I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.
BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.
The amount of time it takes to recover after running 26.2 miles or more is significant, even if it's a training run and not at fast pace. Keep in mind that you damage your muscles when you train. There are diminishing returns on overloading distance for one run. This is a big reason that coaches have their athletes break up their mid-week runs into 2/day. It's much easier to recover from two 8 mile runs than it is from one 16-miler.
Keep in mind that the above holds true for most of the marathoning population. I don't know you, your history, etc, so I can only give you what I know to be most directionally correct for the masses, including faster runners on this board.
Building a solid marathon runner takes seasons/years, and there are no short cuts. After each season, you should notice your body adapts a little better to longer runs, and longer races. Be patient.
[quote]mikey in va wrote:
The amount of time it takes to recover after running 26.2 miles or more is significant, even if it's a training run and not at fast pace. [quote]
BS
not at all. very significant muscle damage occurs with runs of a marathon and above, meaning that you need to back off quite a bit afterwards. your training runs should not radically decrease the quality of other runs for more than a few days at most. you should really be able to do a high quality workout a couple days later. if not, then the benefit from the run is not worth the drawbacks of lost workouts.
Good post. But we read in 'Running With The Buffalos' of them hitting low 20's, at hilly altitude no less. Recreation groups around me hit 20 miles. I just can't see it being that huge a deal for a pro, who builds up to it.
The training plan I have been working with has you do 2-3 marathon distance runs prior to the big day. We start the cycle at like 16 for the long run, then add every other week. so like 16-18-22-24-26-24-26-RACE for a 14 week cycle
After running Twin Cities last weekend as a hard workout, I felt a ton better than prior marathons where I was out for a week easy.
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
not at all. very significant muscle damage occurs with runs of a marathon and above, meaning that you need to back off quite a bit afterwards. your training runs should not radically decrease the quality of other runs for more than a few days at most. you should really be able to do a high quality workout a couple days later. if not, then the benefit from the run is not worth the drawbacks of lost workouts.
So if one's used to 3 miles per day, & a 5 miler effects them for a few days- then stay at 3 permanently or build up to 5?? I say the latter. This obviously is a parallel. Yes, 5 miles is not 26.2+ miles. But we're also talking pro marathoning.
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
not at all. very significant muscle damage occurs with runs of a marathon and above, meaning that you need to back off quite a bit afterwards. your training runs should not radically decrease the quality of other runs for more than a few days at most. you should really be able to do a high quality workout a couple days later. if not, then the benefit from the run is not worth the drawbacks of lost workouts.
I ran 31 miles and raced xc the next day. I ran really well and recovered quickly. I built up to it. It's called fitness. Stop generalizing. Some of us have done more training that your average hobby jogger.
Fading in a marathon is all about fuel consumption. Running long runs over 26.2 during base does not do that much to improve your glycogen stores or your ability to maintain marathon pace when muscle glycogen is depleted. I know a sub-elite ultra guy who runs 30-40 mile long runs regularly on weekends, but is at best a 2:45 marathoner. That is because he is not improving his specific endurance for the marathon when he is plodding out a 35 mile run at 7:30-8 min pace. He is actually going slow enough to give his body time to replenish glycogen stores by taking in lots of sugars and carbs. So, doing 28 mile long runs during base provides little, if any, benefit while only increasing the risk of injury.
The fact of the matter is that the marathon is a b%tch for everyone. Only a tiny number of even the elites can get it right every time. Look at how many E. Africans drop out at major marathons. I am sure that Bernard Koech thought that his training was spot on to get him to sub 2:04 and a win. But he faded and ended up out of the hunt with a 2:08.
Likewise, Christo Landry and other US runners who did the work and were ready to break 2:10 according to their training logs ended up with a very disappointing result because the marathon is a b%tch. For most of us, having one good race out of 5 is as good as it gets. Same goes for many aspiring US pro runners.
It's a matter of time spent running rather than distance. Once your run gets past two hours the benefits begin to diminish and eventually reach a point where they no loner exist and can even begin to reverse. You see Kenyans doing runs that go a mile or so beyond the marathon distance and think that everyone should do that. But those Kenyans are getting those runs done in 2:30-2:45. If you can get a 26-28 mile run in and not need more than, say three hours to do it, it's probably a good thing.
On the other hand there may be psychological advantages for SOME people. If you're nervous about the distance it may help a lot knowing that you've run 30 miles or so in one pop. And I know someone whose marathoning improved after doing the London to Brighton one year. He said that after racing 50 plus miles marathons seemed short.
It's a matter of time spent running rather than distance. Once your run gets past two hours the benefits begin to diminish and eventually reach a point where they no loner exist and can even begin to reverse. You see Kenyans doing runs that go a mile or so beyond the marathon distance and think that everyone should do that. But those Kenyans are getting those runs done in 2:30-2:45. If you can get a 26-28 mile run in and not need more than, say three hours to do it, it's probably a good thing.
On the other hand there may be psychological advantages for SOME people. If you're nervous about the distance it may help a lot knowing that you've run 30 miles or so in one pop. And I know someone whose marathoning improved after doing the London to Brighton one year. He said that after racing 50 plus miles marathons seemed short.
It's a matter of time spent running rather than distance. Once your run gets past two hours the benefits begin to diminish and eventually reach a point where they no loner exist and can even begin to reverse. You see Kenyans doing runs that go a mile or so beyond the marathon distance and think that everyone should do that. But those Kenyans are getting those runs done in 2:30-2:45. If you can get a 26-28 mile run in and not need more than, say three hours to do it, it's probably a good thing.
On the other hand there may be psychological advantages for SOME people. If you're nervous about the distance it may help a lot knowing that you've run 30 miles or so in one pop. And I know someone whose marathoning improved after doing the London to Brighton one year. He said that after racing 50 plus miles marathons seemed short.
You're better off basing your long runs on time, rather than distance. T-30 is good enough, no more than 3 hours is necessary for slower runners.
It's a matter of diminishing returns.
Sorry about all the posts.
Aren't you the same tool who can't stand slow tactical races?
Q: Marathoners should not hit long runs over 26.2 mi during base phase because ________ ?
A: Because we're not stupid.
Remember, as Arthur Lydiard did. He never divided one long run into two, because you wont develop your capillary system as well as you would if you did the run in one piece. Therefore, if you are used to go for long runs (over 26.2 miles) you wont have any problems with that. Remember, 800-metre runner Peter Snell ran a marathon distance in steady state every sunday..
what??? wrote:
I ran 31 miles and raced xc the next day. I ran really well and recovered quickly. I built up to it. It's called fitness. Stop generalizing. Some of us have done more training that your average hobby jogger.
Did you run any faster in the marathon? I would say no. If I thought I'd run faster after running a couple 31 milers I'd run 31 milers. But, unless you're a world-class runner running 2:0x, I just don't see the benefit in running anything over 21 when training for the marathon.
what??? wrote:
jjjjjjjjj wrote:not at all. very significant muscle damage occurs with runs of a marathon and above, meaning that you need to back off quite a bit afterwards. your training runs should not radically decrease the quality of other runs for more than a few days at most. you should really be able to do a high quality workout a couple days later. if not, then the benefit from the run is not worth the drawbacks of lost workouts.
I ran 31 miles and raced xc the next day. I ran really well and recovered quickly. I built up to it. It's called fitness. Stop generalizing. Some of us have done more training that your average hobby jogger.
Did you win?
Were there any "hobby jogger" type trainers ahead of you?