What is your experience ?
Is there any benefits or is it counterproductive ?
depends what you’re training for. I tend to train by time and not distance. When training for a marathon, I did at least 2 runs that were same length of time as my predicted finish (right around 3 hours). The distance covered in that 3 hour period training was much less than 26 miles due to a slow pace (which is how long runs should be). I think there was a previous thread that addressed the limited benefits of long runs over a certain time, which may have been 90min or so. Just be sure to work up to that time–follow the 5% rule and you’ll be fine.
My 20-miler training for IMFL took me about 3 hours. If nothing else, it served to build my confidence that I could run a marathon.
To decrease recovery time from these runs, I have been running on gravel roads/paths and have noticed a HUGE difference over doing them on pavement like I used to do. I wish I did them like this a long time ago.
Splitting a long run (15 in the morning and 5 at night) also helps.
But - that is NOT a long run then (well, 15 is pretty long) with associated lovely benefits/risks of it. If you are training for a marathon/IM and you run slow, I think you need some 2.5-3 hour runs. A slow runner is only going to get perhaps 18-20 miles in 3 hours. Nothing wrong with a very small break about every hour though. Take the next day off entirely, next weekend no long run (well, say 10-12 miles), then repeat the following week (i.e. every other weekend) until the big day.
What are you training for and what is your marathon time?
If you can finish a marathon in 3hours or less 3 hour long run is just counterproductive because you only need to run %75-80(max)of your anticipated finishing time as the longest long run.
You might be wasting your training time.
I’ve done a couple leading up to a marathon last fall. I really liked them as long as I took a 1/2 tab of immodium an hour before. otherwise there would need to be some porta pottys. I didn’t notice any huge recovery time needed but i did build up to them over 5 months.
This is a staple of any marathon training program.
Both of my 20’s in my first training program I did were just over 3 hours. Considering I ran (and cramped/walked) to a 3:59 on that one it was a good morale booster knowing I could at leat go that far.
For this last session for the November marathon I did, even my 21 miler only took 2:33 … which has been the longest run timewise I’ve done outside of a race since the 2005 marathon training sessions.
I think there is more of a benefit for straight marathon training than there would be for IM training (unless you are an elite) going that long.
Just to be argumentative 
here is a marathon program for which a 20 miler is not a staple:
http://www.runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=4447
That being said, most programs include them, and I do multiple ~3 hr long runs in all my marathon build-ups. I’m intrigued by the Hansons program, but I have no problem with 20-milers so I do them.
Dan
Why stop at three? Why not four or five?
Overall mileage over several months and years is far more important than epic three hour efforts. Once you get comfortable with 2-2.5 hours, the next priorities should be developing LT paced running, marathon pace, and 10k pace. There is no way you can do proper justice to the tempo runs, mile repeats and the like if you are plodding along for three hours on the weekend.
Some might say that the three hour runs aren’t doing any damage, but if you need to take a day or two easy to recover then I would beg to differ. Even if you can hop right back into normal training after a three hour effort you probably either a) can’t reach the proper speed on your tempo runs and other faster workouts or b) have to work too hard to achieve the proper speed because your legs are so tired from running three hours. The twice a season epic three hour run often appealing, but adding some doubles, and/or a medium long run (~70-100 min), and/or long cool downs consistently during the week for several weeks will yield greater benefits.
I know that some elites do complete three hour runs but a) they are in the minority and b) three hours is a smaller percentage of their week than your week. Frank Shorter, arguably the most accomplished US marathoner in history, capped his long run at two hours and he ran 120-140 miles per week. True Shorter only raced for 2:10 instead of 3+ hours, but if most 3+ hour folks properly worked on their 10k-1/2 marathon fitness first for several years before tackling marathons they would chop huge chunks off their current times (but that is a different discussion unto itself).
Good post LarryP.
Many people on this board fall exactly as you are mentioning. I know I personally could use more LT pace and marathon pace running (long) as well.
If you can get up to 3 hours…and do it without any injuries I think it will help you out alot…also splitting that 3 hour run into 2:30/30 or 2:15/45 would be great as well. I have always had my best IM runs when I am able to build up to 3 hours in my training. Just remember to get on a soft surface for most the run, and take atleast 48 hours off running(I would prefer 72 hours)…and do lots of stretching, and swimming in the days after.
As a former Michigan resident, I’m very familiar with the Hansons program. A good friend of mine is coached by one of their runners and she regularly runs 22-24 miles (about 3 hours for her), but she’s a high mileage runner and has years under her belt. But, like anything, whether a 3 hour run is appropriate depends on the athlete and what he or she is training for. I’m a 4-hour marathoner, so my long runs are 3 hours or more. I would not feel comfortable going into a marathon with only 16 miles under my belt. I could work for years on my 10K/half marathon speed and my long runs would still be 3-3:15 – that’s just the crappy genetics I’m stuck with. Elite athletes don’t run 4 hour marathons. They don’t run 3 hour marathons. So it makes sense to me that they wouldn’t need to run 3 hours.
I think it’s personal. In the last 2 months of my IM training, I’d do runs of 15 miles and over, and as soon as I’d finish, I’d sit down with ice packs on my knees for about 15 minutes and that greatly aided in my recovery. I would follow that run up with a very short, easy jog the next day, followed by my long swim workout.
Training for a stand-alone marathon, I have and probably would again approach the 3-hour mark for my longest run…for an ulta, I’d go even longer but off-road.
For the IM distance, I think that for most this length run would not be advised as for even the most fit, 3 hours on the road is a lot of pounding…
“But - that is NOT a long run then (well, 15 is pretty long) with associated lovely benefits/risks of it.”
I respectfully disagree. Your body can’t differentiate stress within a 12 hour period and it substantially reduces the risk of injury because you don’t lose form.
“I respectfully disagree. Your body can’t differentiate stress withing a 12 hour period and it substantially reduces the risk of injury because you don’t lose form.”
Hmmm … I see. Good point(s) especially about the injury reduction risk. Many of the running injuries I see I can often attribute to one’s “form” after tired (or bad from the get go).
But, since I do LOTS of 2/day runs, I definitely feel refreshed for my PM runs, but it could just be I’m used to it. There is a huge diff to me running 20 straight vs. 10/10. Also, I’ve done races like this (the DeSoto TripleT is the best example) with 2 OLY races only 7 hours apart.
I guess if my marathon took 12 hours than it might not matter.
Any exercise physiologists care to comment re: this?
there is no reason to run longer than 2h30…ask paulo he will back me up
.