Please explain how the Long Run benefits a 5K/10K runner

How fast are they running? How many miles/week do they run? What kind of workouts do they do?

I know one runs 50-60 mpw. He runs his easy runs so slow he is too slow to run with our group but he is way faster than everyone. He also does track workouts 1-2 times a week. I know he does a lot of 800m repeats. He also does a weird workout that I have never heard before where he does 200m fast and then 200m slightly slower for a couple of miles. He does strides on every easy day. And he does tempos and fartleks. He says if it is not a recovery day he will hit race pace just to keep in touch with it

So let me make a few assumptions - you are in your mid 30s and you have somewhat decent training so you most likely run faster than a 19 min 5K. If so you have an aerobic base and you have had it for awhile. Therefore, your base will be maintained regardless of your intensity during a workout. Therefore, aerobic runs provide no benefit.

If you cut mileage in half and just focused on track workouts you would be running sub17, sub 16 in less than a year. Easy runs are just tearing you down. You should do three workouts a week focusing on 2 mile - 200m repeats.

High mileage programs and long runs are for young people who still are developing their aerobic capacity. If you are thirty, it's built.

Long slow running results in slow runners

Mileage is for youngsters wrote:

So let me make a few assumptions - you are in your mid 30s and you have somewhat decent training so you most likely run faster than a 19 min 5K. If so you have an aerobic base and you have had it for awhile. Therefore, your base will be maintained regardless of your intensity during a workout. Therefore, aerobic runs provide no benefit.

If you cut mileage in half and just focused on track workouts you would be running sub17, sub 16 in less than a year. Easy runs are just tearing you down. You should do three workouts a week focusing on 2 mile - 200m repeats.

High mileage programs and long runs are for young people who still are developing their aerobic capacity. If you are thirty, it's built.

How many years of base do you suggest before doing this?

As an over 40 runner, I've found that the mileage and long runs I did between 20 and 35 provided the foundation. Now I moderate longer runs and overall mileage and haven't had a severe drop off in race times. Priority #1 is staying healthy.

Newer runner wrote:

Mileage is for youngsters wrote:

So let me make a few assumptions - you are in your mid 30s and you have somewhat decent training so you most likely run faster than a 19 min 5K. If so you have an aerobic base and you have had it for awhile. Therefore, your base will be maintained regardless of your intensity during a workout. Therefore, aerobic runs provide no benefit.

If you cut mileage in half and just focused on track workouts you would be running sub17, sub 16 in less than a year. Easy runs are just tearing you down. You should do three workouts a week focusing on 2 mile - 200m repeats.

High mileage programs and long runs are for young people who still are developing their aerobic capacity. If you are thirty, it's built.

How many years of base do you suggest before doing this?

I ran D3 and stopped running long runs and high mileage at age 28 when I started plateauing and having overuse injuries. Then my times dropped consistently for 10 years and continue to. I'm 40 and run just as fast as I did in college

This is interesting wrote:

I know one runs 50-60 mpw. He runs his easy runs so slow he is too slow to run with our group but he is way faster than everyone. He also does track workouts 1-2 times a week. I know he does a lot of 800m repeats. He also does a weird workout that I have never heard before where he does 200m fast and then 200m slightly slower for a couple of miles. He does strides on every easy day. And he does tempos and fartleks. He says if it is not a recovery day he will hit race pace just to keep in touch with it

0/10. Please ban this poor excuse of a troll.

Let me make a note here.

High mileage doesn't benefit you UNLESS you are taking some form of testosterone and/or EPO and a list of other medications. "Professional" distance runners take a slew of medications including testosterone, EPO, meldonium, amphetamines, viagra, and the list goes on.

If you really want to kill your times and you have money to blow, go see a doctor who will write you those scripts. Then run high mileage and win some 5Ks

Interesting. I am not sure that I agree with any of this, but I also admit that for running a 5k, I am not sure that I can point to a very specific physiological reason why runs much longer than an hour are important. I do think that they are important; but I really cannot point to anything beyond the general tenets of improving muscular and connective tissue strength, increasing number of mitochondria in muscle cells, increasing stroke volume in heart, etc. All of the things that you generally get from easy distance, but get more of from more easy distance.

As to how long folks should keep working base miles, I find that one to be interesting from a personal perspective. I was a college walk on with no running experience and got pretty decent pretty quickly my freshman year, but had a real breakthrough my senior year.

Most of the period from about 23 through my late 30s were spent running on and off, but with no consistency and more time off than on. I could get into decent shape off of a few months of running (low to mid 16's for a 5k) off of that. But just before I turned 40 I got pretty serious about it again and began running consistent mileage most of the year round, with some exceptions for planned breaks between training cycles.

When I was up at my heaviest volume at age 43 (getting ready for a marathon), I ran my best times in years (sub 15:30).

You can argue that the high mileage was the key to my improvement. On the other hand, you could argue that I was really rebuilding a base over those three or four years, just as I had built a base from my freshman to senior year of college before breaking through back then.

