Long slow Run

willowthewisp

Hi,
Quick question, Im on week 2 of a 3.30 to 4.30 marathon plan.
Todays LSR is 10k, now id usually bust a 10k out pretty easily in sub 50 (notgreat by better runners standards I know), and to do one in over an hour is sacrilige to me.
BUT for the benefit of training should I be running at 1 min per km more than planned marathon pace.
PMP is 5.30 to 5.40 per km, LSR for this shoud then be 6.30 to 7 mins per km.
Am I right or all over the place?

Many Thanks

Peckham

You're pretty much right, although your LSR pace is more towards 4:30 than 3:30 marathon pace (but you're in the early stages of training, so will probably speed up a little as fitness improves over next few weeks).

Which plan are you following?

village runner

willowthewisp wrote: »

Hi,
Quick question, Im on week 2 of a 3.30 to 4.30 marathon plan.
Todays LSR is 10k, now id usually bust a 10k out pretty easily in sub 50 (notgreat by better runners standards I know), and to do one in over an hour is sacrilige to me.
BUT for the benefit of training should I be running at 1 min per km more than planned marathon pace.
PMP is 5.30 to 5.40 per km, LSR for this shoud then be 6.30 to 7 mins per km.
Am I right or all over the place?

Many Thanks

Seems that you are ahead of the schedule. Race a 10km if you can and it will see where you are at.

If you have ran a good few 10kms why not do a 10 mile in say 95 min.
You need a race time to start your training off. Then get a specific one. A 3.30 to 4.30 training plan is a difference of 2 min a mile.What marathon are you aiming for ??

willowthewisp

Thanks for the advice, Im aiming for Belfast so have started a little early to allow for potential delays over the christmas period.
Im going to schedule in for the Aware 10k on 12 Dec and see what im like in that.

Rio 2016

Always aim for quality before quantity and remember faster is always better than slower.

TheRoadRunner

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Always aim for quality before quantity and remember faster is always better than slower.

I don't why I'm replying to the above but in case you haven't guessed this is bogus advice. Quality is important but quality does not have to be fast especially on recovery days.

--amadeus--

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Always aim for quality before quantity and remember faster is always better than slower.

I agree that quality usually beats quantity.

But faster better than slower? Not always - the general consensus is that your LSRs should be exactly that, long and slow. Not too slow but somewhere between 10 and 20% slower than PMP. Faster pace (especially as distances build beyond 16 miles) greatly increase the risk of injury without a corresponding increase in training benefits. Running your LSR at PMP also involves a signifigant recovery time which compromises your ability to do quality sessions later in teh week. And there is a mental element - your longest LSR should equate to the expected duration of your marathon so that you are mentally ready for 26.2 miles and running for 3 or 4 hours (or more), again not possible unless you are planning on running 26 miles at race pace in training, which would be daft.

If you find it easy to run your LSRs @ PMP then IMO your PMP is too slow.

[edit] And RR is faster....again!

Bobby1984

Two great quotes i read are as follows:

1. If you want to run fast, run longer - if yo want to run longer, run slower.

2. Train slow, race fast.

Based on a 50min 10K, you should be able to do a 3.54 marathon with the right training. For your LSR your pace should be between 5.50 - 6.30 per K. It will be slower again if it is a recovery run. As you are only starting the training plan, your LSR should be closer to 6.30 per K and as you progress it will start to get towards the faster rate.

Best of luck.

Rio 2016

Lets get one fact straight. LSD never worked and never will. I do agree that you do need a certain amount of recovery runs but runing LSD too much will sere no benefit to you. For your long run I reckon that you should aim to run at about 25-30 secs per km slower than your goal marathon pace but for the majority of your shorter runs I would believe that you should be in or around marathon pace.

As for you TheRoadRunner if quality isn't fast than what exactly is quality.

Racing Flat

I'd just do it at whatever feels like a natural comfortable pace. Wouldn't worry about the actual min mile pace, just be interesting to see what it is at the end of the run, but I think whatever comes natural might work best.

