Hall credited his 26 mile run at moderate pace.He also did 23 miles - 10 @ 545, 10 @ 455 and three easy.I guess since he's the fastest american born marathon and has the fastest debut, we should defer to malmo.
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.
long runner wrote:
Do you agree with the following statement?
1) If you are a runner doing over 100 miles a week on a regular basis it is not necessary to get in as many long runs of 20 miles or more in your marathon preparation to be able to race effectively as it is for someone doing lower mileage. (i.e a 60 mile a week runner may need 4-6 runs of 20 miles or more to race a marathon well while a guy doing 110 miles a week may need only 2 or 3).
I can't really answer your question exactly since I've never trained for the marathon, but I would agree with the statement as it wold apply to my training for everything from the 800 to the 5k. Early in the season my workouts are typically longer. I might do one workout at threshold pace for a total of 8-10k and a faster workout for a total of 5-6k each week. Later in the season I'll do more short, fast stuff. (2X600 all out with full recovery). I always feel that the long run is more important during the later part of the season when my total milage is falling.
Wow, lots of letsrun firepower being thrown around on this thread.
Based on my limited experience, I find that doing a "long run" of about 90-100 minutes is plenty enough for me on a weekly basis. I go longer on occasion, maybe 5-7 times a year, but I try not to go too crazy with them because of my tendency to develop stupid little injuries.
I would tend to agree with malmo, the archetypal "long run" isn't the be-all end-all workout that everyone has to do. In my opinion, the benefits you get by doing a "long run" aren't greater than doing a couple more miles every day and only doing 1:30 on Sunday.
NY runner wrote:
Hall credited his 26 mile run at moderate pace.
He also did 23 miles - 10 @ 545, 10 @ 455 and three easy.
It's funny how people can read the same thing and come away with vastly different interpretations.
I assume you read the article linked below (or some variant of it), noted that Ryan ran one 26 mile easy long run and apparently came to the conclusion that was key to his success. I read the same article and noted that he's doing a heck of a lot of long tempo and marathon pace work and that was the key to his success.
I hope my interpretation is more correct, because that's what I've emphasised this cycle.
http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/other/04/24/24hoban.htmlNY runner wrote:
Hall credited his 26 mile run at moderate pace.
He also did 23 miles - 10 @ 545, 10 @ 455 and three easy.
I guess since he's the fastest american born marathon and has the fastest debut, we should defer to malmo.
He credited his 26 mile run with what? Getting him his fast debut time? I must have missed that part. Do you have a link to that quote?
I think it's safe to say that Hall's fast time is not due to 2 long runs nor did he claim it was. I'm guessing malmo would probably point to Hall as one of those people who was doing everything else right. Sounds like he would be right.
NY runner wrote:
Hall credited his 26 mile run at moderate pace.
He also did 23 miles - 10 @ 545, 10 @ 455 and three easy.
I guess since he's the fastest american born marathon and has the fastest debut, we should defer to malmo.
Lack of reading comprehension proudly on display here.
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.
malmo wrote:
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.
Malmo,
How do you feel about using a HR monitor for tempo runs, just to help find the right pace and not run them too fast. For someone doing 75 miles/week, long run of 14 miles?
oasis wrote:
Malmo,
How do you feel about using a HR monitor for tempo runs, just to help find the right pace and not run them too fast. For someone doing 75 miles/week, long run of 14 miles?
I have no idea what you would need a HRM for. You should know tempo pace as well as you know the senses of balance, thirst, hunger, fatigue, hot and cold.
I think a long run of 14 miles is a little high for a 75mpw runner on a weekly basis, but then again I don't see why the same 75mpw runner can't run a 20 miler once every 4-5 weeks. I think the problem here is that many young runners see things in black and white, and feel compelled to repeat the same thing week after week.
malmo wrote:
oasis wrote:Malmo,
How do you feel about using a HR monitor for tempo runs, just to help find the right pace and not run them too fast. For someone doing 75 miles/week, long run of 14 miles?
I have no idea what you would need a HRM for. You should know tempo pace as well as you know the senses of balance, thirst, hunger, fatigue, hot and cold.
I think a long run of 14 miles is a little high for a 75mpw runner on a weekly basis, but then again I don't see why the same 75mpw runner can't run a 20 miler once every 4-5 weeks. I think the problem here is that many young runners see things in black and white, and feel compelled to repeat the same thing week after week.
I find it very difficult to find the correct pace on my tempo runs and the majority of the time run them too fast. The HR monitor helps me find the pace.
