Long run as percentage of miles

Stop being so literal.

Of course some endurance comes from the long run. Just as some endurance comes from the other runs you do during the week. The point you are missing is that a 45 mile per week runner (or a 60 mile-per-week runner) who wants to build endurance if far better served by increasing his weekly volume than by increasing the length of his long run.

Higher mileage is not difficult if you are willing to spend the time and you are willing to slow down. To many older runners are not and so they try to hold the same intensity they did in their younger days, get injured, and decide they're too old to run mileage. You are less than 5 years older than I so don't think I'm not speaking from experience.

More importantly, stop thinking that your long run is going to be some kind of magic key to a higher level of endurance. It will not be. Endurance comes through consistently high weekly and monthly volume over time, not by adding a few miles to a once-a-week run

Dean Martin wrote:

i know wrote:

20%

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner.

That's actually maximum, not necessarily "optimal". I don't know if there is truly one optimal. However occasionally you are going to go up to 25% - 30% on low mileage weeks.

I wince every time I hear about someone's marathon training "plan" that has them running a 20 mile long run at the end of a 45 mile week.

So that means that you shouldn't be doing long runs of 20 miles unless you are doing 100 mile weeks? That leaves 80 miles to do in 6 days, which is 13-14 miles per day. If you take a day off or have low mileage on one day then it's more like 15-16 miles a day on the other days. If that's your regular mileage then 20 miles doesn't seem like a long run.

Pey wrote:

During marathon training I average 70 mpw with most long runs around 21. This works for me but everyones different

Maybe, but how would you know that a shorter long run or more weekly mileage wouldn't work even better?

Sanity check .... wrote:

In fact, it's not even possible if you run fewer than 5 days per week.

Running fewer than 5 days per week is really training? We're talking about normal training for almost anyone looking to run their best.

People think about this with their head in the sand.

Use common sense combined with basic adaptation.

1. The long run increases endurance SO in the long run you can increase the distance of your daily runs.

Example:

day 1: 10 miles

day 2: 6 miles

day 3: 10 miles

day 4: 6 miles

day 5: 14 miles

day 6: 8 miles

day 7: 11 miles

day 8: 8 miles

day 9: 11 miles

day 10: 8 miles

day 11: 16 miles

That's a little simplified but you get the picture? So, as a method of increasing endurance (endurance in running = time on your feet) your long run shouldn't be more than 15-30 minutes longer than your average run. If you have no needed for increased endurance then you really do not need a long run. During times of increased intensity for 5k-10k training you really do not need a long run.

2. The long run is used in marathon training to increase fat burning during the marathon at marathon pace

If you take a look at the Ironman Triathlon winners (this is straight from Noake's book) it is a metabolic impossibility UNLESS those elite triathletes have greatly increased their ability to use fat a fuel at higher intensities. IE: becoming more fuel effecient.

Now, another theory here is that you can do the same thing with moderately long runs at marathon pace. If you look at the training of Grete Waitz she never did anything longer than 90 minutes, but she came into the marathon with great short distance PRs so she may have been able to come in the back door so to speak. Speaking metaphorically, if Runner A has a top ability of 100 and can run at 50% of that ability during a marathon then that runner runs at ability level 50. If Runner B has a top ability of 70 but can run at 70% of that ability during the marathon then Runner B runs at ability level 49, getting beat by Runner A who has less effeciency. Anyway, you get the picture. You need long runs over the course of your career in order to burn fuel efficiently, but I don't see how you need a 20+ mile long run each and every week.

Alan

Also, keep in mind that if you are running 100+mpw in doubles then you are never really running on completely fresh legs, and maybe you are burning more fat then someone who does 60mpw and is well rested? Someone who is always running high mileage might always be simulating a long run because they are a)fatigued from a previous run and b) start switching to fat earlier because their glycogen has not fully recovered from previous training.

There is more then one way to skin a cat, but of course a knife is better then a rusty shovel. (trust me)

DontFeedTheTroll wrote:

So that means that you shouldn't be doing long runs of 20 miles unless you are doing 100 mile weeks? That leaves 80 miles to do in 6 days, which is 13-14 miles per day. If you take a day off or have low mileage on one day then it's more like 15-16 miles a day on the other days. If that's your regular mileage then 20 miles doesn't seem like a long run.

