|
Aug 2017
1:12pm, 15 Aug 2017
11,820 posts
|
early bird
:-)G my long run at the weekend was only 12 miles so not a quick time sorry I think the confusion came when I said my longest 'planned' long run is 18 :-/
I'm upping my distance on long run 2 miles a week so will get to 18 before the event which will be the following week! Considering doing a drop back though on the last week but I think 16 is too low. On the event if things go badly wrong it's a two lap course so I could in theory complete a HM but don't want to let down GG It is most definitely a fun event though and organisers have said no cut off as they want everyone to enjoy and complete it but if pushed they will put in an 8 hour limit. I would like to do it 6 1/2 so I can enjoy the day rather than kill myself trying to get around.
I don't think I'd want to be out for 6 1/2 hours on a long run  I think I will stick to the distance and trust in mental strength and the company and atmosphere on the day
|
|
Aug 2017
1:17pm, 15 Aug 2017
11,004 posts
|
paul a
Distance not time.
|
|
Aug 2017
1:31pm, 15 Aug 2017
11,822 posts
|
early bird
ok so 18 mile last 'long run' it is
|
|
Aug 2017
1:37pm, 15 Aug 2017
11,611 posts
|
Chrisull
The local level 4 "flying" coach round here (Cornwall) at a presentation last year had a lot to say on this subject. He said that 20 miles came from historically when the average marathon time being 3 hrs 15, whereas now it's close to 5 hours. So 20 miles was for most good (not average) marathon runners of the 70s/80s, was a 2hr - 2hr 15 minute (maximum) kind of run , and they certainly wouldn't consider spending much more than that on their longest runs. So it came directly from their experience and nothing more than that, in his and others opinions.
He said that the challenge for coaches is now to adapt from this habitual mindset - that 20 miles is what you have to do in one training run, because a 20 mile run can take 3hr 30 or 4hrs for an average runner. He said coaches were now coming to the opinion from evidence from sports scientists that spending this amount of time on your legs was actually damaging and counter productive - because of the time needed to recover from it - which subsequently means training runs for the rest of the week are then impaired, and that what an alternative might look like is two days, back to back 2hr runs for those who aren't getting the necessary distance from a 2 hr run kind of run.
This isn't to say that any of what he said was set in stone, he was outlining new approaches, consideration and thinking as to what is going on.
|
|
Aug 2017
1:51pm, 15 Aug 2017
13,272 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Chris, I don't think it is the distance (that causes damage and is counter productive) it is the pace. Nearly all 'recreational' runners, run their lsr too fast and forget the point of the lsr. If you're wrecked after the lsr YOU RAN IT TOO FAST.
I was in that camp. However slowing down and/or combining with Run/Walk means that training can continue the following week.
|
|
Aug 2017
1:54pm, 15 Aug 2017
27,151 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
So my 60 miles this week, including a 15 mile midweek run and a 12 mile with 4 at tempo, then my half marathon race at the weekend will be *impaired* by my 22.6 mile 2,500 ft 4.5 hour run just done on Sunday?
I'd go with "affected" by, but not impaired by. Imho.
Why would 4 hour run be harder to recover from, for a 6 hour marathoner, than a 2 hour run is for a 3 hour marathoner? I don't get that. They're both doing events of the same effort, but the slower runner will have to spend longer doing it. So they'll probably have to spend longer training for it too. Ultra runners happily go out and do 6, 8, 10 hour run days, by doing run / walk etc. Then they do intervals during the week.
What is this "myth" that you'll die after 4 hours of running? Not criticising, just genuinely interested to know where that coach gets that idea from? G
|
|
Aug 2017
1:56pm, 15 Aug 2017
27,152 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Cross post with Fenners. Completely agree with him. If slower pace / lower intensity, then less "impairment". G
|
|
Aug 2017
1:57pm, 15 Aug 2017
13,273 posts
|
Fenland (Fenners) Runner
Spot on HappyG. Time on feet isn't what damages you, it is pace.
|
|
Aug 2017
2:06pm, 15 Aug 2017
27,153 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
EB, do at least 2 "easy" weeks (i.e. less, not more! than you have been doing each week up to then)? Your body cannot give you any physiological benefit in the last 2 weeks before your event. You can only tire yourself out and risk injury.
I have done two weeks *zero-run* taper before, under doctor's orders, and got a marathon PB. Also a two week *uber taper* due to a serious cold that meant I cancelled almost all my runs - long, 5K race and final intervals. And got my best ever time.
In the last 2 weeks you can't under train. You can only over train! Imho. Other opinions available etc etc. ! G
|
|
Aug 2017
2:18pm, 15 Aug 2017
10,987 posts
|
Autumnleaves
Some really interesting points on this thread - I have yet to step up to the full marathon distance but this year have run pretty much all my long slow runs in company with slower beginner runners - I think the last time I seriously trained myself for distance (2015, Metric Marathon) I tried to run them way too fast. I hated all my longest runs (went up to 15 miles) and found them very hard to complete. This year I've done double figure runs with much more ease and the whole thing has been easier to recover from. I spend huge amounts of time trying to persuade people I coach to slow down....
|
