How often should a sub 3hr 50-60mpw marathon runner do 20 mile long runs?

I think mostly everyone else said this, but yeah:

20 miles is too long if you’re running 50 mpw. It’s probably too much at 60 mpw too. I’m not saying you can’t do it, you would just be better of with some better quality during the week than slogging around on dead legs for half of the following week.

What are you doing the rest of the week if you’re doing a 20 mile long run and only 50 mpw?

Do your weekly long runs like this:

Week 1 Sun- 60 min(easy)

Week 2 Sun- 90 min(Last 45 min race effort)

Week 3 Sun- 2 hours

Week 4 Sun- 2.5 hours

Week 5 Sun- 3 hours(Last 45 min race effort)

RECOVERY WEEK 5x 30-60 min easy runs

Repeat

Getting used to running that length of time will help you become more comfortable on your feet.

You're in a tough zone in terms of weekly miles. I've found that in my own training block for a marathon I try to get 4 quality 20-24 mile runs in prior, but given your weekly miles I understand why that seems tough. However, I've found that my best marathons have been when I got those longer runs in.

Dont focus on distance, focus on time, your body only understands the TIME it is under stress.

A 2 hr run is all you need for a long run. Every 2-3 weeks.

B0NER wrote:

I think mostly everyone else said this, but yeah:

20 miles is too long if you’re running 50 mpw. It’s probably too much at 60 mpw too. I’m not saying you can’t do it, you would just be better of with some better quality during the week than slogging around on dead legs for half of the following week.

What are you doing the rest of the week if you’re doing a 20 mile long run and only 50 mpw?

As a 50 mpw type at most, I completely disagree.

I have done about 10 marathons and always run even if not negative splits almost every time, while blowing up is very common among other runners of my ability (just-under-3:00 types).

I attribute this actually training for the metabolic demands of running for over 2:30, which are WAY different from a 1:45-2:00 "long run" -- and need to be properly prepared for.

Something like this works well for me:

M - 4

Tu - 6 (with tempo run or long 10k/HM pace intervals)

W - 10

Th - 6 (with short 5k-10k pace intervals, or fartlek)

F - 4

Sa - 20 (with marathon pace work 5-10 miles)

Su - recovery

the less weekly miles I ran, the more important long runs (20+ milers) were to my success for marathons. was like the time on my legs was an important adaptation

example:

- i've run just under 2:34 as my best

- average weekly mileage was 55 mpw

- I did (2) 20's and (1) 22-miler where the first 4.5 was easy, next 13.1 was MP, and then 4.5 cool down. It was hard, but if I couldn't do at least 10 miles at MP I knew I was overtrained or needed to adjust my goal pace. I did this workout 3 weeks out and it ended up being a 22-miler around 6:30 avg pace.

- I always took the day after a long run completely off aside from an easy walk, and after the 22 miler I would a day off then 3 days of easy running before thinking about a workout, usually some reps fast to wake up the system and then a few miles at MP pace which feel easy after 5k pace stuff

- 5 weeks out I raced a half marathon. Raced, not used as a workout. (usually ended up being 4 weeks before marathon)

"For fifteen to twenty miles, the marathon feels easy, very easy, in fact; until it becomes difficult, then suddenly, it becomes extremely difficult." -Malmo

Thanks for this. Interested to hear what your long runs look like other than the 2x 20 miles, and the 22?

Also, what did you do during the week workout wise? Was it just the one faster rep session as you outlined in the example following the 22 miler.

I've found a Saturday long run and a Tuesday/Wednesday workout, normally quite a big workout, is about as much as I can sustain. If I do 3 quality days per week (counting the long run), I can sustain it for 2-4 weeks at the same milage, but then it just becomes too much.

runnER/DR wrote:

unambitious wrote:

Disagreee.

For a 3:00 marathoner, you want to get very comfortable over 2 hours, with several runs 2:15-2:30+.

As a 2:55 runner, in a 3-month marathon build ALL of my weekly long runs are over 30k/18miles, and I would want to have at least 6 over 20 miles, probably 2-4 of them around 22 miles.

