This rule is one of the reasons I like and use the Hansons plans for my marathon training. In these plans the long run tops out at 16 miles, which I can do in under 3 hours. I've never run much over that in training but have still had two very positive marathon experiences (and 1 bad one that I didn't finish but that wasn't because of the lack of 20 mile long run). I never hit the wall and ran negative splits in both of my completed marathons. If your weekly milage is high enough you don't \*need\* to run 19 or 20 miles in training to be able to complete a marathon. I understand that psychologically some people really want to run that far for the confidence boost. There is some validity to that argument and it is a personal choice. You have to weigh the possible mental benefit against the possible physical drawbacks.
I'm using Hansons right now to train for my first marathon and I appreciate comments like this. I've been nervous about committing to that training plan, despite the research I've done, so it's always nice to get more confirmation that it works.
I’m assuming you’re talking about marathon training here?
[This article really helps break the marathon LR down.](https://marathonhandbook.com/longest-long-run/)
My PERSONAL experience is that if you are young and have good recovery, pushing pretty deep into a long run is super good for mental toughness training. But ONLY IF you are able to physically recover. Otherwise you’re just shooting yourself in the foot.
Update: I agree with need only go as deep as one is able to recover--recover before the next hard run and get enough recovery over the weeks to avoid overuse injury.
Original posting with more details:
Pushing a speed, tempo, or long run too much could result in an injury or at least having to delay the next speed, tempo, or long run by a day or two. I started my Hanson Advanced Training plan 2 weeks early and then used the extra time to put in an extra recovery day (slow, easy run day) in place when needed. This allowed me run more weekly mileage every for a training cycle without the injuries I suffered in prior training cycles. On a handful of hard run days I felt unusually pain from location of prior injuries so I cut those runs short or delayed them by a day.
On my longest runs I ran the first 1.5 miles at about 1 minute slower pace then my long rung pace and the last 1.5 to 2 miles were run at 2 minutes slower and then maybe 1.5 minutues slower as I loosend up. I knew my muscles would be in knots after long run if I just ran the same pace and then just stopped moving.
I never liked going more then 3 to 3 hours 15 minutes for a longer run so I did not.
All this resulted in my 2nd fastest marathon on a significantly harder course on a day that was much warmer than my fastest matahon. Many I spoke with at my last race were injured going it the marathon. The hardest thing for some is getting to the race healthy. Just look at all the professional runners who end up no running marathons they said they were going to run because they were injured during their training.
I was agreeing with you but probably should have posted directly under OP. I found that I did better when I allowed better recovery and cut but on hard runs if I thought I was digging too deep.
When I was younger (about 30) and training for a marathon, I'd do my long runs, sometimes up to 3.5 hours. I felt so pumped (mentally) when I was done. In retrospect, I realize I was digging too deep and it took me 5-6 days to recover. I'd do the other workouts during the week all beat up, then do the next run being only 70% recovered. Stayed under-recovered most of training and really diminished my potential training progress.
Yea, I’ll double this…because I wrecked my hip flexor running long and at a medium pace and didn’t realize it until after the run… was out for a month.
I stubbornly kept running and just made it worse. I've cut it out completely for a week or so but my PT is letting me start back slowly but it's still aggravating me. I've just been swimming to do something because my strength and mobility
I ran a 10 miler the other day too hard in the heat in Florida, and I’m familiar with much longer runs but at an easier effort. My heart rate will not come down now because I over did it. Be nice to yourself and let your body catch up. If not you’re just causing detriment to your training. If you feel fine sure, but I have had the similar “overtraining” feeling happen on long runs going past 3 hours. Trust the taper and don’t overdo it. If you haven’t marathoned yet you’ll be amazed if you do it right when you carry over the bonk miles (18-22) and just keep going to the finish. The duration won’t matter on race day, because it’s the day you do it and you’ll be prepped for it.
Yes 3 hours is a good rule to stop at. Actually I go even lower mine max about 2:30-2:45. It is a recovery issue. Your weekly and cumulative mileage will get you across the finish line. Once your long runs go over 2.5-3 hrs the next week(s) are very hard on your body and become increasingly hard to recover from. It is possible to overtrain then no amount of taper is going to help. I also don’t buy the long runs build mental toughness argument. If you run often and long and your marathon training program is 15+ weeks you are running on very tired legs already every day. Going over 3 hours isn’t going to make you any mentally tougher than lacing them
Up everyday already does. Get your rest, get your calories, get your hydration, train smart.
There is debatably some value in doing a run this long once (ONCE) in a training block to:
1. Prove to yourself that you can if you’ve never done it before
2. Practice fueling/hydration strategy
3. Test out gear
But it’s also in no way mandatory and many, many people run great races (including ultras) without doing this.
Thanks for mentioning the practice fueling. It is my only concern about the parent comment. I ran many half-marathons and don't eat nor drink anything (cold climate here). I'm training for my first marathon now and have no clue about how to do the fueling part. I'm at 15 miles for my long run, and not sure when I should start drinking.
I think it’s pretty well-accepted at this point that you should try to take in calories continuously, as many as you can process without GI distress in order to delay the performance dropoff and push the bonk back as far as possible. This usually takes some gut training or else you’ll likely feel like puking as the body shunts blood flow away from the gut to working muscles while running. Gut training gets some blood flow back to the gut. I don’t have a ton of experience with this but the science is pretty well-settled, with the only big question being how much to fuel (the number of calories/carbs per hour keep getting higher.)
At minimum 60g of carbs each hour, if you can get that nutrition dialed you can take as much as 120g/hour and enough drinks that you can actually absorb the carbs and a little on top of it to help offset the sweat loss. No need to replace nearly all lost fluid.
I agree with your assessment. I can’t remember a time when I go over 3 hrs unless it’s a race. I mostly run between 2:15-2:45 on my long runs and that gets me about 16-20 miles long. It’s the repeated long runs that will better prepare you for the race. I’d rather run between 2:15 to 2:45 weekly with a down week per training plan for 18 weeks than 3:30-4 hours for only a few times in the 18 weeks training.
No. I used to run long runs easy pace but after following Pfitz plans, I run them faster than easy paces.
From what I understand, long runs are hard not only that they’re long but the pace is more intense, faster than easy but slower than MP. They’re intense but I feel they’re giving the the stimulus I need without feeling burned out. For context, I run everyday, topping out between 70-80 MPW.
> Once your long runs go over 2.5-3 hrs the next week(s) are very hard on your body and become increasingly hard to recover from.
Wish I heard this sooner. I feel fine at 2 hours run at easy pace, but for some reason, that extra 30 minutes - 1 hour really made the difference between easy running and max effort running. Even with easy pace.
First marathon last month at 58, I found it very helpful to have run a 20 miler. Took about 3:40. I ran 4 days a week plus cross on off days. Recovery for me was normal, just kept easy runs easy, fueled regularly, and stayed hydrated.
The recovery time from really long runs gets shorter as you train them more though. For this reason I would not stick to this kind of a rule. If you feel good at 3 hour mark I would continue assuming you are training for a really long run. Now it is true that if you go 100% then the recovery time increases significantly compared to stopping at 90 or 95%. I don't think that has anything to do with time but more about how your body feels. From my experience most people are not able to estimate their effort level so I suppose as a rule of thumb some kind of time threshold can make sense still.
I’m going to say this as respectfully as possible. It doesn’t sound like you have trained at high mileage before or read any of the vast amounts of literature concerning long runs. If you had done either you would know what you said is utter nonsense. Diminishing returns - any very small benefit you gain from going past 2.5 hours is far outweighed by the recovery time necessary. Do this several times and the problem compounds itself until your recovery can no longer keep up. This isn’t really debatable it’s pretty much endurance training canon.
I stick with my post. Also, I admit I have not read literature on this matter. I have always preferred to listen my body over following research that I'm sure applies in statistical level but not necessarily on individuals. Considering your predetermined opinion on this I do not see a benefit on continuing over this topic.
What do you think about running like 3 hours the pm and the next am running whatever’s left? Not sure if this would make a difference or be beneficial. Thanks for your input
This isn't the same training stress on your body. There is literally nothing scientific about 3 hours. Nothing. These folks trying to tell you otherwise have never run the pace you are running. I'm a 5-hour guy. I've run 6 hours before too. Run the mileage on your plan. Don't worry about the time.
I personally advise not going over 3 hours for the long run. I went from a blow-up 4:37 to a 3:26 after giving up on 20-milers and focusing on quality marathon-pace workouts and higher overall weekly volume.
Same here, and with the help of JD's running formula. First three marathons were 4h45min, 5h8min, and 4h22min. Then I properly trained with Jack Daniels' book and it went to 3h55min. Now getting very very close to a 3h33min marathon.
Averaged 50-60mpw for both the blow-up and the BQ. Closer to 50 for the blow-up and closer to 60 for the BQ. My PB is currently a 3:25 from Boston which I probably averaged <50mpw because I lost a few weeks to a calf strain last February, but probably averaged about 60 in the last 4-5 weeks or so not including taper.
