High Volume Mileage vs. Long Run

I've tried both extremes:

80-100 mpw with only a few 20 milers. The first 15 miles of the race were the easiest of my life. Then I slogged it in.

50-60 mpw with 5x20, 2x26, 1x30. The race felt hard right away but never got much worse. My times were comparable.

The long run is the most over-rated aspect of athletic training. You could completely do without it if you wanted.

Do everything else right first, only then should you bother with the long run.

Long runs are necessary for proper marathon preparation. Remember the law of specificity.

malmo wrote:

The long run is the most over-rated aspect of athletic training. You could completely do without it if you wanted.

Do everything else right first, only then should you bother with the long run.

each to their own malmo. You have stated that you got tired after 10 miles, you have stated that 20 minutes at half marathon pace is too hard, I just can't understand your reasoning.

wellnow wrote:

each to their own malmo. You have stated that you got tired after 10 miles, you have stated that 20 minutes at half marathon pace is too hard, I just can't understand your reasoning.

Make up stuff much?

So you deny stating those points on previous threads?

High mileage, through chronic depletion, improves the ability of the muscles to utilize glycogen (more can be stored).

Long runs improve the "plumbing" (particularly venous return) and also cause the body to produce more energy from fat.

Since you can only obtain the ability through training to store enough glycogen for 90-120 minutes, it really comes down to how fast you can run a marathon. If you can be fast enough to run 2:30-3:00, the amount of energy from glycogen is large compared the about you need from fat, so the higher mileage runner with larger glycogen stores can get by with less fat utilization, and thus less long run training. But in a 4:00 runner, you need much more contribution from fat, and you won't see the same effect (unless much higher mileage makes that person a much faster runner), which is why the RW-type prgrams place considerably more overall emphasis on getting the long runs in.

Keep in mind that for a truly competitive runner going for high placing and maximum performance, it is not about what you can "get by with" but how much training you can do without overtraining, and how you distribute the training loads for greatest results. Such people do get benefits from long runs, but those long runs are often shorter in terms of time (but not necessarily distance) than for a slower runner that gets proportionately more benefit from fat utilization.

I've never said anything about "getting tired" after 10 miles.

I've said that runs of 25-40 minutes at 1/2 marathon pace is way too fast for a tempo run.

Both points debunked.

The long run can be a very useful tool. We should take it to the extreme and see what happens. Are there any guinea pigs that would be willing to run ONLY a long run each week and rest the other 6 days? Do that for 18 weeks and then run a marathon? I'd be really interested to see how this works out.

I'd think a master's runner, with tons of miles in his past would be able to pull this off with pretty good results. You could get some higher intensity work in by lifting the pace to near race effort in the last 4-5 miles of your long runs.

Then on the other hand, we could have someone doing no long runs, but tons of mileage. The subject would be running 2-3x7 miles every day. No runs longer than 7 miles, but 100+ miles per week.

UsedToBeKnowItAll, your point is to the extreme, but valid to some degree.

One could easily be competitive in a marathon without ever running over 10 miles in any single session. Perhaps that is what "wellnow" is referring to? Would I ever recommend you to train that way? No. Have I ever trained that way myself? No. The point was to illustrate the folly of those who get in the long run once a week at the expense of the other six days. In reality, your focus should be on getting the OTHER six days right first before adding the long run. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

Coach D wrote:

Long runs improve the "plumbing" (particularly venous return) ...

Pardon my ignorance, but exactly how do long runs improve venous return?

I have done that type of training in your first paragraph. One long bike ride every sunday, no training in between. Started of with 35 miles in January, added about 10 miles each week, worked up to 130 miles very hilly in July. What I got was a very good pace on the steep climbs for 2-3 minutes, but lousy endurance pace. The slow twitch fibers need daily stimulation for optimum development, regardless of age.

Your second paragraph is more interesting, but I think the runner would suffer past the 20 mile mark in a marathon.

malmo wrote:

I've never said anything about "getting tired" after 10 miles.

I've said that runs of 25-40 minutes at 1/2 marathon pace is way too fast for a tempo run.

Both points debunked.

You said something about 2x10 miles being less tiring than 1x20

About 1/2 marathon tempo runs, I do mid week road races as training for my track season, these are 5-7 miles, they are certainly faster than 1/2 marathon pace, and if I am feeling good, sometimes I will run them flat out, so I can't see the problem with 25-40 minutes at HM pace.

juks laer wrote:

Long runs are necessary for proper marathon preparation. Remember the law of specificity.

Ah yes, specificity, I shoulda done 20 at 5.30 miling three weeks before London. My fitness was very good, but I wasn't nearly as fast as I coulda shoulda woulda.

wondering wrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but exactly how do long runs improve venous return?

More capillaries, and larger blood vessel sizes. These things reduce the restriction in the body to the heart pumping more blood.

See Coe/Martin Chapter 4.

Coach D wrote:

More capillaries, and larger blood vessel sizes. These things reduce the restriction in the body to the heart pumping more blood.

See Coe/Martin Chapter 4.

Thanks. I knew about the increased capillarization, but was trying to make the connection to venous return. I appreciate your help.

wellnow wrote:

You said something about 2x10 miles being less tiring than 1x20

Imagine that.

wellnow wrote:

About 1/2 marathon tempo runs, I do mid week road races as training for my track season, these are 5-7 miles, they are certainly faster than 1/2 marathon pace, and if I am feeling good, sometimes I will run them flat out, so I can't see the problem with 25-40 minutes at HM pace.

The waste bin of unachieved potential is full of runners with your mindset. TEMPO RUNS ARE NOT RACES. They are not interchangeable.

Perhaps if you learned to train properly your 1/2 marathon pace would drop and a glorious epiphany would ring out in your head, "oh, I understand now"?

I think there is a miscommunication going on here...What Is A Tempo Run? What most people refer to as tempo runs might be different than what Malmo refers to as a tempo run. And...slower runners will have a much easier time running tempo runs at half pace than faster runners.

Alan

... Depends on the athlete. HVM vs Long Runs I would think differ for everyone as to which is more productive for the person.