My first marathon at age 18 was after a summer of 100 miles a week average and then a fall of college cross country training and racing. I ran about 8-10 miles early in the morning when training college XC in the afternoon. Sundays were the longer run day. My longest run was 18 miles. I had no trouble with the 26 miles and finished in 2.27. I think it was the total volume over each week for many months that worked, not a single long run.
This is a great example of how you can be a good coach and not understand the science of training.
I think his science checks out.
Fast enough to create tissue hypoxia, not so fast that the athletes have to slow down / stop, long duration. His kids are probably doing what we'd call M pace, or "long tempo" in some of the calculators. Repeat every 7-10 days. These principles have been around forever
Making sure they go slow enough on the way out so that they don't fall apart on the way back is a nice way to teach them to listen to their bodies as well.
Stuff around aerobic threshold pace is tough as a lot of people swear by it, but there isn't a ton of research about it being better than just running easy. He has a program that works well for his situation. It isn't as polarized as some people suggest but it is in the realm of reasonable. And I have seen several people suggest younger runners are better off with more frequent moderate stimulus like this.
This is a great example of how you can be a good coach and not understand the science of training.
I think his science checks out.
Fast enough to create tissue hypoxia, not so fast that the athletes have to slow down / stop, long duration. His kids are probably doing what we'd call M pace, or "long tempo" in some of the calculators. Repeat every 7-10 days. These principles have been around forever
Making sure they go slow enough on the way out so that they don't fall apart on the way back is a nice way to teach them to listen to their bodies as well.
You're assuming that those young runners' tissues are compromised in capillary density. Why make that assumption?
Fast enough to create tissue hypoxia, not so fast that the athletes have to slow down / stop, long duration. His kids are probably doing what we'd call M pace, or "long tempo" in some of the calculators. Repeat every 7-10 days. These principles have been around forever
Making sure they go slow enough on the way out so that they don't fall apart on the way back is a nice way to teach them to listen to their bodies as well.
You're assuming that those young runners' tissues are compromised in capillary density. Why make that assumption?
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Prolonged exposure to hypoxic conditions and the sheer stress associated with increased velocity of blood flowing through the tissues is a strong stimulus for angiognesis in healthy individuals.
You're assuming that those young runners' tissues are compromised in capillary density. Why make that assumption?
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Prolonged exposure to hypoxic conditions and the sheer stress associated with increased velocity of blood flowing through the tissues is a strong stimulus for angiognesis in healthy individuals.
You're doing it again. Obviously you aren't even aware that you're doing it.
So instead of presenting the same self evident dogma. Why don't you answer the question?
Why assume that young runners' tissues have insufficient capillary density?
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Prolonged exposure to hypoxic conditions and the sheer stress associated with increased velocity of blood flowing through the tissues is a strong stimulus for angiognesis in healthy individuals.
You're doing it again. Obviously you aren't even aware that you're doing it.
So instead of presenting the same self evident dogma. Why don't you answer the question?
Why assume that young runners' tissues have insufficient capillary density?
Why don't you explain why it can't get better with the proper training?
Saying the long run is overrated is like saying the tempo run is overrated, or vo2 intervals are overrated...or running everyday is overrated, or easy runs are overrated or recovery runs are overrated.
Just because you drop one and get results doesn't mean you wouldn't be better with it . They all have a place.
Not true at all. For 99% of runners long runs are overrated. You arent the 1%.
What are you talking about at all ? You've suddenly realized all running knowledge is rubbish and the most important run of the week for endurance is not actually needed by 99% of runners. 😂
This is like listening to 5g masts, flat earth theorists and lizard people....you got me, you figured it out.
Not true at all. For 99% of runners long runs are overrated. You arent the 1%.
What are you talking about at all ? You've suddenly realized all running knowledge is rubbish and the most important run of the week for endurance is not actually needed by 99% of runners. 😂
This is like listening to 5g masts, flat earth theorists and lizard people....you got me, you figured it out.
Yes I do have it all figured out. Take notes. Long runs are for professionals or highly competitive college and high school runners. Thats not you.
There are exceptions. People who are attempting a "thon" should do a few to get a feel for what they are about to attempt.
Also, for 99%, its ok to try one every 6 to 10 weeks just to expand your horizons. To see what its like. As far as regular long runs its a complete waste of time. Allocate you efforts on the other six days of the week.
Long runs are not the most important run of the week, despite what Runners World will tell. They are not important at all.
Sorry that it makes you so angry. Deal with it an learn to train.
So funny to hear these American “coaches” try to turn it into a science project yet at every big race the podium is exclusively runners from countries with a GDP per capita of about two grand a year and who engage in very simple training.
