anything wrong with all long runs?

[Rick]

Looking for advice from you experts. I've been running for three years, and have done 5 marathons. Would like to qualify for Boston in the next year or so, but I am about 16 mins too slow, at last race. I was recently reading web pages on how to do a faster marathon, and found the one at RunningTimes ( http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4835 ) that said you should do more long runs and faster, to speed up. That makes a lot of sense, to me, so I have been doing all my runs longer than I used to. I'm currently doing something like 4 or 5 runs a week, ranging from 9 to 20 miles per run. I try to do the last 5-6 miles at hoped-for-marathon pace (8:14) or faster. So, my plan for the next month or so is to maybe do 15, 15, 9, and 20 mile runs each week, giving me 3 rest days per week. The nice thing about doing lots of my runs longer is that even when I am tired at the beginning of the run, after about 7 or 8 miles I start to feel much better, and the running gets easier, even if I start to speed up.
Does this sound like a plan, or just plain stupid?
thanks

[Jon Allen]

Rick- it's a bit hard to comment on this since we can't see any of your running history.  But, based on my reading of that article, I think you misunderstood a few points of the article. 

The article suggests doing some long fast runs (i.e. they talk about 3 runs of 15+ miles at race pace over a 10-12 week period... in other words, one every 3-4 weeks) rather than just lots of slow, 20 mile runs.  They emphasize that you still need high mileage (up to 90-100 miles per week), and their schedule shows only 1 rest day in a 21 day period.  They are stating that you need high mileage and speedwork, but then add on 3 or more very hard, race-like long runs.

I think your plan to do only 4 runs per week would be counterproductive.  I would not endorse any program where you rest 3 days per week- running consistent mileage every day is the best way to get faster.  In addition, trying to do some marathon pace mileage in all your runs will be too hard on your body. 

However, the program they show on the last page is not bad if you can handle it.  http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=4835&CategoryID=&PageNum=6  The program shows weekly mileage of 56 (recovery week), 72, and 69, with running almost every day.  But the emphasis is not on doing ONLY longer MP runs, but on adding a couple of those through a 9 week cycle.

That being said, it is not unheard of to do weeks with two 15-mile runs and a 20-mile run- I actually do it during some training cycles.  But, they are just a part of a week in which I run 10 times and do 100 miles.  http://jon.fastrunningblog.com/blog-week-08-01-2009.html  Trying to do those runs without a good enough base does not seem wise to me, though that is just my opinion.

Best of luck.  Hopefully you find something that works for you.

On a related note, since you have never BQ-ed... what is the highest weekly mileage you have ever run for a consistent time?

[Sasha Pachev]

Rick - Jon has made some good points. This is more than theory. We have seen time and again that when a runner moves from 4 days a week to 6, and runs at least 10 miles every day for a period of 6-8 months his marathon PR often improves by 30 minutes, and we have seen a couple of cases when it improved by over an hour. We have multiple day-by-day records of how it happened with a lot of runners on the blog.

So as Jon said, emphasis number one should be to get out six days a week. Note that there is a huge difference between trying and doing it. There must be no exceptions. Long runs and long tempos cannot make up for the lack of consistency in training. Binge running does more harm than good because hard workouts are not properly absorbed.

Once you provide more details about your training in the last 4 months we'll be able to give you more specific training advice.

[Rick]

Sorry for my delay. (Strange, couldn't get back in using Safari. Now trying Firefox)
I have been running typically 6 times per week. In 2009, I ran about 2080 miles, so averaging about 39 - 40 miles per week. For all of my marathons, I have very closely followed the Hal Higdon programs. However, with this new idea, my last 18 runs were 6, 8.4, 6.4, 10, 18, 9, 12, 9, 20, 3.2, 9, 12, 7.6, 11.5, 14.5, 12.4, 12, and 12.1 miles with 9 interspersed rest days, totaling about 48.8 to 54 miles per week. So far, I feel fine.

