Breaking up a long run???
Occasionally on my long run days something will come up that will make it very difficult to get it done all in one chunk. How much of a difference is there in benefits if the run is broken up into two parts, say half at lunch and the other half 4-6 hours later. This doesn't happen often but even today finding 2 hours of straight running time with another hour taken up with getting ready and then later a shower. Any thoughts?
0
Comments
I do know running Ragnar relays, with running, like two sixes and a nine miler within twenty-four hours -- have been character building. (And usually result in a vdot bump)
Once in awhile, I run with a group of guys that never run over 1:20 for any given session. For their "long" run days they break it up into two different runs of 1:00 to 1:15 in the morning and night. I'm guessing they cover about 10-11 miles per session.
There theory is that they want to be as fresh as possible for every session whether its easy or hard. Anything over 1:30 is when they see there form start to fall apart, the chance of injury greatly increases, and there next run will suffer.
I tried this a couple of times with some success. For the second 2:30 run, I broke it up into two different 1:15 sessions and ran about 10 miles in the morning and night. My legs definitely weren't as sore as a straight 2:30 run (i think i ran about 18 miles).
The only thing I would note is that these guys are runners and run fast. I'm guessing that they would cover over 20 miles in a 2:30 run.
Maybe it is beneficial to do a 2:30 run for ironman training. Definitely increased my mental ability to suffer through those last 15 minutes at Z2/MP. I also had to learn how to run efficiently at Z1/EP which the long runs were good at teaching. Moving off the forefoot and transitioning to a midfoot strike was like learning to run all over again. I'll find out soon at IMLP.
My theory on the value of long runs, at least the way we do them @ EN, has two elements. Do not take this as anything other than my opinion, no real science behind it, just my conjectures.
First, by tiring one's self out, either by running for a long (3 or more hours) time or by running at a higher intensity (EN style), we can improve the functioning of the brain/muscle connections which we'll need at the end of a long day like an IM. The marathon in an IM is best run at a constant speed (slight negative split), but the sense one gets as this goes on is that the effort required is harder and harder. Starts out as a jog, ends as a 10/5K, but the speed remains the same. The brain has to do more and more work recruiting muscle fibers to get this done, and that old gourd requires training just like any other part of our body.
Speaking of other parts of the body, absorption of fluids and nutrients across the GI lining, and the muscle energy systems (mitochondria, carb burning and fat burning elements) and ion transport (Calcium and sodium) can also be trained, but require the right stress. We're not training to run "fast" for 2.5 hours, we're training to not slow down for 4 hours +/-. So we need to have a real good carb absorption and utilization system going, not relying on just stored glycogen like a marathoner, and we need to have an efficient fat-burning system, which can take over when we inevitably run out of that glycogen and get behind on our carb intake. To say nothing of having to learn how to absorb fluids once we start getting dehydrated, so we don't deplete our body water further.
All that takes SOME time. E.g., it takes some time to run down your glycogen stores and depelete your body water by about 1-2%, and to use up your neuro-transmitters. For me, it's finding a balance between getting enough time in to stress and train those systems, and not go so long to start getting injuries to the bones. tendons, ligaments, muscles. I learned this training is mandatory for a good IM marathon. Usually, I would do 2-3 2.5 hour runs, preceeded by about 6 weeks of 2 hour run (1:45-2:05). This year, I got less than half of that in during my prep for IM CDA, and I was not able to maintain my form or pace past about 11 miles. This after years of success at keeping my pace up the whole way.
Guys who are running 2-a-days of 10-15 miles are probably doing high volume run training, like > 75 miles a week, and are acomplishing the above through that day after day volume. We can't afford to do that, cause we gotta swim and bike as well, to say nothing of training for a different SPORT - triathlon.
OK...today's final results: AM - 10 miles @ 8:58 average pace. PM - 10 miles @ 8:44 average pace (some mental energy was expended to push the second run down!). I'm 31 days out from IMRG so this will be my highest mileage day. Next week for RR#2 I'll go for the 2.5 hrs straight, but it will be a slogfest if the morning is similar to this week. It will probably deteriorate to 10 min miles where I'm sweating far faster than I can take fluids in. Seems that 10 miles is about my max for handling truly obnoxious weather. Splitting the runs allows me to get more miles in at a much faster average pace. So this cycle, I've been alternating a single long slog with a high quality/quantity double on the same day ... hoping to reap the benefits of both methods.
the double runs in one day are standard for pure runners.
pure runners have the runner's mentality = tolerate extreme discomfort and never doubt the overall length of the run, just whether or not they can stay fast the whole way.
so, if you have doubts about making the distance, then best to not break up the long run, so you can benefit from the pyschological aspect of having run continuosly, as others have pointed out.
the other benefit of the continuous long run is that you get a feel for your nutrition needs over that distance.
my own opinion is to do what works best for your schedule and keeps you consistent. however, be honest with yourself and make sure you are just not 'avoiding' the long run.
the truth will come out at the ironman distance race.
gh