I mean OP is not wrong. Doing 20mi+ runs slow are a waste of an effort.
If you're doing a proper marathon cycle you should treat the long run as a workout day and therefore do part of the LR volume as reps or ideally MP (or 95%-98% of MP)
The only demographic that benefit doing an entire 20 mile run at a slow / totally easy pace are those just trying to run a marathon (with no time goals).
With how the sport has changed, it seems to me that doing 13-15 x Mile at MP with a short recovery is more specific training than sloggng about for 2+ hours.
Am I missing something? Is the long run just a tradition that people cannot break?
Building a base of cardio, physio and mental adaptation to the distance/time. Like practicing long tones on a brass instruments, you get more time and give concentration to refining form and smoothing overall body and mind tone. like polishing. Believe it or don’t.
Only the "I'm Just Trying To Finish" types only do long slow slogs. Anyone with any time goals mix up the weekend long runs with fast finish long runs, long runs at MP, and also some getting time on the legs type of runs. In a build up for a marathon there's room for all that.
You don't need to do just one thing.
Also remember, the first goal is to make it to the starting line.
I mean OP is not wrong. Doing 20mi+ runs slow are a waste of an effort.
If you're doing a proper marathon cycle you should treat the long run as a workout day and therefore do part of the LR volume as reps or ideally MP (or 95%-98% of MP)
The only demographic that benefit doing an entire 20 mile run at a slow / totally easy pace are those just trying to run a marathon (with no time goals).
Every single long run “as a workout day”? Every week?
I saw nice progress in a few cycles by more or less alternating easier long runs (not really “slow”) with long runs that included quality.
I had believed the real “workout day” view of the long run worked best for some high-mileage runners and for those who do a Hanson-style program, where you can keep up the “something of substance” at least partially because no one run goes long enough for the distance/time itself to be a recovery issue.
I thought I could maintain some volume by doing a couple of easier 20-22-milers as a progression: that’s one or two miles that might be 90s slower than MP, then mostly progression from around 75s slower to 35-45s slower. A quality long run might be 18 with 10-12 at MP straight through, maybe after one of 16 with 2 x 4 at MP, maybe 16-18 including 2 x 3 at HM effort with a 3-5 minute float between, etc.
I don’t know if I ever felt as though I could turn around from one of those, then put quality into a 20-miler then following weekend, and still recover for any workouts each week.
That was as a masters runner and being a little cautious about recovery, though. Was that wrong?
Easy long runs (just below the 1st ventilatory threshold) of 90 minutes or more improves fax oxidation (maximum fat oxidation) and that shifts your velocity curve to the right (faster) before you start burning more carbohydrate.
Fat oxidation at MP for high level runners is very, very low. It has to be because they're already over 80% of VO2max, at fat metabolism requires more oxygen per ATP than carb metabolism. It doesn't matter, though, because it's very easy to fuel a marathon exclusively on carbs.
Improved fat oxidation at lower intensity levels is still a really a good thing because it's an indicator of aerobic fitness, but it's basically irrelevant as a fuel source in distances shorter than ultras.
Long slow distance or LSD hasn't been popular or physiologically relevant for 30+ years. No plenty of beginners like it because it's easy and looks cool seeing those weekly miles add up.
There is some analysis of Canova's training at and one of the big takeaways is that his runners only occasionally do long, slow runs. Instead, they do lots runs at 90-95% of MGP and focus on starting with the speed and building the endurance (rather than a lot of traditional marathon programs that would have you do slow long runs until you reach a certain distance and then start adding speed). I think the common-sense idea is that running closer to MGP better prepares you for actually racing a marathon and one physiological reason is that this is the pace you burn the most fat at (move slower and your energy needs are lower, move faster and you start using more carbs or glycogen is my very primitive understanding) and getting better at using fat as a fuel source is one of the primary adaptions you're trying to get when marathon training.
I think a training plan adapted from this philosophy would also be some long, slow runs to get used to being on your feet for a long time and what it does to your legs along with some longs runs with paces closer to MGP included.https://runningwritings.com/
I remember Canova saying here that the long runs were about conditioning your body for the length of the race. Most of your 210 type guys do a ~230 long run. If they were only doing 15 at MP, that would be 75 min of running. They would be in uncharted territory at the end of the race.
There is some analysis of Canova's training at and one of the big takeaways is that his runners only occasionally do long, slow runs. Instead, they do lots runs at 90-95% of MGP and focus on starting with the speed and building the endurance (rather than a lot of traditional marathon programs that would have you do slow long runs until you reach a certain distance and then start adding speed). I think the common-sense idea is that running closer to MGP better prepares you for actually racing a marathon and one physiological reason is that this is the pace you burn the most fat at (move slower and your energy needs are lower, move faster and you start using more carbs or glycogen is my very primitive understanding) and getting better at using fat as a fuel source is one of the primary adaptions you're trying to get when marathon training.
