Marathon training base-Hadd, McMillan, Hanson so many options

Whatever feels right for you for getting in the most miles is the best option. More is more. Less is less.

That’s pretty good advice-especially seeing I’m an old fart-48- I think it’s very important to really go by how I feel. Thanks. I have to admit, having tried the Hadd and McMillan approaches in the past, they actually both” felt right” and I can see the underlying arguments for both approaches from a physiological standpoint. I might just combine the two -one quicker long tempo and one slower one with lots of doubles. Thanks again

Any other opinions?

Put me down for the McMillan side. If he recall, he has you do 'steady state' runs which are a little slower than threshold, and strides. That puts the emphasis on distance but doesn't ignore speed.

RickyP wrote:

That’s pretty good advice-especially seeing I’m an old fart-48-

Dude, you ain't old.

Don't worry so much about Heart Rate. Go with McMillan calc pace ranges, they take into account daily variables and are effective training guidelines.

Thanks mate re not being old. Good advice too. Cheers! I think I’ll do that and build up to an hour of running at 2.5 hour pace. I’m toying with the idea of a 9day cycle as well to get plenty of recovery between workouts. Any thoughts on long run pace? Again, Hanson’s long run pace and McMillan’s are quite different-Hanson’s is quite a bit quicker for someone aiming for a 3.15 marathon.

You'll be fine if you base your training paces accurately from recent races (as directed by McMillan). I've used them with success for my last two/three training cycles, culminating mostly recently with a hilly marathon of 2:57:00 (I'm 55 years old).

Great! I ran a 5k a couple of Saturday’s ago here in Melbourne, Australia in 19.55. I had a bit of a hiatus from running for a year and have been gradually building back up over the last year or so but haven’t really raced any longer distances than 5k in that time. So I was just going to base the training paces off that run entered into McMillan’s calculator-and at the slower end of the range. Man, that time you ran is bloody fantastic-congratulations-what marathon was it? Thanks again mate for the words of encouragement.

Pick a poison, train by heart rate or train by pace, if you mash the two I would use heart rate for easy days to guarantee recovery and run by pace for workouts. The only time this becomes an issue is whether you should treat long runs like a workout and run them slow or at suggested paces. If your going for a certain finishing time then that requires paces and if you're just running for your self then heart rate is fine. Heart rate is limited in that anything can affect it, caffeine, lack of sleep, time of day, etc etc.

The very best is to contact the new online world class coach. Coach J.S !!! He will help you

reach your dreamgoals. email :

www. coachjs.se

You are getting far too technical for a hobby jogger.

I am an experienced marathon coach who has coached everyone from top ranked elites to 6 hour beginners. I'm going to give you some honest reasonable advice.

Instead of focusing on exact paces focus on slowly and gradually mitigating your limiting factor on race day.

For the level of runner you have described yourself as, the best course of action is slowly and sustainably build up your endurance and add in a some running at marathon rhythm and a little quicker.

You should be able to do this without ever knowing an exact pace or HR,

Gradually lengthen your run and long runs over the course of the cycle.

Weekly add in a quality workout - maybe as simple as 4-5 miles at a higher intensity than marathon pace or some mile repeats at quicker that marathon effort or a longer tempo at marathon rhythm or slightly quicker.

Don;t make rocket science out of it, just use common sense. To run well in a marathon you will obviously need to build up your endurance. Do that logically by giving yourself enough time to slowly and manageably increase a little at a time. Help your body become more efficient (which will help with endurance) as well by adding in a weekly quality workout. No exact paces needed just some quicker effort once per week. Allow your body naturally build up what it can do.

Enjoy the process, see yourself growing. Go into the race with confidence and not anxiety about hitting a certain number on a damn machine.

Oh yes-I’m familiar with his intrusions on these forums. I’d rather slice out my eyeballs and give them to myself as a suppository.

Good advice. Cheers. I have to admit I do like the workouts where you’re hitting paces though. All my easy runs though I just do by feel. So today I did 30 mins around a local 800m track with a softer surface than your usual track. Sort of sandy stuff. I did this at 2.5 hr pace. I enjoyed clicking the laps over at that pace. But I get what you’re saying and will incorporate that philosophy. Cheers mate.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. The Hadd plan that you're discussing was Phase I and was intended as a slow build-up of aerobic strength. It wasn't the totality of the program, as eventually you'd move into Phase II, etc. I somewhat recall Hadd saying that a lot of runners could of course run a strong marathon (or even shorter events) off of Phase I, but, again, it's not the same as McMillan prescribing a particular program leading into a marathon.

The other thing about Hadd is that it is exactly that: a slow build-up of aerobic strength. "Slow" because Hadd believed that the physiological changes that he was seeking took time and couldn't be rushed. I think it's accurate to say that Hadd thought that a bunch of faster running during this phase actually is detrimental because it provides a different physiological stimulus. Clearly Hadd's plan requires a ton of patience, and it may be that you don't have the patience or inclination for it (which is fine, not knocking you).

Which plan makes more sense is a function of a lot of things, but part of it is where you are in terms of fitness and what you've been doing the last 6-12 months. If you're coming back from time off, I'd honestly go with Hadd. The nice thing about Hadd, too, is that it is pretty gentle and you're not trying to crush workouts (let's face it, 60 minutes at 2.5 hour pace is a challenging session especially when you assume some ongoing fatigue from being in the middle of marathon training).

But, as referenced above, I honestly think that your decision should be based in large part also on how you enjoy training. Though I believe in Hadd's approach, all of these plans are decent and you're almost certainly going to get better and faster doing any of them, and life's too short for us amateur runners to follow a training plan that isn't fundamentally enjoyable!

WTF kind of gibberish is this?

+1

The Hadd thread from here is a base phase, not specifically a marathon training program. It's not clear from your original post if this is your first marathon... or what your goals might be. You can't really choose an effective means without knowing the end.

The Hansons plan brought me my first truly breakthrough marathon ( for a hobby jogger) in my early 40s. A yearly Hadd phase has me still improving at age 50.

What an unbearably hobbyjogger thread. FFS stop overcomplicating something so simple.

HobbyJoggerSpotted wrote:What an unbearably hobbyjogger thread. FFS stop overcomplicating something so simple.

The OP's first words, literally, were "hobby jogger here." If hobby jogger threads irritate you, why, oh why, do you inflict the pain on yourself by reading further...?

(he asks, muttering "dickhead" under his breath...)

This gibberish is what Greg McMillan recommends you run steady state runs at. For fast runners it’s known as marathon pace. For slower runners it’s not-it’s the pace you can sustain for an hour. The same way a shorter tempo run is at the pace you can round for an hr. That’s the gibberish. Hopefully you understand. Maybe you don’t. Not my problem.