The long run puts the tiger in the cat.
The long run puts the tiger in the cat.
anon wrote:
The long run puts the tiger in the cat.
This is exactly why our running group cut out the long run for people training for 5Ks and replaced it with a faster workout. All you ever hear are stupid sayings like this. It might work for olympians but for regular people who are not doped to the gills, it's much more beneficial to do a workout like 800 repeats
Quality red blood cells. They primarily come from volume. They live for about 90 days. They cause your body to deliver oxygen more efficiently. This is critical for distance running success.
It's no coincidence that a 3-month block of volume is an important element to race buildup. In terms of endurance you're only ever about as good as your last 3 months of red blood cells. Sure, there is a benefit to working on speed and threshold, but 90% of your running should be aerobic and you should be doing a lot of it.
5Kers dont run long wrote:
anon wrote:The long run puts the tiger in the cat.
This is exactly why our running group cut out the long run for people training for 5Ks and replaced it with a faster workout. All you ever hear are stupid sayings like this. It might work for olympians but for regular people who are not doped to the gills, it's much more beneficial to do a workout like 800 repeats
Right answer. Long runs really challenge recovery. Without recovery drugs like epo and seeing Dr. Brown for thyroid therapy, the benefits to a normal runner with a history of aerobic base are not as great.
That said, I'm intrigued by the stories of benefits to years-long endurance cycles. Every body is different. Maybe some get good training effect that way.
A lot of people like looking for short cuts. No long run, less mileage if you aren't running a marathon.
Fact. 10,000 hours to excellence. You'll get there faster with a weekly long run.
This is interesting wrote:
I would just liked to understand it more. I know people say it helps "running economy" and it helps mentally but could anyone explain it in more depth?
I just ask because the fastest guys I know that are my age (mid 30s) dropped the long run from their training and they are running as fast as they ever have.
This is a complete joke, right? Who are these people? C'mon look to the fastest guys in the world not some local dummies. The best do high mileage and long runs. It is pretty simple. The body becomes stronger and able to do more hard work with higher mileage and long runs each week.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
Right answer. Long runs really challenge recovery. Without recovery drugs like epo and seeing Dr. Brown for thyroid therapy, the benefits to a normal runner with a history of aerobic base are not as great.
How exactly does a long run challenge recovery? If we're talking about cases of extreme glycogen depletion like a 2+ hour run, sure, but a 'normal' long run in the :90 range is doing what to challenge recovery? Especially compared to a faster track workout like you're agreeing with, which will produce far more destructive elements in the body
Endurance runs, at the appropriate pace, are FAR easier on the body than most types of workouts. The reasons listed by Smoove do not go away with age, or at least not at a more drastic rate than adaptations made by other training stimulus decline.
I too am always surprised by this, despite seeing this kind of thing on these boards all of the time.Sound physiological reasons for doing runs of 70 to 90 minutes in duration have been given. 70 to 90 minute runs have a long and rich history of being part of any go-to training regimen. The elite distance runners of the world engage in long runs, and most of the most renowned coaches in the sport advocate long runs.Yet folks look to anecdotes about what some local age groupers and try to figure out why that should work. I could give you anecdotal evidence about all the things that I have done (which would support long runs), but anecdotes are just that - they are one off stories. They should not be used as the basis for general guiding principles.
localidiot wrote:
This is interesting wrote:I would just liked to understand it more. I know people say it helps "running economy" and it helps mentally but could anyone explain it in more depth?
I just ask because the fastest guys I know that are my age (mid 30s) dropped the long run from their training and they are running as fast as they ever have.
This is a complete joke, right? Who are these people? C'mon look to the fastest guys in the world not some local dummies. The best do high mileage and long runs. It is pretty simple. The body becomes stronger and able to do more hard work with higher mileage and long runs each week.
Some advice wrote:
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:Right answer. Long runs really challenge recovery. Without recovery drugs like epo and seeing Dr. Brown for thyroid therapy, the benefits to a normal runner with a history of aerobic base are not as great.
How exactly does a long run challenge recovery? If we're talking about cases of extreme glycogen depletion like a 2+ hour run, sure, but a 'normal' long run in the :90 range is doing what to challenge recovery? Especially compared to a faster track workout like you're agreeing with, which will produce far more destructive elements in the body
Endurance runs, at the appropriate pace, are FAR easier on the body than most types of workouts. The reasons listed by Smoove do not go away with age, or at least not at a more drastic rate than adaptations made by other training stimulus decline.
Are we calling 90-minute runs long runs? If you are running high mileage, this is a pretty normal run.
Let me reframe the discussion.
Is 90 minutes a good length run to include at least every week? I'd say absolutely.