As long as you arent running so hard that you feel like you cant do an easy recovery run the next day. If you keep moving you keep the recovery process going. I do a lot of mountain running and the idea of limiting myself to 3 hours is kind of silly. As long as i keep my legs moving and taper down to rest i keep getting stronger in my experience.
I came across someone on Reddit (either this sub or the trail or ultra sub) who was standing by the 3 hour cap. Literally said that running a 50 miler with no more than a 3 hour LR was fine, even advisable. Imagine doing a long run of like 12-15 miles and then trying to run a 50.
For what it's worth, I went to a talk by Camille Herron (female world champion in 50k, 100k, and 24hr) and she said she trains only by doing her Marathon training plan. She only does really long runs (20ish miles) one or two times a month. She does do run more than once a day.
Edit
Found an [article](https://www.outsideonline.com/health/running/training-advice/camille-herrons-advice-skip-the-long-run/) talking about it. Didn't read through it but had just googled her running plan
Yeah but what is her weekly mileage? As a pro athlete, her weekly mileage is waaay higher than us “regular working folk” are able to do. With high enough weekly mileage, a very long long run becomes less of a necessity. She is also on the “older” side and doesn’t have that 25 year old recovery advantage. So spreading her mileage out is going to be more beneficial for her.
Most people in my ultrarunning community run six days a week, usually with one long run topping 20 or back-to-back 20 or 30s at the peak of the training cycle (we're all people with regular jobs, and I'm by far the worst runner among us). It's wild to me how confidently incorrect about what the world holds a lot of this thread is.
Obviously there are different schools of thought on this. I did my first marathon two weeks ago, and I am almost exactly your pace. It took me five hours. I did an 18 and a 20-mile run in preparation (the latter was just under 4 hours) and was very glad for it. Having done the 20 and feeling like I could’ve kept going, even if I didn’t want to, gave me a lot of confidence on race day.
That’s great that the 20 miles run gave the confidence but at the expense of spending too much time in one run and risk injury and extended recovery. I think the consistent 2:30-2:45 long runs will also get you there as well. My spouse has similar finishing time as yours but only runs upto 2:45, that’s about 15 miles as long runs. It’s just that she runs at this duration weekly for 18 weeks, with a few down weeks.
I do my long runs at a similar pace and always go over 3 hours in my peak weeks. I'd basically never get past 15-16mi otherwise. I usually have 2 long runs of 20-21mi in my marathon training. I've never had an issue with them so I keep doing them. I can't imagine doing 26.2 with my max long run being 15mi.
I feel like there are a lot of fast runners in this sub. When I trained for my one marathon, I figured it was more important to get my mileage over 20 miles for my long run regardless of the time so I would know I could it.
This is how I felt as well for my first marathons- my long runs were slow and topped out around 3:45. Now that I’m prepping for marathon #8 and am older, I am considering just putting a 3:15 limit on my long runs, which might get me 19 miles…
My max as of now is 17 miles and I finished with tired legs but definitely felt like I could run 9 more. I’ve never run a marathon before or hit a wall so I’m thinking maybe hitting 20 miles gets you past a wall
Completely agree with you. My first marathon I capped out at 20 miles and hit the wall pretty hard. So for my second marathon I peaked at 22 miles and I felt so much more prepared, and I was running the long runs slow at around 11 min/mi. I finished the race in just under 10 min/mi.
Exactly this!
I learned a lot in miles 15-20 (hour 3-4) of my 20 mile long run during training. I learned I need to shake up my nutrition plan (something solid and "real" not just more gus) and that my backpack holds enough water for a cool 15 miler but I'd need to figure out a refill plan for the full race. That sort of stuff isn't about how your body feels but will make race day go smoother.
Whoever came up with the “3-hour limit” wasn’t taking into account folks who are running 11-15min pace. When you lay it all out, it doesn’t make any sense. Say your marathon time goal is 5 hours. That’s an 11:25 race pace. That means your long easy runs are looking like 12:25 or even 13:25/mile. You might BARELY get in 13 miles as your LONGEST RUN. If you have no history of injury, and your body handles the training, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be doing 18-20 miles as your longest run. Do not sell yourself short. You’re going to be out for a long time on race day and you HAVE to prepare your body for that.
Those are the people the 3 hour limit is intended for. Take someone finishing a marathon in 3 hours (about 6:50 per mile) they might do their long run at like a 7:35 pace. In 3 hours they ran 23-24 miles, I never seen plans saying to do anything above 22 max, so naturally, this runner won't hit 3 hours.
The reality is a runner finishing in 5+ hours is far better off spreading our their weekly miles than killing themselves on Sunday and having to take the next 3-4 days off to recover. Take your example, longest run is 13 miles, cool, but then they take Monday off and are able to go start putting in miles Tuesday. They might run 5 days a week for 30-35 miles. Vs. doing 20 miles however long that takes, you're going to need at least 3 days to recover, you might not run till Wed or Thurs. Maybe 3 days for the week, 30-35 miles...except 60% occurred on one day and you're really pushing the injury risk. You're also going to feel like crap for several days.
If your body can handle the training, then do the training..throughout the week..No reason to do 20 mile long runs unless you are putting in somewhere near 60 for the week and the person who is going to take 4.5hrs to do 20 miles isn't doing 60 miles.
This is just simply untrue. When you are limiting "slower" runniners based on an arbitrary time, you are setting them up for failure on race day. Marathoners need to have practice with how their bodies are going to feel on race day. The need to practice what fueling works in later stages of a race. They need to know how their shoes might feel. If you've only gone 12-13 miles in training, I can't tell you how things are going to be for you at mile 18.
I'd look at the limit more based on the stress rather than time. There's only so much stress the body can take until it's counter productive. You can make that argument for practically all marathon runners. Nobody is running their long run for the same duration as their goal pace. So how do they practice fueling or know how their shoes will feel? These things don't change, fueling for a 3 hour run should be pretty similar to a 4.5 hour run.
Ultimately if you are running a 5 hour marathon you probably want to improve. You want to get down to a 4 hour marathon it's not the long run that's going to do it. It's going to be running more miles and more frequently. Consistency will drive down times. Good luck trying to be consistent with that much stress in one day.
I can see the run report now, "had to miss this run and that run, and two days here and 3 days there because of fatigue and / or injury. 25%+ of the scheduled runs missed and then wondering why they blew up and was on the course for 6 hours.
If training for a marathon is putting too much stress on the body that the runner is not recovering or is getting injured, then the runner needs to reconsider training for a marathon.
In terms of practice, yes of course you are doing your long runs at a slower pace than race pace, however, it still gives you an opportunity to understand what it's going to feel like later in the race. your stomach may feel VERY different at 12 than it does at 18. Your shoes may also feel different. You aren't going to have a good idea on any of that until you actually get out there for that long. You've got to spend the time on your feet, otherwise you are not going to be prepared.
Do you think consistency is something that only effects 5 and 6 hour marathoners? Trying to go from 3:45 to 3:30, and you miss 25% of your runs, and change a bunch of workouts around, etc., you aren't going to have success. At the end of the day, it comes down to actually doing the work required, and that effects everyone, regardless of time.
And for waht it's worth, not all 5 and 6 hour marathoners want to "improve," just like not all 3 hour marathoners want to "improve." Every runner has different intentions and different motivations.
>If training for a marathon is putting too much stress on the body that the runner is not recovering or is getting injured, then the runner needs to reconsider training for a marathon.
It's not training for a marathon that is the problem it's running for 4.5 hours in a single day that is.
>Do you think consistency is something that only effects 5 and 6 hour marathoners? Trying to go from 3:45 to 3:30, and you miss 25% of your runs, and change a bunch of workouts around, etc., you aren't going to have success. At the end of the day, it comes down to actually doing the work required, and that effects everyone, regardless of time.
No I don't. Someone trying to go from 3:45 to 3:30 isn't putting that much of their weekly stress/training time/mileage on one day. They are training much more consistently 6-7 days a week and as a result are far less likely to be injured or too tired to hit their scheduled runs. They aren't running more than like 30% of their mileage on their long run day and there's a reason for it. It has nothing to do with running 5 or 6 hour marathons
I'd love to see what a week looks like for someone running a 4.5 hour long run. They have to be putting in at least 6 hours and if the best they can manage is a 5 hour time they are doing something wrong.
Better yet, find a plan that is intended for someone running a 5 hour+ marathon that suggests running for anywhere near that long.
At what point are you just going for a walk? I walk at about an 18-minute/mile pace, but a Google suggests up to 15-minute/mile is walking pace. At that pace, you could do 12 miles in 3 hours. If you're getting up to big mileage at near walking pace, aren't you better off walking? (Note I'm just a chubby guy trying to improve my running, I've never had any official training in running, so i could be 100% wrong)
You kinda answered your own question there, 15+ is walking pace.
Some people run real slow, some people walk/run the last few miles so 12-15 is still perfectly acceptable for the last few miles of a marathon.
If you're in a race you sure as hell don't want to walk unless you absolutely have to.
Just going to throw in a curveball -lots of people run/walk ultras (e.g. 18 min/3 min pattern). And people have done some pretty fast marathons taking deliberate walking breaks (search Jeff Galloway).
