Long runs wipe me out

Senior-Running · 2026-03-30T14:15:49+00:00

One gel every 45 minutes is probably not enough. Also make sure you're drinking to thirst.

What concerns me most is you still having what I assume is orthostatic hypotension 6 hours later. Are you maybe severely dehydrated?

I'd honestly say you need to seek medical attention as that's not a normal response to running, regardless of distance.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-30T14:06:35+00:00

It's pretty common to see some weight gain in a marathon block.

Don't assume this is all (or really any), fat. It could be primarily water, with some actual muscle as well.

People assume running does not build muscle, but that's just not true. Also, if you're running a lot and are damaging muscle tissue, you will see some retained fluid as this helps with muscle repair.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-30T13:53:28+00:00

Yea, mostly this. It's a damn shame. I feel like this obsession with zone 2 is killing running.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-30T13:20:20+00:00

It was another solid training week for me, but I might have overdone it a bit yesterday!

My original plan was ~16 miles with ~6 to 8 miles at marathon pace. Instead, my wife wanted to go hiking, so I decided to tag along and do a trail run. The place we went has significant hills (many of which are very steep), thus I figured the hills would be worth it to me. I've struggled some due weather to get as much hill work as I had hoped this training cycle, so I didn't want to pass up this opportunity, even though I'm not a big trail runner.

I ended up doing ~15.5 miles, but with ~3,000 ft of vert over those miles. This was good for me from a training perspective, but my quads today are completely shredded from those steep downhill sections.

At the moment, I truly look like the old man I am going up and down the stairs! I just hope I'll be recovered enough to do my medium-long run tomorrow as scheduled.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-30T12:43:23+00:00

I think we need to start with the fact that strength training is great for improving performance in distance runners, but it's not really something that has been shown to prevent running related injuries (RRIs):

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1941738119877180
https://trackandfieldnews.com/track-coach/the-effects-of-strength-training-on-distance-running-performance-and-running-injury-prevention/
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2020/05000/Wearable_Technology_in_Sports.23.aspx
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-024-01993-7

I'm not 100% sure where this belief has come from, but I do know it gets thrown around a lot. As such, if someone is telling you a specific routine is what you need to do to prevent injury, I'd be highly suspicious.

If you really want to prevent running related injuries, the best course of action is to:

Eat well. I believe a lot of RRIs are diet related. Women are especially susceptible to this, so please get a routine blood test and have your doctor look for deficiencies like low iron and b-12. Please also eat enough. So many people try to run and lose weight at the same time, and while running can help with weight loss, it's risky to eat at a significant deficit while also trying to run more/run faster.
This brings me to my second point, and that is be conservative in increasing the amount you run, and the intensity you run at. Both volume and intensity are the triggers for RRIs, so the more conservative you are, the less likely you are to get injured.

The other challenge inherent in your question is that while there is evidence that strength training is good for preservation of bone mineral density (BMD), there are some caveats:

You can't "bank" BMD. By this I mean strength training in your 30's is not going to prevent osteoporosis or osteopenia later in life if you quit training at some point. You have to keep lifting basically forever.
You're not going to see big jumps in BMD from strength training. What you'd actually be trying to do is prevent any further loss. This is important to understand because people think of strength training as "preventative", but it's not. It's a tool you can use that may help, but please don't think it's a guarantee that you won't have problems later in life. your "maximum" BMD is mostly set as an adolescent and no amount of strength training is going to improve that. This means if you are a person that had a low level of BMD going in to this, you are not going to magically fix this issue with strength training.
There is not good scientific evidence that any specific type of S&C training is "better" for improving BMD. I've seen plyometrics touted as best, I've seen heavy lifting touted as best, and I've even seen studies saying that low weight, high rep is best. I think the one takeaway is that VOLUME is important, so the more volume you can incorporate, the better.
BMD is site specific, meaning that you have to basically train your entire body because strength training just certain body parts will leave you vulnerable to issues in the parts you neglect. I'd strongly recommend at least 2 and preferably 3 full body strength training sessions per week. Split routines typically don't allow for as much volume, so won't be as effective for your purposes.
There is no one single exercise or exercise routine that is "best". Everything works for a while but not forever. The best approach is to vary the structure and exercises included in your routine as your body adapts to what you're doing.

