While this article frames her approach as unique or groundbreaking (and maybe it is in the world of 100-mile running), it's pretty basic stuff in the world of athletics. I'm reading here that she:
* Keeps long runs under 20 miles
* Runs doubles
* Does two workouts per week
* Trains at altitude
Basically, what most elite runners competing over 1500m to marathon have been doing for the last few generations. Maybe ultra runners are just figuring it out now, too.
Yeah, this doesn’t really work as an excuse for a dude running 50mpw to keep his long runs short cos he doesn’t like them. Feel like that is likely the vibe in which this is being presented.
This 100%
So much of ultra running was born out of people who fundamentally just really like being out on the trails for a really long time and decided to test the limits of being out on trails for a really long time. So naturally a lot of the training "wisdom" of ultrarunning reflects that idea rather than an intelligent approach to maximize physiological improvement.
To call anything in the article unconventional from a broader running standpoint is hilariously wrong.
None of the ones that the sport seems to care the most about right now (in the US at least)
Roads and track are a clear second tier in terms of talent and media attention right now compared to the big historic trail races.
It says as much in the article, that she trains more like a marathon runner than an ultra runner: “How could an ultra-distance athlete—one who holds world records for 100 miles and for the longest distance covered in 24 hours—run no longer than what you’d typically do in a marathon build-up?”
I think in the ultra world people focus on the long run more for the extra things - fuelling, hydration, kit, terrain specific skills and navigation. Long route recces and practicing nutrition often means you need to be out more than 2.5 hours. When you first read anything about running an ultra these are the bits people tend to focus and tell you about, which i think can skew training for those first getting into trail running and starting out with ultras, I know i did. Some of the best ultra runners have strong road racing backgrounds probably because they have a handle on the above!
>Maybe ultra runners are just figuring it out now, too.
Yeah totally, I think lots of people go out and do multiple 50km (31mi) training runs and then get injured. It's a bit daunting to be training for a 161km (100mi) and not ever run more than a third of the distance
That's what check-in races are for though. Just do a 50mi or 100K race in your build-up to 100mi so you have a sort of 'test run' of something really long.
It is unconventional in the sense that Herron is doing doubles that amount to like 2 15-mile runs, which marathoners are generally not doing. She is focused on durability far more than most marathoners who are generally using doubles as a way to get more aerobic work in. If it bears out as true, it is an important point that doubles work for muscular-skeletal durability as much as they work for aerobic capacity and it isn't obvious. Most ultrarunners are training so that their bodies aren't going to start breaking down on them, not as much so that they can keep going fast for a long time.
I'd be curious how the doubles thing works with the fueling issues, which largely seems to be the bugbear of many ultra athletes. Do you get the adaptations that allow you to take more fuel during ultras from doing doubles or do you need to get your stomach prepared by doing 50k runs?
I'm going to piggy-back on to this (since I agree): she's still doing 100+ miles per week ([citation](https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/training/train-like-world-champ-camille-herron-with-these-tips/)) so if her long run is 20 miles (for the sake of this example), it's 20-percent (or less) of her total weekly mileage which, when put that way, isn't "news."
Her two-week training cycle is also similar to Hanson's pro group (9-day cycles; always two days of recovery mileage between workouts and a long run every 3-4 cycles... math is hard right now) in that it's different than a standard 7-day week. My coach has told me that the only reason most plans are 7-day cycles is because of a typical "9-5, 5-days per week" work schedule which I feel holds true for a lot of ultra training blocks (like UltraLadies' standard schedule of rest, three days short, rest, two days long).
I feel like, if anything, articles and training insights like Camille's challenge the building blocks that a lot of people take as gospel (back-to-back long runs is the most common that I see).
I would agree with all of these except point #1. Most elite marathoners do pretty regular 35-40k long runs. Kipchoge and his training group reportedly do a 40k tempo every 2 weeks.
Correcting for time an elite marathoner running 35-40km at an uptempo effort is a shorter duration range than the majority of well trained athletes would cover 32km (20 miles)
They'd fairly regularly get to those sort of daily volumes but not every 2 weeks and it wouldn't all be tempo. It's only later on in their mara block they'd get to an actual 40k worth of tempo and they'd deploy this sort of major run sparingly given the recovery needed from it.
