What would be the ideal long run range for someone looking to close in on a 70 minute half?
I usually do 90 minute long runs which is 13-14 miles. Is there any reason to go longer ? I'd like to be able to run a few miles more than the race distance, but do I really need to be out there for more than 20 minutes beyond than projected race time?
The long run can be an injury trigger for me so I don't want to do more than is reasonably necessary.
There are lots of strength and aerobic benefits to longer runs. At your fitness, I think you'd benefit from hitting 2 hours. Not necessarily every week, but at least a couple times a month get an easy 2 hour run in. As you build up to those, you might start doing them quicker or adding bits of quality. But a '70 minute half marathoner should be able to hit 2 hour runs and not get injured.
Depends on more on current weekly mileage, than goal time in my opinion
Agree. I use 25% of my weekly mileage as my rule of thumb for how long my long run should be. I sometimes go below, but I almost never go over (with marathon training being the exception).
For what it’s worth, I have run 1:11 low 3 times as a masters runner, and think I was at 16 to 18 for 3 of those, and probably 14-16 for the other.
Depends on the rest of your training. When I did it I was doing long runs around 17, but usually at around 6:15 pace compared to 6:30. 6:30 for 13-14 doesn't sound like good prep for sub 70 tbh. But I don't know if you are hitting other workout really strong.
20 miles
I don’t think your pace on your long run is determinative of much. As a general rule, my pace for long runs is easy distance pace, and easy distance pace means a pace at which I can comfortably maintain a continuous conversation.
My view is that the goals of a long run are to get time on your feet, to build general aerobic fitness, to strengthen muscles and connective tissue and to burn deep into your different energy stores. All of that basically happens regardless of pace.
I don’t care about pace other than it having it be some indicator of relative fitness that I can see after my runs. T
Get up to a 105mins a few times. That’d be a good stepping stone for you. Maybe alternate that with your usual 90mins.
Smoove wrote:
I don’t think your pace on your long run is determinative of much. As a general rule, my pace for long runs is easy distance pace, and easy distance pace means a pace at which I can comfortably maintain a continuous conversation.
My view is that the goals of a long run are to get time on your feet, to build general aerobic fitness, to strengthen muscles and connective tissue and to burn deep into your different energy stores. All of that basically happens regardless of pace.
I don’t care about pace other than it having it be some indicator of relative fitness that I can see after my runs. T
You seem to have way more experience and expertise than me so I don't want to disagree, but I do want to justify my position as being stolen from Canova:
https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20838198/canova-101/I think Daniels has a take on this philosophy as well. One of your "Q" days should be as part of a long run.
I don't think all long runs needs to be run fast. I certainly don't and can't practice that, but when I don't have a timing issue I do try to get it done. But your way seems to serve you well too. Magic.
I definitely come at it from a Daniels perspective.
I only have a modest understanding of Canova, but based on that understanding, I think Canova wants your workouts (which may include long runs) to funnel towards goal pace. So in a marathon cycle, your first long quality run may be at 80% of your goal pace, then the next one at 85%, then 90%, etc. But you are working towards goal pace for an extended period.
Others are advocates of varying pages a bit and emphasizing a fair amount of steady running.
So there are lots of ways to get to your goal, and I recognize Daniels is only one of those many ways. But running maybe 10-20 seconds per mile faster than easy distance pace isn’t usually used as a workout in most training approaches, particularly one that might be indicative of a particular bit of fitness.
Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy runs that are on the crisp side. They’re just flat out fun. But I just don’t think that they are indicative of, or necessary for building, fitness. Of course, one of the criticisms of Daniels is that he ignores those in between paces because they don’t tie to anything he can measure in a lab and those he assumes there to be no value.
I barely broke 70 earlier this year before really getting into the meat of my marathon cycle, but I did multiple runs of 17-21 in the months leading up and felt they really helped. I also made it a point to push the average pace to low 6s (with a good amount of miles sub 6) on a few of them and believe that really helped build endurance. It’d likely be useful for you to at least do a few in the 15-18 range (spacing them out every 2-3 weeks).
My lifetime goal is to break 70 although it is still a long way to go. 5:17 to literally chop off my PB. I try to do long runs between 16-18.75miles(30km). 7:20 pace is enough. If I was fit enough to go for under 70 minutes I would probably be doing them at 7:00 pace
When I ran my 70' HM I kept long runs to 14mi max. I did one 16 miler and it felt like way too much. 14mi was what already felt like was pushing my limits.
This is pretty unusual in this age of GPS watches recording everything, but there were actually two times that I thought I ran a different distance than I did, only later to look over my digital logs and find out I ran a different distance than I thought. Both times I was surprised by how I felt after. Once I thought I ran 2mi longer than I actually did and I felt surprisingly good in the following days (thought I ran 12mi, actually ran 10mi, was surprised how good I felt after the supposed 12 miles). The other time the opposite (thought I ran 14mi, actually ran 16mi, was surprised how devastating the supposed 14 miles was). So it convinced me that my body knew the truth and that the extra miles on a long run can make a big difference for some of us.
I think there are some great fitness benefits to doing 2 hour runs (and whatever mileage that comes with) but if you feel like it's not right for you, it's definitely not necessary. Ultimately a 70' run felt short because of the 90' runs I had done and I built the fitness I needed.
Focus more on tempo runs. For example if you do some workouts like Malmo suggest, after warming up and cooling down you should be over 13 miles.
I think even for most pros who top out at the half, they'll want to touch 16-20 miles for their long runs. It doesn't have to be every week but you need some strength/endurance in the half for once you get to that 10 mile mark. I think it's worth it to do mock marathon paced stuff even if your goal is the half. 18 w./ 2 x 3 @ marathon pace (maybe 5:40ish). I think 2 hrs/18 miles/30km is a good landing spot for a relaxed long run and then adding in some faster paced stuff to them will be beneficial.