Tony' qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com said:I kind of agree with Galloway that one should go the
distance in training, but of course slower.
Galloway's book got me into running as a sport and persuaded me that I
could run a marathon. I loved reading his book as a new runner and most
of it is still with me. It is an excellent way to get into more
structured training.
BUT I gave up on him as my primary source because of his quite patently
false "you can't do a marathon if you don't go the distance (or more) in
training" - I mean the guy has you running 20, 22, 24 and 26 milers on
successive fortnights.
I knew that the "body can't do more in race than it's done in training"
was misguided at best, or total nonsense, as I'd done my maiden road
race (a HM) on only 15k long runs, with no training schedule whatever
and 3-4 runs per week. How could this be possible?
So when I discovered the local running press, all of which gave 8-12
week training schedules having 2h30-3h as the longest runs, I jumped
ship.
Quoted message said:I normally do things by time instead of distance.
Yep. Distances are just the product of time and your training paces.
Your body knows nothing about miles or kilometers or furlongs or
whatever.
Quoted message said:For a 4 hour marathoner, that's about 9:09 pace. If
that's one's goal pace, then in training they probably shouldn't exceed a
10:30 (?) pace on long training runs.
Sounds right.
Quoted message said:On a 22 miler this would give a time of about 3:45+.
Yes, 3h51m.
I still reckon that 3 hours is enough = 17 miles, particularly if you're
going to be doing more than one of that duration. But I won't argue the
toss for a plus or minus a few miles/half an hour. Let's say 3h30 might
be a not-completely-maniac upper limit (at those paces, that gets us 20
miles).
Looking at Galloway, he wants you out there for 22, 24 & 26 miles =>
3h51, 4h12 and 4h33m on successive fortnights. That's three "time+"
marathons to be done to train for one real 4h/42k one. Just doesn't hold
water for me.
Quoted message said:Not every long run needs to be this long of course, just a few of them. It
builds mental toughness to run about the same length of time you'll be
racing,
As far as I can tell, this is the only valid reason for running more
than 2-3 hours. I don't scoff at it unless it's given as a _necessity_
or if it's taken to extremes. Also, one should be enough; it "proves"
it's possible to run that long - no need to prove it 2 or more times.
For example, should I be doing 2 or 3 30+ hour training runs if I want
to try next year's 240km race? Clearly not I think.
Did I absolutely _have_ to run 2 or 3 10hrs+ in training, with a 10kg
pack, to be able to finish a 50 mile desert stage in 10:30? Of course
not.
So why should it be _necessary_ to do that for a marathon, or a half?
Quoted message said:and certain adaptations happen in the body that don't happen on
slightly shorter runs.
I actually don't believe this. Or rather, that the positive physical
effect is so slight as to be a poor involvement for marathon or shorter
races.
Quoted message said:In building for my 50k I did a 6 hour run in the
mountains, but at a slow endurance pace, and that told me my legs were ready
for the 50k in a way that my 4hr+ runs just didn't. As it turned out my 50k
was less than 6 hours, but I was well prepared.
I think that the 6 hour training run was pure mental toughening or
reassurance for you.
A _single_ training run of any kind will make such a small difference to
your organism that I'm certain you could simply have rested that day and
still run the same 50k race, in physical terms.
