Hansons SOS Marathon Program w/ higher mileage?

what the? wrote:

You people need to stop buying everything you read and use some common sense.

Having run the Hansons program with great results you present an excellent point. The Hansons program has been designed with your advice in mind. They point out time and time again that the long run on every generic program run in RW is nothing more than reproduced crap. They go on to ask us not to BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ. I was guilty of falling into that trap before the Hansons program.

so saying it is crap is enough to believe it? that seems logical. so instead of being spoonfed by one party, you're spoonfed by another.

my point is that saying something is the best because it worked out for a few people is not a good way of proving ANYTHING. look at the variation of training between elite milers - some do a lot of distance, some focus more on speed. some do cross, some do indoors. even elite marathoners there is wide variations in mileage and how much fast stuff they do. i think it is a long stretch to say that THIS program is the best for anyone. especially with nothing more than anecodotal evidence.

what the? wrote:

look at the variation of training between elite milers - some do a lot of distance, some focus more on speed. some do cross, some do indoors. even elite marathoners there is wide variations in mileage and how much fast stuff they do .

Once again you sound just like the Hanson's. That is exactly what they preach. They in no way think that their system is the only system. They are simply providing another opportunity to train for the marathon. Kevin stated that if you are 100% pleased with your training direction, that you should continue what you are doing.

then why are all these other people saying it is the best system and much better than the long run? if tha hansons actually say that in the article (i cant remember if they do or not) that just seems really out of control.

But what the Hansons are spoon feeding taste better...

Now, are you going to tell me that you know my taste buds better than I do as well?

I like how their program is called something of substance but say a long run is not substance. like that doesn't produce fatigue? my god.

I never felt like thet were forcing anything on me or that they are out of control. I went to their clinics because I felt like I needed a change. It worked for me. I think that the reason that many are more defensive of the program is because they have had good results and people on this board are attacking what they don't understand.

Hansons don't put down the long run. They just believe that it is not the single most important factor in training for the marathon.

Keep in mind that Keith ran 20 mile long runs as a 13 year old. He also ran sub 3 hours as a 14 year old. It is not like they don't have a lifetime of experiences in the event ot that they haven't experienced several systems.

actually, read the first page of the article (see p.2 of this thread) they DO put down the long run saying it is "a farce"

They (hansons or RT) say the long run is a farce? I have heard Hansons say "the 20 miler is a farce". I have never heard them say THE LONG RUN IS A FARCE. 20 is just a distance and has little or NO science behind it. I recognize that comes as a major blow to a lot of 2:40 marathoners, but it is true.

actually there is a LOT of science behind it (by long run I mean 20-26M) and there is hardly any science to support what they are claiming.

Explain the science behind a 20-26 mile long then. I want to hear this explanation.

or even better question.

1. Explain the science behind the 20 miler ONLY. Explain why a 21 or 19 miler can't achieve the same thing.

2. Explain with science why a 22 miler is different than an 18?

I prepared for my first 22 marathons by running a 20 mile long run only to later learn that it was short. Does that mean that my 2:16 is not legit? If the Hansons said that a 20 miler is a farce they are correct. A long run is to allow the body to feel what a marathon feels like in the late stages. That can be achieved in several ways. 16 certainly can be long enough.

BY 20, I mean 20+milers. the hansons all think that anything over 20 is a waste of time.

I am NOT saying that you can't run a good marathon off of 16, I take issue with their claim that this is the BEST way to do it.

Listen the burden is on the hansons to show the science if they really think this is scientifically correct. or at least any more convincing than some anecdotal evidence.

A simple google search yields all sorts of results. Check it out sometime. Here's one:

http://www.copacabanarunners.net/i-long-runs.html

The snow melts. Your Gore-Tex suit is back in the closet. Spring marathons loom on the horizon, and runners everywhere are putting in long runs to prepare. But, why run long? What do these annual rites of spring do for you?

