Shortest LSR to run a marathon?

gerard65

Whats the shortest LSR you could get away with to run a marathon comfortable?. If I was aiming to 'just get around' in 4 hours could I spoof it on a couple of 18milers or would I still suffer over the last 6 miles. Do you have to get up to 20miles - four times in training?

nerraw1111

The Hal Higdon noive guide only has one 20-miler and just one 18 miler.

http://www.halhigdon.com/marathon/novices.html

--amadeus--

Are you following any kind of recognised training plan?

TBH you can't "spoof" a marathon. Taking short cuts on the LSRs in training will leave you cursing yourself as you hit the 22 mile marker.

metamorphosis

The longest ill be running up to is 20 miles. I pray it will be enough!

Woddle

gerard65 wrote: »

Whats the shortest LSR you could get away with to run a marathon comfortable?. If I was aiming to 'just get around' in 4 hours could I spoof it on a couple of 18milers or would I still suffer over the last 6 miles. Do you have to get up to 20miles - four times in training?

This is like cooking your dinner for only 30 mins when its recommended for an hour in the oven, you ain't going to enjoy your pink chicken

I think 1x20 is great for motivation, so I think for sure you should at least get this done. For Berlin I have 1x17,1x19,2x20 and hopefully 1x22, I think Amadeus in the past has suggested the sum of your 5 longest runs should equal or be as close as possible to a 100 miles, so I should total 98.

Back in 2002 I ran Longford and my longest run was approx 13 miles and I only did that once, man did I suffer, put me off running for the next 6 years.

rainbow kirby

nerraw1111 wrote: »

The Hal Higdon noive guide only has one 20-miler and just one 18 miler.

http://www.halhigdon.com/marathon/novices.html

I'm following the Novice 1 plan... hoping it's going to be enough! This thread is making me a bit nervous...

gerard65

Not liking what I'm hearing. Can't find a reply on the sub 3hr thread but I'm almost sure someone posted that he\she ran a 3:02 marathon last year with only one LSR of 16 miles. Also read (on a website) that a well known coach said that 16 mile LSR's are enough if there done fast enough and that 20 mile runs at 45sec to 1min slower than race pace are a waste of time, again I'm googling it but I can't find the piece. (I'll post the link when I come across it).
But at the moment I think woddle's comment about cooking the dinner is the right one.
However I'm considering giving the 16 mile theory a go because the thoughts of running 20 miles in one go is doing my head in.

RacoonQueen

Stupid Private posted a comment about long runs. IIRC he said he's only ever done one 20 miler when training for marathons, think he's got pretty incredible marathon times aswell.

geoff29

I'm in the same boat. Just started running again 2/3 weeks ago. 6.5 miles is so far my longest distance. I'd say that I might do one twenty-mile run before the marathon, but frankly, I don't have the patience. But yeah, I certainly would agree with the argument for proper training!!

gerard65

geoff29 wrote: »

I'm in the same boat. Just started running again 2/3 weeks ago. 6.5 miles is so far my longest distance. I'd say that I might do one twenty-mile run before the marathon, but frankly, I don't have the patience. But yeah, I certainly would agree with the argument for proper training!!

Ah, but what is proper training, I not trying to shirk out of training - I put in some tough sessions - I'm just wondering is the long slow run necessary just because its become common practice. I know the science behind it but maybe quality would work just as well as quantity.
Only one way to find out and I've decided to test the theory.

Ger the man

I personally believe there is no substitute for real training and getting real distance under your belt. I have been training since the start of May and did my first 20k last night. I felt I could have done a bit more. Woke up this morning a bit sore but thats faded now, was I right to stop or should I have pushed it a bit more?

Zuppy

I have done a couple of marathons and can only say that proper preparation will help later on in the race and pay itself back. That said I have run some off the back of little training. Don't skimp on the long runs, I do query the need to do more than 20 miles LSR in a get around or intermediate plan but thats personal opinion.

I find once you go over the 18-20m mark that the injury potential increases beyond the training effect for me.

