Should long runs be capped at 150 minutes?

I'm going to go with... YES!

2.5 hours isn't very long. I am just getting warmed up at this stage.

Plus this box of donuts isn't going to metabolize itself.

In general, yes 2.5 hours is about the upper length a long run should be. If you can run that long, work on increasing the pace. However, there is an exception for marathoners who aren't hitting 22+ in that time. They should be doing some long runs closer to marathon distance. At least 20 miles if not more.

Yes I read it in Jack Daniels Running Formula. If someone doesn't run at least 14-18 miles in training, how can they hope to do reasonable well in the marathon? Are long runs over 15 miles, let's say, purely to add confidence or is there not a physiological benefit to time on your feet? Such as teaching your body to use its fat reserves? Maybe 2.5 hours is sufficient towards that purpose?

Hadd had a 3h run in his program when reaching mileage peak.

Also, since you mentioned beginners, for someone who's running a marathon over 4h, 2.5h is only 26.5km (if at race pace). I'd say they can go a bit further.

I have read that the aerobic benefits from going past 3 hours (or 180 minutes) are so minimal that you may as well not bother. In a practical sense running for a longer period of time is simply going to tax your low on fuel body and potentially start depleting muscles past a level that encourages basic growth and regeneration so the advice may be sensible/fitting. I don't have any direct studies to verify this though so it is somewhat a 'grain of salt' theory.

From a practical stand point the best advice I could give someone is that an effective long run for marathon training would do 3 things:

-Build their aerobic base to a level where moving for long periods of time feels somewhat normal

-Builds their mental fortitude and confidence in their ability to complete the marathon

-Doesn't ruin their other planned workouts by over stressing the body

So if the long run is burning someone out then it is too long or too hard. On the other side if it isn't giving them confidence in their ability to actually hold pace for 26.2 miles then it probably isn't long enough.

[quote]PatrickSebast wrote:

I have read that the aerobic benefits from going past 3 hours (or 180 minutes) are so minimal that you may as well not bother. In a practical sense running for a longer period of time is simply going to tax your low on fuel body and potentially start depleting muscles past a level that encourages basic growth and regeneration so the advice may be sensible/fitting. I don't have any direct studies to verify this though so it is somewhat a 'grain of salt' theory.

This is what I suspect too although Jack Daniels does not use it as one of his arguments. His only argument is that long runs over 2.5 hours might cause injury.

The duration of the long run is more important in slower runners than distance. I'm going to assume maybe your marathon pace is around 3:30-3:40 for reference. If you run any longer than 2 to 2.5 hours, the time on your feet can really cause problems with how your body repairs itself. This goes for all runners, regardless of speed. Only maybe once a month should you ever exceed the time limit of 2.5 hours, and your long run should cap off at a consistent 16 miles each week, with your medium long run at around 10-12. For beginners, the easiest way to improve on your marathon pace (which is about 70-75% of your max HR) is to run your 16 mile runs like a tempo (when you get used to it, of course) and should be about 20-30 seconds/mile slower than your marathon pace. Your easy runs should be about 6-8 miles and around 2 minutes slower than marathon pace, unless that is so slow your form starts to break apart. For example, I have ran multiple 15 mile long runs but haven't ever ran a marathon. I do 6 mile easy runs in the morning, followed by a 4 mile run in the evening on easy days. My easy run pace is 8:30-9:00 and my long runs can be as fast as 6:30/mile, or about 1 minute per mile slower than my 5k pace.

If you follow the Hansons plan you never run longer than 16 miles. If you can't complete 16 miles in 2.5 hours then you shouldn't run a marathon. The long run shouldn't be that important or a huge percentage of the weeks total. I followed the Hansons plan and cheated some and topped out with a long run of 19. I was more prepared than when I was doing 22 mile runs. When you take out most of the rest days and are constantly fatigued then the long run isn't the only basis for improvement.

Basically running more than 2.5 hours is a waste unless you plan on slow jogging a 5 hour marathon which is a waste of time. If you are that unathletic I suggest you take up mountain biking or cycling. No skill or fitness is required for that.

Not Fast but Furious wrote:

Basically running more than 2.5 hours is a waste unless you plan on slow jogging a 5 hour marathon which is a waste of time. If you are that unathletic I suggest you take up mountain biking or cycling. No skill or fitness is required for that.

Good job.

What? Marathon pace HR is nowhere near 70-75% of ones max. 80-85% surely. Agree with everything else though, though giving advice on how to train for the marathon when you haven't actually ran one yourself is pushing it a bit.

dietbacon wrote:

Hadd had a 3h run in his program when reaching mileage peak.

Also, since you mentioned beginners, for someone who's running a marathon over 4h, 2.5h is only 26.5km (if at race pace). I'd say they can go a bit further.

They can but should they? The gains are minimal (i.e. a 2.5 hour run is already giving them a huge boost) and you have to figure you are dealing with an athlete with poor mechanics and not a ton of mileage history. Those extra miles are going to be extra stressfull as they get tired and don't absorb impact as well.

I am guessing most people where this is an issue would be better off trying to up the frequencey (i.e. 2.5 hours on one day and another 90+ min run mid week) of long runs.

In the marathon, there is a sort of a difference between the racers (i.e. they run the race faster than training pace) and the surviovers (they want to finish and will run about the same pace or slower than training). Everyone I have meet that runs 4+ hours is a survivor. They would be much better finding a way to get more mileage in than doing anything complicated.

I most closely follow Daniels philosophy. Most long runs during peak mileage are 2:15 to 2:30 (22-23). However, I feel it is beneficial to diverge a bit and run 1 long run of 3hrs, unfueled, 4-6 weeks out.

If you plan on running say a 2:50 marathon your longest run should be 2:50. Now a 2:50 marathon is 6:30 pace. Add 1 minuteper mile to that and your longest training run should be about 22-23 miles.

Banner wrote:

What? Marathon pace HR is nowhere near 70-75% of ones max. 80-85% surely. Agree with everything else though, though giving advice on how to train for the marathon when you haven't actually ran one yourself is pushing it a bit.

That depends on how fast you run a marathon. I doubt someone running a marathon in 4 hours will run at 85% mhr.

What's the point of a 2.5hr long run for the average or even above average runner especially a bginner?

In a best case scenario a beginner will get injured at a worst case exhaustion.

Stupidity of some people/runners continues to amaze me

If you don't run longer than 2.5 hours, how are you going to figure out what you can and cannot eat and drink during a long race?

Is that one idiot saying running a few hours on a flat man-made surface is harder than biking up and down treacherous rocky technical mountain trails?

That seems a little ridiculous.

LLS training wrote:

If someone doesn't run at least 14-18 miles in training, how can they hope to do reasonable well in the marathon?

What do you define to be "reasonably well in the marathon"?

Like...if you can't run 14 miles in 2.5 hours, is there a short term line of sight to a "reasonably good" marathon finish from there? It could be a self-answering question.