Forums >Racing>Anyone else disappointed with Hansons Method?
Ready to race!
Mescal
I too tried the plan last winter and I think it is too easy for an experienced marathoner. I have a different plan from Luke Humphrey that I bought a few years ago and it encompasses a lot of the princilples of the Hanson Method, but it has way more miles and is way more difficult. I think that plan is awesome. I use those principles all the time with great success. The Hanson Method does talk about adding miles. I think that is necessary for an experienced marathoner. For someone that is a good runner, but maybe not tuned for the marathon, I think a few times through the advanced Hansen Method may be good. I plan on using the principles of the Hanson Method, but cranking the miles up a lot. But I've run 26 marathons in the last 2 1/2 years averaging around 2:48 so my body needs the extra miles and harder workouts.
Now that is as impressive as anything I've ever seen on these boards, especially for someone with a full-time job!
**mini-hijack What's your take on the recovery runs? I have the same plan and they go up to 10 miles. If the point is recovery, I'd rather cut it off at around 45-60 minutes or split it into 2 runs. If the point is just to get in a bunch of really easy miles, then ok (but that might contradict what he has to say about easy runs, I dunno). I don't think it's a speed issue either, because i think this plan is targeted towards the mid-3 runner. IIRC, it was mentioned in that other thread that recovery runs aren't addressed in the book. Here is what Humphrey says in the literature that comes with the dollar balla plan: All warm-ups and cool downs and recovery runs (the next run after a workout) should all be dealt as easy runs. Recovery runs and cool-downs should be taken particularly easy, meaning being on the slower side of the recovery pace. Easy days between workouts should be in the middle of the spectrum.
I had questions about paces so I actually emailed Luke Humphreys and got a response. I'm not as fast as most of the folks here; I'm just trying to go sub 4:00 (for Chicago), but am targeting a 9:00 mpm pace to give myself some buffer regarding non-optimal tangents, traffic, etc, etc.
According to the chart in the plan, LR pace should be 9:43 for a 9:09 MP goal (Sub 4:00). Luke said the pace for days after a harder workout day (Sundays LR, Tuesdays intervals, Thursdays MP runs) should be at 10:15. The other days that are not workout specific, like days early in the plan for which nothing is specified, and Saturdays would be at 9:45. I'm thinking I may need to adjust these a bit since I'm targeting a 9:00 pace instead of a 9:09.
I have a different pacing problem. I can't hit the paces in this Georgia heat/dew point. Yesterday I used a heat/pace equivalency chart which for our 94F heat index suggested a 10:26 for the original 9:45. I don't know that I'm comfortable with this. I'm just not confident that the 10:26 in this heat is in fact providing a similar training stimulus as the 9:45 faster pace at a cooler temp. I'll try tomorrow's workout (3wu+4MP+3cd) at around 0500 with the temp in the 70s. My problem was that trying to hold 9:00 mpm in the heat was sending me anaerobic. bad, bad. Yet I stay happily aerobic in cooler temps.
Back to your specific question, the only type of "recovery run" I do is the segment of the run after a short or long interval. I just go a lot more slowly until the start of the next interval, and after the last interval.
So, for something like 3wu+3(2HMPw800r)+3cd I would gradually warmup until I was near HMP, perhaps having done a couple of strides during that last wu mile just to get the heart rate up. Then after each of the three 2 mile half marathon pace segments I would just take the next 800 meters at a recovery pace. I would speed up to a more moderate pace for the 3 cd miles.
protex -- This analysis actually makes sense to me. Again I had no idea on race day that I was "sick" as I didn't start feeling symptoms until I got home on Wednesday. I think my pre-race fueling and hydration were pretty good, though, and because of that it surprised me to feel dehydrated on race morning.
As for overtraining...I do know I felt fatigued towards the end of the cycle. The final few weeks I really was looking forward to the taper. But I assumed this was normal because the book said that was how I should feel (cumulative fatigue, etc.). So I ignored it, pushed ahead and stayed on target with the paces.
3:10 has always been my "aggressive" goal. It's not an obsession that I run it, though getting under 3:20 is becoming an increasingly maddening pursuit, going on 6 years now. It seems every time I think I have it in the bag, the goal eludes me. On the other hand, I guess I can point to some great consistency (6/10 marathons within a 3:32 minute range).
I will say that last fall, getting ready for Chicago, I didn't target 3:10, partly because my training cycle was so short. I looked more at 3:15 as the goal and even that wasn't a "hard" do-or-die goal. I focused on just running the best race I could that day. Maybe the low-stress approach was the way to go. I still didn't make sub-3:20 (the real goal, dammit), but it was the best I have felt in any marathon and as mentioned earlier my result had more to do with tactical errors (not starting my final push early enough when I had plenty left in me) than with improper preparation, fueling, health, etc.
Finally for the general assembly - what say you about the fact that Hansons leaves no room for workouts like Yasso 800s? I had always done at least two Yasso 800 workouts per cycle as part of my training, until Hansons. Maybe it's just a confidence thing, but I really missed doing them.
