Marathon Book

"Advanced Marathoning", Pete Pfitzinger and Scott Douglas

I also found the "snippets" of training of big time runners that were in "The Lore of Running" by Tim Noakes, to be useful.

Good luck

Joseph McVeigh wrote:

"Advanced Marathoning", Pete Pfitzinger and Scott Douglas

Ditto.

If you are a newer runner you might want to check out Hal Higdon's "Marathon". It has a lot of practical training advice for people who just want to safely complete a marathon.

But for my buck, I think the Pfitzinger/Douglas is the best by far. Most of the marathoners I run with use it as their training bible.

Thanks, well Not new but were 4:20 and 4:08 and now want to be more competive may be less of 4:00:00

Thanks

try with Dr. Daniles is Good : Running formula

I personally think Pete's book, Road Racing for serious runners is a better book. It covers the various distances as well as the marathon. The one specific to the marathon really adds little more than the first book. I think if I were to buy just two books on running they would be Pete's and the Daniels Running formula. They are hard to beat.

wantarun wrote:

I think if I were to buy just two books on running they would be Pete's and the Daniels Running formula. They are hard to beat.

Both are great books and are good for the person wanting "just the basics". They are easy reading for anyone without requiring much scientific knowledge of running. But if you want to learn as much as possible you need to go beyond just Daniels and Pfitzinger and read books like Better Training for Distance Runners and Lore of Running.

Just get Dean Karnazes's to tell you how to run them.

Then you'll be badass!

My recommendation:

The Self-Coached runner by Lawrence-Scheid.

I suggest the Jack Daniels book, it has some good marathon training programs and formulas, etc.

I certainly have to endorse the books by my friends Pfitzinger and Daniels. I spent lots of time with those guys long before their books and know they have been thinking about running and reading and learning everything they could for many decades.

Tom

Advanced Marathoning by Pfitzinger/Douglas.

yellowcab wrote:

try with Dr. Daniles is Good : Running formula

I liked the follow-up (Da Nile: Not a River in Egypt) better.

It sounds damn near unanimous. I won't try to talk anyone out of Daniels of Pfitz, both of which I own. But I just want to register one contrary vote for more of a malmo-Hansons approach, with

- shorter long runs as a % of the week's volume

- longer slower (more like MP) tempos

- freaking *doubles*, for god's sake this singles fetish apparently inspired by Pfitz & exercise physiologists is just so wrong. If you only have time for singles that's one thing, but wherever everyone got the notion that singles are always better than doubles, well, if the same source directs you to drink some kool-aid you might wanna think twice.

- basically, high and consistent mileage not a handful of heroic workouts (some of the shit Pfitz's book prescribes is pretty much race efforts to me - you wanna put in a race effort, run a race, not an overfast overlong tempo)

Anyhow it works better for me. And I suspect has, does, and would, for a hell of a lot of runners. I realize Daniels has a ton of great coaching experience and Pfitz was one of our better distance runners for a while. But I think they both put too damn much emphasis in their books (though probably not in their actual coaching and training) on interpretations of studies from the world of exercise physiology vs. empirically tested real-world results.

Yeah I know I sound like I'm parroting malmo but I happen to agree, and this sort of thing happens in other fields too, all over the place, especially these last three decades or so. We're so gaga over anything that we can quantify, anything the produces - TA DA!! - a number, like a lactate percentage or a VO2 reading or (in audio, for another example I'm especially familiar with) a frequency response or THD (total harmonic distortion) that we close our eyes to everything else we knew and lose the forest for the trees.

But to each his own - ya pays yer money, ya takes yer choice. And hopefully ya learns from the experience.

All of these coaches and more, like my coach Bill Squires, know that success comes from thinking and adapting. But when you write books about training you have to codify a formula, list workout tables, schedules, and make a system. They come to look like rules. They don't see runners as universal machines waiting for a program.

As I remember from Strunk and White's Elements of Style, a book full of rules about writing. "Break any of these rules rather than say anything outright barbarous."

So I've always tried to avoid being a barbarian.

Tom

I understand the last two post and agree, but the Books give us some structure to people that don't know much about Marathon themes. Or may be one Good thread here or Internet link to learn about marathon training principles ?

Thanks

Well, prescriptions like 7 miles @ 15k pace within a 12 mile overall run, in the middle of a week full of miles and workouts and 22 mile long runs, is a pretty concrete instruction. To me, the runner who does that is not only racing his workout, but he's got a really soft 15k PR and probably doesn't know how to taper and race well.

I absolutely agree with you, Tom, and E.B. White (hard to find much to argue about with him) - think, adapt, don't be a slave to the rules. And it's in this context that I think Pfitz's and Daniel's books offer the most value, in the principles and advice, more than the concrete schedules. Though (a) I think many if not most readers want these books for the schedules - so they can be told exactly what to do every day precisely to relieve them of the burden of thinking and adapting, and (b) I'm not sure I believe all the principles in Pfitz are a great pfit for many runners. It's too much Pfitz the labcoated researcher, not enough Pfitz the successful runner.

With all the talk about how the internet age has ushered in a return to old-skool training principles hence a return to American distance running competence, I'm interested to see if there'll be a new generation of books reflecting more of these principles - or if this school of thought remains on the net (and the roads, tracks, and trails).

So you claim, Tom. But you can't fool all the letsrun readers all the time - are you seriously gonna tell us these aren't the same person?

please dont squeeze the garmin wrote:

- freaking *doubles*, for god's sake this singles fetish apparently inspired by Pfitz & exercise physiologists is just so wrong. If you only have time for singles that's one thing, but wherever everyone got the notion that singles are always better than doubles, well, if the same source directs you to drink some kool-aid you might wanna think twice.

- basically, high and consistent mileage not a handful of heroic workouts (some of the shit Pfitz's book prescribes is pretty much race efforts to me - you wanna put in a race effort, run a race, not an overfast overlong tempo)

.

Garmin, don't get your panties in a wad. Pfitzinger NEVER trained anything like he recommends in his book. NEVER ONCE. He's trying to sell some advice to the masses. With that goal in mind, the book is worthwhile. If your goal is to train to be the best marathoner you can be, the book is absolutely worthless.

Excellerate wrote: Garmin, don't get your panties in a wad. Pfitzinger NEVER trained anything like he recommends in his book. NEVER ONCE.

You know that, I know that. I'd be happier if he mentioned it in his book, and happier if some of this stuff didn't get repeated ad nauseum as gospel around these and other parts. It's real easy to spend one's first few years in this game following bad advice while you try and separate wheat from chaff.

But I'll take your well-intentioned advice. Which comes a little late - my panties already got thoroughly wadded, so now I guess I'll have to take an iron to 'em.