The Long Run in Marathon training

[Dstew]

On Sunday I ran 32 K in around 3:20. Started off way too fast, took a break around 25 K or so and finished by sitting in the Bow River. I followed a number of recovery protocols and physically, I was able to do my complete weight training routine the next day. But for lack of a better word, the run left me feeling icky and just a little off. Normally, at this point in the training I would really start to ramp up the runs and attempt to get in 4 - 6 weeks of 30 K one day and then another run and faster of 5 - 12 K the next day. I would also be left stiff, sore, exhausted, irritable, moody and grumpy. But this time, I have a number of mini golf vacations to expensive courses and so being a little off is not an option. As a result, I started to scour the internet to find out what can I do over the next two months to get me ready for a marathon but attempt to avoid all of the unpleasant consequences of such.

I read one article that suggested to avoid any lasting or at least extended heart "damage" associated with running a marathon, one needs to aim for around 45 mpw. That is no good so to some specific research about the long run. Much to my surprise, I could not find any good scientific based studies with regards to how far. It seems that 90 - 120 minutes officially is a "long" run as that is the time it takes for the physiological adaptions to occur. It seems that most coaches suggest that anything over 2.5 - 3 hours not only invokes the law of diminishing returns, it causes damage that in turn impacts the other training and a significant increase in the risk of injury. And yet, the magic 20 mile goal is suggested even though one author noted that for a 4.5 hour marathon to run 20 miles and tax one's system at 60% - enough to damage the muscles to allow for adaptation and super compensation but not enough cause any real issues - that will take the person 4 hours. Galloway even suggests going well past the 20 mile mark with a combination of not only slow but walk breaks. It seems that everyone thinks there is some benefit to running more then 3 hours, albeit with some emphasizing risks more then others but there was no proof of this. There is a correlation between marathon finishing time and total weekly mileage and total number of long runs of 20 miles or more but many agree that this is not necessarily causal. As one author pointed out, the 20 mile long run is to get people use to being on their feet and to get to the wall, a psychological benefit, but the basis of that run was when everyone who did a marathon was running it in around 3 hours and hence 20 miles was roughly 2.5 hours and not by coincidence what appears to be the sweat spot of getting the most benefit with the least amount of risk and damage.

The Hanson brothers and sort of cross fit suggest that the long run is not that important but they are in effect merely breaking that down over the entire week. In effect, 25 or whatever on tired legs is the same as 32 K on "fresh" legs. I found it interesting but on one site, it suggested that if one wants to tax their system to 60% of capacity, a 20 mile very slow run is the same as a 16 mile run at marathon pace. They did not suggest one should substitute the 16 mile run in place of the 20 mile run but I wonder how much is due to conventional wisdom then due to other considerations? It reminds me of the story of a the granddaughter who asked why the roast is cooked on its side. Her mother said it was because that is the way her mother did it. Her mother in turn said it was because that was the way her mother did it. And finally the grandmother said it was because they could only afford a small roasting pan and they had to put it on its side to fit. We are running 20 mile long runs because very fast people did them way back when and there does not appear to be any pressing or compelling reason to change. The Hanson method did modify that a little but I have never been able to make it through that training for more then a few weeks because it is so taxing and a very long run would seem to be redundant.

But instead of 6 or even 5 days of running per week, do a 25 - 26 K run at or near marathon pace, some reasonable speed work, a tempo run and a steady state run. A modified FIRST but break up the long run over two days so day one is 25 K and the second day 7 or whatever. Having done a number of 30 - 32 K already this summer, doing "just" 25 K at marathon pace should not make a huge difference. Plus this marathon is the first one with no real time goal as evidenced by the fact I am playing three rounds of golf leading to race day. But I am seriously considering taking this approach for the 2015 Calgary marathon if only to see how the training goes and how things work out on race day. For all but one of my marathons, I have always managed to get in a 40 K run for clearly psychological reasons and one time, I got in two such runs. But older and wiser, I wonder if my body can make the necessary adaptions without having to go over 2.5 hours?

[RayMan.2]

Interesting essay you wrote! That's the cool part about marathon training - you have lots of time to think while you are out there putting in the miles.