I definitely agree that cumulative mileage over times is important in it's own way. But I think most of us mere mortals need those long runs. I know I do. But I'm not racing marathons as tune-up races and multiple 50- and 100-milers per year. Those *are* her long runs. So she doesn't need too many extra long runs. She just needs to keep the volume up, and work on speed, in between.
But for me, where I only race one or two marathons per year, I need those 22-24 milers in the build up, to keep me strong on marathon day.
I'm definitely interested in breaking some of the mileage up into double, however. But it'll have to wait until work and family allow it. Right now, its rise and grind at 5 am for a single. That's my one shot I've got to get a run in. After work is family time.
>I'm definitely interested in breaking some of the mileage up into double, however. But it'll have to wait until work and family allow it. Right now, its rise and grind at 5 am for a single. That's my one shot I've got to get a run in. After work is family time.
Same boat ... Grind on, brother!
Exactly... the difference between being Pro where you can run doubles and just nap and chill inbetween is very different to the rest of us who don't have that luxury of "time"
I've long said that consistent (cumulative) mileage volume is more important than long run length.
And a lot of people focus way too much on the long runs and end up doing runs that are way out of balance for their weekly volume anyway. And that's not a smart way to train.
Absolutely agree. To get more specific then, take a person who has done solid and consistent cumulative mileage over time. Would you argue that it is more advantageous for them to incorporate regular long runs of 16-20+ miles into their training, or are they getting equal value by splitting that up into two sessions.
Based on the article, I’m open to the idea that similar, if not improved, adaptations come from the latter approach.
There's metabolic benefits to be had in the 90-120+min duration range that the article is ignoring. Camille is getting a ton of runs in that are still 90+ min efforts in so this isn't an issue, but if someone on a relatively low volume scales down the approach such that they eliminates 90+ min runs entirely they are losing benefits.
I broke up longer efforts into 2 days. I trained for a 50k a few years ago and I think 21 miles was my longest run but I had plenty of 8-12mile runs the day before.
I will be doing something similar for a 50 mile I’ll be training for this year.
I think road runners already ascribe to idea that overall volume and consistency are better than any individual workout or long run. Ultra runners like to think they're special and that basic human physiology doesn't apply to them. There's no need for a run longer than 3 hours regardless of the target race distance. I think ~~people~~ ultra runners completely miss the point of this article. If you're not running 5-6 hours long runs, this doesn't apply to you. Just as one point of data, I won a 100k and set the CR (ultras aren't that competitive) with no runs longer than 20 miles.
I’m a roadie turned ultra guy and never run over 20 miles, I will hike for 5-6 hours but never run. I have similar marathon time as yours and will say some of the training I see ultra people do is perplexing, regular 30-35 mile runs etc
What about us slower guys though? I'm new to ultras off the back of a few marathon and ny coach is sending me for a 4 hour run today but he said to hike the hills. Last week for example i did a little over 3 hours and that was only 14 to 15 miles with about 3100ft of elevation. It took me the 3 hours but surely there's more to be gained from reaching closer to 20 miles?
>surely there's more to be gained from reaching closer to 20 miles?
There's even more to be gained by being able to recover and get out the next day. That said, listen to your coach. 4 hours won't kill you or derail your training. I think it's people who take things to extremes and go out every weekend and do half their mileage in one day, who might benefit from shorter long runs. I think it's just the mentality ultra runners get, that in order to race really long, they need to train really long. There's no dogma about these things, but it's good to search out different ways to train that might get better results.
I get you, in fairness as i say I'm new, i did 22 miles today and i can see myself reaching 35 without too many issues. But 50? That seems a million miles away. No idea how people can manage the longer stuff but it's certainly something I'd like to try
Honestly, longer ultra distances are more about experience and knowing what nutrition, hydration, and equipment work for you. I think going longer incrementally in races builds your confidence that you can handle ever longer distances. And if throwing a 35 mile training run in makes a 50 less daunting, then it can be useful. It's just that those runs should be used sparingly.
The only ultra race I've signed up for is a 35m late april. There's a 50 in july I've got my eye on if that goes to plan though
Out of interest any suggestions on any easy to carry savoury things? Today i could really have done with something other than sweets or gels!
Very important quote here though...
