Shalane's longest LR ever was 12mi

eojtlc,

Don't get all pissy because you don't make fine distinctions when you're reading. Just because malmo wasn't surprised at Flanagan's long run distance doesn't mean he thinks or was implying all or even most elite runners don't run further than 12mi.

Look at malmo's logs- he did up to 30mi long runs and 15-22 milers are a regular part of his training. At the same time, when you're doing 120 miles a week, is 18 really a "long run?"

Your reading comprehension and leaps of logic are your problems here, not malmo's arguments.

craigmac4h wrote:

eojtlc,

Don't get all pissy because you don't make fine distinctions when you're reading. Just because malmo wasn't surprised at Flanagan's long run distance doesn't mean he thinks or was implying all or even most elite runners don't run further than 12mi.

Look at malmo's logs- he did up to 30mi long runs and 15-22 milers are a regular part of his training. At the same time, when you're doing 120 miles a week, is 18 really a "long run?"

Your reading comprehension and leaps of logic are your problems here, not malmo's arguments.

Don´t be too hard on "eojtlc", he can´t help that he can´t understand what malmo wrote. He is also obviously new on this board, and doesn´t know that malmo´s logs have been published here and that malmo has never said that you shouldn´t do long runs.

hehehehe No one should come to a gunfight with a penknife. Give it up eojtlc. Go take a long, long run.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” - Teddy RooseveltSo what specifically are your credentials other than talking sh*t about people who have actually done something?

not so fast malmo wrote:

This is coming from a guy who underperformed in the marathon. Now we know why.

The passage below I took from that article highlights the key to Deek's success and I will repeat my favorite quote of his as to why: "Consistency builds strength, and strength brings more consistency". If indeed he trained so monotonously and with such an unvarying schedule, it's clear that a basic tenet of his was to stay uninjured. I'm not aware of any major downtime he was forced to take when his career was at its zenith, but clearly sticking to a routine would avoid any surprises which might lead to an injury.

DeCastella's training methods were somewhat unorthodox for their consistency and simplicity. Throughout his entire career he did the same workouts on the same weekdays, week in and week out. People dubbed his method 'complex training' but really it was as simple as your ABC and as transparent as water. His week consisted of a hill workout, a speed workout and a long run. Just because of his unfaltering discipline and perseverance - he hardly ever missed a workout

"[Tirunesh] covers 50 to 55 miles per week," confirms national team coach Tolosa Kotu. "She is an endurance runner, and her speed is increasing [with] time. She used to struggle on her speed, but she is getting there very quickly,"

Tirunesh Dibaba didn't used to log huge miles (I have no idea if that is still true) but her name came to mind as a runner who has won a 10k medal without huge miles.

craigmac4h wrote:

eojtlc,

Don't get all pissy because you don't make fine distinctions when you're reading. Just because malmo wasn't surprised at Flanagan's long run distance doesn't mean he thinks or was implying all or even most elite runners don't run further than 12mi.

Look at malmo's logs- he did up to 30mi long runs and 15-22 milers are a regular part of his training. At the same time, when you're doing 120 miles a week, is 18 really a "long run?"

Your reading comprehension and leaps of logic are your problems here, not malmo's arguments.

I have no issues with reading comprehension. Thank you though, the comment I was talking about left no room for "fine distinctions". It was a blanket, "no they don't" with no time taken for explanation.

Now, since you obviously did not take the time to read into the context and history of the statements I made, I'll do it for you.

Malmo said that this long run distance is a yawner and shouldn't surprise anyone.

Someone else accused Malmo of saying that all elite distance runners go only this far, or that it's common practice or something along these lines.

Malmo then asked where he said this.

For some reason I felt the need to point out where this assumption likely came from and pointed out that there was some similarity between the two statements.

Malmo then said that they weren't. I believe the quote was "No, it isn't", as was said earlier.

This is the argument I was attacking, which is really a non-argument.

I never said that Malmo thought or implied or knew for certainty that this was the case, I merely pointed out that something he said could possibly be construed that way.

I will admit that I was a little put off by his initial accusation that I had no experience with world class runners (which is untrue), because I said that such a thing would be unusual with someone at that level.

At some point while writing this I started questioning what I choose to do with my free time, and realized I really can't leave a discussion of any kind. This is kind of sad. It's fine if people attack what I actually say, but if you start attacking me and you didn't even take the time to understand what I was saying, that gets me a little.

Finally, I am familiar enough with Malmo's background and what he did in training. I'm also familiar with the fact that he has said that the long run is the least important aspect of training, or something along those lines.

Wow, this is like 3 posts in one, I should take a break for a while.

just shut up and go away!

