His marathon pace is typicaly around 4:50/mile. So 20 seconds slower would be 7% slower than race pace.

According to McMillan:

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/...unningcalculator.htm

he would recommend a long run pace of ~30 to 60 seconds a mile to slower than race pace. His charts are pretty consitent with Jack Daniels' charts. So, I think you bring up a pretty good point. They are faster than typicaly recommended, but not *that* much faster.

To compare, mcmillan recommends long runs of 7:30 to 8:00 a mile slower than race pace for the 3 hour marathoner (7min pace).

So, in the BIG picture, it appears that Khalid is only running a little quicker than normaly recommended, but does finish with a hard 3 at the end.

Thanks HWM....until you posted that, I never really thought of it before.

---

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

No sweat...I always try to look at the big picture (...just not alway sure what I see??).
In any case the guy's super-fast at any pace.
-HWM
www.slopesports.com

I'd reverse the question and ask: If the race distance is x, why would you bother to run anything more than x+1mile at most? What would you hope to gain from those miles that you wouldn't also gain from doing them as a separate run?
__________________________

Fade, I did a little digging and got this out of Malmo (ex elite US steeple chaser). He has typicaly felt that the long run is over emphasized, but even still:

"....... It was sometime during the mid to late 80s that long runs became sacrosanct at the expense of doubles and mileage in general. The result was that competitive runners started training the way of Runners World icons - Galloway and such. The results were dismal. You will not find any successful programs that apply a disproportionate amount of mileage into one day. Serious competitive runners would be much better off limiting their long runs to 14-16 miles and then spreading the mileage and frequency over the other 6 days of the week. Only after establishing a consistent pattern of proper training should runners bother with 20+ milers."

The thread referred to 3K-20K races, though I can't be certain he wasn't responding to marathon training.

Anyway, I've done a little digging and the best answer I can come up with for now is that there may be no *proof* that a long run is more effective than more shorter runs. What I do know is that anyone who is any good (runners) do them. I believe the theory is that you get every benefit of aerobic development that you do from other runs, but that those extra miles at the end of the run place an added stress on the system that stimulates more adaptations. Mark Wetmore of UCs XC team believes that it was the addition of a long run that got Alan Culpepper to break through some time barriers in the 1500.....that's a short race.

So, even though it may not intuitively *make sense* do do a long run, there has been proven success with it.

Now, as a *triathlete* you become limited with the numbers and types of workouts you can do. So, it may be that though a long run is beneficial, you could better spend your time doing other things (ie...instead of run 2 hrs easy, bike 1hr hard followed by a 1hr hard run, for example). Greg Watson never ran long but was a very succesful duathlete.

How does that sound?

---

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

Surely there are some other running groups like mine.

This is a great topic.

We've got another long run tommorrow, training for a marathon on March 4th. I've got a running group which takes the view that the long run ought to be as close as possible to race pace, by that I mean, they run the pace they want to run IN THE MARATHON---as a gauge of whether they are ready for the marathon.

We all do anywhere from 3:38 to 4:05 marathons---very very slow to many of you, but my point is going to be here, you would be shocked to find out how many running groups use their long run, for THE PACE to prepare in the marathon. Most everyone is about 3:50. We are 40-55 years old. All of us have done about 3 marathons.

So, according to most experts, the long run pace for most of us, should be 9:30 to even a 10 minute mile, one and a half minutes slower than 8:30 or a 9:00 race pace.

But that's not what we do. The long run is run in each mile in 8:45 to 9 minute mile. Two years ago, I think it was a 10 minute mile when we started running, for long runs. Each year its 30 seconds faster. If it goes over for five seconds this year on a 9, not good. You can lolly gag back there and thumb it down, but the pack will be doing THAT. So, you don't have to, but that's what the pack is doing.

I say 9 minute mile, but some of the miles are like, 8:24, now and then. Usually lodged by the people preparing to run the half marathon. They are all happy and smiling and shit.

Everyone has their watches and Garmins, and its nothing over 9 minutes, all the way. So, you know, when I wake tommorrow, for our long run, I'm not running 1.5 minutes slower than Race Pace (which would be about a 9 and half minute mile), I'm running RACE PACE, and the interesting unknown thing is, who can keep that pace ALL THE WAY to the 20th mile.

Its a competitive contest. Unspoken.

At about mile 14 or 15 on, there's usually only one guy left and one girl who are still going strong, everyone else is "worked," right about at mile 14 or 15. It looks like the Bataan Death March, single file bullshit at about mile 15. Everytime.

So, every other week, I have to blow them off and just go run easy long, by myself, just to build aerobic capacity.

