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

Flounder wrote:

Thanks for the serious response. I am interested in hearing other thoughts about this.

I don't suggest running 26 miles everyday. I would suggest no more than a marathon distance every two weeks once the athlete has built up to that distance. The week following a training run of marathon distance or longer would need to be a recovery week with shorter/slower distances. The marathon would count into that week's mpw. A marathon is a low glycogen state race and someone who wants to be competitive needs to train the body to run through that state. The last 6 miles of the marathon is 50% of the race both mentally and physically. Getting to 20 miles isn't that big of a deal. Gutting out that last 6 miles is the hardest part.

By extension of that logic then, someone looking to train for a fast 50 miler should be doing 50 mile training runs? At some point the body meets up with diminishing returns.

U.N.O. wrote:

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.

I completely agree with this. Admittedly, I am an experiment of one, but I have run a couple dozen marathons over the years, and with low mileage the long run(s) become the single most critical component.

This year I set a goal of sub-3:30. It had been 13 years since my most recent marathon, but 8-minute miles seemed like a reasonable goal at age 57. BQ for my age group is 3:40.

During the 19 weeks leading up to the marathon, I ran, on average, only two-and-a-half days each week. I averaged 20 miles per week.

Starting eight weeks out from the marathon, I incorporated four long runs: one 18 miler, two 20-milers, one 23.

Obviously these represented a huge percentage of my total weekly mileage.

On marathon day, I ran negative splits for a 3:25:27.

Also, regarding 16 versus 20 for a long run: We're talking a half hour of time. Even for a busy person, well worth finding an extra 30-some minutes at least once before the marathon!

I have run 4 marathons. First at the age of 26 and the last at 36. Got one minute faster each time on honest courses and usually without people to run with for at least the 2nd half of them. Last race was 2:28:30.

Like most of us, I finished that last one thinking I could have done things better, but I am confident that increasing the number of and length of my long runs helped a great deal. I did two long runs of 26.2, and at least 12 more of 21-25 miles. They were on a hilly course and I'd average 6:30s-6:40s.

During the week I'd usually do a 6*1mile workout and then a longer workout (4/3/2/1mi, 3*4mi, 8-12mi tempo, etc...). If I do another race I'll incorporate more workouts into long runs. I did one 10mi warmup + 10mi tempo, but that was the only big effort of 20+ miles.

There are super-talented people who can run fast marathons without long runs, but for the rest of us, it's nonsense to think that you can run up to your maximum ability without that strength work.

Hanson training over 14-weeks produced a BQ for me. This came after a 23-year hiatus from marathoning, but not running (still ran 30-40 miles/week & 5K races during those years). 15-mile long runs were the longest I went. Kept the mileage around 60.

Marathon ready? wrote:

I'm just curious, I recently seen a post in here of people finishing a marathon with long runs never exceeding 16 miles(they've never ran more than 16 miles outside of a race), these were sub 4 hr marathon finish times as well. So how important is the holy grail 20 mile long run to do decent in a marathon? Granted, one would assume running long runs at 20 miles should yield better results.

If you are someone looking to do more than just finish and it is your first marathon, I suggest you do one 20 miler. That one 20 miler gives you the confidence that you can cover the distance and an idea of what pace you are capable of and how to manage the sensation of holding it together when your body starts to break down. With that said, I am not a believer in regular 20 mile runs because they disrupt your training, you can't do much the day before or the day after. I think 3 days of 15 miles runs are better than one 20 mile run. The other problem with 20 miles runs are that some people run them so slow that they are basically like long recovery runs. It is important to put in enough long distance work to build your aerobic system, but you also have to get use to running fast. When world class marathoners are in the heart of their training, they do mile and even 800m repeats once a week. I have met quite a few elite marathoners and most of them prefer doing 25 miles in a day as opposed to 20 miles in one clip. Although, there are some elites who do 20 miles and even 30 miles runs as well as part of their training, but they trend to be Olympic and WMM types who run 120+ miles a week.

True, I ran my half and full PRs while in Michigan training hard and focusing 100% on the roads for 3.5 years right after college. The first year of Hansons nearly crushed me...I ran 1:07:50 in the half and a dismal 2:24 at Boston on a perfect day. I was totally overtrained and tired, and many guys got injured all the time. Eventually (the next year), I popped a good one and ran my PRs (1:04/2:16). When you have a dozen or so guys to train with and we're all putting in 130-140mpw at 6:30 pace on average (as long as you don't get hurt or overtrained), you're bound to pop a good one at some point....and then regress. Tons of guys in the program would debut at 2:15-2:16 and then stay right at that level for years....no progression. How the Hansons elites train and how the "Marathon Method" works is quite different obviously. I was there when Luke wrote the book. In my defense, I trained myself to getting 16th at Boston last year. Sure it was a few minutes off my PR , but I consider that to be the best marathon race of my life (and better than my 2:16:52 PR) because of the crappy weather.... and that was coming off of mountain ultras and just racing the LA Marathon (USATF National Champs) 6 weeks prior....where I finished ahead of a Hanson guy and got 8th.

U shud no wrote:

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.

If you do speed work. I like building up with mile repeats 15 to 30 second below goal pace. If you do this you can keep your long runs below 16. I have done my best marathons using speed work instead of over LSD miles. However, there are a lot of different thoughts on this right now. Check out this new study comparing training of different professional long-distance runners may help http://sciencenordic.com/learning-best-long-distance-runners

No, it was not my first marathon and that is a good point. It really had to do with the consistently higher mileage (bumped up from 50 mpw to 65-70 mpw) and regular workouts. I totally agree with you about the long run being overrated. I like to limit my long runs to 150 minutes max.

Sage,

How many times did you break 2:19 before or after Hansons?

ZERO

Stick to the Ultra world. You appear to have some knowledge there.

Jay Johnson wrote:

When is your next marathon?

Contemplating if I wanna do Chicago or the Marine Corps, my wife wants to see monuments and stuff, so I might end up going for the Marine Corps because of that reason.

I struggle with comparing myself to others, so your post is VERY useful to me right now, Coach Johnson. I like your advice and tips!