Benefit of 2 hour runs

2 words: Ed Whitlock.

"I find it very curious that the countries with the least amount of science are the most successful in the distance events."

Oh. So we should disregard that many of the best runners from these countries have coaches whose name starts with Dr.?

TG, don't be naive, there is a reason they have coaches whose name starts with Dr., and you know why this is the case.

I hope you're not insinuating that any of the runners from such countries (African nations, primarily) are using performance enhancing drugs. The doctors they have provide them with the latest science on running, physiology and training techniques. The athletes from many of the African countries are very uneducated and simple, and wouldn't even take an aspirin, as you well know. They need these doctors to literally tell them how to run, how to breathe, and what to eat. Anything else is simply nonsense, and I refuse to listen to it. La la la la la la (I can't hear you) la la la la...

FACT: The more you include precise (and yet, so often unproven) scientific details into your training regimen, the worse you will become because you take away the toughness part of your training.

If everybody would just stop saying \"I need to go maximize my [insert scientific word] strength by running 6x800 at 80% max HR then 4x1000 at 75%HR\", and just go out and run your ass off like all the kenyans, moroccans, and other nations that rock the USA in distance all the time, there would be no use for threads like this. People need to stop trying to beat the system by training according to scientific principles, and train like athletes, which requires beating yourself into the ground somedays, and then using some other days to recover. Listen to your body for tips.

Careful.... wrote:

Science is ONLY to explain what has already happened. Science does not tell you "what to do". I find it very curious that the countries with the least amount of science are the most successful in the distance events. A good scientist will tell you that they have no idea how your body will respond to certain stimuli. They can only evaluate after you have been given the stimuli. At one time Science told us that anything over 70 miles a week was detremental. This all changed when coaches ignored scientist. A good coach is far more useful than a good scientist when it comes to any type of endurance event.

you might want to stop on that one. the countries that are supposedly the least scientifically actually have very very scientific COACHES - importe from Europe or native but training and raced under European coaches. some of the Kenyan and especially Ethiopian work is based a lot on science. Have you ever seen the El Guerrouj training log - that thing is super precise.

Amen!! Here is a 74 year old guy who runs 2:54 for the marathon and great 5K times as well. He just runs 2 hours/day, sometimes 3, at about a 9 min/mile pace or slower and races on the weekends. Nothing fancy. No stretching, yoga, special diets, shoes, etc. he just runs a couple of hours and calls it a day. There is a lot to be learned by the younger crowd. I wonder if a 20 year old started on this routine today, where he would be in a couple of years?

Johnnydajogger wrote:

Amen!! Here is a 74 year old guy who runs 2:54 for the marathon and great 5K times as well. He just runs 2 hours/day, sometimes 3, at about a 9 min/mile pace or slower and races on the weekends. Nothing fancy. No stretching, yoga, special diets, shoes, etc. he just runs a couple of hours and calls it a day. There is a lot to be learned by the younger crowd. I wonder if a 20 year old started on this routine today, where he would be in a couple of years?

How nice that Ed Whitlock even 15 years ago was an example for the young people!

Good inputs here on this well aged thread, even from Alan!

My question is: Is there new evidence for benefits of +2 hours runs/ training sessions? I am also thinking about walking for half an hour in the end or middle of the run to save the body from the pounding. Would the good physiological stuff still take effect?

Johnnydajogger wrote:

Amen!! Here is a 74 year old guy who runs 2:54 for the marathon and great 5K times as well. He just runs 2 hours/day, sometimes 3, at about a 9 min/mile pace or slower and races on the weekends. Nothing fancy. No stretching, yoga, special diets, shoes, etc. he just runs a couple of hours and calls it a day. There is a lot to be learned by the younger crowd. I wonder if a 20 year old started on this routine today, where he would be in a couple of years?

I have a hunch that the 20 year old would be transformed into a 22 year old who can run a 2:54 for the marathon and great 5K time for a 74 year old.

SprintTriathlon wrote:

[

My question is: Is there new evidence for benefits of +2 hours runs/ training sessions? I am also thinking about walking for half an hour in the end or middle of the run to save the body from the pounding. Would the good physiological stuff still take effect?

New evidence? I thought the purpose of that run was getting the body to glycogen depleted state. We quote the time 2hrs or volume 20 miles out of convenience. So for a faster runner 2hrs /20miles/2000 calories burned/zero glycogen all matches up. For a slower runner, its different numbers. But does a slower runner really benefiting from weekly 3-4 hour long runs? You gotta find your own number. Watches and self experimentation help with this.

Another purpose is preparing the body for a long continuous aerobic effort . Your marathon is guaranteed to be 2:30 and up. No benefit to walking in the middle really. Plenty of old threads on building up the long run.

Maybe if you ran for an hour, walked 30 min, ran for an hour. I could see that. But in your race, mentally you create a strong desire to do the same thing, run-walk-run. Wouldn’t be my goal. Maybe walking afterwards will create a mental connection to keep moving?

I always hated 2 hr runs but training for the marathon it was a necessity (2 hrs or 20 miles which ever came first, usually the 20 miles). For 1/2 marathon I don't think it's necessary. Would work more on tempo.

This thread is 16 years old.

I wonder if the OP is even still running?

Read the chapter on long runs in RUNNING TOUGH, by Michael Sandrock. You can read most of it for free using the "look inside" function:

https://www.amazon.com/Running-Tough-Michael-Sandrock/dp/0736027947

Also, read John Kellogg's essay on long runs in RUN STRONG, by Kevin Beck.

https://www.amazon.com/Run-Strong-Kevin-Beck/dp/073605362X

You'll find lots of support for the idea of weekly two-hour runs. I did many of them--hundreds, literally, ranging from 13 to 15 miles, inspired by these two books. I raced 5K to half marathon. They were an integral part of my training. I did them all on an empty stomach, powered by a mug of cafe au lait.

Kellogg's essay is called "Revving the Cardiovascular Engine."

KudzuRunner wrote:

Read the chapter on long runs in RUNNING TOUGH, by Michael Sandrock. You can read most of it for free using the "look inside" function:

https://www.amazon.com/Running-Tough-Michael-Sandrock/dp/0736027947

Also, read John Kellogg's essay on long runs in RUN STRONG, by Kevin Beck.

https://www.amazon.com/Run-Strong-Kevin-Beck/dp/073605362X

You'll find lots of support for the idea of weekly two-hour runs. I did many of them--hundreds, literally, ranging from 13 to 15 miles, inspired by these two books. I raced 5K to half marathon. They were an integral part of my training. I did them all on an empty stomach, powered by a mug of cafe au lait.

I actually love running fasted, but 2 hrs seems like a stretch. How'd you feel that day post run, a few days after that and how did you fuel after the run?

False