Marathon training without LONG runs?

I don't know, but back then, those of us who weren't elite, still wanted to try and reach out potential. So we were all pretty much doing as many miles as we could. I think with today's high stress world, folks maybe compromise and say " I can't really do that many miles, I will just do what I can and live with it." I think we had less stress, more or less, and were willing to experiment with 70 to 100 miles week etc. Maybe folks can't today or are unwilling to try it today. But I like the idea of 2 runs on Sat. and Sun up to 10 miles, as needed, if the work week is compromised for doing more.

One thing that I think might be different now is the length of people's commutes. I live almost 40 miles from Boston and lots of people in town commute there every day and I don't think that's uncommon. With the exception of one year I don't think I ever lived more than a 20 minute drive from where I worked and now I don't know very many people who live that close. And I think professionalism has really reduced the number of people who train seriously without some sort of supporting program or shoe deal. The idea seems to be that if you have to work full time you might as well give up serious racing. But I think that someone who wanted to could get 40-50 miles in on weekends and just do what fits during the work week. And heaven only knows how fast May Hill would have run if she'd gotten up to 30-35 a week.

I think the idea of professionalism has played a part in, that, "if I can't be a pro, or be part of some quasi pro group, then I can't reach my potential." Or the trade off is not worth it. But not to bemoan folks or young guys today, but that was not the thinking back then. Maybe it's a different mindset today. That's OK if you can't or are unwilling to try and experiment with a lot of miles to reach your potential. Again maybe a more stressed out world that might limit those who might consider trying to reach their marathon potential with more miles. But, to be honest, other that FTC and GBTC, and those in Cal. I don't think we had too many training groups back then, other than meet on Sunday for a run.

I should clarify, I'm not talking about elites. But the sub 3, sub 2:50, sub 2:40, and especially the sub 2:30 groups, who just wanted to reach their potential but had no dreams of reaching the Olympic Trials. The depths of these groups have disappeared, mostly due the fact, folks maybe are too stressed out or unwilling to do the miles because of stressed out work lives today. Maybe or maybe not. But again an approach like Lismonts might be possible for some willing to try. Some kind of modified version.

the main question is: why would OP run a marathon if he doesn't want to run long? As obviously, it can be done. Over here, it's called winter sports. They have Olympic games for moving outdoors in the snow.

Jack Frost wrote:

the main question is: why would OP run a marathon if he doesn't want to run long? As obviously, it can be done. Over here, it's called winter sports. They have Olympic games for moving outdoors in the snow.

When I was in college my roommate was 15:00 three mile type who was very casual about training, at least from my perspective. When he was serious he'd do a five to seven mile run 4 or 5 days a week and long run of ten miles once a week.

The two of us often "book ended" the winter by running a marathon after cross country season and another shortly before the start of the outdoor season. His marathon training consisted of extending the ten mile run to twelve. He managed 2:40 and change on that and it drove me crazy.

I was running doubles, 100 mile weeks and weekend runs of 15-20 miles trying to close the gap on him. I always nagged him about how he maybe could be one of the best runners in the conference and maybe get an OT qualifying marathon if he'd just train a bit more seriously, say 70-80 a week and a 15-20 mile run weekly.

On the last Sunday of January of our junior year, three weeks out from the Washington's Birthday Marathon, I was alone in the room after my 20 mile run when he burst through the door in his running gear. He flung himself onto his bed and lay there thrashing, moaning, and cursing. When he finally could talk he told me that he'd taken my advice and done a 15 mile run. He said it was the worst experience of his life, that he felt awful from the start and got worse. By ten miles he was thinking that on a normal twelve miler he'd only have two miles to go but now he had five. At twelve miles all he could think of was how awful he felt and if he was in a real marathon he wouldn't even be half done.

I never mentioned running more than twelve miles to him ever again. The point is that he liked RACING marathons and was better at it than most other people were despite hating long training runs. That happens. Look at Lismont's profile again. He rarely if ever trained for more than an hour because he got bored when he did. That's a whole different thing from racing marathons.

Jack Frost wrote:

the main question is: why would OP run a marathon if he doesn't want to run long? As obviously, it can be done. Over here, it's called winter sports. They have Olympic games for moving outdoors in the snow.

Pretty simple answer.

Why would I run a marathon? Because I want to.

Why would I avoid running past 2 hours? Because I don't want to.

I used to warm up outside for 40 minutes,head inside and do either tempo or MP for 40 plus minutes then head outside for the cool down . This broke it up so I didn't go crazy.

no need for a long run ONLY if you practice doing this

AM- 20-30k@ +10-20 sec above Marathon pace

don't eat all day but vegetables (carrots/celery) and water of course

PM 20K @ goal MP

two "shorter" runs

canova 101

I knew a woman who ran 16 miles everyday who lived in CA. Her paces changed some. She ran an Olympic Q standard for the 1984 Marathon trials when the standard was low like 2:50 and she ran the trials.

