Nothing but long slow distance.

Dean Karnazes

There's this guy named Dean Karnazes.....

the long road wrote:

Anyone know of anyone who runs nothing but long slow distance style training?

Yea, me for a few years when I had an achilles issue. Doing only LSD turns you into a "recreational, Joe Jogger" type of runner who looks incapable of getting good lift and running with any snap or speed. Just heavy-legged and slow. After a while, you only have a 1st and 2nd gear. No 3rd, 4th or 5th.

Now that the achilles is cured, I'm getting my gears back. But I can now (sadly) see why those joggers look like they're on their last legs.

too much is not good for you because it's actually harder on the joints over a long period of time. unless you're injured, don't do just long slow distance runs, and if you must, maybe you can find other ways to exercise to stay in shape like bicycling or swimming.

Didn't Derek Clayton just put in a lot of mileage...ditto with Jack Foster...Mark Nenow too? They rarely put in any structured workouts. Of course, I don't think either of them ran ssssslllllloooooowwwwwww.

Alan

ttc is right. Just running lots of slow long distance for an extended period of time makes you heavy-legged and slow. Go watch the middle of a marathon and look at the strides of those running 8:00 pace or slower. Yeah, there are exceptions, but most look like they have choppy strides with heavy legs.

From my experience, lots of long slow distance running by itself is bad. Lots of long slow distance running with regular speed sessions is good.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Didn't Derek Clayton just put in a lot of mileage...ditto with Jack Foster...Mark Nenow too? They rarely put in any structured workouts. Of course, I don't think either of them ran ssssslllllloooooowwwwwww.

It's interesting you pick those three, because they all belong in the long, *fast* distance category.

Derek Clayton would run most of his miles pretty hard. His long, "slow" Sunday run would often be an entire marathon in 2:25. Obviously, that is slower than his race pace, but most of us would not consider a 26-mile run at 5:30 pace to be slow and easy.

Foster would hammer most of his runs over the tough New Zealand countryside. Like Clayton, he would do a session of repeat miles from time to time but--as you say--most of his running was steady mileage.

Nenow was another guy who tended to hammer everything. I read an interview with him recently where he described his daily routine: 7 miles in the morning, 11 miles at night. He did this pretty much every day, and he suggested that he rarely ran much slower than 5-minute miles on the 11-mile night run.

Although these three runners had somewhat similar training styles, their respective training volumes varied. Clayton, when healthy (which wasn't all that often), would run 160-180 miles per week; Foster would run about 70 miles per week; and Nenow would run 120-130 miles per week.

track dude wrote:

ttc is right. Just running lots of slow long distance for an extended period of time makes you heavy-legged and slow. Go watch the middle of a marathon and look at the strides of those running 8:00 pace or slower. Yeah, there are exceptions, but most look like they have choppy strides with heavy legs.

From my experience, lots of long slow distance running by itself is bad. Lots of long slow distance running with regular speed sessions is good.

So there I go huh?

Due to an unremitting hip problem these days long slow distance (lsd) is the type of running I can only do.

Ed Whitlock. Did a 2:54 marathon at age 71

All he does is train a much, MUCH slower than race pace around a cemetery all day. Really high mileage

(think it was 2:54. Might have been 2:56. Right around there anyway)

But Ed runs races as speedwork.

From Henderson I believe

Bob Deines

Robert D. Deines, Pasadena, California. 22 years old

(born June 6th, 1947). 6'1", 140 pounds. Occupation:

mathematics teacher. Training: 100 to 120 miles a

week at about 8:00 pace. Times: mile -- 4:16.1 (4:22.8

on fast training), 2-mile -- 9:00.4 (9:20.2), 3-mile --

14:01.0 (14:16.0), 6-mile -- 29:55. (29:55), lO-mile --

49:58 (51:56), marathon -- 2:20:48 (2:40:58).

Twice Bob Deines and I have found ourselves together

for runs, at distances I consider long but which are just

an average day's mileage for him. We've gone a total of

35 miles and didn't once cover the same ground, either

in running or in conversation. Deines, a thoroughly

relaxed and articulate 22-year-old, talks of his long,

slow running as well as he runs it.

