how important is the 20 mile long run in marathon training?

Runrincerepeat wrote:

Some people think gross weekly mileage is more important say. 75 miles w a 12 mile long run trumps 50 miles w a 18 mile long run

maybe, I think you have to find what works for you.

I'm the 50 mile/wk with 20 mile long runs type. I have a buddy that runs a crap load of short runs/week, totaling around 70-75 miles. But he never goes over 15 miles, and even that's rare. He's got me by 30-60 seconds in a 5k, but can't even make his Boston qualifying time (my PR is 30 minutes faster than his).

You can say this is the classic "quality v. quantity" debate. You can also say that the most specific single quality workout a marathoner can do is the long run. If the 20-mile mark is a "energy/workout output" point where pretty much everyone (regardless of speed/talent) bonks without external carb intake, then it is usually good to simulate running 20-22 miles in a single session and simulate what it feels like to run low on glycogen. It also stimulates the body to use fat as a fuel more effectively. High mileage training does that in general, and going into these long runs tired from high volume and other quality workouts like Tempo Runs and a few speedy interval sessions aids in this mix of training.

I'd say if one runs over 4 hours for the marathon, usually they are running less than 60mpw and if they are doing that, then maybe they want to cap their Long Run at 16-18 miles only though. Anyone running faster and/or running more mileage...I'd say have at it with some 20-22 milers. There can also be some targeted 16-18 milers with "fast finishes" and fartleks, etc. The quality of the Long Runs can also be very important.

Of course with more quality workouts (think track sessions with 1km and mile repeats as well as Tempo Runs between half marathon pace and 10km pace with more repeats of 3km or 2-miles) it greatly helps with marathon fitness (and mainly Lactate Threshold). So that balance is key for marathon fitness as well. Usually you also want to push the volume with workouts around the Lactate Threshold and for most people in the 2:40 to 3:40 marathon range, that is going to be anywhere between 10-25sec/mile faster than current marathon pace.

Finally, the more consistent high mileage over time usually gives one big gains in the marathon (i.e. lifetime miles, what your average weekly mileage is for several months or even years before the marathon.) So there is that balance as well. Periodization of the workouts (timing that is), is also another piece of the puzzle to achieve peak fitness at the right time and to try to avoid injury/overtraining as much as possible.

Sage,

Would you agree that a good way to simulate the glycogen depletion (and learning to relying on fat) is to do the "mighty" 20 miler as follows, roughly 3 weeks out from the marathon:

- peak mileage week, moderate run day before

- no breakfast

- no carb intake

- water only

- dress rehearsel in similar conditions

- 10 miles easy + 10 miles at marathon pace

If you don't crash or slow (or let HR significantly drift up), then more likely than not the marathon pace ran for the second half of that miler is a good pace to go out on race day.

I am much slower than you, but wondered if this is a good gauge --- it worked for me but I am a sample size of 1.

On race day taper + correct nutrition + carb intake during race is what allows the first 10 to go by easily, the 10 "working" miles to exert less of a toll to leave the final 6.2 to race on tired but not glycogen deprived legs.

It is also a question of balance in training. Most non elites don´t do more than, say, 60 mpw. A 20 mile long run would be a third of the weekly mileage in a single run.

I don't know if this is 'The' Sage Canaday, but if it is, I enjoy the way you go out and make your "training talk" videos and podcasts on youtube for those who are trying to get better in their fitness. You seem like a very genuine and humble runner which is rare, so that's awesome and the information you share is always helpful. So thank you.

It depends on your goals. If you wanted to perform well, long, hard runs are a must; if you want to finish in,say, 3:30 and you are already a decent runner, then it's less important.

