In article <[email hidden]>,
C.G. said:Most marathon training schedules I've seen have the longest slow run at
around 20 miles. Longer
distance isn't recommended because of the length of time the body takes
to recover, or so I'm lead
to believe. But if I'm training for a 40 mile race, I must have to
include runs much longer than
20. Has anyone here got any advice on how long those runs should be and
how to factor them into an
overall training plan?
Lots of things you haven't mentioned here. One important one is
whether you've already run a few marathons and have figured out what
works for you at that distance and duration. If not, probably the
best thing for you to do is solve that problem (those problems).
As Sam mentioned, ultra running resources are probably best. I'm
blanking on full cites, but I think ultrarunr.com (or org, and it
might be fred.ultrarunr.com instead) is one of the best. (Have to check
a source that isn't at hand; but it is missing the 'ne' from runner.)
Rather than distance, though, think time. If this is 40 miles on
road of a sort you've done some good marathons on, that's one thing.
In that case, there's a fair amount of just doing a bit more of the same
thing that will get you through. If you're a track miler, and are
looking at 40 miles of single track trail up and down rocky mountainsides
at 3000m (10,000 feet) elevation, well, that's a very different matter.
I did go from 10 mile road races being my longest to doing a
50 km ultra on relatively 'easy' trails. I'd guessed 5.5 hours as
the general realm for me on that course (turned out to be 6), and
trained my longest run up to about 4 hours. That was probably enough,
though I made some other training mistakes, most of which I would
not have made if I'd had some half marathon to marathon races done
well.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences