123

anyone use Pfitz advanced marathon training for running a half ? (Read 612 times)

FlatFT.runner


    I've used his marathon training for last four mar. I've run but was thinking of using a 12 week plan for a half, I'm at work and can't look in the book right now but was just wondering how that might work out for a half I'm planning in April.

      I'm not sure it's really good idea to follow a marathon training plan for a half. The thing with the marathon is that the tough bit is really those last 5 or 6 miles, and marathon training plans are trying to prepare you for that. I don't think you need to the same long runs to prepare for a half. Quite possibly you don't need to do any runs more than about 10 miles.

        I think it's a great idea.

         

        Almost everyone I know--myself included--ran their half marathon PR off of marathon training. I was in fact following  Pfitz based plan when I ran my half PR, albeit a month before my goal marathon.

         

        I think that what most of us work-a-day hobbyjoggers consider marathon training is actually a lot closer to ideal 5k-HM training, at least in terms of total mileage, than it is to ideal marathon training.

        Runners run.

          I think it's a great idea.

           

          Almost everyone I know--myself included--ran their half marathon PR off of marathon training. I was in fact following  Pfitz based plan when I ran my half PR, albeit a month before my goal marathon.

           

          I think that what most of us work-a-day hobbyjoggers consider marathon training is actually a lot closer to ideal 5k-HM training, at least in terms of total mileage, than it is to ideal marathon training.

           

          Total mileage is one thing. But Advanced Marathoning will have you doing some 20+ mile training runs. Would you really recommend that for half marathon training?

            Sure, why not?

            Runners run.

              Sure, why not?

               

              I'm not sure it's the most effective way to prepare. I agree that mileage counts, but as you start doing longer and longer runs the recovery needs go up a lot. It may well be better to do more relatively short faster runs, supplemented with easy recovery runs.

                I'm not sure it's the most effective way to prepare. I agree that mileage counts, but as you start doing longer and longer runs the recovery needs go up a lot. It may well be better to do more relatively short faster runs, supplemented with easy recovery runs.

                 

                I think you're over thinking this. Marathon training and half marathon training are probably about 99% the same. Hey, I'm on record as saying that long runs are overrated, but that's not to say they are not important. And really, how many 20+ milers does Pfitz have in his advanced programs? A handful?

                 

                Considering that Arthur Lydiard had even his 800 and 1500m runners doing 35k training runs I certainly don't think a few 20+ milers in a half marathon training plan are going to hurt. Assuming the runner is fit enough to benefit from them, they will probably be money.

                Runners run.

                  And really, how many 20+ milers does Pfitz have in his advanced programs? A handful?

                   

                   

                  Depends on exactly which program we're talking about. If you take the 18 week 55-70 mile schedule from advanced marathoning second edition the long run distances for each week are: 15, 16, 15, 18, 18, 15, 21, 20, 16, 15, 22, 18, 18, 17, 20, 17, 13, (26-race). If you go to the 70-85 schedule mostly it's a question of adding a couple of miles to each of those.

                    I'm not sure it's the most effective way to prepare. I agree that mileage counts, but as you start doing longer and longer runs the recovery needs go up a lot. It may well be better to do more relatively short faster runs, supplemented with easy recovery runs.

                    I've got to stick my neck in when I see "Arthur Lydiard"... ;o)

                     

                    pr100:

                     

                    I see your name all the time and I'm a bit surprised you're asking such a fundamental question.  Your comment has lots of "logic" at first glance and that's probably why many people get into that trap.  

                     

                    * "You run longer and longer and you need lots of recovery..."

                    * "If you want to run faster, you should do more shorter faster runs..."

                     

                    The whole idea of doing long runs is so you will develop "tireless state".  I don't want to get into this whole physiological stories but, when you start running more and more, you'll need less and less recovery.  Sometimes you hear a great runner setting multiple world records in a span of a few weeks.  While it's still a great feat, when you think of it physiologically, it makes perfect sense.  They are in such "tireless" state that they can have a great effort to set a world record and then bounce back and do another great effort.  The amount of RECOVERY is not dependent on the amount of effort; it depends on the STATE OF PHYSICAL CONDITION which will be superbly developed through lots of lots of easy running. Look at so many people on this message board; those who struggle to run well, both in races and training, are the ones who don't run as much or as often.  Those who come here and yappeddi-yap, pretending they know everything are the ones who run whole heck of a lot more and somehow they run quite a bit faster too.  

                     

                    Just this morning, I saw Tea Olive posting some of her race results at other thread (something about running a 10k race a week before a marathon) per my request a year or so back.  She ran 4-minutes PR in the half, 2 weeks later she ran a minute PR in a 10k, then a week later she ran 5-minute PR in the marathon.  She did a Lydiard-type training with lots of easier miles in the beginning--much like Pfitz's training.  She was able to do that not because she tried to run fast; she was able to do that because she did a lot earlier which enabled her to do a lot more later.


                    Feeling the growl again

                      I think you're over thinking this. Marathon training and half marathon training are probably about 99% the same. Hey, I'm on record as saying that long runs are overrated, but that's not to say they are not important. And really, how many 20+ milers does Pfitz have in his advanced programs? A handful?