You can get away with 16-18 if you run a smart race. I have run one marathon and I ran 2:53 I only ran the first 20 miles. The last 6 was a walk jog aka: wog.. I think you will be much more prepared if you do 2-3 20-22 mile long runs before you run your marathon.. If I decide to do another one I'll at least do 22 once before. Be ready for leg cramps, and torture. Marathons hurt tons more than halves.[quote]Marathon ready? wrote:

Well, these are my goals and they're all equal to one another with the finishing part slightly exceeding the others. The biggest priority is to finish, second priority is to finish feeling i know i did my best with the training i had limited to myself (I'd do more miles if my lifestyle allowed for it), third priority finish as close to 3:30 as possible. Being this would be my first marathon, those are the priorities i set up. I've gotten used to the half quite a bit and enjoy being able to race it. The future of the unknown bonk and the lack of confidence of never running a distance more than 16 mile long run leaves me feeling uneasy about the real finishing time. If i do go the route of Hansons method, but I try to remind myself that I'm not just running only once per week either.

jjjjjj wrote:

Doing half a dozen or more will markedly improve your marathon, particularly if you do a bunch of the last miles at MP. I consider myself ready for a marathon when I can run 21 with the last 13 at target MP.

I like to do 18 to 23 mile marathon race pace runs for four consecutive weeks before I race the NYC marathon and cramp up all overtrained because I like to do that. Then I got lost in the woods in my next marathon 3 weeks later.

I am stupid and unlucky.

Oh well.

If you're a hobby jogger you put the long run on a pedestal. It's everything.

But a runner who's got it together realizes that weekly mileage is more important, and the long run is just a piece of this puzzle.

HobsJog wrote:

If you're a hobby jogger you put the long run on a pedestal. It's everything.

But a runner who's got it together realizes that weekly mileage is more important, and the long run is just a piece of this puzzle.

I'd be a hobby jogger even if i finished Boston under 2:50. While it may seem like I'm putting the long run on a pedestal, I'm only doing so because nearly every marathon training emphasizes the importance of the LR which brings me to the title of this thread. Thank you!!

Marathon ready? wrote:

HobsJog wrote:

If you're a hobby jogger you put the long run on a pedestal. It's everything.

But a runner who's got it together realizes that weekly mileage is more important, and the long run is just a piece of this puzzle.

I'd be a hobby jogger even if i finished Boston under 2:50. While it may seem like I'm putting the long run on a pedestal, I'm only doing so because nearly every marathon training emphasizes the importance of the LR which brings me to the title of this thread. Thank you!!

Only crappy training emphasizes the long run. This is the kind of stuff that RW sells to overweight soccer moms so they can get to the finish line in 6 or 7 hours.

If you want to finish in 3:30, do not emphasize the long run instead focus on overall weekly mileage and race pace specific workouts. One or 2 20+ runs won't destroy you but you shouldn't be doing them every weekend.

Marathon ready? wrote:

HobsJog wrote:

If you're a hobby jogger you put the long run on a pedestal. It's everything.

But a runner who's got it together realizes that weekly mileage is more important, and the long run is just a piece of this puzzle.

I'd be a hobby jogger even if i finished Boston under 2:50. While it may seem like I'm putting the long run on a pedestal, I'm only doing so because nearly every marathon training emphasizes the importance of the LR which brings me to the title of this thread. Thank you!!

By the time that you're running 2:50, chances are pretty high that you'll be emphasizing weekly mileage more than long runs by then anyway.

Books are made for high readership, so they'll tell people what they WANT to hear more than what they NEED to hear. But it's a good thing you're branching out of the box and into here :)

You definitely shouldn't be doing 20 milers every weekend. On alternate weekends do "shorter" long runs of 15-17 miles with perhaps some other tweak to them--either a portion at marathon pace, or fast-finish (which I find more helpful for half-marathon training), or with some alternate miles at marathon-to-half marathon pace.

I found it extremely useful, for psychological as much as physiological reasons, to do at least one run where I pushed beyond the 20-mile point. The 20-miler is such a staple of marathon training that it's easy to get attached to that number. I did one run where I went out 10, then back 10, much like a regular 20-miler, but then pushed right across the "finish" line and put in another mile or two. That trains you psychologically NOT to think of the 20-mile point in the race as somehow a point where you're crossing over into unknown territory, but something that you've already rehearsed.