It depends what training you have done over the years and the goals you have. Either way enjoy it and when you find the going rough, laugh. It won't help but it will freak out the competition around you. :-)

Krusty_Clown

When you run 16 miles vs 20 miles you really feel the difference. From a purely statistical (and very obvious!) standpoint, training for 16 miles is only covering 61% of the actual distance. 20 miles is nearly 77% of the distance.

goofygirl

I think that the LSR also have to taken in the context of the overall training. It's one thing to go out and do a 16 mile run. It's quite another thing to do a 16 mile run at the end of a 30 mile training week. It's another thing still to do a 16 mile run, have maybe a day of rest and then launch into another week of 30 miles plus. Week after week.

kingQuez

In my little experience (two marathons, one just under 4hrs the second just over 3.30) you dont need to hit multiple 20+mile runs to finish.. but every time I set out to do a marathon I had a 20 and a 22m long run scheduled. In the first race I got the 20 done, but was injured and missed the 22. For the second I didnt even hit the 20milers and ran off the back of a single 18m run, and was not at all confident going to the starting line with that. I did pretty well in the grand scheme of things, but I wouldn't set out and *aim* to only hit 18miles in the long runs.. that last 6miles is (for me) the second half of the race; I usually felt pretty good at the end of my 18mile runs, and pretty broken by mile 21 on the day. Mentally I think it helps to know whats coming!

baza1976

for the OP,

In training for my first marathon (DM 2007) the longest I ran was 7 mile, which I prob did 5 or 6 times, not sure because i didn't keep a record of runs, I hadn't a clue. I signed up in whim in the middle of july. I was playing a lot of astro turf football at the time which would have helped.
I finished in 4hr 19min I was delighted with that time. My calfs weren't happy!!!
I so hadn't a clue didn't read up too much on training or prep. I even positioned myself about 100 meters from the front!!!!! lol for the first 20 miles people kept passing me I remember a number of times looking over my shoulder to see how many were left behind me, I thought I was going to finish last.
At this stage I have completed 5 marathons 2 alone this year and I now start way way back, i would say too far back but at least i keep passing people out for first 18/20 mile which is great for confidence.

Now I would run at least 20x2 miles, I think it is best. for me anyway

tunguska

gerard65 wrote: »

Whats the shortest LSR you could get away with to run a marathon comfortable?. If I was aiming to 'just get around' in 4 hours could I spoof it on a couple of 18milers or would I still suffer over the last 6 miles. Do you have to get up to 20miles - four times in training?

HI Ger
We were discussing this very subject the other day. Last year I ran 3:02 in the marathon. I did one long run to train for that and that was 13miles in the addidas half marathon. I just did interval training and no long runs. It kind of worked but it kind of didnt because at 22 miles gone I died a bit of a death. My pace went from sub 7mins/mile to about 8:30/mile and those last 4 miles were pretty hard. But I think the interval sessions really toughened me up becuase had I died like I did and not had the tough sessions under my belt I reckon I couldve stopped and started walking or even dropped out.
This year Im doing long runs for marathon training. But Im doing them at race pace. At the moment my 22 mile runs are at 7mins/mile. Over the next few weeks I'll work that down to 6mins/mile.
So basically I think you should do the long runs but do them at as close to race pace as possible. I think its a waste of time running long runs at 8:30/mile if you plan on running the marathon at 7mins/mile. Race pace and above is tough but effective.

Krusty_Clown

tunguska wrote: »

We were discussing this very subject the other day. Last year I ran 3:02 in the marathon. I did one long run to train for that and that was 13miles in the addidas half marathon.

I think you could be the exception to the rule tunguska, where natural talent and shorter workouts still translate to solid long distance running results. But for most of the rest of us, training long to run long seems to be the general advice, particularly if (like me) you don't come from a running background/pedigree.

aero2k

tunguska wrote: »

So basically I think you should do the long runs but do them at as close to race pace as possible. I think its a waste of time running long runs at 8:30/mile if you plan on running the marathon at 7mins/mile. Race pace and above is tough but effective.

Hi tunguska,

I don't want to disagree too strongly as you're much faster than me! I think this approach might work for a lot of people over shorter distances, however running long distances close to race pace on a regular basis might increase the risk of injury for the average runner (whatever average is). I think the idea of most training programs is that you break the training into the different compoments you need for a marathon, and do them on separate days. Some programs suggest including some MP stuff in your long runs and I'm following this approach - I'm up to 20 miles with 6 at MP and I'll probably increase that to 10 in the next few weeks.

