Why is 90 minutes a long run? Do the special adaptations start at 90min or have you already benefitted?

It is all about glycogen depletion and fat adaption metabolism.

Glycogen depletion wrote:

It is all about glycogen depletion and fat adaption metabolism.

Good job not answering the question.

90 minutes isn't even a proper warmup.

I wouldn't consider anything under 3 hours to be called a long run.

A lot of websites cite the 90 mins, but I think it's suitability depends on the distance you are training for.

90 mins is inadequate for marathon training.

In my opinion it is probably also inadequate for half marathon training, unless you are a beginner who's goal is completion only.

How many long runs off more than 90 minutes do you think Bernard Lagat ran in the first 20 years of his career? I would guess almost none.

Glycogen depletion wrote:

It is all about glycogen depletion and fat adaption metabolism.

99.9% of people carry fuel or eat before heading out.

Also it would make sense to start in a fasted state and just benefit for most of the run rather than just after 90 minutes.

Radical CJ wrote:

In my opinion it is probably also inadequate for half marathon training, unless you are a beginner who's goal is completion only.

Nonsense.

Glycogen depletion wrote:

It is all about glycogen depletion and fat adaption metabolism.

Because 90 minutes is when glycogen depletion starts and runners start to feel the wall hitting phase.

It doesn't have to be 90 minutes or more, it just has to be your longest run of the week. That's why it's called a 'long run'. It gets you used to running for a longer distance and amount of time compared to your normal run. Eventually the long run might be 90 minutes or more, maybe not. An 800 runner running an average of 5 miles on a normal day benefits from a long run of 8 miles even though that 8 miles will not take 90 minutes.

The Dirty Duck wrote:

How many long runs off more than 90 minutes do you think Bernard Lagat ran in the first 20 years of his career? I would guess almost none.

Prefontaine doubled all the time, did all his runs faster than he!l, and didn't usually run more than 12 miles. It's likely that he almost never did 90 minutes.

ou might find this link more interesting, where Hadd discusses the Dudley results in more detail, including specifically "THE INFLUENCE OF EXERCISE DURATION", with some graphs:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/f...989&page=3

The 90 minutes versus 60 minutes conclusion was strictly about slow-twitch red fibers. When looking at fast-twitch red fibers, for example, these adaptations maxed out at 75 minutes and 90 minutes (depending on intensity).

There was also an East German study which evaluated the relation of duration of training to performance improvement. My recollection is something like this:

- up to 1:45, a linear return from training

- between 1:45 and 2:05, an even better return, like a double bonus

- thereafter a diminishing return

The problem with doing 2x2 hour runs per week, for any length of time, will likely be recovery. 1x2 hours seems to be about the longest you can do, on a regular weekly basis, and still recover. The other "long" runs should probably be less than 1:45 -- maybe 90 is a good "optimal" number. (Note this might not be the case for extreme ultra runners).

Running seeks more adaptations than just mitochondria growth in muscle fibers. (Such adaptations anyway will max out after several months, or maybe 1-2 years of training). There are circulation, enzymatic, physical (e.g. cartilage in joints), and neuro-musculer adaptations, just to mention a few.

Hope this helps.

quickndirty wrote:

Running seeks more adaptations than just mitochondria growth in muscle fibers. (Such adaptations anyway will max out after several months, or maybe 1-2 years of training). There are circulation, enzymatic, physical (e.g. cartilage in joints),

Also nonsense.

Glycogen depletion wrote:

It is all about glycogen depletion and fat adaption metabolism.

Fat adaption metabolism? Go one make up some BS to justify that statement.

stuff people say.. wrote:

quickndirty wrote:

Running seeks more adaptations than just mitochondria growth in muscle fibers. (Such adaptations anyway will max out after several months, or maybe 1-2 years of training). There are circulation, enzymatic, physical (e.g. cartilage in joints),

Also nonsense.

And your take is what exactly?

It works, so GFY.

90 minutes to burn through the glycogen stores and bringing on more fat burning.

Run fasted on your easy runs and that’ll help too. You’re always burning glycogen and fat, but if you deplete your stores you’ll look to burn more fat and therefore become more efficient at it.

Madness used to have his athletes work out on Friday and then do a medium easy long run the next day. So the stores were already depleted.

stuff people say... wrote:

Glycogen depletion wrote:

It is all about glycogen depletion and fat adaption metabolism.

Fat adaption metabolism? Go one make up some BS to justify that statement.

Longer you exercise, the less sugar you have available. And, the more you have to utilize fat as a energy source.

Cut it out wrote:

Radical CJ wrote:

In my opinion it is probably also inadequate for half marathon training, unless you are a beginner who's goal is completion only.

Nonsense.

I'd be glad to hear your take on it, e.g. what alternate approach to the long run or alternative workout do you suggest?

Anecdotally: I personally achieved a huge leap in fitness and cut a chunk off my HM time by increasing the duration and frequency of my long runs. This approach to training also seemed to stop incidents of cramping in the final kms of the race, and to reduce recovery time required from longer road races.

90 minutes is enough . Plus I don't want to waste a weekend day being dead tired for the remaining day. I just watched

the movie first man , and was disappointed. boring movie.

racing 5k/10k only wrote:

90 minutes is enough . Plus I don't want to waste a weekend day being dead tired for the remaining day. I just watched

the movie first man , and was disappointed. boring movie.

Hahaha cool