Is there any PHYSIOLOGICAL reason why you need long runs for races 10k and under?

Malmo says there is no need for long runs if you race the 10k and below.

Depends how you define long run.

Certainly a talented runner can run a strong half marathon without any training runs over 10 miles.

A great runner could break 60' for half marathon with no training runs (or training days) over 7-8 miles.

Physiologically, the adaptations are a primarily a function of duration and intensity but both have limits.

Too much or too hard is destructive to adaptation. In that sense, rest can be more effective training than a misguided workout. Importantly, 10 miles at 6'/mi is not the same training as 10 miles at 5'/mi, or 10 x 1 mi 4:50 w 70 sec rest, or 20 x 800 2:20 w/ 70 sec rest, so fixating on mileage totals can get a bit silly.

The psychological adaptations are primarily a function of consistency, success and periodic breakdown and depletion followed by recovery. All of these factors correlate with challenging but not exhausting training. And only those with an aptitude would actually enjoy the process enough to continue long term.

Bone density, increased VO2 max, mitochondria production, increased blood volume... lots of ways to skin a cat but I love long runs.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Malmo says there is no need for long runs if you race the 10k and below.

No I didn't.

malmo wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Malmo says there is no need for long runs if you race the 10k and below.

No I didn't.

Let me restate that, you said it is the least important run to do if ones main focus is the 10k and below.

malmo wrote:

interesting schedule wrote:

assuming we can all agree that long runs are the most important,

Absolutely wrong. Long runs are the least important aspect of training. So unimportant, that you could get away with not doing them at ll if you wanted.

I'm sorry Malmo for misquoting you. This is what I was thinking when I said that.

Besides strengthening connective tissue and muscle fibers, long runs improve aerobic fitness. Since the 5K is about 90-95% aerobic energy fueled, the 10K about 95-96% aerobically fueled, and the half marathon and marathon about 98-99% aerobically fueled, there really isn't all that much difference in the requirement for aerobic fitness. Runs longer than 90-ish minutes tend to fully deplete glycogen stores in some slow-twitch fibers, both triggering an increase in glycogen stores (you can double your muscle glycogen) and recruiting other slow-twitch fibers and intermediate fibers, which creates a greater training adaptation. You'll also increase your count of both mitochondria (the aerobic energy-producing power plants within each muscle fiber) and capillaries (the supply lines that bring oxygen and nutrients to your muscle fibers). Most runners who do long runs also experience improvement in stride efficiency (a nervous system adaptation), which leads to better running economy. No, you don't need to do 20-plus milers like a marathoner, but the long run has something for every running body.

god dayum some heavy hitters in this thread right here.

It depends on who you talk to.

James Li of the University of Arizona prefers to have his athletes do quality miles over the quantity of miles.

Jim O'Brien of Arcadia is adamant on having long runs to build mileage base. The idea is that you need miles to build a strong aerobic base in order to have a good foundation.

But then, it's easier to do long runs in the temperate climate of Southern California than in the harsh climate of the Sonoran Desert, so I can see why James Li's training plans may work better in Arizona than in California.

Some people respond better to faster miles instead of more miles. We're all different. Do what works best for you.

Runs longer than 1 hour build strength and allow a person to have stamina and strength long into the race. A 10k can wear on a body by the 20 minute mark, the lactic acid can build to a point of causing the legs to lose pep, push off, and become lethargic.

The strength one can create from runs longer than 1 hour, on a regular basis, about one per week, or more if you are in your 20's and can recover earlier, are essential in success.

I typically recommend to runners who are targeting h a half marathon and shorter, get in at least one set of hill repeats every ten days, one run longer than one hour, and, if able, to get on the track for various repeats every 6-8 days. Of course, most of this depends on the level of ability, age, and how much workload the person can handle.

I have one runner in their 40's, a little over weight, to run 40 mpw, get one fartlek in per week, one run over 70 minutes, and to meet the group at the track on Thursdays for a designed workout. He usually runs 4-5 days per week.

Another is young female that runs 6-7 days per week, that includes hill repeats every 7 days, track workout every Thursday, a long run of 90 minutes, mixing in weights, drills, and plenty of stretching.

[quote]dsrunner wrote:

Depends how you define long run.

Certainly a talented runner can run a strong half marathon without any training runs over 10 miles.

A great runner could break 60' for half marathon with no training runs (or training days) over 7-8 miles.

Name one runner, breaking 60 minutes for the half, who's longest run leading up to the race, is 6-8 miles.

8004 wrote:

[quote]dsrunner wrote:

Depends how you define long run.

Certainly a talented runner can run a strong half marathon without any training runs over 10 miles.