Like others I suggest you run 2 hours 2 days in a row if your body can handle it if you just want to run for training and outdoors only.

I know my Ultra friends will do that like 50K 2 days in a row instead of a single longer run.

It's something to learn over time. Hope it goes well. Good luck.

PatrickSebast wrote:

Pretty simple answer.

Why would I run a marathon? Because I want to.

Why would I avoid running past 2 hours? Because I don't want to.

I think then the answer to your initial post that most people are hinting at (or outright telling you) is that you shouldn't expect an optimal performance if you don't want to do the optimal training. Sure there are outliers of people who have done well without long runs, but the consensus is that long runs are a necessary training component for an optimal marathon.

Sounds like you just want assurance that you can still run optimally without a long run in the 4-8 weeks before the race. I think few on this site will grant you that.

So I would say just do what you want to do and don't go in expecting to PR.

tiwikn wrote:

I knew a woman who ran 16 miles everyday who lived in CA. Her paces changed some. She ran an Olympic Q standard for the 1984 Marathon trials when the standard was low like 2:50 and she ran the trials.

Like others I suggest you run 2 hours 2 days in a row if your body can handle it if you just want to run for training and outdoors only.

I know my Ultra friends will do that like 50K 2 days in a row instead of a single longer run.

It's something to learn over time. Hope it goes well. Good luck.

2 hours - 2 days in a row is somewhat where I am leaning right now. Not that doubles or other options are out of the question, but it is obviously easy for social obligations to restrict running twice on weekends.

I have done similar workouts before (closer to 90 minutes 1 day and 150 the second) so it certainly seems possible. My capacity for that sort of volume is probably much larger than I would typically approach.

I didn't ask for assurance that I could run optimally at all. I asked for a potential substitute for 4-5 weeks of training and stated I can and will run long previous to that. Furthermore assuming no injury or over-training I will definitely PR and it will be substantial considering my 'easy pace' is currently faster than my old MP, so that really isn't a concern.No one on the HTFU-side has even bothered to give me a reason as to why I NEED to long run 4-5 weeks out. It is just a repetitive insistence that I do it anyway.

ImissSpicey wrote:

PatrickSebast wrote:

Pretty simple answer.

Why would I run a marathon? Because I want to.

Why would I avoid running past 2 hours? Because I don't want to.

I think then the answer to your initial post that most people are hinting at (or outright telling you) is that you shouldn't expect an optimal performance if you don't want to do the optimal training. Sure there are outliers of people who have done well without long runs, but the consensus is that long runs are a necessary training component for an optimal marathon.

Sounds like you just want assurance that you can still run optimally without a long run in the 4-8 weeks before the race. I think few on this site will grant you that.

So I would say just do what you want to do and don't go in expecting to PR.

Grete said she never ran more than 12 miles before her (first) marathon.

She said it was awful and she would never do it again.

But on the other hand, she destroyed it.

PatrickSebast wrote:

No one on the HTFU-side has even bothered to give me a reason as to why I NEED to long run 4-5 weeks out. It is just a repetitive insistence that I do it anyway.

[/quote]

They don't need to. They have decades of successful marathon training plans (both elite and non-elite) behind them. You're asking about something that's pretty unorthodox. Thus it's not up to them to prove to you why the orthodox method is correct. It's up to others to suggest why an unorthodox method might actually work.

Back when I was doing a lot of miles and running 2 to 4 marathons a year, I was running twice a day and the mandatory long run on Sunday and then later another during the week. Actually I hated the long runs but loved the twice a day running. I wished I had experimented with just doing higher volume and less long runs for my marathons. I might still try that even though I'm much older now. I did the 70 to 100 mile thing and even went up to 120+ but I wonder if I had just done less long runs I might have enjoyed it more. Not sure if my PR of 2:32 would have been there but I reason to think it might have with the correct combination of volume and consistency.

PatrickSebast wrote:

Shoebacca wrote:

This is the simplest answer. Do more doubling. Total volume is the next best thing to optimize if you can't do big long runs.

This is a reasonable answer. Should I add a little more mileage for doubles or just keep it the same. I never really bothered with them before...

I read a while back that they had slightly reduced value over doing everything at once and just sort of accept that my volume (40 - 50 mpw) wasn't enough to justify them.

Do experiments. Try a week where the doubling just equals the long run mileage. Then try another experiment where the doubling exceeds the long run mileage. Then compare results and make your own decision.

You do not need to run longer than two hours.

One two hour long run per week and two double days per week where you are averaging running an hour per run (2 total hours on these two days)

You can run easy for 45 min the other 4 days each week.

Last piece of advice - hills, hilly progression runs, and hilly tempo runs. Easy days should be on the flats for recovery

PatrickSebast wrote:

my easy run pace is now faster than my former Marathon pace so finishing isn't a major concern.

There's a red flag. What makes you think that you need to run "easy" as quickly as a former marathon pace. Unless you've progressed from something like a 5 hour to 3 hour marathon?

I call red flag alert.