The Sub 3 Support Thread

Murph_D

shotgunmcos wrote: »

Half way through the Hansons Plan

Just 3 "Long" Runs registered, 14, 14 and 15 miles. However the paces were 7:36, 7:10 and 7:10 respectively. Just 3x 16 mile LRs left in the second half. I've rarely gone to 20+ milers in marathon training but I like to hit 2hrs to 2:10. 16 miles at the Hansons pace wont even hit 2hrs!

I'm a little ahead of the prescribed mileage but that's just mainly bits of miles at the end of most runs or a slightly longer warm up for sessions.

So far the speed and tempo work has been tough but manageable. Tomorrow is the last speed session 3x1,600m and there is no LR this weekend. The legs are tired so I'll approach the speed session with caution. I've often felt like that the day before the speed intervals session but this week the legs feel more like DOMs than just fatigue.

How did folk find the cumulative fatigue element?
How was the transition from speed to strength?
Did anyone stick religiously to "just" 3x 16 LRs?

How are the other current sub3 hopefuls getting on? Bryangiggsy?

I know several runners who followed Hanson and stuck to the 16 miler LRs - wouldn't call it 'religiously' as there is plenty of justification in the book that puts the LR philosophy in the realms of science rather than blind faith!

Is there a good reason to go longer, beyond the reasoning that other plans are different?

FBOT01

Murph_D wrote: »

I know several runners who followed Hanson and stuck to the 16 miler LRs - wouldn't all it 'religiously' as there is plenty of justification in the book that puts the LR philosophy in the realms of science rather than blind faith!

Is there a good reason to go longer, beyond the reasoning that other plans are different?

+1 to this. I am a Hanson practitioner and used it last year when coming back from injury. I pretty much stuck to the plan as that what a plan is all about. I bought into the science of it and went with it. I had plenty of endurance when it came to going the distant. Had a couple of injury flare ups that derailed me slightly in the day but it was NOT for a lack of LRs of >16miles.

The load in Hanson is structured the way it is for good reason so no real need to mess with it at least until you have tried it and given it a proper go IMHO. If it doesn't work for you then you can review the training block as a whole and figure out what went wrong and why but if you mess with it up front you will never know if it work for you.

MrMacPhisto

I have followed the plan 3 times at this stage, each time with relative success. The first time I did the 3x16miles and followed the plan as per the tables in the book. I had no problem in the latter stages of the marathon, feeling fresher than I had when following other plans with 3 x 20 mile long runs. So, I think stick to the plan as printed first time around.

3 x 16 mile long run is what is prescribed on the training plan template. If you are following the mileage exactly as prescribed in the template then the long run should be capped at 16miles on the basis of it being 25% of your max weekly mileage. However, in the previous chapters and in reference to the long run, the author suggests greater than 16 miles is ok if your weekly mileage is greater. They recommend sticking to 25%, but emphasise an absolute max of 30% weekly mileage.

Murph_D

That is true, and there is also discussion about the pace side of the equation, and of 2 hours as the time to 50% glycogen depletion, another indicator of ideal LR length. 16 is arrived at as ideal for hitting both the 25% of weekly mileage ‘rule’ and (for most runners on the Advanced version of the plan), coming in around 2 hours at the LR pace(s) prescribed. But point taken - for faster and/or higher mileage marathoners, there’s scope for longer runs. For those trying to break 3 hours though (assuming they are not going to break it by much), there wouldn’t seem to be a strong case for exceeding the 16 miles by much, if anything, given that 16 miles at prescribed pace would be a little over 2 hours. 16 is thus arrived at as meeting both requirements - percent of weekly, and around 2 hours.

El CabaIIo

Murph_D wrote: »

That is true, and there is also discussion about the pace side of the equation, and of 2 hours as the time to 50% glycogen depletion, another indicator of ideal LR length. 16 is arrived at as ideal for hitting both the 25% of weekly mileage ‘rule’ and (for most runners on the Advanced version of the plan), coming in around 2 hours at the LR pace(s) prescribed. But point taken - for faster and/or higher mileage marathoners, there’s scope for longer runs. For those trying to break 3 hours though (assuming they are not going to break it by much), there wouldn’t seem to be a strong case for exceeding the 16 miles by much, if anything, given that 16 miles at prescribed pace would be a little over 2 hours. 16 is thus arrived at as meeting both requirements - percent of weekly, and around 2 hours.

