one very long run vs two middling runs?

Bear G wrote in message <0lmdd.395788$mD.298521@attbi_s02>...

Quoted message said:

Can two middling runs replace a single very long run, at least
occasionally?

My usual schedule is -MT-T-S, with the long run on Saturday. But
if the weather is bad (or I have a mild cold like last weekend) I
could drop it to SM-WT-S where the long run (2:00 - 2:30) on
Saturday is replaced by shorter runs on Saturday and Sunday (say
around an hour each).

Obviously there is extra value in a single 12-mile run over two
6-mile runs. But in this context are two 6-mile (which are
approx. the same distance as many weekday runs) worth much more
than a single 6-mile run?

If your long runs are normally far apart, for example, every 2 or 3 weeks,
then it would be better IMO to skip running and rest (if you're sick) and
then do the long run the next day, or do normal runs and do the long run a
few days later. If you're doing them weekly, then it won't matter as much.

In the case of bad weather, you should be able to do the long run if you're
dressed properly. If you want to break it up, you can do skewed doubles, or
2 runs a few hours apart on one day. For example, if your normal long run
is 15m, you could do 12m Sat 8m Sun; or you could do 8m in the morning, 8m
in the afternoon.

-Tony

"Bear G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:0lmdd.395788$mD.298521@attbi_s02...

Quoted message said:

Can two middling runs replace a single very long run, at least
occasionally?

Yes. Sometimes instead of 20 followed by 10 on Sunday I'll do 14 - 16.
I don't think it's hurt me. I did a 50 mile race with only one 20 mile run
in the last 5 weeks (but several back-to-backs), and ran well. But my
quads would have been in better shape in the last 5 miles if I'd done more
long runs, I think.

The long run gives you training stress you don't get in shorter runs.
But your training doesn't fall apart if you miss one or two now and then.

-- Dan

Bear G said:

Can two middling runs replace a single very long run, at least
occasionally?

My usual schedule is -MT-T-S, with the long run on Saturday. But
if the weather is bad (or I have a mild cold like last weekend) I
could drop it to SM-WT-S where the long run (2:00 - 2:30) on
Saturday is replaced by shorter runs on Saturday and Sunday (say
around an hour each).

Obviously there is extra value in a single 12-mile run over two
6-mile runs. But in this context are two 6-mile (which are
approx. the same distance as many weekday runs) worth much more
than a single 6-mile run?

Doing 2 short runs in a place of a long run is a good idea if you're
not well.

On the other hand, weather will be "bad" between now and March, so that's not a
reason to avoid long runs.

Having said that, IMO any run over 90 minutes is "long". You don't need to go
longer than 2hrs every week (not even if you're in the middle of marathon
training)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Tony said:

If your long runs are normally far apart, for example, every 2 or 3 weeks,
then it would be better IMO to skip running and rest (if you're sick) and
then do the long run the next day, or do normal runs and do the long run a
few days later. If you're doing them weekly, then it won't matter as much.

Weekly and I'm not worried about the occasional missed run. But
nobody knows what the future holds so I would rather do a short
run (if possible) than none against the possibility of problems
the following week.

Quoted message said:

In the case of bad weather, you should be able to do the long run if you're
dressed properly.

I've been giving this some thought since my morning runs are
starting to get nippy (high 30s). I can keep an hour run in the
urban core where I can pop inside and call a cab if necessary
(e.g., if the weather turns much nastier than expected, I slip on
ice, etc.) Longer than that and I'll be doing laps. Not
impossible but terribly boring. :-)

Bear G <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<0lmdd.395788$mD.298521@attbi_s02>...

Quoted message said:

Can two middling runs replace a single very long run, at least
occasionally?

My usual schedule is -MT-T-S, with the long run on Saturday. But
if the weather is bad (or I have a mild cold like last weekend) I
could drop it to SM-WT-S where the long run (2:00 - 2:30) on
Saturday is replaced by shorter runs on Saturday and Sunday (say
around an hour each).

