What happened to super-slow long runs?

I guess the idea was to spend as much time out there as possible at an elevated heart rate. If you run slow, you can run longer. I don't do LSD, but I believe these are/were the beliefs. Folks talk about increasing the growth of capillaries and also increasing the number of mitochondria.

A super-slow long run might be refreshing and regenerative both physically and mentally, and it can help novice marathoners with a lot of general beginner's fitness issues, including fat burning (and getting psychologically comfortable with long distances), but it isn't very likely to help an already experienced marathoner use fat more efficiently.

Probably because runners have often found an initial improvement from doing long runs at easy paces, there used to be a widespread notion that further use of these long, super-easy runs would continue to produce the same effects even in already fit runners. One of those effects was erroneously believed to be along the lines of fat burning - i.e., since the pace is so slow, it must be using fat metabolism, so that was conjectured to translate into more efficient fat burning at marathon pace. But it turns out that's not the case for the advanced marathoner.

It's a mistake to think that by giving yourself the exact stimuli you were weaned on that you'll continue to adapt beyond what those stimuli can provide.

It's like if you want to be a math whiz - you have to begin with learning numbers and counting and basic arithmetic like everybody else. But you can't expect to keep learning if you do nothing but continue practicing homework problems out of your arithmetic textbooks while your classmates move on to algebra, then trig, then calculus, linear algebra, multivariable calculus, group theory, differential equations, topology, etc. Those classmates don't lose their ability to do basic arithmetic, but the time devoted to it can now take a back seat because it's established like bedrock. And they can still use the same study habits and learning principles they always did. But they're progressing and stimulating their minds with new material while you resign yourself to stagnating in comfort at the elementary school level.

In running, as you get fitter and faster and the seconds get harder to shave off, most of the overarching principles can stay the same, but the specific and practical application needs to evolve to stimulate your current physiology.

i think the japanese runners still do them.

Some crazy runner guy wrote:

No most of the letsrun community still does these runs they just get in these boards and lie that ran at 6 min pace. Then rant about how great lydiard was.

^^^This

Who the hell at LR is this post for? It's intelligent and makes perfect sense. Go somewhere else.

a lot of people still do them, although they often stop and have a whack during it. Apparently its called golf.

Slow is all relative- but I remember when that "theory" was going around. I thought it was a way to make the back of the packers feel good about themselves.

Some crazy runner guy wrote:

No most of the letsrun community still does these runs they just get in these boards and lie that ran at 6 min pace. Then rant about how great lydiard was.

For most runners, the lsd run is the key to their training. they run long and in their mind hard one day a week and spend the rest of the week recovering. they learn how to burn fat as fuel and can waddle their way through a marathon. many of these people look like they would be fast.

If your trying to increase the distance variable, you need to keep the pace variable constant.

ASC Alumni wrote:

I guess that's why you only lasted a year.

Congratulations on being a real a55hole. All the guys on the team the year I was there were great so I assume you weren't one of them or you really never went there.

I seem to recall Canova having some athletes a few years ago who liked to go on 3hr long "regeneration" runs at a very slow pace. When Canova learned about this, he told them if they were going to run that slow, just go for like 40-60min and that would be much better for recovery. When they did that, they didn't feel quite as a good than they did when they were running 3hrs at that pace, so Canova kinda shrugged and said "ok, screw it, if it works for you, roll with it."

All that being said, I think one of Canova's big things is that unless you're a pretty young/aerobically immature athlete, a slow long run doesn't give you quite the bang for your buck as something a little tougher, whether that's a faster pace or surges or some marathon-type intervals or whatever.

Joe must have done a lot of sitting, eating and watching the tube during his coaching experience. Doesn't look like he could do many 6:00 minute miles.

Wait until you are an older runner. Really slow runs are alive and well.

"It's like if you want to be a math whiz - you have to begin with learning numbers and counting and basic arithmetic like everybody else. But you can't expect to keep learning if you do nothing but continue practicing homework problems out of your arithmetic textbooks..."

Using the math analogy... Long, slow runs are like working on multiplication flash cards for hours. Boring, yes, but there is a lot to be gained from that repetitive drilling. You will continue to improve at those flash cards until it is second nature and you are really fast at them. Then you can move on.

Search for Hadd Theory in the archives and read what he had to say. It takes a more systematic look at LSD and how HR can guide your training. I have been following this slower, easier, longer formula for nine months now and am running better than I have since the early '80s. And I haven't been injured for the longest time in memory. All that said, I don't think 10 minute miles for a 3 hour marathoner are appropriate. The HR needs to be somewhat elevated and that pace really wouldn't do the trick. 8-8:30 would be about as slow as you would want to go if you are in 3 hour shape.

I've personally always felt that really long moderate runs have been useful for my marathon training. When I first broke out of a pattern of consistently running just under 3:00 by taking my PR from 2:58 to 2:52, I had 3 30-40 mile trainers in my aerobic phase. I'm currently building for a marathon in May and working on my base again right now, so yesterday I did a 30 mile trail run with 7000' of climbing. Average pace was about 9:00 (obviously slower than it would've been on flat roads, but still slow), but I'm looking to run 2:40 come May.

Calling Mr. Whitlock, calling Mr. Whitlock.

oldmanstillrunning wrote:

Joe must have done a lot of sitting, eating and watching the tube during his coaching experience. Doesn't look like he could do many 6:00 minute miles.

Well, bud, when you coach a man to eight straight US XC championships and 5 top ten world XC finishes and get a woman under 2:20 in the marathon we'll be interested in your opinion.

The McMillan calculators say my slow pace should be between 8:30 and 9:30. However anything slower than around 8:30 (on flat ground) is just too insanely boring. I can only do about 2 hours of this before wanting to pack it in. That's only 14 miles.

Maybe that's why I'm not very fast? Regardless, I'll never get better if it requires me to run for 4 hours at 9:30 pace. That sounds excruciating.

Too many runners were getting lost.