There are at least 7 physiological benefits to long runs, and there are other advantages as well. Let's start with the physiology.

#1: Surround your muscle fibers with capillaries. Capillaries are the smallest blood vessels. Several capillaries typically border each muscle fiber. They are the transportation system for the cell, bringing oxygen and fuels in, and waste products such as carbon dioxide out. Long runs increase the number of capillaries per muscle fiber, which improves the efficiency of delivery and removal.

#2: Shuttle oxygen with more myoglobin. Myoglobin in your muscle cells serves a similar function to hemoglobin in your blood-it carries oxygen from the cell membrane to the mitochondria. Long runs increase the myoglobin content of your muscle fibers, so more oxygen can reach the mitochondria to produce energy.

#3: Make mighty mitochondria. The mitochondria are the aerobic energy factories in your cells. Long runs increase the number and size of the mitochondria in your muscle fibers. With more mitochondria, you can produce more energy aerobically, and maintain a faster pace.

#4: Increase aerobic enzyme activity. Enzymes in the mitochondria speed up aerobic energy production. Long runs increase the activity of these enzymes, which improves the efficiency of the mitochondria. So you not only have more and bigger energy factories, but they are also more efficient.

#5: Fill the tank with glycogen. Long runs teach your muscles to store more glycogen. Glycogen is the storage form of carbohydrate, and when you run low, you slow down. How do long runs lead to greater glycogen storage? Running long distances uses up the glycogen in your muscles. Our ancestors were at risk of being eaten when they ran out of glycogen. Fortunately, glycogen depletion stimulates the muscles to store more glycogen-to help prevent future depletion. Because the faster you run the more glycogen you burn, running your long runs at a reasonable pace is a more effective way to deplete your glycogen stores (and hence stimulate the muscles to store more) than jogging.

#6: Burn more fat. Long runs not only increase your ability to store glycogen, they also allow your muscles to conserve glycogen by burning more fat. As you increase your endurance training, you rely more on fat and less on carbohydrates at a given speed. As a result, your glycogen stores last longer. In a marathon, that means that "the wall" moves closer and closer to the finish line.

#7: Muscle fiber masquerade. The higher the percentage of slow twitch fibers in your muscles, the greater your likelihood of success in the marathon. That's because slow twitch muscle fibers naturally have more of the 6 adaptations we've already discussed than do fast twitch fibers. Well, for those of you not genetically endowed with a high proportion of slow twitch muscle fibers, there is good news. Long runs give your fast twitch fibers more of the characteristics of slow twitch fibers. So, although top sprinters will never become world-class marathoners, with enough training their fast twitch fibers will gain some of the beneficial attributes of slow twitch fibers. There may be hope for Flo-Jo after all!

Finally, there are psychological and even spiritual benefits to the long run. By running long, you simulate what your legs and body will go through in the marathon. When your hamstrings tighten up 23 miles into the race, it helps to have experienced a similar feeling in training, so you realize that you can shorten your stride a few inches and keep going. During your long runs, you also experience the connection of the mind and body. As you learn to relax and concentrate, you will begin to look forward to extending your body's limits.

How far is long enough?

There is no scientific evidence here. A clear tradeoff exists, however, between running far enough to stimulate physiological adaptations and remaining uninjured. Experience suggests that steadily building up your long runs to 21 or 22 miles will maximize your chances of reaching the marathon in top shape and healthy. Try adding 1 mile to your long run per week, skipping every third week. For example, if your current long run is 14 miles, your long run schedule would be: week 1 (15 miles), week 2 (16 miles), week 3 (no long run), week 4 (17 miles), week 5 (18 miles), week 6 (no long run), week 7 (19 miles), week 8 (20 miles), week 9 (no long run), then a 21 or 22 miler week 10. Ideally, the longest run should occur 3-4 weeks before the marathon, followed by a taper.