--amadeus--

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Lets get one fact straight. LSD never worked and never will. I do agree that you do need a certain amount of recovery runs but runing LSD too much will sere no benefit to you. For your long run I reckon that you should aim to run at about 25-30 secs per km slower than your goal marathon pace but for the majority of your shorter runs I would believe that you should be in or around marathon pace.

As for you TheRoadRunner if quality isn't fast than what exactly is quality.

Question 1 - you say that LSD "never worked and never will". On what is this based (ideally with links to articles, books, etc.)

Question 2 - do you mind telling us your own experience and background, how many marathons you've run, marathon PBs, coaching qualifications and experience etc? This allows us to judge the quality of teh advice you are giving.

Thanks.

Stupid_Private

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Question 2 - do you mind telling us your own experience and background, how many marathons you've run, marathon PBs, coaching qualifications and experience etc?

This is a question that keeps being asked (not by you amadeus, but by the forum in general) and its one I don't like. Everything seems to be based around marathon and posters get shot down when they say they haven't run one yet, as if this means they're not a real runner like those that have done the marathon. An example would be in a recent thread (I think it was the slow marathon thread) where a poster responded to this question by saying he hadn't done one yet but does a weekly 17 mile run at 6.30 min/mile pace. He got responses along the lines of you can't comment on a marathon because you've never done one, and that he doesn't know what its like when you reach 24 miles, etc. My assumption would be that that poster is probably in or around the 33 min for 10k, something I personally believe takes a hell of a lot more dedication and training than any 2:40/2:50/3:00 marathon. Yet the posters on here seem to think that unless you've done the marathon your opinion means jack.

TheRoadRunner

Rio 2016 wrote: »

As for you TheRoadRunner if quality isn't fast than what exactly is quality.

Quality can be many things. On a recovery day it may be something slow to get lactic out of the legs and burn fat stores. Other days it may indeed be fast.

A hard interval session on a Saturday followed by 20 miles at a fast pace on a Sunday would not be quality for me as it would lead to tiredness or possible injury. I think this is probably true for most people.

TFBubendorfer

Stupid_Private wrote: »

This is a question that keeps being asked (not by you amadeus, but by the forum in general) and its one I don't like.

That's certainly true in general, but if someone comes out with a statement like "LSD never worked and never will" then it's more than reasonable to inquire about his/her marathon credibilities, I think.

--amadeus--

Stupid_Private wrote: »

This is a question that keeps being asked (not by you amadeus, but by the forum in general) and its one I don't like. Everything seems to be based around marathon and posters get shot down when they say they haven't run one yet, as if this means they're not a real runner like those that have done the marathon. An example would be in a recent thread (I think it was the slow marathon thread) where a poster responded to this question by saying he hadn't done one yet but does a weekly 17 mile run at 6.30 min/mile pace. He got responses along the lines of you can't comment on a marathon because you've never done one, and that he doesn't know what its like when you reach 24 miles, etc. My assumption would be that that poster is probably in or around the 33 min for 10k, something I personally believe takes a hell of a lot more dedication and training than any 2:40/2:50/3:00 marathon. Yet the posters on here seem to think that unless you've done the marathon your opinion means jack.

I know exactly where you are coming from. I think that because of the history of these boards (the separate marathon & tri board that got merged into the Athletics board) there is a bit of marathon bias on here. And on here (and "real life") there is some distance snobbery.

But...

In this particular case the poster has been... contentious (I think is fair) in a couple of threads. And he's come on here and has thrown around some very controversial and (in my opinion) unhelpful advice. As well as the quick (33 min 10k or whatever) runners we also have a huge amount of novices - they far outweigh the fast guys. And a lot of them lurk, may not be in clubs and take teh advice on here seriously. Saying that "faster is always better" in teh context of marathon training is (again, in my opinion) flat out wrong. I've been around here long enough that people know my background and can decide if they agree with me or not. But from a brand new poster - especially one who (as you said) gives the impression of being fast - it's harder to make a judgement on the quality of teh advice.

So I asked for his background so that people (myself included) could decide whether to take his advice seriously or not.

