I am a high school junior looking to specialize in the 2 mile, and am wondering if my weekly 2 mile long run is a bit excessive. I've heard that beyond 90 minutes your body learns to use fat instead of carbs for fuel, but the 2 mile obviously isn't long enough for the to occur. I was thinking just a 90 minute long run might make more sense (I run around 7:00 pace for long runs) but I am looking to do whatever it takes to optimize performance.
The using carbs for fuel is to help fat loss and stuff.
If you're fine with doing 90 min just do 90 min. But if you want to do 2 hours every once and a while do that.
Personally I do 1:45 so right in the middle.
Best of luck
Yeah, it’s excessive. Take the full two hours and run for 75-90, then do some supplementary work during the remaining 30-45 (strides, mobility work, body weight stuff).
Bump
Lenny Leonard wrote:
Yeah, it’s excessive. Take the full two hours and run for 75-90, then do some supplementary work during the remaining 30-45 (strides, mobility work, body weight stuff).
+1
runningman2020 wrote:
Bump
Why? You already got the answer. Yes, it’s excessive. Unless you have different goals, why would you run that slow for that long?
Yes, generally.
If you are doing everything else right and it does not cut into your recovery elsewhere, it will help a little. It is probably not worth the trouble, and you would benefit more from doing strength work, flexibility, drills, ... and 90 minutes as the person above said.
90 is plenty. 2h would give you slightly more benefit that would require more recovery while you would gain more from doing extra side work with your additional recovery from 90min.
Depends on your training phase, how much time you have to devote to training, your specific weaknesses/limiting factors, your training history and the type of training you enjoy.
Have you been doing 2 hour runs regularly? How soon after do you feel ready for a workout? What’s your weekly mileage? What are your PRs for shorter and longer events?
These long runs don’t just help with fat metabolism. They stimulate mitochondrion and modify fast twitch fibers to some degree
It's not necessary, but it's not excessive either. If you lived where I live, it would totally make sense in the context of playing in the mountains one day a week in the summer for example.
Yes, a two hour long run is much more than you need if you are concentrating on the 2-mile run. As other have suggested, I would cut it down to 90 minutes which is still a lot. Use the extra time for strides.
The 2 mile as an event really isn't that far. You really need to be doing a lot of speed work as well but that will come a bit later in the year. I would also work on a lot of strength type intervals such as 800, 1000, and 1200 repeats.
Answer depends on how much you run the rest of the week. If a two hour run at a very easy pace takes you beyond 20-25% of your weekly mileage then it's excessive. Or if it leaves you tired for your next workout. Lydiard would say it's great for even an 800 meter runner...
So, your long run is about 17 miles. That's not excessive for someone who wants to run elite 3200 times in high school.
Maybe drop that long run down to 15 miles in season, but 70 MPW is common for even just good high school 3200 meter runners. A 17 mile long run is not too long for someone running 70 miles per week.
It is possible to over-train.
If you are going to do a 17-mile run make sure that you build up to it, and also make sure your recovery is
sufficient. There are about 5 or 6 signs that our body gives us to warn us of over-training. Re-search those
on the internet.
Also, I would want to know if it is benefitting you. Are your other workouts getting easier?
Can you time a few of them so you get some idea of your improvement? I suggest running
a 1.5-mile time trial or something other than the race distance. You also want to make sure your
400 time is improving, but you may need an indoor track this time of year to get regular time trials.
Manlius does 2 hour long runs all the time. So I would guess if you want to be great like them - you should do 2 hours.
1 hr. 45 minutes is better but you must run steady easy pace.....
The Coach Says: wrote:
Yes, a two hour long run is much more than you need if you are concentrating on the 2-mile run. As other have suggested, I would cut it down to 90 minutes which is still a lot. Use the extra time for strides.
The 2 mile as an event really isn't that far. You really need to be doing a lot of speed work as well but that will come a bit later in the year. I would also work on a lot of strength type intervals such as 800, 1000, and 1200 repeats.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
Intervals should be or 400s..... but race the 2 mile distance often and mile races too.
Is it the time or the distance? If the benefits start at 90 minutes, if I run 7 min pace that’s 13 miles. For an elite doing a hard long run that 13 miles could take 75 minutes. Would the elite have to extend to 15-16 miles to get the benefits associated with running 90+ minutes?
It's been fairly well established here, IMO, that no significant benefits start at 90 minutes.
runningman2020 wrote:
I am a high school junior looking to specialize in the 2 mile, and am wondering if my weekly 2 mile long run is a bit excessive. I've heard that beyond 90 minutes your body learns to use fat instead of carbs for fuel, but the 2 mile obviously isn't long enough for the to occur. I was thinking just a 90 minute long run might make more sense (I run around 7:00 pace for long runs) but I am looking to do whatever it takes to optimize performance.
Short answer: NO!
Even top 800 runners have used 22 milers in training and benefitted.
The long answer takes books to explain. That research must be done by asking coaches and reading.