Ideally? Yes. But we do not live in an ideal world.

more then one way to train wrote:

Also, keep in mind that if you are running 100+mpw in doubles then you are never really running on completely fresh legs, and maybe you are burning more fat then someone who does 60mpw and is well rested? Someone who is always running high mileage might always be simulating a long run because they are a)fatigued from a previous run and b) start switching to fat earlier because their glycogen has not fully recovered from previous training.

There is more then one way to skin a cat, but of course a knife is better then a rusty shovel. (trust me)

If one's typical daily easy run is about one hour during marathon training at what distance or time on the feet does the run become something more as far as recovery; 80 minutes, ninety?

Would a week of 4 ninety minute runs and one 120 minute run during bring you as much or more endurance as a week of 4, one hour runs, one 90 minute run and a 2:30+ run?

sez you wrote:

Pey wrote:

During marathon training I average 70 mpw with most long runs around 21. This works for me but everyones different

Maybe, but how would you know that a shorter long run or more weekly mileage wouldn't work even better?

Gee let me think? You're right because that's all I have ever run is exactly 70 mpw with a long run of exactly 21 miles every week for the last 17 years.

Pey wrote:

sez you wrote:

Maybe, but how would you know that a shorter long run or more weekly mileage wouldn't work even better?

Gee let me think? You're right because that's all I have ever run is exactly 70 mpw with a long run of exactly 21 miles every week for the last 17 years.

Dude, experimentation is key. How are you ever going to know what is best for your body when all you do is that?

Pey wrote:

During marathon training I average 70 mpw with most long runs around 21. This works for me but everyones different

sez you wrote:

Maybe, but how would you know that a shorter long run or more weekly mileage wouldn't work even better?

Pey wrote:

Gee let me think? You're right because that's all I have ever run is exactly 70 mpw with a long run of exactly 21 miles every week for the last 17 years.

Gee, how the fuck would anyone else reading this know what the hell you've ever tried in training? Were we all supposed to be keeping up with Pey's public online training blog for the past 17 years? Just because you know what "works" doesn't necessarily mean that you know what "works best." Not a difficult concept to grok.

even so wrote:

Then I would DEFINITELY ignore what he is saying. He hasn't coached any world class runners, and the one runner who got close did make vast improvements but got injured because of his idiotic 180 mile weeks.

FU*KING RETARDED

Malmo did some pretty big weeks too, you know... do you think his training was FU*KING RETARDED as well?

Let us know when you get as fast as either malmo or wejo were... then you can talk...

I've seen references that said something about long runs, that some increased benefits come between 1:45 and 2:05 minutes. Beyond 2:05 can still bring some benefit, but at increasing cost and recovery.I don't know which brings more endurance, but of your two choices, I would choose "4, one hour runs, one 90 minute run and a 2:30+ run". I might not run 2:30+ every week either, but maybe once a month.

gjg wrote:

If one's typical daily easy run is about one hour during marathon training at what distance or time on the feet does the run become something more as far as recovery; 80 minutes, ninety?

Would a week of 4 ninety minute runs and one 120 minute run during bring you as much or more endurance as a week of 4, one hour runs, one 90 minute run and a 2:30+ run?

Not difficult to grok, but also not really relevant in any way to this, or any discussion. Given that no one today, or ever in the history of running, knows yet what works "best", what is your point actually? No one can ever know, because as "Pey" rightly qualifies, "everyone[']s different" -- in their goals, their time and family constraints, and how they respond to training.If it is working for him, than that's the benchmark to measure what's best for him.

Pey wrote:

During marathon training I average 70 mpw with most long runs around 21. This works for me but everyones different

sez you wrote:

Just because you know what "works" doesn't necessarily mean that you know what "works best." Not a difficult concept to grok.

Um, we can be reasonably assured that almost every top athlete knows what works "best" since of everyone who has tried they stood the best odds of getting the most out of themselves.

People who can only give themselves to 5 runs a week or <70 mpw probably shouldn't be thinking about the marathon at all, let alone with performance goals.