Hansons vs. Pfitzinger (Read 2474 times)


Smashy!!!

    Not too swift, I read that "compete" comment to mean compete within one's self, not compete in the elite sense. But I hear what you are saying. If you can go over 3:00 regularly without injury or overtraining, then more power to you. I for one cannot. Hence I have to look at other plans so that I can get to the line healthy. 

     

    Skygazer, I don't think anyone was saying Pfitz is crap. I didn't even think anyone was criticizing his plan. I do think there was recognition that his plans are tough, and therefore not for everyone. 

    PRs: 21:35 (5K); 1:46:46 (HM); 4:30:46 (FM)


    HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

      Great thread.

      BUT, weird that Pfitz (in the vein of Lydiard training) got criticized so badly in this thread like it's crap training.

      No idea to what you're referring here.

       

       

      In terms of "specificity" of marathon training, Hansons' isn't superior, IMO. A lot of MP miles (sure) + a lot more hard workouts, as shown in the OP. It's not even the way the Hansons' elites train but more similar to Higdon's, ...

       

      Are you saying that the elites in the Hansons program actually follow Higdon's training rather than Hansons' ? Cause that is my best guess as to what that above means -- but I'm not sure, because it doesn't seem very clear.

      It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

      skygazer


        Not too swift, I read that "compete" comment to mean compete within one's self, not compete in the elite sense. But I hear what you are saying. If you can go over 3:00 regularly without injury or overtraining, then more power to you. I for one cannot. Hence I have to look at other plans so that I can get to the line healthy. 

         

        Skygazer, I don't think anyone was saying Pfitz is crap. I didn't even think anyone was criticizing his plan. I do think there was recognition that his plans are tough, and therefore not for everyone. 

        How would Pfitz's plan tougher than Hansons by less hard miles and more easy miles (easy miles as derived from more total miles with less faster miles)? Just because Hansons LR stops at 16?

        skygazer


          Are you saying that the elites in the Hansons program actually follow Higdon's training rather than Hansons' ? Cause that is my best guess as to what that above means -- but I'm not sure, because it doesn't seem very clear.

           I'm saying Hansons elites don't follow the so-called Hansons plan that tops out at 16 mile easy LR and with MP runs before LRs. How does that equate with Hansons elites doing Higdon's???

          skygazer


            Sorry that I didn't read into the posts correctly about the criticism of Pfitz's plan. Just wanted to point out that

            1. Hansons plan isn't easier just because the LR isn't long;

            2. It's actually quite hard compared to the Pfitz's with similar or higher mileage;

            3. it's not necessarily more race specific training than Pfitz's, it's just different than the more traditional approach of Pfitz's and the like.


            Pass the coffee.

              Sorry that I didn't read into the posts correctly about the criticism of Pfitz's plan. Just wanted to point out that

              1. Hansons plan isn't easier just because the LR isn't long;

              2. It's actually quite hard compared to the Pfitz's with similar or higher mileage;

              3. it's not necessarily more race specific training than Pfitz's, it's just different than the more traditional approach of Pfitz's and the like.

               

              Well... I think that's getting toward the training phase argument. (I.e. more event-specific training the closer you get to said event).

               

              For the record, I've ordered the Hansons' book today, looking forward to the read. Big grin


              Smashy!!!

                How would Pfitz's plan tougher than Hansons by less hard miles and more easy miles (easy miles as derived from more total miles with less faster miles)? Just because Hansons LR stops at 16?

                 I don't think it's easier per se. But it manages the fatigue better. Pfitz tends to kill you on a single run (whether the LR, the MLR, or a tempo) and then back off with a real easy day or a day off. Hansons doesn't kill you with any one run, but rather keeps a steady state of tension. The difference, for me, is that it is easier to stay healthier and fresher with Hansons. 

                 

                As far as less or more easy miles. Yes, Hansons has three workouts per week (so does Pfitz btw). But those Speed and Strenth runs are not all out Half marathon pace efforts or VO2 max efforts like in Pfitz. They are faster than easy, but not so much that leave you on your back--at least that is how I understand the book. 

                PRs: 21:35 (5K); 1:46:46 (HM); 4:30:46 (FM)


                HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                  How would Pfitz's plan tougher than Hansons by less hard miles and more easy miles (easy miles as derived from more total miles with less faster miles)? Just because Hansons LR stops at 16?

                   

                  Here's an example of why it is difficult to know what some of your posts are saying: the first sentence above has no verb. Even if we imagine an elided "plan be tougher", the transition into "by less..." still doesn't really make sense.

                   

                  My best guess would be that you're saying that Pfitz' plan is tougher because it has less hard miles. That doesn't make any apparent sense to me--so I am not sure that I am guessing your intended meaning at all.

                   

                  I'm not disagreeing with you at all; I'm stating that I can't understand some of what you're writing.

                  It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.


                  Smashy!!!

                     I'm saying Hansons elites don't follow the so-called Hansons plan that tops out at 16 mile easy LR and with MP runs before LRs. How does that equate with Hansons elites doing Higdon's???