An example would be Tungska actually. In the last long & slow vs long & fast thread he had some fairly controversial opinions. Finding out he was a sub 2:50 marathon runner and was practising what he preached meant that he was taken seriously and his opinions listened to - I know that his advice, experience and background changed teh way I think about LSRs. And he made me (and I assume others) think in a way that a teenager who's never raced further than 10k perhaps wouldn't, simply because they lack experience.

Gringo78

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Lets get one fact straight. LSD never worked and never will.

Are we mixing up LSD here with LSR? As I understand it LSD is all your runs long and slow, whereas LSR is the once weekly long run at 10-20% slower pace than MP prescribed by most marathon training programs. In the case that the poster does intend LSD as the one paced training method I think it is, I would tend to agree, that LSD training is sufficient for completing a marathon comfortably and nothing more, I'm not sure he's actually rubbishing the LSR though

--amadeus--

Right, I've been thinking about this...

Asking someone's background *is* relevant if they are giving advice.

I can really only use myself as an example. I've done next to no racing below marathon distance. So someone wants marathon advice, I'll jump in and advise. Halfs - fair enough, similar enough for the same principals to apply. But below that I'm slow to offer an opinion and once you go below 5k and get into track or sprints I would never speak up. I know nothing about them, have never raced them and other people are better placed to give advice.

And I think the same applies going from short to long. Just because someone is a fast 5 or 10k runner and is a dedicated trainer doesn't mean that they should automatically be listened to about marathon training if they have no experience in that area.

Racing Flat

--amadeus-- wrote: »

And I think the same applies going from short to long. Just because someone is a fast 5 or 10k runner and is a dedicated trainer doesn't mean that they should automatically be listened to about marathon training if they have no experience in that area.

What if they have the World Record for 5k, but have never run a marathon and have done a PhD on marathon training? I'd certainly take advice from him or her on board. i.e. it's not always as black and white as 'if you haven't experienced it you can't give advice'.

--amadeus--

Racing Flat wrote: »

What if they have the World Record for 5k, but have never run a marathon and have done a PhD on marathon training? I'd certainly take advice from him or her on board. i.e. it's not always as black and white as 'if you haven't experienced it you can't give advice'.

Of course I would - which is why I asked about coaching experience. you don't have to have run amazing times to know how to run amazing times at whatever distance.

But you need something - if al your experience is in (for example) 5ks and you have neither run, studied or coached anything further then lashing out advice on (for example) marathons isn't a great idea.

But if you are a certified coach, if you've read the books, have a sports science degree or some other expertise then that's different.

I mean if you were doing a DIY rewiring of your house and an electrician and a plumber are giving advice whose would you give more weight to?

donothoponpop

To answer the OP, a slow 10k is hardly an LSR. 6 miles is not long in this context. And if it feels too slow it probably is.

Specifically, the P&D mantra of LSR's at 20% slower than marathon pace is too slow- better sticking to the +10% PMP part of their program. I think there is a worrying over-emphasis on too-slow LSR's on this board, resulting in too many people running beneath their potential. I've talked to plenty of 2:40-2:50 marathon runners whose bread-and-butter is either: run LSR's at above marathon distance, often, in their training; or get in plenty of fast runs (PMP or faster) in the 13-16 mile range.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I mean if you were doing a DIY rewiring of your house and an electrician and a plumber are giving advice whose would you give more weight to?

Plenty of electricians, plumbers, candlestickmakers, giving advice on this forum!
Caveat: I'm an artist giving advice on marathons, so draw what you will from my comment;)

Rio 2016

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Question 1 - you say that LSD "never worked and never will". On what is this based (ideally with links to articles, books, etc.)

Question 2 - do you mind telling us your own experience and background, how many marathons you've run, marathon PBs, coaching qualifications and experience etc? This allows us to judge the quality of teh advice you are giving.

Thanks.

I'll let you answer this one.

How many Olympic, World, European, Commonwealth or even National champions or record holders have ever trained using LSD, and anyone slower than 2:20 should not be counted.

tergat

I think there needs to be a balance between running slow for long distances and doing long runs with some marathon pace added to it. Obviously when beginning a plan for a marathon you have to gradually build up your long run over the weeks, to a certain point bet it 16 miles or 22 miles depending on your backround. When you body has adapted to running the distance of your long run at an easy pace, THEN you can start adding some marathon paced miles in the last 2-4 miles of the run and eventually progressing on to runs such as 10 miles @easy pace and 8-10 miles @marathon pace.