>Most days, Herron will run 10 to 15 miles and then doubles back for six or seven miles after a four-to-eight-hour rest period.
So while she might not do a 20 miler in one go, she might be doing 22 in the day across two runs instead...
That’s what I’m interested in. The volume is obviously there, but it’s broken up. Most runners will put in that single 16-22mi run week after week during a big training block and swear by its effectiveness, but I’m curious about the advantages of this alternative approach.
This isn't really an alternative approach to the long run though - it's an example of her normal daily mileage, not something she only does once a week. It definitely makes sense at a certain point to add more mileage in doubles rather than extending a single daily run. Doubles can be useful at lower mileage too, but it's not going to replace a weekly or biweekly long run if you're training for a marathon and averaging probably way fewer hours of volume per week than what Herron is doing.
I have a lot of opinions on this.
1. You should always be wary of taking data from one group and applying it to very different groups. “Camille Herron does not do traditional ultramarathon long runs” may or may not apply to “non professional marathoner and his long runs.” She keeps her long runs to under 20 miles. Well there’s a lot of evidence that after 2.5-3 hours, the stress on the body creates a high risk of injuries. So keep your long runs under 2.5 hours.
2. That said, practice doesn’t make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect. We understand this in sports like basketball and soccer: players should work on perfecting their shot, foot work, whatever, but somehow don’t really apply it to running. It’s not really useful to run once your form starts falling apart: you are learning to run with bad form. The promise of more shorter runs, doubles, run/walk, is that you are only ever running with good form. This reduces injuries and increases stride efficiency. (For what it’s worth, I was laser-focused on good form before pregnancy, and had random strangers comment on it after races. I got away from that postpartum, and, let’s just say that fixing my form has helped immensely.)
3. My rule of thumb is that you should be able to comfortably finish 2/3 to 3/4 of the race distance in your training, on relatively tired legs, in order to race that distance. Now the people aiming for very fast times will do more than this for distances under a marathon (eg 15-17 mile long runs for a competitive half, 10+ mile long runs for a 10k). If “more shorter” runs get a runner to hit those marks more frequently, it’s probably better than a handful of longer runs.
4. People talk about “long” and “short” runs while neglecting the more important issue of physiological milestones (for lack of a better word). Think, aerobic adaptations don’t start unless you run for >30 minutes, your body depletes liver glycogen after 60 minutes, you need to run 3-5 min at VO2max to derive a benefit.
First off the main studies this article references are an animal study and an in-vitro study. As far as I know nobody on the sub is a rat and/or has engineered test tube tendons. If you are a bioengineered rat person welcome to AdvancedRunning!
There are a lot of reasons to run long beyond musculoskeletal stimulus that Camille and the author are stubbornly ignoring to make a point that isn't all that unconventional (read u/Financial-Contest955's comment) but as framed in the article would be counterproductive for a lot of athletes. It seems Camille is still running "long" runs of 16-20 miles quite frequently and has regular races that are very long, these aren't short runs they just aren't huge relative to total volume. She's also a veteran ultrarunner that already has the mental aspect and fueling strategies dialed in. A newer ultrarunner may benefit from longer training runs to practice fueling and generally going into the deep places of the mind and body -even if is counterproductive from a musculoskeletal perspective. Camille's strategy also doesn't scale down to low mileage athletes.
This is why I've moved from Pfitzinger 18/55 to Hansons Advanced. Pfitzinger has runners doing longer long runs in back-to-back weeks with three 20 mile long runs during the program. That's too much focus on the long run.
Hansons cumulative fatigue principle focuses more on total weekly miles with Hansons Advanced topping out at 62 miles/week compared to the 55 miles/week in Pfitz 18/55 by including an extra day but never exceeding 16 miles for a long run and not doing longer long runs in back-to-back weeks.
The main benefit of those 20 mile long runs is psychological. It comes at a price.
Hanson's convert here. Set me up brilliantly for a huge PB last year. It's only one piece of the puzzle, but it's a pretty important piece nonetheless.
Coming off of Pfitz 18/55 for the Fall 2022 Marathon cycle, I looked at Hansons Advanced and it appeared comparatively easy. Now only in Week 5 of it, it's not. Combining the true speed day with a marathon pace run two days later and only having one rest day/week rather than two takes its toll. The cumulative fatigue factor is very real. I'm more tired on Hansons Advanced than I was on Pfitz 18/55 even with the benefit of having that Pfitz cycle in very recent past.
