how important is the 20 mile long run in marathon training?

I've always wondered how beneficial strength training is for marathoners - what if marathoners worked on strengthening their quads with weights instead of long runs.

Seems to me many marathoners simply wear out their quads and fall apart. I wonder if some of that could be prevented by a long program of quad strengthening apart from running.

Doesn't solve the energy problem tho.

I did an extremely hilly marathon in 3:07 with 1 long run of 15 miles. I did do multiple runs between 10-13 miles each week, though. Not world-class but it gets to your point.

If you plan on running a 3:00 marathon it is just under 7:00/mile. If you run 1:30/mile slower for 21 miles you will be on your feet for 3 hours. Physically and psychologically that helped me.

Is it necessary? No, as many have already pointed out. You should pick a plan and stick with it

A previous reply had the link to 5 Key Marathon Workouts. I think that is a good plan for the self coached runner.

I think the missing element in your post is this: what does your life look like outside of training? Are you working 60 hours a week and have kids? Are you single and have a lot of time to train? Something in the middle? I'm curious as to what your situation is.

And obviously the question outside of time constraints is, how badly do you want to reach your genetic potential? That's what struck my be many of the responses; obviously many of the people responding take this very seriously, thus the thoughtful answers.

I can get back to you with a discussion of the long run that I did on my podcast last week with a fantastic person and a bright mind in the endurance world, Dr. Carwyn Sharp. So as not to waste anyone's time, I will listen to it again and find the start and end time where we talk about all of the physiological benefits of the long run...meaning he talks and I node my head...

Lydiard made the 20 or so mile run a staple of his program. His guys were world class and the run took 2 hours or so for them. But later on as he began giving workshops he started talking with people doing "his" training who were far from world class. Some of them told him it was taking them 4-5 hours to run 20 miles. He thought that was too long a time so he changed his system from measuring by miles to measuring by time. He told those people to keep the long run to 2 to 2 1/2 hours. If you can get 20 miles in that without killing yourself it's a good thing.

Personally, my best time of 2:35 came with no runs beyond 16 miles taking about an hour forty, But I'd had many years of regular runs in the 18-22 mile range before that. I think overall mileage matters more but it's more a both/and thing than an either/or.

Long run discussion with Carwyn Sharp, PhD: 20:05 mark to 28:06 mark.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/run-faster-podcast/id969509765?mt=2

Some good science for those that are interested.

The discussion after that is about doing some strength training after a workout or long run, which is called concurrent training. Someone talked about strength training and the marathon. My first thought is that it would be awesome to see a Steve Spence’s log to see the details of the combination of running and lifting.

He touches on it briefly in this article, but perhaps there is a thread here on LR with more detail:

http://www.runnersworld.com/college/steve-spences-uncommon-sense

Two more thoughts, from the world of world-class running.

Frank Shorter's thought was 20 miles or 2 hours, which ever came first.

I've heard that 38k is a staple long run in Kenya...so 23.6 miles. No doubt someone on here can speak to this in detail.

My apologies for the big box - I put in the URL and that's what happened.

Next time I will link like this -

http://runfaster.libsyn.com/carwyn-sharp-phd

I don't disagree with much of the advice you've been given.

For a first-time marathoner, I think it's important to have at least one run that has a duration about as long as your target time -- close to it, anyway, without worrying overmuch about speed. If your target is 4 hours, get out there at a comfortable pace for 4 hours at least once. No need to hit it hard. The reason is that you're going to find some mental and physical territory that's new to you when you've been moving for that long. If you get a good sense of what that's like, then in the race you'll have an idea of what to expect.

When I lined up for my first one (3:49) in my late thirties, I had no idea what lay out there 20 miles and beyond. I'd heard about The Wall but hadn't experienced it. Then I learned what those last 5-6 miles could be like, and how to handle them, and fairly quickly got under 3 and then to 2:51 (but never below, though I tried).

Another thing a long run helps with is equipment and your body parts. For example, does that singlet you're going to wear cause chafing after 4 hours? Shorts? What happens inside your shoes when you've been running that long? Those are areas where you don't want any bad surprises.

