-
They probably equate to roughly the same thing, so I wouldn't sweat it. Everyone says for longer than a marathon just focus on time on feet but for some reason marathon is X miles. It's easy to get caught up on the long run and how far you've been and how that's still not as far as the marathon, and how long was someone else's long run? Etc.
One interesting thing I read in the Hanson's marathon book is that long runs of between 2-3 hours are good for promoting the physiological adaptations required for running a marathon. So they alter the distance of long runs based on time (if you run faster then you'll do more miles in 2 hours than someone running slower).
General opinion is stick to the 10% rule when upping distance and you'll do great.
You are reading a single comment by @Arducius and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Arducius
@Greenbank ah crap, just saw your later post, which probably nullifies my last one. Hope your leg gets better soon and good luck with the London marathon in April. I'm doing the Paris one on the 14th and not looking forward to it!
Talking of which, quick question for all the experts out there... when training for the marathon, in terms of the long runs, is it time on your feet or distance which is more important? That is, when I'm increasing my weekly long run, should I be trying to go X miles further each week (currently, about 3 miles) or increasing the time (e.g. 30 minutes longer each week)? Probably too late to actually be asking this question as I'm already up to 17 miles (3:20 last Sunday) and there's not that long to go, but it's a question I've been pondering for a while now...
Thanks! And happy running all :)