During the coverage of the Chicago marathon in one of the few moments where they weren’t showing wheelchair racing, one of the commentators pointed out Kiplimo was running close to 150 miles a week leading up to the race. It’s a mileage game and it always has been.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Yes I do have it all figured out. Take notes. Long runs are for professionals or highly competitive college and high school runners. Thats not you.
There are exceptions. People who are attempting a "thon" should do a few to get a feel for what they are about to attempt.
Also, for 99%, its ok to try one every 6 to 10 weeks just to expand your horizons. To see what its like. As far as regular long runs its a complete waste of time. Allocate you efforts on the other six days of the week.
Long runs are not the most important run of the week, despite what Runners World will tell. They are not important at all.
Sorry that it makes you so angry. Deal with it an learn to train.
Does this mean you think that the 99% should try to run as close to the same distance as possible every day of the week? If an athlete runs an average of 5 miles most days, but does 8 on Sunday, does that count as a long run?
You seem to be defining a long run in an absolutist way, that is, "any run greater than x distance counts as a long run." In my experience, most runners use a relativist definition, where the long run is the the longest single session of running you do in a given period of time (usually a week).
Also, keep in mind, most runners who aren't "highly competitive" have full-time jobs and maybe even personal lives, so it makes sense that they would distribute their weekly mileage so that it falls on weekends/days off.
What are you talking about at all ? You've suddenly realized all running knowledge is rubbish and the most important run of the week for endurance is not actually needed by 99% of runners. 😂
This is like listening to 5g masts, flat earth theorists and lizard people....you got me, you figured it out.
Yes I do have it all figured out. Take notes. Long runs are for professionals or highly competitive college and high school runners. Thats not you.
There are exceptions. People who are attempting a "thon" should do a few to get a feel for what they are about to attempt.
Also, for 99%, its ok to try one every 6 to 10 weeks just to expand your horizons. To see what its like. As far as regular long runs its a complete waste of time. Allocate you efforts on the other six days of the week.
Long runs are not the most important run of the week, despite what Runners World will tell. They are not important at all.
Sorry that it makes you so angry. Deal with it an learn to train.
Long runs are not only for professionals. They have a place in every plan for a reason.
You're take is pretty amateur to be honest with you. I said it earlier , you can replace your take with tempo run, or intervals or vo2 max workouts...and say only the 1% need them , they're overrated and it sounds the same. I'll say it again, just because you can achieve certain results without long runs, doesn't mean you wouldn't do better with them. You're showing a limited understanding of running, I'd say a wannabe coach type who thinks they are onto something, but haven't a clue.
Anyone running 5k + that isn't professional will get great aerobic benefit from a long run.
Replace the Sunday hour with 90 minutes consistently and you have an extra run every two weeks. That's 26 a year, and for a 5 day a week , not pro like you're on about ,is 5 extra weeks per annum. Run more get better.
This is simple stuff really, why I have to break it down is laughable.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
Yes I do have it all figured out. Take notes. Long runs are for professionals or highly competitive college and high school runners. Thats not you.
There are exceptions. People who are attempting a "thon" should do a few to get a feel for what they are about to attempt.
Also, for 99%, its ok to try one every 6 to 10 weeks just to expand your horizons. To see what its like. As far as regular long runs its a complete waste of time. Allocate you efforts on the other six days of the week.
Long runs are not the most important run of the week, despite what Runners World will tell. They are not important at all.
Sorry that it makes you so angry. Deal with it an learn to train.
Long runs are not only for professionals. They have a place in every plan for a reason.
You're take is pretty amateur to be honest with you. I said it earlier , you can replace your take with tempo run, or intervals or vo2 max workouts...and say only the 1% need them , they're overrated and it sounds the same. I'll say it again, just because you can achieve certain results without long runs, doesn't mean you wouldn't do better with them. You're showing a limited understanding of running, I'd say a wannabe coach type who thinks they are onto something, but haven't a clue.
Anyone running 5k + that isn't professional will get great aerobic benefit from a long run.
Replace the Sunday hour with 90 minutes consistently and you have an extra run every two weeks. That's 26 a year, and for a 5 day a week , not pro like you're on about ,is 5 extra weeks per annum. Run more get better.
This is simple stuff really, why I have to break it down is laughable.
I know that malmo can speak for himself, but in case he gets fed up with the stupidities in this thread, I like to point out to you that he is a former American record holder in both the steeple and the HM, and I rather listen to him than some anonymous jogger on lrc.
what is your definition of long runs though? For some that's 2-hour plus run, for other it could be anything longer than your regular easy runs (like 80-90 mins v.s 60 mins)