Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
"Advanced Marathoning" - Pfitzinger & Douglas
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
The RW schedules I referred to were the magazine ones published in 2003. I still have a photocopy pinned on the kitchen wall:
sub 4 Week 1:
8mile in 1:14
5mile in 0:44 (marathon pace)
4 mile in 0:37
8x400m in 94-100secs
so the pace of the speed is 6:16-6:40/mile
whereas their marathon pace is 8:48/mile
On that schedule I ran 4:05, so missed the sub-4, but wasn't far off their marathon pace - I kept up 8:50 for 20 miles before fading. I tried to do the speedwork at the paces suggested, but couldn't - I felt sick - I was working absolutely flat out and couldn't manage it.
2 years on and I'm running a minute/mile quicker (3:41) but I reckon I still couldn't manage those speeds.
I reckon the RW schedules are aimed more at the low mileage faster (talented?) runners capable of 6:30/mile who want to do a marathon on 30-40 miles/week, rather than the likes of me, less talent (ie less raw speed) but better aerobic condition whose main focus is the marathon.
One of the key things for me (and something I see loads of clubmates and read about people on RW doing) is running the easy days too hard. Whether we're talking 70% or 75% MHR or 70% WHR or whatever the key thing is to keep it them at a pace which does not interfere with the key sessions. This will depend on a range of internal and external factors - work stress, travel etc.
Then looking at the key sessions, P+D, like Hadd, don't try to squeeze too much in, rather making sure the sessions are run well whilst fresh and you leave time afterwards to make sure the adaptations take place properly.
A big difference is the pace of the long run, which at the moment for me is a time on feet run (which P+D disagree with). What I do have is 2 runs of medium long pace with harder sections in the middle.
Also, P+D seem to have one `hard focused' (for want of a better term) session per week, then a session of strides and a long run at good pace and a medium run. I tend to have a long run at easy pace, 2 long interval sessions and put in some strides weekly.
Also, it depends on where you are coming from. First time round with Hadd I did a lot of work at just slower than marathon pace as I was aerobically undertrained.. This time round, I'm finding more work at marathon pace and just quicker than marathon pace as that is where the toothpaste is in the tube right now:-)
I found when I was adding bits of other people's ideas (like MM did with doing more races than P+D suggest) that I was overdoing it. However it is a case of experimenting and finding what your body can cope with and what produces gains. I don't think many elites race 8 times in the 12 weeks leading up to a marathon but it did for MM's friend and MM himself. I know of many runners who have run excellent 20 mile races 5 weeks pre-London and / or great HMs 3 weeks out then bombed on the big day. Then again others haven't.
Having said all that, wish I'd read this book 5 years ago...
I'd tried a year of Hadd, and liked it. I tried the P&D schedule as it agreed with what I liked about the Hadd method.
The schedule has convinced me that there's not much wrong with either approach, but P&D taught me that:
I can handle 2 'hard' days in a row provided they are different types of session, eg a speed session followed by a medium-long run, or a short race followed by a long run (I don't think I could do a long run followed by a race though, which makes racing on a Sunday a touch tricky). I did find though, that the weeks with races were tough, and I thought I'd have been better doing an easier session rather than the race. By 'race' I mean absolutely flat out. (I did some big PBs during the schedule, at 5 miles, and 5k, but I'd hesitate going further than 10k in races.)
However, I think I need more marathon pace/ threshold runs, as I was hoping I'd see some progression in the my LT, which doesn't appear to have been the case. (I think I said this earlier in the thread)
As I've stated previously elsewhere on these forums, I tend to train by pace rather than by HR. I know that HR is probably a 'better' way to train as if training by pace you need to frequently 'benchmark' pace progress by racing - i.e. my previous best race was a HM and I used that to predict performance at other distances using the McMillan calculator, which also gives training paces for each type of session based on performance at a particular distance.
I've just knocked a substantial chunk off my 10K PB, so now when I replace the HM time in the calculator with my 10K time, the picture looks rather different.
Using my HM time, the calculator gives paces for LSD runs as 8:51-9:51 pace, and 8:51-9:21 for easy runs. Using my 10K time, I should now be running 8:16-9:16 for LSDs and 8:16-8:46 for an easy run.