                     I think the point about what elites are doing is irrelevant. Pfitz didn't train for the Olympics on 18/55. Ryan Hall doesn't train for the half with his published plan. So what? The books these guys are putting out are not intended for elites nor for novices to train like the elites. But Humprey does publish his training schedule, and though it looks more complicated than the mass public plans, they follow the same logic (i.e. a speed or strength workout and a tempo workout a week). The main difference is that the elites are on a 9 day training week instead of 7, which allows them to jam in more easy miles. 

                    PRs: 21:35 (5K); 1:46:46 (HM); 4:30:46 (FM)

                      I have the purchased 20 week 40-60 MPW Hansons' plan.  The long weekly run is 30% of a week's total distance, so I have 4 consecutive weeks of 18 mile runs.  For those plans that go above 60 MPW the weekly long run becomes longer, i.e. 70 MPW = a 21 mile long run.  The plan also states, "For the most part, anything over 2.5 hours is creating more damage than desirable training effect." So, if one is a slower runner the plan would suggest that there are diminishing returns on longer runs.

                       

                      This plan has some short and some long intervals on Tuesdays and long intervals on Thursdays.  Both days end up being 12 mile days.  So, those are decent longer mid-week runs in addition to the Sunday long run.

                       

                      For example, this past Tuesday was: 2wu+6(800@5kw400r)+2cd (8 miles) and tomorrow (Thursday) is 2wu+4(1.5m@1/2MPw0.5mr)+2cd (12 miles.)

                       

                      I find this plan very workable and am trying to follow it religiously.  (Of course that means I have to get up at 0245 to get to the track at 0400 tomorrow.  Sigh.....  Cry ).  

                      mab411


                      Proboscis Colossus


                        I find this plan very workable and am trying to follow it religiously.  (Of course that means I have to get up at 0245 to get to the track at 0400 tomorrow.  Sigh.....  Cry ).  

                         

                        I hear ya.  I never had any mornings that early on my last training plan, but close.

                         

                        When people would find out I was pulling mornings that early to go run, they'd call me crazy...and I couldn't put up much of an argument.

                        "God guides us on our journey, but careful with those feet." - David Lee Roth, of all people


                        King of PhotoShop

                          Just now discovering your original post and this thread.  Thank you bhearn for starting it.  Your overview was one of the best posts I've seen here.  Spareribs

                          skygazer


                            Here's an example of why it is difficult to know what some of your posts are saying: the first sentence above has no verb. Even if we imagine an elided "plan be tougher", the transition into "by less..." still doesn't really make sense.

                             

                            My best guess would be that you're saying that Pfitz' plan is tougher because it has less hard miles. That doesn't make any apparent sense to me--so I am not sure that I am guessing your intended meaning at all.

                             

                            I'm not disagreeing with you at all; I'm stating that I can't understand some of what you're writing.

                             

                            Sorry, I didn't know I missed 2 words in one sentence. (I'm not good at typing and poor at English).

                            It should read like the following:

                            "How would Pfitz's plan be tougher than Hansons by having less hard miles and more easy miles (easy miles as derived from more total miles with less faster miles)? Just because Hansons LR stops at 16?"

                             

                            I do think Pfitz's plan isn't harder than Hansons base on the comparison of hard/easy mile ratio.

                             

                             

                            Cbus,

                            While Pfitz didn't train in his Olympic quest using 18/55 (how could he be running only 55 mpw for marathon training?), he did do the hard LR, the tempo and the speed workouts. If anything, those hard miles would only seem to be excessive for 55mp. Yet, Hansons' got even more speed, tempo, and a lot more MP (except MP not in the LR) miles for similar weekly mileage. That's where I don't understand how it is easier to handle. It seems to me that Hansons plan is easier mainly in that you don't get to run hard long LRs, or just long LR's, as many perceived (so yes, it's more evenly spread out). I would agree hard long LR's are hard on your body and takes a lot more to recover from. But hard long LRs is the main building point/target of many, if not most, serious marathon training plans (not that you run every LR hard and very long. But you do build toward running them).

                             

                             

                            BTW, I would never want to try Ryan Hall's Half plan. Way  too many hard workouts for my like.

                             

                             

                            BexKix,

                            It's not training phase argument. It's about the approach as we're talking about training specificity.

                            skygazer


                               I don't think it's easier per se. But it manages the fatigue better. Pfitz tends to kill you on a single run (whether the LR, the MLR, or a tempo) and then back off with a real easy day or a day off. Hansons doesn't kill you with any one run, but rather keeps a steady state of tension. The difference, for me, is that it is easier to stay healthier and fresher with Hansons.

                               

                              I'm not sure about the easier to stay healthy aspect with Hansons plan.  You hold the tension steadily for ~1week till you run the not so-long-long LR on fatigued legs. I then can also argue that you only get to rest/recover one time/week using Hansons plan, but you may get 2 using Pfitz. Plus, long/short and hard/easy are common training practices. In the more serious training world, one gets to run a lot more easy miles (on top of these hard miles), spending more time recovering and recovering more frequently. So, I wonder does Hansons plan (steady tension held longer time) better suit us non-elite runners in a general sense, or does it work better only for certain groups?


                              HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

                                For reference, bhearn got Nobby to comment on this topic over in the "The Science of Long Run Thread", here:

                                 

                                /forums/post/f8ffc854449c403cb0a61e9fd48b13fb#focus

                                It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.