I think you would be going on the right track. Few things I would chip in on differently would be the glycogen and 2 hour runs. You actually burn more/less glycogen depending on intensity. The old two hour mantra is true but it has a very specific point, you burn 100% of glycogen in two hours when running at best aerobic pace(also known as Aerobic Threshold or 2 hour race pace) and this is only when stores are completely full. If you run at lower intensity, glycogen lasts longer and if you run faster glycogen is burned faster as well so lasts less time.

Where the optimal long run time is generated from is your mithochondria and capillaries and their potential for improvement. These are crucial for absorbing oxygen into the muscles and cells for energy. There comes a point in aerobic exercise where you start to see a very steep level of diminishing returns, while going further will still give benefits, the recovery cost is inverted to a point where it's more optimal to stop the run and be able to train better in the following days.

Even outside of long runs, 40-60 minute runs are where your body gets the most benefit aerobically and it is starts to taper off after that but once a runner gets stronger, they can add to it as their body adapts and can run longer with less recovery problems.

The optimal length of a long run before the recovery cost is too high and benefit is too low is generally set at 2:30-3 hours.

But there is many opinions and approaches to how and where time is devoted to. Many ways to skin a cat as they say. Hansons go with the approach of having higher midweek mileage and a generally more specific plan to try and achieve the same goal. If your glycogen levels fall during a long run, they do during every other run as well so you start the long run with lower levels of glycogen like Hansons aim, it means you can cut the long run shorther to get the same effect. Levels are lower starting out so will get lower faster and that tipping point between recovery and stress is moved closer.


You'll also this in effect with people who do doubles instead of longer singles. A point will come where someone is running so much mileage that they have to have to even spread the running more. Some people might start doubling at 50mpw and others at 100mpw for example but the goal is the same. People just try to achieve it different ways.

As ye were saying, faster or higher mileage runners have the ability to run more mileage in the week as they are stronger and have a bigger base and being faster means they spend less time running if they stuck to the plan. If you had Kipchoge running a moderate 16 miler, it might only take him 80 minutes which isn't much of a long run for him.

The key factor when looking at these plans and interpreting them is not to look at the mileage as it gets in the way of seeing inner workings of training which are all time based. These cookie cutter distance plans are never going to be flawless as they are designed for the masses so I think it's important to look for the message and general guidelines but make changes to suit your own level and adapt the plan to fit you.

The plans in the back of the books are only examples, the meat of the actual philosophies is in the 100 pages of writing that came before.

Murph_D

Just saying what’s in the book, which the Hansons credit to Noakes, Daniels, Vigil, Costill and other coaches and scientists. Not my own opinion or thoughts! I don’t see much reason to deviate to break three hours.

FBOT01

El CabaIIo wrote: »

.....The key factor when looking at these plans and interpreting them is not to look at the mileage as it gets in the way of seeing inner workings of training which are all time based. These cookie cutter distance plans are never going to be flawless as they are designed for the masses so I think it's important to look for the message and general guidelines but make changes to suit your own level and adapt the plan to fit you.

The plans in the back of the books are only examples, the meat of the actual philosophies is in the 100 pages of writing that came before.

The problem here is that while all plans/training method are but a guide I for one wouldn't see myself as equipped to interpret them until I tried them. And if you try to interpret them before trying them you may not get the full benefit or understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

A lot of average runners do what works for them and pick and choose what they like rather than actually interpret the plan and then dismiss it when it doesn't work for them.

I would argue strongly that the core reason why any average runner ups the 16milers is not because of a full scientific review of his/her glycogen level, etc but it is out of fear that they haven't ran far enough in their long run.

I would reiterate the view that if you are a first time Hanson runner just buy into it and roll with it. Once you have done it you can then "interpret" if you must based on actual knowledge.

