How significant are long runs?

I'm currently running two long runs a week. The long run is the most important run for aerobic development so it is most beneficial to do it at least once a week. Summer base is to get into the best shape as possible, the season is where you train to hold race pace.

college runner wrote:

I'm currently running two long runs a week. The long run is the most important run for aerobic development so it is most beneficial to do it at least once a week. Summer base is to get into the best shape as possible, the season is where you train to hold race pace.

The most important runs for aerobic development are your daily distance runs.

Long runs are vital element of distance runing. They test your stamina, fitness, mental toughness, aerobic capacity and build strong heart and lungs- all required for top race performances. Typically about 15-18 miles every Sunday to allow time to rest and recover the body. Also enable you to spend a long time on your feet- vital in long races!

Run with a partner to beat the boredom though

Malmo says that long runs are not important. I do not agree. Neither would Arthur Lydiard. What's the lesson here? Not an argument over "who's right," that's for sure!

I know how significant long runs are for ME. But I have no idea about you. Maybe you need a 2-hour long run once a week. Maybe you need two or even THREE 15-18 mile runs per week. It will ultimately be a matter of testing what's right for you.

But here's my take: Long runs are very important, and I can tell because my long run makes me tired, and as I get in better shape, I feel less tired after my long run, until I arrive at what I call "super-fitness," where a "long run" no longer feels long--I'm just as fresh at the end as I was at at the beginning. Then I know I'm in great shape and ready to roll. For me, I've found that one 13-15 mile run and one 17-19 mile run per week works best. In my opinion, regularly going 20 miles or more requires a lot of planning (rehydration, refueling) and a lot of recovery, making it impractical for a college runner to do on a regular basis. Yes, Lydiard's 800 and 5k runners did 20 to 22-mile long runs, but it only took them about 2 hours because they were so fit. John Kellogg also recommends "two hours plus or minus a bit" as the maximum length of a long run.

777 wrote:

Malmo says that long runs are not important. I do not agree. Neither would Arthur Lydiard. What's the lesson here? Not an argument over "who's right," that's for sure!

malmo never said long runs were not important.

I just about totally dropped long runs last season and still improved. I was able to work out harder and run faster on easy days without having to kill myself every week on a long run.

I think you need to get a run in longer than the total of your most important workout of the week. If you do a 5-6 mile repeat workout with warm-up and cooldown, your looking at 12-13 miles. If you haven't run that kind of mileage on an easier day, its going to be much more difficult to handle in the context of a training week.

777 wrote:

Malmo says that long runs are not important. I do not agree. Neither would Arthur Lydiard. What's the lesson here? Not an argument over "who's right," that's for sure!

Surprise! wrote:

malmo never said long runs were not important.

Exactly. Someone didn't fall asleep in class. Someone else did.

From the bits and pieces I have seen of malmo's training philosophy, in summary, I think this is what he has to say about long runs:

- They are not a training priority, and that all other aspects of training should be established before the long run

- They should be done in proportion to the amount of mileage a person is running

- It is possible to run fast without long runs, but doesn't recommend doing this

All runs are important, all runs have a purpose. The problem is when you prop up a run or workout like some damned sacred cow be it the long run, tempo run, 400s, 6x1mile, or whatever.

Don't sacrifice the greater goal just so you can get that long run in or make it longer than it needs to be.

I think most runners have forgotten how to actually run. They have become mindless "yes men" and will do whatever the book says. Make your own book

Alan

PBNJ wrote:

From the bits and pieces I have seen of malmo's training philosophy, in summary, I think this is what he has to say about long runs:

- They are not a training priority, and that all other aspects of training should be established before the long run

- They should be done in proportion to the amount of mileage a person is running

- It is possible to run fast without long runs, but doesn't recommend doing this

I recall reading that the first time Grete Waitz ran longer than 12 miles was the 1978 NY marathon.

altoroad wrote:

PBNJ wrote:

From the bits and pieces I have seen of malmo's training philosophy, in summary, I think this is what he has to say about long runs:

- They are not a training priority, and that all other aspects of training should be established before the long run

- They should be done in proportion to the amount of mileage a person is running

- It is possible to run fast without long runs, but doesn't recommend doing this

I recall reading that the first time Grete Waitz ran longer than 12 miles was the 1978 NY marathon.

Before Tergat became a marathoner he never ran longer than 90 minutes.

Lagat doesn't train over 65 miles per week.

says you. I think long runs are great for you. I try to do about 2 hours and 20 minutes per long run, but i'd say anything up to 3 hours can be beneficial for some people. After that, assuming you are training for xc, i think it might become counter productive.

To the person who said Tergat didn't do a run longer than 90 minutes.

As someone who has been to Kenya and see the way they do long runs, you do realize that they will cover 17-18 miles in 90 minutes right? Those quality athletes can and will run sub 5 minute pace on the long runs.

To the poster who said, Lagat runs 65 miles a week.

Lagat also does his regular distance running at 5:10-5:20 pace at altitude and will run 12-13 miles during certain times in his build up.

LWTW wrote:

To the person who said Tergat didn't do a run longer than 90 minutes.

As someone who has been to Kenya and see the way they do long runs, you do realize that they will cover 17-18 miles in 90 minutes right? Those quality athletes can and will run sub 5 minute pace on the long runs.

To the poster who said, Lagat runs 65 miles a week.

Lagat also does his regular distance running at 5:10-5:20 pace at altitude and will run 12-13 miles during certain times in his build up.

He covers 17-18 miles, so what? I can do regular 90 minute runs at that intensity. They will be slower of course, since I´m a 30 min 10k runner, but the body doesn´t know how many miles you run. It only knows the time and intensity of your runs.

so? wrote:

He covers 17-18 miles, so what? I can do regular 90 minute runs at that intensity. They will be slower of course, since I´m a 30 min 10k runner, but the body doesn´t know how many miles you run. It only knows the time and intensity of your runs.

Actually your body does know the difference between 17-18 miles and 12-13 miles if both are runs of 90 minutes. Remember that running is a high impact activity and that the amount of impact is directly proportional to the distance physically covered. So although the relative aerobic intensity might be similar the absolute physical impact is different.

So much depends on the individual. I was never very fast, peaked at 2:45 for the marathon.

When I first started running 80+ mile weeks any run over 15 miles was very difficult, and tended to have a lasting effect over the next several days. I made it a point to sacrifice these workouts in favor of a long run once a week because I thought that element of my training was lacking.

By the books, I was better at racing over 5k and 10k than the half and full marathon, yet I was concentrating on the longer distances.

After about 1.5 to 2 years of training for these races the long runs became much easier, and endurance was no longer my shortfall. I thus rarely ran more than 18 miles in a single run, and more usually it was about 16 miles.

I was also running more miles overall, generally in the range of 90-100/week.

In short, for an average Joe, I think it is very important physically and mentally. Especially for those folks who are making their first attempts at racing longer distances.

Over time, the more used one gets to running mileage day in and day out it no longer becomes vital. When you are averaging 15 miles a day anyway you are getting in plenty of aerobic work. Also, those runs in excess of 18 always left lingering effects for several days. In short, the squeeze no longer became worth the juice.

Granted, I never played around with long runs of greater than 22-23 like some do. Perhaps I would have benefitted from those very slow 25+ mile runs that some advocate.

Didn't Frank Shorter do 30 mile runs at (for him) a very slow pace?