The Hansons marathon program, as outlined in the March '5 issue of Running Times, peaks at about 60 miles per week. Suppose one wants to get up to 80-85 per week -- would it be best to just multiply daily mileage figures by 140%? Is it that simple? Has anyone used this program but at higher than 60 miles/week? What was your approach?
bump
No, it's not quite that simple. I think you have the right idea, in theory, but you'll of course want to break some of those days up into doubles and you might not want to do 140% of the speedwork. Basically just pad the mileage as you feel and don't let any one run (i.e. the long run) exceed 27-30% of your training volume.
Thanks, this is about what I was thinking, that most of the additional miles would be aerobic. Although I believe I'd stick with singles up to 80 miles/week.
How about the marathon pace runs? I'm curious as to whether those should be any longer than in the 60 miles/week program (which has MP runs topping out at 10 miles). I did up to 15 miles at MP before my last marathon and handled those okay but looking back think I might have been better off limiting them to about 12 miles. Also the Hansons program has MP runs every week which is more frequent than I was doing them, so another reason to keep them a little shorter.
First thing I would do it add mileage to the day off. Then adding 2 doubles would probably get you up to 80.
As far as the MP workouts, I would probably rotate continuous runs with repeats.
Say your up to 9 miles on your MP's. One week do 9 at MP. Then, the next week, break them up into 3 mile increments. Maybe do 1 at +10 sec MP, 1 at MP, and 1 at -10 MP.
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.
What's a "real long run"??
for the marathon - 20M or longer. hansons only want you doing 16 or less.
Go with 12-mile MP runs, then. Customizing it to your personal situation is more ideal than ANY cookie cutter program.
SOunds like you think 16 isn't enough? Do you happen to David Morris' longest run leading up to his then american record?
Answer: 90 minutes!!!
Total mileage and cumulative fatigue is the answer. Not one single "LONG" run.
"for the marathon - 20M or longer. hansons only want you doing 16 or less"
that's great he got by on that, if it is in fact true, right? but all the hansons elite runners actually do 20+ mile long runs. nearly all elite marathoners do 20 mile long runs or longer.
don't evern get me started on this cumulative fatigue BS they are promoting. 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.
and nowhere did i ever say that one long run was better. i meant that a 20Mer is better than doing a 16Mer. You still need to do all the tempo runs, etc.
sounds like this guy did pretty well with 20Mer's:
The Running Times article focused on a program for higher level recreational runners who have busy, well-balanced, adult lives. It's not the Hanson elite program.
He was also running 120 miles a week. The point of the Hanson's thing is to not make the long run the Holy Grail if you intend on not running high mileage when preparing for a marathon. If you are going to do it on lower miles you are better off to focus on consistent running over each week and getting more moderate long runs (such as an hour) then putting a huge effort into a long run. Save your huge effort for the marathon. If you have ever been in that position, you know you can get much more bang for your buck with more hour runs then over emphasis on a magical 20 miler.
Obviously I'm far, far from elite -- I'm in my late 40s and would like to run 2:50-2:53. And I won't be running anywhere near the mileage Hansons elite guys run. I can manage 80-85 tops. So this is why I got the discussion started on how to modify the published Hansons program for someone of my ilk. I've run 20-22 milers and won't rule those out but am thinking 18 might be better if I do other things differently also. I'm glad to get all opinions on this, keep them coming.
"I've run 20-22 milers and won't rule those out but am thinking 18 might be better if I do other things differently also."
I would agree. Up some of the other runs during the week. As you get in better shape add some more intensity to them. Also, you make sure you monitor how you feel and make sure some of those moderate longer runs are controlled. Just my 2 cents. Good luck!
Is there an online link anywhere to the Hanson's training program or the Running Times article?
I don't see why you have to rule out long runs all together. Frankly if I am running 60M a week I just won;t run the 4-5 20+ long runs I normally would as a 90M a week guy. And maybe do 3 or 4. In the space of a 3-4month buildup, having these long runs there isn't going to wreck a seasoned vet, and I'll get more benefit then some regular one hour long runs since it is training me specifically for the marathon. Cutting them out all together seems pretty foolish. Why not keep a few of them in there? Is 12M extra (going from 3 16M long runs to 20M long runs) over the span of a quarter of a year really going to be this huge detriment? NO.
I am not ruling out the long run. I am commenting on not making the long run the Holy Grail of a lower mileage marathon training program (let's say 60 miles a week). I still think that you should get one longer run in each week, but no so long that it takes away from the other runs during the week. If you are running 60 miles a week I don't think getting one third of that mileage in one day is that good of an idea. I feel, in the end it is going to be the consistent running through out the week and moving the length of those runs up that is going to do more for you.