Forums >Racing>Daniels or Pfitzinger?
I'll be starting to officially marathon train in mid January and was going to do a marathon in may. Basically my goal is to get as fast as I can between now and then. Does anyone have experience with Daniels (2 quality runs) or Pfitzinger plan? I've been going back and forth between the two and was wondering if anyone had used either plan and what their experience was?
an amazing likeness
This comparison and analysis by bhearn and follow-on discussions might help.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
Slower but happier
I always have used Daniels as a reference to design my plans th n i just picked up Pfitz and read that through last week. Will be interested to hear what people think. The thing that struck me about Pfitz was the weekly VO2 max workouts 7 weeks leading up to the race. I usually do those at the start of a cycle not the end. Maybe thats why im slow? I like the book and may end up doing it. Its definitely simpler in terms of the workouts than 2Q.
2020 goal: couch to 5K, currently working on the couch block
I have used Pfitzinger plans 3 times, and have improved each time. I have Daniels book as well and refer to the tables and theory on different things at times. They agree pretty closely on training paces for all types of work so I guess they are from the same school essentially. For me I find Pfitz's plans easier to follow, and his workouts are less complicated too...for example Long run start easy end of the range and progress to the fast end, thats it. And the Marathon pace runs here and there, run first part at long run pace, and finish at marathon pace for x km..job done. I cant get my head around 2m E + 4m M + 2m T + 3m M etc its a bit too fiddly when you are out there in the world :-)
I just ran my second ever marathon, using Daniels' 2Q for the first time in September, and just started a modified Pfitz 18/55 for my third marathon in April. So, I'm looking forward to see what people have to say.
I really enjoyed the 2Q plan since it gives you quite a bit of freedom with the rest of the week. The two workouts are definitely demanding though, you'll be running pretty much 15-20 miles including speedwork twice a week. Therefore, it's important to use the correct paces for the quality sessions in order to avoid burnout or injury. It is also important to keep in mind that you'll be doing two 2+hours runs per week quite often, so you should think whether that fits into your schedule. If you can do it, I definitely recommend the 2Q program. FWIW, I completed all workouts and was able to PR by 24 mins (and BQ by 5!), but take this with a grain of salt as I probably did not run to my full potential on my first FM. I also really enjoyed the workouts, I did not find them that complicated but found that they do keep things interesting for you. And you definitely feel great after completing them! (Another suggestion if you decide to go with JD: slow down your non quality runs, that will also help avoid burnout and be ready for the Q sessions).
As for Pfitz, I just finished the first week of the modified 18/55 plan. I decided to give it a try mainly due to changes in my schedule, where I couldn't do 2 long runs of 2+ hours per week anymore. So, Pfitz sounded like a good option: I can do most weekly runs/workouts during my lunch break and then a LR on the weekend. As I have not finished it yet, I cannot vouch for it, but lots of people seem to have had a lot of success with these plans too (djs above, for example).
5K - 18:03 (5.18) | 10K - 37:58 (2.18) | HM - 1:20:45 (9.18) | FM: 2:57:59 (10.18)
You can be successful with either plan, I'm sure. All plans basically come down to run a lot, sometimes hard, but mostly easy.
I did not do a lot of plan comparison when I picked Pfitzinger a couple of years ago. I mainly wanted to try for a higher weekly mileage training cycle and thought Pfitz would work for me. I had a few months before my plan would need to start, so I sampled a couple of weeks and some of the workouts. That helped me know what I was getting into.
You could possibly do the same to compare the two. Pick a week out of each plan and just do it, perhaps cutting the mileage back to fit what you're currently running. See how each fits into your schedule and how well you recover between the different quality runs. Good luck!
I've used Daniels' plan A from the 2nd edition twice and the 12 week plan from the 3rd edition twice. I also used Pfitzinger's HM plan from his Race your best 5k-HM book.
I like Daniels' plans better, but that is just me.
I don't follow any of the plans to the letter, but modify them to suit my needs. If I see something from one plan that I like, but I'm following a different plan, I'll figure out a way to work it in. Keep in mind that none of these plans are carved in stone.
Regarding VO2max training there are two schools of thought.
1. VO2 max training isn't very specific to the marathon so best to do it early in the plan.
2. VO2 max training provides short-lived benefits so best to do it later in the plan.
Daniels is more 1 and Pfitz more 2.