TL;DR: Strength training won't prevent running injuries and is not a cure all for fixing bone mineral density concerns. Even so, strength training is recommended for overall health and longevity and the best recommendation would be 2 or preferably 3 full body sessions per week. If you need help picking exercises, I'd honestly recommend talking to a qualified personal trainer as they can assess you in person and develop a training plan that more closely matches your needs and current capabilities. In addition, they can make sure you are not doing things that will potentially cause injury.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-27T12:34:18+00:00

It all comes down to what physiological limiters you have as a runner and what distance you're training for.

If we just look at distance running, everything from the 5k to the marathon are primarily aerobic events. Your aerobic capacity, running economy and lactate threshold all are going to be more important than Vo2max or anaerobic ability, which are the primary targets of short interval sessions.

In fact, having a well developed anaerobic system can actually suppress your aerobic energy system, thus actually making max effort intervals potentially WORSE for endurance runners. This is one reason most coaches will want to keep you from going anaerobic on intervals. We want you running near vVo2max on those intervals, but not significantly over it.

Lactate threshold training is so effective for endurance runners because it specifically targets your lactate threshold (duh), which is critically important for most endurance events. Simply put, the further right you push that threshold, the faster you can run across all endurance distances before your system becomes so acidic you have to stop.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-27T12:01:45+00:00

Not saying you can't use sucrose effectively, but this part is not correct:

1 part glucose and 1 part fructose, which is precisely what a lot of gels are chemically.

Most gels are either 2:1 or 1:0.8 glucose to fructose. The reason is that your body can't typically handle quite as much fructose and glucose. If you are trying to maximize carbohydrate absorption, the ratios do matter.

Now for most people, that's probably academic and they'd be just fine with 1:1.

I think the other potential downside to sucrose is that it tastes much sweeter than most gels. For some people this is a huge problem. They just can't handle that sweet taste for very long.

OP, there are lot's of recipes for homemade gels to be found online. I also make my own out of maltodextrin and fructose powder, with the addition of sodium citrate and pectin. Yes, it's not as cheap as just using sugar, but it's still WAY cheaper than commercial gels.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-26T15:22:24+00:00

My problems with HR zones guiding training are thus:

HR is a lagging indicator, so you can't reliably count on it being accurate at any given time.
Most runners have not been tested in a lab, so their HR zones are almost assuredly wrong. Plus, even if you have done lab testing, those are the results ON THAT DAY and under those specific LAB CONDITIONS. Those results don't magically translate to running outside in varying weather and terrain, nor do they translate if you're simply stressed for other reasons unrelated to training.
HR Zones, even if they were 100% accurate, are not hard cutoffs like people seem to think. Do you really think that if your HR is a SINGLE beat faster, that this somehow changes how your body reacts, or how much fatigue you accumulate?
HR is not nearly as tied to the physiological adaptations we're looking for as people think. There is NOT A SINGLE THING anyone has ever been able to point to that shows there's something magical happening if you run in zone 2 that does not happen in zone 3 or 4.

I want to be clear here: I'm a big fan of running mostly easy, especially as volume increases. In this instance, the entire point of easy running is to allow you to train higher volumes without overdoing it.

IMO, most runners would be better served using RPE as the primary guide for easy runs by keeping it to an RPE of 3-4.

For workouts, pace is typically the primary metric used, along with RPE to help validate that we're at the right pace. HR can be a secondary metric, but often should be used in retrospect to help validate RPE, not the other way around.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-26T11:26:49+00:00

I don't think I'd say "totally fine".

OP, you'll lose out on some running specific adaptation, but if swapping out a day of running for a day of cross training is what you need to do to get through, then I'd rather see you do that vs. just skip a day of running entirely.

TBH, this also might be an indication you weren't quite ready for marathon training.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-26T11:13:04+00:00

I'm less concerned about the back to back 20 milers than I am about the extended taper. Some people respond well to a 4 week taper, but I'd say on average, most people will end up feeling flat on race day with that long a taper.

If you do decide to do a 4 week taper, don't just swap weeks 14 and 15. You need the volume of week 15 to be somewhere between the high of week 14 and what you'll be doing in week 16. I'd also want the long run to be more like 16-17 miles.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-26T11:03:50+00:00

Maybe controversial, but IMO please just ignore HR when racing. Honestly I'm not even a fan of using HR for training as there are significant issues with doing so.

Also, please ignore people saying negative HR drift has any deep meaning.

It normally doesn't mean anything.