The thing I thought was interesting about the RunningTimes web article was the idea that to train for a marathon, one should run far and fast, similar to what you want to do in the race itself. However, I have to say that I don't quite understand the article in full. On page 5, they say:

"Da Costa, in contrast to the vast majority of marathoners at his level, incorporates days of full rest into his marathon training. Most every runner I’ve known who has adapted this type of training plan acknowledges the need for total-rest days. I believe that one or two days off from running after any hard run exceeding 15 miles is a good idea in order to avoid injury or burnout."

But then, as you say, their sample training schedule on the next page has basically 20 days of solid running with only one day of rest. That seems the complete opposite.
Anyway, I know that at my age (> 50) I don't heal as fast as I used to, which is why I was thinking of including more rest days than I typically have, especially if I would try to increase my daily run length.

BUT, if you think a better approach would be to run 10 miles per day, six days a week, I think I could do that, especially if most would not be at desired marathon pace.

[Jon Allen]

Rick- yes, I would suggest running 6 days per week.  If you can do 10 miles per day, great.  If not that many, do what you can.  And still do some long runs.  You certainly have to walk the balance between maximizing training versus getting injured.

I think what is confusing you in the article is the normal runs (even 15+ miles) versus their key runs, the "far and fast" runs.  They article is suggesting to do 3-4 "far and fast runs" of 15-20 miles, with most at race pace, over a 3 month period.  These are the hard runs that you need a day off to recover from.  They do other, normal training runs of all mileages (4-20 miles) every day that aren't "far and fast", and these don't need a day recovery after.  I think you're interpreting all runs of 15+ miles as needing a rest day, while the program only looks at a few runs as "far and fast" that need rest days.

[Sasha Pachev]

With regards to the Da Costa reference. When we read a training schedule of this kind must never forget one important detail. A runner of this caliber would have been running for at least 5 years at least 70 miles a week year round (maybe with no more than one month off) before anybody would care to write down his current training schedule and publish it in an article. His secret, aside from naturally high Quality X, is not so much what he is doing now, but more so in what he did for years prior.  That is something most articles tend to omit.

[Rick]

OK, thanks for the explanations. I'm on board with running 10 miles (most) everyday. So to transition to this sort of plan, what do you think would be better, running 10 miles every day, or throwing in one long run per week, and maybe taking a day of rest once a week?

[Steve P]

When I'm training for a marathon, I typically train five days a week and do a long run on Saturday. That works well for me. Though I'm know others would say six days a week is the only way to go (and their times are faster than mine).

I like my 5 day/week schedule because it is less demanding during the week (Thursdays it is hard to get a run in because of other commitments), yet I can still get the weekly mileage I want with the long run on Saturday. Plus I think the long runs help your conditioning (physically and mentally) in ways that shorter runs don't. Plus I'm not the kind of person who likes to run the same distance every day. Just my 2 cents...

[Rhett]

I know I am going to go way against the grain here, but not everyone's body can handle running 5 or 6 days per week.  When I cut back to 4 days a week of running from my 6 days I had been doing, I improved my marathon time from 3:12 to 2:59. 
I always get injured when I run 6 days a week so  doing that is counter productive for me.  I am currently attempting a 3 day a week training schedule and am hoping to go sub 3 at Boston and set a new PR.  I wish I were like Sasha and Steve, but I'm not built like an ellite runner and training like one (which I will never be) doesn't work for me.

[Sasha Pachev]

Rick:

The formula for the preparatory aerobic development that has never failed anybody on the blog so far that has properly applied it is this:

Find a distance and pace that you can recover from in 24 hours nearly 100%. Run that distance and pace for 5 days. On the 6th run twice that distance. Rest on the 7th. Listen to your body and increase the distance as it becomes more fit. Every few weeks run races or time trials to evaluate your progress and confirm that you have chosen your distance and pace correctly.