You CANNOT just jump into doing a long run with marathon pace straight away. You body needs to adapt to the stress and you have to build up the distance & pace of your long run over time. The real key of running long is stated below.

By doing long runs and long workouts three important things happen:

1) Improved ability to deal with race trauma - the thousands and thousands of fast-paced steps you'll be taking are hard on legs if they are not specifically prepared for the demands

2) Improved fuel storage and use - increased stores of glycogen and better use of both glycogen and fatty acids to allow your body to "go the distance"

3) Improved efficiency, measured in economy normally. Economy is the amount of oxygen it costs you to run a given pace, normally submaximal pace. When you do a lot of distance running at or near your marathon pace, you improve your efficiency and thus reduced the amount of oxygen cost needed to run at that pace. So, the major result is less use of fuel while running that pace. And, since you have a limited supply of glycogen fuel, you'll be able to run further with the same amount of fuel.

Tergat

--amadeus--

And (IMO) that ^ is advice you can trust.

Great post

thirtyfoot

tergat wrote: »

I think there needs to be a balance between running slow for long distances and doing long runs with some marathon pace added to it. Obviously when beginning a plan for a marathon you have to gradually build up your long run over the weeks, to a certain point bet it 16 miles or 22 miles depending on your backround. When you body has adapted to running the distance of your long run at an easy pace, THEN you can start adding some marathon paced miles in the last 2-4 miles of the run and eventually progressing on to runs such as 10 miles @easy pace and 8-10 miles @marathon pace.

You CANNOT just jump into doing a long run with marathon pace straight away. You body needs to adapt to the stress and you have to build up the distance & pace of your long run over time. The real key of running long is stated below.

By doing long runs and long workouts three important things happen:

1) Improved ability to deal with race trauma - the thousands and thousands of fast-paced steps you'll be taking are hard on legs if they are not specifically prepared for the demands

2) Improved fuel storage and use - increased stores of glycogen and better use of both glycogen and fatty acids to allow your body to "go the distance"

3) Improved efficiency, measured in economy normally. Economy is the amount of oxygen it costs you to run a given pace, normally submaximal pace. When you do a lot of distance running at or near your marathon pace, you improve your efficiency and thus reduced the amount of oxygen cost needed to run at that pace. So, the major result is less use of fuel while running that pace. And, since you have a limited supply of glycogen fuel, you'll be able to run further with the same amount of fuel.

Tergat

Good point, well presented as usual (sometime soon Tergat will have a post that won't get a Thanks, he sickens me sometimes;))

misty floyd

Tingle wrote: »

sometime soon Tergat will have a post that won't get a Thanks, he sickens me sometimes;)

There are a couple of typos??

Agree, great post.

TFBubendorfer

Rio 2016 wrote: »

I'll let you answer this one.

How many Olympic, World, European, Commonwealth or even National champions or record holders have ever trained using LSD, and anyone slower than 2:20 should not be counted.

No problem. Frank Shorter is an Olympic champion, has a best of 2:10:30, and ran so slowly on his easy days that anyone who fancied a run could keep up with him.

thirtyfoot

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

No problem. Frank Shorter is an Olympic champion, has a best of 2:10:30, and ran so slowly on his easy days that anyone who fancied a run could keep up with him.

Peter Snell was an Olympic champion and he did a fair bit of long slow stuff (by his standards) too and he was an 800m man!!!!

Rio 2016

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

No problem. Frank Shorter is an Olympic champion, has a best of 2:10:30, and ran so slowly on his easy days that anyone who fancied a run could keep up with him.

Fair enough but I can guarantee you that on those days he also ran one if not two proper training runs or workouts for his preperation. Those slow runs were simply to loosen out his legs or to open his lungs for the lung busting work which was to follow.

shels4ever

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Fair enough but I can guarantee you that on those days he also ran one if not two proper training runs or workouts for his preperation. Those slow runs were simply to loosen out his legs or to open his lungs for the lung busting work which was to follow.