The one big mistake I made in marathon training was running a PR half marathon 4 weeks out and then, the next week, running a killer 20-miler that consisted of 8 miles easy, 10 at marathon pace (7:30), then a mile at half-marathon pace (7:00) and the final fast-finish mile at 6:30 pace, which was 8K pace and 5K effort. That is crazy. Unneeded. It pushed me right over the edge into staleness. On race day, three weeks later, I was only able to hold 8:00 pace and I never felt good.

When I was running 70+mpw, then throwing in 20mi or whatever here or there didn't faze me or affect me, so I didn't care.

Now that I have dropped to the 40 or even lower mpw, a 20mi really is a long run.

yeah, those hansons guys are just killin' it on the marathon racing scene.....

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM wrote:

Hanson method doesn't call for more than 16m runs and it produces very fast times if you commit to the program. It's all about overall training as other have said not a few Sunday long runs.

i think the 20 mile long run is the most important part of marathon training without question. 3-5 runs of 18-23 miles is critical, at least 2 over 20here's my anecdote(s):YEAR ONE:-My friend and I decided to train for a half marathon-50-60 mpw for 8 weeks, mostly 5k-10k workouts and weekend long runs of 14-17 miles.-buddy ran 1:09:40's and I ran 1:12:20's.After the HM race, we got free entry to a marathon 7 or 8 weeks out and started training (i had only done 1 marathon before). I backed off the 5k-10k training and focused on long runs finishing at HM pace. 17-22 milers. Did a big workout 3 weeks of of 4 w/u, 14 at goal MP pace, and 4 cool-down. Hit the splits exactly. My friend kept running faster stuff and ran a 15:08 5k and 31:50 10k on thansgiving, never really did any run longer that 17-18 miles- 2:35 marathon (Me)-2:43, implosion (My faster friend) YEAR TWO:-Same HM race-50-60 mpw for 8-9 weeks, mostly HM-Marathon workouts and weekend runs of 15-20 mi - buddy ran 1:12:05 and I ran 1:13:10.- Did 6 weeks in a row with shortest weekend run of 18.5, longest 23. (20 miler 2 weeks out)- 2:32:50 marathon (Me)- 2:26:30 (My faster friend) * Same races in both years. My yearly mileage was actually less in YEAR TWO than ONE by about 200 miles, but marathon specific and long runs were emphasized. In general, my marathon training weeks were slower, easier miles. Way less workouts. both over 30 years old

Marathon ready? wrote:

I'm just curious, I recently seen a post in here of people finishing a marathon with long runs never exceeding 16 miles(they've never ran more than 16 miles outside of a race), these were sub 4 hr marathon finish times as well. So how important is the holy grail 20 mile long run to do decent in a marathon? Granted, one would assume running long runs at 20 miles should yield better results.

KudzuRunner wrote:

I went out 10, then back 10, much like a regular 20-miler, but then pushed right across the "finish" line and put in another mile or two. That trains you psychologically NOT to think of the 20-mile point in the race as somehow a point where you're crossing over into unknown territory ...

I do likewise, and it really helps build confidence, even if it doesn't have any particular physiological benefit. I usually do it about five weeks out from the marathon, and run it slowly. Last time, I almost talked myself into not tacking on those extra miles (three) as I neared the end of my 20-mile loop. But it's really a psychological boost to gut it out despite the fatigue.

Marathon ready? wrote:

I'm just curious, I recently seen a post in here of people finishing a marathon with long runs never exceeding 16 miles(they've never ran more than 16 miles outside of a race), these were sub 4 hr marathon finish times as well. So how important is the holy grail 20 mile long run to do decent in a marathon? Granted, one would assume running long runs at 20 miles should yield better results.

Doing decent in a marathon or running a sub-4hr marathon? Those are two different things.