Anyone ever tried long runs every day?

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?

Well in the 70's and early 80's that's what people called aerobic training. It wasn't seen as extreme. I still have this book entitled 'Advanced Running Book' by Cordner Nelson written in the early 80's. He recommends in your aerobic phase starting slowly jogging until you can do 2 hrs a day. Then run a bit faster and slowly over time work up to where you can do that 2 hours a day at close to 7 minute pace. He gives numerous examples of famous runners in the 60's to the early 80's that did this.

Mike Shattuck wrote:

And before anyone says he isn't "running" because he is doing 13 min/pace, go walk a 13 min/pace for 26 miles and get back to us at easy it was. If it feels too easy, do it again the next day, throw in some 50 miler's and and then do another 50 miles the next day. Then you can critique.

"Not easy" doesn't mean it's running.

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?

Downsides? See how crippled you are when you turn 40....

Benefits? Very few if you just do that kind of stimulus. Even if you run "distance". But hey welcome to big underachieving family which is LRC ....

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?

If you want to do it for the sake of doing it because you like it then just go fot it!

If you want to get fit for something in particular then it may or may not be a good thing to do.

go walk a 13/min mile. I bet you can't do it. You'll have to run. That is, move at a speed faster than a walk, never having both or all the feet on the ground at the same time.

Wondering what shoes he is using and how pairs he goes through

I've tried running at least 15 miles every day in singles with minimal workouts. You get reasonably fit but not fast.

But I've improved to being well under 2:20 for the marathon doing 2 hard long runs a week (one 13 miles at MP and the other 18 to 20 miles at +30 seconds per mile slower than MP), and the rest is just easy doubles.

If every day is the same length then no run is long relative to the others so despite the runs being long in time they aren't long in terms of the length of the other runs.

Ghoulboy3000 wrote:

If every day is the same length then no run is long relative to the others so despite the runs being long in time they aren't long in terms of the length of the other runs.

Yes. But that's not what the discussion is about and you know it.

Ghoulboy3000 wrote:

If every day is the same length then no run is long relative to the others so despite the runs being long in time they aren't long in terms of the length of the other runs.

Depends on your frame of reference. If you're only referencing your own runs that can be true. But if you run for an hour everyday and I run for two hours in that frame of reference I'm doing a long run every day.

Letssemanticsdotcom wrote:

Ghoulboy3000 wrote:

If every day is the same length then no run is long relative to the others so despite the runs being long in time they aren't long in terms of the length of the other runs.

Yes. But that's not what the discussion is about and you know it.

Are you discussing what the discussion is about? I think you know what I'm discussing in this discussion

Ghoulboy3000 wrote:

Letssemanticsdotcom wrote:

Yes. But that's not what the discussion is about and you know it.

Are you discussing what the discussion is about? I think you know what I'm discussing in this discussion

NEARLY everyone in the sport thinks of a long run in terms of the distance and/or time that the run itself takes and measures it that way and not how long the runs are relative to the other runs. When we read of Ed Whitlock doing three hour runs everyday far more of us thought that he does long runs all the time than thought that he never does long runs.

Check out this interview on Mike Shattuck who has been running 30-40 miles a day for a whole year....not that I am condoning you doing this for what your goals are, but just an interesting read on someone that just decided to go out and run!!!

Obviously the guy likes to run but i wonder what is his actual speed and prs. I guess no faster than a 37 min 10k even with that mileage.

Is it worth it? If you enjoy it, why not? Its an unsual approach for an experienced athlete or anyone who was coached at some point but its certainly one way to train or strain

Norpqqjja wrote:

Obviously the guy likes to run but i wonder what is his actual speed and prs. I guess no faster than a 37 min 10k even with that mileage.

Is it worth it? If you enjoy it, why not? Its an unsual approach for an experienced athlete or anyone who was coached at some point but its certainly one way to train or strain

Well, who knows what his actual race pace is at the distances we run is but I do see a 4:43 mile 23 there. That's not too shabby.

Norpqqjja wrote:

Obviously the guy likes to run but i wonder what is his actual speed and prs. I guess no faster than a 37 min 10k even with that mileage.

Is it worth it? If you enjoy it, why not? Its an unsual approach for an experienced athlete or anyone who was coached at some point but its certainly one way to train or strain

Did you even read the interview?

yes i have done this wrote:

I've done this for periods at a time. And others have done this too: Ed Whitlock, Josh McDougal, Bob Deines, etc. It's an excellent way to get your legs strong.

"excellent way to get your legs strong." Frequently used myth on LRC.

If anything you make your legs weak doing long runs. Your heart gets stronger, therefore you have more endurance.

However, if you are seeking to get your legs strong run sprints, especially short sprints of less than 100 meters.

Lifting weights, running hills, and also jumping aids in making your legs strong as long as you do not overtrain.

The easiest thing to gain in training is strength, next is endurance, speed is the most difficult thing to gain

in training.

Crippled chicken 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?

Downsides? See how crippled you are when you turn 40....

Benefits? Very few if you just do that kind of stimulus. Even if you run "distance". But hey welcome to big underachieving family which is LRC ....

Exactly, that's why I recommend a well-rounded program which also includes sprinting and other elements.

Letssemanticsetc. wrote:

Ghoulboy3000 wrote:

Are you discussing what the discussion is about? I think you know what I'm discussing in this discussion

NEARLY everyone in the sport thinks of a long run in terms of the distance and/or time that the run itself takes and measures it that way and not how long the runs are relative to the other runs. When we read of Ed Whitlock doing three hour runs everyday far more of us thought that he does long runs all the time than thought that he never does long runs.

I believe that he was running @ 8 to 8:30 pace at 70, so yeah, 21 miles a day in singles.