Pfitzinger Marathon Training Plan: Experiences with the 600m intervals

Unless you are planning on racing 5 min/mile or planning on using a sprint to win your race, 600m reps are a waste of time. You will not call up anerobic energy sources during the marathon, so there is no need to train your anerobic system. And, you are right, injury could occur being you would doing the faster reps on high mileage, which is dangerous for some people. Rather than doing 600s, do repeat miles with a minute rest at threshold pace or a tempo run. These are much more effective workouts for a marathon.

"And, you are right, injury could occur being you would doing the faster reps on high mileage, which is dangerous for some people"

Should read: "And, you are right, injury could occur when doing the faster reps on high mileage, which is dangerous for some people."

And sorry, I misspelled anaerobic a few times

very well said the 600's are a waste of time, especially if the pfitz plans calls for 600's 2 days after your long run

Mileage + Anaerobic Runs = Injury cause your muscles tendons are not fully recovered.

Mileage + Aerobic Threshold Runs = Good reinforcer to your overall endurance.

I'd stay with Pfitz's plan....believe in it because he's got credibility.

#1 He was a great marathoner. He's done it!

#2 He's not a coach that works off what's worked for him before or the new fad. Unlike 90% of coaches that are advising our top athletes, he's actually subjected himself to significant academic rigor. He's a Phd in Ex Phys. Most coaches in the US don't pay the price to combine their experience (art) with the necessary science required to train long distance runners. He's got are & science!

pfitz's plan is very sound. i don't know the science but i improved 12 min on my marathon PR 6 months after starting his plan. i felt like the 600's really made a difference.

the 600's are a good idea, so long as you are fully recovered from the long run first. Give yourself an extra day in between the two workouts with another easy run if you need to.

The 600's will build a level of running efficiency which is more important to a runner aiming for a more competitive time in the marathon like yourself.

You don't need a lot of these runs, and tempo runs are even more important, but devoting a small portion of your training to running efficiency will pay dividends on your performance later.

Californian wrote:Unless you are planning on racing 5 min/mile or planning on using a sprint to win your race, 600m reps are a waste of time.

I heard Frank Shorter speak last fall, and he explained that, in his view, all you need to do to successfully train for the marathon is a 20 mile run and a workout of 400 m intervals every week.

Mind you, he also went on to say that you won't race any faster running 65 miles per week than you will running 35 miles per week.

I attribute that last bit as his minor sellout to the crowd (small local marathon, not many big mileage runners), which I'll let him have, strictly on the basis of past accomplishments. ;-)

As far as the first bit, though - that's how he did it apparently (not the 35 mile weeks obviously, but the other stuff about 400s and a 20 miler). Can't really argue with his success, can you?

So I wouldn't necessarily blow off the 600s so quickly. Pfitzinger has some sorta legitimate credentials too, ya know. :-)

Californian wrote:

"And, you are right, injury could occur being you would doing the faster reps on high mileage, which is dangerous for some people"

Should read: "And, you are right, injury could occur when doing the faster reps on high mileage, which is dangerous for some people."

Hey we're not talking busting 600s at mile pace; we're talking 600s at 5 km pace. This is hardly injury causing speed work.

Why not do a bit of work at this faster gear? It'll make your marathon pace seem a lot easier - can you say RUNNING ECONOMY.

Californian wrote:

Unless you are planning on racing 5 min/mile or planning on using a sprint to win your race, 600m reps are a waste of time. You will not call up anerobic energy sources during the marathon, so there is no need to train your anerobic system. And, you are right, injury could occur being you would doing the faster reps on high mileage, which is dangerous for some people. Rather than doing 600s, do repeat miles with a minute rest at threshold pace or a tempo run. These are much more effective workouts for a marathon.

