Hansons SOS Marathon Program w/ higher mileage?

Here's the RT article on the Hansons' program.

http://www.runningtimes.com/rt/articles/?id=4447&c=2

Another ? wrote:

Is there an online link anywhere to the Hanson's training program or the Running Times article?

Yes! Try the Running Times website!

people need to stop thinking in percentages and think what you need to do to be adequately prepared for a race. doing a long run, tempo run, etc should be on your list. who cares if your math that week is a little skewed. come race day you'll be better prepared. why short change yourself because you are held to a mileage standard? I think that is one major problem with the hansons program.

I guess my point is, why would you pull out on aspect of higher level marathon training (the 20 miler) and put it into a more moderate level marathon training program?

In the end, we will probably agree to disagree!

oops, "...pull out one aspect..."

Yes it's true. Why would I lie about it??? I have a copy of his 10-day schedule he did for 14 weeks leading up to his American record.

"that's great he got by on that, if it is in fact true, right?"

BINGO!!! All the Hanson ELITES are running 140 - 160 miles per week. Big difference than the 50-70 miles per week the people are running were are comparing them to. Kinda like apples to oranges huh???...

"but all the hansons elite runners actually do 20+ mile long runs. nearly all elite marathoners do 20 mile long runs or longer."

Cumulative fatigue BS??? I don't know how you can call it that. Have you had any personal experience with their plans or anything of the sort.

"don't evern get me started on this cumulative fatigue BS they are promoting."

Handle the distance effectively... Hell, we should all start running 27 milers then. I think that would get us ready.

"if you are training for the marathon, you need to be handle the distance effectively. sure you can get by on 16 or maybe even 13 but you would do better if your body was adapted to the longer distances. then couple that with hard workouts."

Their plan is focused towards trying to get people to run a little more than 3-5 miles a day then going out for a 20 miler and thinking they are ready to run a PR for a marathon. Doesn't sound a lot like training to me. Running X amount of 20 milers doesn't make you a good marathoner. And who came up with that number (20) anyway??? Why 20? Why not 19? 21? 23.5?

I coached (with a very similar philosophy) a girl to her FIRST marathon this past fall. She ran up to 70-75 miles a week and only ran two 18 miler's, two 16 milers.

The worst part of her race was from 13 - 18 miles (until she decided to pick up the pace). She ran 7:35 pace till 18 miles. Her split from 20 miles till the finish was 41:25 (6:40 pace). She told me several times she never hit the wall.

I know this is just one example, but it was enough proof for her. Actually, I didn't need proof; those theories and philosophies were something I believed in since college. Sounded like she was PLENTY adapted to the distance to me. She didn't have to do this magical "20 miler".

How was it that her fastest part of her race was from 18 - 26.2? I truly believe it was that fact she was tired going into her speed workouts, tired going into her strength workouts, tired going into her tempo runs (then learning/memorizing marathon pace while fatigued) and tired going into her long runs; and she built a very good aerobic base. Basically, she learned to run her pace while tired. The appeal of the program was to always be a little tired, and never put so much stock into one workout or one long run thus greatly increasing the chance of injury, and build one hell of an aerobic base.

If you compare the Hanson's programs to other training programs you can notice two major differences: Cumulative mileage run over 20 weeks and the long runs. Their long runs go up to 16, others go up to 20-22. However, with the Hanson's plans, you'll run about 100-125 more miles over the course of 20 weeks.

I'll take the extra 100-125 miles vs. those long runs any day.

proportions? would you use proportions for training for a 5k now? whatever. if people actually buy into this pseudo math you are dumber than i thought.

you are missing the point. doing the long runs actually prepares you for running the distance - knowing what it feels like to be on your feet that long, getting your body used to the demands of the distance - energy requirements, etc. you're not going to get that from solely doing 16Mers. I never said that you should throw out tempo runs, you of course should do them, but there is no reason you can't do both. And you would be better off doing both.

The whole cumulative fatigue is just phrasing to sell something. If you do a long run you are not putting focus on one workout duh. No more than focusing on two workouts back to back which might actually risk you injury. And if the plan is so good why don't you just run a tempo and a 20Mer?

Listen, the Hansons have made something that looks "good" because you can use numbers and ratios and looks good to the average 30yr old runner. It's a sales thing. You'd be hardpressed to find any real coaches or successful athletes who would buy into the whole ratio thing which they just pulled out of their ass. Bottom line is you have to follow training specificity - your race is long - you train long. and you run workouts at that pace or faster.

You run more marathon pace miles using the Hanson's program than with "normal" marathon programs...so according to your bottom line, thats the way to go, right?