So lung busting runs every day then? 100 mile puls runner maybe do 3 hard session a week and the rest is miles and mile of easy running, so called lung busting runs what ever they are wouldnt be done that often. Most hard workouts wouldnt be lung busting anyway...

michellemuncher

I agree with Amadeus, if a person gives advice that is contentious, then their credentials should be brought into question. As a fairly novice runner who would like to run the marathon next year, I need all the good advice I can get and not be confused by someone who refuses to expand and explain their theories that run counter to everyone else's. Thanks to all who make the effort to explain the complexities of running strategies.

Racing Flat

michellemuncher wrote: »

I agree with Amadeus, if a person gives advice that is contentious, then their credentials should be brought into question. As a fairly novice runner who would like to run the marathon next year, I need all the good advice I can get and not be confused by someone who refuses to expand and explain their theories that run counter to everyone else's. Thanks to all who make the effort to explain the complexities of running strategies.

At the same time you've got to remember it's the internet - if you want evidence/research based advice this may not be the best place to look.

kennyb3

donothoponpop wrote: »

To answer the OP, a slow 10k is hardly an LSR. 6 miles is not long in this context. And if it feels too slow it probably is.

Specifically, the P&D mantra of LSR's at 20% slower than marathon pace is too slow- better sticking to the +10% PMP part of their program. I think there is a worrying over-emphasis on too-slow LSR's on this board, resulting in too many people running beneath their potential. I've talked to plenty of 2:40-2:50 marathon runners whose bread-and-butter is either: run LSR's at above marathon distance, often, in their training; or get in plenty of fast runs (PMP or faster) in the 13-16 mile range.




Plenty of electricians, plumbers, candlestickmakers, giving advice on this forum!
Caveat: I'm an artist giving advice on marathons, so draw what you will from my comment;)

totally agree with this, i brought the running LSR's too slow after lots of people on here missed their targets in dublin.

kennyb3

Rio 2016 wrote: »

I'll let you answer this one.

How many Olympic, World, European, Commonwealth or even National champions or record holders have ever trained using LSD, and anyone slower than 2:20 should not be counted.

and rather than posing questions, why dont you answer the ones you were previosuly asked, such as your credentials

Rio 2016

Alright it is clearly evident that many of you have become extremely confused so I will try to put it in lay mans terms for you.

Firstly you need hard days. Whether you run intervals, hills, tempo runs or long runs. These are designed to be hard

Secondly you need recovery days and for every hard day you have you eill need on average two recovery days. On these recovery days you should be able to run at a steady but relaxed pace. If these runs are too slow however they will serve no purpose as they do not allow the body to increase its "steady state"

Finally I must clarify the question about my credentials. While I may only be a young man whos has only been involced in the sport for four years, I do base my training philosophies on the Lydiard model (undoubtabely the greatest philosopher the sport has ever seen.)

N.B. If any of ye want to get stuck into a debate about my creentials I would be happy dicuss them with you on a seperate thread.

tunney

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Alright it is clearly evident that many of you have become extremely confused so I will try to put it in lay mans terms for you.

Firstly you need hard days. Whether you run intervals, hills, tempo runs or long runs. These are designed to be hard

Secondly you need recovery days and for every hard day you have you eill need on average two recovery days. On these recovery days you should be able to run at a steady but relaxed pace. If these runs are too slow however they will serve no purpose as they do not allow the body to increase its "steady state"

Finally I must clarify the question about my credentials. While I may only be a young man whos has only been involced in the sport for four years, I do base my training philosophies on the Lydiard model (undoubtabely the greatest philosopher the sport has ever seen.)

N.B. If any of ye want to get stuck into a debate about my creentials I would be happy dicuss them with you on a seperate thread.

Apologies Rio and Amadeus. back on my best behaviour

Rio 2016

tunney wrote: »

I don't have any qualifcations - there my credentials are out there.

However even without qualifications I am going to go out on a limb and say - you don't really know what you are talking about.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are probabely on the wrong forum

--amadeus--

No need for personal abuse from anyone, new poster or old regular.

