Active Community: Message List

I don't understand why long runs should be slow.

guest — Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:38:12 GMT

Now I understand at least two reasons why they should be slow. I was asking too much of my body, going long and at a good effort. It took experience to see that if I backed off even 30 seconds per mile, adding maybe 6 or 7 percent to my time, I could cover 50% more distance. And it makes for a quicker recovery. Well worth it! Thanks for the response, Len.

I don't understand why long runs should be slow.

guest — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 17:16:16 GMT

Thanks for the reply, Len. I misstated my not-long-runs. They're not recovery runs, I guess because I'm not tired. They're just 4 not long runs per week, maybe 2-7 miles. I always start out feeling strong. Currently, I alternate weekly long runs at 13 miles (7:40 pace) and 18 miles (about 7:55 pace). The day before and after are rest days; no b2b for me. As I increase the milage of those, I place to go 3-4 seconds slower per mile. For me, that seems like a good approach to a 37.3-mile event. I don't have plans to go much slower than the 9:00 pace. (For my peace of mind, I usually do train up to 24-26 when getting ready for a marathon.)

Thanks a bunch.

Jeff

I don't understand why long runs should be slow.

guest — Sun, 22 Apr 2012 00:47:52 GMT

Hello, I'm new to the site. I'm training for my first ultra, hopefully a 60k. If I'm understanding the most common recommendation for long runs, it's to do them 1 or 2 minutes per mile slower than my race pace. This baffles me. If I'm aiming for a 9:00-per-mile pace, then I think my 20, 25 mile runs should be 9:00 or faster. Otherwise, I'm just training my body to run slower than a 9:00 pace. Also, can anyone comment on this? I use the long runs as the focal point of my week, where the other days are more recovery runs. Does that make sense?

Thanks very much in advance.