Okay before I ask this question, please realize that I am aware that there are better alternatives, this is just something I was asked and it got me thinking...
Going into a marathon, which longrun progression would you feel more comfortable having under your belt:
a. - 16, 18, 21, 12, race
or
b. - 12, 14, 16, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, race
The second... for the obvious reason that more miles = more long, lonely marathoning experience...
On second thoughts... maybe insted of winding down like you're doing, you should switch to higher mileage in the weeks just before the race... something like
12, 14, 16, 18, 18, 18, 18, 20, 24, 16, 16, race
You'll have time to build yourself up to that level
This lacks context but either one is fine from a base of 70 MPW, and preferrably at least 8 weeks at 70. And maintain 60-70 up to the taper.
B
I understand there are better ways of doing it, but someone asked me the other day if I would rather have a 20+ run under my belt, or consecutive weeks at around 18-19 miles.
You want consecutive weeks of high total mileage. 70, 80, 90, 100- as high as you can handle and for as long as you can. Within that context, even just 16 milers are fine. 20 miles is just a number.
B, by a wide margin. Whatever you do week in, week out counts far more than a single slightly better effort.
My preference is consistent ~2 hour long runs for many weeks, with a few longer ones (18-20) sprinkled in.
nsmb, old and slow wrote:
B, by a wide margin. Whatever you do week in, week out counts far more than a single slightly better effort.
My preference is consistent ~2 hour long runs for many weeks, with a few longer ones (edit) sprinkled in.
this is the correct answer in my mind.
What units? Miles? Kilometers? Hours?With "a)" there is too little detail. What was done the 6 weeks before (as well as overall weekly volume) would make or break it. I would also plan my longest run 3-4 weeks before the race.Both of these points make "b)" my preference.
Nice Ass wrote:
...
Going into a marathon, which longrun progression would you feel more comfortable having under your belt:
a. - 16, 18, 21, 12, race
or
b. - 12, 14, 16, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 16, 14, 12, race
I believe that the secret of running good Marathons is to put yourself in the fat fuelling zone as often as possible without getting injured.
Some believe high mileage will get you there .
I believe that running outside the glycogen zone on a regular bases is the key.
b will achieve that.
The second with an increasing middle of the week long run and one medium distance long run. Take one or two of those 18 milers and bump them up to 20.
So I guess neither.
B
cowchip wrote:
The second with an increasing middle of the week long run and one medium distance long run. Take one or two of those 18 milers and bump them up to 20.
So I guess neither.
So you didn't read his question?
Or his second post where he reemphasized what he was asking...?
Lame asshole. Go home you troll.
Make sure you have the other 6 days sorted before getting too concerned about the long runs.
It depends on what your level of training is and what your race expectations are. If you are wanting to run sub-2:20, your first option would not be enough.
However, I would vote for that first option if you are simply a general competitive runner, not an elite runner. That's because getting in a run over 20 miles is important to the physiological training and adaptation your body and muscles need to do well in the marathon. There's a significant difference between the benefits you get from an 18-miler and a 20-miler. I would rather get in one 20- or 21-miler than three or four 18-milers.
I have had IT band problems for years, so when I was training for marathons during my peak years about 14 years ago I was wary of doing too many long runs for fear of injury. So I was fairly minimalist. But doing a progression of every-other-weekend long runs of three 14-milers, two 16-milers, two 18-milers, and one 20-miler allowed me to run 2:33 for the marathon with about 80-85 miles a week.
Hope that helps, and good luck!
dotato wrote:
nsmb, old and slow wrote:B, by a wide margin. Whatever you do week in, week out counts far more than a single slightly better effort.
My preference is consistent ~2 hour long runs for many weeks, with a few longer ones (edit) sprinkled in.
this is the correct answer in my mind.
I agree. So if I have to choose either option I'd take "b" because there's more consistency (from what I can tell) than there is with "a."
Here is an artice I wrote about a year ago for Florida Running and Triathlon magazine that also was posted to
that has useful info... btw, I ran 2:22 in grad school, ran 2:49 at age 49 and have done 48 marathons.
The Myth of the 20-Mile Long Run
Most marathon training programs include increasing mileage, tempo runs, mile repeats and long runs that build up to 20-milers. When it comes to long runs that prepare runners for marathons, it seems that everyone talks about “getting in their 20-milers.” Often I hear something such as, “I’m not really ready as I only got in two 20-milers.” But with all of the variables in marathon training including total mileage base, marathon experience, track speed and mental strength is the inclusion of one or many 20-milers a necessity or a myth?