Rhett - in your case I believe the problem is that when you ran 6 days a week you ran either too far or too fast, or possibly both. It is extremely unlikely that would not get injured running the same mileage at the same over 4 days if you would doing it in 6. The simple logic is that if you run N miles, then eat, sleep, and then run M miles, it is less stress on the body than if you run N+M miles straight and then eat and sleep the same amount of time. I can even give you an almost mathematical proof:

Suppose  S(d) is the measure of stress as the function of distance run, and we measure it in hours it takes to return to pre-run condition. It is reasonable to assume that the time it takes to recover from let's say a 20 mile run is more than double that the time it takes to recover from a 10 mile run.  Therefore, we can reasonably argue that S(x+y) > S(x)+S(y).   Thus for any schedule with N runs we can split one of the runs in two parts creating a schedule that has N+1 runs with the same mileage but lower stress. Now that we are generating less than the maximum stress the body can tolerate in a healthy manner, we are able to increase the mileage without increasing the stress. Thus the minimum stress with the same mileage is achieved when the number of runs is maximized.

The above model does have limitations, but they are of no concern to somebody who is for logistical reasons not able to run more often that three times a day, or is sufficiently untrained to where the length of the individual run drops below 3 miles. For most of us, we should plan a training schedule that maximizes the number of runs, and then adjust the length of each run to the longest distance that the body can recover from.

[Rhett]

Sasha, that does make sense.  After Boston, maybe I'll try it out again, going 6 days a week.  I like running fast (for me) and was probably doing too many faster paced runs.

[dave rockness]

Rhett, I truly believe it works.  I'm at my best when averaging 70miles per/week.  I've been most injury proned when cutting to 50 miles per/week to focus on "speed".  I know everyone's different, but the base mileage seems to make a huge difference.

[Bonnie]

I am all on board with the mileage ... however, I don't really like the with the 10mile/day equation.  Many papers on exercise physiology (these references are in Jack Daniels Running Formula) have demonstrated that improvement is made by using the stress -> recovery -> stress model; where after a period of recovery it is in the second stress cycle that improvement is made (in whatever system you are training - in building base mileage the system would be running economy).  So a 70 mile week that looked more like 13 - 7 - 13 - 7 - 10 -20
would be preferable than a 10 - 10 - 10 -10 -10 -20 because you have built in 2 days of "recovery" and the system can be stressed the next day.

I do believe that mileage is the key to good running, and to injury prevention. However, the increase should be gradual and at least in my case, I like to take a few weeks at a new level before jumping it up again ... at least the first time.  Once you have built up to a higher mileage in the past, it doesn't take as long to get there the next time ... that is my experience anyway.  No matter what you do, you have to continue to stress the system to improve - either higher mileage or increased pace on some days.

[Jon Allen]

Yeah, Bonnie, you'll find a wide variety of feelings on that topic.  I'm a believer in harder (longer) and easier days.  I certainly need easy days to recover from Big Workouts sometimes.  Pfitzinger talked about avoiding training monotony, too, by varying workouts and distances.  Either way, getting the miles in is the most important.  How you do it is a matter of personal preference and knowing your body.

[Davy Crockett]

My case is a little strange.  I never ran marathons before ultras.  Building my mileage base was mostly with long slow runs on Saturdays.  Frequently I would run only once or twice a week.   However, I eventually built up the base to a point where I could recover from a 50K run in a few days and a 100-mile run in two weeks.  Finally, I was curious what I could do in a marathon, a much faster pace than I train.  Last year at Ogden was the first marathon that I was serious about (I had run a couple before for a training run).  So, with only my slow mileage training, I BQed (age 50) with a 3:24 finish, with training of almost totally slow runs.  My major problem was that my calves cramped up and I had to practically walk the last four miles.  My lack of faster tempo runs in my training no doubt caused that. 

So for the past few months I have changed things up a bit.  I have been training 5-6 days per week, and have added much faster training runs.   I will still do long slow Saturday runs (50K or more) to keep my 100-mile endurance up.  And I do plenty of hills.   It was interesting to see that I PRed in Feburary at the 100-mile distance by more than two hours.  So, I suspect the faster training is even helping my ultra distance.

It will be interesting what I will do at Boston and Ogden this year.   I think I have at least a 3:15 in me.  But I don't have passion for marathons.  I don't really enjoy them.  They are just an interesting speed challenge for me.  And, I am getting older, 51, so should be slowing down (should be, but not yet).   I'll never know how fast I could have been since I started running at age 46.