how important is the 20 mile long run in marathon training?

Doing half a dozen or more will markedly improve your marathon, particularly if you do a bunch of the last miles at MP. I consider myself ready for a marathon when I can run 21 with the last 13 at target MP.

Marathon ready? wrote:

I'm just curious, I recently seen a post in here of people finishing a marathon with long runs never exceeding 16 miles(they've never ran more than 16 miles outside of a race), these were sub 4 hr marathon finish times as well. So how important is the holy grail 20 mile long run to do decent in a marathon? Granted, one would assume running long runs at 20 miles should yield better results.

You've described the difference between finishing a marathon and competing/racing a marathon.

CycloneAlum wrote:

Marathon ready? wrote:

I'm just curious, I recently seen a post in here of people finishing a marathon with long runs never exceeding 16 miles(they've never ran more than 16 miles outside of a race), these were sub 4 hr marathon finish times as well. So how important is the holy grail 20 mile long run to do decent in a marathon? Granted, one would assume running long runs at 20 miles should yield better results.

You've described the difference between finishing a marathon and competing/racing a marathon.

So completing a marathon under 4 hours should take no more than a 16 mile long run in training?

Marathon ready? wrote:

CycloneAlum wrote:

You've described the difference between finishing a marathon and competing/racing a marathon.

So completing a marathon under 4 hours should take no more than a 16 mile long run in training?

With an ounce of talent yes

I thought it was so important that I did my 20 mile training run 10 days before the race. Before that my longest run was a half marathon. It worked.

It will help you obviously, though it is not necessary. Grete Waitz had never run more than 13 miles before her first NYC marathon victory.

Coureur22 wrote:

It will help you obviously, though it is not necessary. Grete Waitz had never run more than 13 miles before her first NYC marathon victory.

Granted she's a whole other level type of talent. I was thinking of doing a traditional marathon training plan, but after reading more and more and seeing different types of finishing times, I'm curious to know if i even need to go that route. I'm more than aware that traditional marathon training and the legendary 20 mile long run should in theory yield way better finishing times. In my situation im already running about 50 miles a week and seen some posts on here of other people doing very well at a marathon with having no single run greater than 16 miles. Made me wonder if i should just forget the idea of marathon training plan and stick to what I've been doing and just use my base to 'complete' a marathon. I usually race the half marathon about 3 times a year.

Some people think gross weekly mileage is more important say. 75 miles w a 12 mile long run trumps 50 miles w a 18 mile long run

A 20 miler in unto itself is nothing of significance. You have to look at the training as a whole. Shitty training with a good 20 miler will not yield good marathon results. Good training with a shitty 20 miler can yield a good marathon result.

Quit looking at 1 day out of the training week and focus on the overall training young grasshopper.

I'll leave this right here for your reading:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1890688&page=0

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2487659&page=1

joho wrote:

A 20 miler in unto itself is nothing of significance. You have to look at the training as a whole. Shitty training with a good 20 miler will not yield good marathon results. Good training with a shitty 20 miler can yield a good marathon result.

Quit looking at 1 day out of the training week and focus on the overall training young grasshopper.

I'll leave this right here for your reading:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1890688&page=0http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2487659&page=1

Thank you for posting those links! Understanding why some don't dwell over the LR or the significance of importance in relation to other training in the week. That helps alot. Ty again

32.19 kilometers is the magic number for your long run for a successful marathon.

Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

Most of the World deals in kilometers and 32.19 kilometers equals 20 miles.

I just BQ'd by 30 minutes. My longest run was 30kms. I ran a lot of kilometers though, 1000kms in the two months before and peaked at 130 kms. All my long runs were easy, I did nothing at marathon pace until my taper.

I did one interval workout, one tempo run per week both at around 10k pace and totalling 20 percent of my weekly mileage. Easy running for all the rest.

Hanson method doesn't call for more than 16m runs and it produces very fast times if you commit to the program. It's all about overall training as other have said not a few Sunday long runs.

Depends on your definition of 'decent'. Yes you can complete a marathon with long runs below 16 miles, or even lower, but you will not be trained optimally.

