i could give you a exemple of 3 athletes i have coach recently for ironman:

all of them ran under 3:25 for a ironman. Fastest was 3:07
-none of them ran more than 2h for there long run
-all of them splitted there long running day with 2h run in am..follow by another 40-50min run in evening

all of them recovered much quicker this way so they could put a solid training day follow there big running day.
They all stayed injury free, allowing consistancy
The quality, pace of both run combine would have been faster than 1 long run.

while the adaptation of breaking a long run into segement isn't the same as a full long run, it will often be a very advantageous way to process to get the best results possible.

of course, all this depend of what your background and fitness level is but splitting long run is something i do a lot with me athletes and there experiment seems to be positive!

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

It's one way to skin the cat, but obviously your metabolism in the 2nd run of day will switch to less fatty acids (unless you do not eat after the 1st run)... and that does not simulate your metabolism during a single long run.

You certainly can and I would suggest it. Although I do mine within a much shorter window.

Running 3hrs straight would turn into a death march for me..... so I do 2hrs, put my legs up for maybe 15-30min while I put down some calories/fluids, then run the last hour. It still isn't easy, but the quality is much higher, and much more physically/mentally tolerable. Plus I highly doubt physically that it's any different than running 3 straight, actually rather better

Difficult to answer without pace information.

If you are a fast runner then there is no need to run longer than 2h30m for your IM prep.

If you are going to be out there all day then you'll want to do some longer run/walk sessions.



If you are going to be somewhere inbetween, do something in between.

---

#######
My Blog

BIG fan of the split LR... :)

D

---

Team Every Man Jack

http://www.teamemj.com

They may be splitting up their long day but they are still doing a decent long run in the morning. For someone running around 3:00 for a marathon. 2 hour long run=15+ miles.

IMO, splitting a long run loses some of the benefit of doing run (experience fueling, maintaining time on your feet) but you still retain the benefit of the weekly mileage you are maintaining

Quote:

Training for an early season IM. At the point where my long runs are close to the 2 hour range.


Do you get the same benefit from splitting up a long run as you would from just running long?

I ran twice today, first run harder than the second. Felt great during the second run. At this point, a big fan, but am interested in facts/studies/experiences that compare the two. Anyone care to point me to any of these?

For me, it just seemed less taxing overall.

Thanks!

I won't say for certain that it wouldn't work, but that it is an uncommon training practice. So if you do this, you will be experiementing with an unproven training technique.

Regarding Johnny's athletes, they are splitting them up, but still getting in a weekly 2 hour run.


In my personal opinion regarding the long run, especially if training for a marathon or an IM, you want to conservatively push the limits of what your body can handle, but not at the expense of requiring significantly extra recovery.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

As jonnyo and others have said, I think it can be beneficial for higher volume programs. Haven't seen any research on it, and the traditional advice is to avoid it, but it works in elite marathon training programs where the runners are always running 2-3 times most days. I never run more than 2 hours for my IM training, but that 2 hour run might be sandwhiched between two hard bike/swim session days with easy runs and followed by a 40' cooldown swim and possibly even a hard swim later in the day. Have been considering experimenting with it for my girlfriends marathon training as I want her to be fresher for the faster sessions while still giving her enough long running time for mental confidence.

---

-Bryan Journey
Travel Blog | Training Blog | Facebook Page

Fast = what?

Apologies - I was trying to be brief.

Fast is under 3 hours (open marathon).

Slow is over 4 hours (open marathon).

---

#######
My Blog

"but it works in elite marathon training programs where the runners are always running 2-3 times most days"

I don't think it's wise to compare an age group triathlete's training to an elite marathoner. Those elite marathoners might never run more than 2-2.5 hours, but that's because in that amount of time they are easily completing 20+ miles.

---

---

Portside Athletics Blog

Damm it. I'm officially slow now as my only open marathon was a 4:10. In my defense I was injured (back injury) and it was on trails. Leading up to it I was estimating around 3:40-3:45. Oh well. I'll keep trying.

