This is mostly correct. The long run is an overrated training modality for the 5K. Less so for the 10K, but still not nearly as "necessary" as many have been led (or led themselves) to believe
There's no good reason to do long runs in-season when training for 5K/10K. At the same time, there's no good reason not to do long runs in the base phase. All about phasing and placement in the training plan.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
I actually agree with the GPT slop though. Long runs are overrated if you're not training for a marathon.
I'm not reading all of it either. But even good marathons have been run without long runs. That doesn't mean long runs aren't valuable but overall mileage and number of runs matter more.
Agree with HRE. Around age 35, I removed the traditional long run many of us on this board got accustomed to during college (e.g., 90+ minutes). Family and work responsibilities forced me to re-prioritize, and I figured the long run was the best thing to toss aside if I still wanted to run competitive. Since that change, I’ve set lifetime PRs in every distance from 800m to 10 miles. It’s only one example, and I still do a “long run” (~9 miles), but the other runs and sessions seemed more important to me. But I know plenty of people set lifetime PRs after prioritizing the long run. So whatever works best for you to get in the key sessions, stay consistent, and get proper rest.
I don’t think it’s ChatGPT at all. People wrote posts like this on LetsRun way before ChatGPT: weird 19 year olds who think they’re brilliant, when really they’re morans.
I'm not reading all of it either. But even good marathons have been run without long runs. That doesn't mean long runs aren't valuable but overall mileage and number of runs matter more.
Agree with HRE. Around age 35, I removed the traditional long run many of us on this board got accustomed to during college (e.g., 90+ minutes). Family and work responsibilities forced me to re-prioritize, and I figured the long run was the best thing to toss aside if I still wanted to run competitive. Since that change, I’ve set lifetime PRs in every distance from 800m to 10 miles. It’s only one example, and I still do a “long run” (~9 miles), but the other runs and sessions seemed more important to me. But I know plenty of people set lifetime PRs after prioritizing the long run. So whatever works best for you to get in the key sessions, stay consistent, and get proper rest.
Jim Pearson had the US 50 mile record and qualified for two Olympic Trial marathoons. He put out a book a few years ago which was just his training diaries from his best years, the mid 70s. I won't say there were no long runs but they were few and far between. He pretty much did the same thing every day, 5 to 7 miles in the morning and 10 to 12 in the afternoon. There were some interval sessions but they also were fairly rare and followed no pattern that I could find. If I were to characterize what workedfor him I'd say it was double runs and good volume.
I think the long run has a lot of physical benefits of course.
But the mental benefits are underrated - to me it shortens the race. If you can run 10 miles, then 3 miles feels shorter allowing you to focus from the gun, so on and so on.
Serious question. I was at a running camp over 30 years ago and a coach told us that there was an exponential increase in building capillaries after a certain point (30 min.) but that there was a cutoff to how long you'd want to run due to wear and tear. Anyone ever heard anything like this?
I was at two of his camps and he said that aerobic training did lead to a greater network of capillaries. I think it is true. I think this concept has more to do with improvement than anything else.
Serious question. I was at a running camp over 30 years ago and a coach told us that there was an exponential increase in building capillaries after a certain point (30 min.) but that there was a cutoff to how long you'd want to run due to wear and tear. Anyone ever heard anything like this?
I was at two of his camps and he said that aerobic training did lead to a greater network of capillaries. I think it is true. I think this concept has more to do with improvement than anything else.
Nobody doubts aerobic runs build capillaries. The question is do you get more from a 2 hour long run or doing 2 60 min runs. I am not sure the evidence for that either way is decided. I think there is somewhat decent evidence that long runs help with fat burning but for general aerobic development? I think I am in the volume matters more and avoiding the stress of 2 hour runs should let you do more volume...
I thought the same damny thing. That has to be a bot, right? The way the OP wrote but then I did look up an IP address from Germany.
Either a bot or hobbs kessler?
The OP wrote:
In fact, my two best 10K performances came during periods when my longest run in the preceding six weeks was no more than 7.5 mile
Hobbs, back when I was training I didn't feel like i was even wamred up until I was 45 minutes into daily afternoon 10-15 miler. Running for an hour several times a week isn't a lot
Serious question. I was at a running camp over 30 years ago and a coach told us that there was an exponential increase in building capillaries after a certain point (30 min.) but that there was a cutoff to how long you'd want to run due to wear and tear. Anyone ever heard anything like this?
Only a little later in time, probably about 25 years ago, we had a little jerk on our HS team that talked about this and claimed he could feel new capillaries forming in his legs after a long run. He ended up quitting after our sophomore year to play football instead (he was 5’3” it didn’t go well).
Anyway, I too would love to know if the capillary thing is true. What you said, not the nonsense my old teammate said.
I was at two of his camps and he said that aerobic training did lead to a greater network of capillaries. I think it is true. I think this concept has more to do with improvement than anything else.
Nobody doubts aerobic runs build capillaries. The question is do you get more from a 2 hour long run or doing 2 60 min runs. I am not sure the evidence for that either way is decided. I think there is somewhat decent evidence that long runs help with fat burning but for general aerobic development? I think I am in the volume matters more and avoiding the stress of 2 hour runs should let you do more volume...
Since capillaries are constantly being built throughout your life, a process known as Angiogenesis, it's really not something to worry about if you have good metabolic health.
Long runs are no injury risk. I've only ever gotten injured on tempo runs and speedwork.
They should not be of a level that it takes three days to recover from them and the quality of your workouts suffers, but they are crucial to the marathon and if they are over 1:15, they markedly accelerate capillary and mitochondrial development. They also calcify you against pain. That is well worth it for a distance runner.
A long run of 7.5 miles, run at a 9 minute mile pace is still a long run.
The goal of a long run, as most think of it, is not the blanket accumulation of miles, but time under easy effort. Not too feel tired after it, but to rewire your body that this effort is the new normal.
Since you're just running a 10k, as you said, 70min steady, easy pace will certainly give you the aerobic conditioning for that.
The long run over time across the years in a routine also builds up your resiliency and endurance for the high intensity volume you do during the week. You need a bottom of the pyramid to build it on.
And that's the jist of what you're doing. Building a wide base at the bottom of a pointy sharp pyramid.
I was wondering why this was getting heavily downvoted, as I agree with the sentiment of the title, but then I read the utter wank in the description and quickly realised why.
I mean, obviously long runs aren't essential for 5k and 10k training. The European record holder at 5k and the HM, Andreas Almgren, has said that he basically doesn't run any longer than 50 minutes continuously outside of his base phase.
And Jakob never runs longer than 80 minutes.
People have romanticised the long run to a certain extent, but outside of race-specific training, it's probably the run in which you're most likely to get yourself in trouble (from an overtraining/injury perspective).
Agree with HRE. Around age 35, I removed the traditional long run many of us on this board got accustomed to during college (e.g., 90+ minutes). Family and work responsibilities forced me to re-prioritize, and I figured the long run was the best thing to toss aside if I still wanted to run competitive. Since that change, I’ve set lifetime PRs in every distance from 800m to 10 miles. It’s only one example, and I still do a “long run” (~9 miles), but the other runs and sessions seemed more important to me. But I know plenty of people set lifetime PRs after prioritizing the long run. So whatever works best for you to get in the key sessions, stay consistent, and get proper rest.
No offense but I can't imagine how slow your HS 800 pr was if you set a lifetime PR for it past age 35! Of course if your training for the 800 included long runs, indeed that may explain it! But the fact is, you left a lot of chips on the table as a youngster if your best 800 came post 35 y.o.