I would argue that 400-600 intervals are absolutely necessary for competitive marathon success. Look at the training of the overall majority of solid marathoners and without question they do 400-600's fairly regularly. In Dr Rosa's program they do minutes (60 second on/off). KK does 25 x 400 on a 2min cycle, myself and the 2:12-2:20 marathoners I know all did consistent 400-600's. Bordin did 400-500's. Shorter and Steve Jones and Zatopek and Waitz all did consistent 400-600 intervals in their marathon heydays. The athletes I coach who've run decent marathons (females in the 2:35-45 range, masters males in the 2:30 range) all do consistent 400-600's.

Look, 600's at 5k pace is aimed at VO2max development, which essentially means increasing the body's ability to supply O2 to the working muscles. Tempo runs deal with increasing the effectiveness with which you utilize the available O2 delivered. Long MP type runs (ie 15-18 miles at MP) deal with increasing the body's ability to utilize fats as an energy source. All 3 are essential elements to marathon success.

If you bail on the 600's, you bail on developing the VO2max system which by all accounts is a fairly important system to develop if you're goal is to race distance events effectively.

Joe

Joe, might I bother you with some questions off the board? If so, feel free to send an email to me or I can send you one if you leave your address.

Thank you for the responses too!

pfitz pfan wrote:

Joe, might I bother you with some questions off the board? If so, feel free to send an email to me or I can send you one if you leave your address.

Thank you for the responses too!

Just post it here. I'll have better odds of seeing it this weekend here in between taxes and basketball. Won't read any email this weekend.

If you still want to email:

I would argue that Shorter's 400m intervals were benefiting his racing at 5k and 10k. Remember that he rarely peaked and basically did the same training year round. So he simulataneously preparing to race 5k, 10k and marathon.

Joe, I agree that for runners of the creed that you have just mentioned, speed intervals are an ideal component of training. (Although, if you look at Gelindo Bordin's training prior to winning the '88 olympic gold medal, there was almost no training done at VO2 Max pace in the three months prior to the race.) But I think for someone aiming to run a slower pace in the marathon (i.e. 5:30/mile or 6:00/mile or slower), the improvements that could be made from doing a tempo session or building endurance outweigh the potential benefits of running intervals at VO2 max pace. That's just my opinion. Obviously, you have had success at training some of your athletes for marathon incorporating Vo2 Max sessions. But I feel that most non-elite athletes training for marathon need a great deal more aerobic development than they have and should spend as much time as possible developing that before they worry about boosting their Vo2 max. You are so far away from Vo2 Max speed when running a marathon (if you are non-elite) that I see more benefits in trying to bring your lactate threshold closer to your Vo2 max so that you can sustain a higher percentage of your Vo2 max speed.

I followed Pfitz's plan for my last marathon and had good results. I didn't follow the plan exactly but I did do thinks like the 600's closer to the marathon and I think they were important. I had been doing tempo runs and long runs finishing close to marathon pace for so long that it felt fast to run just under marathon pace. The intervals I did in the final 6 weeks or so made marathon pace not feel as fast (I felt like I could easily pick it up from marathon pace). I don't know that they have to be at 5K race pace or any particular pace but as long as on race day you feel like marathon pace isn't a hard effort for the first 15 miles.

Just my opinion.

Joe, Californian, others:

Any insight to what you feel might be the best training approach based on my circumstances and credentials (or lack there of...I will admit, some of my times are very soft), I'd really appreciate the input. As previously mentioned, I have a 2:34 marathon PR. I have had no consistent high mileage since my undergrad days and was hitting 70-80 mpw running back then (14:47 5k, 30:31 10k). Unfortunately, I let life (grad school, job, family) get in the way of any high level training and haven't been tremendously disciplined since then. I have been pretty consistent running in general, but nothing high. I have run 5 marathons in the last eight years (and the last one 2 years ago), all of which have been with half assed, no guidance, run as I feel training. My max mileage was about 65 mpw, and on avg., would probably get between 55-63 mpw for about 2 months. Nothing to go bragging about by any stretch. During these periods, I have run some 10ks in the high 32s/low 33s, a handful of half marathons with the fastest being 1:11:33. Almost all of my post collegiate running involved little to no speedwork other than races, a tempo run here and there, and if really bored, 3-4 800s or 1600 on the track, but the track was not frequent at all.