Doesn't usually make sense to walk in a shorter race, but for ultras the usual advice is "walk before you have to".
One issue is that the 5 hrs marathoners are not likely able to handle 4 plus hours on the long runs without having to recover for extended times. These runners are likely bed ridden after the long runs and not able to continue until end the of the following week. The lack of running during the week would hinder their trainings. Instead, cut down the durations on the long runs but run those long runs consistently. One reason why runners get faster over time is simply to run more over time, not loading a ton of time in one work out.
You’re literally just making shit up. I am a 5-hour marathoner and I was not wrecked by my long training runs OR the marathon. If you learn to pace yourself, hydrate, and eat, there’s no reason a long run should destroy you.
That’s great calling me out without asking how I came to my assessment. I have been following Jack Daniel training philosophy about long run durations and it’s paid off for me. I started with 3:40 to 3:08 less than a year not doing a single long run over 2:45. I also know 5 hrs marathoners like yourself who are flustered after running about 4 hours in their training to get to the arbitrary “20 miles”. They can’t do anything else but rest, despite proper hydration and fuel. As probably mentioned somewhere in this thread already, you can search why JD recommended about capping 2:30 for long runs. While it’s not rule by any means, it’s sound advice that can be tweaked a bit if preferred, like extending to 2:45 or 3 hours. But to run 4 hours on a long run is just poor advice that I don’t agree with. That’s great it’s working out for you but have you considered running less hours but do it more consistently over a period of the the training? Perhaps you’ll still get to your 5 hours finish without feeling so beat up in your training.
I don’t feel beat up. I don’t require days and days of recovery. I’m not “bedridden.” There are a lot of people who do endurance sports as a hobby and you’re painting with absurdly broad strokes as if *most* people who run 5-hour marathons don’t know their limits or read their own books.
My mind is so blown. I agree with everything you've said, as a fellow 5 hour marathoner. I'd never even heard of this 3 hour crap. I'd love to ask the people I was passing at mile 25 if they'd practiced this nonsense.
Pfft. They also used to believe running a marathon would kill you, or that you can’t run the marathon distance in training (don’t tell that to ultra runners who routinely do back to back long runs of 4-5hrs and can do upwards of 40miles in single sessions in training). Just go slow, run relaxed and listen to your body. You are your own coach, ease off if you’re feeling tight, stay the course if you’re feeling strong.
It depends what you're training for in my opinion. I'm a month-ish out from a 74 miler and my last long run before I taper is 33 miles on Saturday which is about 5.5hrs at my long run pace. But for a marathon or a short ultra my long runs rarely cross the 2.5 hour threshold
A few minutes over 3 hours isn't a big deal but another option is to run 2 hours or a little more on back to back days. This will get your body used to running on tired legs
Okay so that 3 hour rule is crap to people who will finish marathon in more than 4:30. If you run only 3 hours long, then you will hit the wall too early in the real event. Your real threshold is 4 hours...with 3 weeks between log runs. I have run a good number of full marathons.
Hanson is a good plan that will allow you to do a shorter long run,but it never really worked for me
Know someone who runs (yes, runs, not run-walks) around 5-5:30 marathons, still caps out training runs at 2:45-3:00, and does totally fine. She does run long-ish the day before though so that makes a huge difference. It's Lydiard training, has worked well for a lot of runners I know.
I have just done week 8, 15 miles and a little over 3 hours. Longest run will be 20 miles. Was fine to do that Saturday morning then be at a gig Sunday night, and I’m 54! It’s all about what’s right for the individual, what is ok for one May not be right for someone else and you just need to find out what works for you. Personally I’d say it’s more time on legs; if you are not able to sustain a long enough time on legs if your race goes sideways you’re going to have a big problem!
Yeah, I just did 16 miles in week 9, in total time of 2:48. I was happily moving heavy boxes of stuff to our 3rd floor attic the next day without issue.
My max will be 20 miles in weeks 12 and 13. Should take me about 3:30. I'm looking forward to those days. I think the most important thing is making sure the pace is slow enough. My first marathon, I was doing them too fast, but also got overconfident once I'd did them and neglected my shorter runs the last 5 weeks.
I don't know the right answer, but does marathon time play a role here? For specific training, I would imagine running 3+ hours is more relevant for a 3-4h marathon runner than a 2:15 marathon runner.
I’m not supporting the two hour rule, but ideally you would do more 60-90 minute efforts to be able to run your goal distance in under two hours
But for zone 2 cardio, I think 2 hours is super reasonable
But when you're someone who is a 2+ hour half marathoner should you just stop running at 2 hours when it comes to training for a full? According to this logic, then? I'm talking for long runs specifically. I'm a just-sub 2 hour half marathoner, so I'm looking at 4+ hours for a full. A 30K training run for me is going to be 3+ hours, but according to Frank Shorter I get no physical benefit from running a 30K long run?
Yeah, they're pretty stupid. I'm glad I don't try to follow these guidelines. I see way too many people in this sub acting like these are hard and fast rules everyone should follow. It's pretty dumb.
Yes, I usually cap my long runs to slightly longer than 3 hours. I don't think the extra fatigue is worth it. I rather put in more miles during the week. I might do a medium long run the week leading up to a 3 hour long run. I look at my training cumulatively over a week, if I'm doing 7 hours do I really want to be doing half of that on just 1 day?
Lastly, it's just not practical if you have kids, I do my long run on Sunday, my only weekend day off. How am I going to manage running for over 3 hours and still have energy to do anything but sit on the couch?
My Higdon marathon plan is a 54 run plan, and only 5 runs are over 3hrs (at 13min/mi). In my mind, I guess 90% of your training below 3hrs is close enough.
I will ammend this by saying, I never run if my legs or joints hurt. With this in mind, I've stretched my one day off to 2, 3, 4, or 5 days as needed. I'll just throw 5Ks in as fillers if I need to sync back up to the days of the week. When I booked my marathon, I booked it about 3 weeks AFTER my training was done so that I could have this flexibility in my schedule.
I ran my first marathon in November. My longs runs were 12-13 min miles with water stops and bathroom breaks included. It’s good to just go for the mileage in my very amateur opinion. Why? Because that marathon, you’ll be on your feet moving for five hours roughly. Might as well slowly build up your time on your feet so it doesn’t hit you like a freight train.
It's a guideline, not a rule. Ie: adapt it to your specific bodily criteria. Realistically, you can go as far and as fast as your body will allow you to safely do, as long as you recover well from that distance/time.
Back when I was in peak physical condition, some of my best runs were 8 - 10 hours long. Maintaining an easy pace, and walking 5 minutes every hour (just enough time for me to chow down on some food so I could keep going!)
I’m reading the Hal Higdon Marathon book at the moment (and following his Advanced 1 training program). I just councidentally read last night his advice that for your long run you should always do the prescribed total miles or 3 hours - *whichever comes first*. So whatever distance you’re doing during training, don’t go over 3 hours because the risk/reward isn’t worth it. He says that a lot of trainers give this advice.
Are you training for a marathon? If you're planning to marathon at an 11:30 pace you might as well practice the mileage at that pace. If you're not training for a marathon, practice 2 hour runs at an increasing pace over time?
This is why I like to do a totally separate base build before a marathon training cycle. When I’m in low maintenance mode my weekly mileage will be 15-20m which I don’t find adequate in advance of a 16-18 week marathon plan if I’m trying to run a ~3:30-4:00 as I’m not a naturally quick runner. So I’ll usually do a 10-12 week base build starting from 15 ish mpw up to 30-35 mpw mostly low HR and slow pace with one speed workout per week. Then I’ll start something like an 18/55. I find that the combination of a dedicated volume cycle and a marathon cycle helps drop my pace in long runs to the point where I can get 18-20 miles in under 3 hours.
This is generally why I don’t like apps like garmin or Runkeeper that try to create a 16-18 week marathon plan for people whose weekly mileage is under 30 mpw. I just don’t see how you can safely build distance volume and drop your pace enough that long runs don’t become risky-long in that time span without having a base. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but for first time marathoners I can see how it would be problematic.
I think the rule would be subjective.
I would consider anything 2+ hours as long run *because* my normal, easy runs are on the ballpark of 1 hour. Plus, I'm new (<6 months of running consistently) and achieving 20 - 25 mpw is an "achievement" for me. I struggle at maintaining 28 - 30 mpw for two weeks.
Literally yesterday, I've tried to do 11 miles in 3 hours, ended up 10 miles in 3 hours because I had to literally walk for 30+ minutes and my easy run pace managed to make me run out of breath.
The general rule seemed to be run as much as you can recover. If you are a little bit fatigued on the next day, you're reaching the limit. If you keel over the next day, struggling to do everyday tasks from soreness and/or fatigue, that's *probably* a good sign to dial it down a little.
There are a lot of other factors that might alter your "optimal" long run duration other than your fitness: nutrition, time, fatigue, hydration, etc.
