Can you really say a 12 mile run, or less than 90 minutes, is a long run?

Interesting question. I think in my own head I label somewhere around 8 miles as a long run. But I imagine each person has a different idea relating to their own training.

I think the benefits of a run, whether it be long or short, are changed significantly. Just the length is what increases the significance of each run's benefit. A 90-120 minute run will yield more benefits than a 45-60 minute run.

When I'm healthy 45-60 is easy or tempo length, 90+ is long.

It's amazing how one landmark study done on cyclists can affect everyone's thinking about the long run. I've posted the oft cited study below. I have very strong opinions on this, but I'll leave it up to you to decide. Good luck.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1331071/pdf/jphysiol00921-0060.pdf

10 miles is a long run now at 62 years old

23 was at 35

If I run 6 miles slow every day it's hard to run 10. But, if I run 3-6 slow most days and do a solid workout once or twice a week ,not totaling more than 6 miles with warm-up and cool down(less running total), running 10 slow is easy. So, if 10 were my goal long run , it seems like it is accomplished without doing it.

I think people build marathon plans with 16 mile long runs?

Pfitz defines anything 11-16 miles as a "medium-long" run, and only 17+ as a long run. But that's semantics.

It's not like 90 minutes specifically is magical. An 89 minute run will be nearly identical to a 91 minute run for your body. And of course how much you're exerting also matters. But the notion that a basic aerobic run should be between 90 and 120 minutes to accomplish core aerobic conditioning benefits seems to be well supported by a lot of research.

For me, the 90+ minute runs are only ones where I get out of my own head enough to just run for the sake of running. In shorter runs I tend to be constantly evaluating everything. That's probably as much a benefit as any, at least for me.

I'd usually define long run as a run of over 20% of your weekly mileage. In high school, when I was running 4 or 5 miles with an off day every week, (totaling in the 20s), 6-7 miles was a long run.

I think that a run under 20% might be able to count as a long run if you're running really high mileage. For example, when I was running over 100 mpw, I would still think of 17 miles as a long run.

what? i do 10 miles twice a day it's not long at all

is the rule of thumb for long run to be 20% of weekly mileage? so by that logic it changes by person. Maybe you are only doing 100 mile weeks where you need 20 miles to be a long run

another person might be only doing 20 miles a week where there long run is 4 miles by that same logic

I'm just a hobby jogger, but I came up with the idea that a "long run" is a length that I'd only want to do at most once a week. It did happen to be about 90 minutes (20km or so).

Normal runs were 60 minutes, done 3 or 4 times per week, and then one or two short 30 minute runs for recovery.

Aimed for 6 runs a week, sometimes 7 if I was feeling good.

I think there is something scientific that happens with how you burn fuel after 90 minutes vs. 60 minutes.

Pfitz wrote:

Pfitz defines anything 11-16 miles as a "medium-long" run, and only 17+ as a long run. But that's semantics.

For Advanced Marathoning. He has different, shorter endurance run lengths in Faster Road Racing. And I agree with the subjective definitions. It all depends on what distance one is training for. It's very arguable that a, say, 17 mile long run isn't necessary for th vast majority 1600 or even the 5k racers; 10-12 is likely quite sufficient.

I'm too long wrote:

I'm not talking about the what someone's longest run of the week is (that could be 8 miles for some people), but a long run as a workout. My friend (via his coach) insists that a long run needs to be at least 90 minutes to get the benefits that a long run is suppose to accomplish. Previously I was told that a long run just needed to be 60 minutes.

I did try to google this - but does someone here know if something does happen after 90 minutes that doesn't happen after 60 minutes? Increased mitochondria, capillirization, increased efficiency, some kind of increased ability to utilise fats... whatever.

Oh, to be clear, this is not marathon training, just for running cross country, so not worried about hitting the wall or whatever marathon runners worry about with their long runs.

Oh yes, 12 miles sits firmly in the realm of lr but don't call it a lr, call it a mini long. 16 and over is a lr. Didn't they teach you this at distance running school?

yes

kanny wrote:

It's amazing how one landmark study done on cyclists can affect everyone's thinking about the long run. I've posted the oft cited study below. I have very strong opinions on this, but I'll leave it up to you to decide. Good luck.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1331071/pdf/jphysiol00921-0060.pdf

I just read this through once - but can you confirm that what it's saying is basically as you exercise at a low intensity glycogen is first used up in slow twitch fibers which are the ones being activated - but as their glycogen is depleted you begin to recruit fast twitch fibers even though the intensity level remains at a low level. Eventually then if you exercise long enough at a low intensity you will end up recruiting all muscle fibers and depleting the glycogen from the entire muscle?

Can you really call it running if it takes you 90mins to run 12 miles ?

Avg Rnr wrote:

Pfitz wrote:

Pfitz defines anything 11-16 miles as a "medium-long" run, and only 17+ as a long run. But that's semantics.

For Advanced Marathoning. He has different, shorter endurance run lengths in Faster Road Racing. And I agree with the subjective definitions. It all depends on what distance one is training for. It's very arguable that a, say, 17 mile long run isn't necessary for th vast majority 1600 or even the 5k racers; 10-12 is likely quite sufficient.

Nick Willis does 18mile long runs. Maybe longer. I guess it depends on what the individual needs.

Long runs are, and this thread supports, subjective.

Mr E wrote:

I'd usually define long run as a run of over 20% of your weekly mileage. In high school, when I was running 4 or 5 miles with an off day every week, (totaling in the 20s), 6-7 miles was a long run.

I think that a run under 20% might be able to count as a long run if you're running really high mileage. For example, when I was running over 100 mpw, I would still think of 17 miles as a long run.

That's a good definition

It also depends on what distance you are training for

I only read the introduction. Your "what it's saying is basically" is actually them interpreting previous studies, but otherwise you have it right. txrunnergirl also had it right.

The OP tried to indicate he wasn't interested in a longer run, he was interested in the "long run". Didn't work.