A lot of work went into the batter before the cookie cutter came out and I'd say they also spent a lot of time experimenting with shapes before they agreed on which cookie cutter did the best job.

shotgunmcos

I do like cookies, but alas, Lent begins today

Agree with the template plan approach. Best to just execute it and see what happens, you can only learn something. Thing is, most runners don't take that approach as a learning experience until after the fact. Most of us are after a specific goal. Without the benefit of a coach its hard to know what to do when a plan doesn't go strictly to plan. Life or body gets in the way and small adjustments are needed. The general rule of thumb I apply to such scenarios, from experience, is don't try to catch up! Particularly on sessions.

On the 2 hour run. Interesting discussion. I would always have felt that around 2 hours was enough. LRs might go to 2:15 but any venture over 2:30hrs lead to injury. Last week I did just shy of 16m (15.8M) in 1:53. It was 22% of the total volume for that week. 25% would be 2:07 and closer to 17.5m. 30% would be 2:33 and close to 22m... overkill

On the glycogen piece, I'd usually start the LR before breakfast and with 7-8m in the legs form the night before as per Hansons. I did it on Sunday and by just 13m I was working as hard as I would be approaching the last 10k of a marathon. The last 3 miles, which included the last 5 minutes at MP-10 secs were mentally tough. In short it felt like a dress rehearsal. I have no doubt that tapered, rested, fuelled before and during the race, that there would be a lot more to give beyond the 16m. How much more? Eat the cookie and see...

browne_rob5

Hi All,

I'm in a block of training for Rotterdam and I am racing the Bohermeen half this coming Sunday. Just wondering what kind of taper I should do for the half? I did a 40 minute Fartlek session lastnight and I am running around 100 to 110k a week at the moment.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks

AuldManKing

browne_rob5 wrote: »

Hi All,

I'm in a block of training for Rotterdam and I am racing the Bohermeen half this coming Sunday. Just wondering what kind of taper I should do for the half? I did a 40 minute Fartlek session lastnight and I am running around 100 to 110k a week at the moment.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Thanks

All depends on what you want from the HM and if you are willing to sacrifice the Mileage.

If you want to PB, I'd cut back a midweek session, possibly take a rest day on Friday and run 3-4m on Sat with strides. I wouldn't take more than 1 day off.

If you want to run well and not sacrifice mileage - cut back the intensity of the midweek session but keep the mileage - maybe slow down the easy runs.

browne_rob5

AuldManKing wrote: »

All depends on what you want from the HM and if you are willing to sacrifice the Mileage.

If you want to PB, I'd cut back a midweek session, possibly take a rest day on Friday and run 3-4m on Sat with strides. I wouldn't take more than 1 day off.

If you want to run well and not sacrifice mileage - cut back the intensity of the midweek session but keep the mileage - maybe slow down the easy runs.

Great thanks AMK. Yes I'm looking for a PB and feel comfortable sacrificing the mileage for 1 week so I'll go with the first option.

healy1835

browne_rob5 wrote: »

Great thanks AMK. Yes I'm looking for a PB and feel comfortable sacrificing the mileage for 1 week so I'll go with the first option.

Last year for DCM, I dropped from 130k to 110k for the week of the HM, did a Fartlek like yourself on the Tuesday(for a Sat HM) and eased off the mileage Thurs (10k) & Fri (5k w/strides). Didn't take any rest days and got a 15k Recovery run in on the Sunday. I was racing said HM. Good luck on Sunday.

El CabaIIo

Murph_D wrote: »

Just saying what’s in the book, which the Hansons credit to Noakes, Daniels, Vigil, Costill and other coaches and scientists. Not my own opinion or thoughts! I don’t see much reason to deviate to break three hours.

And I'm not disagreeing with you or them, was just going into more detail on how the pieces interact and how they try to achieve the same goal with different modulation.

El CabaIIo

FBOT01 wrote: »

The problem here is that while all plans/training method are but a guide I for one wouldn't see myself as equipped to interpret them until I tried them. And if you try to interpret them before trying them you may not get the full benefit or understanding of what they are trying to achieve.

A lot of average runners do what works for them and pick and choose what they like rather than actually interpret the plan and then dismiss it when it doesn't work for them.

