Marathoners should not hit long runs over 26.2 mi during base phase because ________ ??

ttc wrote:

I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.

BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.

Tell me why one should go over 26.2.

Le Chapeau wrote:

what??? wrote:

I ran 31 miles and raced xc the next day. I ran really well and recovered quickly. I built up to it. It's called fitness. Stop generalizing. Some of us have done more training that your average hobby jogger.

Did you win?

Were there any "hobby jogger" type trainers ahead of you?

There were ppl who did speedwork who lost. So let's eliminate speedwork.

Citizen Runner wrote:

The question isn't whether or not there might be a particular benefit to running greater than marathon distance in training. The question is whether it is worth the cost in recovery time or whether the cost/benefit is more favorable doing something else. Pragmatically, there have been people who have done a great deal of over mileage and haven't been noticeably more successful than people who haven't. Your mileage may differ.

There are ppl who've done speedwork & haven't got much faster. For example, in college, Ryan Hall said track work did not agree with him. So let's argue to eliminate speedwork.

Tell Me wrote:

ttc wrote:

I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.

BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.

Tell me why one should go over 26.2.

Reread my post. If you can't understand my point, whether you agree or not, then I won't waste time with remedial explanations.

ttc wrote:

Tell Me wrote:

Tell me why one should go over 26.2.

Reread my post. If you can't understand my point, whether you agree or not, then I won't waste time with remedial explanations.

Answer the guy's question and you'll find yours.

ttc wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

The question isn't whether or not there might be a particular benefit to running greater than marathon distance in training. The question is whether it is worth the cost in recovery time or whether the cost/benefit is more favorable doing something else. Pragmatically, there have been people who have done a great deal of over mileage and haven't been noticeably more successful than people who haven't. Your mileage may differ.

There are ppl who've done speedwork & haven't got much faster. For example, in college, Ryan Hall said track work did not agree with him. So let's argue to eliminate speedwork.

Sure there are people who don't get much improvement from speed work, but those people are the minority. We do speed work because experience has shown that it is a net benefit for most people and experience serves as a guide to the proportion of one's training that is "optimally" dedicated to speed work. My impression is that this is generally not the case with over mileage runs. That said, I've tried over mileage runs as part of a couple training cycles and merely felt beat up with no obvious benefit. I ultimately went in the opposite direction and tending toward far more "sort of long" runs instead of a few "really long runs". Everybody's different, so you have to figure out what's best for you, but that's my experience.

Your last sentence addresses the business of Moore's 35 mile run in which Shorter went along for the first 20 and stopped. Moore believed that he was somewhat awkward as a runner and needed really long runs to get his legs adapted to all the pounding they'd take in a marathon. I believe he even once commented that because Shorter was so graceful and fluid when he ran that he did not need to do single runs as long as Moore did. It's also worth mentioning that Shorter did much higher weekly mileage than Moore did. Moore sort of claimed that he could not hold up under the kind of mileage Shorter did but that higher volume may have eliminated the need for Shorter to do 30 mile runs.

At any rate, the thing to do is not to look at each of their training and try to figure out which of them "got it right." They were both very successful and managed to get it right in their own way.

Precious Roy wrote:

Fading in a marathon is all about fuel consumption. Running long runs over 26.2 during base does not do that much to improve your glycogen stores or your ability to maintain marathon pace when muscle glycogen is depleted.

A lot of people miss this piece of marathon training, ncluding the cramps guy on the other thread. Your long run day should be committed to training for fuel consumption. If you are banging out 16 milers at MP on your long run day or going over distance you miss the mark. Teach your body to efficiently use glycogen and later be able to burn fat for fuel. Your long run should have a purpose and a plan.

ttc wrote:

Good post. But we read in 'Running With The Buffalos' of them hitting low 20's, at hilly altitude no less. Recreation groups around me hit 20 miles. I just can't see it being that huge a deal for a pro, who builds up to it.

You are absolutely correct that advanced runners can build up to running over-distances. I think I mentioned in my earlier post that it takes time. You also acknowledged that it would take time. And not months, but years (see Lydiard.) And those who may ultimately benefit from those types of runs are a rarity in running, even as a pro. I'm still of the opinion that runs of that distance in preparation for a marathon are overkill, and likely not sustainable for long periods of time.

Someone mentioned that they ran 31 miles one day and then raced XC the next. My point is not that you are laid up in bed for days after 26 mile training run. Though I'd be surprised that anyone would go out for a run that long the day before their goal race. That's just not optimal.

So true. Many of us in the Marathon Maniacs are able to run back-to-back or even back-to-back-to-back marathons. The adaptation doesn't happen overnight. It takes time, but it can be done.http://www.marathonmaniacs.com/

I think the difference here isn't time on your feet, just overall fitness. A 60 mpw hobbyjogger isn't as fit to handle, and recover from such efforts, as a 150 mpw elite. A hobbyjogger is going to be wrecked after running 25 miles in one go, but if you're running 150 mpw, sure, 30 mile run, go for it.

Can't Tell wrote:

ttc wrote:

Reread my post. If you can't understand my point, whether you agree or not, then I won't waste time with remedial explanations.

Answer the guy's question and you'll find yours.

Reread my post. The answer's in there, in obvious fashion.

Regarding your part that I highlighted in asterisks- My subject title says doing it during base phase.

ttc wrote:

Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.

Good point.

Everyone says "22 miles is enough!" yes even pros are out there bonking like hobbyjoggers and massively underperforming relative to their half marathon times.

One of the questions about doing a 30 mile run if you're doing 150 a week is whether you can come back with 20 miles or so the next day and the day after, etc. or whether the 30 mile run interferes with the rest of your training.

I've ran 8 marathons, my PR is 2:28, so I'm average, not great, but respectable. My longest distance measured for long run is 20. I also do 3 2:30 runs based on feel. I don't worry about distance, but I make sure I'm on my feet and working hard for around my goal time.

Please tell me what you think of my theory. I think it makes sense and works, but then again I'm open to all suggestions and want to hear what you think!

Can you prove that the fading can be eliminated by over distance?

ttc wrote:

I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.

BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.

To make it short:

I believe there are more important things to think about if 24 or 27 mile long runs are better when you look at the gap between Americans/Europeans and Africans in the marathon. I think the intensity is much more interesting.

Pikachu

Rough Justice wrote:

Can you prove that the fading can be eliminated by over distance?

ttc wrote:

I see no reason not to, outside injury of course. But if recreational runners can finish marathons, then pros can build up to few runs over the distance. Until fading becomes less common, I see that as part of the solution.

BTW, if citing Landry fading some after his big mpw training, he compares favorably with most under 150 mpw.

Nothing will eliminate fading unless we make EVERYONE go out at a much slower pace than they are capable of.

Personally, I prefer to run 'shorter' long runs which include many miles at MP rather than longer slower runs. I wouldn't be totally against a single over distance run in training but surely wouldn't do more than 1.