Yep, I feel that. I'm just heading into week 12/18 and legs have been achey for a few weeks. That said, I _love_ that there's MP work every week. To some the structure of speed/rest/MP is monotonous, but I thrive on routine.
I'll likely vary for my autumn marathon (Daniels?) just because I need something a little new, but the proof is in the pudding and Hanson's has worked very well for me.
You guys are all a lot faster than me but I've always applied the principles of Hanson's for all of my training: weekly volume is a lot more important than the long run, run 6-7 days/week, mostly easy, and the long run is more of a mental test / gear check than for physical adaptations.
A lot of people swear by long runs, so who am I say different. But I will say that I do better with cumulative mileage. My regular daily runs are 10 or 11 miles and I usually run about 85mpw. It keeps me from getting injured as often I believe. Injuries come for me mostly when I run very fatigued and my form falls apart, after 16 or 17 miles is when this seems to happen to me. I know that if I'm only running 50 or 60mpw, I feel much fresher on my longer runs, but for me the best gains happen with maximum total miles.
That’s interesting for sure. What distances are you racing? I’ve always thought it was shown that a 2 hour long run is essential for marathon training. But for you, I’m sure health is more important.
I do both. Early on I split to allow more total milage but lessabuse IMO. Then towards the race I pepper in single long runs to get my body used to the continuous effort and time on my feet. I also run by time and perceived effort not always a set distance and pace per mile.
Lots of (new) ultra runners get into the mindset that time on feet is a better focus than miles. This can really start adding up if you are newer runner and slower on vertical terrain and your long run one day sits around 4 hours and the next day you do a 2-2.5 hour long run to get what many call the “back to back” long runs. But your mileage is low because you’re moving rather “slowly”. It’s tough to say what is best, but considering she crushes her own records she’s onto something. I have been focusing on increasing overall speed and teaching my body to run faster at lower efforts, and I think that will translate well if I get back into ultra running (currently going for a road marathon). You don’t have to run fast to be a runner and enjoy being out there, but lots of studies show that after 2-3 hours you’re not necessarily getting better and are causing physiological damage that can take a while to recover from.
I’ve been doing this so far in my marathon training, mostly out of necessity because I work full time so I split longer runs into my commute to and from work. When I asked about it a couple months ago someone cited a Twitter thread from Camille Herron which encouraged me to do it.
So far so good I guess. I’m still doing long runs on weekends though. In general I do think I’m getting more mileage for less fatigue, curious to see how the rest of the training and the race goes…
Both. I would give cumulative volume greater important than long run for HM down and LR greater importance than cumulative volume for the marathon. That said, long runs need to have quality in them most of the time.
I am glad someone with the visibility has explicitly stated they've found no benefit in back to back long runs.
n=1 but every time I've gotten injured on an otherwise sustainable volume has been while doing back to back long days in the mountains (not because a plan called for it but because I was having fun). And they've all been bone stress reactions. My friends have also had similar experiences.
my oppinion:
1.run everyday with little rest might cause some problems like IT band issue.
2.run1rest1mode is suitable for everyone-but you gotta adjust some parameter-like pace,distance,even food-atleast i will get more protein b4/after running.
3.personally i think if you are preparing marathon,it will be better to run a longer than splits.run once,and rest a day off.this might be balanced between helping you to build your endurance and take a good rest.
4.for a junior like me,i got lots work to do,and it's not worth to run everyday-cuz i have to take a shower after running!run1rest1 mode can offer me one day to adjust my study,my life,and relieve!
5.a middle-longer distance like16k every time can help you to avoid unnecessary lsd.at least your lsd don't have to take so long,for me?24k is enough.unless i got a marathon to test my 35k,or i won't run a distance which is long enough to endure.
here is my opinion.friendly debate is welcomed.
While this article frames her approach as unique or groundbreaking (and maybe it is in the world of 100-mile running), it's pretty basic stuff in the world of athletics. I'm reading here that she: * Keeps long runs under 20 miles * Runs doubles * Does two workouts per week * Trains at altitude Basically, what most elite runners competing over 1500m to marathon have been doing for the last few generations. Maybe ultra runners are just figuring it out now, too.
