It depends. You run about the same pace as my wife and I've advised her to build her long run to 21 miles or 3 hours which ever happens first - but I only think she should do one that long (time wise) with the rest being capped at 2:45.

3 hours is a LONG time to be on your feet - there was a good thread a while back about how for 90% of the population running over 2:30 for IM training was not worth it.




Looks like it was by dev and he advise 2 hours....

I agree mostly, but my number is roughly 2:30ish - as long as it's not going to mess up your ability to back it up the next workout.

Just my 2 cents. I think that the difference is big and doing 3 hrs will be all positive. I have never been overly concerned with the time for a long run but rather the mileage. Runs always seem to get exponentially harder after 15 miles for me. Meaning that 18 is a lot harder than 16. I try to run a couple of 18's and a 20 to prepare for a marathon. Mentally that makes it easier for me to deal with on race day. 2:30 at a 9:20 pace will only get you to 16, that will leave an additional 10 plus to deal with on race day. Remember at a 9:20 pace 26.2 will take a bit over 4 hours. Seems like a 3 hour long run is a good idea.

To add to chris' statement -


I like to think that I can run for about 45 to 60 minutes on pure guts - so I try and train myself to be able to really run well and get me to the point where running on guts crosses the finish line.

this has been my philosophy in the past; i have always believed what you say and practiced it.
but i don't want to train this way if it is an old method that is not as effective as another way.
additionally, my pace is slower--perhaps most people are running faster than 9:30's in long runs, therefore they cover more ground, i'm not sure.


truthfully, i know this topic has been discussed at length here. but i do not understand the difference 30 minutes makes.

16-18 seems huge. 18-20 even bigger, even though it's just a matter of a few miles; it certainly doesn't feel this way.

lastly, i agree, i can run the last 45 minutes on guts and out of stubborn attitude. if i run into that "45 minutes on guts" around mile 16, i'll be in trouble.

You should run as long as you can without trashing your legs so much that it really affects your workouts the next week. If you can run 3 hours and recover enough by Tuesday to do a decent workout, then go for it. If you run 3 hours and your legs are so tired that you can't ride or bike well the Tuesday and Wednesday afterwards, then you are probably running too long.

Those are the same splits I ran when training for IMMOO and USA. I always got up to 20 miles (once 22). It took longer than three hours but it was a goal that I wanted to achieve during training. In retrospect (not doing an IM this year), the extra mile or two on the long run was probably not as important for me as putting in extra miles on the bike.

What about "bouncing" between 2 and 3 hours ?? 3 hours one week, 2 hours the next ... repeat. The long one is a bit more stress, the short one easier to recover from ... I've done this in IM and marathon training: Not a believer in extra-long rides and runs week in and week out.

Another option is 60-min. spin + 2 hour run brick. Same aerobic benefit, just not as stressful on the legs ...

yes, i like this idea. i'll be at 2 hours this week (today actually), and will build up to 3. once i'm there i can just alternate.

over winter we did 90 minutes, then 120 minutes, alternating weekly, and it seemed to be good way to train. i'm doing the same on the bike--100 miles on one weekend day, alternated with 2 weekend days of 3 to 4 hour rides. (example: week a) Sunday 100 mile ride; week b) Saturday 3 hours and Sunday 4 hours; repeate this alternation of a and b)

I understand what dev and others are driving at and they certainly know more about it than I do. That said, running long seems to be as much of a mental exercise for me than a physical one. You are going to be tired and hurting after running for x number of miles especially in an IM. Knowing that I have run x number of miles x number of times seems to help with the mental games needed to push myself to keep running.

Seems like the philosophy expressed by those advocating shorter long runs is that you will likely be walking/shuffling anyhow so why bother. That may be true but seems like never running more than 2 hours, or 2.5 or whatever seems like a training plan to guarantee it will happen.

While not a perfect analogy, I was talking to my sister after she did her first half at tupper lake a couple of weeks ago. She said that she was tired after the bike [who isn't] and was getting freaked out by the prospect of running 13.1. She said that the mental game of, I have run x number of marathons and in training for each of those I ran 20 at least once and 16-18 x number of times, hell I have run much farther than 13 so many times, I can do this. The point is that having run far in training helps give the edge in the mental war that you will fight when your body wants to stop and sit down. For some of us that takes more that just thinking HTFU and run :)

FWIW, I haven't prescribed a long run longer than 2.5hrs in about 4 years. 3hr run, especially on Sundays, is very old school, in my opinion. Rather, I focus on 4x runs/wk for most of the season with 5, sometimes 6 per week in race prep.

