I\'m talking anything over 12 miles. I\\\'m a 5k runner, so why do I need a run over 10 miles? LSD just slows me down.
Depends, do you mean long SLOW distance or Long STEADY distance. Steady distance at your best AEROBIC pace will be the single biggest factor in improvement. Slow running will also work it will just take longer.
Runs of 2 hrs+ develop large amounts of new mitochondria and capilaries in the muscle tissue. It's called strength, on the cellular level. Checkout that Peter Snell article that was on this website a while ago, and he lays it out very thouroughly. Even Coe ran 20 mile long runs.
I'll look it up. I've read all the reasons for doing them, but they seem to make my times worse. I'm not running them too fast. Could I be running them too slow?
Where do you get Coe running 20 mile long runs - I think 9 -10 was his longest with a fast last 400m.
Yeah. I thought the whole deal with Coe is that he DIDN'T run really far pretty much ever. He was speed, speed, speed.
Supposedly, Coe's endurance workout was something like
7 times 800 meters in 2:02 with a 1 minute recovery.
This was done every week. Check Horwill at Serpentine.
the slow in lsd is all relative. its slow compared to your interval work or tempo work. 70%of your max heart rate would be slow.
Coe deffinatly did not run 20 mile runs. His furthest was 10 miles and his main endurance biulding session was done at 5k pace. But Coe was an 800m runner not a 5k runner and so what is needed in his case is not what is needed in the case of a 5k runner.
There is good evidence to support having a long slow/medium run every week (every 10 days is better since 10 days it the life span of your mitocondrion which means that they can be topped up).
Long runs biuld mitocondria, and increase the levels of some chemicals in the brain which help suppress pain which is good at the end of a tough 5k race!
One problem with long runs is that if they make up to big a percentage of your weekly milage then your body becomes most use to running at that pace. It has been shown that running efficiency is greatest at the pace you run most often at. It has also been shown that although VO2 max can be maximised in about 1 year and lactate threshold can be maximised in about 2 years efficiency continues to improve for many many years. I think your long run should not take up more than about 20% of your weekly milage.
Another possibility is that you are not getting sufficient recovery from your long run.
They've been taking up approximately 30% of my mileage, sometimes more. I'll scale it back some and see what that does.
Then it doesn't sound like you're on a program with emphasis on consistent training. If you're on a 40 mpw program, and you decide to go run 10 or 15 miles, it will take a heavy toll. Long runs should be 20% of the weekly mileage. Running long is pointless if it's not apart of your program.
That's exactly what I have been doing. No wonder my speedwork has been suffering.
Good info here thanks folks....
Coe did run 20 mile long runs. During his base building phase he run up to 90 mile weeks. During his competetion phase his mileage did drop considerably, as low as 40 mpw. People look at what Coe did during that phase and use those race specific workouts as their basis for a year round program.
You'll need to offer citations for this rather bold assertion, as they run contrary to pretty much everything I've ever read or heard about him.
If you can show us one form of proof that Coe either a) ran 20 miles in a single training session, or b) ran one 90 mile week, let alone several, I would be terribly surprised.
It was more like 90km weeks.
My general rule of thumb on LSD/recovery runs is: "RUN THE PACE THAT THE BODY SEEMS TO WANT TO GO AT."
HOWEVER, the Japanese seems to do hundreds of miles of even slower stuff. Today, Yoko Shibui (PRs of 30;47/2;23) was going at a snails pace, almost walking pace.
Look at the training schedules of Inubushi and also Atsushi Fujita....most of the mileage (> 50%) is done at 7-8 min./mile and these are sub-2;07 guys!!!!
instead of high mileage, coe used 5k and 3k paced interval sessions as his main "base workouts". these were done year round and developed his vo2max as much or more than running high mileage. coe was trained based on frank horwills 5-pace theory, the 5k and 3k sessions developed aerobic capacity while 1500m, 800m and 400m paced sessions developed speed endurance and speed.
even though you are training for the 5k, you can still use the 5-pace theory and get very good results.
for the 5k you would train at 1500m pace, 3000m pace, 5k pace, 8k pace and 10k pace. its hard to describe the entire 5 pace method so if you have any specific questions id be glad to answer them
From Running with the Legends by Michael Sandrock:
"Rather than running 100 to 120 miles a week like many runners -- even milers like John Walker -- Coe would run 60 to 75 miles a week of basework. Says Martin, "The purpose of the base phase is to build up your aerobic system."
"The Coes took the periodization approach to training. First there was a recovery period for himself, when Coe would hang up his shoes. Then, November through March or April was the base-building period, what Martin calls 'the purgatory of training.' What Coe was doing during this time, as de Castella, Barrios, and others have said about their own training, was 'going to work.' Says Martin, 'His job was training. It was hard, hard work.'"
"After doing strength work in the fall and winter, mixed in with a few road races, Coe moved more and more to speed, unitl by summer he'd be doing only 30 miles a week...In May, there was a 'subtle change in the mix,' and a gradual change over to anaerboic work."
I see this debate all the time. In general, I really don't see too much difference in Lydiard style training and what Coe did. The concept of periodization is core to both "systems" -- starting with about 6 months of base training to "build up your aerobic system". Throughout both systems there is an emphasis on working on speed (i.e. running fast). Everthing in both "systems" culminates with a period of anaerobic training and sharpening. There are some differences in the details of each system as they are talked about, but those are just details and typically tend to get emellished when people talk about their "system".
If Coe was running 75 miles a week during the base phase, I think it is safe to assume that he was getting in 1 15 miler a week (about 20% of his total mileage). Both Coe and Lydiard would recommend running this mileage at a "steady state" -- not long slow distance.
I'm going to look for the publication to support my original post, and
For sake of argument, say that Coe's base builiding phase averaged 70-75 miles/week. That would still mean that there would be some weeks in that higher range, just as there would be in the lower range, while the 70-75 mpw average is maintained. For example, my annual volume is 70 mpw, and right now I'm running mostly 80-85 mile weeks, where as later on down the road I'll run 60-65, while the average stays at 70 mpw.
Second, the level of aerobic development a runner gets out of mileage tops out at 70- 75 miles/week, probably the reason why Coe's base-building phase is reflected as such. However, very thing beyond that is of such value because of the strength that comes with the extra 30 to 50 mpw in the form of mitochondria and capilary devlopment.
Thirdly, there is some leway on the pace of the long run. For beginners, I would say that it should always be done at a comfortable pace. I know I would have never survived my first 12 mile run, if I had run it at aerobic conditioning pace -- I just wasn't ready for the intensity. Athletes who have several years and several thousand miles in the bank have the background to handle long runs at aerobic condition pace and get more out of their long run in that way. Something in the range of 120-140 bpm or 65-80% of MHR. Running at this moderate intensity, not as slow as recovery pace but not as fast as lactate threshold pace, improves heart stroke volume, muscle capilarization, circulation, the ability to use fat as a fuel and genreal muscular and skeletal strength.
Again, I'll look for the literature to support my statement.