Obviously there is extra value in a single 12-mile run over two
6-mile runs. But in this context are two 6-mile (which are
approx. the same distance as many weekday runs) worth much more
than a single 6-mile run?

There is absolutely no replacement for, or equal to, a long run. Two 6
milers do not equal a 12 miler, not even close.

On 20 Oct 2004 10:46:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Doug Freesepop)

Quoted message said:

Bear G <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<0lmdd.395788$mD.298521@attbi_s02>...

Quoted message said:

Can two middling runs replace a single very long run, at least
occasionally?

My usual schedule is -MT-T-S, with the long run on Saturday. But
if the weather is bad (or I have a mild cold like last weekend) I
could drop it to SM-WT-S where the long run (2:00 - 2:30) on
Saturday is replaced by shorter runs on Saturday and Sunday (say
around an hour each).

Obviously there is extra value in a single 12-mile run over two
6-mile runs. But in this context are two 6-mile (which are
approx. the same distance as many weekday runs) worth much more
than a single 6-mile run?

There is absolutely no replacement for, or equal to, a long run. Two 6
milers do not equal a 12 miler, not even close.

You are so right young Wobbot.

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yes. Sometimes instead of 20 followed by 10 on Sunday I'll do 14 -
16.
I don't think it's hurt me. I did a 50 mile race with only one 20
mile run
in the last 5 weeks (but several back-to-backs), and ran well.

Quoted message said:

But my
quads would have been in better shape in the last 5 miles if I'd done
more
long runs, I think.

At least do longer downhills even if someone droves you to top so you
can run down and repeat. My downs are 5 miles long and take about
1h20min per lap. I only get quad soreness about 85 into a 100. Not a
twitch during or after my last 50 and I was running the downs
aggressively.

-DF

Bear G wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Tony said:

If your long runs are normally far apart, for example, every 2 or 3

weeks,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then it would be better IMO to skip running and rest (if you're sick) and
then do the long run the next day, or do normal runs and do the long run

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few days later. If you're doing them weekly, then it won't matter as

much.

Quoted message said:

Weekly and I'm not worried about the occasional missed run. But
nobody knows what the future holds so I would rather do a short
run (if possible) than none against the possibility of problems
the following week.

Weekly and I wouldn't worry about it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In the case of bad weather, you should be able to do the long run if

you're

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

dressed properly.

I've been giving this some thought since my morning runs are
starting to get nippy (high 30s). I can keep an hour run in the
urban core where I can pop inside and call a cab if necessary
(e.g., if the weather turns much nastier than expected, I slip on
ice, etc.) Longer than that and I'll be doing laps. Not
impossible but terribly boring. :-)

Like you I'd much rather do shorter runs when it's cold, but I've decided to
wear a camelback this year to take care of hydration and to store extra
clothing so when conditions change I can put more on or stow it.

-Tony

np426z. said:

On 20 Oct 2004 10:46:36 -0700, [email hidden] (Doug Freesepop)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Obviously there is extra value in a single 12-mile run over two
6-mile runs. But in this context are two 6-mile (which are
approx. the same distance as many weekday runs) worth much more
than a single 6-mile run?

There is absolutely no replacement for, or equal to, a long run. Two 6
milers do not equal a 12 miler, not even close.

You are so right young Wobbot.

I knew 2x 6 wasn't equal to 1x 12, but I was wondering if a second
6 was worth the trouble.

Tony said:

Like you I'd much rather do shorter runs when it's cold, but I've decided to
wear a camelback this year to take care of hydration and to store extra
clothing so when conditions change I can put more on or stow it.

Last year was mild but I remember years when we didn't break 0F
for a week. That's rare enough it doesn't make sense to have gear
for it, but long enough to be an uncomfortable break if I don't
run. I figure I could probably make it for an hour if I take a
long hot shower before and after my run. :-)

BTW if I'm on foot I actually prefer temps below -10F,
notwithstanding the time the saline (for my contact lenses) froze
in my backpack. At those temps ice is just another rock.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Having said that, IMO any run over 90 minutes is "long". You don't need to go
longer than 2hrs every week (not even if you're in the middle of marathon
training)

For me this winter 90 minutes will be between 8 and 9 1/2 miles.