Clownshoes wrote:

So what specifically are your credentials other than talking sh*t about people who have actually done something?

Why don't you actually read the thread and find out? Not everyone on here is a bum without "credentials". It's not about victory and defeat, but you learn.

Malmo was extremely talented, but that doesn't mean he knows and has learned everything. Many big guys have run well in the marathon. I would rather learn from those who did more with less talent.

And I'd rather learn from those who did less with less talent. What a boon for me that you and others (other aliases, at least) are here posting. Share some more wisdom, will ya?

The need or benefits from long runs greatly depends on the following factors (in no specific order):

1) training age (years spent seriously training)

2) mileage in the bank (cumulative mileage and density of that mileage over the years)

2) currently weekly mileage

4) race distance focus

Since these factors will be different for most everyone then so will the answer.

On Flanagan: to me an interesting point is that she was able to move up in race distance (up to the 10k and now the half marathon) and be as successful or more successful once she started doing longer long runs.

It is not uncommon to find good women runners within a couple of years out of college who have never really gone very far on long runs or done much Aerobic Threshold work, as in college they primarily raced 5k in XC, and 3k in track and so the need/importance of these were not very high at these shorter distances. Then when they get to the post collegiate world and want to race the longer races, these two items become more important.

On Malmo: he enter the marathon and road racing game later in his career and already had alot of mileage in the bank, and a significant training age and did a good amount of weekly mileage, all which lessen the need/benefit of long runs.

MPR wrote:

On Malmo: he enter the marathon and road racing game later in his career and already had alot of mileage in the bank, and a significant training age and did a good amount of weekly mileage, all which lessen the need/benefit of long runs.

Where do you get the idea that I didn't do long runs? I'd be willing to bet I've run more 20+ milers than any of the reading-comprehension-alter-abled poster on this thread.

There's a 30 foot leap of logic into a 40 foot canyon going on here. Saying long runs are the least important aspect in training is NOT the same as saying not to do them.

Ah, but malmo, you see he didn't say that you didn't do long runs.

Grete Waitz has already been mentioned. Rosa Mota rarely ran over 90 mins. The longest run she ever did was 1:45. During her peak years, Mota ran 100-110 MPW on two runs/day. Her "long" runs were 13-15 milers once or twice a week. In Running with the Legends, she is quoted as follows:

"There's no reason to kill myself. If I have to do two hours, I need to go slow. and I think it's better to go faster. Two hours or more is too slow. And the races are not slow."

Huh?

"he enter the marathon and road racing game later in his career and already had alot of mileage in the bank, and a significant training age and did a good amount of weekly mileage, all which lessen the need/benefit of long runs"

That is implying that years of running somehow lessons the need to do long runs. I emphatically disagree. It's the neophytes and the young who need to focus on getting all others aspects in, not the most experienced runners.

Long runs are the icing -- not the cake.

Malmo, thanks for the clarification.

I was thinking the same thing--that the strength to be able to benefit from long runs is acquired over the long haul. And that the need for those long runs comes only when the shorter runs fail to do the work.

When I train I look to successful runners for guidance.

R De castella was probably the most successful runner in my lifetime.

Why:He was consistent and rarely if ever got injured.

When you watch him run he looked like an injury going to Happen but it never.

He was and is a smart man and although his methods may be considered old fashioned by todays standard's I've yet to see a training program that works as well.

For Me the long run stays.

Let me give a little background info since this is a cross post (I think that is the right term) from another forum but thought I'd share it over here since this thread was mentioned in the original thread I responded to. I've been running for almost 2 years now and have come to the PERSONAL conclusion that the traditional emphasis placed on the long run is overly emphasized. I think the long run in circumstances has a desirable training effect that you can only get from a long run, but not in the traditional way "we" think of a long training run.

I think if you already have a big weekly consistent base that the long run serves more as practice exercise for pace control more than any of the other factors that may or may not contribute to the end result. In that sense I think the "practice" is extremely valuable, on the flip side I'm still undecided as to whether or not there are any physical benefits to some one who already has a large base. With that said I'm not trying to argue the training that works for me is the training that will work for everybody; rather offer up some evidence for the alternatives.

--

I haven't had a chance to read the thread over on letsrun.com but I do find this topic interesting. When I first started logging decent weekly miles and was doing 1 or 2 a days, I'd often do either a longer run or a medium run and a shorter run. Usually during the normal training week I'd do > 10 mi 10 mi 21k on any single run of the day that the rest of the shorter runs that emphasized quicker paces `` 10k would suffer during the day (that largely could be due to the fact that I wasn't in as good as shape as I am now or that I ran the first 21k to fast or some combination of both). So then I started experimenting with doing a series of different shorter length runs throughout the day to see how the different lengths would affect my overall well being as well as the training effect.

