What pace shouldmy long runs be?

If you are running on grass or trails, that is better.

You are in HS, and I don't think any run should be over 1 hour in length.

In fact, in college our runs were only 1 hour (10 miles by then).

I am not clear what 8-9:30 min/miles are doing except getting you exercise, and the endorphin release for that natural high.

6 min for the mile means you can run 7:30 pace for 3-4 miles, or faster.

Get used to that, and keep your 1 hour run to only once a week.

Do a little speed work, or bound up some hills.

I don't think HS is the time to focus on 10k or half marathon or marathon, and that is what LRC caters to.

Lydiard would just tell you to enjoy yourself. Don't overthink it.

So, recently I have adjusted my plan so I increase my easy pace by 15 seconds per mile for fastest pace and slowest pace, so in 2 weeks I will go to 8:30-9:30 min/mile to 8:15-9:15, then 2 weeks later 8:00-9:00, and so on.

I plan on following that rule until track season, which is 18 weeks away. By that time, if everything goes to plan, I will be running 6:30-7:30/mile for easy pace. This is at and slightly below my current 5k pr pace, but I think that because it is a gradual, steady increase, I will be able to do it. Does that sound like a reasonable goal?

If I were running 6:30-7:30 miles easy I could drop much better times for all distances.

Also in HS (so take my advice with a grain of salt). I like doing my long runs at a "moderate" effort, it's what works for me. Typically that ends up being 90s/mi slower than my 5k pace. Low 8min pace for you. If you like a true easy pace than 8:30-9:00 sounds right imo.

You can cut to about 7 flat pace. 6:30 is a bit quick for easy days.

yhwh wrote:

If you are running on grass or trails, that is better.

You are in HS, and I don't think any run should be over 1 hour in length.

In fact, in college our runs were only 1 hour (10 miles by then).

Do a little speed work, or bound up some hills.

I don't think HS is the time to focus on 10k or half marathon or marathon, and that is what LRC caters to.

Everyone's free to post here, but I respectfully suggest ignoring this guy's advice. He believes runners should start with short races such as you posted PRs for and 'move up' later. This is or is not a wise principle depending on who the athlete is - for example, slow-twitch / fast-twitch ratio and aerobic vs anaerobic systems. It is, however, very common advice - in the United States and, with the possible exception of Canada, nowhere else. There are 2 reasons for this:

1. IF (a big if) you run for a school, or various schools, as much as possible - which is to say, any time you're enrolled in one and have eligibility - it is what you must do. You won't have the option of running longer than 5k for a few years, then 10k for several more. By the time you really have choice of what events to run, you will be much older than now. Of course, you can beat the system bu not attending any college with sports programs or no college at all. It's also pretty darn easy to avoid high school running even when in high school. This was common when I was your age and races 10k through marathon were loaded with 15-17 year olds.

2. It is what the poster himself did. I don't know him but am extremely confident saying that he ran for his school's teams. He thought that if you wished to run competitively, that is what you are supposed to do. Of course the posters on the message board are going to suggest not running anything longer than 5k prior to college (and not much longer even then). What they were told to do; itself what they did; it's what they believe you should do.

Really, #2 is not an independent justification for this particular - or any given - poster to recommend the gradual 'moving up' that is close to universal in the US and unheard of in Kenya. It is really a spin-off of #1. The real reason high schoolers don't run marathons, half, etc. is because schools don't offer such as an official school-sanctioned sport. American colleges don't either. If they did, nobody would consider it 'wrong' to run longer races at age 20. If your high school sponsored and chaperoned road racing, and so did every other school during the last few decades, it would considered OK at 15. And, by the way, you wouldn't get posts telling you not to do it.

OK, on to the question at hand. This topic has already been hashed out right here on the Board:

erios22 wrote:

I have been doing my LR's at easy pace (8:30-9:30 per mile) and then going as hard as I can on the last mile to get my legs turning even after they have been running for a long time. Is this an okay approach?