                       

                      Considering that Arthur Lydiard had even his 800 and 1500m runners doing 35k training runs I certainly don't think a few 20+ milers in a half marathon training plan are going to hurt. Assuming the runner is fit enough to benefit from them, they will probably be money.

                       

                      Pretty much this.

                       

                      The only thing I would change is, perhaps for less conditioned runners, capping the long runs at 16 miles.  Not that going out to 20 cannot be beneficial, but if you are only racing 13 I would rather see that energy put into running higher quality in the 16...like doing the last 6 at a faster pace.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       

                         Look at so many people on this message board; those who struggle to run well, both in races and training, are the ones who don't run as much or as often.  Those who come here and yappeddi-yap, pretending they know everything are the ones who run whole heck of a lot more and somehow they run quite a bit faster too.  

                         

                        Nobby, I know you are an expert on training and I have benefited a lot from your writings, but personally I think your above comment is a bit harsh.

                         

                        After all, it is a running forum. People are on all different levels. People just talk about their current level experiences and concept. Surely there are not so scientific advises or even misleading, but the concept may be in many beginners' mind too. Throwing in the thoughts is to discover the mistake. If the beginners don't speak their minds, how would they know if their concept is wrong.

                         

                        The beauty of the forum is that there are so many advanced runners and they correct those misleading. After all we are all learning.

                        5k - 20:56 (09/12), 7k - 28:40 (11/12), 10k trial - 43:08  (03/13), 42:05 (05/13), FM - 3:09:28 (05/13), HM - 1:28:20 (05/14), Failed 10K trial - avg 6:10/mi for 4mi (29/08/14), FM - 3:03 (13/09/14)

                          ...amount of RECOVERY is not dependent on the amount of effort...

                           

                          I'm sure you don't actually believe that. Of course as you run more you're better able to tolerate more running, so the amount of recovery you need will decrease. But at a given point in time you'll have a given state of fitness and more effort will need more recovery.

                           

                          But there are trade-offs everywhere (and they'll be different for each person). One question we're grappling with here is how much of your weekly total mileage should go into a long run. Of course there's no easy answer. But *in general* people training for an HM have less to gain from a long run that those training for a marathon.  An optimal HM training program for a given individual will tend to have shorter long runs than a optimal training program for that same individual embarking on a marathon training schedule.

                           

                          I'm not saying that people training for an HM shouldn't do plenty of miles. As with all distance running you want to do as much as you can without breaking down, but the combinations of effort and distance will look different according to target distance.

                           

                          Many of us want to be able to do reasonably well at distances from 5k through an HM pretty much all the time. If we've got a marathon coming up we'll tend to get a bit more focussed in our training and put a few more miles in. Unsurprisingly we might find that we do better at the shorter distances too. But that's mostly because we're doing more miles. If we did those same miles as part of a program specifically designed for 5k then our 5k times would probably improve even more than they do from our marathon training.

                          Eternal Rookie


                            I have Fitz’s Road Racing for Serious Runners (1999). It has a 15k thru HM training plan. For the 30 to 50 mile a week runner the long tops out at 15. The other major  difference between that plan and the full is that one week you do an LT workout and a VO2 the next as opposed to a 2 LT to 1 VO2 ratio on the marathon plan.

                              Nobby, I know you are an expert on training and I have benefited a lot from your writings, but personally I think your above comment is a bit harsh.

                               

                              After all, it is a running forum. People are on all different levels. People just talk about their current level experiences and concept. Surely there are not so scientific advises or even misleading, but the concept may be in many beginners' mind too. Throwing in the thoughts is to discover the mistake. If the beginners don't speak their minds, how would they know if their concept is wrong.

                               

                              The beauty of the forum is that there are so many advanced runners and they correct those misleading. After all we are all learning.

                              David:

                               

                              All due respect, and I know I kinda made it sound that way, but I was talking about myself ("yapped-yap pretending to know everything..." sounds familiar?  And I did run alright in my previous life too.).  Relax!  ;o)

                                But *in general* people training for an HM have less to gain from a long run that those training for a marathon.  An optimal HM training program for a given individual will tend to have shorter long runs than a optimal training program for that same individual embarking on a marathon training schedule.

                                This IS a wrong assumption.  Some All Blacks rugby players ran 100 miles a week and they don't even run much continuously at all.  Kristi Yamaguchi, well, she didn't run but stationary-biked to improve her oxygen carrying capacity so she can skate better.  You are still thinking in a scope of very narrow thinking of relationship between race DISTANCE and workout DISTANCE.  How do you measure that?  %?  Your body runs out of energy somewhere between 1:30 and 2:00 in duration (assuming at the same effort level).  You push your body to and through that, and your body will adapt to that stress and become "stronger" and utilize more oxygen efficiently.  That develops tirelessness.  Middle distance runners do it.  Distance runners do it.  Half marathon and marathon runners do it.  

                                 

                                Same thing--surely, recovery has something to do with effort BUT, the point is; so you do exhausting interval training one day.  Highly conditioned athlete can bounce back and do a very hard workout again the next day.  Us poorly conditioned hobblers would have to take 4 days to recover....  Highly trained athlete, like Spaniel did as he said something about doing a 4-hour run on treadmill, can do a super long run like that and bounce back and do an hour's fartlek the next day.  Us poorly-conditioned people would have to take 4 or 5 days before we even lace up our running shoes.  

                                123