The 10K PB was set a couple of weeks ago whereas my half PB was back in March, but obviously the difference in pace is quite significant. Was my previous LSD and easy pace too slow, or is my current LSD and easy pace too fast? How can I tell without using a HRM? I'm feeling OK on it at the moment but am worried this is a post-race 'honeymoon period' when all running feels fairly effortless for a couple of weeks before it all comes crashing down.
It would also depend what you're training for. P+D advise marathon pace + 10-20% for MARATHON long run training. Are you training specifically for a marathon, or to bring times down over shorter distances? That might have some bearing on the importance and pace of the long run in your training week.
Currently I'm looking to improve my half PB in 7 weeks' time, then to aim for a sub-3:30 marathon at FLM in April. During this period between now and April I probably won't race anything shorter than 10M, if I race at all. For FLM 2005 I ran a half 5 weeks out - didn't push 100% and still PBed by quite a big margin. For FLM 2004 (my first marathon) I didn't race at all during the training. Next time round I may do a couple of races but no more than that.
So to answer your question, I'm training now specifically for a half, and following that will be training specifically for a marathon.
... still thinking about the scoring model.
What you can handle in a regular week in terms of distance and intensity will be more than you can handle during a particularly busy week work / family wise.
Miles makes smiles.
Progression
Miles makes smiles.
Progression
"The schedule is not rocket science – there are no ‘magic’ sessions that suddenly make you a faster runner - its success is following a systematic build-up and straight forward hard work. The marathon is an endurance event that requires a long steady build up starting as early as possible."
Particularly the last sentence - starting as early as possible.
In my first marathon I ran 50-60 mpw most weeks, peaking at 63 miles (which I thought was a huge amount at the time) and ran 3:14.40. Right now I'd just concentrate on building up the miles and the days spent running steadily.
WS, BR,
Yep, sorry, I guessed I should have clarified my question a bit better. I'm just a little confused as to the use of the term "threshold" in relation to marathon-paced running as it's nowhere near any sort of physiological threshold. In truth, I think any run at a pace below lactate threshold could be reasonably described as an "aerobic threshold" run, so, for me at least, it's easier to define the pace / HR intensity of an "aerobic threshold" run to avoid any ambiguity. By contrast, lactate threshold and VO2 max sessions have well defined intensities correlating to ~85% WHR / 10M - 1/2M race pace(as you mentioned BR) and >90% WHR / 3-5k race pace, respectively.
WS,
The pace of the 400m intervals in the RW schedule that you posted is barking mad!!!
BR,
I totally agree about the problem of "running easy days too hard". When I first strapped on a monitor about 18 months ago I discovered that I was running all of my easy runs too hard.
In terms of differences between P&D and Hadd, I don't think I'd go so far as to say that there is 90% overlap between the two. For instance, lactate threshold training is integral to both types of plan. But for P&D, it is included in week 6 of their 24 week, 70+ mpw training plan, in which 4M @ 10M - 1/2M race pace is included in a 10M training run. In other words P&D include LT training for which a runner-specific intensity is prescribed i.e. based on that indiviuals 10M - 1/2M race pace and accompanying HR intensity. Whereas, Hadd suggests that "initial lactate threshold heart rate" should be 155-160 bpm regardless of what your max HR is, providing it is over 193bpm (see see - Hadd pt.6). For me (with a max of 205bpm), 155-160 bpm represents 76-78% max, which is way below marathon intensity (171-180 bpm). Hadd then suggests that you should then build up to being able to run at this intensity for 10M without any drift in HR, or drop in pace, before increasing HR zone another 5bpm and repeating the whole process. So this would take 3 rounds (155-160 bpm, 160-165 bpm, 165-170 bpm) until I reached the bottom end of marathon intensity. So clearly, in my case at least, the ILT session of Hadd is at a much lower intensity that P&D's LT session, at least initially and would take many, many months to evolve into a session conducted at 1/2M - 10M race intensity. There are other substantial differences, but we can chat about these at Worksop tomorrow ;-)
URR,
I've not seen "Lore of Running" book. I have seen the % of peak mileage applied in JD's marathon training plan in "Daniel's running Formula" and in P&D's "Road Racing for Serious Runners". If you're asking about the relationship between response to training stress (Figures 1.1 - 1.4 in Daniel's Running Formula) and JD's marathon training plan I'd need to give that some serious thought.
