Anyone ever tried long runs every day?

Lydiard wrote in his first book that he tried doing long runs (~2hours) every day but he got too tired but that alternating long (1 1/2 - 2 hours) and short (~1 hour) allowed him to rest enough to improve.

I did that for a time, and honestly, it was just a bunch of wasted mileage on my legs. You probably only have a set lifetime volume your body can sustain long term, and if you waste it on a period of time aimed at nothing in particular, you're just aging your legs unnecessarily. My advice: Maybe do 2 long runs per week for fun, and keep up the short stuff to stay fresh and quicker.

maybe an original. wrote:

not really man wrote:

There's a little research on this but not much, and no way does it decisively draw that conclusion.

No, there’s a lot of research. It’s more anabolic hormonally, and it also upregulates aerobic enzymes better.

Bigger, more technical words, but still bullshit. You'll have to try harder to fool us Spanky.

Long runner wrote:

Anyone have experience with this:

I’m not training for anything in particular and just run for fun. I would like to go for about 2 hours at an easy pace each morning (with a day or two per week off).

Is there any benefits or downsides to doing this?

Your testosterone levels will crumble...

2 hours a day is not long runs everyday.

not really man wrote:

maybe an original. wrote:

The research says it's better to split it up into two-a-days.

There's a little research on this but not much, and no way does it decisively draw that conclusion.

Yes there is enough research on this. It's called pretty much every elite marathoner ever does 2 a days. Try doing all that mileage in one go and you will burn out. The other option is not go as far and you won't reach peak performance. I'm sure there will never be a study with a large enough sample size of elite marathoners to prove singles vs doubles because there just aren't enough out there and many wouldn't participate. But every top coach and runner knows this is the case.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

not really man wrote:

There's a little research on this but not much, and no way does it decisively draw that conclusion.

Yes there is enough research on this. It's called pretty much every elite marathoner ever does 2 a days. Try doing all that mileage in one go and you will burn out. The other option is not go as far and you won't reach peak performance. I'm sure there will never be a study with a large enough sample size of elite marathoners to prove singles vs doubles because there just aren't enough out there and many wouldn't participate. But every top coach and runner knows this is the case.

Anecdotes are not research.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

Lydiard wrote in his first book that he tried doing long runs (~2hours) every day but he got too tired but that alternating long (1 1/2 - 2 hours) and short (~1 hour) allowed him to rest enough to improve.

That was always Arthur's recommendation, alternate the length of runs. But one of his guys, Jeff Julian, would run 26 miles every morning before work when he was in the base phase and often run another 10 at night.

HRE wrote:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

Lydiard wrote in his first book that he tried doing long runs (~2hours) every day but he got too tired but that alternating long (1 1/2 - 2 hours) and short (~1 hour) allowed him to rest enough to improve.

That was always Arthur's recommendation, alternate the length of runs. But one of his guys, Jeff Julian, would run 26 miles every morning before work when he was in the base phase and often run another 10 at night.

Whoa. If that 10 at night is every other night that's 220 miles per week. If it's every night, it's 250.

It was Jeff Julian who was one of the favorites going into the '64 Olympic Marathon. The idea for the base phase was 1,000 miles in 10 weeks for Arthur's runners. Julian's goal was 2,000 miles in that time. There was a story that Julian was once telling Arthur about all the miles he was running. Jokingly, Arthur was about to say that he was going to tell Julian that he'd only get really good if he ran 300 miles a week. Then he thought, "No, Jeff just might try it" and kept quiet.

I have a friend who was a 2:16 marathoner off of 60-70 a week in his early Twenties. At 36-37 he started doing 120 mile weeks with five 20 mile runs a week. He got to 2:15 from that.

Long runner wrote:

Anyone have experience with this:

I’m not training for anything in particular and just run for fun. I would like to go for about 2 hours at an easy pace each morning (with a day or two per week off).

Is there any benefits or downsides to doing this?

Ever heard of Frank Shorter, Bill Rodgers, Pat Porter?

Yes, they ran long every single day for several years.

Josh McDougal... he beat Rupp to win the 2007 NCAA XC Championships. His senior year his easy runs were 18 miles in 1 hour 45 minutes (5:50 pace). He ran 18 miles every week with 2 fast workouts a week and a long(er) run to come out to 130 mpw.

Long runner wrote:

Anyone have experience with this:

I’m not training for anything in particular and just run for fun. I would like to go for about 2 hours at an easy pace each morning (with a day or two per week off).

Is there any benefits or downsides to doing this?

Sounds dreamy. That’s how I would run everyday all the time if I never wanted to get faster. If you’re not training for anything then go for it. If you want

To get faster you’ll have to throw in some quality.

Moving through the landscape wrote:

Long runner wrote:

Anyone have experience with this:

I’m not training for anything in particular and just run for fun. I would like to go for about 2 hours at an easy pace each morning (with a day or two per week off).

Is there any benefits or downsides to doing this?

Eventually you'll grow a long thick beard.

I will?

jecht wrote:

Maybe 35-40% effort

You run at a heartrate of 60 - 65 bpm?

not really man wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Yes there is enough research on this. It's called pretty much every elite marathoner ever does 2 a days. Try doing all that mileage in one go and you will burn out. The other option is not go as far and you won't reach peak performance. I'm sure there will never be a study with a large enough sample size of elite marathoners to prove singles vs doubles because there just aren't enough out there and many wouldn't participate. But every top coach and runner knows this is the case.

Anecdotes are not research.

Ok, Mr. President of the flat earth society.

There was a time when I was living in the mountains, 7000 feet altitudes secluded with a lot of time...

I was training a ton but had read Geoffrey Mutai's training the year after he set the course record in Boston, article was in the Boston herald. It was several days of 110 minutes AM, 120 minutes PM, easy on hills. 1 day was 3 hours that progressed over the run, down to 5:30 pace. And two workout days, one of 30 minute warm up, 30 minute cool down, 20 x 2 minutes on, 1 minute off. Two hour fartlek! The other had the same warm up and cool down, longer repeats of 1 km of my memory is correct. I did it for two weeks and felt ridiculously strong. Alas, life intrudes and I couldn't continue it.

in the article Mutai said he did this schedule for 45 weeks of the year.

jeff julian did the waitakeri (spellin) every day, way back in the day.

jullian won fukuoka.

that is 22 miles with a 2.5 mile hill in the middle. outside auckland new zealand

i've done this run a few times

julian is reported to have done this circuit every day for a period, was it a month or so?

and the pace was pretty fast, something equivalent to a 225 marathon,

but someone on these boards that was there needs to correct the data presented,

though it's probably pretty accurate.

In " Arthur's Boys" there's part of a chapter about Julian. That's where the 26 mile run before work every day story comes from.