Of course I would. Why not? I never said it's the same for all mileage levels for everyone, just what I've observed in how the Hansons train runners. Their highest mileage guys put a much lower % of their weekly volume into their long runs. Keeping long runs within a certain proportion is a good thing if you want to be well trained and avoid injury. What's so pseudo about the math, or can't you even explain and you only react because you're so brainwashed by the RW "magic in the 20+ miler" mantra?

taylor bow wrote:

you are missing the point. doing the long runs actually prepares you for running the distance - knowing what it feels like to be on your feet that long, getting your body used to the demands of the distance - energy requirements, etc. you're not going to get that from solely doing 16Mers.

Then apparently you must think to train for a marathon people should run 26.2 every day of their training.

taylor bow wrote:

if you're getting up to 80M/week why not ditch the hansons program and actually run some real long runs. it will do more for you anyway.

Like injuries? We all know that long runs will make us better. Most of us would gladly run 140 a week of tempo runs if we could. The reality is that a lot of people cannot physically handle what they want to do. Through years of training and many injuries, I found most occurred after a long run. By limiting the distance and increasing the intensity of the run, combined with no impact aerobic crosstraining, I was able to replicate the stress of the long run and eliminate injuries.

"I never said that you should throw out tempo runs, you of course should do them, but there is no reason you can't do both. And you would be better off doing both."

Where did I say that you should throw out the tempos? Huh? Tempo's are a big part of every plan; as is the mileage, strength workouts and speed workouts and long runs.

I'm preaching: do more mileage each day and quite putting so much damn emphasis in a "20 miler" 5-6 times out of a whole 20 week schedule.

Do you think people in Europe put so much emphasis in a "20 miler"? Nope! Thanks to the metric system 30k is the "answer". Once again another nice round number!!!!

Personal philosophy here: I believe in always looking back 10 days to 2 weeks to figure out why you may be tired/sore. With that in mind, I believe in putting in a little more mileage, longer/harder workouts and tempos to learn pace, THEN with all that in your legs go into your long runs and run tired, as opposed to being rested for each one.

Another point: There is no way that I would recommend to a person they should run a 20 miler if they are only running 40 miles a week. I've seen lots of plans that do and I think it's crazy. Half their mileage in one run? C'mon.... You wouldn't recommend that would you? By the way, are you a coach? Seriously, I want to know.

By your advice (and some of these plans) you should just say: if you want to prepare for the distance just run 26.2 miles a few times in your preparation. Good luck not getting hurt!!!

"doing the long runs actually prepares you for running the distance - knowing what it feels like to be on your feet that long, getting your body used to the demands of the distance - energy requirements, etc. you're not going to get that from solely doing 16Mers."

I know plenty of people that followed Kevin and Keith's plans and they would disagree with you till they were blue in the face trying to make you believe them. Then they would just have to show you the results to prove it.

You don't agree that going into a long run tired and running 16 miles has just as much benefit as running 20 miles fresh?

Wow, another point I should make. I've been trying to preach the idea of more running each day. Well, if you run 40 miles a week then run a 20-22 miler, how many people do you know could come back and run the next two days without missing a beat. Very Few, they are typically to beat up, sore or needing time to rest an injury. However, with running 16 miles, they are much more likely able to come back the next day and continue runnning with much less soreness and pain/injury.

"The whole cumulative fatigue is just phrasing to sell something."

If you don't believe in cumulative Fatigue, then I guess you don't believe in a taper then!!! What the world could you possibly be tapering from if cumulative fatigue doesn't exist???

PLEEEEEEEEEASE give me an answer for this one!!!!!

Maybe you don't understand cumulative fatigue b/c you've never been there. Go read page 32 in Once a Runner. Parker explains it nicely there.

Just curious, a person that's going to run about 40 miles a week, how much should their long run be?

How about 50-60? 70-80?

"Listen, the Hansons have made something that looks "good" because you can use numbers and ratios and looks good to the average 30yr old runner. It's a sales thing."

Hey, the results are selling themselves. I just gave you results of a person that I coached to her first marathon under similar philosophies. I know she passed 67 women alone in the last half of her marathon. I wonder how many 20 milers total in those 67 women???

If she had put a sign her back that read "I never did a 20 miler to get ready for this" that would have pissed off a lot of people!!! LOL!!!

You would argue mute points with a LOT of people that had done their program.

"Bottom line is you have to follow training specificity - your race is long - you train long. and you run workouts at that pace or faster."

Hey I believe in training specificity more than the next guy. But there are limits to the human body and a 20 miler is pushing it to far(for a person running less than 80 miles per week) in my opinion.

"You'd be hardpressed to find any real coaches or successful athletes who would buy into the whole ratio thing which they just pulled out of their ass."

I get paid a salary to coach. I'm I not a real coach???

I just gave you one athlete that didn't run anything longer than 90 minutes and he set the American record. If you need more than that how about the whole corporate training group (over 120 guys) he was with in Japan.

I'm giving you facts and examples where these philosophies have worked from former American record holders to your 4-hour marathoners. You haven't given me more than your opinion so far.

