Hansons SOS Marathon Program w/ higher mileage?

I'll add my example to the girl Dhing was training.

I ran 4 marathons from the ages of 26- 30. I've never been fast, but these times were downright atrocious. PR was 3:33, worst was 3:43. I always hit the wall. This was using the standard protocol of working up to a 20 miler and doing some tempo work. I never managed much more than 50 miles/week on these programs and that's definitely the absolute max I hit.

At 37 I decided to try another marathon and qualify for Boston. Did Daniels C plan since I wanted to do some other races. Mileage got up to 80's at my peak and my longest run was probably around 16 miles.

Got a qualifier and a PR of 3:10 as a result, and like Dhing's girl, my fastest 10k was the final 10k of the race.

I think that's the point of the Hanson's program and the arguments here in favor of it. If hacks like me want to PR, it's better to reach a higher volume, more MP runs than it is to concentrate on a longer or faster long run.

newburg wrote:

Here is what Pfitzinger says:

"...In addition, long runs play an important role in building confidence for the marathon."

I'd love for someone to do a study where they took a group of equally trained runners and correlated their marathon performance with how confident they felt before the race. I'd be willing to bet that the runners who feel most confident, perform the worst.

I believe this confidence thing is the primary reason most novice runners want to do the 20+ long run, and I think it is completely misguided. The increased confidence might make them feel better before the race, but it does nothing for them (and probably hurts them) during the race.

man I knew it was just a matter of time before you posted on this hansons-related thread. without fail! without fail!

Another example I would like to share was Jeff Campbell.

Leading up to USA Nationals in 2003, he got up to 130 miles per week and was going to through the workouts doing okay. However, he was cutting back in the long runs b/c he was tired as hell. His longest run in that 16 weeks leading up to the race was ONE 17-18 miler and a few 16 milers.

I thought for sure he was going to bonk again at 20 miles. I was wrong. He finished 4th and ran 2:16 (a 3 minute PR).

Once again, he didn't need to do a "twenty miler". His best marathon time came when he did nothing longer than 18 miles.

dude what is your deal? do you really want to go on record as saying that you don't need a long run of over 20M to run your best marathon? and that carries over for all distances? That is a very tough position to hold given the wealth of data supporting long runs, especially for elites. Ten bucks says the amount of elites who run over 2hrs/20M long runs out number your 16M guys by 100:1.

Finally, if this were so good, then why aren't the Hansons ODP themselves running only 16-18M for their long runs????

I'll go on record, for some people.

For some people, that just may be true. I'm simply stating instances where people have run PR's without running a 20 miler in their training.

I doubt it's 100-1. But I'm sure you are not far off. The reason Jeff only did 18 and the rest 16's was that he was just plain tired as hell (most likely already somewhat glycogen depleted) from all the other work and he couldn't handle going another 4-8 miles in his long runs at that particular time in his training. Probably very similar to how David Morris felt running 170-180 miles a week. He probably couldn't handle much more than 90 minutes. in his training at that time.

The MAJOR point I'm trying make is: I don't think it ALWAYS necessary for a person who is going to run less than 50-60 miles a week to run a 20 miler as part of their training. I believe the training gains are not worth the possible risk of injury.

And I never said that carries over for all distances. Where the hell did you read that???? Geez!

I'm giving examples, that's all. You don’t have to get so offended at someone else's success b/c they did something different than what you may personally believe to be correct!!!

So DUDE, what is you deal? It's just an opinion, you don't have to take it personal.....it'll be okay!!!

Dhing

"dude what is your deal? do you really want to go on record as saying that you don't need a long run of over 20M to run your best marathon? and that carries over for all distances? That is a very tough position to hold given the wealth of data supporting long runs, especially for elites. Ten bucks says the amount of elites who run over 2hrs/20M long runs out number your 16M guys by 100:1.

Finally, if this were so good, then why aren't the Hansons ODP themselves running only 16-18M for their long runs????"

