Hills vs The Long Run, which is better?

The hills are just as good, if not better, under your first scenario (90 minutes versus 105 minutes steady pace). One reason is just that you will naturally have intervals in the hill run, which is often beneficial compared to a static pace.

For your second scenario, though---slow 20 miles flat versus an hour loop on mountains (8 or 9 miles, 1500-2000' climbing?), the hill workout is not long enough to replace the long flat run.

This is assuming reasonably hilly hills, say 7% grade average going up.

When did long runs become "The" long run?

Long runs are not an important part of 5k training. Somewhere it became law that you should run further every 7th day than the other 6 days. This is not the case. If you want to run more, run more... on any day of the week.

This is great news!

B.O. Railroad wrote:

When did long runs become "The" long run?

Long runs are not an important part of 5k training. Somewhere it became law that you should run further every 7th day than the other 6 days. This is not the case. If you want to run more, run more... on any day of the week.

I second this. Running for 105 min seems a bit much for 5k training (That is at least 15 miles!).

What time are you aiming for in the 5k?

hate it long wrote:

I hate the long run. Long being not even that long as I am training for 5k. But I like running hills / mountains and have access to lots of that type of terrain.

Am I screwing myself if I substitute running hills instead of a long flat steady run? How do these two compare? Say a 105 minute long run at a steady / medium pace, vs 90 minutes of mixed hills (really steep to rolling) at whatever pace is manageable?

Scenario: two guys of similar age and similarly poor "talent" put in similar weekly training. On Sunday one does a slow 20 miles, while the other does an hour loop on mountains. In 6-8 weeks of this does one come out fitter / faster than the other? If yes, which one?

Do hilly, long trail runs. 18 miles this morning with 2000 ft up, 2000 ft down. Keep a quick steps tempo, but keep the heart rate low.

105 mins? wrote:

What time are you aiming for in the 5k?

I'd like to touch 18:00 this year.

prelin wrote:

B.O. Railroad wrote:

When did long runs become "The" long run?

Long runs are not an important part of 5k training. Somewhere it became law that you should run further every 7th day than the other 6 days. This is not the case. If you want to run more, run more... on any day of the week.

I second this. Running for 105 min seems a bit much for 5k training (That is at least 15 miles!).

i second this:

Nick Willis about the long run:

(http://www.iaaf.org/news/feature/nick-willis-1500m-new-zealand)

My best piece of coaching advice

I didn’t receive it from anyone specifically, but more generally from the New Zealand running fraternity and that is to get your long run in every week. That is the ultimate lasting legacy of the Arthur Lydiard concept. People are always trying to challenge that and come up with new ideas but throughout I’ve always felt I needed to stick to the New Zealand tradition. I think it has carried me through even when I have been doubtful about some other training mechanisms I’ve had. The long run has proved the tried and trusted piece of the puzzle.

Two different things with different values. Both are important!

replace LR with hills. same time! even 100m up and down is better than LR.

what do you mean? run your long run in the hills (i.e. 2 hours time on feet) or run 2 hours the same steep incline up and down, again and again? the last option is just horrible.

hate it long wrote:

I hate the long run. Long being not even that long as I am training for 5k. But I like running hills / mountains and have access to lots of that type of terrain.

Am I screwing myself if I substitute running hills instead of a long flat steady run? How do these two compare? Say a 105 minute long run at a steady / medium pace, vs 90 minutes of mixed hills (really steep to rolling) at whatever pace is manageable?

Scenario: two guys of similar age and similarly poor "talent" put in similar weekly training. On Sunday one does a slow 20 miles, while the other does an hour loop on mountains. In 6-8 weeks of this does one come out fitter / faster than the other? If yes, which one?

Regular 90 minute runs over hills will make you strong as f*ck.