Long run as percentage of miles

20%

Jeff Galloway: Keep the 20 and jog 3 miles twice during the week.

Rob DeCastella: Average 130 miles a week for 20 years and build up to a 35 mile run five weeks before the race.

Bill Rodgers: Average 20 miles a day including 2 races a weeks.

gjg wrote:

Allowing for exceptions, what is the optimal length of the long run as a percentage of weekly mileage during marathon training. I'm interested in personal training experiences.

If looking to improve from 60 mpw with a 20 mile max long run; is it better to go to 70 mpw/20 long or keep weekly mileage stable and increase the long run length?

Exactly 21.657432% of total mileage and not a cubit more!

i know wrote:

20%

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner.

That's actually maximum, not necessarily "optimal". I don't know if there is truly one optimal. However occasionally you are going to go up to 25% - 30% on low mileage weeks.

I wince every time I hear about someone's marathon training "plan" that has them running a 20 mile long run at the end of a 45 mile week.

Increse weekly mileage. This will make you stronger, so that you can handle a longer long run. It's not either / or; it's win-win, if you do it right.

During marathon training I average 70 mpw with most long runs around 21. This works for me but everyones different

I run about 80 a week and, unless compelled by the opportunity for a group run, don't go more than 15 miles for my longest run and I have stopped the weekly long run as a "must-do" ritual. I sometimes do a workout on Sunday instead. As I get closer to 40, I find it hard to do a hard workout every 3 or 4 days, a long run, and keep my mileage up week after week and I am becoming convinced the long run is the least benefical of those elements that requires a high quanta of energy expenditure in relation to benefit gained. I probably end up doing about 3 long runs a month, maybe 2 if I am trying to get in consistent workouts. Higher weekly mileage more important than a particularly long long run, in my opinion.

Doesn't Daniels recommend 25-30%?

I have also read a recommendation of your longest weekly run being no more than 2 miles longer than your second longest daily total. So if you do some daily doubles of 5 and 10, your long run would be no more than 17. I think Scott Dvorak, when he was competing, followed this guideline.

Dean Martin wrote:

That's actually maximum, not necessarily "optimal". I don't know if there is truly one optimal. However occasionally you are going to go up to 25% - 30% on low mileage weeks

It's fine to argue that it's optimal, but 20% cannot be the "maximum". In fact, it's not even possible if you run fewer than 5 days per week.

Brian wrote:

I am becoming convinced the long run is the least benefical of those elements that requires a high quanta of energy expenditure in relation to benefit gained.

For endurance athletes, the long run is the most important run of the week.

Just wondering how people would apply this methodology to running Ultras.

Usually I'm running a measly 50-65MPW when training for 50mi or 100k races. This year I'm looking to build up to a consistent 80MPW with a few weeks in the 90MPW range.

Long runs can sometimes constitute as much as half of my weekly mileage. For my last 50mi I ran up to 30mi in training without breaking 65mi for the week... Is this detrimental to my training? Or is the 20-25% rule better left for marathon and under?

Coach K wrote:

For endurance athletes, the long run is the most important run of the week.

Myth

Coach K wrote:

For endurance athletes, the long run is the most important run of the week.

Malmo would beg to differ: "Long runs are the least important aspect of training. So unimportant, that you could get away with not doing them at ll if you wanted."

I politely disagree with Malmo and Dean Martin. The benefits of the weekly long run for an endurance athlete are not things that can be easily achieved in another fashion.

How about with high weekly mileage with some long-ish doubles for a start.I like long runs as much as the next marathoner but I wouldn't fret if I didn't have 2-1/2 to 3-hours to spend on a single run most weekends.

Coach K wrote:

I politely disagree with Malmo and Dean Martin. The benefits of the weekly long run for an endurance athlete are not things that can be easily achieved in another fashion.

Coach K wrote:

Brian wrote:

I am becoming convinced the long run is the least benefical of those elements that requires a high quanta of energy expenditure in relation to benefit gained.

For endurance athletes, the long run is the most important run of the week.

Specific example; Which in your opinion would be more beneficial for a marathoner who has become injury prone and is used to an ave. of 60 mpw with a 20 miler every other week?

1. Increasing to 75 mpw with longer daily runs and longest run of 2 hours(16 miles).

2. Staying at 60 mpw but gradually increasing the long run to 22 to 24 miles in the last month before the race.

B

Coach K wrote:

I politely disagree with Malmo and Dean Martin. The benefits of the weekly long run for an endurance athlete are not things that can be easily achieved in another fashion.

That's fine of course. We can disagree, and malmo is not infallible. But here is a link from the same thread I cited before:

It's Salazar's Oregon training log.

Sample week 1: 9/5 to 9/11, 105 miles total on 14 runs. Longest single run - 11.5 miles

Sample week 2: 9/12 to 9/18, 108 miles total on 13 runs. Longest single run - 13 miles

If all we knew was the 20% rule and your statement about the long run being the single most important run of the week, we should be seeing 20 and 21 mile runs. This obviously shows they are not necessarily needed for 10k success.

user of search function wrote:

Coach K wrote:

I politely disagree with Malmo and Dean Martin. The benefits of the weekly long run for an endurance athlete are not things that can be easily achieved in another fashion.

That's fine of course. We can disagree, and malmo is not infallible. But here is a link from the same thread I cited before:

http://www.dyestat.com/training/salazar1.htm

It's Salazar's Oregon training log.

Sample week 1: 9/5 to 9/11, 105 miles total on 14 runs. Longest single run - 11.5 miles

Sample week 2: 9/12 to 9/18, 108 miles total on 13 runs. Longest single run - 13 miles

If all we knew was the 20% rule and your statement about the long run being the single most important run of the week, we should be seeing 20 and 21 mile runs. This obviously shows they are not necessarily needed for 10k success.

I would agree completely on this one, it falls in line so easily with the idea of event specificity. However, as distance raced increases the long-run should increase as well.