The thing that gets me about the hansons marathon program and the people that support it here is that neither party offers any real argument or scientific/physiological explanation about WHY this double tempo run/16M tempo run is supposed to be better than a 20Mer. Or why 16M is somehow this magical number. Or how this ratio of long run to weekly mileage is derived in the first place. it all seems extremely subjective and ad hoc honestly after reading the article. The one thing I do hear is that "it's cumulative fatigue so it is better!" making it sound like CF is totally new or something and no other program offers it, which of course, is total BS. Or the other tact is to say it offer anecodatal evidence of how it worked for them in this specific case. Anyway, I'd be interested in actually hearing a real explanation as to why one is better than the other than just citing catch phrases which don't have a lot of meaning.

Specifically I'd like to hear a physiological explanation for why a tempo run/moderate length run is overall better than a long run. Clearly there are advantages to both, right? But if CF is the real thing motivating this program, why not lower the long run to 10M and have a 10M tempo run the day before? It just seems that the 16M comes out of nowhere really, totally made up.

Um, did you just copy a previous thread and reverse the terms 16M and 20M?

For the Optimal one, 17 mile long runs and 60 miles a week works better than 20 mile long runs and 60 miles a week. So far. Maybe this will change.

No one is ever going to prove that a difference this slight is always better or always worse for a large group of runners. Too many individual differences.

But for goodness' sake, it's not like it's a monster difference. Running an extra 20 minutes when you've already put in 2hrs. + shouldn't m,ake or break your week.

1) I think the point is that 16 miles is not a "magic" number any more than 20 miles is a magic number.

2) There is not and will never be equivocal evidence that 16 miles is better than 20. Too many extraneous variables. That said, we're left to speculate with anecdotal, available scientific theory, and theoretical constructs.

3) 20 miles might not be that big of a deal to an 80+ mile per week runner. Not that big of a percentage of total mileage. The point is that a 20 miler for a 40-50 mile/week runner puts a lot of stress on the person that they aren't used to. It shoots them for the week. In contrast if this same runner were to do a higher total volume with 2-3 longer runs per week, they would effectively be getting the benefits of a long run more frequently than if they concentrated on the one run and plodded through a bunch of short runs the rest of the week.

If you are looking for a physiological rationale, long duration runs are thought to stimulate capillary density through an increase in VEGF and other factors. Also increases mitochondrial density. The stimulus for the latter might be glycogen depletion, which is a current theory. So, if this is true, you could do a glycogen depleting workout that also stimulates capillary density once a week or 3 times per week. I'd vote for 3 times per week. Again, this is speculative, but it's the best we got.

4) There are neuromuscular considerations for training closer to marathon pace. The more you train at a particular pace, the more economical you will be at that pace. Training for the mile makes you more efficient at faster paces, training for the marathon makes you more efficient at moderate paces.

I think the overall point here is that a high volume of work is important for marathon training and that this volume isn't met by focusing on one main long run per week. Of course a 20-miler isn't a problem for people doing a decent volume, but the typical RW program that the mid-packer follows does indeed stress one long run per week that makes up an insane percentage of weekly mileage. The Hanson's program allows for hackers to get in a better volume by not focusing on just one workout per week.

You make some very good points and raise some very good questions. Let see if I can shed some light on a few things.

There isn't a whole lot of science behind it. Just 1. physiological benefits take about 10 days to appear in the body. However there are negative effects i.e. Tiredness, soreness, muscle damage etc. 2. Physiology has also proved that people have a limit on glycogen storage. What is the limit? Seems that most people will say 20 miles. Really hard to tell. It differs from person to person though.

The 16 miler isn't a double tempo run. HUH??? Who said that?

Nobody is saying there is MORE physiological benefit to running 16 miles versus 20. For those people running 50-60 miles or less, I think the physiological gains are minimal and the chance of injury greatly increases in those last 4 miles. I would rather see people (who are running less than 50-60 miles a week) increase their mileage throughout the whole week.

As far is the 16 miler coming out of no where….Kinda like 20 miles isn't it? Who decided 20 mile was the Magical number? I think it just sounds good to a lot of people.