Rio - Tunney has a history of being fairly blunt. And he and I rarely agree. On anything. But I guarantee you he knows what he's talking about and he is on the right forum.

So are you two going to trade insults or are you going to explain why you each think the other is talking rubbish?

tunney

Apologies all, and I was doing so well at not being blunt. And I think we agreed on something once Amadeus.

Rio 2016

As Amadeus said I think that you and I should have a debate on our respective traing philosophies.

So do you accept my challange?

tunney

Rio 2016 wrote: »

As Amadeus said I think that you and I should have a debate on our respective traing philosophies.

So do you accept my challange?

I'm not sure I have a training philosphy other than "STFU, HTFU, SIU and get out and do some BHW".

shels4ever

Rio 2016 wrote: »

As Amadeus said I think that you and I should have a debate on our respective traing philosophies.

So do you accept my challange?

This could be fun ....

Carb

tunney wrote: »

I'm not sure I have a training philosphy other than "STFU, HTFU, SIU and get out and do some BHW".

:eek:

Acronym overload.

MCOS

Rio 2016 wrote: »

As Amadeus said I think that you and I should have a debate on our respective traing philosophies.

So do you accept my challange?

ooh Rio vs Tunners

I propose debate rules

--amadeus-- opens the thread
ONLY the 2 debating can post
Only one post at a time
10 posts each max
We all watch/read whatever... :rolleyes:
Thread Closed
--amadeus-- sets up a poll for the winner
we vote for specific timeframe
winner declared and given a brownie point for dispensing advice on A/R/T

We could call it the A/R/T debate challenge... I can only see what it would look like it now if Woddle gets his teeth into it....

--amadeus--

Rio 2016 wrote: »

As Amadeus said I think that you and I should have a debate on our respective traing philosophies.

So do you accept my challange?

Whatever about Tunney accepting it I would be interested in hearing how you square:

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Lets get one fact straight. LSD never worked and never will. I do agree that you do need a certain amount of recovery runs but runing LSD too much will sere no benefit to you.

and

Rio 2016 wrote: »

I do base my training philosophies on the Lydiard model (undoubtabely the greatest philosopher the sport has ever seen.)

Given that:

To gain the best results for the time spent in training, it is important to run at your best aerobic speed: i.e. at speeds at a level just under your steady state or Maximum Oxygen Uptake. This is theory and can be applied in practice.

Even very slow running will effectively increase general cardiac efficiency and therefore raise the oxygen uptake. However, by running at speeds much below the maximum oxygen uptake level, it is going to take much longer periods of time to gain the same results than if the if the rates of speed were at faster aerobic levels. In other words: one can run too fast or too slow and it is important to control the running efforts as well as possible if the optimum results are to be achieved in the time spent exercising.

(From here, a transcript of the main Lydiard training book)

Given that Lydiard encouraged everyone from 800m runners up to do steady runs of up t0 35kms and totalling 100 miles per week in the base building phase how can you say that "Faster is always better". And while LSD has become a phrase that is basically meaningless as it has changed definition so often is it really possible to say that Lydiard's base building did not involve "long slow distance" running?

--amadeus--

I would love to see Rio debate Tunny but it would take months to get the blood off the walls...

tunney

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Always aim for quality before quantity and remember faster is always better than slower.

I agreed that junk miles are worthless. However speed is not always a requirement of quality sessions. An example of a quality session that I've done recently that was dog slow was hill repeats on Howth hill. Does the fact it was at a relatively slow pace mean it wasn't a quality session. Another quality session was a two hour run on a rolling course, again compared to a speed session it was a slow session, but does that mean it wasn't quality? Quality does not mean speed. An aquintance of mine is aiming to get on the Euro XC team. His quality session that he and his partners do is hill repeats on 3 Rock. Not quality?

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Lets get one fact straight. LSD never worked and never will. I do agree that you do need a certain amount of recovery runs but runing LSD too much will sere no benefit to you. For your long run I reckon that you should aim to run at about 25-30 secs per km slower than your goal marathon pace but for the majority of your shorter runs I would believe that you should be in or around marathon pace.

As for you TheRoadRunner if quality isn't fast than what exactly is quality.

