'Faster' long runs - any benefit?

You never know. Try it.

No. I usually ran 20 milers at 6:30 pace or so. One day I ran a long run at 5:40 ish pace when I was a 30:xx 10ker and that was the last good workout I ever did. It has been 7 years and my foot still isnt healed from the tendonitis. Just because you can doesnt mean you should.

Last year I was in a heavy training block doing 2 workouts/week and a long run. Was training with two guys who were aerobically much fitter than me and always got dropped on tempo runs.

I tried to make up for it on my long runs and would run anywhere from 10-13 miles at 5:40-6:00 pace.

Sure it feels good to hammer a long run every now and then, but I noticed that when it came to do the tempo run again, I’d be trashed from my long run still and get dropped again. Thus the cycle repeated itself.

I don’t think your long runs need to be fast if you’re a new runner (first 1-6 years) but as you get more miles under your belt there’s nothing wrong with picking it up a bit. I think a good intensity is between easy pace and marathon pace, maybe 10-20 seconds faster than your easy pace

CoachB wrote:

Whetmore's guys seem to think there is.

There's a good video from Boulder Running Clinics where Timo Mostert talks about his guys fast long run (70-90 min, which is long for HS kids).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb43uDveJI&t=127s&ab_channel=JayJohnson

I was about to say that it seems like to me one of Wetmore's staple training runs is steady long runs. I think certainly has to do with altitude training but I know multiple runners for CU who are hitting 18-20 mile long runs @5:50-6:00 pace average most of the year. I also think you have to put this into perspective that for them this is a steady effort and not a hard effort for the fitter guys. I would certainly consider this a fast long run though.

Let it Rupp wrote:

I thought the whole point of long runs was that they were long , why make them fast as well. I guess you could make the case to do them if you're only doing 1 other hard effort that weeks, but doing 2 hard workouts and a hard long run seems like an injury waiting to happen.

70-90 mins isn't really long. You aren't getting the fuel depletion that you can in 2+ hour runs. And if you are racing 10k or less there is no need for it.

Handling like 2.5 workouts/week is very tolerable for most young runners. If you can't, the workouts are probably too hard. As always YMMV and you have to decide what you can handle.

Yeah OP, but only if you did not do a hard workout or hard race the day before. If you did then just go easy.

running in the breeze wrote:

No. I usually ran 20 milers at 6:30 pace or so. One day I ran a long run at 5:40 ish pace when I was a 30:xx 10ker and that was the last good workout I ever did. It has been 7 years and my foot still isnt healed from the tendonitis. Just because you can doesnt mean you should.

That's true but consider that you have a much greater chance at getting hurt doing something the body is not ready for like you did. I don't think anyone here thinks that running 50 seconds per mile faster than you ever had before for a 20 mile run is a good idea. I have done several things also as an athlete that would be considered a lot worse than this so I am not picking on you for it.

I would advocate doing them during base--winter and summer. This would definitely be one of two hard efforts for the week. I wouldn't do it often either. Maybe 6-10x per year, and 70 mins max for high school kids.

high school xc coach wrote:

28 minute guy, WEJO, is pretty adamant that slowing down to 7 pace was the key to finally reaching his fastest times.

Was WEJO able to distinguish whether it was the slowing down at 7 pace, OR the going to altitude and training for an extended period of time, OR was it a bit of both?

I always was in my best shape and would race well (for me) when I was cooking in my long runs.

Usually that meant closing the second half in as close to 6 flat as I could get without racing it

Then again my long runs were only 10-13 miles, and many of my many injuries occurred while I was doing this.

Definitely smart to do with some structure. No reason a 10k runner can't work in some marathon pace into a long run to build some strength. Just remember that it's a workout. So if you usually do an interval session and a tempo session each week, the long run with tempo effort becomes your tempo session. Treat it as a workout in prep & in recovery. You're only at an increased injury risk if you're trying to cram in an extra session.

Yeah, the trick is that sustaining a hard pace for a long time is stressful. Most people not training for a marathon will be better off progressing into things and only doing say the last 4-5 miles fast, or doing some light fartlek.

You can get this naturally by running on a hilly course, which I think is pretty common.

high school xc coach wrote:

Let it Rupp wrote:

I thought the whole point of long runs was that they were long , why make them fast as well. I guess you could make the case to do them if you're only doing 1 other hard effort that weeks, but doing 2 hard workouts and a hard long run seems like an injury waiting to happen.

I would advocate doing them during base--winter and summer. This would definitely be one of two hard efforts for the week. I wouldn't do it often either. Maybe 6-10x per year, and 70 mins max for high school kids.

I think mixing faster paces into long runs during base phase is essential for any long distance runner, all the way down to maybe even the mile. Backing off and focusing on race-specific work in season would imply a movement away from that during the season. You could get the same kind of stimulus from a 4-8 mile tempo as a workout, without having to include it in a long during the racing season.

