I used the Pfitz HM plan B once. I think in 2012.  It was from the book Road Racing for Serious runners, not from the new book which is what I think you're referring to.  I liked it well enough and ran a big PR. But it was my first time doing regular speedwork.

Yes I am! Same city, different course. Wife and I are going to make a long weekend out of it.

 

Excellent! That's a demon that deserves a first class ass kickin' exorcism.

 

I've never used a plan to train for a half, so I have no input on that. I did train specifically for a half once though, using a variation of my 5k training. That was actually not bad, and it remains the best executed half marathon of the six that I have run if you can believe that!

 

Will you be racing near PR levels, or are you not quite back there yet?

That is is the plan. My last HM was 1:38:36 and my PR is 1:35:59. If this plan agrees with me and I can stay injury free, I think I can be right there.

No input from that plan, sorry. But I have a suggestion for the text under your avatar:

 

uʍop ǝpᴉsdn sǝʇᴉɹʍ ʇI

Noted. Thanks for the tip.

Have fun with that...

 

Easily.

I agree. That's a killer right there.

Hi.

Has anyone ever tried a Pfitz HM plan? I used his 18/55 plan for a marathon and had success with it. Next week I am starting his 12/47 plan for a HM.  Can anyone give me any thoughts on how you liked it or disliked it?

 

Thanks in advance.

To be honest, I'm not sure why I chose his his half marathon "B" schedule back in '04. I'm guessing for the same reason many people do - word of mouth. This was the 1st time I attempted one of his programs. Just considering my results I had a great deal of success but due to my circumstance it would be difficult to measure to what degree his program had on my success.

The back story: The reason I'm hesitant to heap a boat load of praise on the schedule is that I believe my success was more about fully recovering from a serious injury and to a lesser extent building on the slow, but steady progress I'd made over the last three years.

Coming back from a torn tendon in my foot my half marathon times were over 30 minutes slower than prior to my injury. I ran something like 2:05 in 2001, 1:51 in 2002 and 1:46 in 2003. Until '03 I wasn't fully healed and basically running on one foot. In the spring of '03 I discovered the tendon had healed and for the 1st time since '95, began legit training. I think that was the reason my time improved, rather than the Pfitz schedule. After 18 months of consistent training I ran 1:39:47 in the fall of '04.

Now with all those disclaimers out of the way. What I didn't like about his schedule was that he has you running faster than race pace in the sharpening phase [same as his marathon schedules]. Previously my training front-loaded the speedwork, and after several years successfully using his marathon schedule I returned to that formula. *

I guess I tried Pfitz because I was willing to experiment and I knew I wasn't in peak shape or would be at the conclusion. This race was just another stepping stone as I regained my fitness. It just so happened that I exceded my expectations and found myself one year ahead of schedule [to eventually BQ in 2007]..

What I liked about the schedule was I exceded my expectations! But like I said earlier it's difficult to determine how much the schedule played a part vs the culumlative effect of the training and or just being able to train [consistently]. I also liked the weekly strides, that was something new for me and a component I've kept in my heavy rotation list since.

* Moving to Hudson from Pfitz both my half marathon & marathon times improved but to a much lesser degree [3 minutes in the half and 2 minutes for the marathon] but I believe that had much more to do with diminishing returns and age [52-55 YO] than something lacking in the Hudson schedule vs Pfitz.