I checked out your log, and your workouts seem spot on for what you were targeting. But maybe that is part of the problem, you were targeting a 3:10, where maybe you should have looked at 3:15 instead. You could have been over training, because your goal was too aggressive. It was a dramatic drop in pace, you bonked. I don't believe it was from fueling but maybe because you had a bug. Over training -> sickness -> bonk
Personally, I've always thought the concept was rather silly.
I checked out your log, and your workouts seem spot on for what you were targeting. But maybe that is part of the problem, you were targeting a 3:10, where maybe you should have looked at 3:15 instead. You could have been over training, because your goal was too aggressive.
I must be looking at a different log:
- 2 interval and 2 tempo sessions were not run
- out of measly recommended three 16 milers OP ran only two
- many weeks the OP ran 5 days a week, not 6 recommended
- only 3 weeks are in low 50s, the rest of the weeks are in 30s and 40s
So, it's a ligher version of the beginner plan from the book. "Advanced" plan from the book recommends to run 15-20 miles more (I actually think that "Advanced" plan from the book is really very light for a serious results). Hitting 3:24 on this kind of training is pretty damn good result (in my short running experience) when you are 49 (if you were in your early 30s, that would be a different story). Basically, based on the data from the training log, I didn't see a strong desire to get out of the plateau. Looked like there was too much of a hope for the magic of the plan . That's my sincere opinion.
paces PRs - 5K - 5:48 / 10K - 6:05 / HM - 6:14 / FM - 6:26 per mile
I must be looking at a different log: - 2 interval and 2 tempo sessions were not run - out of measly recommended three 16 milers OP ran only two - many weeks the OP ran 5 days a week, not 6 recommended - only 3 weeks are in low 50s, the rest of the weeks are in 30s and 40s So, it's a ligher version of the beginner plan from the book. "Advanced" plan from the book recommends to run 15-20 miles more (I actually think that "Advanced" plan from the book is really very light for a serious results). Hitting 3:24 on this kind of training is pretty damn good result (in my short running experience) when you are 49 (if you were in your early 30s, that would be a different story). Basically, based on the data from the training log, I didn't see a strong desire to get out of the plateau. Looked like there was too much of a hope for the magic of the plan . That's my sincere opinion.
You are correct that he missed a few key workouts. If you look at my log between 1/21 and 5/26 for my marathon training, I missed roughly the same type/amount of workouts. I know from my own experience that the training he did was adequate, i just think goal he set for himself was a bit too high.
Training plans aren't set in stone, they are just guidelines, or a philosophy. It is up to the individual, or a coach, to interpret how their training is going and make adjustments as needed.
I've never done yassos. A full 10 is too many for the speed phase of the Hanson's and they are too fast for the strength phase. The second speed week is a 6x800 workout @5k pace which is roughly the same as doing 6 yassos, so you sort of did them without knowing.
I think the idea of yasso's as a race predictor is silly. A better predictor would be to race a half marathon or 30k 3-4 weeks out from your marathon and extrapolate using purdy points or something similar.
If you like it as a confidence builder, then maybe a full 10 in place of the 1.5 mile repeats in the strength phase would be an appropriate place to substitute them in.
Thats the general idea. "Hansons" isnt really Hansons if your not doing high mileage and the work that goes with that. If you want to do "Hansons" just dont be shocked when your sub-50 mpw training plan doesnt pan out. (Or at least be prepared to make adjustments to your expectations.)
And we run because we like itThrough the broad bright land
I am planning on using Hanson's 'advanced' plan for my first marathon this coming November. I've read the book and noted they don't really include tune-up or other races in the weekend schedule. Just out of curiousity, how did the rest of you deal with an 18 week schedule without other races scheduled in it?
I did two tune up races. A 15k just before the strength portion of the plan started and then a half marathon 4 weeks out from the marathon. They don't want you to do a lot of races because it messes up the schedule but they do tell you how to adjust if you want to race. (drop the MP run for that week and replace it with the easy miles that were on the schedule for the day of the race)
I just add races when it's convenient for me. I don't do a big issue out of it - plan is just a plan, you can adjust it accordingly. Plus, it all evens out - you run HM race instead of MP workout (if you want to run HM really "tapered", run easy on the days of both, strength and MP workouts).
My running group is doing a Hansen's based program mainly as a change of pace.
Everyone in the group has done pretty well with Hudson-type programs and Fitz-type programs in the past, but we found that doing the same type of plan over and over can get a little stale, so we decided to change things up for this training cycle.
I'm not surprised that some of the early hype hasn't materialized for everyone. As other's have said: it's horses for courses.
Back to your specific question, the only type of "recovery run" I do is the segment of the run after a short or long interval. I just go a lot more slowly until the start of the next interval, and after the last interval. So, for something like 3wu+3(2HMPw800r)+3cd I would gradually warmup until I was near HMP, perhaps having done a couple of strides during that last wu mile just to get the heart rate up. Then after each of the three 2 mile half marathon pace segments I would just take the next 800 meters at a recovery pace. I would speed up to a more moderate pace for the 3 cd miles.
Thanks for that. I don't really keep a close eye on pace for the easy and recovery runs. I just let it be whatever it will be for any given day. I was just more questioning the length and purpose of the recovery runs. Maybe I'll just keep it real easy, and sometimes split the run into 2 if necessary.