People running long runs too fast are silly

newapproach wrote:

I'm going to try to run a marathon off just intense short distance training and see how it goes. Nothing over 5 miles hard.

That's a great approach. If you can do 4 of those runs per day, I think you could run a successful marathon.

Why are all these 2:45 marathoners asking a 4 hour and 3+ hour longtime ago marathoner how fast they should be doing their long runs?

A long run pace doesn't tell much without knowing the effort and training done around it.

Junk Master wrote:

Great thread.

What good is McMillian if there's such a big variation in pace?

?

I have always used McMillan backwards. I go do the workout the way I want and by how I feel and then I go to McMillan to see where it fits. Instead of reaching to hit a certain time based on what shape you THINK you are in, you are more likely to run the appropriate effort and the calculator will confirm whether you are as fit as you think you are.

You probably should run most of your easy day/long run day mileage in that pace range. If you are running under 50mpw you probably could run faster on some days though. Of course depending on what other types of workouts you are doing you still need to accumulate some miles faster than marathon goal pace.I'd vary the long runs. Some you could go a steady 22 miles at 7:10 pace; others you could go 20 miles, with the first 10 at 7:30 pace and then the last 5-10 miles at 6:40 to 6:05 pace if you can. Any progression where you are finishing at MP goal pace or faster can be good.

Masters Math Guy wrote:

Just so I am clear, if my target is 6:20 pace for a marathon (~2:46) I should run my long runs between 6:39 and 7:46 pace?

That seems like a rather wide variance for the "optimal" pace even considering issues such as FT/ST, MPW, etc. 7:46 seems like walking to me while 6:39 for a 20 would be a tough workout.

Timetogo wrote:

Mind you, these are 3:40-4:00 marathoners who obviously have no aerobic base. Wow.

There lies the problem. These people have no business running marathons because they haven't even scratched the surface of developing their aerobic ability.

"Jogging" 26.2 miles is NOT an honorable achievement unless you have a disability.

DEAL WITH IT, PEOPLE!!!

Happy New Year!

Convinced a friend to do the hadd test the other day. They've been trying to break 4:30 Mary for years. Hadd results? 12++ pace at 70% HR. Wow...

Different folks have to train differently to maximize marathon performance. After 3 marathons in a row from 3:16-3:23 with multiple 20 mile long runs and lots of tempo, I got stress fractures and was out for 5 weeks. Coming back I trained completely different. It took two months of a walk/running program to build up mileage, then I averaged 60 miles a week for 3 months, longest long run 18 miles--14 easy with last 4 hard usually around 6:30 pace. I then went and ran a 2:59 marathon. No speedwork. Maximizing recovery and aerobic fitness made all the difference--most of my runs were 8:00-8:30 pace throughout the week. I was surprised, but am now a believer in recovery, aerobic development, and fast finishes on tired legs.

dependsonwhoyouare wrote:

Different folks have to train differently to maximize marathon performance. After 3 marathons in a row from 3:16-3:23 with multiple 20 mile long runs and lots of tempo, I got stress fractures and was out for 5 weeks. Coming back I trained completely different. It took two months of a walk/running program to build up mileage, then I averaged 60 miles a week for 3 months, longest long run 18 miles--14 easy with last 4 hard usually around 6:30 pace. I then went and ran a 2:59 marathon. No speedwork. Maximizing recovery and aerobic fitness made all the difference--most of my runs were 8:00-8:30 pace throughout the week. I was surprised, but am now a believer in recovery, aerobic development, and fast finishes on tired legs.

What was your average weekly mileage for those first 3 marathons between 3:16-3:23?

My mileage was slightly higher--closer to 65mpw except for the last one before the injury in which it hovered close to 70. I ran more workouts and faster, didn't run easy enough on recovery days, didn't take one day off a week. I trained harder and harder with each one. I didn't get any faster. Principle of diminishing returns? I am a full time worker, mother, 33 years old. Momma really needs her rest I suppose.

Awesome. Good for you. You should consider also that the change in training allowed you to consolidate the gains you had made when you were running faster- that is you had to balance your fast twitch components with more slow twitch/aerobic development. Your story is very much like Benji Durden, who went from the typical 120/wk of his era, down to 90-100, and with almost no running faster than MP, and then voila! he runs 2:09 at Boston.

You are young at 33, so look forward to getting even faster. Just think what you could do at 70 or 80 MPW!

I'd agree with you in that case. I wasn't aware that the people you were referring to were running 18-20 milers.

Are they running about 50-60 per week overall, too? I've known quite a few runners who put 30-40% of their weekly into one run which is silly esp. if done faster than goal pace.

My strategy for long runs has always been to start off really slow and then back it way down from there.