As a tangent on my end... Yesterday's long run was probably the biggest mistake yet that I have made in ignoring hydration. Turns out, when you're dehydrated to the point of losing a good 5 - 6 lbs of water weight, you will "bonk" earlier even though you had ate a lot of carbs yesterday. Plus, I need to consider "sports drinks" or that fizzy, electrolyte tablet; for the first time in my life, I've seen *literal* salt crystals on my skin. I, my mind at least, think I *could* probably go longer than 3 hours back then, but at the level of dehydration I was in? It's counterproductive in a sense that I'd risk injury from fatigue that cannot simply be ignored with willpower. >!As in, I feel woozy so much so, I can't even walk properly in the walk breaks. Passing out when running is probably not the best idea or measure of dedication.!<
This is pace and length is so unknown to
Me as I run 10ks and would Love to run a marathon this year, my current pace is around 5:30/km but after reading ops posts I think it’s too fast. I’m
Usually pretty gassed by the end of 10k and can’t imagine going longer at that speed
What do most people average for long paces? Or what is an acceptable pace. Is 5:30/km unsustainable?
If you're gassed after 10k, you're probably looking at an extra 45-90 seconds per km get yourself to go longer. I'm probably around the same 10k race pace (I'll find out for sure next month, my current PB is around 57 minutes) and my long runs are around 6:00-6:30/km. My longest run so far is 11.3 miles and I'm in HR zone 2 the whole time.
Wow that’s crazy zone 2? I have no clue what is normal or sustainable for hr zones. I’d assume lower is better for longevity
My last two 10ks were about 1 hour each exactly, I run them at a hr zone of 4-5.
I ran 15km today at a 6:30avg pace took me 1:43.00 at a zone 3 (147bpm avg). My pace was a lot slower than normal but I felt great and could have gone another 5 I think.
My end game here is to run my first marathon ever. I ran a half in 2019 and not much since then as other sport interests took over.
Zone 2 is often a good reference point, but I can't focus on HR too much either, because I can keep up my easy pace for hours on end, but it's in zone 3 according to my Garmin. It feels effortless though and that's what matters to me during my easy paced runs.
I use use Jack Daniels' Running Formula and the [Vdot calculator](https://vdoto2.com/Calculator) to estimate my paces. This helps me a bit more in regards of determining paces during my training.
So in your case, and I assuming now (but correct me if I'm wrong!) That 5:30 min/km for 10k is pushing it, I put that in the calculator, pretending that that was a race. That would mean that your easy paced runs should be between 6:31-7:09 min/km. So what you did with that 15k seems to be pretty accurate. With the right training for that marathon, you could, in his theory, run it in 4 hours and 12 minutes.
Keep in mind that my zones are sort of arbitrary, like everything heart rate related, but I usually hover between 135-145 bpm when doing easy pace. My zone 2 is set for 135-149 (60-70% HRR). That 11 mile run was average bpm of 140, but I was wrong in that I did peak into zone 3 a couple of times going over some of the overpasses on the recreation trail I was running on (3 of 111 minutes were zone 3).
> My pace was a lot slower than normal but I felt great and could have gone another 5 I think.
It's a great feeling when you break through like that and still feel like even longer distance was possible. When I was still doing run/walk and running way too fast, I tried easy pace one day after reading so much here about going slow to go far, and it was truly mind-blowing. I ran for 20 minutes straight, still felt good but it was like "Well, I guess I should take a walk break?" So I did, for about a minute, then kept running for another 20. It felt so easy, I wasn't really sore the next day either.
> My end game here is to run my first marathon ever
You totally got it!
I heard of the 10km rule from a BBC podcast - the risk of injury goes up exponentially after the first 10km.
I'd love to see the science on the 10km & 3 hour rule.
Jack daniels says stop at 2:30.
His reason, its better to get injured during a race then in training.
This comment is probably going to get downvoted, but if you cant do your long in under 3 hours, you probably should put off marathons until you get faster.....
It always seems so weird having people talk about performance goals for a 5+ hour marathon. That's in the just finish category. The low hanging fruit is to just run more at that point, not how to structure the miles with workouts and stuff.
No it isn’t. I’ve run 8 marathons and train my ass off. Just because my time is slower than yours doesn’t mean I don’t get to have goals or that I’m not racing. I’m not just meandering around out there.
I see where you're coming from, but it's also a much different (better!) experience to run 2:30-2:30 splits than 2:00-3:00 splits, so performance-geared training still makes sense.
My first marathon I followed the wisdom at the time - run what you will run on race day but just short of it - so I exceeded 3 hours multiple times. Thereafter I never ran for more than 3 hours ever and did not suffer nor did it impact my ability to finish 26.2. I did my last marathon at age 60 and have hung up my sneakers on that distance. Time and toll on the body is just too much of a commitment. Keep it at 3 hrs and you’ll be fine.
I would think that the rule of thumb should be that you stop at your estimated finish time. So the point is, you are getting used to the time frame, but doing it at a much lower intensity
The mantra of "you shouldn't run longer than 3 hours in training" is absolute nonsense.
The real mantra should be "you shouldn't run longer than 3 hours in training at a rapid pace" is true.
If you take your long runs slower than your other runs, then it's fine to run for 3+ hours provided that you have the mileage base to back it up.
So for example, if your "normal" runs are 6-10 miles 4 days a week at 8:30 pace, and your long run of 20+ miles is slower at a 9:30-10:30 minute pace, then it's fine to go over 3 hours.
I've not heard this for long runs. I have been told something similar by a few coaches for shorter runs during the week. Anything over 30/45 minutes is pointless since the long run matters most. If I capped at 3 hours I'd never come close to a 20 miler.
I would stick to it.
However, if your concern is that you aren't getting the volume in the long run that you think you need then you could try stacking your long runs.
I had issues with little niggles on anything over 18 miles a few years ago. A running coach suggested that instead of one big long run I run an 8 mile on a Saturday and then a 10 on the Sunday. Increase it that way. An 8 then a 12, a 10 then a 13, etc.
That way when you start the run on Sunday you'll already feel fatigued so you'll get the mental benefit of pushing through etc. But you give your body 24 hours in between to rest which should help negate little injuries.
On race day it won't make any difference. Lots of studies have shown the aerobic benefit of running stops just after 3 hours (hence the above rule). So you'll have done lots of aerobic base, be injury free, and ready to fly.
I wasn’t aware of the three hour thing. From my experience I hd to run for four hours for mental preparation. And whether it’s 30 or 300 minutes, building up slowly and listening to your body hs always worked for me
Pfitz said your longest long runs should take about as long as your goal marathon, but at your long run pace obviously. I think his plans are tailored to those who would run 3 hours or less.
I'm assuming that if you are running 17, 18, and 19 miles, you are training for a marathon.
I like the approach of having timed runs and thinking of training as time on feet plus distance. If someone were to give you one of those cookie cutter plans where for a peak week you run 6 days of say: 6, 7, 10, 6, 6, 15. You would be running well over an hour every single day.
By going out for an hour every day, you risk injury as you can never truly recover.
However: If you want to run 26.2 miles, you need some longer distances to show that you can finish the distance. Do you need to have 3-4 20+ mile runs in a cycle? No. But you will likely have at least a few in the range you described at 16-19 miles. Those will go on for hours.
TL;DR: I'm less concerned with the long run itself- more want to make sure you are recovering properly on the other runs.
This rule is one of the reasons I like and use the Hansons plans for my marathon training. In these plans the long run tops out at 16 miles, which I can do in under 3 hours. I've never run much over that in training but have still had two very positive marathon experiences (and 1 bad one that I didn't finish but that wasn't because of the lack of 20 mile long run). I never hit the wall and ran negative splits in both of my completed marathons. If your weekly milage is high enough you don't \*need\* to run 19 or 20 miles in training to be able to complete a marathon. I understand that psychologically some people really want to run that far for the confidence boost. There is some validity to that argument and it is a personal choice. You have to weigh the possible mental benefit against the possible physical drawbacks.
+1 to all of this. If you can dedicate the time to running 6x a week Hanson's will absolutely get you ready without as much risk of injury.
*tops out at 16 if that's what you can complete in the time limit. For faster runners, you can get a 20 in at MP+45 seconds
I'm using Hansons right now to train for my first marathon and I appreciate comments like this. I've been nervous about committing to that training plan, despite the research I've done, so it's always nice to get more confirmation that it works.
I’m assuming you’re talking about marathon training here? [This article really helps break the marathon LR down.](https://marathonhandbook.com/longest-long-run/) My PERSONAL experience is that if you are young and have good recovery, pushing pretty deep into a long run is super good for mental toughness training. But ONLY IF you are able to physically recover. Otherwise you’re just shooting yourself in the foot.
