Breaking long run into 2 runs
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-08-09 3:07 PM |
Veteran 660 Northern Illinois | Subject: Breaking long run into 2 runs Because of some time issues this past weekend I broke my long run (8 miles) into two runs (5) in the morning and (3) in late afternoon. I have never done that before but I liked it and I felt good the next morning. Is there any advantages or drawbacks from breaking up a long run this way? I'm especially interested in any feedback from folks that have done this method for longer runs say total of 15 miles or more. I'm adding 10% each weekend and curious if others have found this method to be helpful or harmful. Thanks in advance for any input. |
|
2011-08-09 3:27 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Veteran 740 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs I'm a believer in the long run. I don't think you'll get the same level/type of physiological adaptation from breaking the run up as you will from one long, continuous run. How big of a deal this is probably depends on your training objectives and race plans. I look at my long or medium-long run as a key workout for the week and try to juggle my schedule around to fit it in. I wouldn't hesitate to move it to a different day, but I wouldn't break it into two workouts. |
2011-08-09 3:29 PM in reply to: #3636418 |
Pro 4353 Wallingford, PA | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs g_shotts - 2011-08-09 4:27 PM I'm a believer in the long run. I don't think you'll get the same level/type of physiological adaptation from breaking the run up as you will from one long, continuous run. How big of a deal this is probably depends on your training objectives and race plans. I look at my long or medium-long run as a key workout for the week and try to juggle my schedule around to fit it in. I wouldn't hesitate to move it to a different day, but I wouldn't break it into two workouts. X2. Two shorter runs in one day are a great way to add frequency and volume, but they're not the same thing as a long run.... |
2011-08-09 4:01 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs I've broken up my long run into two pieces a couple times for particular reasons, but they've both been in the same part of the day. Good example: Had 14 miles planned but some time issues, so I ran 7 miles to the pool, swam 1.25 miles nonstop, ran 7 miles home...run/swim/run "brick". Seven miles in the AM and seven in the PM wouldn't be quite the same...and neither is really the same as a 14 mile continuous run...though the physiological benefits might possibly be quite comparable. |
2011-08-09 7:03 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Member 135 carlsbad | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs I think the answer to this is specific to the athlete. I had knee issues and broke my " long run" into 3 days. 3-5 the day before, 10-13 for the long run and 3-5 the day after. That was during my " big volume" weeks ( which isnt big for IM) I was thrilled with my IM run and had a blast. It worked for me and I showed up healthy on race day which should be your priority. Check out the "longest run thread" there is some great discussion that you could apply. Joshk, bryancd, and a few others have alot of knowledge. If they show up on this post take a good look at what they say. |
2011-08-09 7:49 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
2011-08-09 8:53 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs More smaller runs like this will allow one to recover more quickly and not be in such a deficit, improving general run fitness and could help with run volume. It's not the same as a long run because the benefits of a long run come at the tail end of running continuously. One can see some improvement in going long by improving run fitness via the split method, but only to a point. The long run is so the body can adapt to going long, so just running on tired legs isn't quite the same. So really it depends on one's background, where one is at now, and what one is doing in the future (ie, what type of event and how soon is it). There is no one answer for this. It's a balancing act. |
2011-08-09 8:57 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Expert 1360 | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs last year when I was training for my IM, my coach said that I could split my long run in two if I needed to, but said not to make a habit of doing it all the time. |
2011-08-09 9:00 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs More or less what Fred said: Doing doubles give you the advantage of easier recovery. Just as an example that is in my head, I did 11+ easy this morning, and 6 (including some faster running) this evening. I will feel fine tomorrow. If I had done 17 (even this morning, even all easy), I would feel it tomorrow. The flip side is that it would be nice to have some true long runs under your belt prior to the race. As an extreme example, suppose your IM plan called for a long run of 18. If you split it as 9/9 and never actually run a continuous long run in training, you will probably hate life after about 16 miles in the race, especially if you have not done marathons before. |