As a USATF certified coach and national masters runner with over 30 years of mistakes behind me, I found starting the long run at the slow end of the McMillan scale and building up to running negatively at end of the run at the fast pace listed on the scale taught my body to run hard when tired at the end of the race. Starting out easy makes the workout less taxing, running negatively sets you up to do so in a race. Running the entire long run fast digs into your energy stores,makes for tired, dead legs and requires more recovery when you ought to do be doing tempos or speed work.I have yet to see in 30 years of running many people who can run PRs when they do all their long runs at MP. Their bodies are tired and in an energy hole at the starting line. The fine line between overtraining and finding the sweet zone is slim, but if you hit it the wrong way, you will be in trouble.

On another issue, a lot of marathon runners do not do shorter races to help figure out their realistic goal pace times. Not only do 5K-1/2 marathons help make MP easier, they also give you an idea of what your potential MT might be. McMilland and Runners World and others have good charts which help you convert a shorter race time to a predicted longer race time.

"People running long runs too fast are silly."

Yeah, those silly Kenyans.

Personally, when I'm at peak training, I like to alternate longer and slower long runs with faster and shorter long runs. That means 20-24 miles at a good minute slower than MP (but I'm running at altitude, so the effort is probably closer to MP+:40), or 15-18 miles at about 20 seconds slower than MP (so probably right at MP effort given the altitude). I'll try to do four of the former and three of the latter with a week off in the middle the last couple of months before taper. So: L-F-L-F-R-L-F-L. I'll max out at probably 80 mpw. (I'm a 2:55 marathoner in my mid 30s, trying to get down below 2:50, fwiw).

I wouldn't recommend scheduling more than 2 runs longer than half the distance at goal MP or faster in the last 2 months leading up to a marathon (and probably none before that, since the fitness to hold the pace might not be there yet and getting in that kind of shape that soon might induce an early peak), with the last long MP run being 16-18 miles at 100% to 101% of goal pace about 3.5 to 4 weeks out, with mileage still being pretty high to ensure this run isn't done with a taper. During those last 2 months, you could have 2 or 3 additional singles of 18-22 miles that are fairly easy (about 80% of MP) for at least the first half of the run, with the option to progress in the last 5-6 miles toward MP or slightly quicker for 2-4 miles at the end.

Some people might run a relaxed but steady overdistance run (45k) or do 35k at close to MP every now and then, but that normally doesn't benefit the rank-and-file marathoner as much as simply getting a high and balanced overall training load.

bangalangadanga wrote:

"People running long runs too fast are silly."

Yeah, those silly Kenyans.

Might be a good point here. I think the Kenyans have been tearing up the marathon because they run very hard long runs. US runners get too stuck on a track mentality, thinking that the important work is done in interval and tempo session during the week and the long run is just for pumpin up your energy stores for the race. Of course, this does not mean running long runs faster than MP. The OP was describing what a lot of 3:30-4 hour people do on the weekend, not pro training. But, I think that for elites, sub-elites and local elites, fast long runs are really important. The marathon is truly an endurance race. Compared to paces on the track, marathon pace is crazy slow. So, why focus on running fast during the week and then run an easier long run on the weekend?

I don't have the option of running a pace.

I run as fast as I can and it's slow.

Sage, if I order one of your books online now, when will you actually be able to sign it and send it out?

There's too much talk here about distance/pace and not enough talk about the purpose of each run. If you're a guy who isn't sure he can complete 26.2 miles, then just getting up distance and time on feet is big. If you're an ultra guy who has no problem with the mileage then yeah you better start running shorter faster stuff. Some people are at a week in their training where they can combine a bit of both. Once you're world class you can go out there and run at a pretty great clip for 2 hours. Until then do what you can to improve from all sides.

MarathonMind wrote:

Awesome. Good for you. You should consider also that the change in training allowed you to consolidate the gains you had made when you were running faster- that is you had to balance your fast twitch components with more slow twitch/aerobic development. Your story is very much like Benji Durden, who went from the typical 120/wk of his era, down to 90-100, and with almost no running faster than MP, and then voila! he runs 2:09 at Boston.

You are young at 33, so look forward to getting even faster. Just think what you could do at 70 or 80 MPW!

I don't believe Benji Durden ran 2:09 off no running faster than MP. He raced quite a bit (much faster than MP pace) and also did some very difficult speed/tempo sessions on both the track and the roads.

This past fall I was running about 21 mile long runs with the last 13 miles hard every two weeks, the times fell from 6:30s for that last 13 to 6:02 by the last long run, and I ran 6:05 pace at NYC (sub 2:40). Overall pace would be under 7/mile.