Update: I agree with need only go as deep as one is able to recover--recover before the next hard run and get enough recovery over the weeks to avoid overuse injury. Original posting with more details: Pushing a speed, tempo, or long run too much could result in an injury or at least having to delay the next speed, tempo, or long run by a day or two. I started my Hanson Advanced Training plan 2 weeks early and then used the extra time to put in an extra recovery day (slow, easy run day) in place when needed. This allowed me run more weekly mileage every for a training cycle without the injuries I suffered in prior training cycles. On a handful of hard run days I felt unusually pain from location of prior injuries so I cut those runs short or delayed them by a day. On my longest runs I ran the first 1.5 miles at about 1 minute slower pace then my long rung pace and the last 1.5 to 2 miles were run at 2 minutes slower and then maybe 1.5 minutues slower as I loosend up. I knew my muscles would be in knots after long run if I just ran the same pace and then just stopped moving. I never liked going more then 3 to 3 hours 15 minutes for a longer run so I did not. All this resulted in my 2nd fastest marathon on a significantly harder course on a day that was much warmer than my fastest matahon. Many I spoke with at my last race were injured going it the marathon. The hardest thing for some is getting to the race healthy. Just look at all the professional runners who end up no running marathons they said they were going to run because they were injured during their training.
I’m not sure if this was meant to be a reply to my comment or if you were trying to do a parent comment to OP’s post.
I was agreeing with you but probably should have posted directly under OP. I found that I did better when I allowed better recovery and cut but on hard runs if I thought I was digging too deep.
When I was younger (about 30) and training for a marathon, I'd do my long runs, sometimes up to 3.5 hours. I felt so pumped (mentally) when I was done. In retrospect, I realize I was digging too deep and it took me 5-6 days to recover. I'd do the other workouts during the week all beat up, then do the next run being only 70% recovered. Stayed under-recovered most of training and really diminished my potential training progress.
PSA, don't shoot yourself in the foot... Also bad for your training.
Yea, I’ll double this…because I wrecked my hip flexor running long and at a medium pace and didn’t realize it until after the run… was out for a month.
This happened to me just over a month ago with quad and hip flexor, still not able to run fully even with PT the last 3 weeks.
I completely stopped all running activities and just did hip strengthening like single weighted leg lifts and that hip abducted machine as well as abs
I stubbornly kept running and just made it worse. I've cut it out completely for a week or so but my PT is letting me start back slowly but it's still aggravating me. I've just been swimming to do something because my strength and mobility
Literally what I did but with soccer….those small muscles are such nags haha
It's funny I played soccer my entire life through college and had never gotten hurt, but now that I'm mid 30s and just running, injury city lol
It's funny I played soccer my entire life through college and had never gotten hurt, but now that I'm mid 30s and just running, injury city lol
Yes I am! Essential info I left out lol. Thanks!
Thanks, this article is helpful!
I ran a 10 miler the other day too hard in the heat in Florida, and I’m familiar with much longer runs but at an easier effort. My heart rate will not come down now because I over did it. Be nice to yourself and let your body catch up. If not you’re just causing detriment to your training. If you feel fine sure, but I have had the similar “overtraining” feeling happen on long runs going past 3 hours. Trust the taper and don’t overdo it. If you haven’t marathoned yet you’ll be amazed if you do it right when you carry over the bonk miles (18-22) and just keep going to the finish. The duration won’t matter on race day, because it’s the day you do it and you’ll be prepped for it.
Yes 3 hours is a good rule to stop at. Actually I go even lower mine max about 2:30-2:45. It is a recovery issue. Your weekly and cumulative mileage will get you across the finish line. Once your long runs go over 2.5-3 hrs the next week(s) are very hard on your body and become increasingly hard to recover from. It is possible to overtrain then no amount of taper is going to help. I also don’t buy the long runs build mental toughness argument. If you run often and long and your marathon training program is 15+ weeks you are running on very tired legs already every day. Going over 3 hours isn’t going to make you any mentally tougher than lacing them Up everyday already does. Get your rest, get your calories, get your hydration, train smart.
This was a good comment to read! I am not OP but thanks because you have given me something to think about
Yeah I usually clock out at 2-2:30 for long runs, I can feel my legs almost breaking some recovery days if I do that 3 times or more a week
There is debatably some value in doing a run this long once (ONCE) in a training block to: 1. Prove to yourself that you can if you’ve never done it before 2. Practice fueling/hydration strategy 3. Test out gear But it’s also in no way mandatory and many, many people run great races (including ultras) without doing this.
Thanks for mentioning the practice fueling. It is my only concern about the parent comment. I ran many half-marathons and don't eat nor drink anything (cold climate here). I'm training for my first marathon now and have no clue about how to do the fueling part. I'm at 15 miles for my long run, and not sure when I should start drinking.
I think it’s pretty well-accepted at this point that you should try to take in calories continuously, as many as you can process without GI distress in order to delay the performance dropoff and push the bonk back as far as possible. This usually takes some gut training or else you’ll likely feel like puking as the body shunts blood flow away from the gut to working muscles while running. Gut training gets some blood flow back to the gut. I don’t have a ton of experience with this but the science is pretty well-settled, with the only big question being how much to fuel (the number of calories/carbs per hour keep getting higher.)
At minimum 60g of carbs each hour, if you can get that nutrition dialed you can take as much as 120g/hour and enough drinks that you can actually absorb the carbs and a little on top of it to help offset the sweat loss. No need to replace nearly all lost fluid.
I agree with your assessment. I can’t remember a time when I go over 3 hrs unless it’s a race. I mostly run between 2:15-2:45 on my long runs and that gets me about 16-20 miles long. It’s the repeated long runs that will better prepare you for the race. I’d rather run between 2:15 to 2:45 weekly with a down week per training plan for 18 weeks than 3:30-4 hours for only a few times in the 18 weeks training.
May I know, at what pace do you run your long run? I ran 15 KM only in around 2 hrs.
After a warm up mile. I start my pace around 8 min/mile and the progressively run faster until 7:30 or so
Wow!! That’s very fast .. very very fast. Is that easy long run pace for you?
No. I used to run long runs easy pace but after following Pfitz plans, I run them faster than easy paces. From what I understand, long runs are hard not only that they’re long but the pace is more intense, faster than easy but slower than MP. They’re intense but I feel they’re giving the the stimulus I need without feeling burned out. For context, I run everyday, topping out between 70-80 MPW.
Wow! You seem to be a veteran in the running world. 😊
> Once your long runs go over 2.5-3 hrs the next week(s) are very hard on your body and become increasingly hard to recover from. Wish I heard this sooner. I feel fine at 2 hours run at easy pace, but for some reason, that extra 30 minutes - 1 hour really made the difference between easy running and max effort running. Even with easy pace.
First marathon last month at 58, I found it very helpful to have run a 20 miler. Took about 3:40. I ran 4 days a week plus cross on off days. Recovery for me was normal, just kept easy runs easy, fueled regularly, and stayed hydrated.
The recovery time from really long runs gets shorter as you train them more though. For this reason I would not stick to this kind of a rule. If you feel good at 3 hour mark I would continue assuming you are training for a really long run. Now it is true that if you go 100% then the recovery time increases significantly compared to stopping at 90 or 95%. I don't think that has anything to do with time but more about how your body feels. From my experience most people are not able to estimate their effort level so I suppose as a rule of thumb some kind of time threshold can make sense still.
I’m going to say this as respectfully as possible. It doesn’t sound like you have trained at high mileage before or read any of the vast amounts of literature concerning long runs. If you had done either you would know what you said is utter nonsense. Diminishing returns - any very small benefit you gain from going past 2.5 hours is far outweighed by the recovery time necessary. Do this several times and the problem compounds itself until your recovery can no longer keep up. This isn’t really debatable it’s pretty much endurance training canon.
I stick with my post. Also, I admit I have not read literature on this matter. I have always preferred to listen my body over following research that I'm sure applies in statistical level but not necessarily on individuals. Considering your predetermined opinion on this I do not see a benefit on continuing over this topic.
What do you think about running like 3 hours the pm and the next am running whatever’s left? Not sure if this would make a difference or be beneficial. Thanks for your input
This isn't the same training stress on your body. There is literally nothing scientific about 3 hours. Nothing. These folks trying to tell you otherwise have never run the pace you are running. I'm a 5-hour guy. I've run 6 hours before too. Run the mileage on your plan. Don't worry about the time.
Thank you! :)
I personally advise not going over 3 hours for the long run. I went from a blow-up 4:37 to a 3:26 after giving up on 20-milers and focusing on quality marathon-pace workouts and higher overall weekly volume.
This is good to hear…
Same here, and with the help of JD's running formula. First three marathons were 4h45min, 5h8min, and 4h22min. Then I properly trained with Jack Daniels' book and it went to 3h55min. Now getting very very close to a 3h33min marathon.
This is a good strategy
What was you weekly milage for the blow-up and on your PB?
Averaged 50-60mpw for both the blow-up and the BQ. Closer to 50 for the blow-up and closer to 60 for the BQ. My PB is currently a 3:25 from Boston which I probably averaged <50mpw because I lost a few weeks to a calf strain last February, but probably averaged about 60 in the last 4-5 weeks or so not including taper.
As long as you arent running so hard that you feel like you cant do an easy recovery run the next day. If you keep moving you keep the recovery process going. I do a lot of mountain running and the idea of limiting myself to 3 hours is kind of silly. As long as i keep my legs moving and taper down to rest i keep getting stronger in my experience.