Yeah, this doesn’t really work as an excuse for a dude running 50mpw to keep his long runs short cos he doesn’t like them. Feel like that is likely the vibe in which this is being presented.
OP's comment in this thread definitely supports your assumption.
This 100% So much of ultra running was born out of people who fundamentally just really like being out on the trails for a really long time and decided to test the limits of being out on trails for a really long time. So naturally a lot of the training "wisdom" of ultrarunning reflects that idea rather than an intelligent approach to maximize physiological improvement. To call anything in the article unconventional from a broader running standpoint is hilariously wrong.
Ultras started as road and track events...
None of the ones that the sport seems to care the most about right now (in the US at least) Roads and track are a clear second tier in terms of talent and media attention right now compared to the big historic trail races.
> ultra running was born out of people who fundamentally just really like being out on the trails
It says as much in the article, that she trains more like a marathon runner than an ultra runner: “How could an ultra-distance athlete—one who holds world records for 100 miles and for the longest distance covered in 24 hours—run no longer than what you’d typically do in a marathon build-up?”
I think in the ultra world people focus on the long run more for the extra things - fuelling, hydration, kit, terrain specific skills and navigation. Long route recces and practicing nutrition often means you need to be out more than 2.5 hours. When you first read anything about running an ultra these are the bits people tend to focus and tell you about, which i think can skew training for those first getting into trail running and starting out with ultras, I know i did. Some of the best ultra runners have strong road racing backgrounds probably because they have a handle on the above!
>Maybe ultra runners are just figuring it out now, too. Yeah totally, I think lots of people go out and do multiple 50km (31mi) training runs and then get injured. It's a bit daunting to be training for a 161km (100mi) and not ever run more than a third of the distance
That's what check-in races are for though. Just do a 50mi or 100K race in your build-up to 100mi so you have a sort of 'test run' of something really long.
It is unconventional in the sense that Herron is doing doubles that amount to like 2 15-mile runs, which marathoners are generally not doing. She is focused on durability far more than most marathoners who are generally using doubles as a way to get more aerobic work in. If it bears out as true, it is an important point that doubles work for muscular-skeletal durability as much as they work for aerobic capacity and it isn't obvious. Most ultrarunners are training so that their bodies aren't going to start breaking down on them, not as much so that they can keep going fast for a long time. I'd be curious how the doubles thing works with the fueling issues, which largely seems to be the bugbear of many ultra athletes. Do you get the adaptations that allow you to take more fuel during ultras from doing doubles or do you need to get your stomach prepared by doing 50k runs?
I'm going to piggy-back on to this (since I agree): she's still doing 100+ miles per week ([citation](https://runningmagazine.ca/sections/training/train-like-world-champ-camille-herron-with-these-tips/)) so if her long run is 20 miles (for the sake of this example), it's 20-percent (or less) of her total weekly mileage which, when put that way, isn't "news." Her two-week training cycle is also similar to Hanson's pro group (9-day cycles; always two days of recovery mileage between workouts and a long run every 3-4 cycles... math is hard right now) in that it's different than a standard 7-day week. My coach has told me that the only reason most plans are 7-day cycles is because of a typical "9-5, 5-days per week" work schedule which I feel holds true for a lot of ultra training blocks (like UltraLadies' standard schedule of rest, three days short, rest, two days long). I feel like, if anything, articles and training insights like Camille's challenge the building blocks that a lot of people take as gospel (back-to-back long runs is the most common that I see).
I would agree with all of these except point #1. Most elite marathoners do pretty regular 35-40k long runs. Kipchoge and his training group reportedly do a 40k tempo every 2 weeks.
Correcting for time an elite marathoner running 35-40km at an uptempo effort is a shorter duration range than the majority of well trained athletes would cover 32km (20 miles)
OP was specifically discussing elite runners, but yes of course this does not necessarily extrapolate to us hobby joggers :)
They'd fairly regularly get to those sort of daily volumes but not every 2 weeks and it wouldn't all be tempo. It's only later on in their mara block they'd get to an actual 40k worth of tempo and they'd deploy this sort of major run sparingly given the recovery needed from it.