I'm about to do (yes, "do," which means mostly walking) a marathon 40 years after my first one, and about 10 years after my most recent official one (I've gone over marathon distance many times by myself). Here's the thing: when I go to the line, I know that if I don't do something stupid, there will be no surprises. I know what my body does at that distance and over my target time (which is pathetically slow, but hey -- at least I'm still at it, and in a race I go as fast as I can).

I run 50mpw, work 40 hour weeks, go to college twice a week, have 3 small children. With my current lifestyle this is the most I can currently do. I, of course, would love to reach my genetic potential, but I know it's not currently possible with the volume I'm putting in (or is it???) Once I'm done with school I can put more time into other things mostly my family and training.

Element of the post is just simply put, how critical is it to take the legendary 20 mile LR and is it 100% needed? What brought me to this question, was reading some posts a while back about people hitting sub 3:30 in a marathon while never running a single distance greater than 16 miles. What sparked this thought again and motivated me to bring it here was an individual in my local running group hit a sub 3:10 hr marathon and he never once ran a distance greater than 15 miles in any one run. He ran this marathon with a friend who did your typical 12 week marathon training plan and he bonked out at the 21 mile mark and finished with a 4:10. I started reviewing more and more training plans to see whats out there, and 9/10 training plans call for at least one 20+ mile long run(s).

Now, I know there are plenty of people who have natural talent and can just do this, but I was taken back from hearing his accomplishment from his first ever marathon. Perhaps the other guy who bonked out in a 4:10 marathon just had a bad day. I found it extremely interesting that the two of them had nearly identical fitness levels before the race and both were running about 45mpw they said. The sub 3:10 hr guy just seemed to go out there and run it on a whim, while his buddy the 4:10 guy seemed to follow all the right methods and had the opposite effect. I then began to rethink if it's absolutely as paramount to get that 20+ mile long run in, for I want to run a marathon in 2017, but reconsidering my initial approach after seeing a live case study unfold in my face.

Thought it'd be interesting to see what others thought/felt/have done/ additional thoughts in regards to the importance of the 20 mile long run for the marathon. I would certainly agree that hitting the 20 miler a few times should better prepare one for the 26.2 distance, but is it as critical as most non elites are brainwashed to think?

I think the podcast will be illuminating because Carwyn goes through all of the adaptations. For someone like myself, who doesn't have a PhD, it's important to have someone go item by item through the list of benefits. No doubt someone is going to post that threshold training does most all of the same things, yet when it comes to the marathon you have to look at glycogen and the simple fact that you don't have enough of it (no human does) to finish 26.2 miles. Simple problem that you have to solve to run the distance well.

One of the variables that none of us can control for in this discussion is talent. I coach busy adults who work their ass off to run under 3:30. I coach others who have erratic training and run under 3 hours. The principles I use to coach them are the same, but the outcomes are so different. Remember the role of talent when you compare the 3:10 and 4:10 guys. The world is not fair when it comes to running talent; most every person who has posted on LR can point to a teammate or a rival that trained little, lived a sloppy lifestyle and still ran well.

I commend you on your desire to improve given that you have three kids, a job and are going to college. Impressive. My two kids are plenty enough work for me.

You'll post what your plan is going to be, right? I think you'll get constructive help...with the obvious problem that the more you know about training the more the tendency is to cram in everything you've learned, which usually leads to injury or fatigue that you can't climb out of.

Yeah I 100% agree with the uncontrollable running genes, some people can do much more with much less. I appreciate the support!! Being a dad and trying to be the best runner one can be makes it difficult, but a welcomed challenge as I know you can relate. I will post my training up on here when the time comes. Like you said, with the more you know, it can equally work against you if the training is not executed in a timely fashion. If one begins to start cramming in key workouts that's when the over trained/injury cycle starts, it's even harder to get out while trying to accomplish a goal. Lessons I've learned from others and on my own. I will check out the podcast too, thank you.

When is your next marathon?

Depends on your training, obviously. I ran a 2:57 loosely following Hanson's plan so I never ran more than 16.

rnr_ wrote:

Depends on your training, obviously. I ran a 2:57 loosely following Hanson's plan so I never ran more than 16.