Is it good to include a long run that is more than 20% of your weekly mileage? Maybe.
What about more than 25%? Not unless you are preparing for a very long race.
I think most people would consider a long run to be at least 70 minutes (if you are a relatively low mileage runner), and more often, 80 or 90 minutes. All of that subject to the standard "no run longer than 25% of your weekly mileage" rule of thumb.
Personally, I try to get a long run of 25% of my weekly mileage in every week.
Also, I would disagree that 90 minutes is a pretty normal run even for high mileage runners, unless those high mileage runners are running over 8:30 pace, or are preparing for an ultra. You can get to 90 miles pretty easily while only hitting 90 minutes or more once (I did just that last week, and although I did hit 86-87 minutes two other times that was only because I was doing it in all singles).
In "Healthy Intelligent Training," the #1 reason given is that a proper long run (18-22 miles) causes some Type 2 fast twitch fibers to behave like Type 1 fibers. This is the only physiological explanation I've ever heard for doing long runs.
Since the pros do long runs, I'm going to assume the science backs it up. But there have been many Sundays I've wondered to myself 14 miles in why I'm doing this for a 5k/10k program. I've run well with and without a long run, so I don't really know.
I have found it useful to do something quick after a LR, say strides or 5 x 200m with short 1min recovery. The goal is to try and maintain form and run faster when you are tired.
I've found that an 2 x 8mi double to be equally tiring as a 13-14mi LR. Which is better?
Smoove wrote:
Also, I would disagree that 90 minutes is a pretty normal run even for high mileage runners, unless those high mileage runners are running over 8:30 pace, or are preparing for an ultra. You can get to 90 miles pretty easily while only hitting 90 minutes or more once (I did just that last week, and although I did hit 86-87 minutes two other times that was only because I was doing it in all singles).
Nah, 90 minutes is nothing when you're doing 100+ mpw. My normal "easy" day is 10-12 miles (~7:30 pace) and adding 4 mile doubles if needed for mileage.
definitions wrote:
Are we calling 90-minute runs long runs? If you are running high mileage, this is a pretty normal run.
Let me reframe the discussion.
Is 90 minutes a good length run to include at least every week? I'd say absolutely.
Is it good to include a long run that is more than 20% of your weekly mileage? Maybe.
What about more than 25%? Not unless you are preparing for a very long race.
See my post at the end of page 1.
The 20-25% rules were written as gross generalizations for low - medium volume runners, to give them a simple concept to follow that roughly ensures they do some work in the 60-120 minute range consistently.
Yeah, 90 min is what i'd consider a long run for a 5k- 10k/ 1/2 mar. type work. When you start to go on for 2 hrs man, things can get ugly, probably hurting your ability to recover and hit the workouts hard as you need to at that point.
jewbacca wrote:
Nah, 90 minutes is nothing when you're doing 100+ mpw. My normal "easy" day is 10-12 miles (~7:30 pace) and adding 4 mile doubles if needed for mileage.
You realize a 100 mile week is a drastically different training load for someone running 7:30/mile easy pace, compared to someone running 6:00-6:30/mile easy pace, right?
jewbacca wrote:
In "Healthy Intelligent Training," the #1 reason given is that a proper long run (18-22 miles) causes some Type 2 fast twitch fibers to behave like Type 1 fibers. This is the only physiological explanation I've ever heard for doing long runs.
Since the pros do long runs, I'm going to assume the science backs it up. But there have been many Sundays I've wondered to myself 14 miles in why I'm doing this for a 5k/10k program. I've run well with and without a long run, so I don't really know.
So then you just don't want to read this very thread. The benefits are listed, both in text, and video form. Those benefits are a lot more important to your performance than making your FT IIA fibers less powerful.
18-22 mile 'long runs' is plain foolish for a 5k-10k runner, especially one going the pace you run. The concept of what it is, and reasoning behind a 'long run' still seems to be escaping people.
Mileage is for youngsters wrote:
I ran D3 and stopped running long runs and high mileage at age 28 when I started plateauing and having overuse injuries. Then my times dropped consistently for 10 years and continue to. I'm 40 and run just as fast as I did in college
So you plateaued and then your times dropped for 10 years and continue to do so but now you're back to the times you ran when you plateaued?
Makes sense
Some Advice wrote:
So then you just don't want to read this very thread. The benefits are listed, both in text, and video form. Those benefits are a lot more important to your performance than making your FT IIA fibers less powerful.
18-22 mile 'long runs' is plain foolish for a 5k-10k runner, especially one going the pace you run. The concept of what it is, and reasoning behind a 'long run' still seems to be escaping people.
Yawn. You're not a good troll.
Pot meet kettle.