New Hansons Marathon Method Book

Interesting. Thanks!

Not exactly true. You don't just scale up volume and call it the same philosophy. Sell didn't follow their schedules to a T anyway. Sure he put in 22 to 23 mile days all the time with doubles and a single long run day was only 20 miles for him, but that's not similar to the masses training for a sub 3 at Boston on 60mpw. The program is very simple: 1. Build your mileage up with 2 easy days between workout days.2.Run a lot of long interval strength workouts of 2-5 miles at a time at between half marathon and marathon race pace.3. Do a single longer run every once in a while4. Do a track workout of 800m-1600m intervals at 10k pace every once in a while.Not much based on science but rather derived from trial and error with teams of runners over the years (many who got hurt and overtrained). You get any 2:40 to 4 hr marathoner to start doing some quality long tempo work instead of focusing on slogging a weekend long run each week and of course they will improve.

former HB runner wrote:

100% same philosophy. Long run is at the end of the proper amount of fatigue. Should not be your "most important workout of the week. Brian Sell had several weeks where his long run was his lowest mileage day.

bibliophile wrote:

Has anyone bought a copy yet of the new Hansons books, "Hansons Marathon Method: A renegade path to your fastest marathon". If so, how does it compare the runner's world and running times articles about the Hansons Method. I am trying to figure out whether the book is worth a purchase.

I didn't see this thread before until now and interestingly enough I went to Barnes and Noble yesterday just browsing (haven't been in a long time) and decided to check out the "running section" like I always do when I go there and I did see this new book. Glanced at it briefly b/c I was in a hurry and did not buy it. Then I logged onto here today and read the front page about the book. Again, it got my interest and I decided to order it through Amazon. I am looking forward to reading it. Like anything or running related, I love to read and gain knowledge from each book.

[quote]current HB runner wrote:

Not exactly true. You don't just scale up volume and call it the same philosophy. Sell didn't follow their schedules to a T anyway. Sure he put in 22 to 23 mile days all the time with doubles and a single long run day was only 20 miles for him, but that's not similar to the masses training for a sub 3 at Boston on 60mpw.

The program is very simple:

1. Build your mileage up with 2 easy days between workout days.

2.Run a lot of long interval strength workouts of 2-5 miles at a time at between half marathon and marathon race pace.

3. Do a single longer run every once in a while

4. Do a track workout of 800m-1600m intervals at 10k pace every once in a while.

Not much based on science but rather derived from trial and error with teams of runners over the years (many who got hurt and overtrained).

You get any 2:40 to 4 hr marathoner to start doing some quality long tempo work instead of focusing on slogging a weekend long run each week and of course they will improve.

[quote]former HB runner wrote:

My only issue, which may just be me not understanding, is that none of this sounds all that different than something like Pfitz suggests. He just has longer long runs. It's hard for me to buy into the idea that shortening the long run and placing the extra 4 miles somewhere else earlier in the week is going to make a big difference. But, what do I know.

Interesting assessment, although an oversimplification of the program. I also doubt you are a current program member.

Notquiteaccurate wrote:

Interesting assessment, although an oversimplification of the program. I also doubt you are a current program member.

The last sentence they wrote takes me to the same conclusion.

A key feature of the Hanson model is that you come into that 16 miler on tired legs. The 16 miler is the 5th straight day of running. The whole approach is gearing your body and mind to perform when tired; ie-perform in the second half of your marathon. The recovery from the 16 miler is short enough that you don't waste days recovering from a 20-22 miler. Again, this is the model being sold to the amateur masses (like me). If you want the deep voodoo, you gotta pony up the big bucks.

Thanks for the book and response, Luke.

What I've always liked about the Hansons is that they understand regular frequency and steady volume prepare the body for a lot of running better than a feast and famine hard/easy approach taken by so many average athletes and coaches.

This program is the single best program out there FOR ME. I use Pfitz and Daniels and struggled through several marathons. I previously took a day off prior to and after long runs. That was a waste of time and did nothing to prepare me for race day. 16 miles is way farther than 20 if you did the proper work during the week.

I'm reading that the book is fairly solid. As much as we'd like to do more, a lot of good runners can only afford time for 60-90 mile weeks; 10-15 hours max.Two questions, does the book speak at all directly to masters runners, and what are the training cycle weeks in the book (for instance, pfitz is 24, 18, and 12 week cycles...)thanks!

Luke Humphrey wrote:

I simply try to point out that the easiest way to add mileage is to first do it by adding easy mileage. After that, you can add to workouts. Most people end up getting hurt when they just throw more workout mileage into a program. Handle the mileage first, then worry about intenesity.

I am surprised I am not getting beat up more about the book. It was something that we were approached about regarding the programs that have been discussed before. I tried to add as much'extra'stuff as I could. There is certainly things I would put in there now, but hey, this is the first book I have ever written. Learning process, right?

Hey Luke,

I am really cheap and would like the info from the book without spending a dime. Maybe you can send me all of your rough draft.

People are ridiculously cheap.

BUY THE BOOK.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Sports-Outdoors/zgbs/books/26/ref=zg_bs_nav_b_1_b

Thanks for a reply. I understand the idea that recovery from a 16 miler is going to be quicker than 20+, this makes sense. But, I'd hardly say Pfitz's weeks leading up to the long run leaves you fresh. I've used the 85+ program and you are covering a substantial amount of mileage leading up to the 20+ milers, leaving you with plenty of fatigue/tired legs. But maybe this is what you were getting at, that this leaves you too tired and you waste time recovering when you could be getting in workouts. I guess, I'll never really know unless I try the alternative though.

