Marathon Long Run Question

What he [Trailrunnergary] said; see above, I will not waste space repeating it.

I have a few additions that were important for me and which, in observing friends seemed to be missing.

I found that I was best when I did some of my long runs (at least most of a run) at something like marathon race pace. Not all of the long runs but at least a few (and hence, 'b' works and 'a' does not because you cannot get enough of both).

A comment was made about teaching the body to burn fat. However, another thing that you need the body to do is to respond to running out of glycogen so that it can respond by increasing storage. Running slow or even moderate pace for long runs will not get you to the point of running your glycogen stores down towards zero. When you do you also probably get the body to deal with HAVING to burn fat, not being slow enough so that it gets to simply burn fat.

Finally, without getting into the region where you stress the body in the fuel domain you will not stress the mind with the reaction to how it feels. Hitting it for the first time in a key objective likely leaves you in poor position to deal with it. This is especially the case for glycogen exhaustion because when you run low your thinking can get slowed and psychologically it gets hard to deal with the situation in that deprived state. (This is also a reason to slightly negative split because you will be passing people steadily the last 10k and it helps the mental state and I always found it easier to push myself as a result.)

While the following does not work for everyone it might be useful for some. Since I was a good cyclist (raced/ won a high % of Cat III races), I did some long rides at good pace as well. This pushed my body/mind without the wear and tear on the legs etc.

MarathonMind wrote:

You want consecutive weeks of high total mileage. 70, 80, 90, 100- as high as you can handle and for as long as you can. Within that context, even just 16 milers are fine. 20 miles is just a number.

MarathonMind,

Are you one of the Hansons? I agree with you, but that is what they always say.

agree with many of the things you say Mr Cohen. my best is 2:39:10 from 1984, have run 76 marathons, 59 career sub 3s, 2:52:18 at age 52 last weekend at California International. Anyway to the OP I don't run with any kind of plan I just run as far as I feel like going on any given day. When I feel good I run faster and when I'm tired I run slower. What I do to prep for marathons is make sure that just like a chef adds key ingrediants to create a good recipe (but in no particular order) I too add all the stuff (long runs, faster runs etc)to my mix by feel, but mostly I just go run.I think for us mere mortals (non world class runners) losing a bit of the science and just keeping it fun is the best recipe to both running OK and keeping it up for years. It has worked great for me. I can't even tell you how many miles I run per week. Good Luck

Trailrunnergary wrote:

btw, I ran 2:22 in grad school, ran 2:49 at age 49 and have done 48 marathons.

Regarding running at marathon race pace... one of my favorites is to run 17 miles - the first ten at about 45 seconds per mile slower thna marathonn race pace and the last seven miles at MRP or up to ten seconds per mile faster than MRP. I've had some e-mails back and forth with Pete Pfitzinger who agreed that this is a useful tool for some of our longer runs.

I'd take B. With A you only get one 20+ miler anyway so why not 4-18's rather than 1-18 and a 21? But if you want to do it right and maximize your chances of a better time then take B and change those last 3-18's and make them 20+ runs. And dump the big taper. Add 4 miles to each of the last 3 weeks. Good to go!

Nice Ass wrote:

I understand there are better ways of doing it, but someone asked me the other day if I would rather have a 20+ run under my belt, or consecutive weeks at around 18-19 miles.

Are you stupid?

B, but change the middle 18 to 21 or even 22. Weither or not you hit the wall you should experience it before you do the marathon so you know where you hit it and can be prepared for it (I usually hit it around 23-24 but knowing that helps me prepare for it and get through it without slowing down and finishing strong, or even negative). No joke it will help you a ton. Boy Scout motto, be prepared.

I am not sure the choice of multiple 16-18s vs multiple 20s is the correct question. What about quality? Why not both?

Two 18s, two 20s and a 22. Here is the important part: All run with 75% of the run easy and the last 25% at MRP. The build up looks like: 18, 20, 22, 20, 18 with the last 18 3-4 weeks out depending on your taper (long vs short taper). These are every other week with alternating weeks being increasing runs that are all at MRP: 10, 12, 13 and 15 miles respectively. So I guess both parts of the question are correct!

Whatever you end up doing - it will be learning experience to apply the next time! God speed.

Waco said: "There's a significant difference between the benefits you get from an 18-miler and a 20-miler. "

I disagree. And most everyone else so far has disagreed. Despite all of his annoying self-promotion due to his ego issues Cohen actually makes a lot of sense for once.

I'm not a Hanson. Just someone who's read a lot on this stuff and noticed the theme of it all- high total mileage will get you the most benefit. Even if you just ran 12 miles a day, every day- that's still 84 miles a week. A respectable weekly total that you can do a lot with come marathon race day. Even 10 x 7 days will get you 70- kind of the baseline of a lot of programs.

But back to Hanson's- yeah, the SOS program emphasizes the high total weekly with a max. run of 16 miles.

To be honest, there should be no big deal doing slow 20 milers if you're fit for a decent marathon. Time on feet is key: this is an Ingrid Kristiansen philosophy. Take your time and cover the miles, and practise your drinks en route. No more difficult that that. Best of luck -

AC

Nice Ass wrote:

I understand there are better ways of doing it, but someone asked me the other day if I would rather have a 20+ run under my belt, or consecutive weeks at around 18-19 miles.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Are you stupid?

Your comment is by far the stupidest on this thread, UK.

Agreed -- if someone is stupid, they are probably the last to know. No point asking them.

adult onset wrote:

Your comment is by far the stupidest on this thread, UK.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Are you stupid?

Nice Ass wrote:

I understand there are better ways of doing it, but someone asked me the other day if I would rather have a 20+ run under my belt, or consecutive weeks at around 18-19 miles.