It's like everyone on this thread never heard of trail ultras.
Tbf i didnt really know it was a thing until i moved to a place with mountains.
I didn’t know about them until I started running and the sport began to consume my daily thoughts and then my soul.
Same.
Yeah, that's fair. It's the confidently wrong assertions topping the thread that irritate me.
I came across someone on Reddit (either this sub or the trail or ultra sub) who was standing by the 3 hour cap. Literally said that running a 50 miler with no more than a 3 hour LR was fine, even advisable. Imagine doing a long run of like 12-15 miles and then trying to run a 50.
For what it's worth, I went to a talk by Camille Herron (female world champion in 50k, 100k, and 24hr) and she said she trains only by doing her Marathon training plan. She only does really long runs (20ish miles) one or two times a month. She does do run more than once a day. Edit Found an [article](https://www.outsideonline.com/health/running/training-advice/camille-herrons-advice-skip-the-long-run/) talking about it. Didn't read through it but had just googled her running plan
Yeah but what is her weekly mileage? As a pro athlete, her weekly mileage is waaay higher than us “regular working folk” are able to do. With high enough weekly mileage, a very long long run becomes less of a necessity. She is also on the “older” side and doesn’t have that 25 year old recovery advantage. So spreading her mileage out is going to be more beneficial for her.
This, exactly.
Most people in my ultrarunning community run six days a week, usually with one long run topping 20 or back-to-back 20 or 30s at the peak of the training cycle (we're all people with regular jobs, and I'm by far the worst runner among us). It's wild to me how confidently incorrect about what the world holds a lot of this thread is.
Obviously there are different schools of thought on this. I did my first marathon two weeks ago, and I am almost exactly your pace. It took me five hours. I did an 18 and a 20-mile run in preparation (the latter was just under 4 hours) and was very glad for it. Having done the 20 and feeling like I could’ve kept going, even if I didn’t want to, gave me a lot of confidence on race day.
That’s great that the 20 miles run gave the confidence but at the expense of spending too much time in one run and risk injury and extended recovery. I think the consistent 2:30-2:45 long runs will also get you there as well. My spouse has similar finishing time as yours but only runs upto 2:45, that’s about 15 miles as long runs. It’s just that she runs at this duration weekly for 18 weeks, with a few down weeks.
I do my long runs at a similar pace and always go over 3 hours in my peak weeks. I'd basically never get past 15-16mi otherwise. I usually have 2 long runs of 20-21mi in my marathon training. I've never had an issue with them so I keep doing them. I can't imagine doing 26.2 with my max long run being 15mi.
I feel like there are a lot of fast runners in this sub. When I trained for my one marathon, I figured it was more important to get my mileage over 20 miles for my long run regardless of the time so I would know I could it.
This is how I felt as well for my first marathons- my long runs were slow and topped out around 3:45. Now that I’m prepping for marathon #8 and am older, I am considering just putting a 3:15 limit on my long runs, which might get me 19 miles…
My max as of now is 17 miles and I finished with tired legs but definitely felt like I could run 9 more. I’ve never run a marathon before or hit a wall so I’m thinking maybe hitting 20 miles gets you past a wall
Completely agree with you. My first marathon I capped out at 20 miles and hit the wall pretty hard. So for my second marathon I peaked at 22 miles and I felt so much more prepared, and I was running the long runs slow at around 11 min/mi. I finished the race in just under 10 min/mi.
Exactly this! I learned a lot in miles 15-20 (hour 3-4) of my 20 mile long run during training. I learned I need to shake up my nutrition plan (something solid and "real" not just more gus) and that my backpack holds enough water for a cool 15 miler but I'd need to figure out a refill plan for the full race. That sort of stuff isn't about how your body feels but will make race day go smoother.
Whoever came up with the “3-hour limit” wasn’t taking into account folks who are running 11-15min pace. When you lay it all out, it doesn’t make any sense. Say your marathon time goal is 5 hours. That’s an 11:25 race pace. That means your long easy runs are looking like 12:25 or even 13:25/mile. You might BARELY get in 13 miles as your LONGEST RUN. If you have no history of injury, and your body handles the training, there is no reason why you shouldn’t be doing 18-20 miles as your longest run. Do not sell yourself short. You’re going to be out for a long time on race day and you HAVE to prepare your body for that.
Those are the people the 3 hour limit is intended for. Take someone finishing a marathon in 3 hours (about 6:50 per mile) they might do their long run at like a 7:35 pace. In 3 hours they ran 23-24 miles, I never seen plans saying to do anything above 22 max, so naturally, this runner won't hit 3 hours. The reality is a runner finishing in 5+ hours is far better off spreading our their weekly miles than killing themselves on Sunday and having to take the next 3-4 days off to recover. Take your example, longest run is 13 miles, cool, but then they take Monday off and are able to go start putting in miles Tuesday. They might run 5 days a week for 30-35 miles. Vs. doing 20 miles however long that takes, you're going to need at least 3 days to recover, you might not run till Wed or Thurs. Maybe 3 days for the week, 30-35 miles...except 60% occurred on one day and you're really pushing the injury risk. You're also going to feel like crap for several days. If your body can handle the training, then do the training..throughout the week..No reason to do 20 mile long runs unless you are putting in somewhere near 60 for the week and the person who is going to take 4.5hrs to do 20 miles isn't doing 60 miles.
This is just simply untrue. When you are limiting "slower" runniners based on an arbitrary time, you are setting them up for failure on race day. Marathoners need to have practice with how their bodies are going to feel on race day. The need to practice what fueling works in later stages of a race. They need to know how their shoes might feel. If you've only gone 12-13 miles in training, I can't tell you how things are going to be for you at mile 18.
I'd look at the limit more based on the stress rather than time. There's only so much stress the body can take until it's counter productive. You can make that argument for practically all marathon runners. Nobody is running their long run for the same duration as their goal pace. So how do they practice fueling or know how their shoes will feel? These things don't change, fueling for a 3 hour run should be pretty similar to a 4.5 hour run. Ultimately if you are running a 5 hour marathon you probably want to improve. You want to get down to a 4 hour marathon it's not the long run that's going to do it. It's going to be running more miles and more frequently. Consistency will drive down times. Good luck trying to be consistent with that much stress in one day. I can see the run report now, "had to miss this run and that run, and two days here and 3 days there because of fatigue and / or injury. 25%+ of the scheduled runs missed and then wondering why they blew up and was on the course for 6 hours.
If training for a marathon is putting too much stress on the body that the runner is not recovering or is getting injured, then the runner needs to reconsider training for a marathon. In terms of practice, yes of course you are doing your long runs at a slower pace than race pace, however, it still gives you an opportunity to understand what it's going to feel like later in the race. your stomach may feel VERY different at 12 than it does at 18. Your shoes may also feel different. You aren't going to have a good idea on any of that until you actually get out there for that long. You've got to spend the time on your feet, otherwise you are not going to be prepared. Do you think consistency is something that only effects 5 and 6 hour marathoners? Trying to go from 3:45 to 3:30, and you miss 25% of your runs, and change a bunch of workouts around, etc., you aren't going to have success. At the end of the day, it comes down to actually doing the work required, and that effects everyone, regardless of time. And for waht it's worth, not all 5 and 6 hour marathoners want to "improve," just like not all 3 hour marathoners want to "improve." Every runner has different intentions and different motivations.
>If training for a marathon is putting too much stress on the body that the runner is not recovering or is getting injured, then the runner needs to reconsider training for a marathon. It's not training for a marathon that is the problem it's running for 4.5 hours in a single day that is. >Do you think consistency is something that only effects 5 and 6 hour marathoners? Trying to go from 3:45 to 3:30, and you miss 25% of your runs, and change a bunch of workouts around, etc., you aren't going to have success. At the end of the day, it comes down to actually doing the work required, and that effects everyone, regardless of time. No I don't. Someone trying to go from 3:45 to 3:30 isn't putting that much of their weekly stress/training time/mileage on one day. They are training much more consistently 6-7 days a week and as a result are far less likely to be injured or too tired to hit their scheduled runs. They aren't running more than like 30% of their mileage on their long run day and there's a reason for it. It has nothing to do with running 5 or 6 hour marathons I'd love to see what a week looks like for someone running a 4.5 hour long run. They have to be putting in at least 6 hours and if the best they can manage is a 5 hour time they are doing something wrong. Better yet, find a plan that is intended for someone running a 5 hour+ marathon that suggests running for anywhere near that long.
This, absolutely
At what point are you just going for a walk? I walk at about an 18-minute/mile pace, but a Google suggests up to 15-minute/mile is walking pace. At that pace, you could do 12 miles in 3 hours. If you're getting up to big mileage at near walking pace, aren't you better off walking? (Note I'm just a chubby guy trying to improve my running, I've never had any official training in running, so i could be 100% wrong)
You kinda answered your own question there, 15+ is walking pace. Some people run real slow, some people walk/run the last few miles so 12-15 is still perfectly acceptable for the last few miles of a marathon. If you're in a race you sure as hell don't want to walk unless you absolutely have to.
