I hear ya!
I hear ya!
Marius had some 2 hour runs a couple of weeks ago. His new
advisors all seem to be scientists, so he's going at it in
a different way.
no, you're hearing echoes in the emptiness that is your head-- 2 hours for 20-milers IS slow when you can run sub-5:00 pace for a marathon...
Unfair as you're limiting runner B to one hard workout (two if you count the long run as hard) while Runner A gets 3 hard workouts.
In addition, the question must be asked, "How long is the season?" Over the course of a long season, I'll go with Runner B because of the aerobic base he'll develop.
What happens if Runner B runs 90 miles/week, does his 18-miler, and pulls down 2 speed sessions/week. Who wins now?
you are incredibly stupid!
ok, first off doing long runs opens up capilarries that cannot be opened for only running for 45 minutes, they only open up after a very long period of time, and close up if you rest for even 5 minutes. SO running 17 miles at once is much more beneficial than running 3 runs of 5 6 and 6 in one day hours apart....
Its this same thought process, less work, more results that creates talented runners that don't do anything.....
case in point, as a junior in highschool I ran 4:25 without longruns. My senior year (at the same weight and height) i started doing long runs with the same workouts and I ran 4:11, what does that say about your stupid hypothesis?
You grew up? That's just a natural progression due to getting older and stronger. You should have dropped that long run and added more speedwork. Then your times wouldn't have been so sad.
Work the extremes. When going long, go very long. When going fast, go very fast. Rest. Slight any of these and you'll be performing at less than optimum.
"You grew up? That's just a natural progression due to getting older and stronger. You should have dropped that long run and added more speedwork. Then your times wouldn't have been so sad."
Sad, huh? I suppose you run a 3:53 mile. Are you Alan Webb? Because unless you're at his ability level or faster, I wouldn't be trashing those times from a HSer. Every time someone has listed a bunch of scientifically valid reasons for why long runs are useful, you have just ignored them, which is just dodging the point. Long runs are very useful, it sounds to me like someone is lazy or doesn't have enough time in their super-busy schedule to do a long run. Geez.
I'm too busy to post a point by point response to all you morons, but see the post of coop, which can be found on the preceeding page.
By the way, not a damn one of you has produced any proof to back up your pathetic drivel.
shithead,
snell.
reply.
Capallarization and mitochondrial efficiency are optimally improved through long runs of at least 2 hours in duration. Two separate 1 hour runs do not produce the same benefits.
laissez-faire wrote:
shithead,
snell.
reply.
AND, Steve Scott. Jim Ryun. Steve Holman. Murray Halberg. John Davies.
In addition consider these words from Lydiard who had his middle distance runners run weekly 22 milers.
LYDIARD: Well, I got a lot of criticism. People said, "You're coaching a middle distance runner, and he's running 100 miles a week in the evening, and maybe jogging 40 miles a week in the mornings, and the guy has to run around the track just 2 or 4 times. " But what they didn't understand was that your performance level is really governed by your aerobic capacity, your ability to assimilate, transport and utilize oxygen, not by your anaerobic development. Your anaerobic development is a limited factor - you can't turn all your blood into lactic acid. But these people didn't realize that if we're going to improve our performance level, we've got to improve our endurance, our ability to withstand higher oxygen debts and not get tired.
So, I try to get my athletes into a tireless state, so they can run and run and run, and when they get near to 100 to 250 meters to go, they could kick, they weren't tired, whereas the other guys, even though they had very good speed, they couldn't kick, they were too damned tired to kick. So that was simply the principle of it.
there is no reply.
bazza wrote:
Q: Take two guys with identical talents.
One runs 40 mpw with two-three days of speed.
The other runs 90 mpw with one day of speed.
At the end of the season, who will run a faster 5K and 10K?
A: They'll both get beaten by the third guy who runs 90mpw with two-three days of speed work.