Pressing "play" in my head, having discussed this many times during phone consults and camps:

• You should think of volume as time, not distance. Your reference to an 18 mile run is a big red flag to me.
  
• If I said we were going or a 2.5-3hr ride, is there a material difference, in your mind, between those two? Is there a material aerobic benefit from riding 3hrs vs 2.5? Like not, or not much. Ergo, there is not much material aerobic benefit from running 3hrs vs 2.5.
• If you've run 2.5 hrs and run 3hrs, you know the difference between the two is that you're significantly more beat up after the later. There is very much an "I get it now...can I stop" thing going on. So while I'm realize that the last miles of an IM run are similar to slamming my head into a wall, I believe that 3hrs vs 2.5hrs is simply a matter of degrees. Not sure I need to whack my head for an extra 30' if I get it at 2.5hrs.
  
• Run on tired legs, learn what it feels like, and similar arguments: NO long run comes close to what you'll feel like at the start of the IM run, much less mile 18, where it gets hard. You just have to trust me when I say if you do it my way you'll be prepared for that last 8 miles.
  

Again, I've been doing it this way for several years with great results. Here is something from my inbox. There is more about HIM and other PR's but I particularly proud of his marathon results:


Hi Rich,
You asked for race reports from folks using your training plans, etc. Prior to using your training plan this year (Advanced IM with Power); I used my own plan for the past 4 years. The major differences I’ve found are the fact that your workouts are much more structured. For example, I used to just go out and ride for 6 hours but now I’m doing different intervals, etc. during the long rides with your plan. Also, I used to always ride super long on Saturday and run super long on Sunday instead of spacing the long workouts a few days apart. Lastly, most of my runs used to be about the same pace, probably because I was always so tired from riding before running. I think doing the stride workouts early on during the season and working in some faster intervals, even during the long runs has really helped me out. I’ve also worked on my running form to minimize my heel striking which has also helped me out.
Anyway, I’m very pleased thus far with your plan and my progress. My A race is IM Wisconsin in September.
Here are my results thus far:
Delaware marathon, 20 May 2007.
Prior to running this race, my longest run was 13 miles but I had been doing the stride workouts, etc. since starting your plan in mid-March. I went to the race with the intention of running 15 or 20 miles then dropping out. I was mainly there to support my wife who was running her first marathon. I ran the first 15 miles in a little under 2 hours so I figured I’d keep going and do 20 miles (the course was a 10-mile loop followed by three 5.4 mile loops). At mile 20.8 I was just under 2:30 and thought to myself “holy #$%%&, if I keep this pace up I’ll qualify for Boston.” So, I kept running. Ended up with a 3:11 which qualifies me for Boston and was also 12 minutes faster than my previous PR. I probably could have gone a little faster but I wasn’t pushing too hard (heart rate was in zone 2 for ~90% of the time with lower zone 3 at the end) and I also had to stop to pee twice. My pace was very constant the whole race which is unusual since I always die in the last 6 miles.
------------------------------------------

---

Rich Strauss
Endurance Nation Ironman 2013 and 2014 World Champion TriClub, Div I
Create a FREE 7-day trial membership

thank you, thank you.
this is exactly what i was looking for.

i'll follow your advice and leave it at 2.5.
and no, i would not believe there to be much different between 2.5 on the bike and 3.0 on the bike. however, on the run seems very different; perhaps that is just an old way of thinking.

additionally, i'm doing the long run on Wed or Thur and have consistently ridden strong long rides on the weekend because of that.

do you happen to have plans for cycling (road racing?)

There is a difference on the run, no doubt, but the difference is pain. In short, the recovery cost of the session increases exponentially above 2.5hrs and it creates all kinds of problems with managing workouts downstream, especially when it's typically done as Saturday long ride followed by Sunday long run. I first, years ago, capped the long run at 2.5hrs and then about 2yrs separated the two events by 48hrs. That + the increase run frequency + decreased cycling volume + increased cycling intensity have yielded great results for my folks.

I don't know personally know any quality IM coaches who are regularly prescribing 3hr runs. There may be the odd special case, and I've had VERY few of those, where I'll make an exception.

Nope, no cycling plans but I may fire something up after things slow down for me.

--------------------------

---

Rich Strauss
Endurance Nation Ironman 2013 and 2014 World Champion TriClub, Div I
Create a FREE 7-day trial membership

awesome; thanks so much!!!

i will do what you say!