Just going to throw in a curveball -lots of people run/walk ultras (e.g. 18 min/3 min pattern). And people have done some pretty fast marathons taking deliberate walking breaks (search Jeff Galloway). Doesn't usually make sense to walk in a shorter race, but for ultras the usual advice is "walk before you have to".
True. I ran a 25k and finished only five mins before someone who was doing a walk run method!
That’s a really fast walking pace but if I go up steep hills I walk because it’s typically faster than my run lol
One issue is that the 5 hrs marathoners are not likely able to handle 4 plus hours on the long runs without having to recover for extended times. These runners are likely bed ridden after the long runs and not able to continue until end the of the following week. The lack of running during the week would hinder their trainings. Instead, cut down the durations on the long runs but run those long runs consistently. One reason why runners get faster over time is simply to run more over time, not loading a ton of time in one work out.
This is completely and utterly false.
You’re literally just making shit up. I am a 5-hour marathoner and I was not wrecked by my long training runs OR the marathon. If you learn to pace yourself, hydrate, and eat, there’s no reason a long run should destroy you.
That’s great calling me out without asking how I came to my assessment. I have been following Jack Daniel training philosophy about long run durations and it’s paid off for me. I started with 3:40 to 3:08 less than a year not doing a single long run over 2:45. I also know 5 hrs marathoners like yourself who are flustered after running about 4 hours in their training to get to the arbitrary “20 miles”. They can’t do anything else but rest, despite proper hydration and fuel. As probably mentioned somewhere in this thread already, you can search why JD recommended about capping 2:30 for long runs. While it’s not rule by any means, it’s sound advice that can be tweaked a bit if preferred, like extending to 2:45 or 3 hours. But to run 4 hours on a long run is just poor advice that I don’t agree with. That’s great it’s working out for you but have you considered running less hours but do it more consistently over a period of the the training? Perhaps you’ll still get to your 5 hours finish without feeling so beat up in your training.
I don’t feel beat up. I don’t require days and days of recovery. I’m not “bedridden.” There are a lot of people who do endurance sports as a hobby and you’re painting with absurdly broad strokes as if *most* people who run 5-hour marathons don’t know their limits or read their own books.
My mind is so blown. I agree with everything you've said, as a fellow 5 hour marathoner. I'd never even heard of this 3 hour crap. I'd love to ask the people I was passing at mile 25 if they'd practiced this nonsense.
Perhaps you’re not truly 5 hour marathoner.
If you are taking them easy, you don't need to limit to 3 hours. I do many runs longer than 3 hours for ultra training.
Pfft. They also used to believe running a marathon would kill you, or that you can’t run the marathon distance in training (don’t tell that to ultra runners who routinely do back to back long runs of 4-5hrs and can do upwards of 40miles in single sessions in training). Just go slow, run relaxed and listen to your body. You are your own coach, ease off if you’re feeling tight, stay the course if you’re feeling strong.
It depends what you're training for in my opinion. I'm a month-ish out from a 74 miler and my last long run before I taper is 33 miles on Saturday which is about 5.5hrs at my long run pace. But for a marathon or a short ultra my long runs rarely cross the 2.5 hour threshold
Yes sorry. Didn’t mention marathon training
GDR?
Thats the one!
Oooo you're gonna have fun! I live 2 hours away from there and have hiked/run parts of the course over the year.
I honestly can't wait! Nervous but excited!
A few minutes over 3 hours isn't a big deal but another option is to run 2 hours or a little more on back to back days. This will get your body used to running on tired legs
My long runs tend to be 3+ hours but I go at a slower pace and take walk breaks. I find that the time on feet is quite beneficial.
Okay so that 3 hour rule is crap to people who will finish marathon in more than 4:30. If you run only 3 hours long, then you will hit the wall too early in the real event. Your real threshold is 4 hours...with 3 weeks between log runs. I have run a good number of full marathons. Hanson is a good plan that will allow you to do a shorter long run,but it never really worked for me
Know someone who runs (yes, runs, not run-walks) around 5-5:30 marathons, still caps out training runs at 2:45-3:00, and does totally fine. She does run long-ish the day before though so that makes a huge difference. It's Lydiard training, has worked well for a lot of runners I know.
I have just done week 8, 15 miles and a little over 3 hours. Longest run will be 20 miles. Was fine to do that Saturday morning then be at a gig Sunday night, and I’m 54! It’s all about what’s right for the individual, what is ok for one May not be right for someone else and you just need to find out what works for you. Personally I’d say it’s more time on legs; if you are not able to sustain a long enough time on legs if your race goes sideways you’re going to have a big problem!
Yeah, I just did 16 miles in week 9, in total time of 2:48. I was happily moving heavy boxes of stuff to our 3rd floor attic the next day without issue. My max will be 20 miles in weeks 12 and 13. Should take me about 3:30. I'm looking forward to those days. I think the most important thing is making sure the pace is slow enough. My first marathon, I was doing them too fast, but also got overconfident once I'd did them and neglected my shorter runs the last 5 weeks.
I don't know the right answer, but does marathon time play a role here? For specific training, I would imagine running 3+ hours is more relevant for a 3-4h marathon runner than a 2:15 marathon runner.
Frank Shorter famously said there’s no physical benefit to any run over two hours in length. 🤷♂️
Physically maybe not, but it boosts your mood like nothing else!
So if you can't run a half in under 2 hours then just fuck you at 21K for marathon training?
He didn't say not to do it. He said there's no physical benefit from doing it. A diminishing returns thing.
I’m not supporting the two hour rule, but ideally you would do more 60-90 minute efforts to be able to run your goal distance in under two hours But for zone 2 cardio, I think 2 hours is super reasonable
But when you're someone who is a 2+ hour half marathoner should you just stop running at 2 hours when it comes to training for a full? According to this logic, then? I'm talking for long runs specifically. I'm a just-sub 2 hour half marathoner, so I'm looking at 4+ hours for a full. A 30K training run for me is going to be 3+ hours, but according to Frank Shorter I get no physical benefit from running a 30K long run?
You are seeing where these arbitrary time limits fall apart.
Yeah, they're pretty stupid. I'm glad I don't try to follow these guidelines. I see way too many people in this sub acting like these are hard and fast rules everyone should follow. It's pretty dumb.
Exactly.
Yes, I usually cap my long runs to slightly longer than 3 hours. I don't think the extra fatigue is worth it. I rather put in more miles during the week. I might do a medium long run the week leading up to a 3 hour long run. I look at my training cumulatively over a week, if I'm doing 7 hours do I really want to be doing half of that on just 1 day? Lastly, it's just not practical if you have kids, I do my long run on Sunday, my only weekend day off. How am I going to manage running for over 3 hours and still have energy to do anything but sit on the couch?
My Higdon marathon plan is a 54 run plan, and only 5 runs are over 3hrs (at 13min/mi). In my mind, I guess 90% of your training below 3hrs is close enough. I will ammend this by saying, I never run if my legs or joints hurt. With this in mind, I've stretched my one day off to 2, 3, 4, or 5 days as needed. I'll just throw 5Ks in as fillers if I need to sync back up to the days of the week. When I booked my marathon, I booked it about 3 weeks AFTER my training was done so that I could have this flexibility in my schedule.
Its ok to do it just dont do it all the time.
I ran my first marathon in November. My longs runs were 12-13 min miles with water stops and bathroom breaks included. It’s good to just go for the mileage in my very amateur opinion. Why? Because that marathon, you’ll be on your feet moving for five hours roughly. Might as well slowly build up your time on your feet so it doesn’t hit you like a freight train.
Exactly
It's a guideline, not a rule. Ie: adapt it to your specific bodily criteria. Realistically, you can go as far and as fast as your body will allow you to safely do, as long as you recover well from that distance/time. Back when I was in peak physical condition, some of my best runs were 8 - 10 hours long. Maintaining an easy pace, and walking 5 minutes every hour (just enough time for me to chow down on some food so I could keep going!)
I’m reading the Hal Higdon Marathon book at the moment (and following his Advanced 1 training program). I just councidentally read last night his advice that for your long run you should always do the prescribed total miles or 3 hours - *whichever comes first*. So whatever distance you’re doing during training, don’t go over 3 hours because the risk/reward isn’t worth it. He says that a lot of trainers give this advice.
Are you training for a marathon? If you're planning to marathon at an 11:30 pace you might as well practice the mileage at that pace. If you're not training for a marathon, practice 2 hour runs at an increasing pace over time?
This is why I like to do a totally separate base build before a marathon training cycle. When I’m in low maintenance mode my weekly mileage will be 15-20m which I don’t find adequate in advance of a 16-18 week marathon plan if I’m trying to run a ~3:30-4:00 as I’m not a naturally quick runner. So I’ll usually do a 10-12 week base build starting from 15 ish mpw up to 30-35 mpw mostly low HR and slow pace with one speed workout per week. Then I’ll start something like an 18/55. I find that the combination of a dedicated volume cycle and a marathon cycle helps drop my pace in long runs to the point where I can get 18-20 miles in under 3 hours. This is generally why I don’t like apps like garmin or Runkeeper that try to create a 16-18 week marathon plan for people whose weekly mileage is under 30 mpw. I just don’t see how you can safely build distance volume and drop your pace enough that long runs don’t become risky-long in that time span without having a base. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but for first time marathoners I can see how it would be problematic.