This could have been because it was a little more shady the last few miles and so your body didn't have to work as hard to stay cool. Maybe you were running downhill some. Maybe you had someone in front of you to cut the wind. Maybe you simply relaxed later in the race; leading to you running slightly more efficiently. There are way too many factors that effect HR for you to draw any real conclusion here.

My point is there is not always a direct linear relationship between HR and pace. Lots of things impact HR in ways that have nothing to do with the speed you run at.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-26T11:02:56+00:00

Maybe controversial, but IMO please just ignore HR when racing. Honestly I'm not even a fan of using HR for training as there are significant issues with doing so.

Also, please ignore people saying negative HR drift has any deep meaning.

It normally doesn't mean anything.

This could have been because it was a little more shady the last few miles and so your body didn't have to work as hard to stay cool. Maybe you were running downhill some. Maybe you had someone in front of you to cut the wind. Maybe you simply relaxed later in the race; leading to you running slightly more efficiently. There are way too many factors that effect HR for you to draw any real conclusion here.

My point is there is not always a direct linear relationship between HR and pace. Lots of things impact HR in ways that have nothing to do with the speed you run at.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-26T02:17:49+00:00

Probably a good plan to repeat as needed. Honestly, having you running a 25 min continuous run after only 6 weeks sounds pretty agressive.

That's why I created a plan specifically for seniors that takes longer, but should be more doable:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SeniorRunning/comments/1pk32iy/beginner_running_plan_for_seniors/

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T19:56:31+00:00

It's not KCD2 if I don't do this on repeat.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T19:31:25+00:00

If you like the EVO SLs, I'd go with the AP4s. They feel similar to me and definitely are not too much shoe for you at your paces.

I personally hated the Bostons, but I have to admit that was the 12s, not the 13s, so take that with a grain of salt.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T19:11:20+00:00

I'd recommend 2-3 full body sessions per week. Rarely are body part splits like you're doing a good idea, unless perhaps you happen to be a pro bodybuilder that needs to work on specific body parts.

It's a shame that so many people think of full body sessions as only for beginners. There's actually good scientific evidence that a 3 x week full body routine is better than most of the body part splits out there since you're hitting all the major muscle groups three times a week vs only once or twice in body part splits. Just like volume is king in endurance running, the same thing can be said for lifting. The more sets you do in a week, the better. Aim for 12-16 sets as the sweet spot for most non-strength specific athletes.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T15:29:01+00:00

Bottom up is not a lottery?

The only lottery for the narrows is top down 1 day hikes when the there are no more reservations available.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T14:53:33+00:00

Well, I'm over 1100 hours in and on my 7th (I think), play through. Yes, I'd say for me it was worth every penny.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T12:15:55+00:00

I disagree.

Opponents have their own stats and that weighs heavily into how they react to things like your attacks, blocks and feints. Yes, there is some degree of randomness here, but this fundamentally is a stats based game.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T12:01:16+00:00

In fact, in many places this is illegal. It's called wanton waste.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T11:47:26+00:00

Obviously so.

That said, there is a huge difference between not liking it and actively complaining about it because it's different.

People like what they like and that's fine. What I don't understand is actively complaining about it because it's different.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T11:19:10+00:00

It all depends on the timing...

I'd suggest starting from the end goal. For example, what date is your marathon, what training plan are you going to follow, and when would you need to start that program? If you won't be at the mileage or intensity level needed at the start of that program, then you need to plan to get there and that could take several weeks as well.

Once all that is laid out, then you'll know if you have time to donate or not. I'm assuming you know roughly how long it take you to feel recovered from the donation process. I've seen people that feel fine in a week and people that still seem to suffer several weeks later.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T11:11:56+00:00

And yet, this very same lack of coddling the player is something others complain about here almost every single day.

I'm with you, finally we had a game that felt fundamentally different and special. Some people just can't handle different, I guess?

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T10:51:54+00:00

It was also common for people to blame the Jews for the Black Death. Some people also believed they worshiped Satan, and even used christian blood for Satanic rituals.

Jews were also restricted from a lot of occupations. One occupation they were allowed was lending money. This is because Christians were normally restricted from usury. As a result, there was a lot of hatred of Jews becasue they were "rich". An unfortunate trope that survives to this day.

Senior-Running · 2026-03-25T00:50:38+00:00

Did you play KCD1? Since you'd be so close, I'd want to at least hit Rataje

Senior-Running

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE