IMO: Simple answer. No.

Reason: To me volume is key. If you race long course, volume is king. Plus, your long runs are supposed to be slower than your shorter runs. If you can do your long runs at a higher pace (but still aerobic), great... but it's typically not necessary.

Not junk miles. It may be even better that you're doing your long run on an already tired body. Long runs are for building endurance, not speed, so starting tired may just be (probably is, imho) a plus.

Whether the miles are junk or not depends on your form and how it is affected by fatigue. The last thing you want is allow yourself to always do long runs with tired legs/bad form as this is what your body will naturally slip back into during races. This logic is widely accepted in the swimming world but tends to get ignored when it comes to running. It also touches on the issue of bricks, which strongly divides ST opinion, but its better to have targeted quality sessions than just pound out the miles. Sloppy running also fosters injuries very quickly which won't help the situation. It sounds like you would have no problem going sub-2hr for 13.1 which means finishing a marathon shouldn't be an issue. I would guess you will see better speed gains if you used speed rather than distance as a target i.e. extend you 8.40ish runs (even if only by a few minutes every week) rather than force yourself through 13 miles.

I'd wager no as well ------ just curious though, what's your total weekly run mileage?

---

Want: 58cm Cervelo Soloist. PM me if you have one to sell

Vintage Cervelo: A Resource

Thanks for the reply!
But what do I do on my "long run" day?
My weekly volume is about 30 miles, if I run less on long run, it will drop more and it will not be enough volume to me. I am below average runner, and keeping the 30 mi a week helps me a little bit.

Currently I have 3 running workouts: long 12mi at 9:00, endurance - 10 mi at 8:45, and speed intervals/tempos - 4-5-6mi at 8:00

No way that long run is "junk" but you're not running enough. Three days/wk of running is just too few. Can you not squeeze in a 30 min run on 3 of your current 4 non-running days??? Just run 30 min after 3 of your bike workouts; you are already dressed out and sweaty so just pull on your running shoes and go. That would give you about 10 more mi and put you up to 40 mi/wk. Also, why not make your "long" run longer, like 20 mi since you're going for an IM, and make the rest of your runs shorter, e.g. (1 x 20) + (5 x 4) = 40. Of course, you don't have to all 5 short runs at 4 mi but could vary between 2 and 6.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Shorter run bricks will come later in my plan.
My plan does not call for 30 min run after bike, but only 10-15 min. It should add 30-45 min to my running time and make total run workouts 5, not 3 like this month.

Longer runs, maybe not 20, but 16-18 miles will come later too, I normally do not run it the distance, but for the time, 2:30-45 max for IM race. And this "very long" run is not every week, but when my bike miles are less.
I am currently on week zero, my week 1 will start next Monday.

I am in the base period for couple more weeks. My main concern that my "junk miles" (if they are junk) will not add anything, or add very little to my running fitness.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...Junk_miles_1444.html

thanks, this is interesting.

I just wonder if my pace felt from 9-ish to 9:15-ish should I worry or not

Are you using a GPS? What is the error margin on those units measuring pace?

idk my 13mi run heart rate is around 170 i would def crank it up

yes, but I do not believe the GPS is a problem, I feel slow.

No way, it is an easy run. I would stay in average HR 135, maybe 140 for these runs.

mmmk!! i don't do easy runs personally so i would scrap it unless you enjoy it but that's just me!!!

It's better for your body if you do less miles and get better sleep recovery is as important a part of training as the miles you put in

I will take a rest week, then I will see if it helps

I agree w/ the ideas in Dan's article linked above. For most people, there's no such thing as "junk miles", since most people never get enough miles period:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

The problem with Dan's article is that it fundamentally glazes over why so many top age runners get 'burnt to cinders' and the effect this has on their longer term athletic performance. I agree with the idea that 'junk miles' is the wrong term as any miles add to improvement BUT only up until the point those miles drive you over the edge and you get burnt out. You are clearly expressing symptoms of being burnout which is completely reasonable and should not be glazed over in endurance sports. As Dan states in the article you start with maybe 25 excellent runners and the 'junk miles' sorts out the best 8-10 but that means at the same time those 'junk miles' have led to the downfall of 15+ top athletes, and trust me not making the cut takes all the fun out of the sport. As an age grouper you need to still enjoy the sport even if that means skipping a few workouts that are 'necessary' to become a top athlete. Burning out is real, ugly, and pretty much a certainty if you follow some of the advice given on this thread in terms of increasing mileage, number of runs ect. Counter to what many on here seem to imply it is totally possible to do an IM on less than 7 workouts/10hrs of training a week as long as that training is occasionally supplemented with longer (4+hr) rides, which I find near the limit of what life allows me. I rarely run more than twice a week and can still go 5hr over 70.3 so remember to keep everything in context.

If you're getting slower whilst running regularly I would guess you are not paying enough attention to recovery.

Do you run more quickly than 8:45? There isn't much variation in pace which you may want to think about introducing. Rather than junk miles I would consider some of them suboptimal if you're running all week at the same pace.

At worst a slow run will still burn calories and most likely help strengthen your tendons and it allows you a chance to practice good running form.

Your post assumes that "so many top age runners" get "burnt to cinders". I just don't see that any more in top aged runners than I do in mid-pack aged runners. Age catches up to all of us and performance in impact sports like running suffers more than it does in cycling and swimming. People who run through injury have shorter running lives than those who don't.

Yes I do, on tempo or interval runs my average pace is about 8:00
And to me this is a huge difference if I run 8:45 and 9:10.

No such thing as "junk miles". There are definitely miles and paces that are less than optimal for your training, but every mile counts, in some way, shape, or form...

So ~ 6.6mph at your slowest and 7.5mph at your fastest (a 14% increase)? I would recommend you vary over time so that over the long term your longer runs become slower so that you can run harder on your intense days.

dado0583 does his most intense track sessions (e.g. 800/1600 metres repeats) about 50-75% faster than his long runs (13 miles+). Referred to myself in the third person to lend more credibility to the statement. I've seen encouraging results so far this year (at least my 10k and marathon times are coming down). Here's a runners world article related to varying intensity.

How you would implement that into your training plan depends on your running background and when your IM is. If you're 6-12 weeks away you wouldn't want to do anything drastic, but if it's not until November you could gradually vary the intensity and then 8-12 weeks before the race you could start doing more race-specific intensity.