LW2,
I did the 24 week plan last time through and although the marathon turned out well I found it difficult to maintain focus for that lenght of time. Next time I plan to be working on 10k - 1/2M up to ~12-18 weeks out from the marathon and then train specifically for a marathon race from there. But it's very much a personal thing.
The danger is people jumping straight in to one of these P+D schedules without being optimally aerobically developed. Well, not a danger really, but they would enter at a higher point having been through a toothpaste squeezing process. That is not revolutionary, just the same as Lydiard saying to spend as long on the base phase as you can before moving into specific training. Note also Mike Gratton's early schedule where it's all easy running with the odd XC race.
My reference to 90% overlap comes in the overall advice in the book re. fuelling, hydration, recovery etc.
I always though that your easy runs were too hard. Do you think that was the biggest factor in your marathon improvement since switching to the P+D training?
Unfortunately, the only training information from Hadd that is readily available (as far as I'm aware) are the postings that I linked to - Hadd's Approach to Distance Training. So, it is impossible for me to comment on any other ideas that Hadd may have regarding training as I've never seen them. It's a bit like P&D posting the first 6 weeks of their 24 week marathon plan on the web, calling it "P&D's Approach to Distance Training and then only sending me the next 18 weeks of the schedule.
So would it be fair to say that Hadd's postings might be more accurately entitled "Hadd's Approach to Distance Training - Part 1: Base Training"?
A general question follows on from Hadd's Base Training phase. It seems that Hadd places a good deal of emphasis on the pace relationship across race distances, for instance, Hadd argues that as the race distance doubles, race pace should decrease by a fixed amount if you're optimally trained from the standpoint of having maximised aerobic development e.g. 5k 5:30 min/mile, 10k 5:45 min/mile, ~1/2M 6:00 min/mile, Marathon 6:15 min/mile.
For me recent race times look like this:
10k 35:11 - 5:39 min/mile
1/2M 1:17:18 - 5:54 min/mile (+15 sec/mile)
Mara 2:43:59 - 6:15 min/mile (+21 sec/mile)
So from these numbers, it would seem that I have some work to do to improve my aerobic capacity according to Hadd and the suggestion implicit in his postings is that if I had (no pun intended) spent more time following his "Base Training" approach that I would've achieved a better result in the marathon, perhaps being able to run 6:09 min/mile (i.e. 15 sec/mile slower than 1/2M pace) to finish in ~2:41:00.
However, if we look at your numbers, (and this is my recollection of the sort of times you were running prior to your two 2:42 marathons, please correct me if I'm way out)
10k 34:00 - 5:28 min/mile
1/2M 1:14:00 - 5:39 min/mile (+11 sec/mile)
Mara 2:42:00 - 6:11 min/mile (+32 sec/mile)
So according to Hadd (see Hadd - pt.1) you are much less well aerobically conditioned that I am.
So, I basically "jump(ed) straight in to one of these P+D schedules without being optimally aerobically developed" and managed to maintain a somewhat tight pace/distance relationship whereas you have followed Hadd for a long time and have a much poorer pace/distance relationship. So my question is as follows. If Hadd's Base Training is supposed to get you into the "best possible shape to start marathon training" why is it that my pace/distance relationship is much better than yours? i.e. Why is my aerobic conditioning much better than yours despite the fact that you have followed a training method that is supposed to produce optimal aerobic conditioning and I haven't???
"I always though that your easy runs were too hard. Do you think that was the biggest factor in your marathon improvement since switching to the P+D training?" - In a word, no. I think that it was certainly a contributing factor, as running the easy runs easier allows the hard runs to be run at the right intensity. But, to be honest, I think the biggest factors were: frequent racing (often using races as the VO2 and or LT workout(s) for the week, 2 long runs per week (with the long one on Sunday finishing at MP +10% i.e. ~6:45 min/mile) and substantially more volume (a good 8-10 weeks of 80M+ per week).
Hope you don't think I'm giving you a hard time. I just find that this is an interesting area well worth discussing at length - see you in ~9-10 hours ;-)
1. "So would it be fair to say that Hadd's postings might be more accurately entitled "Hadd's Approach to Distance Training - Part 1: Base Training"?"