See the above point about quality and speed.

I don't like the term LSD, I prefer LED. But they both are in effect the same thing, its just me being pedantic.

The purpose of LSD/LED, in my mind is twofold. To promote leg durability and to shift the fat:cho usage ratio. The further up the curve you can push the ratio the faster you will be able to go from a glycogen stores perspective. If the ration isn't high enough and you go out hard you will expend your glycogen stores before the finish and walk. I'm not sure whether this is quite as relevant to straight marathons.

LSD/LED may well be done at 25-30 seconds slower than marathon pace but that does not for one minute make LSD/LED runs recovery runs. A recovery run is a run when the total cost to the body is less than the recovery benefits it brings. A 40km run does have a cost on the body and the energy systems.

Rio 2016 wrote: »

I'll let you answer this one.

How many Olympic, World, European, Commonwealth or even National champions or record holders have ever trained using LSD, and anyone slower than 2:20 should not be counted.

I can point you in the direction of many elite IM distance triathletes you run faster than 2:20 (straight runs) who use LSD in training. The 'S' being relative of course. I can also point you in the direction of elite US marathon runners who run with the, (or actually the other way around).

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Fair enough but I can guarantee you that on those days he also ran one if not two proper training runs or workouts for his preperation. Those slow runs were simply to loosen out his legs or to open his lungs for the lung busting work which was to follow.

Of course he did some speed sessions as well.

Long runs promote key physiological changes - from fuel economy, to the simple matter of your feet getting used to time on them. Energy systems are complicated things and there is no point in training only one of them, get them all working as well as possible imho, including the fat based energy system.

tergat

Rio 2016 wrote: »

Alright it is clearly evident that many of you have become extremely confused so I will try to put it in lay mans terms for you.

Firstly you need hard days. Whether you run intervals, hills, tempo runs or long runs. These are designed to be hard

Secondly you need recovery days and for every hard day you have you eill need on average two recovery days. On these recovery days you should be able to run at a steady but relaxed pace. If these runs are too slow however they will serve no purpose as they do not allow the body to increase its "steady state"
Finally I must clarify the question about my credentials. While I may only be a young man whos has only been involced in the sport for four years, I do base my training philosophies on the Lydiard model (undoubtabely the greatest philosopher the sport has ever seen.)

N.B. If any of ye want to get stuck into a debate about my creentials I would be happy dicuss them with you on a seperate thread.

Rio 2016,

Running very slowly is ok in certain circumstances. When you are recovering from a hard workout, it is an excellent choice. Not only does slow running facilitate recovery by moving out damaged tissue and supplying nutrients for repair, it keeps the capillaries open and the mitochondria of slow twitch fibers stimulated.

The worst thing you can do is run too fast on a regular basis. You burn up your glycogen and thus have no energy to run really fast in a race. And, I think you probably jeopardize your health, too, because your endrocrine system becomes exhausted. Thus, you'll become ill quite easily.

If you run too fast on your distance runs between scheduled key sessions, then you won't run your key sessions very well. So, you might as well not run key workouts if you run fast on a daily basis.

Also, if you are going to run an important race soon and you have only done very slow distance running, you may have good aerobic endurance and your slow twitch muscle fibers are fit, but you won't be able to use your fast twitch (oxidative or glycolytic) much at all. Thus, you won't have power to get the speed to a good level. But, it only takes a handful of faster workouts to get that power up and to get those fast fibers functioning well.

So, the theme is this: it is important to modulate (vary) the pace of your distance runs and it is important to NOT run hard every day. Tunney was right in saying all the enrgy systems need to be worked. If you follow my general philosophy, you will run no more than 2 hard workouts per week. And, during the majority of your build up to a race, you don't need to be running hard, period. Rather, a couple of challenging endurance workouts per week is about all you really need. For most runners, 4-8 fast workouts will bring them to peak fitness and performance, so why do them 2-3 times per week for many weeks in a row?