Considering the quality of the writing below I'm surprised Mr. Humphrey was able to generate a 250-page book. Perhaps Keith and Kevin chimed in with some good chapters? The whole idea of a magical 16 miler is just a selling point for the masses along with the term "cumulative fatigue." I get that. Any marathon training program worth its oats is going to make you tired going into quality workouts.But I'm sure the book is well worth the $11-12 for the pace charts and diagrams on how to do a high knee drill.Hell yeah, I'm cheap.

Luke Humphrey wrote:

I simply try to point out that the easiest way to add mileage is to first do it by adding easy mileage. After that, you can add to workouts. Most people end up getting hurt when they just throw more workout mileage into a program. Handle the mileage first, then worry about intenesity.

I am surprised I am not getting beat up more about the book. It was something that we were approached about regarding the programs that have been discussed before. I tried to add as much'extra'stuff as I could. There is certainly things I would put in there now, but hey, this is the first book I have ever written. Learning process, right?

Unsure wrote:

My only issue, which may just be me not understanding, is that none of this sounds all that different than something like Pfitz suggests. He just has longer long runs. It's hard for me to buy into the idea that shortening the long run and placing the extra 4 miles somewhere else earlier in the week is going to make a big difference. But, what do I know.

I don't get it either. No one who's done the medium or higher-mileage Pfitzinger programs would be fresh going into a long run. Both the up-to-85 schedule and the >85 (up to 107) schedules are 7-day-per-week schedules.

Besides, once you're running >85 miles per week, there is nothing remotely taxing about an easy 20-miler. Those usually leave me feeling fresher the next day than before I ran them. The tough long runs in Pfitz's 12-to-18-week schedules are the 3 or 4 long runs with 8-14 miles at GMP.

I think you guys are missing the point, perhaps because some of the defenders here are misrepresenting the plan. The Hansons runners are putting in consistently high weekly volumes without having many of the runs done at an abnormally longer length than any of the other ones. They even do some easy doubles to keep the loads fairly tolerable. The idea is that they are running a lot without damaging the body more than it can safely recover from in a week numbering many runs. The 16 or 20 milers themselves are not amazing marathon workouts. It's back to back to infinity days of good volume that make 26.2 an easy leap. I think the whole point is not that the 16 miler is better than the 20 miler. The point is that the rest of their week is solid enough marathon training that no workout at the end of the week needs to stand a cut above the rest for marathon preparation.

Hey way to state the obvious. Of course consistent, high mileage over the course of a training cycle makes 26.2 an easy leap. And of course no single, magical workout at the end of the week makes or breaks the marathon preparation. It does seem like the Hansons put way too much emphasis on that one big Marathon Simulator workout with their elites though. It also seems like they also get hurt quite a bit like Davila before the Olympics and Luke Humphrey himself.

I agree with the philosophy that consistent training trumps wasting away with a long recovery from a huge long run that you're not ready for.

However those who are looking to train like the Hanson elite runners will get very frustrated and maybe even a little insulted by this plan.

I think you guys are getting a little to worked up about the 16 miler long run. Its not really necessarily 16 miles. In the Hanson plans, its all about the purpose(the intended stimulus) of the workout. The purpose of the long run is to build strength, endurance, gain time on your feet(confidence) and cause the physiological changes such as increasing glycogen stores, improving vo2max, capillary growth, etc. 16 miles is not an absolute in their plans. The necessary stimulus is 2-3 hours MAX length of run. After 3 hours, its just overkill. The number of miles is based on your speed. The speed should be moderate(MP +30 sec) to easy(MP + 45-60 sec). Therefore someone running a 6:00 avg pace marathon will have a lot different length of long run than someone running an 8:00 average pace marathon. They also do not want long runs exceeding 25%-30% of your weekly mileage. This and the cumulative fatigue effect(going into the long run already tired) tend to keep the long runs on the shorter side of 2-3hours. As an example, if you are a 6:00 average marathoner, 20-22 miles might be a good long run length as its over two hours assuming you run it at 6:30 pace. If you are running at that speed you are also likely training over 65 miles per week. which has your long run close to the max 30% of weekly volume.

I am a masters runner who had a PR of 3:06:34 and I hired Luke a year ago as an online coach to help me go sub 3. I can tell you that in my build up I was averaging close to 75 mpw and peaked at 85 and my longest run was a moderate paced 20 but it followed a long easy run the day before. (The big point is that there are optimal durations for the long run so you need to be faster to run a longer long run. A typical beginning marathoner isn't going to have the speed to complete a 20 mile run in a time that is beneficial to training.) Anyway I just ran sub 2:58 at Chicago so I am a believer in the method.

I have already read the book and I think it does an excellent job of explaining both what to do and why you are doing it... right down to the physiological adaptations that are taking place... all at a readable level. I had already read Daniels (several times), Pfitzinger, and others so I had a pretty good background but this book still explained some things that I didn't yet understand. I wish I would have read it a year ago and it would have saved Luke from answering a lot of questions that I would email him.

Anyway there are other good books out there and other methods that will work but this method worked very well for me so I thought I would share my experience.