How long should Long Runs be for 5k?

Due diligence wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

No! The longest run for a 5 k specialist I would say can stay with about 15-20 km ( 9-12,5 miles)

Why?

Because you don`t have to teach the body glycogen depletion to the same extent and necessity as in training for the half and especially the marathon .

NERunner053 wrote:

birdbeard wrote:

I think 16 miles or 1:45 or so, whichever comes first. Probably wouldn't change that for 10K, either, although I might push it to 18 miles/2:00, whichever comes first.

I agree with this. For the 5k, 2 hours/18 miles/30km is probably the max. A lot of long runs in the 80-105 minute range. You can also run a hard 25k & that'll take more out of you than an easy 30k. It all depends on your training plan & what you're trying to accomplish with the long run.

Yep.

Vexation wrote:

Should you stick to the 25% rule or what? Say someone was doing 80 mpw would it really be necessary to run a 20-mile long run even though you're only training for a 5k?

Jack Daniels's rule is to never do a long run that lasts longer than 2 hours (unless you are training for a marathon). With the exception of world class athletes, folks tend not to run faster than 6 min/mile pace for 20 miles, in training (which is the pace required to get 20 miles in under 2 hours). So no, a 20-mile long run is not necessary for a 5k runner. As a 5k runner, my furthest long-run was about 27 km (or ~17 miles).

I ran at a decently competitive D1 program 10+ years ago. Other than one guy who was a 13:30's 5k guy I can't remember anyone ever going over 15 miles. Most of us got together on a Saturday and our standard long run was 90 minutes. That could be 12 miles or it could be 14 depending on how the legs felt. The guy running 12 isn't going to be at a disadvantage to the guy doing 15 because he shut it down 3 miles before, especially in a 5k.

Idiot. Long runs do more than increase capillary density. Long runs are not just time on your feet. You see running economy and aerobic capacity improvements. You even see fast-twitch muscle fiber recruitment towards the end when you're running at a strong aerobic effort.

5 miles of work at 5k pace eh?

at least 12 if you are only going up to 5k.

but definitely 15-18 if you are also going up to 10k. at least if you aren't a slow hobby jogger doing 7:30 pace

I've been training for the 5k right now running 70-75 mpw and my long runs have been 15-16 miles. Getting close to, but not over, 2 hours

I would be interested to see the study showing "negative returns" after 90 minutes.

Anyway, I don't use the long run as an easy run. It's a workout day so the overall pace will be faster than you suggested, but of course that doesn't really change your point about it being too long.

It has worked for a lot of people I've coached. Maybe they were just talented and ran fast despite the training, though.

Vexation wrote:

Should you stick to the 25% rule or what? Say someone was doing 80 mpw would it really be necessary to run a 20-mile long run even though you're only training for a 5k?

A 20 mile long run seems unnecessary with 80mpw or volume seems unnecessary for a 5km only runner. Yes many in the thread have given examples of pro 5k runners that do extremely well off that volume but those guys are elite; their training methodology doesn't always apply to us common folk.

I'd suggest going down to 60-70mpw while using that extra time to focus on intervals and speed, with a long run no greater than 15mi. This would allow more time for important speed training while still keeping a relatively high volume for endurance. Gonna be hard to run a good 5km time if a 3:30km is the fastest a person can run.

Apologies for butchering the first sentence of my last post.

*A 20 mile long run with 80mpw of volume seems unnecessary for a 5k only runner

AXC wrote:

I've been training for the 5k right now running 70-75 mpw and my long runs have been 15-16 miles. Getting close to, but not over, 2 hours

That's a pretty slow 5k.

20 to 25 wrote:

25% rule only works for low mileage (50 mpw or less)

for higher mileage closer to 20% is better

so for 80 mpw I would recommend 16 for the long run

Ehhh Lets not get too carried away with the whole (blah blah percentage talk).

Let's just say 90-120 minutes is your pretty typical long run duration for people who run the 5k competitively (Excluding the very very elite who may run more then that).

These are all nice suggestions and recommendations, but what evidence-based research is there that supports most of these assertions? That is, how long does one need to run to elicit certain physiological adaptations mentioned beyond just increasing capillary density, fast-twitch muscle fiber recruitment, running economy, and other aerobic capacity improvements.

Furthermore, what is the efficacy for a increasing duration of the long run for someone training for shorter aerobic distances rather than a marathon. I mean, you can run long distances and get a benefit, but the longer you run, there is an increased need for recovery, and therefore, your time might be better spent coming back with some other type of effort sooner if you are training for a shorter distance like a 5k. Basically, what is the inflection point where increased duration comes with minimal improvement compared to other potential workouts down the road.

I'm not saying there isn't a benefit for a long run if you run a 5k or less, but what is that max point (which is what we are interested in) based on research, not just the pop-science of distance running.

short answer: don't worry about it.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Because you don`t have to teach the body glycogen depletion to the same extent and necessity as in training for the half and especially the marathon .

Wait, did JS just post something useful? Are you feeling OK JS?

For most people, no need to go over 2 hours for 5k. That could be anywhere from 15-20 miles depending on the runner and how they're feeling that day. Yes, some elites do more, but for almost everyone it isn't worth the risk. Everything in training should be viewed through a risk-reward prism. A 2.5 hour long-run doesn't pass muster. If you need the mileage, just double throughout the week.

You can run long runs of 20+ miles and 2+ hours as much as you like as long as you're able to fully recover before your next hard day. It may not be the most productive use of your time, but there's something very special about those 2:30 - 3:00 really long runs that I don't think I feel when conforming to Daniels' "under 2 hours rule".

Unfortunately most people won't be able to fit a 3 hour-ish run in their schedule and still have 2 hard workout days nailed in one week.

co rona wrote:

P. Snell ran 22 mi around the hills of NZ ...

Only a fool believe in that was the key to his 1:44 800.