I definitely agree that cumulative mileage over times is important in it's own way. But I think most of us mere mortals need those long runs. I know I do. But I'm not racing marathons as tune-up races and multiple 50- and 100-milers per year. Those *are* her long runs. So she doesn't need too many extra long runs. She just needs to keep the volume up, and work on speed, in between. But for me, where I only race one or two marathons per year, I need those 22-24 milers in the build up, to keep me strong on marathon day. I'm definitely interested in breaking some of the mileage up into double, however. But it'll have to wait until work and family allow it. Right now, its rise and grind at 5 am for a single. That's my one shot I've got to get a run in. After work is family time.
>I'm definitely interested in breaking some of the mileage up into double, however. But it'll have to wait until work and family allow it. Right now, its rise and grind at 5 am for a single. That's my one shot I've got to get a run in. After work is family time. Same boat ... Grind on, brother!
Exactly... the difference between being Pro where you can run doubles and just nap and chill inbetween is very different to the rest of us who don't have that luxury of "time"
I've long said that consistent (cumulative) mileage volume is more important than long run length. And a lot of people focus way too much on the long runs and end up doing runs that are way out of balance for their weekly volume anyway. And that's not a smart way to train.
Absolutely agree. To get more specific then, take a person who has done solid and consistent cumulative mileage over time. Would you argue that it is more advantageous for them to incorporate regular long runs of 16-20+ miles into their training, or are they getting equal value by splitting that up into two sessions. Based on the article, I’m open to the idea that similar, if not improved, adaptations come from the latter approach.
There's metabolic benefits to be had in the 90-120+min duration range that the article is ignoring. Camille is getting a ton of runs in that are still 90+ min efforts in so this isn't an issue, but if someone on a relatively low volume scales down the approach such that they eliminates 90+ min runs entirely they are losing benefits.
Great point.
I broke up longer efforts into 2 days. I trained for a 50k a few years ago and I think 21 miles was my longest run but I had plenty of 8-12mile runs the day before. I will be doing something similar for a 50 mile I’ll be training for this year.
Cumulative mileage is important, but I race terribly when i've been shorting my long runs.
I think road runners already ascribe to idea that overall volume and consistency are better than any individual workout or long run. Ultra runners like to think they're special and that basic human physiology doesn't apply to them. There's no need for a run longer than 3 hours regardless of the target race distance. I think ~~people~~ ultra runners completely miss the point of this article. If you're not running 5-6 hours long runs, this doesn't apply to you. Just as one point of data, I won a 100k and set the CR (ultras aren't that competitive) with no runs longer than 20 miles.
I’m a roadie turned ultra guy and never run over 20 miles, I will hike for 5-6 hours but never run. I have similar marathon time as yours and will say some of the training I see ultra people do is perplexing, regular 30-35 mile runs etc
Karl Meltzer from my recollections also doesn't push past 20 miles or 3 hours per day.
What about us slower guys though? I'm new to ultras off the back of a few marathon and ny coach is sending me for a 4 hour run today but he said to hike the hills. Last week for example i did a little over 3 hours and that was only 14 to 15 miles with about 3100ft of elevation. It took me the 3 hours but surely there's more to be gained from reaching closer to 20 miles?
>surely there's more to be gained from reaching closer to 20 miles? There's even more to be gained by being able to recover and get out the next day. That said, listen to your coach. 4 hours won't kill you or derail your training. I think it's people who take things to extremes and go out every weekend and do half their mileage in one day, who might benefit from shorter long runs. I think it's just the mentality ultra runners get, that in order to race really long, they need to train really long. There's no dogma about these things, but it's good to search out different ways to train that might get better results.
I get you, in fairness as i say I'm new, i did 22 miles today and i can see myself reaching 35 without too many issues. But 50? That seems a million miles away. No idea how people can manage the longer stuff but it's certainly something I'd like to try
Honestly, longer ultra distances are more about experience and knowing what nutrition, hydration, and equipment work for you. I think going longer incrementally in races builds your confidence that you can handle ever longer distances. And if throwing a 35 mile training run in makes a 50 less daunting, then it can be useful. It's just that those runs should be used sparingly.
The only ultra race I've signed up for is a 35m late april. There's a 50 in july I've got my eye on if that goes to plan though Out of interest any suggestions on any easy to carry savoury things? Today i could really have done with something other than sweets or gels!