On-the-run conversation is one of the more beautiful

aspects of LSD, offering an enjoyable social aside

that's unavailable in faster types of training. Try

sometime discussing the merits of slow training, the

war in Vietnam or the weather while gasping through a

series of hard quarters on the track.

Deines has refined his en route talking to almost an art

form. He keeps a steady flow going, shifting easily from

topic to topic as the miles pass by comfortably. First

during a run in the Berkeley hills and a month later at

Stanford, Bob offered insights into his running attitudes.

Despite blond hair that he wears at near shoulder

length, Deines can't really be classed as a rebel. It's

more accurate to call him an individual who guards his

individuality closely. His hair is a symbol of that, and in

a way so is the slow training that he carried out during

two stormy years of conflict with his coach, Dixon

Farmer, at Occidental College. Bob thinks he looks

best in long hair so he wears it long; to hell with what

others think and say. He thinks he runs best and likes it

best on slow training so he trains slowly; let the coach

yell all he wants.

"The first day I ever ran," Bob said, referring to the fall of his senior year in high school, "I ran five miles at slow

pace on the track. It felt great. Almost anyone who

doesn't know anything about running would begin like

this before picking up more 'sophisticated,' 'scientific'

ideas. I became more sophisticated and spent three

years running fast intervals before realizing I was best

off running just the way I started -- long and slow/

In his single year of high school running. Bob only

reached 4:48 for the mile and 10:10 for two. His

freshman year improvement was only marginal and

included his first marathon experience -- "my slowest

and most painful one/" He ran 3:21 in the 1965 Culver

City race, hardily indicative that he'd be going almost an

hour faster within two years.

Slowly, the continuing influence of his teammate Rick

Spavins, himself a friend of slow-training Amby Burfoot,

got Bob to doing more and more relaxed road training.

By late 1967, he had sworn off fast work completely and

was running his marathon in 2:25, along with

corresponding improvements in everything from the

440 yards up.

"Starting in the summer of 1967," Bob said, "I upped my

mileage to about 90 miles a week. I was getting 100 to

110 in 1968 and have stayed at about that. I've even

slowed down the pace since then -- if you can believe

that -- to 7:30 to 8:00 and sometimes slower, usually

just running two hours a day and three to four hours on

either Saturday or Sunday.

"I might add that I never run more than once a day.

Double workouts are too much added effort for the

benefits gained. I'd much rather get in one solid, long

run than two shorter ones. Besides, all that showering

and changing is a big waste of time."

I've run with few other runners who creep along so

slowly -- runners of any class, not just 2:20 marathon

types. "Are you sure I'm not slowing you down too

much," I was compelled to ask Deines several times.

"Of course not," he answered. "This is the speed I

always go, if you can call this 'speed'."

"Don't you ever get the urge to go any faster, Bob?"

"I keep telling myself, 'Pick it up if you feel like it.' But

then I ask myself, 'Now when have I ever felt like picking

it up in practice?' It doesn't seem to matter. At Alamosa

[1968 Olympic Marathon Trial and pre-race camp site],

Gene Comroe accused me of sneaking out at night or

something and doing speed work. He couldn't believe I

wasn't doing any.

"Sometimes up there, a group of us would get together

for a long one. We planned to go slow, but gradually the

pace would start picking up. A race would be

developing. I didn't want to race and would usually

watch them disappear. Ed Winrow was the only guy

who would run regularly with me."

As it turned out, Deines, the slowest trainer of all at the

Alamosa camp, came within one minute and one place

of making the Olympic team. "I was surprised to come

up on Steve Matthews at the end," he said. "He was

legendary among the runners at Alamosa for doing

things like 20 miles in under two hours. He was the

hardest trainer up there. What surprised me even more

than catching him was that I outsprinted him. He is a

48-second quarter-miler, and my best is only 57."