As you get more experienced eventually 2 hours at 7:00 will be "easy" for a long run. Unless you are a marathoner you don't need to run much longer than that. The natural progression from there is to run faster, do some fartlek work, or run a hillier route. You may not need to make the long run harder though. For 10k and below the long run is not as important as your other workouts. If you try to speed up on the long run and your other workouts suffer you should back off or take more time to recover.

Sure!

Long hard runs are an important part of half and marathon training. Kipchoge has used long hard runs to set his world records.

However, hard long runs are high risk and low reward for mortals.

A long hard run is punishing on your tendons and leg tissue. It might take you 3-5 days to fully recover from one. And that is if you are in super shape with no nagging injuries. The risk/reward of hard long runs isn't very good.

If you do a long hard run early in a training cycle before you are in shape...donzo. You might never recover. Kipchoge uses these long run as his hardest sessions toward the end of a training cycle. I bet Kipchose only does 2-4 hard long runs a year tops.

For mere mortals, you are better off just nailing your tempos and keeping your long run easy. A training system that promotes consistency is the #1 most important thing in running. If you can avoid injury and run consistently, you are going to improve. unfortunately, consistency is the leas sexy training advice you can give.

Flavian wrote:

CoachB wrote:

Whetmore's guys seem to think there is.

There's a good video from Boulder Running Clinics where Timo Mostert talks about his guys fast long run (70-90 min, which is long for HS kids).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghb43uDveJI&t=127s&ab_channel=JayJohnson

I was about to say that it seems like to me one of Wetmore's staple training runs is steady long runs. I think certainly has to do with altitude training but I know multiple runners for CU who are hitting 18-20 mile long runs @5:50-6:00 pace average most of the year. I also think you have to put this into perspective that for them this is a steady effort and not a hard effort for the fitter guys. I would certainly consider this a fast long run though.

The long, steady run also used to be a Joe Vigil staple for his great Adams St cross country teams. Two hours, some progressing down to 6:00 pace for the bulk of the run at > 7000’ altitude.

Personally, I see merit to what everyone is saying here. Maybe do the long runs every other week, and always take the next day off so the body has 48 hours to recover. They do a lot of damage. Also, easy runs should be 7:00+ pace, even for elite athletes.

In other words, go hard Tues & Thurs for two workouts per week and do the long run on Saturday, progressive depending on how you feel. All other runs easy, recovery pace and Sunday off. This way, you effectively get three “harder” workouts per week and great aerobic stimulus without totally overtaxing the body.

But also run doubles Mon thru Fri

Bison runner wrote:

Personally, I see merit to what everyone is saying here. Maybe do the long runs every other week, and always take the next day off so the body has 48 hours to recover. They do a lot of damage. Also, easy runs should be 7:00+ pace, even for elite athletes.

In other words, go hard Tues & Thurs for two workouts per week and do the long run on Saturday, progressive depending on how you feel. All other runs easy, recovery pace and Sunday off. This way, you effectively get three “harder” workouts per week and great aerobic stimulus without totally overtaxing the body.

The thing is it's always a trade-off.

For elite runners, take a look at for example the Ingebrigtsens-

in a standard build-up week, they got 2 BIG threshold days/week, AND a speed/leg strength day with 10x200 hills in each week. Do you really think they could handle a fast long run or fast finish long run on top of that? And even if you think they could, do you think they could still handle the same paces on the threshold days and hills? And even if they could do that, do you think they could actually recover from doing all these 4 things in a week? And even if they could do that, do you think they could do this for an entire 3-4 month build-up phase block? And even if they could do that, do you think they could do that for 10 years, staying injury free week after week and improve consistently?

It's always a TRADE-OFF. Fast long runs, like Canova prescribes in his marathon runs, are no joke efforts. They are serious efforts, taxing mentally, metabolically and physiologically (in terms of damage to bones, muscles, joints, tendons, ligaments, etc.). Doing them almost always means you need to cut back on the real, fitness-building workouts at threshold or race-specific paces or it's a recipe for disaster to just add them on top of everything else.

And for recreational runners - 3 big efforts/week is almost always more than they should be doing, improvements in fitness can only take place if recovery keeps up with the stimulus and for most that simply won't be the case with 2 serious, hard workouts AND a fast, taxing long run on top of it. And the argument - just take the next day off - is that ideal training? To run so hard that everything hurts the next day and training time needs to be taken off? Maybe it's better to run it easy, even use it to recover from the real fitness-building threshold workouts and then go again strong the next day.

It's a trade-off for sure, but it's a mistake to think you aren't building real fitness from a hard long run. Things don't just fit into a neat box - "oh, this is a long run so it has no effect on my threshold" or whatever.

And again, the Ingebrigtsens are primarily middle distance guys who do worse as the distance gets longer. We shouldn't obsess over them as if they've figured out the only way to train. Plenty of examples of other runners who DO use a hard long run -- look at Kenyans' training. I think Cheptegei mentioned that he enjoys doing hard runs in the very hilly area around his training camp in Uganda.