That's significant since my goals for the next few months involve
distances between 10 and 12 miles. Nothing major, just picking up
the pace a bit so it's more consistent with my pace at shorter
distances (e.g., 10k). That's why I wanted my long runs to be at
least 2 hours.

Bear G said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Having said that, IMO any run over 90 minutes is "long". You don't need to go
longer than 2hrs every week (not even if you're in the middle of marathon
training)

For me this winter 90 minutes will be between 8 and 9 1/2 miles.

That's significant since my goals for the next few months involve
distances between 10 and 12 miles.

Sorry, not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that those are the
distances that you'll be racing ? This seems unusual. But if that's
the case, 8-9 miles is fine.

Or is your goal to run training runs of that length ? If that's the case,
then you don't meet that goal by running two runs of 1hr duration.

Or is your goal to do that much milage on one day of each week ? If that's
the case, I'd 2xshort run meets that goal, because you still get in the
milage.

Or if it's your goal to get in a long training run *and* not cut corners
on the milage, then your best bet would be to do 1 90 minute run plus 1
30 minute run.

Quoted message said:

Nothing major, just picking up the pace a bit so it's more consistent with
my pace at shorter distances (e.g., 10k).

Why run faster on shorter training runs ? A pace that is anaerobic on a long
run will also be anaerobic on a short run.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wanted my long runs to be at least 2 hours.

I don't understand your premise.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Bear G said:

Nothing major, just picking up the pace a bit so it's more consistent with
my pace at shorter distances (e.g., 10k).

Why run faster on shorter training runs ? A pace that is anaerobic on a long
run will also be anaerobic on a short run.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wanted my long runs to be at least 2 hours.

I don't understand your premise.

As I'm getting into better shape I'm learning to run faster while
remaining aerobic (and even faster on tempo runs). It's more
mental than physical at this point - I've put so much effort into
holding myself back (to stay aerobic) that it's difficult to make
the switch to running faster (while remaining aerobic).

(Okay, there is a physical element to this in terms of cadence and
stride length and how much I push off, but if I don't think I can
maintain a pace I can't.)

I'm getting comfortable with a faster pace at shorter distances,
but still immediately drop to the slower pace on longer runs. The
way I've decided to handle it is run 4 miles at the slower pace,
do a couple strides to pick up my pace, then run back at the
faster pace. It's just the distance of a regular training run,
right? The next week I might speed up a bit earlier, or I'll
start at the same place but run an additional 8 miles at the
faster pace.

Obviously shorter runs won't do much good here, but that's a moot
point since I'll run a slower pace anyway if the weather is so bad
that I'm thinking about cutting it short.

But there are other benefits to short runs and I was just
wondering if I would be better off running a short day and resting
the next or putting in two runs so my mileage stays closer to normal.

Bear G wrote in message ...
snip

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why run faster on shorter training runs ? A pace that is anaerobic on a

long

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

run will also be anaerobic on a short run.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wanted my long runs to be at least 2 hours.

I don't understand your premise.

As I'm getting into better shape I'm learning to run faster while
remaining aerobic (and even faster on tempo runs). It's more
mental than physical at this point - I've put so much effort into
holding myself back (to stay aerobic) that it's difficult to make
the switch to running faster (while remaining aerobic).

(Okay, there is a physical element to this in terms of cadence and
stride length and how much I push off, but if I don't think I can
maintain a pace I can't.)

I'm getting comfortable with a faster pace at shorter distances,
but still immediately drop to the slower pace on longer runs. The
way I've decided to handle it is run 4 miles at the slower pace,
do a couple strides to pick up my pace, then run back at the
faster pace. It's just the distance of a regular training run,
right? The next week I might speed up a bit earlier, or I'll
start at the same place but run an additional 8 miles at the
faster pace.

