weeks and have cut down recovery weeks would have your weekly long runs as something like
18, 20, 10, 18, 20, 22, 16, 10, raceday. These will all be slower than your race pace and gradually build up your ability to run for your target time.
|
|
Aug 2017
10:10pm, 14 Aug 2017
11,002 posts
|
paul a
Spot on WS.
|
