Benefit of 2 hour runs

2 hour runs basically teach your body to utilize fat more efficiently. Roughly around 90 minutes the body tends to run out of available carbohydrate stores and then begins to rely on more fat stores. what this means for you as a runner: if you do half marathons the extra benefit (capilarization, Mitochondrial adaptation) is going to help with your overall aerobic performance. I would say do a 1:45, then a 1:50, then maybe a 2:00, but keep the intensity slightly lower, because 2 hours of hauling ass can't be done too frequently without getting injured/worn down (Even elites don't do 2+ hours really quick frequently, and by frequently I mean every week).

During a long run you dont start recruiting your fast twitch 2a fibers until 1:55 mins of running.

emmanuel wrote:

During a long run you dont start recruiting your fast twitch 2a fibers until 1:55 mins of running.

1:55 is completely arbitrary without any information regarding the guy's fitness, running conditions, pace, etc.

Attempts as satire on a message board usually are arbitrary and often over the heads of clueless readers.

Jean Paul Satire wrote:

Attempts as satire on a message board usually are arbitrary and often over the heads of clueless readers.

If that is the case...then touche.

blank_ wrote:

2 hour runs basically teach your body to utilize fat more efficiently. Roughly around 90 minutes the body tends to run out of available carbohydrate stores and then begins to rely on more fat stores. what this means for you as a runner: if you do half marathons the extra benefit (capilarization, Mitochondrial adaptation) is going to help with your overall aerobic performance. I would say do a 1:45, then a 1:50, then maybe a 2:00, but keep the intensity slightly lower, because 2 hours of hauling ass can't be done too frequently without getting injured/worn down (Even elites don't do 2+ hours really quick frequently, and by frequently I mean every week).

Wow, I couldn't have said it better myself! Well put.

Every run has a purpose. A long run-- purpose as stated above (about 10-20% slower than marathon race pace). Tempo run-- lactate threshold. Intervals over 600m-- VO2 max and aerobic strength. Repetitions-- leg turnover and form. All other days-- easy for rest/recovery and aerobic development!

All you need each week (or sometimes every 10-14 days for the long run) is a true long run (over 90 min.), one tempo run (or part of a run at marathon race pace), a long intervals session, a day of strides/reps (after an easy run), and the other days easy. That's it. Cut out the 2 days of repetitions.

Benefit of 2 hour runs? A boon to the shoe industry.

"All you need each week (or sometimes every 10-14 days for the long run) is a true long run (over 90 min.), one tempo run (or part of a run at marathon race pace), a long intervals session, a day of strides/reps (after an easy run), and the other days easy. That's it. Cut out the 2 days of repetitions."

I must be running a long run everyday then. I better stop before I overtrain myself....

I love all these nice black and white categories people tend to put things in but the body doesn't exactly work like that. If I run 1x600m at 5k pace am I really training Vo2max? If I run 2 minutes at "lactate threshold velocity" am I really training the "lactate threshold"? All these arbitrary numbers and "zones" don't really mean a thing to your body. Here's a training shorthand:

1. What is Vo2max and why is it reached? You are maximizing the ability of the body to use oxygen. So how do you train this? Reach a point in which your oxygen consumption is maximalized. This could be with intervals (400s, 800s, miles, doesn't really matter), hills (repeats up a half mile hill is possibly the BEST workout for this purpose), or short race (2mi/5k). In fact if you look at a few of "yesterday's" runners they probably did less track work but more races. That's the concept behind "racing yourself into shape". Best way to train to race is to...RACE.

2. What is lactate threshold why is it reached? Your body doesn't recognize set points. It progressively responds to a stimulus. You're always producing energy aerobically and anaerobically. The faster you run the more "anaerobic" the energy demands become. The longer you run the more "anaerobic" the energy demands become. Muscle fibers fatigue and thus more are needed. The purpose behind "lactate threshold training" is to stress your aerobic energy pathways to the max. Does this have to be at a set pace over a set distance? Nope. Does this have to be at a set % of something? Nope. Run hard without feeling that tightness or weakness in your legs that comes with intense anaerobic training and you've found the correct effort. It doesn't have to be a set pace. You could easily call an hour run at "marathon effort" an equal "lactate threshold" benefit as you could the arbitrary 20 minute tempo. The basic "out and back" run is possibly the best "tempo" run ever devised. Go run for 30 minutes. Come back along the same course at a faster pace. Or go for 45 or 60 minutes, it doesn't matter.