Myself, I just pick a Hal Higdon plan and follow it while keeping track of how my body feels. The day after a long run, I do a short Easy Run - unlike what you like to do.

You and I have both qualified for Boston more than once, so I think we have a good idea of what works for us, and what doesn't. I do agree, especially as we age, that we might need to tweak things a bit. If you are feeling moody and irritable (and it's not taper time) you might be overtraining...but you already know that!

I am just glad to see you are still running, still active, and still alive!

Cheers

[ian]

Some assorted observations…

(1) Once you're already in marathon shape, it's more a matter of maintaining current fitness than pushing for "adaptations", therefore a different mode of training can certainly work, especially if there are no aspirations of improving race times.

(2) The psychological benefits of long runs are less important for experienced marathoners who know exactly what the training and the race should feel like.

(3) Total weekly mileage is almost always better correlated with marathon performance than the details of the longest runs. A lot of recreational runners have difficulty running much during weekdays, so without the long runs on weekends, they would really be lacking in overall mileage.

(4) Millions of people have run marathons and a substantial number of those did so without having had really long runs, whether by design or by unforeseen circumstances. If there was no benefit whatsoever to doing such runs, the accumulated results of all these runners would show it and the collective wisdom of the sport would shift accordingly.

(5) There are very few new studies in sport science that are, in isolation, compelling enough to warrant a change in behavior. Some of the recent "too much running is bad for you" studies have have struggled to pass peer review and the fine print of their analysis can often be paraphrased as (thanks to MichaelMc) "Once you subtract the known benefits of running, there are no known benefits of running". Given your specific circumstances with running, family, work, and other activities, if you think you've found a training plan that makes sense for you, just do it. There's no requirement to back it up with research evidence, to suggest that other ways are wrong, or to try to convert others.

[Dstew]

Some assorted observations…

There's no requirement to back it up with research evidence, to suggest that other ways are wrong, or to try to convert others.

Thank you for the observations but in no way do I have any notion of "converting" others for I am making this up as I go along and so was just sharing my thoughts on what I think should work for me.

Running seems to be an essential part of my health and fitness regime. I love running and sometimes I NEED to run so there is never going to be a discussion of not running. I have this weird, abusive dysfunctional, love and hate relationship with the "long run". So by putting my thoughts out in cyber space, I am seeing how does it sound on e paper as opposed to just inside my head. Or to put this another way, I have found that I like training for marathons as much or more then actually running them. Having said that, I have a psychological need to actually register for one and so I am searching for ways to actually enjoy the training and the race but to do so as "safely" as possible and at a level that it makes it worth the accomplishment. I could probably go until October 12 and not do anything more then 10 K and finish that marathon but for me, what would be the point. But having said that, I am searching for ways to keep the challenge but move exhausted to tired, etc. Aside from that, I get bored and curious. After the last long run I was both exhausted and hyped up and so unable to sleep, I thought, why do we run 20 miles for the long run. I knew there some magic to that number but really thought that given this is the benefit of intervals, the benefit of ... that there would be some study that says if you run 16 miles, for example, that you will get 85% of the benefit. Instead and much to my surprise there was no causation studies but anecdotal correlation. And most of that is for elite athletes such as yourself and what few studies there are about the average recreational runner, that correlation is rather weak or at least in dispute.

And with the recent studies about running too much, as several observers noted, that someone running more then 20 miles per week is really doing that for reasons other then related to health and fitness. For me, health and fitness tends to be a happy coincidence BUT with my search for balance and perspective, do I really need to punish myself or am I just being deluded to think or even contemplate running a marathon without at least one 18 - 20 mile run? I do appreciate your observations and that of Rayman that confirms this is more a matter of choice then an absolute requirement. And what better way to test that then on a site where most people are looking for more ways to run, to add on the miles rather then take a "short cut" for lack of a better term.

I need to add that some of my best problem solving for personal issues is at the end of long runs. The pain and suffering, the fatigue tends to clear one's mind and provide a certain clarity hard to find any other way. And the long runs got me to Boston twice and I can proudly say that in the July 2012 I ran over 500 kilometers in a month. So this is not a search for better or the traditional long run is "bad" but how can I modify something that is good but attempt to make it better for me and for me alone.