---

------------------------------
"Unless you have a ... GF who might put out that night and that night only ... skip it and race." - AndyPants 3-15-2007

I wouldn't say officially slow.
Slow according to a random person's generalization based on a specific question regarding time limited Iron-distance triathlon training.

---

#######
My Blog

yep, I did this for my IMMT '13. 90min easy in the AM then 90min as a 45min out&back negative split in the PM. As I got fitter/faster through IM training the mileage increased, but time stayed the same. My biggest mileage ended up being 24, but it was 12mi/12mi separated by 12hrs so I never felt like I ran 24mi the day after. I thought the negative split was crucial since it taught me to run hard on tired legs. It was also way less taxing on my schedule since 90min is way easier to fit in before/after work than 3hrs and you don't have cram your long bike and long run into a weekend and start the week off on dead legs.

Overall, yes, I'm a huge fan of this.

You know I like to train ...... a lot. And I am pretty motivated.
But let's consider:
Morning run- 2 hrs (faster than my standard long run)- 17 miles.
Afternoon run- 40 minutes (also faster than long run)- 5.5 miles.
Total- 22.5 miles.

And this is easier on body than?
Morning- 22 miles relaxed (2:45 hr)
Afternoon- couch lay, or nap

Or better yet:
Morning- 30 minute trainer ride, followed by 19 mile relaxed jog
(2:50). (I think that means 30 less riding next week).
Afternoon-couch lay or nap.

I am not debating that that the two a day long run is better.
But easier? Or more convenient?

Yes. Next question.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

YMMV, I think either way is beneficial as the stimulus is probably the same. I just found it easier for me to fit into my family/work schedule. Also, I just got really bored on runs over 2 hrs.

If OP is interested, he could alternate single long run and split long run each week to get a feel for how his body responds. Either way, he'll get some solid training in.

I think this is good advice. On top of the race pacing, I think training pacing plays into this as well. A 3 hour z1 run will certainly be a lot easier to recover from than a 3 hour race pace run. It will also probably benefit you more too.

---

Paul
Current Top 2:
7 Things Non-cyclists Should Know About Road Cycling
The GORUCK Challenge Ruined My Life

x2 on everything that Jonnyo said. Also in a busy age grouper schedule, it might be easier to bang out 1:40 early morning before work and say another 50 min a lunch time or right after work. You don't have to squander your large blocks of time on running as you need those larger blocks of time for cycling which is generally more time consuming. I feel the time management aspect is generally where more age groupers fail the most and that's why many end up on the one and done program, because they make the Ironman training process too taxing on work and family life. I am not saying it is not, but there are many ways to skin the cat and get it all done with far less impact on day to day life. Splitting the running into a variety of smaller training slots in the week pretty well achieves the same outcome for a given total mileage. You can split your 40-50 mile running week into 3-4 slots or 8-10 and you're probably going to run the exact same run split on race day.

What sort of consistent weekly mileage are you doing?

In an n=1 example... I did the two runs instead of one long run for my last IM and didn't think it hurt or benefited my training. However, I think it mentally did not prepare me for racing IM.

This year, I'll do the split runs in the beginning of my season to keep up mileage without breaking down and then towards the end, I'll start doing every other week 1 long instead of split. That way I can manage my schedule to maximize the recovery needed from running 20-22 miles but not have to manage it every single week.

I was thinking that the hierarchy of pain is not intuitive. Or at least not the same for all athletes. And too much pain is bad. Gotta get the right amount.

I would rank the hardest workouts people do in this order: 1) long run with fast finish, 2) long ride with surges or with fast finish, 3) longish tempo or interval run (any thing hard over 8 miles), 4) that 2 x 20 tempo bike ride or 3 x 20, 5) easy long run, 6) easy long ride.

The first 2 workouts are very hard and hard to recover from. And are not the first priority for most athletes.
Workouts 3 and 4 are also very hard, however, but I think they ARE a high priority. The easy long run and long ride, are actually easier in my opinion than hard tempo or interval workouts. And are NOT any harder to recover from.

Now, could one replace both the weekly tempo run and the weekly long run- with a split 2 a day moderately hard long run? That might be easier overall.