NY Times writer does Hanson's marathon training - PRs by 16 minutes

oatmeal + water wrote:

dude really? you really think a 16 minute improvement for a 4 hour marathoner is due to the hansons training method?

anyone with legs should be able to get under 4 with decent volume.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

The story of a marathoner who reduces her mileage and adds quality to go from 4:40 to 3:40 will never make the headlines here.

Querfeldein wrote:

I'll never be as fast as you and probably won't run 100+ miles on a regular basis, but I can't imagine not running at least 30 miles per week barring serious injury, illness, or (really) old age. I'm sure there's time to fit 30 miles in every schedule.

I can't speak for Rojo, but maybe my story is a partial answer to your question. After 15 years of training, a regular mileage of 70 - 90 mpw, and PRs including 32:18 for 10K and 2:29 for the marathon, I felt pretty much the same as you. I couldn't perceive running less than 30 mpw for the foreseeable future.

Then real life intervened. I married and now have 3 young children. My job became more senior and demanding - only 50 hours per week, but often quite intense. I took on a contract on the side - that takes another 10 hours per week. In return for all that work, I receive an insane amount of money. But between the family, the work, and the rapid passing of the years, I simply don't have the physical and emotional energy to run at all in some weeks. When I do run, it's only 10 - 20 rather slow mpw.

Looking back on my golden years of running, I recognise a certain fundamentalism. Not in the sense of converting anybody else, but in the attitude I took to my own running. And fundamentalism of most kinds is the mark of somebody on the sidelines. People unwilling to compromise find it hard to take that first step towards living a full and balanced life.

I know Rojo struggles with writing, but those are 15 minute responses? Dude needs to do some speed typing courses.

Like a lot of people have said, a 16 minute PR from an admittedly bad earlier marathon really isn't too out of the blue when following a better training schedule.

I ran a crappy 3:31 in my first marathon a few years ago following the Hudson plan, then followed it up the next year with a 3:15 using the Pfitzinger 12/70. I don't think Pfitz's plan is necessarily that much better, but giving myself the better base and learning from the first go around helped me cut a lot of time.

Now, the real challenge (for me) will be trying to BQ (3:05) in my next one. I've been debating working with the Pfitz plan again since it seemed ok, but the Hanson's plan is kind of appealing. Anyone done both and care to comment?

Good for her. At least she improved her time.

I'm not sure it should've been that exhausting though.

She said about the training:

"This was exhausting, and draining. I found myself canceling dates with friends and family, and crashing at 8 p.m"

Myabe she over-trained or something especially if she hadn't run much before + she got 2 injuries.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote but I also don't disagree with many people criticizing her. I think the criticism is directed at the idea she seems to be presenting, i.e. that the time and tiredness that came with training for a marathon was somehow an imposition. I haven't read every post, but many that I've read are saying that running a marathon is hard to do and if you're going to do it properly it's going to take some time and you're going to feel tired and sore frequently.

She's a pedestrian runner and found a way to improve. Good for her. Yes, the mileage bump and focus she had, if she had followed ANY style plan, probably would have led to a faster time. If the style of the Hanson's plan is what made her comfortable with attempting the increase, then that is what makes it a good plan in this case.

She's also a freelance journalist. Probably wouldn't have sold the story if the tone of the article was "This is what I followed. Not sure if it helped or not, but I had a good race."

I also don't think she should be criticized for her summary about how hard it was and maybe not wanting to do it again. So many (on LR especially) bemoan the "participation" crowd at marathons. I think should could have explained it differently, but the fact that she talks about how hard it is might just cause a few of those to rethink entering a marathon lightly.

As for the plan, the linked article (about the 41 yr. old with the 2:38) and a friend's experience have me intrigued enough that I may well try if next time I decide to run a marathon.

Four on my racing team used the Hanson method this year for Boston. All four were sub 3 hour guys at Boston the year before in the heat. All ran over 3 hours and said they would never use it again. One said he ran completely out of gas and started cramping at 17 miles. Before trying the Hanson program they did 50-60 miles a week with marathon pace thrown into 18-22 mile runs and long 800-mile repeats during the week. So respectfully the Hanson program was a step backward. They bought into the hype. People need to realize this is a program for the slow four hour types. In addition Adam Buckley Cohen ran several marathons that year close to that time and had a perfect day at Chicago for that one. He used the program only for Chicago. So using him as an example is deceptive. Most seasoned marathoners or serious runners would be better served to modify the elite program at the back of the book.

bluemt95 wrote:

With Hanson's, you have more steady fatigue in your legs week after week after week. The day off is mid week after your track workout, not before or after your long run. You run a 8-10 mile tempo on Thursday, 6-8 miles on Friday, and 16 on Saturday.

This might be a dumb question, but I don't quite understand the logic behind this.

If the objective is to run your "long" under cumulative fatigue, doesn't it make more sense to take Monday off rather than Wednesday? That way, your "long" will be on the last day of six straight days of running. What's the rationale behind taking a day after your speed workout and before your tempo?

My general feeling is that anyone who's at the beginner level is going to improve by simply logging more miles. I ran my first marathon at 21, four months after taking up running, in 3:26. Exactly one year later, on the same course, I ran 3:00. And the year after that 2:48.

I think the reason you hear so many noobs discussing and promoting training plans is that it makes them feel as if they're taking it more seriously by saying they're folowing "The Beta Plan". Plus, how many of them (or even us) would be able to competently assemble a training plan?

If you actually read the article you can sense how serious she was about the actual race. She made reference to "mowing" people down over the second half!

I'm not sure how closely she really stuck to the Hansons plan. 

In the link Rojo provides, Jen Miller says she ran 562 miles during the 18-week remaining program. The actual Hansons book charts out two main training regimens -- a Beginner and an Advanced option. The Beginner version tops out at 57 mpw, the Advanced at 63.

The Advanced plan calls for a total of 895 training miles, while the Beginner plan requires a total of 690 training miles. Both those numbers are well above the 562 miles Miller cites.

To put this gap in perspective, the Hansons Beginner Plan calls for 23% less mileage than the Hansons Advanced Plan. The 562 miles Miller says she ran in training is nearly 19% less than the Hansons Beginner Plan itself. At an average of 31.2 training miles per week over the course of the plan, Miller's mileage is getting surprisingly close to the levels advocated by programs like the Furman/FIRST ("Run Less, Run Faster") program for repeat marathoners.

Yes, Furman/FIRST advocates only running three days a week, versus six days a week under the Hansons plan.  But when someone deviates that much from the actual plan mileage, it's hard to say exactly what, if anything, their results represent.

YMMV...