Dhing

Just new to this thread but dude, you put out two examples, neither of which is verifiable and that makes the theory right???? There is a huge logical misstep here.

I do now what cumulatative fatigue, but there are a LOT of other ways of getting it. Short changing like 12M out of a training cycle to achieve that specific cumulative fatigue - it just seems like what's the point? Why not just run a tempo run before your long run the day before???? Why would that be bad? The Hansons have no way of quantifying this cumulative fatigue, or at least this have any way of saying why this is better. then why not run three hard runs in a row a - 5Mer of intervals, then a 5Mer of tempo, then a 10M long run on the third day. "achieves" the same thing right? Baloney.

Taking out the long run is totally wrong. As a 60M runner if all you are thinking about is mileage then something is clearly wrong with your head. It's that mileage philosophy that Hansons preaches over quality that is messing people up. The additional miles you put up as an advantage either won't add up to 60/week or are going to come out as just as easy runs anyway.

Ok fine you have some examples of TWO people who have run well under that progrma. But let's clarify here. You have anecdotal evidence that the the AR ran 90min long runs. But that doesn't prove your point of cumulative fatigue. what did he do the other days??? you can't say for sure that he used the hansons program at all. AND he was running more than 60M a week you can be sure of that, so citing that guy has no bearing on your argument right? Otherwise I can just start talking about the multitudes of other 80-100M/weekers that DON'T run that. But here's a counterexample - Salah Hissou. Once a WR holder in the 10000m, moved up to the half and mara in thelate 90s and early 2000's. He maintained his 10000m training over that time and kept his long runs at 80-90min tops. Did he ever do well in the marathon? I'll let you check the iaaf results for a surprise.

ok so that leaves just your athlete as "proof". BUt again this is bogus. One athlete? that's it? and you reall aren't telling us the whole story. Did you ever stop to think that the strength she may have gained running a normal long run program helped her in her next one? I think that's what a lot of people forget when they cite hansons POS marathon program as successful, they actually many years, and experienced marathons and long runs under their belt. But your girl is clearly a newbie, and I am sure that has more to do with ANY improvement than what program she was doing specifcally. So that's not convincing at all.

Listen, it's clear to me you really aren't a coach. Otherwise you'd have read some of fundamental running books and know this is a joke. To me there really is no sense in beating some common sense into your head at this point. Good luck "coach"

I'm surprised no one has gotten very specific about the reasons for doing long runs. Here is what Pfitzinger says:

"Long runs stimulate a variety of physiological adaptations, which lead to improved marathon performance. One of the most important objectives of long runs is to deplete your glycogen (the storage form of carbohydrate) stores, which signals your muscles and liver to store more glycogen. Long runs also train your muscles to rely more on fat and less on carbohydrate at a given pace so your glycogen stores last longer. In addition, long runs play an important role in building confidence for the marathon.

The appropriate intensity for your long runs varies depending on the objective of each training session. Some of your long runs should be truly challenging, while others should be downright comfortable. How hard you should do a specific long run depends on the amount of time until your goal race, and the effort required for the other workouts in your training program."

Question is, how long is long enough? As I said earlier, I've done 20-22 milers during marathon training but I've always run 8-10 minutes SLOWER than I should have been able to based on race performances at distances of up to 30K. So this points to something else lacking in my training. I ran my PR in my early 20s off a longest run of 18 miles and a bunch of 16 milers. My bread and butter was hard 10 milers, at 15-20 faster than marathon pace. Now I'm almost 50 and thought I'd go back to what I did a half-century ago.

(Thanks for all input but geez, why do you guys need to slam each other so much?)

If you don't beleieve me, leave me your email address. I will send you the two training programs of the two athletes I've mentioned. With both programs, you'll see there is less emphasis on the long run, but much more emphasis on daily mileage, strength work, tempo's etc.

I wouldn't expect giving examples of JUST two people to changes everyone's minds. But there are plenty of other people that have tried their program and it's worked well for them.

The point I'm trying to make is that: It doesn't have to be done ONE certain way. I'm trying to give examples of where cumulative fatigue HAS work vs. the traditonal lower mileage w/ a 20-22miler.

"Just new to this thread but dude, you put out two examples, neither of which is verifiable and that makes the theory right???? There is a huge logical misstep here."

I have been using Jack Daniel's Marathon Plan A for my next marathon. In the earlier stages, Dr. Jack caps the long run at 25% of weekly mileage. So for the 60 mile/week runner, the long run would be 15M. During the later cycles, the long run is 22 miles or 2.5 hours, whichever is less. I imagine, for many recreational runners, 2.5 hours equates to anywhere from 15-18 miles. I think in due time the 20 magical mile barrier will be shot down as the "Holy Grail" of marathon training.

Frank Shorters program:120mpw, two hard track sessions, one tempo and a quick 20 miler, Meb did the same(but just 80-100mpw) before running 27:13.