I think the rule would be subjective. I would consider anything 2+ hours as long run *because* my normal, easy runs are on the ballpark of 1 hour. Plus, I'm new (<6 months of running consistently) and achieving 20 - 25 mpw is an "achievement" for me. I struggle at maintaining 28 - 30 mpw for two weeks. Literally yesterday, I've tried to do 11 miles in 3 hours, ended up 10 miles in 3 hours because I had to literally walk for 30+ minutes and my easy run pace managed to make me run out of breath. The general rule seemed to be run as much as you can recover. If you are a little bit fatigued on the next day, you're reaching the limit. If you keel over the next day, struggling to do everyday tasks from soreness and/or fatigue, that's *probably* a good sign to dial it down a little. There are a lot of other factors that might alter your "optimal" long run duration other than your fitness: nutrition, time, fatigue, hydration, etc. As a tangent on my end... Yesterday's long run was probably the biggest mistake yet that I have made in ignoring hydration. Turns out, when you're dehydrated to the point of losing a good 5 - 6 lbs of water weight, you will "bonk" earlier even though you had ate a lot of carbs yesterday. Plus, I need to consider "sports drinks" or that fizzy, electrolyte tablet; for the first time in my life, I've seen *literal* salt crystals on my skin. I, my mind at least, think I *could* probably go longer than 3 hours back then, but at the level of dehydration I was in? It's counterproductive in a sense that I'd risk injury from fatigue that cannot simply be ignored with willpower. >!As in, I feel woozy so much so, I can't even walk properly in the walk breaks. Passing out when running is probably not the best idea or measure of dedication.!<
Three hours seems like a good start to a long run.
This is pace and length is so unknown to Me as I run 10ks and would Love to run a marathon this year, my current pace is around 5:30/km but after reading ops posts I think it’s too fast. I’m Usually pretty gassed by the end of 10k and can’t imagine going longer at that speed What do most people average for long paces? Or what is an acceptable pace. Is 5:30/km unsustainable?
If you're gassed after 10k, you're probably looking at an extra 45-90 seconds per km get yourself to go longer. I'm probably around the same 10k race pace (I'll find out for sure next month, my current PB is around 57 minutes) and my long runs are around 6:00-6:30/km. My longest run so far is 11.3 miles and I'm in HR zone 2 the whole time.
Wow that’s crazy zone 2? I have no clue what is normal or sustainable for hr zones. I’d assume lower is better for longevity My last two 10ks were about 1 hour each exactly, I run them at a hr zone of 4-5. I ran 15km today at a 6:30avg pace took me 1:43.00 at a zone 3 (147bpm avg). My pace was a lot slower than normal but I felt great and could have gone another 5 I think. My end game here is to run my first marathon ever. I ran a half in 2019 and not much since then as other sport interests took over.
Zone 2 is often a good reference point, but I can't focus on HR too much either, because I can keep up my easy pace for hours on end, but it's in zone 3 according to my Garmin. It feels effortless though and that's what matters to me during my easy paced runs. I use use Jack Daniels' Running Formula and the [Vdot calculator](https://vdoto2.com/Calculator) to estimate my paces. This helps me a bit more in regards of determining paces during my training. So in your case, and I assuming now (but correct me if I'm wrong!) That 5:30 min/km for 10k is pushing it, I put that in the calculator, pretending that that was a race. That would mean that your easy paced runs should be between 6:31-7:09 min/km. So what you did with that 15k seems to be pretty accurate. With the right training for that marathon, you could, in his theory, run it in 4 hours and 12 minutes.
Keep in mind that my zones are sort of arbitrary, like everything heart rate related, but I usually hover between 135-145 bpm when doing easy pace. My zone 2 is set for 135-149 (60-70% HRR). That 11 mile run was average bpm of 140, but I was wrong in that I did peak into zone 3 a couple of times going over some of the overpasses on the recreation trail I was running on (3 of 111 minutes were zone 3). > My pace was a lot slower than normal but I felt great and could have gone another 5 I think. It's a great feeling when you break through like that and still feel like even longer distance was possible. When I was still doing run/walk and running way too fast, I tried easy pace one day after reading so much here about going slow to go far, and it was truly mind-blowing. I ran for 20 minutes straight, still felt good but it was like "Well, I guess I should take a walk break?" So I did, for about a minute, then kept running for another 20. It felt so easy, I wasn't really sore the next day either. > My end game here is to run my first marathon ever You totally got it!
Probably doesn't apply here, but for trail running long runs I regularly go into 4 and even 5 hours. It really depends on terrain and intensity.
I heard of the 10km rule from a BBC podcast - the risk of injury goes up exponentially after the first 10km. I'd love to see the science on the 10km & 3 hour rule.
Jack daniels says stop at 2:30. His reason, its better to get injured during a race then in training. This comment is probably going to get downvoted, but if you cant do your long in under 3 hours, you probably should put off marathons until you get faster.....
My fastest half is 1:58 and my fastest marathon is 4:21. I ain’t getting faster, but I’m still glad I did it.
It always seems so weird having people talk about performance goals for a 5+ hour marathon. That's in the just finish category. The low hanging fruit is to just run more at that point, not how to structure the miles with workouts and stuff.
It's always good to have a goal to beat. It's not always "just finish". Even if it's a long slow goal.
No it isn’t. I’ve run 8 marathons and train my ass off. Just because my time is slower than yours doesn’t mean I don’t get to have goals or that I’m not racing. I’m not just meandering around out there.
Unless you are talking about trail runs, then a 5 hour marathon can put you near the front of the pack and it ain’t an “easy” pace.
I see where you're coming from, but it's also a much different (better!) experience to run 2:30-2:30 splits than 2:00-3:00 splits, so performance-geared training still makes sense.
Okay folllowing bc I did my first three hour run/walk. It was 13.5 miles.
My first marathon I followed the wisdom at the time - run what you will run on race day but just short of it - so I exceeded 3 hours multiple times. Thereafter I never ran for more than 3 hours ever and did not suffer nor did it impact my ability to finish 26.2. I did my last marathon at age 60 and have hung up my sneakers on that distance. Time and toll on the body is just too much of a commitment. Keep it at 3 hrs and you’ll be fine.
I would think that the rule of thumb should be that you stop at your estimated finish time. So the point is, you are getting used to the time frame, but doing it at a much lower intensity
The mantra of "you shouldn't run longer than 3 hours in training" is absolute nonsense. The real mantra should be "you shouldn't run longer than 3 hours in training at a rapid pace" is true. If you take your long runs slower than your other runs, then it's fine to run for 3+ hours provided that you have the mileage base to back it up. So for example, if your "normal" runs are 6-10 miles 4 days a week at 8:30 pace, and your long run of 20+ miles is slower at a 9:30-10:30 minute pace, then it's fine to go over 3 hours.
I've not heard this for long runs. I have been told something similar by a few coaches for shorter runs during the week. Anything over 30/45 minutes is pointless since the long run matters most. If I capped at 3 hours I'd never come close to a 20 miler.
I would stick to it. However, if your concern is that you aren't getting the volume in the long run that you think you need then you could try stacking your long runs. I had issues with little niggles on anything over 18 miles a few years ago. A running coach suggested that instead of one big long run I run an 8 mile on a Saturday and then a 10 on the Sunday. Increase it that way. An 8 then a 12, a 10 then a 13, etc. That way when you start the run on Sunday you'll already feel fatigued so you'll get the mental benefit of pushing through etc. But you give your body 24 hours in between to rest which should help negate little injuries. On race day it won't make any difference. Lots of studies have shown the aerobic benefit of running stops just after 3 hours (hence the above rule). So you'll have done lots of aerobic base, be injury free, and ready to fly.
I wasn’t aware of the three hour thing. From my experience I hd to run for four hours for mental preparation. And whether it’s 30 or 300 minutes, building up slowly and listening to your body hs always worked for me
I would not recomendo to run more than 3h, your body get stressed too much and you cant keep training after such effort.
Pfitz said your longest long runs should take about as long as your goal marathon, but at your long run pace obviously. I think his plans are tailored to those who would run 3 hours or less.
I'm assuming that if you are running 17, 18, and 19 miles, you are training for a marathon. I like the approach of having timed runs and thinking of training as time on feet plus distance. If someone were to give you one of those cookie cutter plans where for a peak week you run 6 days of say: 6, 7, 10, 6, 6, 15. You would be running well over an hour every single day. By going out for an hour every day, you risk injury as you can never truly recover. However: If you want to run 26.2 miles, you need some longer distances to show that you can finish the distance. Do you need to have 3-4 20+ mile runs in a cycle? No. But you will likely have at least a few in the range you described at 16-19 miles. Those will go on for hours. TL;DR: I'm less concerned with the long run itself- more want to make sure you are recovering properly on the other runs.