I would argue strongly that the core reason why any average runner ups the 16milers is not because of a full scientific review of his/her glycogen level, etc but it is out of fear that they haven't ran far enough in their long run.

I would reiterate the view that if you are a first time Hanson runner just buy into it and roll with it. Once you have done it you can then "interpret" if you must based on actual knowledge.

A lot of work went into the batter before the cookie cutter came out and I'd say they also spent a lot of time experimenting with shapes before they agreed on which cookie cutter did the best job.

I hear you FBOT and agree that the experience of running a plan will help someone hugely but I also think understanding the why's of what you are doing are important too in being able to find out where you change it. I think it's something that works both ways re Experience/understanding the philosophy. I think that's why they devote so much time in the books to try and get people to understand the why's and when's of the method and why we end up here discussing these things in detail.

Training is always going to be interpretation and opinion driven. Some people are experience driven, others are scientifically driven and you have a glut of people in between who borrow bits from each. Just the one thing I will say that I would slightly disagree with is that people are more than capable of interpreting these plans if they put the effort in and do the research and are willing to feel a bit overwelmed at first(it may not be a perfect interpretation) but the more experience/understanding you have, the better you are able to make future decisions and I think these kind of discussions serve a very good purpose even for someone who isn't following the plan/hasn't yet/has once/has a few times or is going to.

People are just as likely to miss out on the benefits from having no understanding of training and following word for word as they are from trying to modify a plan to suit them better.

yaboya1

If you don't do exactly what is prescribed in the plan, then you're not following the plan.
Therefore you can't really comment whether the plan worked or not, because you never followed it in the first place.

El CabaIIo

yaboya1 wrote: »

If you don't do exactly what is prescribed in the plan, then you're not following the plan.
Therefore you can't really comment whether the plan worked or not, because you never followed it in the first place.

P, what I'm saying is the plan is only an example of the philosophy. When Luke Humpries modifies plans for his elite athletes in the Hansons/brooks project, is he not following hansons type training anymore?

Bahanaman

yaboya1 wrote:

If you don't do exactly what is prescribed in the plan, then you're not following the plan. Therefore you can't really comment whether the plan worked or not, because you never followed it in the first place.

You MUST follow the plan TO THE LETTER!! ;-) I got so hung up on sticking to my plan (P&D 55-70) for my sub 3 attempt in Frankfurt 3 and a half years ago that on my last long run with my training group, as we were all finishing, I had to run out and back about one tenth of a mile to get up to the 13 miles that the plan had down for that day. The rest of the lads though I was cracked. Got the sub 3 though!!

yaboya1

El CabaIIo wrote: »

P, what I'm saying is the plan is only an example of the philosophy. When Luke Humpries modifies plans for his elite athletes in the Hansons/brooks project, is he not following hansons type training anymore?

I'm not directing the comment at you. Just at anyone who deviates from a plan.
If the coach modifies a plan specifically for his athletes, then that is their plan so they're following the plan.
What people are doing above are modifying it themselves because they're afraid they're not running far enough. That's not the same.

Murph_D

El CabaIIo wrote: »

P, what I'm saying is the plan is only an example of the philosophy. When Luke Humpries modifies plans for his elite athletes in the Hansons/brooks project, is he not following hansons type training anymore?

But Humphries is a professional coach, former sub 2:15 marathoner, with postgrad qualifications in exercise science. He’s working with a wide range of athletes, including elites as you say. Of course a professional coach may design a bespoke version of a general training philosophy/plan to suit the intimately known strengths or weaknesses of a known athlete - it would be odd if he didn’t. That’s not really comparable to people on an internet forum sharing experience and throwing ideas around in search of a sub-3, or sub-4 or sub-anything performance.

[Edit - crossed with yaboya’s post.]

El CabaIIo

Murph_D wrote: »

But Humphries is a professional coach, former sub 2:15 marathoner, with postgrad qualifications in exercise science. He’s working with a wide range of athletes, including elites as you say. Of course a professional coach may design a bespoke version of a general training philosophy/plan to suit the intimately known strengths or weaknesses of a known athlete - it would be odd if he didn’t. That’s not really comparable to people on an internet forum sharing experience and throwing ideas around in search of a sub-3, or sub-4 or sub-anything performance.