Either way you look at it, it seems that 3-4 years of consistent training was a benchmark for me in seeing material improvements. Whether I could continue to improve, or improve more, by reducing the volume and upping the intensity at that point is an unanswered question.

IMO If training for 10k, there is no need for your long run to be more than 16 miles. But it is still beneficial for three reasons: First and foremost; fatigue resistance. Second; Durability (so that you can maintain decent mileage without breaking down). Third; Increase fat metabolism while running (which may factor in just a tiny bit for 10k racing).

The 10K is a long enough event, that fatigue resistance is just as important as speed in the 10k. Speed is important, but you need to be able to run that speed without getting tired for 6 miles...that's fatigue resistance. and the long run is the single best tool to increase fatigue resistance.

Just as the 800 is the middle ground between sprint and middle distance, the 10k is the middle ground between middle distance and long distance. So speed and fatigue resistance need to both be developed to run well.

For the 5k...I don't know.

Smoove wrote:but I really cannot point to anything beyond the general tenets of improving muscular and connective tissue strength, increasing number of mitochondria in muscle cells, increasing stroke volume in heart, etc. All of the things that you generally get from easy distance, but get more of from more easy distance.

You just pointed to exactly why you do it, whether you're 18 or 48.

One thing that is being poorly defined by the OP is what constitutes a long run.

The one example we have is a person doing 50-60 mpw, who doesn't do a long run. If at least one day is on the track doing 800s or 200s, (so not knocking out 6 mile workouts), that means most of their normal easy runs must be around 10 miles. If this is "too slow to run with our group", lets just say they're doing 8:30 miles. Guess what, their normal easy runs are nearly 90 minutes long...If I'm training a moderate mileage runner, they're probably going to do a long run every microcycle that is 90 minutes, this guy is doing that same amount of running (and the same total mileage) 2-4 times a week! But just because its done a bit easier, and because no one day is longer than the others, it doesn't count as a long run?

The point of a long run is to accomplish a cardiovascular stimulus while doing an event specific exercise for an extended period of time, generally in the 60-120 minute range, where you maximize the adaptations Smoove mentioned above. The focus many coaches and training programs put on the long run (apart from marathon specific prep for people who don't know if they can finish) is to ensure work is consistently done in that timeframe.

If you're doing 60-90 minute easy runs several times a week, your need to do a singular, longer run than all of the others is very diminished. If on the other hand, you're only getting 30-50 minute easy runs most of the week, setting aside a day to get well into that 60+ minute range becomes much more important, since otherwise you woeuldn't spend any time in that stimulus rang (assuming you have some constraints on moving those 30-50 minute easy runs up).

celery wrote:

IMO If training for 10k, there is no need for your long run to be more than 16 miles.

A 16 mile long run for someone only running 10K? Really? Then how long should the "long run" be for someone running half-marathons? Or marathons?

This is interesting wrote:

I know one runs 50-60 mpw. He runs his easy runs so slow he is too slow to run with our group but he is way faster than everyone. He also does track workouts 1-2 times a week. I know he does a lot of 800m repeats. He also does a weird workout that I have never heard before where he does 200m fast and then 200m slightly slower for a couple of miles. He does strides on every easy day. And he does tempos and fartleks. He says if it is not a recovery day he will hit race pace just to keep in touch with it

The 200m workout you describe is well known as Prefontain's 30-40. The idea is to get used to race conditions where you might be covering a move or changing gears. It is also said to train your body to clear lactate built up during the "on" period. A variation is called "in and out 400s" or 70-90 400s.

amkelley wrote:

celery wrote:

IMO If training for 10k, there is no need for your long run to be more than 16 miles.

A 16 mile long run for someone only running 10K? Really? Then how long should the "long run" be for someone running half-marathons? Or marathons?

HM training is identical to 10k training.

Uriel. wrote:

amkelley wrote:

A 16 mile long run for someone only running 10K? Really? Then how long should the "long run" be for someone running half-marathons? Or marathons?

HM training is identical to 10k training.

OK, I focus on the HM and my long runs are 15-16 miles. I'm no expert on training but I do agree that a HM feels subjectively very similar to a 10K, just longer. A 5K is qualitatively different and a full marathon is very, very different.

I've always wondered if it helps milers- 2 milers.

Mileage is for youngsters wrote:

So let me make a few assumptions - you are in your mid 30s and you have somewhat decent training so you most likely run faster than a 19 min 5K. If so you have an aerobic base and you have had it for awhile. Therefore, your base will be maintained regardless of your intensity during a workout. Therefore, aerobic runs provide no benefit.

If you cut mileage in half and just focused on track workouts you would be running sub17, sub 16 in less than a year. Easy runs are just tearing you down. You should do three workouts a week focusing on 2 mile - 200m repeats.

High mileage programs and long runs are for young people who still are developing their aerobic capacity. If you are thirty, it's built.

Weird...Wonder why those Olympic 5k guys still do their long runs?