Don't just go long, though. You want ample marathon pace work within those and also in freestanding workouts.

It depends in your total weekly mileage. If you're doing 80+ miles a week this might be true.

The sanctity of the 20 miler(even 22!?) for the barely sub 3 hour crowd is quasi-religious.

No way a 50 mile a week marathoner should be doing 22 miles. They are nowhere near fit enough to do that consistently. Obviously it can be done, but you're risking injury and sacrificing higher quality workouts just to check a box.

The "sanctity of the 20 miler" is easily explained -- it works! I want at least 6 of them in a cycle. Even at 50 mpw, they do not "risk injury" or "sacrifice" other workouts; they are no big deal at all. If you have a decent base, running 20 at MP plus 1:00 is not that taxing. I was consistently sub-3 in my 50s on a program of one weekly long run, one speed session, and otherwise very easy miles.

For my two cents as a marathoner who had the same mileage and goals for the Daniel's 2Q plan in 2019. I did two long runs around the 20 mile mark, followed the plan pretty much to the letter, and got under 3 hours.

A lot of it depends on your past fitness and resilience to long runs. It's not worth risking injury, and if you haven't been doing 18+ mile long runs for a while there's risk involved. I really found a lot of benefit in the long run workouts, where the mileage total is 15-17 but your putting substantial marathon pace miles in there.

I'm doing the 2Q plan again for a marathon in February, and the changes I've made (that I think are very good) is doing my easy long runs and the other 10/11 mile run of the week on trails with plenty of elevation gain. It helps with strength (running extended uphills), saves your legs some with the softer surfaces, is WAY more enjoyable, AND extends the run time. So it could take 2:30 to do 15 or 16 miles if you're doing some vert in there. It's worked really well for me so far.

To quote Frank Shorter, 20 miles or 2 hours whichever one comes first.

It doesn't work though. You're better off doing 17 or 18 and focusing on quality the rest of the week instead of recovering the next 7 days. I've run 2:50 off nothing longer than 18. I've also hit the wall at mile 18 in marathons where I religiously did 20 milers every week.

This is dogma people are simply unwilling to challenge. Just blindly following tradition.

You need them a few times before your marathon, but they shouldn't be your typical long run the entire year. I'd run 3 of them around 20 miles about 6-3 weeks before your marathon. If you do 2 marathons per year you'd only be doing about 6 long runs at 20 miles per year, plus your two marathons. So 44 weeks out of the year you're doing less than 20 miles for your long runs.

In my experience, this is a recipe for disaster. LT workouts play an important role in training, particularly later in the buildup. However, the specificity of long runs finishing at or slightly faster than goal marathon pace for 5-10 miles is crucial, in my opinion. Certainly not every week, but regularly.

I'm with you.

An even or negative splitter, sub3 up to age 56.

Like this:

M off

T 6

W speedwork (3-4 fast plus recovery)

TH 6

FR 6 with pickups

SAT 12 easy (trails)

Sun 20

Consider following the advanced plan in the Hanson's marathon book. I think this would be a great fit based on what you have described.

Count me amongst those favoring 20-mile runs, no matter how low the mileage. For me, the long runs PLUS ample recovery are the key ingredients for low-mileage marathon training. Note: I have limited natural ability -- even as a youth I never broke 34 minutes for 10K, despite serious higher-mileage training on a college team.

For my most recent sub-3 (in my mid-40s), I averaged under 44 miles per week for 16 weeks, but included five 20+ long runs (and three 18-milers). I never have a time goal for long run -- just cover the distance.