Bob went on to attack a major myth -- that slow training

produces slow racing. "I don't feel that slow training

hurts one's speed at all," he said. "Although my times

for the shorter distances are not too good, even my 440

and 880 times are improving over what I ran on interval

training. One of my biggest thrills was running 1:58.8

for the half and beating runners who'd been training on

24-second 220s.

"Regular racing helps keep me sharp, but I am not

convinced that it is completely necessary. If it is, I think

that two or three races are sufficient to recover any lost

sharpness without doing any speed training. It works

out to almost an exact formula with me. I'm usually a

little sluggish in my first fast race. It may take 4:27 to run

a mile. But if I run within a week or two it's sure to be

4:17.

"The 10-second improvement seems to be pretty

standard. But I've found that if I train fast, if I go faster

than normal once or twice during the week, I often don't

race well."

Deines doesn't go out with missionary zeal attempting

to recruit other runners to his way of thinking. He didn't

try to revolutionize Occidental's running system, only his

own.

"I may not have the greatest method in the world, and I

don't claim to," he quietly told me. "But I enjoy it, it works

for me and I don't get hurt." That's a three-part

combination few runners can match.

In terms of how his training works, the statistics speak

for themselves. Pick a distance and compare

"before-after". He picks up his quota of minor aches

and pains, like any runner under any system does, but

they've never disabled the deceptively frail-looking 6'1",

140-pounder.

I'll vouch for the fact that he thoroughly enjoys his

running, for itself and not just the rewards earned. Both

days we ran together, conditions weren't the best for

him. Both were mornings-after, when hangover-like

feelings from a previous day's race were with him. Still,

without a hint of self-coercion, he eagerly took to the

roads for two-hour-plus jaunts.

Deines' ambitions remain remarkably low for a young

man with his talent. Competition is important to him,

but not necessarily the high placings and fast times

that have gone with his recent racing.

"Competition has always been for me an enjoyable

experience," he said. "The important thing is taking part

and achieving victory over myself and my own goals.

Winning is not the most important aspect, and if too

much emphasis is placed on it enjoyment is lost."

Future plans: "I don't foresee an end to my running

career," he said. That statement says a lot about him.

Whitlock races a lot, something like 30 times a year, so while he may not be doing traditional intervals or tempos, he's getting a lot of VO2 max/threshold stimulus.

Average_Joe wrote:

Ed Whitlock. Did a 2:54 marathon at age 71

All he does is train a much, MUCH slower than race pace around a cemetery all day. Really high mileage

(think it was 2:54. Might have been 2:56. Right around there anyway)

Who was it that said "Long Slow Distance makes Long Slow Runners"

Did Coe say it??

BTxc wrote:

Who was it that said "Long Slow Distance makes Long Slow Runners"

I dont know all I did was long slow distance running combined with lifting and I ran a 2:32.35 marathon.

Not fast by any means but I think there is something to running long slow distance.

I just ran a lot at the same pace everyday.

Long slow distance is good but doing it to the exclusion of anything else seems to have some drawbacks. To wit:

* Risk of injury from lack of variety. You might get past that by changing up the surface (grass, dirt, road, track) and the terrain (flat, hills, trails) from day to day.

* Unless you're a beginner, you're working almost entriely on your peripheral circulatory system and very little on your central circulatory system by running LSD.

* After awhile you'd need a different stimulus just to keep improving the same facets of endurance.

* Boredom and lack of focus.

* Nothing but months of LSD makes for a possibly difficult and risky transition to faster or harder running, assuming you want to run faster at some point.

i love long slow distance running. there is absolutely nothing else like it in my life. over 100,000 acres of state forest surround my family home ... there are miles and miles (and miles ...) of dirt/gravel roads and trails. long slow running was how i got into running in the first place (via backpacking, actually). just fantastic. dear me.

but just because i love it, doesn't mean it makes me a fast runner. what it does mean is that long after i've lost interest in training to improve my speed, i'll still be going out to the mountains to run.