Not just okay, it sounds close to perfect.

I'm from the UK and in my experience athletes start at shorter distances here as well, despite athletes having much more autonomy due to the club system being far more important than schools or universities.

I would have thought other countries were the same, with the exception of Africans who started a tradition of going straight to the marathon (did this begin with Samuel Wanjiru?)

e.g.

Mo Farah was running quite a lot of 1500s as a junior and didn't start 10ks until his early 20s

Paula Radcliffe didn't run 10,000m until her mid 20s

If they were already racing long distances and focusing on them in their mid teens, they would have missed the opportunity to develop their speed.

HRE wrote:

Lydiard would just tell you to enjoy yourself. Don't overthink it.

Running for enjoyment and “training” are not the same things. If I followed that rule I would never improve because I would never go outside my comfort zone. I think that rule works when you are new to running and just adding miles or time on feet is a sufficient stimulus for improvement.

erios22 wrote:

So, recently I have adjusted my plan so I increase my easy pace by 15 seconds per mile for fastest pace and slowest pace, so in 2 weeks I will go to 8:30-9:30 min/mile to 8:15-9:15, then 2 weeks later 8:00-9:00, and so on.

I plan on following that rule until track season, which is 18 weeks away. By that time, if everything goes to plan, I will be running 6:30-7:30/mile for easy pace. This is at and slightly below my current 5k pr pace, but I think that because it is a gradual, steady increase, I will be able to do it. Does that sound like a reasonable goal?

If I were running 6:30-7:30 miles easy I could drop much better times for all distances.

Great plan.

If it doesn't work out exactly, it is still the right idea and you will be doing very well by track season.

That's pretty good for your 5K time. You could run them faster if you felt good too. I'm probably in that shape now and usually mine average are sub 9. If I feel good and my hammy is not bothering me, I'll throw in some finishing miles in the 7s. My first mile is my slowest mile and I warm into the run running them faster. I only do about 10-12 anymore. (1 hr 30 mins)

https://runnersconnect.net/coach-corner/optimal-long-run-pace/

Run at whatever pace you can sustain for 100 minutes.

parkerjohn wrote:

HRE wrote:

Lydiard would just tell you to enjoy yourself. Don't overthink it.

Running for enjoyment and “training” are not the same things. If I followed that rule I would never improve because I would never go outside my comfort zone. I think that rule works when you are new to running and just adding miles or time on feet is a sufficient stimulus for improvement.

Sure you'd improve. As time goes on and you get fitter you'll be able to run faster at that enjoyable pace and even if you don't run faster the enjoyable pace will get easier as your fitness improves. If you're looking to run a lot of miles, either cumulatively or in single run, you want to maximize the number of miles you can do and that will happen more readily if you're enjoying the run(s). There seems to an idea that enjoyable running is nearly always going to be slow running and I haven't found that to be true. It can be enjoyable to get into a rhythm and move along at a good clip. At other times it's more enjoyable to take it easier. But the point of a long run is to be out there for a good while and you're more likely to do that if you're enjoying yourself.

HRE wrote:

There seems to an idea that enjoyable running is nearly always going to be slow running and I haven't found that to be true. It can be enjoyable to get into a rhythm and move along at a good clip. At other times it's more enjoyable to take it easier. But the point of a long run is to be out there for a good while and you're more likely to do that if you're enjoying yourself.

This isn’t always the case and that’s why you have to factor in athlete types and “coach the person” as opposed to giving out blanket recommendations. Granted, that’s not possible on a forum like this one but we can at least recognize for example that certain athletes are natural plodders. Their easy pace has no correlation to how fit they are. If a 35 min 10K runs at 9:00 pace because they enjoy running at that speed, they’re not going to improve. I’ve seen many runners actually get slower as they increased their mileage because the pace wasn’t quick enough to elicit aerobic adaptations (there were just jogging around all the time). Your advice to go out and enjoy yourself works well for the athlete type or personality who normally tries to hammer everything or who is very type A. However, some types have to be told to run faster.