There is also quite a number of elite runners that use a HR monitor, most of them of alot faster than you ever were, i.e. Craig Mottram. Would you use the "fanny pack" crack on them?
good topic as many do a long run religiously but lack consistency in the rest of their weekly routine. i'm sure that my hard workouts and overall volume are more important to my fitness level than the long run. if you're sacrificing a hard tuesday effort because you're still tired from your long run, then your long run is hurting you. if you're at the point where you're recovering from your long run by your next workout, then you're fine. usually it takes me a few weeks to adjust to a weekly long run but as time goes on, it becomes less draining and i feel okay the next day and fresh two days later in time for the next hard session. excessively long runs don't make a lot of sense to me. 2.5 hours is about as long as i'll go and generally gets me through 22 miles comfortably or perhaps a bit more if the pace gets moving a little. this is only done when building up for a marathon in my case. 2 hours to 2:15 is a pretty good long run for any other time of the year.
oasis wrote:
There is also quite a number of elite runners that use a HR monitor, most of them of alot faster than you ever were, i.e. Craig Mottram. Would you use the "fanny pack" crack on them?
"Quite a number" is quite an exaggeration. Very few runners use a HRM. Even fewer need them.
I think people are missing the point. Malmo himself ran his mega-loop of 29 miles, but not at the expense of other training.
If a runner is doing nothing more than 1 long run and 5-7 miles every other day then they are not training correctly. EVERYTHING, must come and progress together.
Alan
//////// wrote:
Note the "_" after the name on that post. It wasn't Malmo so you owe him an apology.
I guess you are right, the post is gone, Malmo why don't you like the HR monitor, it's modern technology, I don't mean be a slave to the monitor just use it as a guide. Apologized for the fanny pack accusation.
oasis wrote:
There is also quite a number of elite runners that use a HR monitor, most of them of alot faster than you ever were, i.e. Craig Mottram. Would you use the "fanny pack" crack on them?
malmo wrote:
"Quite a number" is quite an exaggeration. Very few runners use a HRM. Even fewer need them.
Take that as a "no", he would NOT use the "fanny pack" crack on them.
Malmo,
I have a question. I am wondering what you found to be a good transition from base training to more tempo type stuff and track work. I downloaded some training you had posted a couple of years ago and noticed a lot of strides and progressions in pace and intensity. I guess I am wondering what worked for you since I am having a bit of trouble with this point.
Also, did you really believe in a 'true' base phase or not? Something like purely running a bunch of mileage and not worrying about pace and such...just to get in a ton of mileage. I appreciate your help. If you don't want to write over the message board you can also write
. I realize that there are a lot of critical people on here.
Mike
oasis wrote:
I find it very difficult to find the correct pace on my tempo runs and the majority of the time run them too fast. The HR monitor helps me find the pace.
If using the HRM seems to be working for you, I don't understand why approval from malmo or anybody else should matter. Do what works for you.
oasis wrote:
I guess you are right, the post is gone, Malmo why don't you like the HR monitor, it's modern technology,
The human body is ancient technology. It gives you continual feedback. A HRM just gives you a number -- that tells you exactly nothing.
A story. A few years ago after knee surgery I went to the gym with a friend. The stationary bikes were open so we both sat down to workout. The handlebars on the bikes registered your pulse and put the data in front on a digital display along with rpms, power etc. About 15 minutes into it I got right into tempo pace, and my friend looked over at my HR display which showed 145bpm -- about 10bpm lower than his. Additionally I had my tension cranked up 2 or 3 notches higher than his and my rpms where higher. He had been training like a maniac every day for months and I hadn't been doing squat, yet here I am at tempo pace, higher power and higher rpms, with a lower hearttrate.
The point here is that I didn't need to know what my hearttrate was, I knew exactly what tempo pace felt like (as i should have). You should learn to identify it as well. Here is the most scientific explanation of tempo pace you will ever need: Tempo pace is hard, but not so hard that you couldn't do it 4 or 5 times a week if you wanted to. When you are finished with a tempo run you should feel invigorated, not exhausted. When fit, tempo pace is about halfway between marathon pace and half-marathon pace. When in doubt, always lean towards marathon pace.
It's interesting to me that the "Lydiard guys" (HRE, Nobby, Kim Stevenson) seem to feel that the long run is the most important thing to be sure you do. They seem to stress doing the 20 miler no matter what is done during the week. Maybe it just depend on what works for each person?
malmo wrote:
oasis wrote:Malmo,
How do you feel about using a HR monitor for tempo runs, just to help find the right pace and not run them too fast. For someone doing 75 miles/week, long run of 14 miles?
I have no idea what you would need a HRM for. You should know tempo pace as well as you know the senses of balance, thirst, hunger, fatigue, hot and cold.
I think a long run of 14 miles is a little high for a 75mpw runner on a weekly basis, but then again I don't see why the same 75mpw runner can't run a 20 miler once every 4-5 weeks. I think the problem here is that many young runners see things in black and white, and feel compelled to repeat the same thing week after week.
Malmo, what type of schedule would you recommend for an average runner putting in 70 miles per week? I am trying to formulate a plan for a fall marathon where I hope to break 2:50. Ran 2:55 last December on 65 MPW. Thanks.