A great runner could break 60' for half marathon with no training runs (or training days) over 7-8 miles.

Name one runner, breaking 60 minutes for the half, who's longest run leading up to the race, is 6-8 miles.

Not the same, but Grete Waitz ran 2:32, a marathon WR at the time, never having run longer than 12 miles in her life.

Waitz did two hour runs

louie woo wrote:

Bone density, increased VO2 max, mitochondria production, increased blood volume... lots of ways to skin a cat but I love long runs.

A long run does nothing for vo2 max, it doesn't stress any energy systems at all. bone density yes, but that's not necessary for shorter distances. Blood volume is an adaptation to sweating and can be done on low volume.

Someone said extra glycogen, again big deal for 10k and less. All these things are adaptations to running much farther than race distance, and used as a rationale for training that way when the true reason is some people just like long runs.

8004 wrote:

[quote]dsrunner wrote:

Depends how you define long run.

Certainly a talented runner can run a strong half marathon without any training runs over 10 miles.

A great runner could break 60' for half marathon with no training runs (or training days) over 7-8 miles.

Name one runner, breaking 60 minutes for the half, who's longest run leading up to the race, is 6-8 miles.

Any runner who can break an hour could do that.

Bad Wigins wrote:

louie woo wrote:

Bone density, increased VO2 max, mitochondria production, increased blood volume... lots of ways to skin a cat but I love long runs.

A long run does nothing for vo2 max, it doesn't stress any energy systems at all.

Is this legit? Because if it's true, it means we've found a way to move an object without the use of energy and time travel is only a step around the corner. Who would of thought that the secret to anti-gravity was a long run.

Poirot wrote:

Bad Wigins wrote:

A long run does nothing for vo2 max, it doesn't stress any energy systems at all.

Is this legit? Because if it's true, it means we've found a way to move an object without the use of energy and time travel is only a step around the corner. Who would of thought that the secret to anti-gravity was a long run.

Bad Wigins = Genius

Bad Wigins wrote:

A long run does nothing for vo2 max, it doesn't stress any energy systems at all.

To be fair to Bad Wiggins, he didn't say that long runs don't USE energy systems; he said it doesn't STRESS them. That's somewhat true. (If you do faster long runs, within 20 seconds of MP, then you actually are starting to stress you energy systems.)

The mistake is assuming that VO2max only improves when you approach VO2max speeds. (I take this to be what he means by "stressing.") VO2max isn't a system; it's a measurement. It is affected by a huge number of physiological parameters, many of which we certainly do not know. One thing we do know, however, is that sustained running at paces well below VO2max leads to a number of aerobic adaptations that can have an impact on one's VO2max. As SoCal Pete noted earlier, one of the most important adaptations from long runs is that it trains your "benchwarmer" muscle fibers. When you start running, your nervous system will preferentially recruit the muscle fibers that are best trained. As the run gets longer, those fibers become exhausted, and newer, less well trained fibers have to get recruited (even including fast oxidative fibers, especially if you finish fast). That leads to capillarization and other adaptations in those fibers. (Of course, the universal caveat still applies: In well trained runners, VO2max doesn't change absent weight loss.)

I think a lot of people are also making the mistake of thinking solely in terms of energy systems, where the only objective of training is maximizing the amount of aerobic energy one can produce and anaerobic "debt" one can tolerate. (Incidentally, even from an energy systems perspective, the missing piece of a lot of American training programs is an emphasis on how much anaerobic energy one can produce, as distinguished from simple "lactate tolerance" training. This actually develops even more slowly than the aerobic system.) What people miss is the significance of peripheral muscular adaptations. This is the MAIN reason that people fatigue in a marathon for instance. (While you can run out of fuel, you shouldn't if you're properly carboloaded and taking on fuel as you go.) Most people have no trouble accepting the importance of peripheral muscle endurance in the marathon, but then they weirdly assume that it's irrelevant at shorter distances. That's just wrong, as any interval workout should demonstrate. Even with "full" recovery between reps, it eventually becomes difficult to maintain speed. That's not because of your energy systems; it's similar to the fatigue that a weightlifter feels. Now, I'm not saying for certain that the long run is the best way to improve muscular endurance, but I do think it has a role. Classic speed-endurance intervals are probably best, but any single stimuli will provide diminishing returns eventually. Probably best to push and pull the desired adaptations from different directions.

dsrunner wrote:

Certainly a talented runner can run a strong half marathon without any training runs over 10 miles.

A great runner could break 60' for half marathon with no training runs (or training days) over 7-8 miles.

Funniest sh1t i've seen in a while. After that it's quite sensible though.