Long run, 25% of your weekly mileage?

Malmo is right as always on training issues. Higher overall volume seems to be more important than a single long run - a better way to apportion out one's fixed quanta of energy. Way more important. As a matter of fact, and I don't get exactly why, I have come to believe that generally even a 4 and 8 double is better than a 10-11 single. I think I get why, even though it is initically counterintuitive (when you run long, is it aerobic deficiency that makes it hard or just energy and time on your feet?). Of course, I am too lazy at my age to get up at 4am to run doubles. But I am increasingly convinced that even say 85 a week in doubles is better than 80 a week in singles and that you don't even need a regular weekly long run - that it risks costing more in fatigue than it gives you in fitness if it interferes with other stuff. I ran all my PR's 5k to Half Marathon at all distances doing close to 90 a week in frequent doubles and no single run longer than 90ish minutes (when Malmo was kind enough to advise me).

I remember Dvorak had a rule of thumb that involved doing no single run more than your highest double day total plus 2. So if you did a 4 and 9 double during the week, your longest single would be 15.

I have had the pleasure in the past of training daily with Beck for a few periods and his marathon training was so good precisely because he ran high volume in doubles and didn't load everything into a single long run and many of his key longish runs as he got closer to a marathon (he sometimes did doubles on Sunday of maybe 15 and 5) had significant portions at marathon pace. He did the key marathon-specific workouts and these were more important than a weekly long run. He made many of his longer runs count.

I think Malmo has it precisely right - books like Pfitzenger's are written for people who want to run a marathon but won't optimize their overall volume and the way they can get around it, suboptimally, is by doing a longer long run. He isn't lying or being disingenuous, just writing for a specific audience.

I only skimmed the thread, but the rule I heard that I liked more was...

25% of weekly mileage OR 2 hours OR 20 miles, whichever comes first. That seems like a pretty solid rule for anyone in the 5k-HM range. Marathoners might want to go a bit longer, I'm not sure.

i9jfsvd5r wrote:

Maybe an example of icing will help. Since Antonio is reading this thread he can make sure my memory is correct.

Without all the details Antonio has given us, as I recall, Mamede ran 6 days a week, all doubles, with two longer runs, maybe just over an hour long, in which he did his workouts. This got him to under 27:30 for 10,000m. No long run to speak of. I don't know if it was just before or just after his world record, but near the end of his career, he started running 90 min easy, ?occasionally?, as a long run. It may or may not have helped get the last 10 or 15 seconds.

Fist. As PB Fernando Mamede did 27:13 world record and several times sub 27:30. He was the first man in the world to do ten times sub 28:00, as well as the first man to not be defeat during 2 seasons in a row in 5000m that includes the participation in all major international top meetings of that period: from Stockholm to Japan.

Second. I said he did up to 60min training in his daily double sessions very rarely, what he did was less than 60min, most of his training units stops at 40-45min, 50min maximum.

Third. One single 1h30min run on sunday it was his typical weekend run.

Four. The most the important one trace that characterizes Mamede training it’s the fact that he did specific interval training all season long. That able him to be competitive during all year long, winter cross and road first and summer track season next. Don’t forget that despite he was not a cross specialist he was present in 11 world cross country runs and in one occasion he was third in the WCCC. That frequent winter competitions, based in a season training periodization managed with sweet training modulation: try to keep near the same mileage high volume on every week microcycle, with specific intervals done in very week during te year long, was not a problem to get Mamede in shape all season long with constant performance improve along every next period of the same season or/and on every new season ahead from his 16 years old to 33 years old. This is the living prove that one distance runner can be competitive and in shape during many months of the same season long, with the condition that he did specific training ajust to each competitive context: intervals, strength endurance workouts, constant mileage all the time.

Five. With Mamede fantastic physic talent and another mental attitude tha would get him out of psychic problems/complexes he possessed, he would have done what Solinsky did on last season, but more than 25 years earlier on. He would have done sub 27:00 in 10000m during the early 80s, what would been the first non African to do so.

May be he would need a quite different training to get the sub 27:00 goal. Some more mileage and some more specific workouts target for 10000m runs and not 5000m runs. Eventually less competition. Resuming, he would need more modern training.

