The Really Long-Run Continued...

So, a while back I wrote about my experimentation with a long runs of 25 and 30 miles as opposed to the recommended long runs of most plans maxing out at 20 miles.  I promised to report results so here they are:  This year I ran the marathon in 3:58:59 unofficially (officially, they fucked up my time).  That is an improvement of four minutes and 29 seconds from last year.  Now on the surface this improvement is probably less than can be expected normally running your second marathon, however there were a number of other factors at play:

• The race was wet and windy this year.
• The race was bigger and I started further back contributing to a slower start.
• The base of running mileage was much less this year.  During the first week of April in 2010, I was able to run a 12-mile long run and about 22 miles for the week.  This year, I was only able to run about five miles at a time and a total of around 15 for the week.
• I wasn't any better running this race tactically than last year.  Last year, I picked up the pace in the middle of the race, this year I did the exact same thing.
• Because of injury and missed weeks of training, I aimed to run only slightly faster than last year.  If you don't intend on running significantly faster in a marathon it won't happen.

For the reasons above, I think a large level of improvement was not going to happen unless I recklessly upped my weekly mileage, risking injury in the process.  More important that the actual time, is that this year I avoided cramping up in the last six or so miles.  Last year, I cramped up after mile 22 and had to walk which, as you would guess, slowed me down significantly.  This year, I slowed down in the last 6.2 miles sure, but I was able to keep running and even had a kick at the end, running the 26th mile in about 8:15.  In short, I felt better and had more energy during the home stretch.

The question now is:  Did doing those really long-runs work?  I think so.  It's impossible to tell with any certainty if the week I ran a 30-mile long-run, I would have been just as well off running one 20-mile run and another 13-mile run or not.  However, I believe my logic doing this was sound and I think my performance in the last 6.2 miles was due to these really long-runs.

Could I have done better if I ran 60 total miles a week, for several weeks, without running more than 20 miles at a time?  Probably.  Overall mileage is important, but as I said before, I just didn't have enough time to ramp up to that kind of mileage without also significantly upping my risk of injury.

Should you train for a marathon this way?  If you have run a marathon before and you find yourself tanking during the homestretch then it's worth a shot.  Remember, run much slower than you normally would and plan walk breaks if you need to.  The injury risk will be greater if you train a run this long too fast.

Good luck and keep training.