Most effective duration for daily aerobic runs

More is better.

60 minutes

Doubles. Do em.

It depends, usually, the more the better.

With that said, if you can only do singles, and only one 100-120+min long run a week. It is better to do a "shorter" (under 65min) run, if the day before you ran over 75min.

So basically if you can only run singles, with one 100-120+min long run a week. The other days should be 60-75min.

Less than 65 minutes after 75-90minutes run. And most of the time 60-75min run.

60min.

Not sure of your fitness, but if your runs include warm-up or cool down miles, don't count those towards the 60min .. if you have time.

It depends on your event. For the 400m hurdles a max of 30 minutes. For the 5k you want 70 minutes plus, unless you're a beginner or have speed work the next day. There is definitely a sweet spot, increasing from 30 to 50 has more benefits than increasing from 50 to 70 but it's still generally worth it. I used to jog 3 hours for marathon training.

30 minutes for the shorter of your two runs.

60 minutes+ for the main workout of the day.

I've found 90 minutes average run to be the point where I'm fresh the next day and not just jogging to get mileage in after a workout.

I read somewhere on these boards about ten years ago that after ~45 minutes was when diminishing returns start to really happen. However, if you can run for 90-120 minutes a day, you'd still be getting more gains.

Doubles.

One at 30-35 minutes. (Shake out if you are coming back from a long run or workout.)

The second at longer 50-60 for a standard double.

If you are doing a Mid long run that can go up to 75-90 minutes. Heck 100 minutes if you are really grinding.

Also total training IS the MOST important. There isn't really a cut off for a run when you look at the data large scale as opposed to one single run.

Per the large 2019 study on 7 years of 100 plus elite athletes.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332769237_World-Class_Long-Distance_Running_Performances_Are_Best_Predicted_by_Volume_of_Easy_Runs_and_Deliberate_Practice_of_Short-Interval_and_Tempo_Runs

TLDR

Per the Study

" The first finding was that the

total volume of distance run in training was a strong predictor

of performance scores; indeed, just the total volume of training

itself explained up to 59% of performance score variability

between athletes. The main training contributor to the total distance run during

the athlete’s careers was the easy runs, accounting for approximately two-thirds of each 2-year accumulated total."

In short get in the most amount of easy running the EASIEST way you can. Factors for that will include your life schedule, your history of training and your overall motivation to run.

Good Luck!

Dankmemesconnoisseur wrote:

Per the Study

" ...The main training contributor to the total distance run during

the athlete’s careers was the easy runs, accounting for approximately two-thirds of each 2-year accumulated total."

Two-thirds? Implying the more intense running made up 1/3? That is rather different from the commonly accepted 90%/10% (or even 80%/20%) 'intensity rule', no?

The Intelligence wrote:

Dankmemesconnoisseur wrote:

Per the Study

" ...The main training contributor to the total distance run during

the athlete’s careers was the easy runs, accounting for approximately two-thirds of each 2-year accumulated total."

Two-thirds? Implying the more intense running made up 1/3? That is rather different from the commonly accepted 90%/10% (or even 80%/20%) 'intensity rule', no?

I noticed that too. Wondering if that had to do with the way they gathered data. If you included the mileage from warmup/cooldown of a workout day and just call all that "hard" then it might come to 30/70 instead of ~15/~85. for example, I don't separate warmups/cooldowns on Strava and if you mark a run as a workout vs a general easy run, you could add them up like that and have skewed numbers. they could also be counting long runs as quality training no matter the pace.

depends on experience

I personally find 40-60 to be a sweet spot range for myself. then a recovery day of 30 minutes in a week at a turtles pace. but with 40-60 I can come back day in and day out and still have my workouts be solid. This is also with a 90-105 long run

But I also worked up to this. early on 40 was a pretty longish run. and in a few years 40 will be really low if I go into higher mileage and most general days in the 60-70 range

so. as much as you can comfortably do is the best bet and as you get fitter this number should be getting higher

More is better unless you're not getting enough recovery between the runs. If you're running 100 miles per week but getting very little sleep and not eating anything, it's not going to make you better and you might actually perform better off lower mileage where you're not over-cooked. But if you are actually getting good sleep and eating properly, 100 miles per week would be better than less. You have to take into account the types of workouts you want to do. If you're training for 800 meters, running 100 miles per week will probably leave you a little too fatigued and can't run quite as fast of workouts, and you might not be able to get the muscle strength you need to run a faster top speed.

So run the most amount of volume that you can while still having the strength to run the quality of workouts you need to be running.

reed wrote:

The Intelligence wrote:

Two-thirds? Implying the more intense running made up 1/3? That is rather different from the commonly accepted 90%/10% (or even 80%/20%) 'intensity rule', no?

I noticed that too. Wondering if that had to do with the way they gathered data. If you included the mileage from warmup/cooldown of a workout day and just call all that "hard" then it might come to 30/70 instead of ~15/~85. for example, I don't separate warmups/cooldowns on Strava and if you mark a run as a workout vs a general easy run, you could add them up like that and have skewed numbers. they could also be counting long runs as quality training no matter the pace.

I think it is more that we are talking relatively low mileage guys

The average guy is running 14:15

If I am doing the math right

a) doing just under ~60mpw

b) ~42 mpw easy

c) 7.5 miles tempo (82-92%)

d) 6 miles long intervals (92-95% HR)

e) 2.5 miles of fast

That looks a bit high but it isn't crazy depending on exactly how they count stuff. But obviously the guy running 90mpw isn't going to be doing 50% more fast work. At 90mpw I bet you go from 30% fast work to 20%.

And I am not shocked at the "low" milege levels we are talking about that volume dominates. We have know since the 60s that getting to 70-90 miles (i.e. the 7-10 hours/week of training) was pretty key.

Interesting that they found long intervals weren't strongly correlated with performance

For doubles I found 60 am / 30 pm very manageable at 7 min pace or so.

For singles I would usually aim for 10 miles so 70 at your easy pace.

kbofa wrote:

Interesting that they found long intervals weren't strongly correlated with performance

I think the way to read it is volume of long intervals. I am guessing that if you look at the pace of long intervals there would be a strong correlation:). What would be interesting to see is what peoples progression is over the years. Did the people with the most improvement just start at lower levels (they went from 40-80mpw), did they up the amount of quality, or some variation. It would also be sort of nice to get rid of some of the data (i.e. marathoners and 5000m guys have a bit different requirements. The old guys might be at different points) but I think the general trend of getting in more time up to 10-14 hours/week being good pretty much matches the consensus. It isn't clear if the data had many people doing more training than that.

As a practical matter most people can recover from 50-70 mins run pretty easily. 90+ min runs tend to take more out of someone. That puts a max for most days in the hour range and if you want to do more training, do doubles. But there are people who can do 90mins runs day after.

It all depends on the athlete. How much training they already have under their belt, their susceptibility to injury, life responsibilities and time restrictions, where they live, etc. All of these factors play a part in the ideal duration for how much volume someone should run. But to respond directly to your question, 70 minutes of running a day, if the factors in your life allow you to, is obviously going to lead to bigger improvements in all speeds of your running. These posts are getting overdone at this point though. These formulaic "What is the ideal mpw an athlete should run?" ,"How much weekly interval workouts should I do a week?", "What is the ideal easy running pace for an athlete who can run a x:xx 5K?" Its like the people who post these types of threads have never heard of the word "relative" before. Every factor of training is going to effect how much and how fast someone can train and these factors are going to be relative to that specific athlete.