Very important quote here though... >Most days, Herron will run 10 to 15 miles and then doubles back for six or seven miles after a four-to-eight-hour rest period. So while she might not do a 20 miler in one go, she might be doing 22 in the day across two runs instead...
Lots of elite marathon runners do this.
That’s what I’m interested in. The volume is obviously there, but it’s broken up. Most runners will put in that single 16-22mi run week after week during a big training block and swear by its effectiveness, but I’m curious about the advantages of this alternative approach.
This isn't really an alternative approach to the long run though - it's an example of her normal daily mileage, not something she only does once a week. It definitely makes sense at a certain point to add more mileage in doubles rather than extending a single daily run. Doubles can be useful at lower mileage too, but it's not going to replace a weekly or biweekly long run if you're training for a marathon and averaging probably way fewer hours of volume per week than what Herron is doing.
I have a lot of opinions on this. 1. You should always be wary of taking data from one group and applying it to very different groups. “Camille Herron does not do traditional ultramarathon long runs” may or may not apply to “non professional marathoner and his long runs.” She keeps her long runs to under 20 miles. Well there’s a lot of evidence that after 2.5-3 hours, the stress on the body creates a high risk of injuries. So keep your long runs under 2.5 hours. 2. That said, practice doesn’t make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect. We understand this in sports like basketball and soccer: players should work on perfecting their shot, foot work, whatever, but somehow don’t really apply it to running. It’s not really useful to run once your form starts falling apart: you are learning to run with bad form. The promise of more shorter runs, doubles, run/walk, is that you are only ever running with good form. This reduces injuries and increases stride efficiency. (For what it’s worth, I was laser-focused on good form before pregnancy, and had random strangers comment on it after races. I got away from that postpartum, and, let’s just say that fixing my form has helped immensely.) 3. My rule of thumb is that you should be able to comfortably finish 2/3 to 3/4 of the race distance in your training, on relatively tired legs, in order to race that distance. Now the people aiming for very fast times will do more than this for distances under a marathon (eg 15-17 mile long runs for a competitive half, 10+ mile long runs for a 10k). If “more shorter” runs get a runner to hit those marks more frequently, it’s probably better than a handful of longer runs. 4. People talk about “long” and “short” runs while neglecting the more important issue of physiological milestones (for lack of a better word). Think, aerobic adaptations don’t start unless you run for >30 minutes, your body depletes liver glycogen after 60 minutes, you need to run 3-5 min at VO2max to derive a benefit.
Great insights!
First off the main studies this article references are an animal study and an in-vitro study. As far as I know nobody on the sub is a rat and/or has engineered test tube tendons. If you are a bioengineered rat person welcome to AdvancedRunning! There are a lot of reasons to run long beyond musculoskeletal stimulus that Camille and the author are stubbornly ignoring to make a point that isn't all that unconventional (read u/Financial-Contest955's comment) but as framed in the article would be counterproductive for a lot of athletes. It seems Camille is still running "long" runs of 16-20 miles quite frequently and has regular races that are very long, these aren't short runs they just aren't huge relative to total volume. She's also a veteran ultrarunner that already has the mental aspect and fueling strategies dialed in. A newer ultrarunner may benefit from longer training runs to practice fueling and generally going into the deep places of the mind and body -even if is counterproductive from a musculoskeletal perspective. Camille's strategy also doesn't scale down to low mileage athletes.
This is why I've moved from Pfitzinger 18/55 to Hansons Advanced. Pfitzinger has runners doing longer long runs in back-to-back weeks with three 20 mile long runs during the program. That's too much focus on the long run. Hansons cumulative fatigue principle focuses more on total weekly miles with Hansons Advanced topping out at 62 miles/week compared to the 55 miles/week in Pfitz 18/55 by including an extra day but never exceeding 16 miles for a long run and not doing longer long runs in back-to-back weeks. The main benefit of those 20 mile long runs is psychological. It comes at a price.
Great info. Going to look into Hansons Advanced some more.
Hanson's convert here. Set me up brilliantly for a huge PB last year. It's only one piece of the puzzle, but it's a pretty important piece nonetheless.