[Jogger Barbie]

I have this weird, abusive dysfunctional, love and hate relationship with the "long run".

I love this sentence. It sums it up so perfectly!

[Jwolf]

(3) Total weekly mileage is almost always better correlated with marathon performance than the details of the longest runs. A lot of recreational runners have difficulty running much during weekdays, so without the long runs on weekends, they would really be lacking in overall mileage.

For those who are going to debate the merits of the long run as part of a marathon plan, I think this is the most important point. The long run alone isn't what makes or breaks the plan, but it's the thing that stands out for many recreational runners as what separates marathon training from "just running." The Hanson plan shortens the long run to 16 miles, or 26K, and only has three of those-- at first glance this may seem like it will in no way prepare you for a marathon. But looking at the plan in more detail reveals that it's a plan with decent weekly mileage that exceeds or matches many of the advanced plans, including midweek runs that get into the 16-21K range. The plan didn't work for me but that was partly because I did not give myself enough time to adapt to the demands of the overall mileage (as well as other factors unrelated to mileage). It has worked really well for a few people who I know, including Rob who claims he'll never run longer than a 26K training run again (and at his pace that's under 2.5 hours).

p.s. all of ian's other points were good too.

[Dstew]

(3) Total weekly mileage is almost always better correlated with marathon performance than the details of the longest runs. A lot of recreational runners have difficulty running much during weekdays, so without the long runs on weekends, they would really be lacking in overall mileage.

For those who are going to debate the merits of the long run as part of a marathon plan, I think this is the most important point. The long run alone isn't what makes or breaks the plan, but it's the thing that stands out for many recreational runners as what separates marathon training from "just running." The Hanson plan shortens the long run to 16 miles, or 26K, and only has three of those-- at first glance this may seem like it will in no way prepare you for a marathon. But looking at the plan in more detail reveals that it's a plan with decent weekly mileage that exceeds or matches many of the advanced plans, including midweek runs that get into the 16-21K range. The plan didn't work for me but that was partly because I did not give myself enough time to adapt to the demands of the overall mileage (as well as other factors unrelated to mileage). It has worked really well for a few people who I know, including Rob who claims he'll never run longer than a 26K training run again.

p.s. all of ian's other points were good too.

This was not really meant to be a debate or to convert anyone or to advocate one thing or another but a my reaction to a long run that from a physiological perspective was not even in my top ten of bad long runs but where I had a very brutal psychological reaction. I could be and very likely react to training much differently then a textbook might suggest I should and that is neither good or bad but just the way it is. For example, in preparing for the 2012 Victoria marathon I had 500 K in the month of July alone and for the June 337.6, August 396.5 and 284.4 in September. I was running 5- 6 days a week and sometime doubles and at sea level, ran a 3:47:50

For the 2013 Calgary marathon, my peak month was just under 180 k and I was cross training 2 -3 times a week. My time was 3:50:47.

Correlation is not the same as causation and if you believe the marathon convertor website, the 3:47 in Victoria translates into a 4:05 in Calgary and thus I cut my mileage in half and by one measure actually ran the race much faster and by the other measure, roughly the same.

Having said that, I am not saying long runs are not important or that the longer long runs do not serve a purpose. By the crudest of calculations, if you assume a long run will contribute to 15% of one's marathon performance and you reduce your long run by 22% with all other things being equal, then this would translate into around 8 minutes slower for a 4 hour marathoner. But my approach was not to make Boston where we have real life examples as to how much the impact of a few minutes or someone going for a personal best or to run under 4 hours, etc or merely to run a marathon as fast as their body would allow. But instead what is the "magic" number of miles that one has to run in order to achieve enough physiological benefit that they can both enjoy training and run a decent marathon with relatively low health risks. This also includes only running 2 or 3 other times per week with some cross training as I have tried the Hanson Method and I can see why it works as effectively as it does but it took way too much out of me for me to stick with it. I actually found it easier to run 80 - 100 K per week with 32 + K long runs and almost no speed work then to do a typical Hanson week. And as noted above, I could not find that magic number. Yes there are coaches who will say 25 K or 32 K or some such as Galloway who may even suggest 26 or more miles but from a scientific perspective, I could find nothing regards to miles. There are studies that show the fastest runners do the most miles but as several observers have noted, that is a correlation and not necessarily a causation. Whose who can run lots of miles do and even more important are genetics and train-ability. For mortals, especially those doing their first marathon, some studies have shown little or no correlation between finishing time and mileage. Mileage seems to matter most for the middle of pack in the first few marathons after the first one but then experience and genetics is much more important. Having said that, conventional wisdom and training methods first developed in the 1960s and 1970s continue to be followed with some modifications because they work. People run to that magically 32 K because it works but for me, been there and done that, time not a significant issue and thus my search, my discussion was to what will work. Not what can I do or would be nice to do but what do I NEED to do.