Here's a look at the 16 weeks. Total mileage; longest run and pace:

46 miles; 15 mi @ 8:29

10 miles; 4 mi @ 9:30

53 miles; 15 mi @ 8:28

40 miles; 10 mi @ 7:10

41 miles; 15 mi @ 9:06

37 miles; 18 mi @ 7:45

42 miles; 18 mi @ 8:22

48 miles; 20 mi @ 8:32

55 miles; 20 mi @ 8:54

49 miles; 14 mi w/12 @ 7:10

63 miles; 23 mi @ 8:30

50 miles; 21 mi @ 7:45

51 miles; 17 mi @ 8:03

48 miles; 20 mi @ 7:48

39 miles; 18 mi @ 8:23

28 miles; 7 mi w/2 @ 6:54

Marathon: 2:56:03

(6:43 avg; splits 1:28:30, 1:27:33)

B0NER wrote:

I think mostly everyone else said this, but yeah:

20 miles is too long if you’re running 50 mpw. It’s probably too much at 60 mpw too. I’m not saying you can’t do it, you would just be better of with some better quality during the week than slogging around on dead legs for half of the following week.

What are you doing the rest of the week if you’re doing a 20 mile long run and only 50 mpw?

definitely not true.

I ran 2:35 and 2:37 averaging 50 miles a week for 10 weeks. Ran 2:33:50 doing 55 mpw.

I usually only ran 5-6 days a week and did three 20+ milers in the build up. One mid-week workout with more miles on warm-up and cool-downs to make it 15 for that day (or a hard 10-miler). Otherwise, 5-8 miles easy with some fartlek at 4:55 mile pace or hard strides. Was usually in 16:10 5k and 1:13 HM shape.

You are racing a 26.2 mile race, so you need to adapt to the distance. The percentage of weekly mileage argument is silly.

Could I have run faster with more miles, probably, but my body usually breaks down when I go over 60 mpw so I found it worked for me.

My previous post detailed 44 mpw training; at even lower mileage in my late 50s (only 21 mpw avg), I still included three 20-mile long runs. That netted a 3:25 marathon, which at age 57 age-grades to 2:52.

16 weeks -- total mileage; longest run and pace:

17 miles; 12 mi @ 7:46

21 miles; 12 mi @ 8:12

12 miles; 10 mi @ 7:47

15 miles; 10 miles @ 7:54

22 miles; 12 mi @ 7:50

15 miles; 15 mi @ 8:29

4 miles; 1 mi @ 7:27

11 miles; 4 mi @ 6:59

33 miles; 18 mi @ 8:38

31 miles; 20 mi @ 8:18

29 miles; 15 mi @ 7:42

26 miles; 23 mi @ 8:48

30 miles; 9 mi @ 7:22

46 miles; 20 mi @ 7:58

19 miles; 9 mi @ 7:43

4 miles; 4 mi @ 9:22

Marathon: 3:25:27

(splits 1:43:31, 1:41:56)

Total mileage, of course, makes a big difference. A year later, at age 58, I doubled my mileage to 38 mpw avg for 16 weeks, and ran 3:07:23 (splits 1:33:22, 1:34:01).

Supposedly, that's 2:35 age-graded equivalent.

round and round wrote:

I ran 2:35 and 2:37 averaging 50 miles a week for 10 weeks. Ran 2:33:50 doing 55 mpw.

I usually only ran 5-6 days a week and did three 20+ milers in the build up. One mid-week workout with more miles on warm-up and cool-downs to make it 15 for that day (or a hard 10-miler). Otherwise, 5-8 miles easy with some fartlek at 4:55 mile pace or hard strides. Was usually in 16:10 5k and 1:13 HM shape.

You are racing a 26.2 mile race, so you need to adapt to the distance. The percentage of weekly mileage argument is silly.

Could I have run faster with more miles, probably, but my body usually breaks down when I go over 60 mpw so I found it worked for me.

I am in complete agreement with you. Yes, more total mileage equals better results (IF you can avoid injury). But long runs (20 miles or more) become even MORE important on low mileage. (See my previous two posts).

Heck, during my 30s, with little training time available, I would ONLY run long runs. One run a week, six days off. Got me through marathons relatively comfortably -- way better than if I trained the same mileage by running 2 or 3 miles a day (I've tried that, too, insomuch as I would attempt a long run off that training, and blow up at 18 miles).