General Discussion Triathlon Talk » running: more short runs or less long runs? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2009-09-18 1:41 AM

User image

Expert
1116
1000100
Thornton, CO
Subject: running: more short runs or less long runs?
From a performance perspective is it better to have more short runs of 3-4 miles or less runs that are all longer in distance?  Like the difference between doing 10 three mile runs as compared to doing 3 ten mile runs.

Is one way any better than the other?  Does it depend on if your goal is sprints vs IMs? or is it really pretty arbitrary as long as you get the mileage in one way or the other? ( I realize in the long run if you're doing an IM you need to get  long runs in, but is it okay if half or more of your mileage consists of short 3 mile runs?)



2009-09-18 2:34 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Expert
1690
1000500100252525
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
As I'm an extreme nooby take this with a grain of salt. From the mass of posts I've read, for base building more short runs trumps trying for fewer long runs. You can also incorporate more variability in the type of workout, tempo , recovery etc. Also since the runs are shorter you can put more effort into each. The biggest benefit I've been told about running short vs long is the ability to put in more miles without increasing chance of injury. So its more like able to do 11 runs at 3 miles vs 3 runs at 10 miles. It gets complicated when your going for long distances like HIM and IM races. The longer the race distance the less you need to focus on speed drills and more about millage. In the end it is probably all based on the distance of the race (Marathon Race pace varies greatly from 5k race pace and as such requires different training).

With this said I present you with my running bible
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/gforum.cgi?post=1612485
barryp is a genius!
2009-09-18 2:42 AM
in reply to: #2413127


798
500100100252525
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
I struggled with AT for almost a year and just couldn't get going on any sort of a typical running plan.  Some well regarded folks here and the other forum seemed to advocate running shorter distances more often for newbies.  I started doing that in May, gradually increasing the time I ran as I got stronger.  Last weekend I held a faster pace for an entire half mary than I could for a single mile at the start of the year.       
2009-09-18 5:31 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Pro
4353
200020001001001002525
Wallingford, PA
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
I'm not an expert, but here's my opinion.... Longer runs, especially if you are relatively new to running, are harder on your body and take a longer time to recover from than shorter runs. IMO, you're likely to get more performance gains from increasing your overall mileage. The easiest way to do that is to run shorter distances more frequently. Right now I'm trying to work my way up to 35 miles per week. For me, that includes one long run per week, in the 8+ mile range (will go up to 15 or so for upcoming half-mary). The long run distance has been increasing very gradually over the past several months, but I'm typically running 5 days/week (so, 1 long run, 1 medium distance run, and 3 shorter runs). My run paces have been improving with very little in the way of structured speedwork. Good luck!
2009-09-18 5:55 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Master
2491
2000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
I do sprints. Much of the advice people give out here comes from an IM or .5IM perspective, so sprinters need to read it with that in mind. This year, I'm going to try the more shorter runs thing. That will also mean more shorter rides and more BRICKS. My old routine was getting stale, and I'm looking forward to changing things up.
2009-09-18 6:15 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Expert
1123
1000100
Falls Church, VA
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
I think more shorter runs until you can build back up to a good distance for your long run.  I've done 20mpw on 2 runs and it tore my feet up as I didn't give my feet a good period of time to get used to running.  Plus I think it's a lot easier to have a faster pace if you build up that way instead of slogging along at a slower pace so you can complete your longer distance runs


2009-09-18 7:36 AM
in reply to: #2413175

User image

Champion
7233
5000200010010025
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
you want to do whatever will allow you to run the most, most often, without getting hurt.

for almost everyone out there, this means starting shorter, more often, and slowly lengthening things out.

start by getting up to a decent volume, then slowly stretching out one run. after you have a longer run in place, work on lengthing out a mid week (or a few days away from the long run), into a point there its part way between the normal runs and the longer runs.

as you get more fit, the distance in all will come up/the time you are running can come up.

after you are ok with the distances, then it is time to slowly add in a bit of faster running, in the form of strides (quick 100m ish accelercations up to race pace then right back down), and tempo running (runs at 80-88% of your threshold).

for the most part though most of your speed gains will come through running more, not faster. faster will yeild some quick results, but will top out pretty quick, often leads to injury, and will not keep up long.

running is triathlon is really a two point approach and needs to be looked at as such.

you need to do a solid amount of running to see where your run can go, but the bike training/pacing is what is going to set you up for a strong run and allow you to run as close to your open run times as you can.

