The term "training plan" is ambiguous and means different things to different people.  Some people's plans boil down to "run lots, mostly easy, sometimes fast".  Others have, shall we say, significantly more detail.

 

So it is a strangely hard to answer question.  Really comes down to the person.

 

(and honestly, "did it make a difference" is also kind of a loaded question.)

It's such an experiment of one that it's really hard to say, IMO. I agree with SRL that "plan" can mean vastly different

things to each person. Even if you are following a canned plan.

Age, genetics, prior years of running,  propensity to injury, climate, mental toughness..........so many more factors

than just mileage

My personal plan has always been to run 4 days/week and I didn't change that when i started running full

marathons. I have a lot of other interests and hobbies and I'm not willing to take more time away from them to run

more.

I have been running and training for 1/2 marathons with my own plans (or non-plans as it may be) pretty much

continuously since my first half in 2003 and have  run about 100 races since then. Generally  I take Nov/Dec as

"much lower mileage/run  when I want and how fast I want" breaks from training to get my body ready for the next

cycle.

I also cycle up to 100mpw spring/summer/fall.  So I would say I had a much better base than most for a first

marathon. Which for me was in 2010 at age 48 (4:39 with a gain of 1,800 feet) after already running 16 halfs. I ran

that on about a 38mpw average.

I topped out my training for #5 with a one peak week of 42 miles.  I run more fast miles than I'm "supposed" to, I

run my LSD runs faster than I'm "supposed" to, I run less miles than most people think are necessary for a full but

what I do works for me and I'm happy with it.  Likely I am able to run a great percentage of faster mile because

I'm not running high mileage.

I never ran with a Garmin or other timing device for 10 years  until training for my first full and I think running by

"effort" for so many years as opposed to by the clock helped me to develop a very good sense of self pacing.

I have followed pretty much the same self-designed "plan" for all 5 of my marathons without increase in mileage

of more than a few miles/week and  ran  my most recent (Sept 2012) in 4:20 in pouring rain on a hilly course, a

7 minute PR with a 3:14 positive split and never felt like I was pushing myself  until the last 2 miles.

I knoww 100%  the only thing that is different for me over my 5 marathons is that I focused much more on

speedwork and faster running than I ever had in the past. Prior to that my consistent 1/2 marathon time was

2:10-2:13 and I was happy just to go out and run easy, not breathe hard, not push myself, finish happy and get

my medal.

When I decided to start running fulls I did track work and tempo runs for the first time at age 47 no less .  Over the

last 2 years I have broken all my PR's many times over and in 2012 set all new  PR's at age 50. And that was

after having surgery in Feb 2012 and not running for 6 weeks.

So in answer to your question that "if anyone have a specific improvement" that they can attribute to a specific

training plan I would  100% attribute my speed gains to the track and tempo/pace runs and increasing those

paces as I made gains because nothing else has changed for me in the 2 years since I have been running full

marathons. That and the willingness to "feel the pain" during shorter races and track training, which I never allowed

myself to do in the past

Having said that, some people may respond better to more miles, some to more rest, some to more x-training,

some to more speed, some to a  combination. It is frustrating that training for a marathon takes so much time

that experimenting can be either a great success or a terrible failure.

I probably could run more miles, add a 5th day of running, follow a very specific plan and see bigger improvements

but I'm happy with what I'm doing and the times I run for the effort I am willing to put in. Plus I'm scared to change

too  much and totally bomb at a full after spending 16 weeks training, especially now that I'm 51 and my window for

getting better, staying injur free and running fulls maybe be closing quickly.

I like to have a plan.  Whether at some point I feel confident enough to completely make my own plan or not, we shall see, but I like to feel like there is a purpose to each run.  Maybe it's the scientist in me.

I am training for my third marathon right now, and have done increasingly difficult programs each time.  First time, I did Higdon Novice 1, which barely got me through the race.  Second time, I modified a Glover plan, which really meant that I just ran more miles (averaged in the low 40s) and did some speedwork.  This time, I'm following Pfitz 18/55.