I finally have the time and what seems like the rest of my life under control for the first time in a long while. For the last few months I have been logging some solid aerobic miles. On average, I am getting between 60-70 for the last 7 weeks and hope to be between 70-80 in a couple of weeks. My plan was to take a very specific plan and try to follow it to the letter in hopes of really seeing what I could do with some proper training under my belt for a marathon. I have heard from friends and many on this board that the Pfitzinger plan has been very successful for people and really liked the approach and decided to go for the 24 week, 70+ miles a week plan for either Chicago or NYC in 2005 and shoot for a sub 2:30 time.

As previously mentioned, I want to do this as intelligently as possible (especially seeing that I have not done that previously) and in reading through became somewhat concerned with the issues people had raised about the value of the 600s (injury, no value in those final weeks leading up to the marathon, etc.). I am certainly by no stretch elite, but feel if I do this right, I have a shot.

Anyhow, any feedback and/or guidance you all might be able to provide would be really helpful. Thanks for your experience and insight.

I don't know about the 600's. I ran sub 2:20:00 and the shortest vo2 max sessions I did was 6 x 800, 6 x 1000, and 5 x 1600. I only did 5 VO2 max sessions with the last one 10 days prior to my race 3 x 1600m @ 4:39. On the other hand, I did numerous tempo runs. I did follow Pete's plan for the Long runs and second longruns.

You said it yourself, you lack direction. The Pfitz/Douglas plan is proven to work for a large number of people and will address the one thing you lack - a calendar that tells you what to do and when to do it. Follow the Pfitz plan as laid out, keep adequate records, see how you race, tweek it the next time out.

The main thing is deciding on a plan that has the greatest odds of working for you with the least chance of injury (which it seems the plan you've settled on does), shutting off your brain and getting to work. The 600's may cause you to break, who knows. I do know that a program is built upon all the components working together into a cohesive system of getting you ready for your event on the right day. If you toss out the 600's, you are not following the system, you are following another system not built on the same fundamental principles that the authors intented and also not the same principles that caused all these other people to run well using it. I cannot imagine that 600's at 5k pace will do anything other than make you a better runner. Now if the 600's were at 1500 pace, well that would be a horse of different color.

Best of luck.

Joe

thanks Joe....I appreciate the feedback.

friend wrote:

I don't know about the 600's. I ran sub 2:20:00 and the shortest vo2 max sessions I did was 6 x 800, 6 x 1000, and 5 x 1600. I only did 5 VO2 max sessions with the last one 10 days prior to my race 3 x 1600m @ 4:39. On the other hand, I did numerous tempo runs. I did follow Pete's plan for the Long runs and second longruns.

Exactly!!! That's how I'm tweaking the 18 week 70 + by Pfitz, he doesn't have a bad plan at all.

Strides

Tempo

Long Runs

Vo2Max IMHO nothing less than 800 meters

Lactate Threshold runs

Are all good for the Marathon...

Joe Rubio mentions that his elite athletes are running 400, 600's for their vo2max. Now, Joe Rubio is talking about athletes with a coach with a sense of direction and ideal training.

These are e-lite athletes that are pretty heavily trained and are accustom to high volume of mileage and speed and assuming with years of training.

Athletes like the original starter of this post and I always try to seek out answers from books or forums. Now I myself trained for the 24 week 70+ mileage and unfortunately got injured with the 600's two days after a 24 miler. I am no elite runner, but hey if I trained for 24 weeks and came out 6 weeks shorts because of some hard vo2max sessions. I know the next time around I'll be improvising the plan thoroughly to my benefits, not all athletes are the same, some can tolerate speed 2 days after a long run and some can't. In my thoughts it all depends on the athlete on how he or she can tolerate without breaking down. If you feel like your going to break down it's better to ease up than suffer the consequence with an injury.