BRICKS are going to for the most part put undue stress on your body, when more often than not you are better served by getting a break in there and getting in two quality workouts (there are some exceptions to this, but thinking they will make you run faster off the bike is not one of them).

2009-09-18 7:38 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Cycling Guru
15134
50005000500010025
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
Your training load is defined by these elements:

Volume (total amount that you do overall)
Intensity (pace and effort at which you do things)
Frequency (number of times that you do things in a time period)
Duration (length of time you do an activity)

Any combination of those can be effective.  Some respond better to higher intensity and frequency.  Others work better with longer duration and more volume.

There is no right or wrong answer.  If someone has a very strong running base, then I would prescribe more volume with frequency and slightly higher intensities.  If they are newer to the sport I would focus on building their volume, frequency and duration without the intensity.

Edit:  But I do like this quote from Slowman (Dan Empfield from Slowtwitch):

If you train 12 hours a week at any speed, you’ll be fitter, healthier, and faster than if you train 5 hours at high speed.


Edited by Daremo 2009-09-18 7:41 AM
2009-09-18 7:59 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Elite
3315
20001000100100100
Miami
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
from a complete newby, only 1st year in triathlons, but 2nd season doing tri's still learning alot but i have found that slow increase in distance at first is best improvement.

i started with 3 runs per week.  2 shorter 1 longer.  2 x 3-4 miles 1 x 5 miles and kept increasing.  6 miles now feels like i am starting a workout and longer runs go up past 9 miles. 
2009-09-18 9:40 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Member
190
100252525
Panama City Beach
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?

As with most things, it's not one extreme or another.  10 x 3 would better than 3 x 10 just because if you’re not running as often those 10 miles will beat you up.  But with just 3 mile runs you won't get the benefit of the longer endurance runs. The benefits are for sprint distance Tris too.   A good plan will have a mix of shorter temp runs, longer slower runs, and a lot of short and mid distance easy runs.

 

2009-09-18 10:42 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Expert
1116
1000100
Thornton, CO
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
Thanks everyone, right now I'm averaging 16-18mpw (two 3-4 milers and two 5-6 milers/week).  But with the goal of an IM in a year I wasn't sure if I should focus on getting those weekend 5-6 milers to be longer or start getting more 3 milers in during lunches.  It's obvious after hearing everyone that I'll be aimed at adding more short runs to the schedule to build a better base and then slowly start adding some additional mileage to each run as time goes on.


2009-09-18 11:37 AM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Expert
1461
10001001001001002525
Sarnia, Ontario
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
This is my first year running and it ha been a steep learning curve.  I started you trying to ramp up my distance too soon and hurt my IT in my left leg.  Then I started short runs in the morning and things where pretty good, I was seeing lots of improvement.  Some how I got the idea in my head that I needed to run longer and longer.  I stopped running in the am (mostly too lazy to get up) and stared to do 2 to 3 runs, (one long) instead of 4 or 5.  I am only now realizing that my performance has stalled and possibly dropped off.  The clincher was when I tried a nice fast pace 6 km run on tuesday I pulled my IT in my right leg... I am convinced that more short runs are best to build a strong base.

just my 2 cents
2009-09-18 8:03 PM
in reply to: #2413127

User image

Master
2491
2000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: running: more short runs or less long runs?
I agree about BRICKS not being necessary for running after the bike, but for me, it's a function of having an hour in the morning to work out. I can do 30'/30', 40'/20', or maybe something a little bit longer. I'm pretty sure it will be good for my running, having it 5-6 days a week at shorter distances instead of 3-4 days. It may not be as conducive to strong riding, but it will also be a mental break from two years of routine, which will help me in ways not directly measurable by data. I've always had one BRICK morning a week, when I'd ride the trainer for 40' and do a quick, short run. It was always my favorite training day of the week. I'm a sprinter, and that approximates a race day as much as any workout does. Waking up to 11 degrees and 15 mph winds at 4 AM regularly will be much easier on this year's schedule than it was for going out for an hour in those conditions on given mornings. I'm going to warm up on the trainer for 5 or 10', head out for a 3 or 4 miles and come back in for some more on the trainer. I'll add in some new, evening workouts and come back stronger than ever next spring.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » running: more short runs or less long runs? Rss Feed