I think a training plan adapted from this philosophy would also be some long, slow runs to get used to being on your feet for a long time and what it does to your legs along with some longs runs with paces closer to MGP included.https://runningwritings.com/
I remember Canova saying here that the long runs were about conditioning your body for the length of the race. Most of your 210 type guys do a ~230 long run. If they were only doing 15 at MP, that would be 75 min of running. They would be in uncharted territory at the end of the race.
There is a difference between easy and slow. Canova has also said that a long run slower than 80% MP is a complete waste of time. That is an easy pace but it certainly isn't slow.
Long slow distance or LSD hasn't been popular or physiologically relevant for 30+ years. No plenty of beginners like it because it's easy and looks cool seeing those weekly miles add up.
I do my long run at 80-85% of MP. Which is a faster than my easy runs (70% of MP).
The reason I don't run it truly easy is because it would take too long if I did, LOL.
I do a marathon pace workout on another day, in a 10 miler.
Never marathon pace as part of the long run.
I think a lot of it is that people naturally run progressively. The 1st mile from most is always the slowest then you pick it up little by little. With a long run you have a lot of miles to pick it up.
Any non-elite experienced MR will tell you....all of the above chatter is splitting hairs. Unless you are sub 2:20, it makes zero practical difference what speed you do your miles in whatever combo, as long as you somehow do 60+ a week for a few months. Exceptions only if you do them all at a dawdle (which no young aspiring MR would do) or extreme Zatopek-type interval sessions, which if you do those you'll not even start never mind finish.
Doing an easy 2 hours easy is to prepare your body for those workouts of 13 to 15 miles at marathon pace. For example at the beginning of my marathon training cycle I'll start out doing easy 16 miles at 7:00 to 7:30 pace. After I get in shape I'll start adding more intensity during my long runs, peaking at 18 to 20 mile progression run where I'll end up averaging about 90% of my marathon pace.
I don’t think the adaptations you get from the first few long runs in a cycle are significant enough to make any difference to your body. If you’re out of shape, slow long runs are not some magic workout that get you back in shape quicker than any other kind of training.
Sounds like you just want to do a long run every week but don’t want to make it a workout when you’ve just come back from some time off. I don’t think it’s doing anything to “prepare your body” for long runs with some pace in them.
Its cute you think my maths is why this is ridiculous.
Youre just going to do 10miles, 14 times per week? No variety, no shorter shake out runs? You want to do all that, for a marathon, but never run over 75minutes?
With how the sport has changed, it seems to me that doing 13-15 x Mile at MP with a short recovery is more specific training than sloggng about for 2+ hours.
Am I missing something? Is the long run just a tradition that people cannot break?
You shouldn't focus on just one workout, neglecting what is done on the other days of the week, not to mention the other weeks of six or so months, not to mention the six or so years before. It depends on all these things, as well as how slow is slow, and how long is long, that you are talking about.
In Canova terms, there are several goals and phases in your training to build up to the marathon: Regeneration, General, Special, and Specific.
I tend to think of goals like improving form, speed, stamina, and endurance, and other things like flexibility and strength. A 2+ hour run is designed to develop the endurance to run at a continuous pace for more than 2 hours.
I found this (17-year old!) thread by MPR enlightening:
Long slow distance or LSD hasn't been popular or physiologically relevant for 30+ years. No plenty of beginners like it because it's easy and looks cool seeing those weekly miles add up.
They are essential for beginners from a structural and muscular endurance perspective.
You can't just magically go from running 20 miles for the first time (which for most beginner marathoners is a seriously taxing feat) to running a 20 mile workout with 12 at marathon pace.
Easy long runs (just below the 1st ventilatory threshold) of 90 minutes or more improves fax oxidation (maximum fat oxidation) and that shifts your velocity curve to the right (faster) before you start burning more carbohydrate.
Fat oxidation at MP for high level runners is very, very low. It has to be because they're already over 80% of VO2max, at fat metabolism requires more oxygen per ATP than carb metabolism. It doesn't matter, though, because it's very easy to fuel a marathon exclusively on carbs.
Improved fat oxidation at lower intensity levels is still a really a good thing because it's an indicator of aerobic fitness, but it's basically irrelevant as a fuel source in distances shorter than ultras.
But by improving fat oxidation, are you not improving your aerobic infrastructure so that when you do get into the higher intensities, where carbs become the main energy source you have a larger reserve and don’t overheat as quickly?