Stupid_Private

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Stupid Private posted a comment about long runs. IIRC he said he's only ever done one 20 miler when training for marathons, think he's got pretty incredible marathon times aswell.

Why thank you!

I kind of stayed out of this thread because I don't think there's an answer to the question...

I physically wouldn't be able to do multiple 20+ mile runs in the build up to the marathon. There's far more to marathon training than just the long run - it's important but so is the rest of it.

I'm not a believer in the sum of your 5 longest runs should come to 100 either. My last two marathons have been done with combined totals of 84(18 x 3, 2 x 15) and 87 (20, 18, 17, 16, 16) .

Poncherello

tunguska wrote: »

HI Ger
We were discussing this very subject the other day. Last year I ran 3:02 in the marathon. I did one long run to train for that and that was 13miles in the addidas half marathon. I just did interval training and no long runs. It kind of worked but it kind of didnt because at 22 miles gone I died a bit of a death. My pace went from sub 7mins/mile to about 8:30/mile and those last 4 miles were pretty hard. But I think the interval sessions really toughened me up becuase had I died like I did and not had the tough sessions under my belt I reckon I couldve stopped and started walking or even dropped out.
This year Im doing long runs for marathon training. But Im doing them at race pace. At the moment my 22 mile runs are at 7mins/mile. Over the next few weeks I'll work that down to 6mins/mile.
So basically I think you should do the long runs but do them at as close to race pace as possible. I think its a waste of time running long runs at 8:30/mile if you plan on running the marathon at 7mins/mile. Race pace and above is tough but effective.

I have thought about this too and would feel that doing long runs slowly only increases amount of damage your body takes as you are essentially taking a lot more strides than you would if you were running at race pace.
That being said I did a 13 miler on sat, did 1.39 which is a 6 min PB for me but have a sore hip today...

Krusty_Clown

Making the decision to only run to 16 miles or even 13 miles is really only something you should consider after your first marathon, as at least you will be making an informed decision. I think that the 'general' concensus of people who have run a first marathon after training up to a max of 10-13 miles, is that it was a painful educational experience, not to be soon repeated.

olympichopeful

Hi All

I suppose you have to look at why we do the Lsr runs, basically it is to replicate the marathon itself and get you out on your feet for over 3 hours as most of us will be out there for over that length of time any way. Most average runners will need to get 2 to 3 long runs in their schedule if they hope to finish on the day as comfortable!!!!! as possible.

The long runs allow your body to get used to burning fat as the primary source of energy after 2hrs rather that the glycogen that it normally uses, the better trained the body is at this, the less likely you are to crash in to the wall. I think that for the average runner these lsr of between 16 to 20 miles are the most important in the training schedule.

As for the other runners who can get through the marathon with only short Lsr the rest of us are very envious of you

tunguska

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I think that the 'general' concensus of people who have run a first marathon after training up to a max of 10-13 miles, is that it was a painful educational experience, not to be soon repeated.

For the most part I agree. Once you go over 20 miles it gets serious and if you run into trouble it can be tough, even from a psychological point of view. If youve done long runs and you get into trouble you know in your mind you can handle the distance.
I know conventional wisdom is, as aero said, to perform long runs and throw in a few marathon pace miles into the mix. And that kind of training has worked for a lot of people. Personally im gonna try to train at race pace and race distance. I mean it may not work, I may run myself into the ground or get injured, so it is risky. But Im gonna risk it and find out if this type of training works or not. So im using myself as the guinea pig! And I'll let you know if it works out or not.

Krusty_Clown

tunguska wrote: »

So im using myself as the guinea pig! And I'll let you know if it works out or not.

Next year, we might all be following the tunguska program. Poor Hal Higdon and P&D won't get a look-in!

Oisin11178

I personally did 24 as my longest slow run. When i got over 20 miles on the day of the race at race pace i was glad of every inch i went over 20 in training. If you dont put enough miles in on you lsr,s most will find the last 6 or so miles grueling. there is always exceptions to this but thats just genetics:)

How Strange

For me, the point of the lsr's is building up my confidence so on race day I know how to cope with the physical and mental tiredness. If I can get my legs trained to feel comfortable at 22 miles then I know I can keep going for the extra 4.2

I intend to do 3 x 20mile runs and 1x 22mile. In between I'm doing a couple of 16 miles which involve finishing at a faster pace as well as the half on 26th.