Tergat

ultraman1

tergat wrote: »

, For most runners, 4-8 fast workouts will bring them to peak fitness and performance, Tergat

xcellant post.. 4-8 workouts over how long a period?

aero2k

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Question 2 - do you mind telling us your own experience and background, how many marathons you've run, marathon PBs, coaching qualifications and experience etc? This allows us to judge the quality of teh advice you are giving.
Thanks.

Stupid_Private wrote: »

This is a question that keeps being asked (not by you amadeus, but by the forum in general) and its one I don't like. Everything seems to be based around marathon and posters get shot down when they say they haven't run one yet, as if this means they're not a real runner like those that have done the marathon.... the posters on here seem to think that unless you've done the marathon your opinion means jack.

I'm a bit late joining this debate. I'm firmly on the fence between Amadeus and Stupid_Private in that I think it depends on who we're talking about. I've met people with strings of qualifications, including MBAs, who I wouldn't trust to manage anything. Similarly with experience - it's only useful if you learn the lessons. I know I posted a lot on here prior to the DCM when I had completed 2 marathons without having completely run either of them, but I do have a fair bit of experience of cycling, which does have a certain amount in common with marathon running.
At an early stage of my most recent cycling comeback, some of my clubmates had complimented me on my improvement in speed and endurance, and I was asked to say a few words on my training approach at one of our club meetings. I managed to get a few sentences out before I was shouted down with statements like " I don't need to use a HRM", "I'm going to race myself fit" etc. Now everyone present had many years experience of competition and training - I was a novice in comparison. They all wanted to improve their results. They all intended to train as they had always trained. None of them saw the problem with this approach.
Experience is like knowledge - not everyone is able to make the most of it.

tergat wrote: »

The worst thing you can do is run too fast on a regular basis. You burn up your glycogen and thus have no energy to run really fast in a race. And, I think you probably jeopardize your health, too, because your endrocrine system becomes exhausted. Thus, you'll become ill quite easily.

If you run too fast on your distance runs between scheduled key sessions, then you won't run your key sessions very well. So, you might as well not run key workouts if you run fast on a daily basis.
If you follow my general philosophy, you will run no more than 2 hard workouts per week.....For most runners, 4-8 fast workouts will bring them to peak fitness and performance, so why do them 2-3 times per week for many weeks in a row?

Tergat

I found the above approach very successful.

tergat

ultraman1 wrote: »

xcellant post.. 4-8 workouts over how long a period?

ultraman1,

The 4-8 workouts would be twice weekly over 2-4 weeks depending on the individuals racing plan.

The real point is that, if you build a strong aerobic base with easy runs, long runs, tempo/LT runs then the race pace specific work 800m-10km pace is the icing on the cake.

Key factors people should look at when training hard are as follows:

1) Performance level. A fitter runner can absorb more fast running without breaking down.

2) Training consistency. A runner who trains at a decent level for several weeks or months without having setbacks or time off due to injury or illness can handle more quality training per workout and per week.

3) Technical skill. Someone who "pounds the ground," overstrides, leans too much or pronates too much is more likely to have problems when doing high volume quality training.

4) Weekly aerobic volume. A runner who has been covering more miles per week, for several weeks, can handle more quality interval work than one who has been doing lower mileage over a shorter time-frame.

5) Life stress. If you work a lot and have family obligations, you can't do as much quality interval training per workout or per week as someone who is "stress-free." The same applies for school kids, use plenty high end aerobic work while keeping in touch with basic speed, keep them training consistant and injury free and watch the results!!!

Remember you can only train as hard as you can recover!!!

Tergat

Rio 2016

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Whatever about Tunney accepting it I would be interested in hearing how you square:



and



Given that:

(From here, a transcript of the main Lydiard training book)

Given that Lydiard encouraged everyone from 800m runners up to do steady runs of up t0 35kms and totalling 100 miles per week in the base building phase how can you say that "Faster is always better". And while LSD has become a phrase that is basically meaningless as it has changed definition so often is it really possible to say that Lydiard's base building did not involve "long slow distance" running?

In your quote you have even confirmed the fact that faster is better as runining at slow paces will mean that it will take you longer to increase your "steady state" and Lydiard also stated that the easy runs which are done in the morning are only designed to compliment the proper work. However if you are injury prone these will be the first runs to be scrapped