Unless I go out too fast and completely blow up, I expect a PR this time.  But then again, my overall fitness also points to a PR - my HM PR before my last marathon was 1:55, and now it's 1:50.  So how much of it will be the plan?  I have no idea.

Will some people who are crappily trained but have more natural ability go out there and smoke me?  Most definitely.

Could be attitude, too.

I'd pretend my feeling were hurt but Christian has pretty much told me I'd run faster if only I believed that I could.

 

I'd pretend my feeling were hurt but Christian has pretty much told me I'd run faster if only I believed that I could.

In my experience, someone that expects to succeed (or at least doesn't expect to fail) has a much better chance of training and racing well. The one trait you find in most long time runners that race well consistently is that they expect to run well, and they are able to quickly forget a bad race or workout, dismiss it as a fluke, and move on without letting it affect their confidence to run well in the future. And this doesn't only hold true for runners. Getting over failure is important for an athlete in any sport.

I have this theory - supported by the results of some friends - that perhaps training plans do not make much of a difference.  The runner you are and will be is possibly already set.  I am curious to hear from anyone who has a specific improvement they attirubute to a specific training plan.

Good thread and feedback. I've been giving this very concept a lot of thought lately as I am taking my running more seriously. Prior to my bicep tear I was first and foremost a lifter who incorporated running to maintain cardiovascular fitness as an aside. When I couldn't lift anymore, I took up running more and more. I still didn't follow a "plan"...I just ran more, and more frequently. The idea of the runner I am as being set....well, I know I won't ever see some of the times I see a lot of you folks set. That doesn't mean I'm not a goal setter. I've set my goal at 1000 miles for the year and I'm still on track for that. I set a goal for a sub 2 hour HM and I know I can hit that this year. Long term, I'd like to see myself hitting (and maintaining) a pace of 8:00...That seems a ways off right now, but I "think" I can do it.

Should I follow a plan to hit those goals? I dunno...I meant it in the other thread about Forrest Gump...Maybe I'll just run. **grin**

I think there are a number of things involved here.

Assuming a person leaves a sedentary lifestyle, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot what they do for the first year.  They'll get faster just because , when they started, they couldn't run more than half a mile.  By the time someone has been running a year, they should be running 5-6 miles fairly easily.

After that though, you need to be doing consistent speed work if you are going to get much faster.  Does it matter what speed work you are doing?  Probably not as long as you are doing a variety of speed work.  You should be doing lactate threshold workouts and VO2max workouts and 2+ hour long runs.  Keep doing those and keep your mileage fairly high and, again, you'll keep improving for another year or two.  After that, things get difficult.

That's when you need to start doing assessments after goal races.  You need to start focusing your training on specific weaknesses and you need more than just what a canned plan will offer.

(BTW, when I see someone improve by 45 minutes or an hour in the marathon, it only means they were in fairly lousy shape when they ran the first one and I say that as someone who has improved by over an hour in the half marathon).

(BTW #2, you aren't going to hit your potential if you are running less than 2,500 miles per year).

So, I don't think it much matters what you do for the first year as long as you keep increasing your mileage.  Then, I don't think it much matters for the next couple of years as long as you continue working on increasing your mileage and as long as you are consistently doing speed work.  After that, I think it matters but I think you need to be doing stuff directed at your weaknesses rather than flopping around with a canned plan.

Lara, while I doubt that it would have made much of a difference if your friends had followed different plans, I think that they did well because they followed one (even if you say your GF sort of followed one. Maybe she actually did more hard workouts, rather than less. Which is what I always seem to end up doing myself. Then I say: "I sort of followed a plan..."). You admit yourself that you have never actually done your training based on a plan. Why not? Why don't you try it? I'm pretty sure that you would obtain the same marathon result as your less experienced friend had in her first. It would be worth a try.