Bloody Nipples

I've got one 14 mile run under my belt, i'll work my LSR up to about the 20 mile mark in time for Dublin. Touch wood...

--amadeus--

I think it was the Guardian recently that said that Ledley King's weekly training consisted of a 30 min kickabout the day before a match. By all accounts the last 5 or 6 yeas of Paul McGraths career he didn't train at all midweek.

Both are / were top class international defenders and among the most admired players of thier generation.

Does this mean that any aspiring centerback should abandon training altogether? Of course not - both players had a combination of knee injuries (that stopped them training) and massive natural talent (that meant they could compensate for a lack of fitness).

There are no end of anecdotes about people who didn't do a tap during training but woke up on race day, ate a bacon butty and ran 2:45.

They are the exceptions rather than the rule and basing your own training on that sort of approach isn't recommended. People like Noakes, P&D, Daniels and McMillan have decades of experience of running and coaching behind them. They - along with the likes of Hal Higdon and Glover - all (without exception) agree that the long run is a central part of your marathon training plan and is the single most important session.

Where they do diverge is the pace it should be run at. Glover and HH (who mainly aim schedules at slower or beginner runners) emphasise time on your feet. I'm up for correction but they are more concerned that someone following thier schedules will be out on course for 4 - 5 hours (maybe more) so they need to spend a lot of time out there in training to prepare for that (mentally as well as physically). Pace is less important at this level so slow slow slow is ok.

The other (P&D in particular) are aimed at runners aiming for a specific time. In this case pace is more important and teh mantra "long slow miles makes long slow runners" comes into play. P&D say long runs should never be more than 20% slower than PMP, with a 10 - 20% range preferred.

Running at PMP over distance is teh ideal training for a marathon. But P&D only have 2 such runs in thier schedules (although this may have changed in the new ediion of teh book). The reason for this is that the sessions are too tough so only 1*12@ PMP and 1*15@PMP are allowed. Regularly running 16+ @ PMP is not reccomended for a number of reasons. 1st if you are training at race intensity then you need race level rest periods - 1 day per mile raced. If you do 18 miles @ proper PMP then it will take at least two weeks for your legs to fully recover so all hard sessions in that 2 week period will be compramised - eg VO2 max, LT sessions cannot be run correctly as you will not have recovered. 2nd - race pace long runs damage the legs (microtears in the fibres). Intensive running on legs with this microscopic damage greatly increases the chances of injury - as are your chances of more generic overuse and overtraining injuries. Finally there is the age old issue of leaving your best performances on teh training track and having nothing to give on teh day.

Of course if you are recovering swiftly from PMP long runs then much of that won't apply. In which case maybe your "PMP" is actually too slow.

The marathon plans published by reputable authors make no claims to work for everyone. For some people high mileage or long runs don't give teh payback or the injury risk is too great. But for teh vast majority of people the vast majority of plans work. I would *strongly* encourage you to use a good plan for your first 2 or 3 marathons before deciding that you will attempt to revolutionise sports science and marathon trainig by abandoning the long run. Sometime recieved wisdom is there because it's right and when you line up at the start of a marathon it makes no difference if you have done 7 / 14 or 21 mile LSRs in training. You still have to run 26.2 to reach the end.

buck65

The Hal Higdon Novice plan that Amadeus is kindly mentoring is LSR for the next few weeks - 15,16,12,18,14,20,12,8, race .

stevieward

buck65 wrote: »

The Hal Higdon Novice plan that Amadeus is kindly mentoring is LSR for the next few weeks - 15,16,12,18,14,20,12,8, race .

Thats what im following. 16 this weekend...

im doing all my training at what i would consider race pace though... is this clever?

MCOS

Interesting thread. I wouldn't mind some advice here. As a Marathon is not my main focus this year I am not following any kind of Marathon program for the DM.

Mileage roughly 20-25 per week up to now. Next week is a half ironman so I'll be running 13.1 off the bike. So low running mileage and plenty of cycling up to now.

My problem lies in selecting the optimum pace and getting the most out of 4 weeks Marathon prep.

So 4 long runs... how can I get the best out of them? Also, what would be the best indication that I could hold a target split for 26.2?

Thanks

tunguska

stevieward wrote: »

Thats what im following. 16 this weekend...

im doing all my training at what i would consider race pace though... is this clever?