3. Too many times we as runners are so polluted with facts and figures that we forget what we're actually training for. We're not training to raise our Vo2maxes or lactate thresholds. We're training to race fast on Saturday. Once you figure that out you'll be controlling your own training instead of your training controlling you.

Just my little monthly rant.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

1. What is Vo2max and why is it reached? You are maximizing the ability of the body to use oxygen. So how do you train this? Reach a point in which your oxygen consumption is maximalized.

WTF! I was beginning to think you knew what the hell you were talking about until I read that word!

(Seriously, though, well put!)

Yes, you're right about not getting caught up in numbers and zones.... just run by effort. Shouldn't set any standards. I should have stated the overall point of training the different energy systems appropriately.

Sorry, understanding the science/purpose behind a run has really helped me become a better runner.... even though running is just a simple sport of getting out the door and training at varying intensities!

Thanks for the info/advice guys. I will have a crack at a 2 hour run in the coming weeks and maybe do one every 14 days and see how I get on.

By the way when I said 2 days of sessions/reps that includes a mixture of long reps, speedwork, hills depending on the time of year, target races etc. Though I do tend to do one session of long reps a week all year round. For info I'm a 31 min 10k type runner.

according to a hansons article you don't have to run that long if you do a tempo run the day before. something about "cumulative fatigue" but this never gives you the advantage of getting your body tuned to processing energy stores better as previous posters have mentioned.

2 hours versus 1:40 is not such a big deal. Why not push that long one to 3 hours every couple weeks. Keep it much slower and do it first thing in the morning on only water. No food that day until after a shower and more water. I've been doing this on the bike and run for a long time with no ill effects. Lots of good science that I wouldn't be able to explain behind this kind of training. In fact on the bike I would go up to 4 hours. It must be completely aerobic though. Start w/ HR of 60%, and moving towards 80% in the last parts.

If I ran for 3 hours I'd probably not be able to walk for a week let alone run! I'm not planning on doing a marathon yet so I'm only looking at the benefits of 2 hour runs in relation to racing shorter distances particularly in the range of 5m to 12k. Surely anything much further at the moment would hamper my ability to carry out the other key components of my training as mentioned previously.

COYB

Andy King wrote:

If I ran for 3 hours I'd probably not be able to walk for a week let alone run! I'm not planning on doing a marathon yet so I'm only looking at the benefits of 2 hour runs in relation to racing shorter distances particularly in the range of 5m to 12k. Surely anything much further at the moment would hamper my ability to carry out the other key components of my training as mentioned previously.

COYB

Refer to past great teams/runners. Wetmore's Colorado runners routinely did 2 hour long runs as did many great 5k/10k runners of the past half century. When you get down to it that's the best way to train, copy others who had success. Lots of talk about following a scientifc schedule or a "how you feel" schedule is nice talk, but that's all it is. Take in all the training information you can from various sources, match it with your own personal experimentation and run with it. I personally love out and back runs so I do most of my "tempo" efforts that way. I love running hills so I do a lot of my "interval" efforts that way.

Run the 2 hour long run every week. Give it 3-6 months and see what happens.

Alan

You can copy other runners and teams who have had success all you want, but I don't think that even Wetmore coaches each team exactly the same every year. Adjustments and variations have to be made. Bob Schul was one of the most successful runners the US has ever had, but does that mean that everyone should follow the Igloi method?

There is nothing wrong with using "a scientific schedule" as a basis. You can always "run as you feel" but how are you going to guage intensity and volume increases from year to year, month to month? I think if you are increasing mileage or newer to the sport, using the proper "scientific" intensities for the desired workout is actually pretty important. It's far too easy to turn every run into a threshold run when you are new to distance training. All sorts of training have "just worked" but science had explained the "whys" and "hows" of the effect of different workouts.

Like runningart2004 said, I think we can learn a tremendous amount from past successes, but I do think that science definetly has its place.

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.

Careful...

I agree with you on a few things. You're right, science does not tell you "what" to do, but I think it does tell you "how" to do it. Science does prove WHY certain training strategies work and WHY some don't work. Obviously someone had to actually "try" the training before it was studied and proced effective or ineffective. But, I still will say that science is crutial, especially in regards to being a guideline for INTENSITIES of different workouts. You will only get so far on running on "feel". Like I said before, I feel you need to chart progress in volume and intensity- progression- and I just think it's easier to do following something that's scientifically based,formal and tangible.

Also, just because runners come from poor countries doesn't mean that their training isn't formulated. They aren't just running through the fields on "feel" and then hopping in local 5k's and running 12:50.

A two hour runs confers the same benefits as a one hour run. It's just twice as long.