I also find that as I've gotten in better shape this year more of my short
runs are a little faster, though still aerobic. This seems to happen
naturally and it makes the runs more interesting. Long runs I still do
rather slowly, and these can be HR 5-10 bpm less than some of my shorter
runs.
specific tempo runs are 20-25 bpm faster than my slow training runs.

-Tony

Bear G said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

Bear G said:

Nothing major, just picking up the pace a bit so it's more consistent with
my pace at shorter distances (e.g., 10k).

Why run faster on shorter training runs ? A pace that is anaerobic on a long
run will also be anaerobic on a short run.

Quoted message said:

That's why I wanted my long runs to be at least 2 hours.

I don't understand your premise.

As I'm getting into better shape I'm learning to run faster while
remaining aerobic (and even faster on tempo runs). It's more
mental than physical at this point - I've put so much effort into
holding myself back (to stay aerobic) that it's difficult to make
the switch to running faster (while remaining aerobic).

In the process of thinking about this stuff way too deeply for your
own good, you've reached the stage where you're just babbling utter
nonsense. I must admit that I've contributed to this earlier in the
thread by encouraging you to babble.

At this stage, I urge you to step back a little and ask if these
choices really matter a whole lot ? I'd argue that these choices
that you're agonising over actually don't make the slightest
difference. You will continue to rapidly improve as long as you
traing consistently.

The bottom line is that one foot in front of the other 100,000 times
over is a pretty good training method. Repeat several times this year
and you'll be pretty good at putting one foot in front of the other.

It doesn't really matter if you do it fast or slow or whatever. Just
do it several times. Do it slower and you'll reduce the risk of injury,
but even then, no-one can promise you that you won't get injured. So
if you like, go faster. Whatever you do, have fun with it.

If you're going long in racing (e.g. have a marathon soon), then you
need to go long in training. If you're going fast in racing (e.g. mile)
you need to go fast in training. But these more specific adaptions can
be dealt with closer to the race. The most important part is to just
do one foot in front of the other lots of times until you get really,
really good at it.

I could discuss periodisation, the relative merits of two-a-days versus
one-a-days, etc. But you've already confused me (and probably yourself)
so I won't contribute to further confusion, because the truth -- as
much as any usenet geek hates to admit it -- is much simpler than we're
making it look.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

If you're going long in racing (e.g. have a marathon soon), then you
need to go long in training.

I've been debating the Las Vegas half, just to stay motivated as
the days get short and the temperatures drop. But if I'm going to
do it I want to be closer to a "racing" pace than the "survival"
pace of my first marathon.

Bear G said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

If you're going long in racing (e.g. have a marathon soon), then you
need to go long in training.

I've been debating the Las Vegas half, just to stay motivated as
the days get short and the temperatures drop. But if I'm going to
do it I want to be closer to a "racing" pace than the "survival"
pace of my first marathon.

I think it's a good idea to race fairly often until you're very experienced.
Even among experienced competitors, many find it helpful to race frequently.

For half marathon training, I'd recommend weekly long runs (90min or more,
do a few longer ones if you like) and weekly speed work (tempo runs are
especially good prep for the half)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi said:

For half marathon training, I'd recommend weekly long runs (90min or more,
do a few longer ones if you like) and weekly speed work (tempo runs are
especially good prep for the half)

That's my basic plan except I was planning on 2+ hours since my
anticipated time would be 2:05 +/- 0:05. I've been rethinking
this with this crud - at first I thought it was a mild cold, but I
just remembered that I had a 6-week crud at the same time last
year. Seasonal allergies?

Bear G said:

Donovan Rebbechi said:

For half marathon training, I'd recommend weekly long runs (90min or more,
do a few longer ones if you like) and weekly speed work (tempo runs are
especially good prep for the half)

That's my basic plan except I was planning on 2+ hours since my
anticipated time would be 2:05 +/- 0:05. I've been rethinking

Not necessary to go race distance in training. 90 minutes should be sufficient,
120 should be plenty.

BTW, are you a linux user by any chance ? The name and address sounds familiar.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/