Personally I think its grand. I mean those race pace runs are brutal but they condition you brilliantly.
Have you read "Daniels' running formula?" (jack Daniels) he gives a lot of information about pacing and draws up a top class marathon training schedule. Not for the faint of heart though. For example one session involves the following:

If you plan to run the marathon at 6min/mile this is one long run you'd do:

2 miles easy pace(7:10/mile)
5 miles at 6:20
5 miles at 6:13
5 miles at 6:06
5 miles at 6:00


So a total of 22 miles with 15 of those very close to race pace and 5 miles at the end of those, at race pace.

Like I said, not for the faint of heart.

Rusty Cogs 08

stevieward wrote: »

Thats what im following. 16 this weekend...

im doing all my training at what i would consider race pace though... is this clever?

I'd have to refer you to amadeus's post a few back which describes why you shouldn't do your LSR's at race pace.

Daniels predator runs referenced by Tunguska (speed increasing as you move through the session) are IMO only for seasoned runners who are not prone to injury and simply have far more miles behind them at advanced pace (circa 6' miles) and everything that goes with that (lighter, better biomechanics, more attuned to their bodies).

Regarding LSR's at race pace, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

stevieward

Rusty Cogs 08 wrote: »

I'd have to refer you to amadeus's post a few back which describes why you shouldn't do your LSR's at race pace.

Daniels predator runs referenced by Tunguska (speed increasing as you move through the session) are IMO only for seasoned runners who are not prone to injury and simply have far more miles behind them at advanced pace (circa 6' miles).

Regarding LSR's at race pace, just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I actually find it very difficult to slow down :-)

its my first marathon and at the moment im running 8 min miles. maybe 10 second or so either way but not much more. I have tried to go slower but find that after only a few strides i get back into my natural rythm which is working out at 8 mins/mile. its just way too much concentration to run slowly.

But i suppose why i asked is that im afraid my body is putting up with these times at the moment but once i get to 18 and 20 miles it will start to complain and may even shut down thus ruining my chances of actually competing the marathon

run like a fox

stevieward wrote: »

I actually find it very difficult to slow down :-)

its my first marathon and at the moment im running 8 min miles. maybe 10 second or so either way but not much more. I have tried to go slower but find that after only a few strides i get back into my natural rythm which is working out at 8 mins/mile. its just way too much concentration to run slowly.

But i suppose why i asked is that im afraid my body is putting up with these times at the moment but once i get to 18 and 20 miles it will start to complain and may even shut down thus ruining my chances of actually competing the marathon

As long as you're finding the pace easy there's no need to slow down, stick with the 8 minute pace. If you're struggling with it then you've got to slow down.

cfitz

stevieward wrote: »

I actually find it very difficult to slow down :-)

its my first marathon and at the moment im running 8 min miles. maybe 10 second or so either way but not much more. I have tried to go slower but find that after only a few strides i get back into my natural rythm which is working out at 8 mins/mile.

If this is true, then I don't see how you could be running too quickly. What benefit could there be to running slower than is comfortable?

stevieward

cfitz wrote: »

If this is true, then I don't see how you could be running too quickly. What benefit could there be to running slower than is comfortable?

because i am afraid that even though i am running comfortably at the moment, when i get to longer training runs (18 or 20) i will be sorry that i have been running the first 14 or 15 miles of that run faster than i might have needed. And then maybe injure myself trying to finish my LTR by forcing it.

cfitz

stevieward wrote: »

because i am afraid that even though i am running comfortably at the moment, when i get to longer training runs (18 or 20) i will be sorry that i have been running the first 14 or 15 miles of that run faster than i might have needed. And then maybe injure myself trying to finish my LTR by forcing it.

Don't worry about that. Take it as it comes. How do you feel towards the end of your longer runs at the moment? The idea of going slower is to preserve your body (aside from that, quicker is generally better), I would think that running at an uncomfortably slow pace is harder on your body than running at a comfortable pace.

Rusty Cogs 08

Another option is to invest in a Heart Rate Monitor and run your LSR's according to your optimal HR (73% - 83% of your max according to P&D). If you find that 8 min miles has you in this zone then stay there and the longer runs should look after themselves (in the latter stages). If you find you have to slow down for the last few miles I wouldn't worry about it. If you've run the first 75% in your optimal HRZ then I doubt the wheels will come off.

If on the other hand 8 min miles puts you into a higher HRZ then that's a good indication that running your long runs at this pace will increase the risk of fading in the latter stages. In that case, you just might have to force yourself to run a bit slower.

stevieward

cfitz wrote: »

Don't worry about that. Take it as it comes. How do you feel towards the end of your longer runs at the moment? The idea of going slower is to preserve your body (aside from that, quicker is generally better), I would think that running at an uncomfortably slow pace is harder on your body than running at a comfortable pace.

i feel great at the end of them... thats what im waiting to change!

Rusty Cogs 08

Well the schedule above only increases in 2 mile increments so if you feel great at the end of each one I wouldn't be too afraid of the next step up. On the day the last six miles are unknown territory for most first time marathoners but if your LSR's have all gone well then I wouldn't fret.

no fretting.

--amadeus--

tunguska wrote: »

So a total of 22 miles with 15 of those very close to race pace and 5 miles at the end of those, at race pace.

Like I said, not for the faint of heart.

Which schedule is that from? I have teh Daniels book here and I can't find that particular workout in the marathon plans

cfitz wrote: »

...aside from that, quicker is generally better...

I wouldn't agree with that at all, I'm afraid. I've no doubt that at shorter distances then over-race speed training may be important but in a marathon at novice level endurance is king. Even marathon runners chasing fast times need the endurance to get them past the distance first and speed later. For example my PMP is 6:45 - 6:50 per mile. My 10k pb is a little under 6:10 per mile. So my speed isn't the issue. My speed endurance (ability to maintain a sub maximal pace for teh required distance) is a huge problem though. And running quicker than race pace will not automatically improve my speed endurance. P&D for example have proven that VO2 max (the best predictor of success at middle distance running) is much less significant at marathon distance. Therefore training to improve VO2 max (short intervals) is largely irrelevant for almost all marathon runners.

As Rusty hints above working at different HR intensities conditions different systems. The proven best way to improve CV fitness, endurance, resilience, economy and efficiency for marathon running is through LSRs and easy runs, all at sub race pace. I would estimate that anything between 60 - 80% of my mileage in any given week is slower than PMP and that's pretty normal for a marathon plan.

cfitz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Which schedule is that from? I have teh Daniels book here and I can't find that particular workout in the marathon plans



I wouldn't agree with that at all, I'm afraid. I've no doubt that at shorter distances then over-race speed training may be important but in a marathon at novice level endurance is king. Even marathon runners chasing fast times need the endurance to get them past the distance first and speed later. For example my PMP is 6:45 - 6:50 per mile. My 10k pb is a little under 6:10 per mile. So my speed isn't the issue. My speed endurance (ability to maintain a sub maximal pace for teh required distance) is a huge problem though. And running quicker than race pace will not automatically improve my speed endurance. P&D for example have proven that VO2 max (the best predictor of success at middle distance running) is much less significant at marathon distance. Therefore training to improve VO2 max (short intervals) is largely irrelevant for almost all marathon runners.

As Rusty hints above working at different HR intensities conditions different systems. The proven best way to improve CV fitness, endurance, resilience, economy and efficiency for marathon running is through LSRs and easy runs, all at sub race pace. I would estimate that anything between 60 - 80% of my mileage in any given week is slower than PMP and that's pretty normal for a marathon plan.

All that is completely irrelevant. I quite clearly said that the reason for running slow is to preserve the body. It's very simple: if injury prevention wasn't an issue, it would be better to do cover 30 miles in your 3 hour training run than to cover 20 miles in 3 hours.

--amadeus--

cfitz wrote: »

All that is completely irrelevant. I quite clearly said that the reason for running slow is to preserve the body. It's very simple: if injury prevention wasn't an issue, it would be better to do cover 30 miles in your 3 hour training run than to cover 20 miles in 3 hours.

I'm trying to find a polite way to put this but I can't. The reason for running slow is NOT to preserve the body.

The point of running slowly is to train your body to work more efficiently, for example by accessing fat as a fuel source and so preserving glycogen. It's also to accumulate time on your feet. Again back to P&D and they peak at 22 - 24 miles with the advice that your longest run should last as long as your predicted race time. It's about building physical and mental endurance. Yes running below PMP will "preserve your body" in the sense that it won't do as much damage as long runs at race pace but you're putting the cart before teh horse to say it is a reason for running slow. The main driver is to run long (both mileage and distance). Running slow is a by product of that need.