there are certainly many benefits that accrue from the long, consistent application of long, slow distance runs. just do a search on a traditional japanese method of marathon training, to see this. or read through the hadd post to see how he think it helps. but i suspect how much such a training program can benefit you depends greatly on the percentage of slow-twitch fibers that you have. if you're not 99% slow-twitch, then you're over-feeding half (or whatever) of the oarsmen on your ship while the other half starve; you're not going to be racing as fast as you'd like to or could/can. and even though fast-twitch fibers can provide lactate on your long runs, you're really only training/adapting them to store & provide that energy ... as far as i'm aware, you are not -recruiting- those fibers in the traditional sense. if your goal is to run marathons and ultra-marathons, then long-slow running could be a large component of your training. canova has said that geb wasn't putting together a good marathon because he wasn't running slow enough in training. and ritz might have something to say about the glycogen storage and sparing adaptations that come with longer-slower distance runs. ... ... but if you're looking to race anything short of that, then why handicap yourself?

an opinion: you can't run 13-17 miles at marathon pace as a daily thing, probably not as an every-other-day thing. maybe you can do this once a week. if you want to run every day, or even every other day, -long-, then you're going to have to do this slower than marathon pace, and probably a good bit slower than marathon pace. look at ALL the distance-running paces FASTER than this (3k, 5k, 10k, CV, 10mi, HM, 20mi, M) that you definitely CAN'T run in any kind of distance (on a regular basis) unless you do so at `` ~40% of race distance as a 'tempo' or via intermittent/repetition training. (or, of course, as finishers to a long run ... but that would break the 'slow' criterium). the marathon is an arbitary distance, just as may be the standard human glycogen storage capacity, but that doesn't lessen the relationship between the two. basically this means we can draw a line between race paces/distances somewhere after 20 miles and call it the bonk point. if you're running slower than this (over distance), you're training yourself not to bonk. if you're running faster than this ...

if you're running faster than this, then you're training yourself to race better at paces just at/above/& below the training pace (not to mention a reformation of your lactate curve). and you're actually recruiting more and more of your muscle fibers -- as the pace increases -- which means you're recruiting your -potential-. long slow distance running doesn't recruit your potential. (and this is NOT to put down all the positive things that come with that kind of a run. it's simply to say what i said.)

this is a lesson from from experience.

my simplest suggestion: don't forget about:

20 mile race pace (up to 40% of d, or in long reps like 3x3.5mi)

half marathon race pace (up to 40% of d, or in long reps like 5x2mi)

CV race pace (1k reps at somewhere between 10k & HM pace; how fast can you run for 40'ish minutes? take that pace)

5k%%3k>mile race pace (200/200 on/off)

WORK INTO those, maybe one of those work-outs every second or third day, making sure you're always recovered (as only you will know). keep a lot of long slow distance in there if you want -- as warm-ups, cool-downs, recovery days, whatever. see if it does anything for you. the 5k race pace repeats may seem too short, but why fry yourself now ... there's a time to work into longer reps at those speeds.

whatever,

hrm

ps: this, of course, is to say nothing of progression runs. i think history proves the point that someone who goes out day after day, putting in the miles, and always having the inner sense that says, "it's time to roll," or, "let's move these 10 miles," can be -very- good. but a faith in your body's ability to determine the best pace for long-term improvement would probably be a blind faith ... it takes experience and the ability to LEARN from that experience to put together a truly successful progression-run-based program.

ps2: if i haven't stated it clearly enough -- long slow distance is very beneficial, and it's a very good gateway to increasing your mileage, which is something most people do for years after they start running, which is to say long slow distance can be a long-running (no pun meant) component of your training regimen.

no one wrote:

From Henderson I believe

Bob Deines

Robert D. Deines, Pasadena, California. 22 years old

(born June 6th, 1947). 6'1", 140 pounds.

OK, what is he doing now? Is he still a teacher? Retired maybe? Is he still running? He should be ready to run some good 60+ age group times in a few months.

Is he still in CA? Is he even still alive??

Anyone know??

BTxc wrote:

Who was it that said "Long Slow Distance makes Long Slow Runners"

I don't know. But if he'd copyrighted it and could get royalties each time someone said it, he'd be very wealthy.