So that's eleven days in an eighty four day period. I'm not trying to dismiss the imprtance of the long runs, I'm a "Lydiard" guy. But what you do on eleven of eighty four days isn't as important as what you do with the other seventy three.
So that's eleven days in an eighty four day period. I'm not trying to dismiss the imprtance of the long runs, I'm a "Lydiard" guy. But what you do on eleven of eighty four days isn't as important as what you do with the other seventy three.
I agree with malmo. I dont do 20 milers until I am at 100 miles on singles because I would rather have a solid 5 days with some doubles thrown in followed by a hard run then an easy day. I dont believe in resting for a long run at all; put in huge miles and run that bad boy and regardless of how the long run goes you put montrous work before that actual day, so whatever happens is a moot point. people who run 50 miles during the week then smash a long run always make me laugh because they had so much energy why not put alittle of that into more mileage before the LR?
NY runner wrote:
Anywhere you go the long run is a key part. It might be overrated, but you can't do with out it.
You could easily do completely without the long run. You can't neglect the other six days of the week.
NY runner wrote:
Anywhere you go the long run is a key part. It might be overrated, but you can't do with out it.
Tell that to Mark Nenow.
Thanks for the clarification. Daniels is really talking about two different types of workouts here (because they call for different intensities and ranges of duration). Maybe there should be another name for the longer, less intense workout, rather than calling both of them "tempo runs."
When I think of a "tempo run," I think of the earlier variety.
I agree with NYRunner. Singles with a minimum 20, although I do a 2 week cycle:
M T W Th F S Su
_ 8 8 10 8 8 20 (20 builds up to 22, Sat. 8 can build up to 16)
_ 8 8 12 8 12 16 (16 can build up to 22)
I always take at least one day off because I am older, but I would run an easy 4 on Monday if younger.
To me, the purpose of the longrun is to get your body used to running while depleted. For someone who is running 50 miles a week, you simply aren't running enough to deplete your glycogen unless you are out there for 2+ hours on a single run. For someone running 100 miles a week, there is a good chance that you are going to start some of your runs depleted and end a bunch of them like that. That is why the longrun becomes less and less important as you log more miles.
Agree? Disagree?
keep_going wrote:
To me, the purpose of the longrun is to get your body used to running while depleted. For someone who is running 50 miles a week, you simply aren't running enough to deplete your glycogen unless you are out there for 2+ hours on a single run. For someone running 100 miles a week, there is a good chance that you are going to start some of your runs depleted and end a bunch of them like that. That is why the longrun becomes less and less important as you log more miles.
Agree? Disagree?
Not according to Keith Hanson:
In the 10 days prior to your 16 mile long run you will have run 2 tempo runs, and one strength run. Going into your long run this is all negative in terms of fatigue that the body has not yet had the opportunity to benefit from. So when you step into your long run, the body feels tired (like it has already run 10 miles). So your 16 miler is simulating the last 16 miles of the marathon and not the first 16. It does take a small leap of faith to teach your mind this. I truly spend over an hour during each clinic trying to hammer this point home. I am sure that I did not do justice in a couple of poorly written paragraphs.
I agree with this, which is why I try to build up to a 12 plus a 16 at the end of the week, so I am running 28 miles in 2 days.
When truly fit, I can handle 3 fairly intense days in a row- say 10, 12, and 16 (or 20)
I don't know. I think we're making the same point really. He is saying that the cumulative effect of a hard week with a 16 miler is better than a lighter week with a 20 miler. That was the same basic point I was making.
wellnow wrote:
But you don't know what pace I am running my tempos, you have absolutely no idea, you don't know anything about me.
Actually we DO know what pace because you told us:
wellnow wrote:
About 1/2 marathon tempo runs, I do mid week road races as training for my track season, these are 5-7 miles, they are certainly faster than 1/2 marathon pace, and if I am feeling good, sometimes I will run them flat out, so I can't see the problem with 25-40 minutes at HM pace.
Do you think my races are tempo runs? maybe some of them are, and some of them are true flat out races.
malmo seems to think that he can pontificate on my training and potential without knowledge of my training, racing plans or ambitions. He also seems to think that everyone should train the same way he did.
I say everyone is different, and a good coach will not assume they know what's best for a runner until they know that runner very well, and that takes a lot of time.
wellnow wrote:
Lots of top runners do long hard tempo runs. They run 2.05-2.07 for a Marathon. Some do 80 miles per week with very fast sessions, some do 180 mpw.
Remember, hard is relative. And, who are the 80 mile a week 2:05-2:07 guys?
but most of them did high volume. Don't be mistaken.
OK wellnow, before you post anything else you have 2 questions to answer:
1- Why did you run without a chip?
2-Name the 2:05-07 runners training at 80 mpw?
We are waiting.
If the KIMbia guys go 15-30k at 3:00-3:20 per kilo in training what are they doing? 2:10 pace is 3:04 per kilo, WR pace is 3:00 per killo. 59 minute halfmarathon is 2:47 per kilo.
If the Hanson guys are running their workouts (3x3, 2x4, 2x6, etc) in 5:00 pace...or a prescribed 10 sec slower than marathon pace, and doing 10 mile cut down runs where they only approach marathon pace for the last 4-5 miles what are they doing?
Just an example of two groups NOT running 20-40 minute tempos at half-marathon pace, but running WITHIN themselves and running PROGRESSIVELY faster runs.
Alan
Actually the Hansons are doing their tempo runs faster than marathon pace but slower than 1/2 marathon pace. Where have I heard that before?
...that's what I meant...10 sec per mile faster than marathon pace, not slower...so slower than half pace, faster than marathon pace.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
If the KIMbia guys go 15-30k at 3:00-3:20 per kilo in training what are they doing? 2:10 pace is 3:04 per kilo, WR pace is 3:00 per killo. 59 minute halfmarathon is 2:47 per kilo.
If the Hanson guys are running their workouts (3x3, 2x4, 2x6, etc) in 5:00 pace...or a prescribed 10 sec slower than marathon pace, and doing 10 mile cut down runs where they only approach marathon pace for the last 4-5 miles what are they doing?
Just an example of two groups NOT running 20-40 minute tempos at half-marathon pace, but running WITHIN themselves and running PROGRESSIVELY faster runs.
Alan
Exactly. The purpose of tempo runs is to gradually extend the amount of running you do at a given pace. It doesnt matter whether it is marathon pace, half marathon pace 1Ok or 5k pace.
So if someone runs 3 miles in 15 minutes and they are in about 15.00 shape for 5k, they should aim to improve to 6 miles in 30 minutes within a few months and hopefully run 30 for 10k
wellnow wrote:
2-Steve Jones, and some South African runners.
I am not a high or low mileage advocate, I am a do what works for you by years of experimentation advocate.
Wrong. Jones ran 100mpw.