Barry, thoughtful stuff as usual.

I like Malmo’s thinking I’d just reverse the trend, particularly for the non-gifted runner. As you probably recall, my emphasis is on getting them to run effectively, then get fitter through short runs. I think (though I have no proof to hand) that the INJURY-risk (which is potentially greater the less biomechanically ‘gifted’ you are) is going to be lower for shorter, sub-FT tempo runs that it is for longer, though slower, runs (total weekly mileage being equal).

I agree that good runners do long runs. But the fact that ‘good’ runners do them is not in itself an argument for ‘bad’ runners to do them, as the two groups limiters may not be the same. The added stress of in effect ‘stacking’ a 4-miler straight onto the back of a 10-miler will certainly provide more stress than separating the two runs. However it is the added stress, if added too early, which is exactly what concerns me. I don’t think that runners shouldn’t do them. Indeed I believe they have a central role. I just think that there’s a danger when we say ‘Culpepper, Radcliffe, Tergat does X therefore X is always good’ (which I know is slightly misrepresenting your position, but in my experience is what the over-enthusiastic almost always read into discussions like this).

As a triathlete, I think the mix needs to vary according to the athlete’s specific needs, because we’re juggling three sports and very often three different balances of strength and weakness. Triathlon, far more than running, is hard to fit into a one-size-fits-all programme. How I suggest the triathletes I coach approach their running depends very much on what their running needs. The interplay between three sports creates a very different overall training stimulus than for the single sport athlete, and so I’m wary of taking too specific a stance for triathletes (and for anyone wondering, my earlier post was directed at the process I’d suggest for single-sport runners.)

BTW, for clarity, in fade-speak:

good runners = naturally gifted runners (light, biomechanically resilient/efficient etc).
serious runners = eager to train hard to improve, not necessarily natural runners (though they may be athletically gifted in other areas) but are well motivated and like to push themselves.
experienced runners = people like me. serious runners who have been at it for a while.
bad runners = a poorly chosen term, perhaps. Those whose biomechanics are not well suited to running. They may love the sport, then may even go quite fast, but they aren't natural (or, very often, natural looking) runners.

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Barry,

I enjoy seeing that there are some coaches out there that actually are thinking things out and not just reading and doing with their athlete's. I now coach a men's xc/distance squad in college and am certainly not a run of the mill cookie cutter coach with regard to how each athlete is trained.

Being a serious (take it for what you will) marathon - distance runner, I have found that, like many have said on this thread - including you, that it all depends on where you are at and where you want to go with your training. When I trained with a group a few years ago, we would usually hammer our long runs, in addition to probably running too quick on other days. After awhile, the hard long run was such a given that it was factored into the workout scheme. We got down to where we would run like KK and run near 9:20 for 3200 at the end of a 20+ miler. The biggest gains from something like this is that not only did we get used to running fast when tired but we also had a HUGE confidence boost. Many times in the longer races, it seems to be the mental part that holds most back.

With regard to the triathlon, I have my ideas of how I will train for the HIM and IM but I would think that there are very few people that could handle anything like a similar workout to KK, at their own given percentages of effort comparitive to his. Also I don't think it would be benifical unless it was figured to be one of the only two running workouts of the week. That is currently how I am training and probably will continue to until Buffalo Springs. Two running workouts, two bike workouts and just a lot of swimming with solid tech. There are a lot of different ways to train as you noted and I don't want to claim I know it all.

I posted a training log on this forum that had day to day info of how we trained leading up to the 2004 marathon trials. It might give you a better day to day feel for how the Hansons runners trained and still do. You can find it here: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ng=runner-x;#1188172

Good post though.

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.westtexasendurance.com - Powered by Brooks, Powerbar and pizza.

I didn't read every reply here and I may be saying something that has already been said 40 times.
These athletes are at the top of their game, if you could run 150 MPW without injury you could train at race pace as well.
Look at the pro's half marathon and marathon PR times, they are almost the same pace. This means they are running almost as fast as they can for 26.2 miles.

Most of us "humans" here on ST need to train at 1 to 2 min slower than race pace on long runs or we will be hurt most of the time.
That being said when I trained to qualify for Boston last year I trained at near race pace for most of my runs, but I didn't run a lot of weekly miles and allowed a day of recovery between runs.

A couple of key points I pull out of what you were doing according to the other thread (which I've only briefly skimmed):

1) No real 'long-run mileage spike'. With a lot of UK club runners you tend to see a weekly mileage that hovers at 45-60minutes once a day on week days, but with a huge long run spike at the weekend (something I think was counter prodiuctive. Your daily mileage (albeit broken) was always pretty big and you must have been used to soaking up the miles, hence the long runs apparently not being that much of an issue.