After this discussion had ceased, I happened across an article by Jack Daniel. He suggested 2.5 - 3 hours for the long run. His suggestion and what little research is done on this matter would seem to point to the fact that one gets most of the benefit after 90 - 120 minutes of running. That go to 150 - 180 minutes for the specificity of the marathon and you have "damaged" your body enough to allow for adaptation and super compensation and the laws of diminishing returns and risk of injury or damage that impairs one's further training are not worth benefits. Or at least not for someone NOT looking to qualify for Boston or ...

This weekend was the first test of a slightly modified Hanson method. Ran a hard 9 K race with a 6 K "cool down" run that followed. Then did a hilly 19 K run for around 2 hours and completely subjective and unscientific, it felt that was enough. I had some thoughts of going 25 K and tackling some even nastier hills but at the end of the run I felt I had done more then enough. And I was able to play nine holes of golf today and finished with a great par save and a 15 feet birdie so this long run discussion is also what is the distance of long run I NEED or HAVE to do in order to complete a marathon and make it a worthwhile achievement and accomplishment as it still has to be challenge and "hard" but where in the summer I can play 2 or more rounds of golf a week or in the winter be able to do 3 resistance training sessions. I appreciate who unique this discussion is as I am asking runners who have taken the time to sign up and participate on a site dedicated to running as to how I can do less running.

[Jwolf]

I didn't mean debate in a right/wrong sense, but just in your evaluation of what is right for yourself.

I think what Ian said makes sense, which is you know what works for you so just go for it. You don't really have to follow a plan or a method because you already have enough marathon experience. But if you're worried about needing the adaptation of the longer runs, then you can probably be satisfied to know that it is NOT necessary to do runs longer than 2.5 hours. Incidentally, the Hanson recommendations are partly based on the Daniels long run limit recommendations (including keeping the long run 25% or less than total weekly mileage). But depending on what the rest of your week looks like, longer long runs may be helpful for you. Both physiologically and psychologically.

This weekend was the first test of a slightly modified Hanson method. Ran a hard 9 K race with a 6 K "cool down" run that followed. Then did a hilly 19 K run for around 2 hours and completely subjective and unscientific, it felt that was enough. I had some thoughts of going 25 K and tackling some even nastier hills but at the end of the run I felt I had done more then enough. ....

Well, just like you can't take look at the long run in isolation when evaluating a plan, you can't really modify the Hanson plan, jump in in the middle, and test it out. The speed work and tempos are carefully designed to fit in with the rest of the 4-month plan.

p.s. If you are going to discount my opinion since I'm the only one in this thread who hasn't qualified for Boston, I will clarify that the person I mentioned has qualified for Boston twice and got substantially faster on the Hanson plan than his previous plans. But he was also doing more weekly mileage overall than before, so it's not really a linear comparison.

[MichaelMc]

Correlation is not the same as causation and if you believe the marathon convertor website, the 3:47 in Victoria translates into a 4:05 in Calgary and thus I cut my mileage in half and by one measure actually ran the race much faster and by the other measure, roughly the same.

That comparison caught my eye: I wonder where they come up with numbers like this? IMO is a ridiculous comparison. One site I found suggests almost eight minutes for the course and almost 8 minutes for the weather. I make Victoria and Calgary nearly the same difficulty based on runners times I know: Calgary can be warm, but Victoria is often Windy.

