I don't think a 5Ker should ever run more than 80 minutes continuously. I think 60 is ideal. I think the long run is a thing because there is usually one day a week we're everyone can get a long run in. It would be much more beneficial to double but not everyone can do that.
As far as the benefits go...it's just more aerobic work.
10K is another animal. You need long runs there.
Some advice wrote:
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.
Then we aren't really disagreeing and you aren't really disagreeing with what pop_pop wrote either. It's good to run 90min but 2hrs probably does more harm than good in most cases. A lot of the arguing in this thread is about what "long" means as opposed to how long a runner should be running. Pretty much everyone is saying you should run at least 80min at least once a week.
jewbacca wrote:
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.
Calling people trolls is much easier than actually backing up the things you say, eh? You said you've never heard an explanation for the importance of a long run, yet the real ones are already in the thread, and easily verifiable by well established running physiology texts.
Long runs in the 2 hour plus range do indeed engage ft IIa fibers at a lower effort threshold than normal, and make them develop traits common to ft I ones, but the cost of this is power output. And in 5 and 10k races, where ft IIa fibers are already being heavily recruited, a very meaningful percentage of the race will be run at max output, and the aerobic and glycolitic systems are both Heavily leaned on, why do we want to reduce their maximal output and ability to work at higher levels of acidity?
Shoebacca wrote:
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.
+1
5K is so different than 10K wrote:
I don't think a 5Ker should ever run more than 80 minutes continuously. I think 60 is ideal. I think the long run is a thing because there is usually one day a week we're everyone can get a long run in. It would be much more beneficial to double but not everyone can do that.
As far as the benefits go...it's just more aerobic work.
10K is another animal. You need long runs there.
Why would it be more beneficial to double than to do one, continuous run? During the week/recovery miles I would maybe agree but absolutely not during the long run. One of the main goals of the long run is to improve fatigue resistance and splitting it inl two (especially if you are fueling between) pretty much negates that. Higher overall mileage and working on the ability to sustain longer easy runs helps the body adapt so you can handle more quality down the road.
O/10
Another giver of +1 wrote:
Shoebacca wrote: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.
+1
The theory from Lydiard and others is a stronger stroke volume so when speed work comes you can feel less stressed at intense speeds.
Not according to Daniels running formula it isn't. Book says 5ks snd 10ks are similar in training
Where does it say anything about HM vs 10k training?
The HM is a training of itself
High mileage is to adjust the muscles and body to it, period. If you train for 1500m-5000 run for example, no benefit of running more than an hour run. If you're a fast runner of 5k and suddenly wants to move to half marathon or full one, without the muscles and body adjusted to it, your time would be worse than a much slower 5k runner- however adjusted, than you. You would experience a sudden high fatigue in your run.
I legit hope that the vast majority of this thread is trolling.
Running is an AEROBIC event. Thus you need AEROBIC exercise to succeed. The long run is THE MOST IMPORTANT part of training.
Let me know how you feel after doing a season of 5k specific training. You're probably hanging on by a thread near the end of workouts and pooped by the end of the season.
Sorry, I can't parse that.
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.
I ran in college, made nationals twice. Ran on the Farm Team before it moved to Eugene for 3-4 years post collegiate.
I had racked up years of 80-110 mile weeks. When I called it quits on competitive running I still ran 30-50 miles per week on trails with friends because I just love running. I didn't do any long runs. Didn't do any workouts. I was no longer near my 5k/10k peak performance but could still run a 33 min 10k. I rand multiple marathons 2:30-2:40 just to do them. My years of running stuck with me for another 10 years. Then it started to degrade and it was 17 min 5ks, then 18. I run 20-30 mpw now but have put on a good 15-20 pounds (I look normal now and not like I am coming out of a concentration camp). Anyways, those miles stay with you. Every couple weeks I still go to the track and do 2-3 miler at low 6 min pace.
What do those long runs do? I haven't read the threads and while I'm sure the physiologists have a scientific answer, for me... They made me faster. The races were no longer an endurance test but a speed test. I ran my PR in the 2 mile (granted I hadn't run one since HS) while trIning for the marathon.
I don't think they made me more tough. But it did help me keep a faster pace for longer.
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.
If they set a WR copy their training