2) Your 'speedwork wasn't really, was it? It rather looks like it was quality tempo work (2 and 3-mile reps). If you were running non-stop, how long could you have held that 4:50 pace?

3) I notice the 'easy' 4 was an evening session for you, with the key session in the morning. Have you ever tried the other way around? And if yes, which did you prefer?

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Fade,

Before I get into what I or the group that I trained with did, I want to say that I do not feel that this is the right type of training for anyone looking to do triathlons and even marathons if you are not a well seasoned high volume runner.

Getting back to your key points:

#1 - Excuse my ignorance but what level are the club runners you talk of that are only running 45 - 60 minutes a day during the week and what events are they training for? Are the triathletes or purely runners? There have been some really good marathoners through the years that have ran lower mileage, 80 miles or so, but there have been a staggering number of good marathoners who have ran 100+ miles a week. I was probably averaging around 16 - 18 miles a day during that part of my training, going off memory now, so running a long run of 18 - 22 miles wasn't that much of a shock to the system. Most of the other guys I was running with were averaging 18 - 20 miles a day, so it was even less of a factor to them. This is regardless of running two a day runs or just one run a day, because all the training was hard for the most part. Only running those longer runs allowed us around 24 hours with no other training to recover. Whether we fully recovered or to a point that was good enough cannot really be found but I think for the most part we did recover enough. The mental gains were huge though and I personally feel like those out weighed any physical fatigue we worked through.

#2 - There was never real speedwork done with the group. Speedwork to me is actually working on top end speed which would mean intervals of 200 meters or less. You cannot go all out for more than around 5 seconds so about 50 - 60 meters is true speed work. Everyone has a different idea of what they consider speedwork to be though. The 800's were as fast as we would do during marathon phase and they would usually be at around 2:18 - 2:20 pace for 10 or so. I have since added more of this type of work to my training in marathon phase. I came from a more quicker end track workout type backround and enjoy doing that type of work. Most of the workouts done would be considered tempo like work. How long could I or my training partners at the time held onto 4:50 pace? It is just guessing because we didn't try to do it but considering we ran a Half Marathon at around 5 flat pace as a controlled tempo run at the end of the week we ran 4 x 3 mile in 4:48 pace and 10 x 800 in 2:18 or so, I think we could have at least 4:50 pace for a half marathon after backing down a week for it. The point wasn't how long could we hold 4:50 pace for, it was how easy can we make 4:50 feel in long workouts so that when we backed down to 5:00 minute pace for the marathon would feel like a jog.

#3 - I never did two runs a day before training with the group. I have since stopped doing two a day runs because of adding biking and swimming. I liked the idea of getting the longer and always harder effort out of the way in the morning. There were a few days were I did run longer in the afternoon/evening and I didn't like it because I had to worry about what and when I ate and sometimes watch a nice day turn to a poor weather day come longer run time. Training longer in the morning to me just allows me to enjoy my day more. I could eat whatever I wanted and still hit a 4 - 6 mile run.

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.westtexasendurance.com - Powered by Brooks, Powerbar and pizza.

Runner-x,

Fear not, we are of one mind when it comes to suggesting this sort of training for any other than the most meticulously prepared runners.

1) Well, the UK running-only club-running scene (what would be considered the 'core' of the UK running race scene) incorporates a fair range of ability levels and levels of experience, but 'good' for men would be considered as sub-20 5K, sub-40 10K, sub-90 1/2M. Very good would be sub-60 10-mile, sub-3 marathon. (Yes, the standard is not high. There was a local race this morning, and a training partner of mine race 34 for 10K on a reasonably quick course and came 4th.)

In general it's noticable that they tend to train for 30-60 minutes per session (for most that's 4-8/9 miles) for all sessions except their long run, which they usually do by distance (so the marathon many are doing 20s and 22s that take them in excess of 3 hours to complete and are therefore three times the length of their next longest run).

2) This is what I thought, though for what it's worth in UK parlance, speedwork and hard intervals tend to be interchangeable terms used to mean any running above FT that is not continuous. (I shall try to remember to make the distinction exact in future!)

3) Your point about eating provides an interesting perspective. Again, most UK running clubs do harder sessions in the evening, so here we tend to see those few who do do doubles doing the opposite to you (and I think it's six to half a dozen as to which is best, though as I say, often the choice isn't there).