I find people give course differences a lot more time than they deserve, but oddly tend to underestimate the effect of weather on the day they're running.

Psychological effect of training regimes certainly is one of those factors which is highly individual. We can debate physical effects with logic and evidence, but how it affects you personally is something which is worth considering but not worth debating.

[Dstew]

Correlation is not the same as causation and if you believe the marathon convertor website, the 3:47 in Victoria translates into a 4:05 in Calgary and thus I cut my mileage in half and by one measure actually ran the race much faster and by the other measure, roughly the same.

That comparison caught my eye: I wonder where they come up with numbers like this? IMO is a ridiculous comparison. One site I found suggests almost eight minutes for the course and almost 8 minutes for the weather. I make Victoria and Calgary nearly the same difficulty based on runners times I know: Calgary can be warm, but Victoria is often Windy.

I find people give course differences a lot more time than they deserve, but oddly tend to underestimate the effect of weather on the day they're running.

Psychological effect of training regimes certainly is one of those factors which is highly individual. We can debate physical effects with logic and evidence, but how it affects you personally is something which is worth considering but not worth debating.

The weather was roughly the same and Victoria was a little easier but not by the time they suggested and hence why I only put it out there that with 50% less mileage I had the same or "better" results. And related to your second point, this is not to argue that one should take my hypothesis as even a theory and should add that your results may vary and please do not try this at home.

Even if I wanted to "debate" the physical effects, other then anecdotal evidence, there does not seem to be much science, study or research as to how far the "long" run needs to be other then it is at least 90 -120 minutes. Some programs suggest as little as 20% of any week should be a long run and on the other end of the spectrum, I see the FIRST program has weeks of 3- 4.6 miles of intervals, 6 miles of tempo and 20 miles on the long run. And Daniels and others are suggesting for more recreational runners, 2.5 - 3 hours for the long run rather then mileage and programs seem to go from 16 miles to 28 miles. Logic would seem to dictate that the more miles one can run without adversely affecting the rest of the training, the better. And having said that, I really do need to add that your results may vary and please do not try this at home.

Or to put this another way, my hypothesis is that with my modified expectations and "targets" for the marathon, that some hard 25 K runs and not significantly changing the frequency or duration of the other runs, this should fit with my overall fitness goals and workouts and there is no complying scientific evidence to the contrary. It goes without saying that I will not be running up to my ability/ capability using this approach but I am hoping that some of the unpleasant side affects of my previous marathon training can be avoided. And it will allow me the time and more importantly, the energy to pursue other activities. As I have completed a number of 30 - 32 K runs already so I am not sure the October marathon will produce a valid conclusion that applies to me and maybe even just me alone. But I am interested to see how such an approach works out next June. I had been doing 40 K runs as it seemed to prepare both my mind and body for the out coming race so not only skipping that run but the 30 - 32 K runs will cause some anxiety. But experiment of one and if I do crash and burn and limp across the finish line, then I still get the same medal and prize money then if I had pursued a more conventional approach. Worst case, after the one in June I will have run 10 marathons and it maybe too much for me to do.

[MichaelMc]

The effect of long runs, overall mileage, pace of your average run and speedwork all factor into training. The challenge when your goal is getting faster is building a program which keeps you healthy while creating enough of the right stress to get your body to rebuild itself better, stronger, faster.

There is an inherent trade-off when you're training hard; going harder one place requires you to go easier somewhere else or you'll break down. Taking it easier in one area may allow you to put emphasis somewhere else which might produce better results. Hansons go for overall mileage and speed, giving in the areas of long run and pace on easy runs. Galloway emphasizes the long run and trades off... everything else.

There are lots of ways that "work" as long as you're stretching your abilities on some days and recovering enough: find one that makes you happy.

[Dstew]

There are lots of ways that "work" as long as you're stretching your abilities on some days and recovering enough: find one that makes you happy.

I had been struggling to find the right words to describe what I was looking for and these ones will do nicely.


I want to continue to stretch and challenge myself. But working off of your theme, if my body is a rubber band, I am no longer interested in pulling it has tight and long as I can to see how far it can fly or even to the point it snaps but still want to stretch it far enough that it does still fly and not limply falls to the ground.