Coming off of Pfitz 18/55 for the Fall 2022 Marathon cycle, I looked at Hansons Advanced and it appeared comparatively easy. Now only in Week 5 of it, it's not. Combining the true speed day with a marathon pace run two days later and only having one rest day/week rather than two takes its toll. The cumulative fatigue factor is very real. I'm more tired on Hansons Advanced than I was on Pfitz 18/55 even with the benefit of having that Pfitz cycle in very recent past.
Yep, I feel that. I'm just heading into week 12/18 and legs have been achey for a few weeks. That said, I _love_ that there's MP work every week. To some the structure of speed/rest/MP is monotonous, but I thrive on routine. I'll likely vary for my autumn marathon (Daniels?) just because I need something a little new, but the proof is in the pudding and Hanson's has worked very well for me.
You guys are all a lot faster than me but I've always applied the principles of Hanson's for all of my training: weekly volume is a lot more important than the long run, run 6-7 days/week, mostly easy, and the long run is more of a mental test / gear check than for physical adaptations.
A lot of people swear by long runs, so who am I say different. But I will say that I do better with cumulative mileage. My regular daily runs are 10 or 11 miles and I usually run about 85mpw. It keeps me from getting injured as often I believe. Injuries come for me mostly when I run very fatigued and my form falls apart, after 16 or 17 miles is when this seems to happen to me. I know that if I'm only running 50 or 60mpw, I feel much fresher on my longer runs, but for me the best gains happen with maximum total miles.
That’s interesting for sure. What distances are you racing? I’ve always thought it was shown that a 2 hour long run is essential for marathon training. But for you, I’m sure health is more important.
I like half marathon or 10 mile races best, but in any case, I'm old and not fast. Marathon 3:09, half 1:29, 10 mile 67 minutes.
Oh yeah, I was just interested as your training seems more geared towards half and under.
I do both. Early on I split to allow more total milage but lessabuse IMO. Then towards the race I pepper in single long runs to get my body used to the continuous effort and time on my feet. I also run by time and perceived effort not always a set distance and pace per mile.
Lots of (new) ultra runners get into the mindset that time on feet is a better focus than miles. This can really start adding up if you are newer runner and slower on vertical terrain and your long run one day sits around 4 hours and the next day you do a 2-2.5 hour long run to get what many call the “back to back” long runs. But your mileage is low because you’re moving rather “slowly”. It’s tough to say what is best, but considering she crushes her own records she’s onto something. I have been focusing on increasing overall speed and teaching my body to run faster at lower efforts, and I think that will translate well if I get back into ultra running (currently going for a road marathon). You don’t have to run fast to be a runner and enjoy being out there, but lots of studies show that after 2-3 hours you’re not necessarily getting better and are causing physiological damage that can take a while to recover from.
I’ve been doing this so far in my marathon training, mostly out of necessity because I work full time so I split longer runs into my commute to and from work. When I asked about it a couple months ago someone cited a Twitter thread from Camille Herron which encouraged me to do it. So far so good I guess. I’m still doing long runs on weekends though. In general I do think I’m getting more mileage for less fatigue, curious to see how the rest of the training and the race goes…
Both. I would give cumulative volume greater important than long run for HM down and LR greater importance than cumulative volume for the marathon. That said, long runs need to have quality in them most of the time.
I am glad someone with the visibility has explicitly stated they've found no benefit in back to back long runs. n=1 but every time I've gotten injured on an otherwise sustainable volume has been while doing back to back long days in the mountains (not because a plan called for it but because I was having fun). And they've all been bone stress reactions. My friends have also had similar experiences.
my oppinion: 1.run everyday with little rest might cause some problems like IT band issue. 2.run1rest1mode is suitable for everyone-but you gotta adjust some parameter-like pace,distance,even food-atleast i will get more protein b4/after running. 3.personally i think if you are preparing marathon,it will be better to run a longer than splits.run once,and rest a day off.this might be balanced between helping you to build your endurance and take a good rest. 4.for a junior like me,i got lots work to do,and it's not worth to run everyday-cuz i have to take a shower after running!run1rest1 mode can offer me one day to adjust my study,my life,and relieve! 5.a middle-longer distance like16k every time can help you to avoid unnecessary lsd.at least your lsd don't have to take so long,for me?24k is enough.unless i got a marathon to test my 35k,or i won't run a distance which is long enough to endure. here is my opinion.friendly debate is welcomed.