The Round Number Theory
Runners love round numbers. How many times have you heard good marathoners talking about their 50-mile weeks and elite marathoners discussing their 100-mile training weeks? Just as common is the discussion of how many 20-milers were done in preparation for an upcoming marathon. Interestingly, in many foreign countries where runners use the metric system there is a similar conversation that is strikingly different. Since they don’t contest 26.2 miles, but rather 42.2 kilometers, many foreign marathoners get in long runs that are 30 kilometers – a nice round number. Is there any big difference in their 30k long runs being 1.4 miles less than a 20-miler? Probably not.
Percentage of Total Weekly Mileage
When I first started running marathons after competing as a collegiate distance runner, the conventional wisdom was that a long run should not be more than 20-25% of one’s total weekly mileage. This meant it fit into a mileage buildup phase of 80 – 100 mile weeks. Today there are many programs that include 20-milers in 50-mile training weeks which are 40% of the total weekly mileage. While a runner can complete the 20-miler, it is often necessary to taper off and recover much like for a race. It’s difficult to keep training when the long run is so draining. Additionally, when it’s marathon race day many runners are drained from too many exhausting 20-mile training runs and don’t race well.
Length of Long Run Compared to Secondary Runs
In many training plans the second longest run of the week is seven or eight miles. A 20-mile run is a major step up in distance. There are physical demands on our bodies and mental burdens on our minds. If there is a secondary moderately long run of 10 – 12 miles in the weekly plan it makes the 20-mile run less difficult as it is a smaller increase from the moderate length runs. Our bodies can much more readily accept the 20-mile distance and our brain doesn’t get as fatigued.
Dehydrating Effects of Summer Heat and Humidity
One of the toughest things about preparing for a summer or fall marathon is trying to complete long runs as temperatures and humidity percentages soar. We can hydrate before our long runs and plan the route to get water, electrolytes and calories from water fountains at parks, neighborhood convenience stores or bottles we stashed ahead of time. But we still may have trouble replenishing what we lose in sweat.
Prior Marathon Experience
If a runner has raced several marathons previously there is usually a confidence level with regard to completing the distance and how to run an appropriate pace. Experienced marathon runners may not feel the necessity to get in as many 20-milers or even one 20-miler since they know they can go the distance and how it feels. Conversely, novice marathon runners often feel that they must have some 20-milers under their belt to believe they can comfortably make it through a full marathon.
What Does This All Mean?
First, there isn’t anything magical physiologically about a 20-mile run versus a 30k run. We just can’t get enough of round numbers. Second, if our weekly mileage is 50 miles or less, we may want to cap long runs at 16 or 18 miles to avoid draining ourselves and having a negative effect on the remainder of our training plan. Third, we also may want a similar cap on long runs if our secondary runs are less than 10 miles. Lastly, we should consider doing long runs of less than 20 miles in the summer heat to decrease chances of severe dehydration. Or we can build a stronger training plan over a period of months and years. If we build up our mileage to at least 60 or 70 miles a week, add secondary runs of 10 – 12 miles and train during the fall and winter for cool weather marathons, then the 20-mile run can comfortably become a staple of our marathon preparation. There isn’t anything magical about 20-mile runs, but they can be helpful mentally and physically as we get ready for the 26.2 mile distance. I have raced fast marathons after many 20-milers beforehand and equally fast with only one or two 20-milers ahead of time. I have also raced marathons well and felt very strong with no long runs of more than 16 miles. But with secondary runs of 12 miles and dozens of prior marathons I was still confident in my ability to finish strong.
The myth of the 20-mile long run means that marathon runners in general do them because they believe they have to in order to have a successful race. Most runners don’t have confidence in their ability without knowing they did their 20-milers. So consider not doing 20-milers that are overly draining if your total mileage is low, secondary runs are short and its summertime. Work on getting your head on straight and believing in yourself. Or you can move to Europe and do 30k long runs!
16, 18, 20, 17, 20, 24, 16, 20, 26, 18, 16,
For myself i found building 3 weeks of total miles and the 4th week I would back off volume and intensity by 15 - 20 percent. This is a good way to build and recover. I found the more 20+ milers the better off you will be for the second half of the race (last 10k). I would recommend doing a 26 or 30 miler if you want to feel very strong and get a command of the distance.
Why aren't 2 of those 18 milers 20 or 21?
Regarding doing the full marathon distance to prepare for a marathon. In recent years I did a marathon on Memorial Day weekend, six weeks after racing Boston, on four different occasions. Each time I raced very well so there is some credence in this. Way back in my prime in 1982 I had blisters develop at Marine Corps and ran 2:28, which was below expectations. So I ran Rocket City five weeks later and ended up running my second fastest marathon of 2:23. Conclusion - for good runners with a consistent base, running the full marathon distance in training or running two marathons five or six weeks apart can work.