Great advice from Rich. I'll just throw in the Counterpart Coaching theorem as a slight contrast. Mitch/Scott/et al suggest that you toggle between a long run placed mid-week building up to 2.5 hours with a week that involves 3 x 90M in reasonable succession (e.g., 3 out of 4 or 5 days). This is an evolution of the Gordo protocol which is 3 x 60M within 2 days.

i agree with running mid-week! and the succession of 60-90 minute runs if very interesting as well...i'd have to think how that would apply to me, but can see the volume with combination of some rest would give a surge of fitness.

consider trying this: splitting the run up so you run 2.5 hrs in the morning and then 30 or maybe 45mins at lunchtime? you might find you get in more time/miles and you certainly won't feel as trashed the next day.

---

-----------------------------------------------
www.true-motion.com Triathlete Casual Wear since 2007
(Twitter/FB)

That's an interesting protocol, I might experiment with that. My mid-week structure as evolved to:

Tues brick after bike interval session. Brick is a brick for time efficiency purposes, most of the season. About 30-45'
Wed hilly tempo run, 45-70'
Thurs long run with half marathon to 10k pace intervals in the second half. Max 2.5hrs but usually 1:45 to 2:00 for most of the season.
No run Fri, Sat, brick run Sun, no run Monday. Add brick to Sat bike (making 5x/wk total) in race prep. Studs get a 6th run Mon but it's easy, with Strides first then
Steady with excellent form.

--------------------

---

Rich Strauss
Endurance Nation Ironman 2013 and 2014 World Champion TriClub, Div I
Create a FREE 7-day trial membership

I think a realistsic and worthy goal should be to run as many high quality 1.5 to 2 hour runs as possible each week(the caveat is that you need to be able to bang out 1 hour runs day after day, without getting too tired or hurt). If you want to do a 2.5 or 3 hour run for the mental benefit, then go right ahead, but a steady diet of 2 hour runs seems like a nice trade-off, particularly for IM training.

I have done more 2 hour runs this year than I ever have before leading up to a key race--marathon or ironman. I did one 2.5 hour run recently and a longer 21 mile brick workout a few months ago for preparation for IMLP, but that was it. Hopefully this new approach will work for me this year!

---

"I really wish you would post more often. You always have some good stuff to say. I copied it below just in case someone missed it." BarryP to Chainpin on 10/21/06

i can run for an hour consistently, but much beyond that i start to get achy (ie, i can run 60 minutes repeatedly, but put it to 70 and the ITB acts up, etc etc etc)

My longest run is 2h45 (18 miles or so)
The longest I run in a day is 2h50 (20 miles) split into somehting like 1h50/2h00 in the morning & then whatever during lunch time to make it to 2h50.
Other than that very very few 2H+ runs... However I try to run at least 5/sometimes 7 times per week. so I can spend time on the bike....
Run frequency is very important...

Cheers,
Fred

It appears that most advocates of running by time are faster runners. My first running coach was like that. Her plan called for the longest run to be 2.5 hours. The major difference was that she could finish a marathon in 2.5 hours, whereas I would be around 16-17 miles. Major difference IMO. If I had limited myself to the 2.5 hours as suggested I would have been woefully unprepared for those last 9-10 miles. My first 20 mile run was much more difficult mentally than it was physically. I did a progression of longer runs leading up to it and my body had adapted to the stress. The fast people seem to have the same physical stress when running a 20 in 2.5 hours as a slower person has doing the same distance in 3+ hours, but they equate a 3+ hours run with how they would feel if they ran that long rather than how they feel after doing the same mileage.

FWIW, the whole thing about not running over distance in training for a marathon may not be accurate IMO. In my area there are people regularly running in excess of 200 mpw. One of these guys set the course record in a local marathon last year and only going 26.2 must have seemed like a warmup run for him.

Doing an IM marathon is different than a stand alone race from what's been said. IMO you should do several runs in the 20-22mile range regardless of how long they take. I know the more 20+ mile runs I've done, the easier they get, both physically and mentally. The body will adapt, just as it does for people like DK, and RAAM riders.

---

Don

Tri-ing to have fun. Anything else is just a bonus!

I ran the marathon at IMFL in 4:12, so about the same pace as you Kittycat. I did a longest run of 20 miles in training, which took me about 3 hours, and it was more of a psychological help than anything. Knowing I could do it. Just take it easy and stop halfway and stretch a bit.

---

------------------
My business-eBodyboarding.com

Agree, personally I'd hate to face an IM run knowing my longest training run was less than 15 miles.

---

_________
kangaroo -- please do not read or respond to any of my posts

I appreciate what all of you are saying.
But man, i'm now so confused over all of this.

Think i'm starting to freak out a little bit...as i already feel behind in my long run, only up to 13 miles at this point--only halfway there!!! :(

crap!