Right on... : ) lol
Run fast not long wrote:
Try this:
A. 90 miles per week, with no long run and 3 speedworkouts per week. Longest run is 10 miles.
B. 90 miles per week with a long run of 18 miles and one speedworkout per week.
"A" wins easily. Where's the magic in the long run that makes the A runner faster? Hint: There isn't any.
I agree with you completely. Mileage is more important than long runs. Long runs can be detrimental to mileage AND performance.
How often have any of you had everything humming very well, then tossed in a few long runs and everything crashed. There is a reason for that.
bazza wrote:
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).
13 miles is a long run? Okay I thought you meant 50 or 60 miles.
I consider a long run to be one that is more than 1/5 of the weekly mileage. Amby Burfoot used to do 25 mile runs EVERY Sunday but only averaged 86 miles a week. BECAUSE he was wearing himself out with the long runs.
Khalid Khannouchi only does 1 run of more than 12 miles [20] in the last month of his preparation. And he runs very well, for MARATHONS. That's good enough for me. Why would anyone need to do any more than that.
Answer: They don't.
How often have any of you had everything humming very well, then tossed in a few long runs and everything crashed. There is a reason for that.[/quote]
yeah, no shit.....the reason you crashed is because you "tossed in a few long runs" you don't toss in a few long runs at some point along the way....you do them from the beginning of a program, building them up, therefore taking in the benefits as have been stated time and again. it's the end of my season right now, everything is humming very well, but duh, i'm not gonna to "toss in a few long runs" i've been doing them since june though and now cutting them back, which is precisely why everything is humming so well.
wow again, yes kannouchi does only 1 run over 12 miles in the LAST MONTH of his training.....know why? cuz it's called a taper! yes, tapers, particularly for marathons last about 4 weeks. you may be right, probably not a lot of people need to do more than 20 miles, but up to, or around (up to 22) is pretty hot like fire.
DougC wrote:
LYDIARD: Well, I got a lot of criticism. People said, "You're coaching a middle distance runner, and he's running 100 miles a week in the evening, and maybe jogging 40 miles a week in the mornings, and the guy has to run around the track just 2 or 4 times. "
I see the 100 miles a week. Where is the long run?
But what they didn't understand was that your performance level is really governed by your aerobic capacity, your ability to assimilate, transport and utilize oxygen, not by your anaerobic development.
Still no long run. Though Lydiard is exaggerating to make his point. Everyone surely needs anaerobic AND aerobic development.
Your anaerobic development is a limited factor - you can't turn all your blood into lactic acid. But these people didn't realize that if we're going to improve our performance level, we've got to improve our endurance, our ability to withstand higher oxygen debts and not get tired.
Right. So where's the long run?
So, I try to get my athletes into a tireless state, so they can run and run and run, and when they get near to 100 to 250 meters to go, they could kick, they weren't tired, whereas the other guys, even though they had very good speed, they couldn't kick, they were too damned tired to kick. So that was simply the principle of it.
Right. So... where is the long run?
And Coe running 5 or 10 miles once a year is not a long run.
Snell did a 22 mile run regularly with the other Lydiard guys. The fact that Arthur hasn't specifically referred to it in the quote you site doesn't mean it wasn't done and if you read almost anything about Lydiard's training you'll find plenty of references to the 22 miler. As to whether the run was slow or fast, as another post mentioned, it was done around 7 minute pace early in the year and progressed toward 6 as the base building phase was completed. I got that from Peter himself.
And I'm reminded of a quote from Rob DeCastella that went something like, "A lot of guys will go to the track for an hour and run really hard and say that's as good as running for two hours because they ran really fast. But you can't substitute running fast for running far. Many runners look for reasons to avoid two to three hour training runs because they're bloody hard."
Periodically, someone brings up the question you have about the value of long runs. It may be that they're really nothing more than a sacred cow and that you're on to something. But as others have mentioned in some form or other, because so many have had success with long runs you're going to need more than your own experience and a few other anecdotes to convince most people.