2011-08-09 11:59 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Expert 697 Northern CA | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Breaking your long run into 2 is how some coaches recommend all their athletes train. If you do both runs within a 24 hour period, to your body it's pretty close to doing it as one run but you get better recovery. If you are very slow, then breaking up your long run is the only way to get in decent mileage that I can see. You really shouldn't be running more than 2 hours a day (3 if you do run/walk) or at most 2 hours in the AM and 30 min. in the PM. Any runs longer than that typically take too long to recover from so the negative outweighs the positive. If you are so slow that you can only get in 13 miles in 2 hours (as an example), then the only way to do 18 and 20 mile runs is to do two long runs within 24 hours. |
2011-08-10 7:29 AM in reply to: #3636362 |
Veteran 660 Northern Illinois | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Thanks for all the feedback so far. I thought like most topics there would be some differing ideas and that is what I was looking for. I think I will experiment with this method and see how it works for me as I add more time/distance each week. I actually enjoy the long run and have gone as long as 14 miles in my HIM training this past year. This was the first time I have ever ran twice in one day and just wanted to get some feedback from others who have tried it. I'm 46 and I'm not a fast runner, my long runs are done at 9:13 pace. So breaking up the long run might be something to use when schedule gets crazy. |
|
2011-08-10 7:37 AM in reply to: #3636362 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Just to also add to the general consensus. Is it the same? No. Is it beneficial? Yes. |
2011-08-10 7:45 AM in reply to: #3636362 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs I agree that it is not the same but is still beneficial. In general I would say that if you can manage it, consider doing a little more total volume for the day; so an 8 mile run becomes a 5 mile and later in the day a 4 mile. Shane |
2011-08-10 11:13 AM in reply to: #3636362 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-08-10 11:16 AM in reply to: #3637067 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-08-10 12:26 PM in reply to: #3637671 |
Elite 3658 Roswell, GA | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Fred Doucette - 2011-08-10 12:16 PM I don't think 13 miles in 2 hours is "so slow".... especially when you consider how few people run a sub 4 in an IM. |
|
2011-08-10 12:35 PM in reply to: #3637664 |
Champion 7595 Columbia, South Carolina | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Fred Doucette - 2011-08-10 12:13 PM I think for the people that are truly running at mile 18 and beyond of the IM marathon that doing the long runs of 18-20 miles are very important. In my experience most people doing IM are not running so great at that point so I would suggest breaking up the long run could be smart for the majority. I say this because there is a huge recovery cost for the long run and for most it doesn't prevent a lot of walking beyond mile 18 regardless. Of course do what works best for you, but my suspicion is that the percentage of IMers running well at mile 18 is a very slim minority, so a strategy that had a lower recovery penalty in training might help the overall experience.
I agree with this, and add: a significant benefit of better recovery is that you can train better (where 'better' can come in many forms), which makes you a stronger runner, which increases the chance that you'll be really running at mile 18, which will be well-supported by some continuous long runs. Sounds paradoxical, but it isn't. |
2011-08-10 1:18 PM in reply to: #3637671 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Fred Doucette - 2011-08-10 11:16 AM MacMadame - 2011-08-10 12:59 AM I don't think 13 miles in 2 hours is "so slow"....Breaking your long run into 2 is how some coaches recommend all their athletes train. If you do both runs within a 24 hour period, to your body it's pretty close to doing it as one run but you get better recovery. If you are very slow, then breaking up your long run is the only way to get in decent mileage that I can see. You really shouldn't be running more than 2 hours a day (3 if you do run/walk) or at most 2 hours in the AM and 30 min. in the PM. Any runs longer than that typically take too long to recover from so the negative outweighs the positive. If you are so slow that you can only get in 13 miles in 2 hours (as an example), then the only way to do 18 and 20 mile runs is to do two long runs within 24 hours. Only to those that have that "elite" or egotistical frame of mind do, which has always irked me. People that think that are so full of themselves. |
2011-08-10 8:17 PM in reply to: #3636362 |
Uxbridge | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs While training for IMAZ last year I was having some knee issues on my longer runs. In an effort to build my "fatigue resistance" and still accomplish my long runs, my coach had me split my long runs in half and bike for one hour in between. I would run 10 miles bike one hour and run 10 more miles. While this made for a very long workout..it worked and I was not injured. I was able to complete the marathon portion of the IM and meet my goals. |
2011-08-11 8:00 AM in reply to: #3637901 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-08-11 8:17 AM in reply to: #3636362 |
Veteran 306 | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs I'm pretty slow and I'll occassionally break my long run into two - usually its because of time contrainsts - 2 hours (12 miles) in the morning, 1 hour at night (6 miles). If you google it you'll find that lots of people do it: http://www.marathonnation.us/long-run/splitting-the-marathon-long-run/ It might not be ideal but it works for me and my schedule when it has to.