First long runs for high school should be 70-90 minutes.

Pace depends on what you did the day before. If the long run is the day after a tempo or interval session then go easy (5k + 2 minutes per mile).

However if the the long run has an easy day before and after I suggest a progression run. Start at 5k + 2 minutes per mile and work down to 5k + 1 minute per mile.

I am definitely not a Type A guy. When I started building up mileage I was usually running 8:00 pace or a bit faster. That was not a goal or anything. It was just what felt enjoyable to me. That was in 1972-73.. I pretty much stayed with those paces as I got up to and beyond 100 mile weeks. Once there I began running faster. That also was not planned. It just happened. By 1978 or so most everything I did once I got going was a few ticks on either side of 6:00 pace. That too, just happened and the 6:00 or so pace was just as enjoyable as the 8:00 or so pace had once been. Well probably a bit more enjoyable because I knew I was a lot faster. By then 8:00 miles would have not been enjoyable. It felt awkward and too slow.

And again, I cannot imagine I'd have been able to make that kind of progress if I'd consciously tried to get from that 8:00 pace to anything faster. It needed to happen naturally and on . its schedule, not mine. But if it hadn't, if I'd stayed at that 8:00 pace forever I still would have improved. Lydiard would tell you that slow training will get you the same results that faster training will but it will take longer. ("So what the LSD runner does in two years maybe we can manage in one.") Your hypothetical 35:00 10,000 meter guy who runs 9:00 miles could indeed get faster (assuming 35:00 was not his full potential.) He'd need to do something more than just run 9:00 miles all the time, i.e, intervals, time trials, hills,fast steady runs, frequent races or some combination. Another Lydiard quote was "Slow training does not make you slow. A lack of fast training makes you slow."

HRE wrote:

I am definitely not a Type A guy. When I started building up mileage I was usually running 8:00 pace or a bit faster. That was not a goal or anything. It was just what felt enjoyable to me. That was in 1972-73.. I pretty much stayed with those paces as I got up to and beyond 100 mile weeks. Once there I began running faster. That also was not planned. It just happened.

For you running faster just happened on its own but you are extrapolating from your experience to what you assume should also happen to everyone who runs to the “enjoyment” standard. There are runners (maybe not you) who prefer to run slow unless otherwise told or advised to speed up. So in a Lydiard base phase, for example, when you’re required to run at a brisk steady pace nearly every day, you’ve got to have something other than “just enjoy yourself” as a guiding principle. That 35 min 10K runner should be running hilly routes and pushing the pace down to a steady 7:30/mile at least - not 9 minute miles. In Lydiard 9:00 pace for the 35 min 10K runner is considered jogging and would only be done as a morning or evening supplementary session.

But I was NOT running at a brisk pace everyday. I was running comfortably. As you get fitter speeding up is just natural and that's what happened for me. I never thought of running at any particular pace, just ran as fast as felt manageable and only checked it now and again out of curiosity. I don't know why you'd think it's unusual. Yes, there are some people who look at some formula and decide that they have to run no faster than X and no slower than Y and maybe that's what your 35:00/9:00 guy is doing, but that violates the "enjoy yourself" advice. Your first post mentions needing to get out of your comfort zone and there is a time and a need for that. But if you're going to make really big improvements you'll need to broaden your comfort zone.

And for new runners, which describes any high school runner, they don't need to get into all sorts of formulas and rules about how fast or slow to run. They need to focus on covering distance and being able to run more as time goes on. even if that is basically jogging.

my 2c wrote:

erios22 wrote:

I have been doing my LR's at easy pace (8:30-9:30 per mile) and then going as hard as I can on the last mile to get my legs turning even after they have been running for a long time. Is this an okay approach?

Not just okay, it sounds close to perfect.

Yes. You want to be hungry for more when done. Sounds good