To begin, you responded to the wrong person. Secondly, there are plenty of things that you gain fitness wise with long runs that you don't with one hour runs. Third, runs of extreme length, even beyond seven hours are not uncommon among the best Japanese marathon runners who are consistently among the fastest in the world. Fourth, if you don't want to run for more than an hour, don't. But don't criticize a runner who's showing considerable ambition.
88 miles
I say anything over 14-15.
spikes wrote:
20% of your total weekly mileage is what wetmore says (not the agent)
I now see why they were fifth at nationals this year. So if a person is running 100 mpw there long run should be 25 miles. I highly doubt you should be running almost a marathon distance as a long run. This obviously made them total strength runners in the mud in 2004.
I don't think Wetmore has his guys doing 25 milers.
I think Goucher was doing 20-22 for his long runs his senior year, and his were the longest.
20% of 100 isnt 25, clown.
20% of your total weekly mileage is what wetmore says (not the agent)
I now see why they were fifth at nationals this year. So if a person is running 100 mpw there long run should be 25 miles.
I never liked that percent of your weekly mileage business either (though your math is off here.) When I was doing 120 to 150 mile weeks, I'd have had to run a 24 to 30 miler. The 24 miler in a 120 mile week would have been manageable, but trying to pile a 30 on top of six tewnty mile days would have been way too much.
I can see where this is a good idea for pwoplw doing low to moderate mileage. But when you're talking big miles each week, I don't think you want to go that route.
i agree. i think a long run is when your on your feet 80 mins+