McMillan's and Hudson's books go into designing and modifying plans a little more than Pfitzinger and Daniels do. Might be worth a read.
As for Pfitz, I just finished the first week of the modified 18/55 plan. I decided to give it a try mainly due to changes in my schedule, where I couldn't do 2 long runs of 2+ hours per week anymore. So, Pfitz sounded like a good option: I can do most weekly runs/workouts during my lunch break and then a LR on the weekend.
If you can do 15-mile MLRs at lunchtime, you are either very fast or have a very long lunch break.
Regarding VO2max training there are two schools of thought. 1. VO2 max training isn't very specific to the marathon so best to do it early in the plan. 2. VO2 max training provides short-lived benefits so best to do it later in the plan. Daniels is more 1 and Pfitz more 2.
This I think is fairly unique to Pfitz, most plans I've seen go by #1.
No familiarity with Daniels, so can't comment. When I was first looking at formal marathon plans, I was mainly comparing Pfitz to Hansons. I went with Hansons initially because (1) as a morning runner, I didn't like how early the Pfitz MLRs would force me to get up; (2) I thought it would be hard to schedule doubles. After a couple Hansons cycles, I switched to Pfitz, and managed through those issues. I did 3 Pfitz cycles and it worked well for me. PR'd each time, including 2 BQ's.
One thing I liked about Pfitz was that it builds shorter races into the plan. Just be prepared to run 17-18 the day after racing a 10k.
Dave
RIP Milkman
I'll say that I struggled a lot deciding between the two for my marathon as well. As you've noticed through the answers, you can't really go wrong here. The best piece of advice I got was to just pick the plan that looks like you will enjoy more. For me, I immediately knew that was Daniels. I like getting pumped up for two big quality sessions per week, with the rest running as I see fit. It allowed for a much more flexible schedule and fit into what I wanted. I just knew I had to run the 2 workouts per week, give myself at least 2 days of easy/no running, and hit my weekly mileage goal via those easy runs. That's all there was to it.
I know that most people though probably prefer Pfitz because a) it's more structured b) has more mileage in terms of long runs c) isn't as complicated to remember some crazy workout like DJS said and d) most likely will lead to lower injury risk. I stayed away from Pfitz because I hated the idea of having to do two MLRs in a row in the 18/70 plan, having the weeks so structured that I wasn't sure exactly how to change it up, and not having to just run boring easy pace all the time save for a few workouts.
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
two MLRs in a row in the 18/70 plan
Ha, I almost forgot about that - 13 on Tuesday, 15 on Wednesday. Good times.
Both
I did Daniels elite plan when I had a T-Pace of @ 5:55-6:00 and a marathon pace of 6:15-6:20 and it nearly broke me. What I learned was I should have adjusted the workouts from Miles to Time
One workout was
5-4-3-2-1 Miles at T with 1/2 mile between.
For an Elite that would be 23:20-18:40-14:00-9:20-4:40 minutes of T
For me it was 30-24-18-12-6 minutes of T
Personally I would read through both and see which one is more appealing to you (Fits your personality better) each one will give very good results.
Long dead ... But my stench lingers !
One workout was 5-4-3-2-1 Miles at T with 1/2 mile between.
That seems pretty insane at any pace.
I need some flexibilty and am used to Daniels' after the recent HM plan. But I ended up injured (not Jack's mistake but mine for overdoing it). Now I am a bit concerned as I hate being out for so long. Which plan is the least risky in your opinion?
HM: 1:47 (9/20) I FM: 3:53:11 (9/23)
2024 Goals: run a FM & HM + stay healthy!
Hehe, that's why I said "most". Anyway, the 18-55 plan has me doing only a 14 mile MLR during the week once. The rest are 12 miles or shorter. So, stretching the lunch break to 1.5 hours once a week is manageable for me. The 18-70 requires a lot more time (obviously).
That's why I think the OP should see which plan fits her lifestyle/schedule better. Like others have said, you can't go wrong with either plan.
^^^This^^^
Be honest w/ types of workouts and timing and how it fits your life. What can you handle?
I have experience w/ both. Daniels provides a lot more flexibility, which -- I think -- helps w/ recovery and injury prevention. Pfitz (or any day-by-day schedule) is better for people who just need to have a set schedule and not worry about figuring things out.
The race/LR weekends at the end of Pfitz can be too much. Be careful w/ those. Some of the peak Daniels workouts are pretty beastly too though!