Run long, and be confident that you are training correctly to prepare yourself-physiologically, psychologically, and perhaps spiritually-for the rigors that lie ahead. As race day approaches, remember to cut back your training, apply vaseline as necessary, and think positive. A successful spring marathon to everyone!

I used to run for the Hanson's so I do know a bit more than most on here about their training plan. A lot is being blown out of proportion here.

The Hansons do not claim to have reinvented the wheel. Their plan for the average joe jogger(That is who this plan is directed at) is a bit more practical and not too much over the top. They try to get people out the door more than 4 or 5 days a week. There are a lot of plans that teach running 5 to 8 mile runs a couple times a week than a long run of 20 miles on the weekend. That is crazy and although it might in some strange way get you ready for a marathon it might also injury you and make you not want to train for another marathon.

All they are saying is that you should get out the door 5 or 6 days a week and run a more realistic day to day volume and not worry as much about the long run. Being on your feet for a long period of time is good but it shouldn't be feared and looked at as the Holy Grail. Most intelligent coaches would not tell their runners to go out and run a long run that is 33% of their weekly mileage. It just doesn't seem safe and it sure as hell doesn't sound fun.

There is too many wires getting crossed in this thread and I do not have the time or nerve to attempt to clear up the mess. Even if I did a good job of addressing all those issues, someone would still take what I wrote out of context and twist it around.

I feel this is a good plan for those new to running marathons or those that are injury prone. To reach more of ones potential I do think you need to run at least 80 miles a week and than doing a 20 miler would make more sense.

I make a claim that a strict diet of Fruity Peebles, running with a small shaved dog and listening to Three 6 Mafia is the BEST way to train for a marathon.

OK, I wrote the article, so I'll chime in here, and await the return flamethrower fire.

First, Kevin & Keith never said they're against long runs as part of marathon training - just the notion that if you don't do at least one (and often several) 20 milers, you're training is less than optimal.

A couple of case in points:

Euro schedules are made out metrically, and most top out at 30km for long run. As Kevin said, "are Europeans 1.6 miles less prepared for a marathon than Americans?" For instance, yesterday, I directed a 30km tuneup run for people doing Boston or another spring marathon. Several people, after crossing the finish, turned right around and ran back on the course. I know they were heading out to do another 1.4 miles to get to the "magic" 20 mile mark. Honestly, will that 1.4 miles make any difference come marathon day?

Second, and perhaps most to the point, the Hansons' main objection to the emphasis on 20 milers is that such focus reduces the relative importance and effort given to the other workouts during the week. While several of these are easy recovery days, their plan calls for marathon pace runs one day and speed or strength workouts on another. It's their contention that for a runner doing 40-50 mpw, 20 miles is close to 50% of the weekly mileage. And many runners who do this rest or taper the day before and after the long run, and then are still too tired to do anything beyond easy mileage the rest of the week. So those are 2 days a week that no training is happening at all, and the other 4 only mimimal work.

Plus, it's this "all the eggs in one basket" approach that they object to - they don't say the long run is unimportant, just that it's no more important than the MP or strength workouts. The flip side of the the coin is Galloway's philosophy that the long run is the ONLY thing that matters, and you can pretty much jog a few miles or rest the other days of the week.

When I was researching the article I met plenty of people who had trained the traditional way, plateaued, then tried the Hansons' plan just for something different and lowered their PR by substantial amounts. Hey, maybe they were shills paid off by the Hansons to feed me false testimonials.

Bottom line, neither the Hansons nor I are saying this is the only one true way to train for a marathon. But it is a viable plan, and might make more sense for a lot of average runners (some of whom it might NOT work for - there are always a percentage who will get by on something else). But is there any overwhelming reason not to give it a try, especially if you've been stuck in a time rut, aside from people's assertions that "it can't work, because scientifically it shouldn't."

Well, aerodynamically a bumblebee can't fly, either.

why should we follow the europeans? they are much worse than we are!!! especially in the 60m/week guys, we beat them hands down.