Long runs are highly overrated

A 40 mpw with two-three days of speed is more of a HS 400/800m runner's training program....if a whole HS team were on this program....maybe one or two out of seven would run the 5K at a sub-16, but the others would probably struggle getting sub-17.

With the goal being the best runner you can be...it is important to train all the energy system and without a long run one of them (aerobic conditioning) is not getting the training it needs...usually most runners don't train the speed (ANAROBIC POWER) system...best bet is to attack each energy system...not leave one out...

'Run fast not long',

see my original post

take that 90 mpw w/o long runs and 2-3 days of "speedwork" and add on an 18-20 miler on sundays, making it around 100 mpw, and youve got yourself someone whose going to consistently beat a 90 mpw/no long run type, 40 mpw speedwork, or 90 mpw 1 speedwork type. "running is the best exercise for running" ever hear anyone by the name of arthur lydiard??? he might know just a LITTLE bit more than you do...

why not go fast AND long

+ wrote:

why not go fast AND long

That would make it a speed type workout and that is much better than going long and slow.

Exactly.

As a distance runner you have to get the right balance of speed work, easy runs, tempo runs, long slow runs, rest periods etc. The argument over high mileage Vs low mileage comes round time and time again but to be honest its usually used by runners as an excuse not to do hard work.

I appreciate this thread isn't simply about high mileage Vs low mileage, but more specifically the benefit of the long run. However, I can't believe that anyone doubts its usefulness to distance runners of all levels. I bet if you asked the top 100 runners of all time at 5k and 10k, 99 of them will regularly do a long run (13+miles).

Not sure who said this, and maybe I have seen it on this board... "the more I ran, the more talented I became"

A slow long run is not as beneficial as a long run run at aerobic conditioning pace (60-80sec below LT pace).

A long run run at aerobic conditioning pace is by no means a "speed workout."

trackhead wrote:

A slow long run is not as beneficial as a long run run at aerobic conditioning pace (60-80sec below LT pace).

A long run run at aerobic conditioning pace is by no means a "speed workout."

He said "fast" and I took that to mean faster than 60-80 sec. below LT pace.

The benefits for the long run are clear. It's a big muscular and cellular strength workout.

-Increase leg strength

-Increases overall accumulated volume of mileage

-Increases the capillarization of muscle fibers

-Increases the number of mitochondria in the cells

-Increases the enzyme activity within the mitochondria

-Increases the myoglobin in the muscle cells

-Increases the muscle's ability to store glycogen

-Recruits fast-twitch fibers to have a higher aerobic capacity than normal

-Strengthens all the ligaments, tendons, muscles and bones of the body

KCTrack wrote:With the goal being the best runner you can be...it is important to train all the energy system and without a long run one of them (aerobic conditioning) is not getting the training it needs...usually most runners don't train the speed (ANAROBIC POWER) system...best bet is to attack each energy system...not leave one out...

That's the key: Balance, balance, balance. It never ceases to amaze me how runners in this country always want to seize on one or another aspect of training and either villify or deify it.

A long run of about 20% of total weekly mileage is ONE of a number of important elements in a balanced, complete training schedule. But it is no more, or less, important than (1) high total weekly volume, (2) threshold/tempo runs (sorry, malmo) (3) interval/anaerobic work (4) sprint work (5) supplemental training and a number of other things. It's a matter of how the cook mixes the ingredients to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

As with anything, though, there is more than right way to skin a cat. How an individual runner uses the known "truths" of training and applies them the their own talents and abilities is a matter of experience and having a competent coach or training advisor to help them sort it out.

this is just paraphrasing, but it's almost word for word, from Lydiard: 1)you can't run too slow, but you can run too fast and get yourself in trouble. ---point being, as long as you have raised your heartrate so that you are working at around a minimum of 60-65%, you are benefitting your body. 2) the ability to train your aerobic system (as done by the long run) is almost limitless. you can only do so much speed work, the body can only incur oxygen debt of about 15-20liters.----point being, you can only train your anarobic system to a finite point.

just as run fast not long says he got better dropping his long run...which may or may not be after he had already reaped the benefits, i can say myself and several teamates got better by making the long run longer and those who didn't make their long run any longer have not gotten worse, just not gotten better.

i just wanted to give an amen "thought police" who mentioned Peter Snell... who completely refutes run fast not long's claim, so much that he seems to have been ignored in the rest of the thread.

i believe lydiard so much as says snell was able to kill people with better natural speed during the last 300 of an 800 as a direct result of the habitual 22 milers in the mountains.

I take lydiard as a much more reputable source of training wisdom than run fast not long, not to mention martin and coe, who take the speed hypothesis to a logical conclusion: i believe their general suggestion is one "over distance fartlek" run every 7 days for middle distance, and one "easy long run" every 7 days for 5k-10k types.

laissez-faire wrote:

I take lydiard as a much more reputable source of training wisdom than run fast not long

hahahaha...understatement of the day.

I always took the long run (yes, even long and easy) as being a long-term investment in my running progression. One notable world-class exception to the long-run value is Marius Bakken, who basically never runs over an hour in training. However, after a couple of stellar seasons, this year he had a major step backwards. Hmmmm....

Is Marius off the Zone? He no longer has info on his site supporting Barry Sears and his diet.

I did long runs for a season and they worked incredibly well!!! I ran long and slow.

there have been a lot of people saying "lydiard would disagree".

first, lydiard is always misunderstood as being in favor of LSD. he never used the phrase LSD, that i can remember. he seemed to leave the S out of it. yes, distance was a key for his runners, but they were not simply trudging along. remember the stories about peter snell not being able to finish one of those runs? they weren't slow runs. just long.

the vast majority of great runners do long runs. the vast majority of great runners, however, do not do LSD. there is a difference.

obviousy because the run is much longer, it is going to be a little slower regardless. but i don't think anyone should go out trying to run slow.

i know there are some greats who do, but the original poster also said 5k and 10k. you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of 5 and 10 guys who trudge through long runs.

shorter used to do 20 miles in under 2 hours, every sunday, with the last 10 being as fast as 5-5:30 pace.

long runs are important, long slow isnt' as important.