What I've come to find is that personally for me a series of shorter runs (<= 10k) throughout the day provides better gains training wise and I'm able to maintain a triple digit base consistently vs. doing singles or one medium to long run + a short run where it is more difficult to maintain a triple digit base.

Over time I've put less and less emphasis on %% 21k runs and more and more emphasis on shorter 3+ runs a day. So for me a 10k, 5k, 5k, 10k, (7-8k), I've found to work better then say 21k + 5k. Obviously if I'm doing 30k vs. 26k the volume is more so you'd expect better returns, but even during the times I've messed around with 21k, 5k, 5k, or 21k, 10k, I've still overwhelmingly felt that a series of shorter runs gave me more training gains (10k, 5k, 5k, 10k) then either 21,5,5 or 21,10 though the latter is 1k more.

I think the shorter runs emphasize good training quality (and by quality I don't necessarily mean high intensity) + quick recovery stimulus in the body. In the shorter runs I'm able to isolate my target paces for the runs as well as mix in recovery runs in the same day. So instead of hard day easy day hard day easy day, I compress the hard day easy day cycle into a single fully recoverable day:

Modified Van Aaken schedule:

10k at a focused but easy pace

5k at a focused pace but w/ closing 250m to 500m accelerations @ 180+ bpm

5k ""

(Number of closing accelerations by feel)

10k <= 160 bpm

--

7-8k easy (optional) <-- this run was optional last year and at most I was doing it every other day, this year my goal is to include it daily.

The 2 5k's are predominately easy to medium paced but I will venture into fast paces for the accelerations mixed with easy pace recoveries, still even though I'm hitting fast paces daily for short periods of time that kind of work still only composes less then 10% of total training volume per week and no more then 15% - 20%.

Initially after I started this schedule by the end of the day I was dead, even though at times my weekly averages were the same as my 1 and 2 a days in which I was far from dead. BUT every morning I was able to wake up and repeat the schedule. So obviously daily there was some increased stimulus that wasn't there in the 1 and 2 a days. But the increased stimulus was not from increased paces or harder efforts it was from the decreased recovery times between runs. At first I thought well maybe I'm putting myself in a cycle where I'm gradually wearing myself down daily and over time I would end up digging a hole for myself, but at the same time with each successive week I only found myself getting stronger and faster, so that didn't make sense.

So I came to the conclusion that even though my recovery times were shorter from run to run, overall I wasn't putting myself into recovery debt, overall I was providing just enough daily stimulus to achieve maximal training effects all day long and still able to fully recover after an 7-8h nap in the sack.

So I think my performance gains have come quickly for me because each day I'm providing my body with continued stimulus all day long verses the singular stimulus you get with 1 or 2 a days and a longer recovery period.

When I think about it, it makes reasonable sense, in a typical book/online schedule you have 1 run a day sometimes 2 (though 2 a days is pretty rare unless it's an elite schedule from what I've seen) and you alternate hard and easy days, hard and easy weeks, when done in the traditional way basically what your doing by doing longer runs is putting yourself overall into recovery debt in which you have to take an entire easy day or easy week (in the case of alternating hard and easy weeks) to recover. So on some days you might be over stimulating your body (in which case you'd need more recovery) and on some days you might be under stimulating your body (in which case your not making the most of training time). I think these large macro training cycles makes the art of peaking overly complicated. Whereas if daily you provide your body with a constant all day stimulus again not putting yourself into a recovery debt, peaking becomes more of a trivial matter because you're almost never in the recovery hole.

At first I thought I should throw in a long run of 21k to 30k to tie everything together weekly after all everything I'd read had led me to believe that the all important weekly long run was "un disposable", my experience has taught me differently.

After messing around with my schedule to include weekly long runs what I found was that because I was already running "all day long", despite the time between runs, once I got accustomed to and broken in by my multi run days, tying together my shorter runs into a continuous long run required no adjustment, it felt just as comfortable as a regular daily run except longer.

Despite that, I haven't concluded conclusively whether the long run is useful (from the perspective of overall gains) or not useful in a daily multi run schedule. However, one thing stands out very concretely: a long runs value for me comes not from the physical or mental gains of the run itself but from the pace control. So in a sense I look at the long run as a pace control tool that helps me gauge what paces I can or can't maintain throughout say a marathon or ultra; for that it still remains a valuable tool; aside from that I'm undecided.

As it stands now towards the end of last years training I was doing long runs bi-weekly. In the future once I'm maintaining 38-40k daily I'll probably limit the long run to once a month, unless someone on here overwhelming convinces me that I'm retarded.

E**2