How important is it to include a long run into your training? Does anyone train without one?
How important is it to include a long run into your training? Does anyone train without one?
search the archives. There are some good threads about the importance (or non-importance) of the long run.
The importance of the long run is nothing compared to the importance of learning how to use the search function on the letsrun messageboard.
Here is one of the best threads about the long run that I have found to be usefule:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1890688&page=0
Basically, some say they are necessary and others (some more accomplished) say that are one of the least important aspects of training.
Thanks for the link. There are just way too many contradictions. Its so hard to choose what to do. Long run or no long run?
credz wrote:
Thanks for the link. There are just way too many contradictions. Its so hard to choose what to do. Long run or no long run?
I'm surprised Malmo hasn't jumped in here yet but I tend to agree with him in that I think the long run is way overrated - especially so if you aren't running the marathon and even if you are, it's still overrated. The general reason given is that many plans overemphasize the long run at the expense of the 6-12 other runs you are doing in the week. The long run is the icing on the cake of an overall good training program - not the cake itself. Do all the other things well first: doubles, easy runs, tempo runs, progression runs, strides, hills, rest, stretching your limits in weekly mileage, etc. Only then should you concern yourself at all with the long run. If you're doing 70 miles per week there's probably no reason to go further than 12-13 miles on your longest run of the week - even that might be pushing it.
in the long run the long run should only be a "long" run if you run the run long
Overrated for 1500-10000 but a good race specific workout if you are training for the Marathon. It has a purpose but is not really as important as many people would like to think.
ran my best marathon on a heavy dose of 16 milers only a couple of 20's. spent more time working the other stuff.
Why NOT do it?
credz wrote:
How important is it to include a long run into your training? Does anyone train without one?
How do you define "a long run" ?
sssssss wrote:
in the long run the long run should only be a "long" run if you run the run long
Well, as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead," so you could make a plausible argument that it is both crucial and trivial.
Bill Walker wrote:
credz wrote:How important is it to include a long run into your trai
ning? Does anyone train without one?
How do you define "a long run" ?
20-25% of weekly mileage.
SPMBLNPF wrote:
sssssss wrote:in the long run the long run should only be a "long" run if you run the run long
Well, as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead," so you could make a plausible argument that it is both crucial and trivial.
well, as Keynes said, "I'm a moron. Listen to Hayek."
hooahh wrote:
SPMBLNPF wrote:Well, as Keynes said, "In the long run we are all dead," so you could make a plausible argument that it is both crucial and trivial.
well, as Keynes said, "I'm a moron. Listen to Hayek."
Keynes was brilliant. Hayek, not so much.
As others have said, once you get to the marathon or even half marathon distance, the more important it becomes. The reason that that there are so many contradictions is because everyone is different and reacts to training differently. Some of it is physical, some of it is mental. If you're going to try running without incorporating a long run, make sure you replace it with more volume spread amongst your other runs.
SPMBLNPF wrote:
hooahh wrote:well, as Keynes said, "I'm a moron. Listen to Hayek."
Keynes was brilliant. Hayek, not so much.
Mick Jagger would disagree.
j.j. flash wrote:
SPMBLNPF wrote:Keynes was brilliant. Hayek, not so much.
Mick Jagger would disagree.
Perhaps Salma would be a better economist than Friedrich, or should that be Fried-rich.