Hanson ManathonTraining (Read 262 times)

I saw that there was a previous topic on the Hanson plan that wrapped up in 2012 so I would like to start another. For those that have used the plan I am looking for feed back based on their age, weight, gender, tendency to injury etc. that would help in determining a best fit scenario for me. I am 55 male and have run 6 marathons from 1990 to 2006. A PR of 3:22 in 1991 and my last effort at Richmond was 3:37. I am a high school and college sprinter turned road racer. I'm am 5'10" and 182 and don't consider myself to have an idea marathon body so running 70 miles a week for me just won't happen. In ALL of my marathons I fade at the point of my longest run, normally 18 to 20.

I am just looking to run another marathon in BQ time or possibly improve on the 3:37 but WITHOUT the agony of the last 6 miles. That is not asking too much. The Hanson plan eliminates the 3 20, 22, 24 mile runs of most other plans, which is the other thing I want to avoid. The back to back 10 and 16 miles appeals to me.  I know there is no free lunch but I don't think my body type and age can handle the overall high miles and the 6 days a week sounds like injury all the way for me. I also don't really want to tweak the plan too much but would be interested in any feedback regarding experiences with the plan that may have a similar background or if someone had success with a tweak of the plan (ie 5 days a week of running).

I should be ideally about 170LB and that will go a long way to increasing training ability but I am still won't ever be a thin 130Lb efficient oxygen burning machine. My goal is to run (not race a marathon) and finish in around my recent 3:37 time but without the last 6 miles being torture. Most people who have used the plan seem to agree that they can PR with less perceived effort, I just am trying to determine if my body type can handle it?

Ed

 I learned something new today!

A manathon you say?

I know there is no free lunch but I don't think my body type and age can handle the overall high miles and the 6 days a week sounds like injury all the way for me. I also don't really want to tweak the plan too much but would be interested in any feedback regarding experiences with the plan that may have a similar background or if someone had success with a tweak of the plan (ie 5 days a week of running).

 

Hey Ed,

I got back into running in April of 2013 after on-again-off-again injuries.  At the start my (then) 56 year old 5' 8" frame was carrying in excess of 250 pounds and I was very much afraid of getting injured yet again.  This time around though I tried something new; working my way up to running every day.  It took me a little over two months to get to the point were I was running seven days per week for most weeks, and once I had settled into this routine, I just started adding mileage, first on weekends, then a couple of days during the work-week, and then every day.  By late September of last year I was running 10+ miles per day with long runs up in the 15+ territory, and so far at least, I'm injury free.

I told you the above so I could explain my rationale behind the every-day running thing.  Looking back at my running history, I would routinely get injured just as my speed was starting to increase, and the thinking was that if I forced myself to run every day, I'd be so consistently tired I'd be forced to run slower, and this would in turn help me avoid injury.

I'm now down to ~190 pounds and typically average somewhere either side of 70 miles per week (I do some racing and that hoses up my training schedule), and my typical 10 mile daily runs have gotten to the point where they're easy.

Regards,

Dale

In ALL of my marathons I fade at the point of my longest run, normally 18 to 20.

This alone tells me you shouldn't be thinking about cutting back mileage and your long run. If you always fade at the point of your longest run, why would you be looking at a plan that has an even shorter long run, and then attempt to cut back on the amount of running in that plan even more?

It seems to me that a lot of people look at Hanson's plan and see the 16 mile long run and think somehow it's an easy plan. After following the plan for my marathon last spring, I can say that is definitely not the case. The "magic" of the plan is not the 16 mile long run, it is all the other miles run before and after the long run. I don't know how you'd get all the benefits of the plan if you cut out a day of running per week.

Bottom line, if you don't want to fade after 18-20 miles, there are two things you can do. Start out a lot slower, and/or run a lot more miles.

 If you always fade at the point of your longest run, why would you be looking at a plan that has an even shorter long run, and then attempt to cut back on the amount of running in that plan even more?

 

+1.

My situation is not similar to yours but if you're interested in people's experiences, I'll add mine.

I didn't follow Hanson's for my last marathon cycle but I borrowed some things from his plan.  I previously followed Pfitz 18/70-85 but this time, I took an off day each week, cut back my overall mileage, didn't do as many super long runs, and tried to do a GMP/tempo run every week.  Looking back on the training, it really helped with my speed.  Overall, my average pace per mile dropped a good 15-20 sec/mile.  But, my endurance never quite caught up.  I usually found myself fading at the end of long runs and races.  Sure enough, I faded hard on race day but there were a lot of other factors at play (starting too fast, heat, bad fueling, etc.) so it's hard to say training was the problem.  In any event, I don't see myself ever completely following the Hanson's plan based on my very limited experiment with it.  I think I just respond a little better to consistent high mileage and it's not breaking me down too much so...  I do still like the idea of doing weekly MP runs, however, and will probably try to work that into my next training program.

I think the Furman Insitute (FIRST) publishes an advanced training plan for people trying to get a BQ. You may have to pay for it though.  It involves less mileage, with more intensity and cross-training than other programs.

 

(I'm not referring to the basic plan for first time marathoners).

Gee, a less-mileage FIRST program? As if 3 days/week wasn't already insufficient to run a marathon, or any distance for that matter, well.

I found the best way to succeed at this plan is to go into it with a solid base built up. I'd say that before you start, you should be running 40 miles a week comfortably and routinely. You don't want to start the plan fatigued, because you'll never catch up, you'll always feel like you're missing a step.

I agree with everything jersu said.

I just ran my second-ever marathon, first using Hanson's Plan. I went into training with very little base, as I had a summer off due to injury and a cross-country move. I jumped in, and did the Advanced Hanson's Plan shooting for 3:30. I ran 3:27 (a 25 minute PR over my only other marathon).

I crashed at mile 22, but I don't blame the plan or it's relatively short long runs of 16 miles. My last few weeks of training, due to some travel I didn't stick to the plan very well. I also hit a wall two months into the plan and took a few days off. And, I went into this with a very weak base. Yet with all this, I still hit my goal. I would do Hanson's again for my next marathon.

But most importantly, I think Hanson's requires a good base before even starting.

For some who did try the plan but crashed in the latter stages identified your own problem in most cases, starting out too fast. Even pace is the ONLY way to go in a marathon or half marathon with the exception being NEGATIVE splits. If you can run your goal pace the entire way then speed up at the end then that is the best scenario. It only took me 35 years to learn that. Trying to "bank" time by running faster than goal pace in the beginning never works. Every world record from 1500M up has been done with negative splits.

I agree that starting too fast is a sin in distance running but in many cases, you don't realize you've started too fast until it's too late.

For me, I felt Hanson's lulled me into a false sense of speediness throughout my training cycle.  Probably because, as a high mileage runner, the program was actually easier for me in a lot of ways.  My legs had a lot of pep to them - there was no mid week medium run like Pfitz threw at me - and I constantly felt "good" at the beginning of long runs/races only to find myself fading later. (I did set a 10 mile PR so it's not as if my training cycle was a complete dud).

I don't know.  I just left the program wondering if the people who have success with it wouldn't find themselves running even faster if they did more mileage/longer long runs.  Just my $0.02.