I have read multiple times online that there is no fitness benefit to running beyond 2 hours. Empirically do you all agree that this is correct?
I have read multiple times online that there is no fitness benefit to running beyond 2 hours. Empirically do you all agree that this is correct?
Empirically? I don't have data to back it up...
Anecdotally, I would certainly believe it. I know that I can't maintain my form or speed after two hours unless I was intentionally holding back just because I planned to run for a really long time. Even if I was taking it easy the whole time, I usually start to deteriorate by the time I would hit 2 hours. What race could I even plan to run for that long anyway? The only real benefit that I believe there probably is to a run longer than two hours is to get up to a certain distance mentally when you are training for a marathon for people who are going to take a much longer time to finish the thon. If you're going to take 4 hours to finish a marathon that you have already signed yourself up for, then you will mentally benefit from doing a long run that is longer than 2 hours.
Well I'm hoping to squeak under 3 hours at an upcoming marathon and was wondering where to cap my long run at. I did a very long jog of 24 miles the other week (8 minute pace) and I'm wondering if it was a lot of wasted miles. Perhaps it was more sensible to cap it at 16 and do 8 miles on another day instead. My feet were quite beat up by the end.
samsung9 wrote:
I have read multiple times online that there is no fitness benefit to running beyond 2 hours. Empirically do you all agree that this is correct?
Of course there is a fitness benefit to run more than 2 hours.....sometimes!
If you do it every day it becomes something else.......
It has been showed in scientific studies that running about 70-80 min really boost the mitochondria and enzymes production more than running up to 60 min .
Would 80 minutes at 8:30 be better than 60 minutes at 7:30?
samsung9 wrote:
I have read multiple times online that there is no fitness benefit to running beyond 2 hours. Empirically do you all agree that this is correct?
Empirically speaking, reading what random idiots on the internet have to say, has no intellectual benefit.
Hanson's suggest based on science that after 3 hours of running, you have crossed the point of diminishing returns.
samsung9 wrote:
Would 80 minutes at 8:30 be better than 60 minutes at 7:30?
The best pace depends on the individual runner when it comes to LSD ( Long Steady Distance). And if then, in your example, the best LSD pace is 8:30 you won`t get better results with the 7:30 pace at 60 min . Rather , it becomes counter productive and breaks you down over time.
Hi JS are you able to cite some of these studies I would like to read them.
Thanks
Huge rooster
So this whole website is a waste of time, who knew.
The way I understand it the difference between a 2 hour long run and a 3 hour long run is maybe an increase in mitochondrial efficiency of 2-3%, but the likelihood of injury from 2-3 hours goes up something like 20-30%. So, you can get some fitness benefits, but they are very minimal and the risk of injury goes up by a substantial margin.
Next time you run a marathon I want you to stop at 2hrs and just throw your hands up saying "there is simply no benefit in me continuing".
Alan
samsung9 wrote:
Well I'm hoping to squeak under 3 hours at an upcoming marathon and was wondering where to cap my long run at. I did a very long jog of 24 miles the other week (8 minute pace) and I'm wondering if it was a lot of wasted miles. Perhaps it was more sensible to cap it at 16 and do 8 miles on another day instead. My feet were quite beat up by the end.
It wasn't wasted miles.
I don't know how many marathons you've run, but for me, capping my long run at 16 wouldn't be enough. Beyond aerobic development and growing mitochondria, there are other benefits of longer runs, like simply making your body (bones, tendons, ligaments) and mind durable enough to withstand the distance. It might work for some people, but any time I've tried to go light on mileage for long races, I've regretted it in the end.
It's painful enough when mile 20 or 21 hits and you realize you've still got to run 5-6 miles further than you ever have before, at race pace nonetheless. I can't even imagine hitting mile 16 knowing I had to go ten miles further than I had ever done in training.
But from 24 to 26 is an easy stretch.
samsung9 wrote:
Well I'm hoping to squeak under 3 hours at an upcoming marathon and was wondering where to cap my long run at. I did a very long jog of 24 miles the other week (8 minute pace) and I'm wondering if it was a lot of wasted miles. Perhaps it was more sensible to cap it at 16 and do 8 miles on another day instead. My feet were quite beat up by the end.
There are other benefits besides fitness benefits. Since you've done a 24 miler you'll have a really good sense of what to expect in later miles.
Its weird though, because if there was no benefit I don't know why I have run some of my fastest times after recovering from an ultra. In 2019 a few weeks after I completed a 100 miler was some of my best running, made me wish I had a shorter race on the calendar. Some would say its because of the training block that preceded the 100 and then rested after the race. However, 2020 proved this to be untrue since I didn't race at all due to covid, yet I still ran plenty of mileage (actually a bit more than most years) and did similar training, had some rest weeks in there, stayed healthy the whole year, but now once again after a couple of 50k's this year am improving after stagnating last year.
I guess this is why a lot of ultra guys say they perform better when they race often. But then it is sort of counter to the science if science shows no benefit to running for more then a few hours.
You should be doing 20-ish mile long runs with quite a bit of MP included (especially if you're not following a training plan). If you're aiming for 3 hr, that's going to put you at around 2:30 for your long run.. I guess it also depends on how much pain you'd like to endure during the race tho.
People respond to training differently. One runner may start getting diminishing returns after an hour of running. Other runners might benefit up to four hours of running.
Runningart2004 wrote:
Next time you run a marathon I want you to stop at 2hrs and just throw your hands up saying "there is simply no benefit in me continuing".
Alan
Correct answer! For me, that means I'll be throwing up my hands and quitting about the 18 mile mark or so.
In my freshman microeconomics class, we were taught that the firm continues to produce as long as marginal revenue equals marginal cost. I figure the same is true in training: you continue to run until marginal fitness gains equal marginal injury risk.
Unless you're training for a marathon, I'm not sure there's much marginal gain from going beyond two hours. If you are training for a marathon, then most of us who don't race for a living will probably need to go a bit over two hours.
Huge rooster wrote:
Hi JS are you able to cite some of these studies I would like to read them.
Thanks
Huge rooster
I think we might be related
Runningart2004 wrote:
Next time you run a marathon I want you to stop at 2hrs and just throw your hands up saying "there is simply no benefit in me continuing".
Alan
This. What a bunch of bunk. You are also training for pain tolerance and management. You can't do that when things just start to get hard.