And over distance training (30 miles in 3 hours rather than 20) is strictly for teh elites. I don't know if you have access to it but a good start off point is HH book "Marathon: The ultimate Training and Racing Guide", chapter 10, p123 - 136.

ss43

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm trying to find a polite way to put this but I can't. The reason for running slow is NOT to preserve the body.

The point of running slowly is to train your body to work more efficiently, for example by accessing fat as a fuel source and so preserving glycogen. It's also to accumulate time on your feet. Again back to P&D and they peak at 22 - 24 miles with the advice that your longest run should last as long as your predicted race time. It's about building physical and mental endurance. Yes running below PMP will "preserve your body" in the sense that it won't do as much damage as long runs at race pace but you're putting the cart before teh horse to say it is a reason for running slow. The main driver is to run long (both mileage and distance). Running slow is a by product of that need.

And over distance training (30 miles in 3 hours rather than 20) is strictly for teh elites. I don't know if you have access to it but a good start off point is HH book "Marathon: The ultimate Training and Racing Guide", chapter 10, p123 - 136.

If the speed is so slow that it is uncomfortable it is unlikely to be very efficient. The biomechanics would be unnatural which could lead to problems. At such a speed you could speed up and still be burning fat stores (and thus preserving glycogen).

--amadeus--

Absolutely, to know anything for sure you need to see someone run in the flesh.

One thing I've seen a lot of new runners posting though is that they either have just one speed that all runs are at, or two (slow and flat out). Running more slowly feels weird for most people, rather than uncomfortable and so they don't bother and so may not get the full benefit of the session.

Poncherello

MCOS wrote: »

Interesting thread. I wouldn't mind some advice here. As a Marathon is not my main focus this year I am not following any kind of Marathon program for the DM.

Mileage roughly 20-25 per week up to now. Next week is a half ironman so I'll be running 13.1 off the bike. So low running mileage and plenty of cycling up to now.

My problem lies in selecting the optimum pace and getting the most out of 4 weeks Marathon prep.

So 4 long runs... how can I get the best out of them? Also, what would be the best indication that I could hold a target split for 26.2?

Thanks

Hey Amadeus I'm in same boat as MCOS above, would love to hear your thoughts ..

How Strange

--amadeus-- wrote: »

One thing I've seen a lot of new runners posting though is that they either have just one speed that all runs are at, or two (slow and flat out). Running more slowly feels weird for most people, rather than uncomfortable and so they don't bother and so may not get the full benefit of the session.

yep, that was definitely my problem last year and it contributed to me doing a very slow marathon (just under 5hrs).

This year I've been doing speed work, running with groups with a faster pace than me and started using the garmin forerunner 50 which shows my different speeds so now I'm more aware of my lsr pace, my medium run pace, fast run pace and race pace (although this is still changing but I have a fair idea).

--amadeus--

Poncherello wrote: »

Hey Amadeus I'm in same boat as MCOS above, would love to hear your thoughts ..

Could be a popular topic, I'll start a new thread on it...

cfitz

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm trying to find a polite way to put this but I can't. The reason for running slow is NOT to preserve the body.

I disagree.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

The point of running slowly is to train your body to work more efficiently, for example by accessing fat as a fuel source and so preserving glycogen.

Provided you spend the same length of time on your feet, how does running slowly do this moreso than running quickly?

--amadeus-- wrote: »

It's also to accumulate time on your feet. Again back to P&D and they peak at 22 - 24 miles with the advice that your longest run should last as long as your predicted race time. It's about building physical and mental endurance. Yes running below PMP will "preserve your body" in the sense that it won't do as much damage as long runs at race pace but you're putting the cart before teh horse to say it is a reason for running slow. The main driver is to run long (both mileage and distance). Running slow is a by product of that need.

The only reason running quickly prevents accumulating time on your feet is injury/fatigue risk.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And over distance training (30 miles in 3 hours rather than 20) is strictly for teh elites. I don't know if you have access to it but a good start off point is HH book "Marathon: The ultimate Training and Racing Guide", chapter 10, p123 - 136.

Not relevant.