Long runs

Hello all

 

Just completed Paris 2 weeks ago and I am looking to do another marathon in the Autumn . 

Has anyone run more than 22 in training ?

 

The reason I ask is because all of my running club buddies who have run marathons this spring have all faded at mile 20 - as I did. 

 

I was disappointed with my time despite a structured training schedule - I followed a Paula Radcliffe schedule - with the longest run being 20.

 

Any thoughts/ comments most welcome

 

Thanks in advance    

Comments

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭

    Steve Way ran 50 miles 2 weeks before London...

  • Pete HoltPete Holt ✭✭✭

    I would not have thought it is the 20 or 22 miles that is the problem, it is more likely that you are running the 20 miles too quickly.  What were the time splits? and what is the difference between those and the race pace?

     

    failing that it may have been not eating enough carbs for the two day build up.  my guess will be running your long runs too quickly as this seems to be a common occurrence in these threads.

  • 22 is not advisable in most plans purely for the rest of the weeks training. Recovery for that sort of mileage would take too long.

    Agree with Pete Holt, other factors must be the reason for fading. LSR too fast is always the no.1 problem image

  • I just did my 6th marathon at VMLM & am going furtehr & further on my long runs, getting a PB every year, & my pace does not fade in the slightest, nor do I feel wasted in the last 10K or afterwards.



    So I strongly believe that you prepare for the marathon by running close to the distance several times. Much slower than MP though, e.g. I went out to 25+ in 4 h 30 this year, as my last of 4 runs over 20 miles.



    It may also depend on conditioning - for my first or 2nd marathon this would have obliterated me, I adapted hugely after the first couple.
  • Thanks everyone for your advice .

  • literatinliteratin ✭✭✭

    Erm, sorry, mine wasn't actual advice. image I personally haven't gone above 22, which I think is ample (for me). But I also think it depends what else you're doing (if you do high mileage and cope with it fine you can manage longer LSRs).

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    I ran 24 mi once and 23 mi once leading up to VLM this year...but I did feel extra tired after these which made other sessions that week harder. Thinking in future I might keep to 22 max.

    It all depends how well you recover really.

    Most people fade in the last 6 miles, including me. Maybe if want to prevent this in future do even more 18-22mi long runs so body adapts more, keeping them slow except last few miles. Also have a realistic goal pace, make sure body well fuelled, and be prepared for the mental battles towards the end.

  • NayanNayan ✭✭✭

    I only ran 20 in training and don't plan on going beyond 22 second time around. However I did alway run a goal pace section or do the whole thing at goal pace and looking back that was a mistake on several levels. The entire run at goal pace was a useful confidence boost but took too much out of me and I missed the 22miler due to overtraining. And on race day I got a little nervy as I realised I was running longer than 3hours and hadn't done that before. Schoolboy stuff really., and I'm sure it contributed to the couple of mins I missed my target by.  Live and learn 

    I think I'll make a point of doing the main long run totally at slow pace so that I'm used to being on my feet for the whole goal time. I can do the goal pace stuff in a midweek long run or elsewhere anyway. 

  • Also-ranAlso-ran ✭✭✭

    I've run more than 26 as a long run, but don't see that run in isolation as adding anything much. Getting the miles in across the weeks and months consistently with some 20 / 22 mile runs in the buildup should deliver the endurance. I think going further is going to add a tiny percentage to performance, and risk a bigger percentage in performance through knackering yourself out, and/or picking up injury.

  • I don't really understand the logic behind the long run needing to be kept really slow. I've done two marathons now. The first I didn't train hard enough for and didn't put in enough long runs and I had a real meltdown in the last few miles on race day. But for my second marathon (VLM this year) I felt strong right to the finish. My longest run was 21 miles and all my long runs were only a tad slower than my marathon. Why should I have run the training runs slower - or should I have tried to run the marathon faster? My marathon was pretty much evenly paced for the whole 26.2 so I feel like I paced it just right.

  • Also-ranAlso-ran ✭✭✭

    I don't think it needs to be run slow. The physiologists recommend a long steady run to gain the benefits at least cost / lowest risk to the runner while enabling them to take on a full training schedule the week after.

    If I run 22 miles close to MP, I would manage a reasonable recovery run the next day, but I know my quality session on Tuesday and Thursday would suffer, not to mention the increased injury risk.

    A lot of this is based on the training schedule. Use something like Furman FIRST plan and you get to run around 3 times a week like a nutter. Use a Lydiard shaped plan such as P&D, Hansons, Hudson etc, and you have a very different focus. Even in these plans not every long run is steady.

     

  • TRTR ✭✭✭

    Skylarker - as a rule of thumb most folks can run somewhere around 12 or 13M max at MP in training, it should be a pretty hard run. If you run too many long runs hard you will have burned too many matches during training that you should have saved for race day, so is best to do the MP runs separate from long runs. If you yourself are able to back up long runs not much slower than you are running on race day then that is fine but it shows that you are not running to your potential on race day (again which is fine - its a personal choice).

    I mostly make my longest run (say 22M) last for the time I expect to be on my feet for on race day. I've run as far as 26.5M in training before, but think that any time over expected race time is time spent in the danger zone. Its more about the overall training load than teh length of the long runs, take a look at something like PnD and see the Weds and fri MLRs to back up the Long Runs. 

  • Thanks Also-ran and TR. Yes, that all makes good sense. I don't think I did run to my full potential - my age graded performance was much lower than for a HM I did a month before. But because I'm inexperienced with the marathon distance I just wanted to make sure I got to the end. Also, I was very tired during training so perhaps if I had slowed down the long runs that wouldn't have been so much of a problem. It's all a good learning experience for the next one!

  • Pete HoltPete Holt ✭✭✭
    Skylarker wrote (see)

    I don't really understand the logic behind the long run needing to be kept really slow. I've done two marathons now. The first I didn't train hard enough for and didn't put in enough long runs and I had a real meltdown in the last few miles on race day. But for my second marathon (VLM this year) I felt strong right to the finish. My longest run was 21 miles and all my long runs were only a tad slower than my marathon. Why should I have run the training runs slower - or should I have tried to run the marathon faster? My marathon was pretty much evenly paced for the whole 26.2 so I feel like I paced it just right.


    It is to do with endurance.  Your body improves endurance was at 70% effort, which is "normally 1 to 1:30 slower than MP for many.  At 65% the body learns how to use fats rather than glycogen subsequently slowing down still further can be beneficial for many.

    In terms of endurance training it comes down to muscle fibres, the slow twitch muscle fibres which improve at this reduced level of effort.

     

  • I've run 30 mile races and marathons at steady pace I think it helps.

    I think it depends on your history. If you're a new runner then running 26 miles in training might wipe you out a bit too much.
Sign In or Register to comment.