Yep. As you may have noticed people like to scrutinise every last word he wrote just on that, so he has to think carefully before posting anything else. His approach is one he has used with a number of runners over a couple of decades. It is one he is constantly refining given his experiences with other athletes over time. One day he may publish his thoughts to a wider audience but does not feel the need to at present.
2. Pace relationship across distances. You're quite right in pointing out that my marathon time is still poor in relation to my 10k and HM times. As you know the marathon is a cruel mistress and to pop out a great one everything has to be right on the day, not just the training in the 6 months beforehand. For the 2:42 atFLM 2004 I was in Disneyland up to the Thursday before the race, on my feet all day and tiring my legs out. This was before I realised how badly travel and rest could affect race times. We reckoned I should run somewhere between 2:38 and 2:42 that day, so I just missed out there even though conditions were perfect for distance running.
The 2:42 at Abingdon 2004 was again about 5 mins off where we should have been. I went out for a short jog the evening before and had a sharp pain across my chest. I kept popping ibuprofen pills right up to the start of the race and started fully expecting not to finish, or to jog round. In the end I was grateful for a small pb.
The less said about the events preceding London 2005 the better.
So through my own naivity or factors I had not thought about I've yet to do justice to the marathon. I could still do all this training and get a warm day on 23rd April. Something could happen at work or at home to cause great stress - you never know. All I will be able to say is I trained in the best way I know.
Your pace relationship is tight, as you have pointed out. To some people that seems to come easier. E.g. SiT showed no drift at all when I ran with him nearly 2 years ago for a few runs whereas my HR climbed throughout the run. I have a clubmate who just be doing general club type training achieved very good relationships. For others the marathon is an achilles heel due to poor aerobic training. Maybe you are fortunate in that it didn't take long from switching to training sensibly to bring things under control. What Hadd outlines in his posting is one excellent way to do that.
As a matter of interest, what are your plans now? Do you intend to use P+D for your next marathon attempt? If so, what do you intend doing between now and the start of the next 24 week schedule?
One question I would like to throw at you guys is what would you call your easy running on recovery days.
Sometimes I feel that my easy runs are not as easy as they should be.
Probably all done at about 8m/m depending on profile of area thats normally about 65-70% MHR.
My easy runs go from anywhere to 135-150 (67-75% MHR) depending on who I'm running with. Doubles sometimes lower than this.
I'm sure that you would both agree (even though I don't), that I run too many miles, to quickly - a bit of a geriatric Treadmill, perhaps BR. Despite that apparent fault, I do think that the progress I have made over the past three years, taking account of some form of age adjustment, has demonstrated the effectiveness of the 1970/80s training approach. Incidently it also worked for me then as well as now.
Despite the point made above, I'm sure that we all agree that we are all simply looking at different ways of cutting the same 'basic conditioning" cloth. When runners follow different approaches than myself, I still delight in their sucess, especially if they display the sorts of personal qualities that I believe are essensial to successful distance running.
really good to chat with you this morning. I do plan to use P&D for my next marathon prep, although I'll definitely lean towards an 18 week plan rather than a 24 week plan, as I found it quite touch to maintain focus for 24 weeks.
Between now and then I plan to adopt a URR / Ron Hill style approach and race hard and frequently. Initially focussing on 10k speed (the main reason for doing the XC leagues) and then 1/2M, before emabarking upon a marathon plan in earnest. Just trying to decide on the which Autumn marathon to target for next year.
Hope that your preparation for FLM goes well. Certainly, on the basis of your 10k / 1/2M pace performances you deserve to shatter 2:40.
LW2,
I did quite a few Wednesday, Friday and Saturday tune-up races. I'd almost always do a long run on the day following the Wednesday and Saturday races (13-16M and 17-22M, respectively). In terms of scheduling, it's definitley much trickier to find midweek or Saturday races
Speedie,
I follow P&D's description of recovery runs (as URR described above) i.e. < 70% WHR. But this means that I try to avoid going over 70% MHR at any point in the run and usually end up with a 61-66% WHR / 70-73% MHR average for a recovery run.