However sub 27:00 by Mamede it´s just my own estimate and speculation based in what i think i know about training and running talent. I say it just to argue about his capacity based on his natural talent and the training method as well, namely the miss of the typical long run used in other training methods, and the interest or miss of interest of typical long runs. I don’t want to be like some other people, they spend some time with build imaginary wins or fantasy performances. I want facts not fantasy. My conclusion about Mamede sub 27:00 is simply based in my technical opinion.

Antonio Cabral wrote:

What you say from read and what i know as factual testemony it´s the reason why we can´t trust in everything that we read or hear from the others.

We should make sure to apply that to your posts, too.

I like my approach. I am training for Boston. Since the beginning of the year I have had long runs of 16, 17 (w/ a 1/2 marathon in the middle), 19, 16, 19, 20. From here on out, my "long runs" are really long workouts at 1/2 MP to MP. With warm ups and cool downs the day's mileage will workout to be anywhere from 18-22 miles.

My mileage in Jan was anywhere from 70 to 90 and I've been closer to 100 the last couple of weeks and hope to stay at roughly 95-105 the next 6 or 7 weeks.

I usually take Monday short and light (5-8 miles) double Tue-Fri (8&8, 7&9 or 6&10... give or take a mile), run 10'ish on Sat, and then the long run or long workout on Sun.

A couple of kids, work 8-6 and commute 45 min to an hour each way... so that's all I have time for.

Has worked for me and others in the past. Basically, I rarely run a long run of more then 16-20... but some workouts end up at that or more once I get into marathon specific training (lasting roughly 6 weeks).

Brian wrote:

I think Malmo has it precisely right - books like Pfitzenger's are written for people who want to run a marathon but won't optimize their overall volume and the way they can get around it, suboptimally, is by doing a longer long run. He isn't lying or being disingenuous, just writing for a specific audience.

Most important of all, I asked Pfitzy directly why he promotes a training program in his book that is completely different than how he, or any of his peers, trained. He confirmed the play to the audience issue, and the fact that if they aren't going to prepare for a marathon properly, then they need to at least get in some sort marathon specific training.

My thoughts on long runs can be summarized in a few sentences.

1) Long runs are the least important aspect of distance training. They are so unimportant that they could be skipped entirely.

2) Long runs are the icing, not the cake. Do not worry about the icing until you've baked the cake.

3) You should never worry about long runs until after you put all of the other pieces of the puzzle together.

4) Long runs should always be proportional to your overall mileage, and to the event that you are training for.

With one caveat: The importance of the long run is related to the distance you are training for. What Malmo said is true for certain races and less accurate for other distances.

The Truth Seeker wrote:

With one caveat: The importance of the long run is related to the distance you are training for. What Malmo said is true for certain races and less accurate for other distances.

Huh? Please reread what I said.

Malmo, based on the limited information I provided above, would be interested in hearing your thoughts on my approach.

Another Voice wrote:

Malmo, based on the limited information I provided above, would be interested in hearing your thoughts on my approach.

Your approach is very similar to Bill Squires approach. I don't think you really need me for validation.

Why don't you try shortening that morning run to lets say, 4-5 miles, and lenghening the afternoon session instead? . It will give you more time for your hectic schedule, and you'll be more alert during the day.

I just like to run my training ideas through as many knowledgeable people as possible to get perspective.

Only reason I don't shorten the morning session (or rather, the shorter session, as sometimes its afternoon and sometimes its morning) is just BECAUSE of time constraints. Often that extra 20 minutes is a deal breaker. Running 2 50 minute runs is usually easier from a time perspective then one 30 minute and one 70 minute run. When I can, though, I try to get in 10&5 or 6 (usually 10 in the AM before work and 5 towards the end of the work day).

I am able to do this--I scaled my paces back and feel much better. I do 50-55 and 15-18 for my long run. I ran without a watch the other day and feel free. My EZ run pace is really slow, like RW-level slow. :p

I know 30% is a bit high but I am running without injury; fatigue was/is kinda but sleep does help.

Don't think in percentages. Think in time. Frank Shorter had the right idea when he would do 2 hours or 20 miles, whichever one came first.

Did not know that about Pfitzinger, but that makes sense when looking at it from a marketing perspective too.