I've been doing some reading lately. About running. Specifically marathon training. And I've seen lots of people saying the same thing. At first I pretty well dismissed it, but I just KEEP seeing it, so it's pretty hard to just ignore. And the people saying it? Yeah, they're no idiots. So now I'm a little perplexed. What is it I'm talking about? This.
"There is no physical or aerobic benefit to running beyond three hours."
I didn't bookmark anything to link back to, and I'm not going to cite anyone in particular, but this seems to be a VERY popular opinion. If three hours gets you 22 miles, great. If three hours gets you 15 miles, so be it.
If I continue doing my long runs the way I have been--running comfortably and walking every mile--3 hours would get me to about 16 miles. That just seems BONKERS to me, to go into race day only having run 16 miles! I know the Hanson Brothers plan only goes up to 16, and lots of people go on to run a successful marathon with that plan. But I just don't think I could do it. The thought scares the crap out of me. Would I love to ditch my 18- and 20-mile training runs? HELL YEAH I WOULD! But I'm just not sure I could get to the starting line feeling prepared if I did.
So what's your opinion? How long should your longest training run be? Have you ever gone into a marathon on less-than-optimal training? Do you follow the three-hour rule, or do you do the commonly accepted 20 or even 22 miles?
Labels: marathon training