Was it your first marathon? Too often I read about runners trying a new method (such as Hanson's) and running strong PRs, but that study is fundamentally flawed since past training/expriences (even 20 milers long ago) added to someone's "experience".

For example this article:

Clearly for experienced runners, less can be more.

In general, I think the long run is vastly overrated. It may help prepare beginners for the duration of the marathon, but the risk of injury is so high.

I like the rule of thumbs of 25% max of weekly mileage, and closer to 20% for a regular week. During peak marathon training, perhaps up to 30-33% a couple of times (2-4) max during a 12-16 week cycle, e.g. 1-2 20 milers for a 60 mpw runners is not too crazy, but it is overload.

I was running for Hansons when that book was being written (and when that "renegades article" came out. The "16-mile long run" number is a selling point for sure. If anything, it's the 2 and 3-mile repeat workouts as well as consistent, higher mileage that gets people gains. 10-25/sec per mile Faster than MP goal pace...long interval sessions and high volume near the Tempo/LT boosts running economy (read efficiency) and aerobic adaptations. The schedule gets people from running 5 days a week to running 6-7 days a week. Consistency over time mixed with intensity for sure pays off. I'm not saying limiting 16-18 mile Long Runs for people only running 45-50mpw are bad though. Someone running less than 45mpw is going to be really be out there for a long time doing a 20 miler....so they probably shouldn't and instead focus on the 2-3 mile repeats and Long Tempo runs (i.e. 4-8 miles around marathon pace, negative split to slightly faster than goal pace. "Runner's World" sells marathon training on 3 days a week! Interval session, Tempo Run, Long Run. Boom...that's all you need "to finish." In my experience (coaching a lot of guys to sub 3's and BQs), it usually takes consistent mileage in the 50-70mpw range to think about getting to that level and running 3-4, 20-22 mile Long Runs during a 16-week or so marathon training cycle. That is mixed in with many more "medium" length Long runs of 16-18 miles though.So yeah, I wouldn't go out and grind a 20-miler every weekend...I actually like 10-14 day training cycles better. So one weekend maybe only do a fast finish 15-miler, the next weekend is a steady 21-miler about 35-30sec/mile slower than MP, the next weekend maybe you rest more, but instead nail 4 x 2-miles at slightly faster than half marathon pace with a 5-min rest between.

Coureur22 wrote:

It will help you obviously, though it is not necessary. Grete Waitz had never run more than 13 miles before her first NYC marathon victory.

That is half the story. The other half is that she was in incredible pain and trained properly for the rest of her victories.

I don't understand the foolish notion of running less than 26 miles for marathon training long runs.

Do elite runners at other distances run 23% less than their target distance?

Someone training for a mile never runs more that 3/4 of a mile.

Training for a 5K means only running a maximum of 3.9K in training.

If you want to be competitive in a distance then training should be longer than that distance. Otherwise just stay home with your coloring books on race day because you aren't going to win.

Sage should have a decent handle on how Hansons works. It worked for him. Sage ran his best time in both the half marathon and the marathon under the Hansons Method. I know that he will claim that he ran better since but SCOREBOARD DONT LIE. Sage likes to think that he has a better system but the proof is in his actual performances. After leaving Hansons he has not come close to his times. Most marathoners run faster at 30 years old than 25 but not Sage. He will blame it on turning to Ultra Running. He should probably stick to what he knows but the Marathon is not it.

Flounder wrote:

I don't understand the foolish notion of running less than 26 miles for marathon training long runs.

If you want to be competitive in a distance then training should be longer than that distance. Otherwise just stay home with your coloring books on race day because you aren't going to win.

You think that you need or can handle frequent 26+ mile long runs if you´re already on fatigued, low on glycogen state practically every day with the high overall mileage? You´ll end up being at home with your coloring books in the day of the marathon if trying to combine both, high mileage w/ 26+ mile long runs. If you run low mileage, the long run is more important. That approach suits better for slower marathoners who don´t have time or interest to go for a run ~12-14 times in a week.