|
|
2011-08-11 8:28 AM in reply to: #3637067 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs MacMadame - 2011-08-09 11:59 PM Breaking your long run into 2 is how some coaches recommend all their athletes train. If you do both runs within a 24 hour period, to your body it's pretty close to doing it as one run but you get better recovery. If you are very slow, then breaking up your long run is the only way to get in decent mileage that I can see. You really shouldn't be running more than 2 hours a day (3 if you do run/walk) or at most 2 hours in the AM and 30 min. in the PM. Any runs longer than that typically take too long to recover from so the negative outweighs the positive. If you are so slow that you can only get in 13 miles in 2 hours (as an example), then the only way to do 18 and 20 mile runs is to do two long runs within 24 hours. Won't make a big deal about this but since we're in the Iron Distance forum I'd have to disagree with what's in red above. I totally agree that if you think you are "slow" (emphasis to avoid the elitist argument) and can get the needed volume in only by splitting it up into 2 runs then fine. But to say that doing both runs of distance x within 24 hours is "pretty close" to doing one run of distance 2x is a stretch. You can get nearly full recovery from a run of distance x within 24 hours (assuming you have the training background to be doing runs of that distance to begin with). So, to say that the second run of distance x is almost equivalent to the second half of one run of distance 2x is a little bit of a stretch. Eventually you're going to need to exposure your body to runs of distance 2x, hopefully more than once. My 2.5 cents. |
2011-08-11 8:40 AM in reply to: #3638912 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
2011-08-11 8:59 AM in reply to: #3638941 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Breaking long run into 2 runs Fred Doucette - 2011-08-11 8:40 AM Birkierunner - 2011-08-11 9:28 AM MacMadame - 2011-08-09 11:59 PM Breaking your long run into 2 is how some coaches recommend all their athletes train. If you do both runs within a 24 hour period, to your body it's pretty close to doing it as one run but you get better recovery. If you are very slow, then breaking up your long run is the only way to get in decent mileage that I can see. You really shouldn't be running more than 2 hours a day (3 if you do run/walk) or at most 2 hours in the AM and 30 min. in the PM. Any runs longer than that typically take too long to recover from so the negative outweighs the positive. If you are so slow that you can only get in 13 miles in 2 hours (as an example), then the only way to do 18 and 20 mile runs is to do two long runs within 24 hours. Won't make a big deal about this but since we're in the Iron Distance forum I'd have to disagree with what's in red above. I totally agree that if you think you are "slow" (emphasis to avoid the elitist argument) and can get the needed volume in only by splitting it up into 2 runs then fine. But to say that doing both runs of distance x within 24 hours is "pretty close" to doing one run of distance 2x is a stretch. You can get nearly full recovery from a run of distance x within 24 hours (assuming you have the training background to be doing runs of that distance to begin with). So, to say that the second run of distance x is almost equivalent to the second half of one run of distance 2x is a little bit of a stretch. Eventually you're going to need to exposure your body to runs of distance 2x, hopefully more than once. My 2.5 cents. While I don't disagree with anything you just said, I think for many IMers that the recovery costs of a 3 hour run (or longer) are pretty significant and affect their ability to train the other 2 disciplines. No question that the race itself won't be broken up into 2 runs, but for 90% or more the run turns into a walk near the end and one has to way the benefit of long runs vs. the benefit of being a stronger cyclist etc. Interesting topic. yeah, I think we're all on the same page. And, I'm not necessarily even advocating 3 hour runs either. But I would not argue against doing a long run simply because it may affect the quality of your bike training sessions for a couple of days after that long run. After all, part of the training effect is to do the workout, recover, and get stronger. Also, the psychological benefit of getting in the longer run shouldn't be ignored. I think in the bigger picture (i.e. context of a 24 week (or whatever length) IM schedule plus appropriate background prep before that 24 weeks) the long-term benefit of doing that long run outweighs the cost of temporarily affecting the quality of your bike or swim sessions for a day or two. Plus, we're not talking about doing these long runs every single week so its not like we're chronically affecting the quality of training in the other 2 disciplines week after week. |
2011-08-11 10:44 AM in reply to: #3636362 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|