---

Stuff I like:
PBscience Triathlon Coaching and Lab Testing

Every person will do some exercises to keep their healthy and to be strong. In this process sum may succeed but some may fail. People who are failed to do so don't worry as I can help you in providing some work out plans. So that people who want to reduce fat, and people who want to be athletic. Can become what they are opting for. Don't bother about all these things. Visit my train me online web page so that people can well get what they are looking for their body. Don't be late be faster.
-----------
Simon
workout programs

I think it is very simple. Train as you race. If you want to race fast and long (IM, half IM, marathon) you should train fast and long. If there is a recovery "penalty" time, you should take it. No need for hard training the 2 days after a long and fast run. No need to train hard the day after a long and fast bike ride. But this kind of training gets you as close to race day efforts as you can get. If you can make the training faster or longer during the season, you are building up, and progressing. If you crash during the season you have done too much for your fitness.

how did you do in IM Germany on that program?

alvaro
planetaTri.com

Some good stuff in this thread, Barry and all. I have always worked in the concept of running harder during long runs (much like riding harder during long bike rides). The amount, intensity, and frequency of such efforts absolutely will vary with individuals, and probably over time. I can do less of it these days and still maintain adequate recovery for follow-on work (I'm 40 now, so go figure....).

I just invested in a Garmin 405 recently after moving and having no real good training route references in my immediate area. I haven't looked at it much during the runs, but have looked at the results (about 20 runs now). Without paying attention to paces, I'm seeing that I naturally fall in/around McMillan ranges for any particular efforts, whether speedwork on the track, tempo, or long run...though my long runs tend toward the middle of the range...I find the slowest pace in that range inordinately slow at this point. So anecdotally, I guess I'm confirming at least that approach...as well as advocating for some harder effort in long training beyond the simple "log the miles pace".

You should switch and run London so you can see how KK does in person. Although at Boston - you'll get to see how Hall runs....

I think long runs are over-rated. I asked Terrence Mahon (Team USA Running coach) how often his runners run over 20 - and he said "almost never". He did say they may do it once every other week in the final few weeks of marathon prep. For them - 20 miles isn't even 20% of weekly mileage and its not even 2 hours. Those guys/gals are machines and they rarely run over 2 hours yet why do we? They do a lot of doubles though - so they run frequently and they run a lot of miles per week. They also run slow a lot (counter to the "run fast all the time" crowd.

So my opinion - I'd take doubles/frequency and miles/week over a long run any day.

Fast vs. slow - I vote slow most of the time. I think its fine to throw in MP pace in a shorter long run or some T-work but it really makes the recovery longer - so you pick your poison and decide where you want to work hard during the block and where you want it easy....I do think its key to make easy = easy and hard = hard.

Last thing - we train for optimal steady state work/pace - keeping it even - minimize surges. Elites train to handle surges - stay with the lead pack yet finish strong.

Dave

In gordo's book Going Long, I remember he had a build period where you would, more or less, build a large base of mileage, then a peaking period where you would start doing what he called Breakthrough workouts. Kevin Purcell once emailed me and suggested that this peaking period be 3-6 weeks depending on your experience level.

Having said that, a lot of running programs treat the marathon the same way. Pfitzinger wrote an srticle a while ago describing different ways to do a long run, and Jack Daniels also provided some long run workouts with intensities mixed in.

Likewise, I typically suggest doing "MCmillab Paced" long runs (aerobic zone.....~1:30-2:30 slower than 5K pace) as you build the length of the long run. Only after you have built that solid foundation do you begin incorporating intenisty into the middle. So, for example, you might build from a 10 mile long run to a 22 mile long run over the course of 20 weeks. Then you start substituting in 16 mile runs with marathon paced or threshold paced running in the middle.

A lot of this depends on how comfortable you are with a 22 mile run and how fast you ware going to run this marathon. The above will likely be done by a guy running in the low 2:XX range. A guy running it in 4:XX probably just needs to get in a bunch of aerobic runs in.

---

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

Barry, if it weren't for injury prevention and/or overtraining prevention wouldn't all of our running be at race pace? (or shorter intervals of just faster than RP?)

I don't know that this is revolutionary. It's just a case where some of the best runners are seen to be able to do more without injury or burnout. It's most likely their ability to withstand this training that has made them great...not the mere fact that they do this training. So I doubt it applies to the rest of us so much.

Not really. There are many different paces at which you should train for different reasons. Here's a quick synopsis as defined in Daniels' Formula:


Repetition training (I call this speed) - Primary benefirt is more neuro muscular. I liken this to working out on a punching bag. When you dio this, you teach your hands to hit faster and harder. When running at high speeds, you teach your feet to do the same.

V02max training - This is the most effecient way to build up your body's ability to take in and process oxygen.