You could probably also complete a sub-4 marathon fuelled on nothing but pizza and beer for your entire training cycle if you wanted to.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM wrote:

Hanson method doesn't call for more than 16m runs and it produces very fast times if you commit to the program. It's all about overall training as other have said not a few Sunday long runs.

well the hanson's are vague about this. their elite team and even the recommendations in their book says add mileage as appropriate. but i agree, their basic charts top at 16. i have always been fascinated by the hanson model but end up using Pfitz.

As to the OP, i have always thought of the 20-24 milers as important to simulate the pain you will be in on the marathon. its not about building muscle, its about having that experience before hand and knowing what to do. having known what that post-wall hitting misery is and knowing though that you can keep going. knowing how terrible your legs will feel.

I have found my best marathons i had 5+ 20+ runs. i also agree with previous posts though that i was (trying) to race these not complete them. you can complete a marathon on 20 mile runs. and before i'm called out on it, i consider a sub3:00 marathon for a man >40 a 'trying to race it'. i wasn't competing but i was racing for my best times.

finally, good luck with your marathon.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM wrote:

Hanson method doesn't call for more than 16m runs and it produces very fast times if you commit to the program. It's all about overall training as other have said not a few Sunday long runs.

The "Hanson method" is the stuff in their marathon training book. The reason behind 16 mile maximum long run is that for most non elites a 20 mile (or more) long run will take far too long. You don´t see elite runners do regular 3 hour+ runs.

Hanson training group marathoners do longer long runs than 16 miles.

Eh,, wrote:

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM wrote:

Hanson method doesn't call for more than 16m runs and it produces very fast times if you commit to the program. It's all about overall training as other have said not a few Sunday long runs.

The "Hanson method" is the stuff in their marathon training book. The reason behind 16 mile maximum long run is that for most non elites a 20 mile (or more) long run will take far too long. You don´t see elite runners do regular 3 hour+ runs.

Hanson training group marathoners do longer long runs than 16 miles.

i agree with this. sorry if my comment came off wrong, was unclear.

Marathon ready? wrote:

I'm just curious, I recently seen a post in here of people finishing a marathon with long runs never exceeding 16 miles(they've never ran more than 16 miles outside of a race), these were sub 4 hr marathon finish times as well. So how important is the holy grail 20 mile long run to do decent in a marathon? Granted, one would assume running long runs at 20 miles should yield better results.

I'm a strong believer in that total volume is more important than any single workout. I am 5k focused and my long run 13 miles in the high 6's. That with my total volume of 60-70 MPW, I hopped into a marathon and very easily ran a 2:59 to grab my BQ without interrupting my indoor season last year at all.

I realise that it is not a stellar time (nor was I "racing" it) considering my mid distance PBs, but it also shows that the mileage does accumulate enough to carry over. If I were to train for a marathon exclusively and ditch the shorter stuff I would certainly be running more total miles and thus a longer LR, but I don't think that 77% of a marathon (20/26) is a special number as compared to 65% (17 miles) or any other arbitrary number. If you mentally feel that 20 is a milestone, go ahead and get yourself the confidence, but I have a hard time believing there is some physical value add beyond that unless your total mileage is very, very high.

Eh,, wrote:

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM wrote:

Hanson method doesn't call for more than 16m runs and it produces very fast times if you commit to the program. It's all about overall training as other have said not a few Sunday long runs.

The "Hanson method" is the stuff in their marathon training book. The reason behind 16 mile maximum long run is that for most non elites a 20 mile (or more) long run will take far too long. You don´t see elite runners do regular 3 hour+ runs.

Hanson training group marathoners do longer long runs than 16 miles.

I was reviewing what they wrote up on their site as well. Basically never exceed a single run surpassing 3 straight hours of continuous running? So if it takes a person 3 hours to run 16 miles that would be a 11:15min/mile pace?!!! And if another person ran 20 miles in 3 hours that would be a 9:00min/mile pace. Supassing the 3 hour mark significantly increases skeletal injury and has little to no positive training effect.