I'm sorry, but I can't give you a "real answer" to why their program is better than traditional plans with 40-50 miles a week with 20 milers prescribed. Just like nobody can give a real answer for the opposite either.

"The thing that gets me about the hansons marathon program and the people that support it here is that neither party offers any real argument or scientific/physiological explanation about WHY this double tempo run/16M tempo run is supposed to be better than a 20Mer. Or why 16M is somehow this magical number. Or how this ratio of long run to weekly mileage is derived in the first place. it all seems extremely subjective and ad hoc honestly after reading the article. The one thing I do hear is that "it's cumulative fatigue so it is better!" making it sound like CF is totally new or something and no other program offers it, which of course, is total BS. Or the other tact is to say it offer anecodatal evidence of how it worked for them in this specific case. Anyway, I'd be interested in actually hearing a real explanation as to why one is better than the other than just citing catch phrases which don't have a lot of meaning."

WOW...What an argument you guys have going on.

When you get down to it, there is no one program that will work for everyone. The Hanson's have created a program that appears to work for a lot of people, but it won't work for everyone. One thing that they do preach is that the runner place the emphasis on the program as a whole, and not put too much attention on any one aspect of it (ie. the long run).

I have heard you guys bring Daniels into the conversation. He pretty much believes that 25% of weekly mileage is what the max long run should be. If you're running 60 mpw, then that would be 15-16. Do you want to call Daniels a quack?

The Hanson's just tend to get beat up by people because they are successful, and have been bold enough to say, this is what we believe. People, myself included, respect them for that. I am amazed at how many people will bash them without even having tried the program. How do you know that it will not work? Just because it doesn't look like a program that you've seen before? I can show you plenty of others that look that way too, but have also been successful.

The bottom line is that the long run does not make you a good marathoner. The MP run does not make you a good marathoner. The tempo-run does not make you a good marathoner. All of these things combined into a cohesive program make you a good marathoner.

mammoth wrote:

Finally, if this were so good, then why aren't the Hansons ODP themselves running only 16-18M for their long runs????

Again, because Hansons ODP guys are running 120 miles a week, not 60.

Were you waiting with baited breath?

mammoth wrote:

Ten bucks says the amount of elites who run over 2hrs/20M long runs out number your 16M guys by 100:1.

ONE MILLION clams says there aren't any elite marathoners who run no more than 60 mpw. What is it with the rubes who try to extract the long run from the context of the weekly mileage? Nobody's said that elites, or even scrubs doing just 80 mpw, should go no longer than 16 for their long runs. Quit being so damn dense, people!

newburg,

My profile is almost identical to yours: mid forties and mid two-fifties. I've been using the Daniels elite plan with a max of about 70 miles per week for the last year. I used Pfizinger for the previous 2 years.

I customize the hard workouts on the Daniels schedule so that the longest runs every third week are three hours and the T/M workouts the two Sundays in between are a little over 2 hours and that includes warm up and cool down.

The importance one gives to the long run versus volume versus speed seems to me to depend on your individual heredity. I think it is possible that some of these elite guys who can run great marathons off of only 16 mile runs are genetically gifted with a high percentage of slow twitch fibers and a naturally higher VDOT.

Folks like me, with no formal running background and a natural predisposition to running 40 yards fast on a football field and doing well on the bench press need aerobic developement through long runs and volume.

Every runner, especially the non-elite, recreational type needs to decide what he most needs to improve.

no sh*t. but this dhing guy likes to bring up other elites who do well on the 16M program. It sounds like he is stretching the program too far.

I like how the hansons make this big deal about cumulative fatigue when practically every single college runner who runs a 8k xc race on saturday and then does a long run of 12-16M on Sunday morning then a Monday workout has been doing that for decades! Good thing the Hansons broke the lid on that training methodology ;) Oh wait, maybe I better not run a 15M for my 8k race though, my LR is too much of my 70M week for such a short race!

Oh wait, maybe with such a simplistic thought pattern you don't belong in an institution of higher learning, did you fake your way in?

http://www.joehenderson.com/archive/home.php?article=1278