Lactate Threshold Training - This is the most effecient way to increase the pace where your body starts to produce more and more lactic acid (or lactate...and can never remember).

Aerobic Training - This is the most effecient way to improve your aerobic system.

Though these are all related, think of them in a sense of 4 different components of running much like a football quaterback might have different components of his game that he might want to work on (throwing arm, balance, vision, etc.) We try to do these different workout paces to best target different components in our running. No one can simply run race pace all the time without consequences. Even an elite distance runner who can, say, run 40 miles a week at race pace is doing so at the expense of potentially running 120 miles a week at a slower pace.

What *does* happen as one gets more fit (or more talented) is that different components become better developed and the emphasis can shift toward other components of training. I might want a brand new runner to do nothing but aerobic running for 4-6 months. This would be less effecient for an veteran runner as his aerobic system is already very well developed. He would be better served focusing on some of the other training paces.

In a nut shell, its just like making a good dinner. You need the right mix of the different ingredients.

I will agree, however, that runners with more miles under their belt *can* tolerate more intense running, but to say that they would ideally do all of their training at race pace would be a bit of an over exageration.

---

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

Barry
This scale will maybe interest you. It is from the Norwegian Olympiatoppen, the institution that is behind the Norwegian skiers, rowers, paddler, cyclist etc. It will give you some level to think speed and duration.


http://www.olympiatoppen.no/fag/utholdenhet/oltsintensitetsskala/page594.html

One other thing, the long run should be measured in minutes/hours, not miles. A ok national runner will easily run over 10 miles in an hour. A 100 MPW is for a good runner less than 10 hours of running (not for me ;-) Talking about miles without talking about speed or level will not tell anything. Personally I think most people get to little out of their miles, but that is another discussion ;-)

But I think you just confirmed my point. Imagine a world where no one could get injured and they never failed to recover.

Then it might actually be optimal for all running to be at and above race pace.
Remember geometry lessons? A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't a square.
In the same way, anaerobic running is also aerobic.

Biomechanical efficiency, LT, VO2 max, and aerobic systems are all covered by fast intervals with a sufficiently short rest period. I think ALL slower running is a compromise to our mortality.

The real question for an athlete is how much of what intensities can be TOLERATED without detriment. Everything you say about training is dead on, but I think we do this to avoid injury. Again, it's just a theoretical discussion because no one can tolerate 15 miles a day of 68 second 400 repeats...but if someone could. That might be a great way to train for a marathon. Or 45 minute 10 milers every day....Just sayin'.

I think long runs are over-rated. I asked Terrence Mahon (Team USA Running coach) how often his runners run over 20 - and he said "almost never". He did say they may do it once every other week in the final few weeks of marathon prep. For them - 20 miles isn't even 20% of weekly mileage and its not even 2 hours. Those guys/gals are machines and they rarely run over 2 hours yet why do we? They do a lot of doubles though - so they run frequently and they run a lot of miles per week. They also run slow a lot (counter to the "run fast all the time" crowd.

Well said. What matters is the frequency and consistency and the total mileage.I would rather run 10 miles six days a week for 60 miles then run 45 miles with a 20 miler thrown in.


So my opinion - I'd take doubles/frequency and miles/week over a long run any day.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
I see obsessed people.

Only if you could do that on into infinity....but if you could, you wouldn't need to train. Part of training is putting a "stress" on the body that it has to recover from such that it rebuilds itself stronger.

In the real world, there is going to be some limit to the stress you can handle. Maybe we are talking symantics here, but.....roughly speaking...12x200m at mile race pace is equivalent to 6x1000m at 5K race pace, which is equivalent to 60 minutes at marathon race pace, which is equivalent to 2+ hours running aerobically.

In other words, X, 3X, 7X, 10X at the different paces. As long as X is some finite stress, then that relationship will apply (though it may be different from athlete to athlete).


But, if we do want to speak of unrealistic hypotheticals, then all contend that you won't need to train because you already posses infinite fitness and can move at the speed of light, thus able to acheive infinite mass while moving at this speed. You could cause the universe to implode on yourself. We'd either have to kill you, or recognizing that E=MC^2, we might want to plug you into the grid and harness that inifnite energy. ; ^ )



In all seriousness, there is a tradeoff at the different paces, and yes.....it has to do with, more or less, how the body wears down.

---

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

Absolutely! The key to a good long run is to go far enough to put a little extra stress on the body but not so far that it significantly cuts into you weekly training load.

---

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

Well...let's be clear, though, doubleplay..."slow" for these guys is in the 6's. "Recovery" runs are in the 7's.

Its relative.