[Edit - crossed with yaboya’s post.]

You can still spitball ideas to gain a better understanding, the writing is all in the books to understand the philosophy and implement it yourself. Should people who are not exercise scientists or elite coaches not seek further understanding? Every coach or exercise scientist on the planet started from 0 on the knowledge scale.

And why shouldn't people on the internet design ideas and philosophices they like into something that suits themselves and their strengths and weaknesses? Arthur Lydiard(one of the most revolutionary coaches in history) always said the biggest mistake he ever made in writing books was to give into the pressure from publishers to write a plan in. He said it destroyed his ideas and made them rigid to people reading.

No author can know know you're body better than you and it's something Steve Magness has said as well is that his books aren't about the plans, they are about showing people a methodology he believes in and how it works. The juice is in all the writing and shows you how to develop a plan.

Murph_D

Of course people should debate - isn’t that why we are here after all?

There is quite a bit of flexibility already built into these ‘cookie cutter’ plans. Most of the ones I’ve used - Pfitzinger / Hanson / Daniels - talk about how to safely add mileage/time and of course they all ask you to choose appropriate paces based on previous performance. Plenty of people screw up just on that last bit alone, and there is much debate here about that kind of thing. Also supplementary S&C (Hanson e.g. has recommendations on that front that I have ignored, and therefore was off-plan). Then there’s stuff about nutrition, tune up races, illness, racing strategy.... no one could possibly do it all to the letter.

A lot of runners don’t follow plans well. But don’t do self-coaching well either, and also give each other bad advice. The advice on boards, properly applied, is as good as you’ll get anywhere, and better than most. But many (most?) still choose to ignore it!

RayCun

El CabaIIo wrote: »

No author can know know you're body better than you and it's something Steve Magness has said as well is that his books aren't about the plans, they are about showing people a methodology he believes in and how it works. The juice is in all the writing and shows you how to develop a plan.

Magness is definitely someone more interested in showing you how to design a plan than in giving you a plan to follow. The one in his book might be a starting point, but he would tailor it to each athlete.

On the other hand, he has the knowledge and experience to back that up.

It's like his discussion on balancing scientific research and practical experience. If you don't pay attention to the science, you end up doing the same sessions as everyone has always done, because that's what everyone has always done. Too much attention to the science and you jump on things that have been tested for six weeks on a group of novice runners, that of course aren't going to be applicable to the people you coach.

You have to strike the balance between being open to new training ideas and being able to observe how those ideas are working out in practice, either as applied to your own running or applied to the people you coach. And being able to observe that requires that you have a good idea of what the alternative is, how people would be developing under a different plan.

El CabaIIo

Murph_D wrote: »

Of course people should debate - isn’t that why we are here after all?

There is already quite a bit of flexibility already built into these ‘cookie cutter’ plans. Most of the ones I’ve used - Pfitzinger / Hanson / Daniels - talk a out hiw to safely add mileage/time and of course they all ask you to choose appropriate paces based on previous performance. Plenty of people already screw up just on that last bit alone, and there is much debate here about that kind of thing. Also supplementary S&C (Hanson e.g. has recommendations on that front that I have ignored, and therefore was off-plan). Then there’s stuff about nutrition, tune up races, illness, racing strategy.... no one could possibly do it all to the letter.

A lot of runners don’t follow plans well. But don’t do self-coaching well either, and also give each other bad advice. The advice on boards, properly applied, is as good as you’ll get anywhere, and better than most. But many (most?) still choose to ignore it!

I've probably pulled this thread way off-topic but I believe it's the easy way out to brush something off as I or they don't have the knowledge so a plan from a book is easier. I'll probably get slated here again as I seem to be swimming against majority opinion more and more everyday but why is it that people don't have the knowledge to follow a plan or self-coach?

My own opinion is that they are under the opinion that they can't arm themselves with the knowledge, not that that they aren't able and it's a minor pet peeve of mine that everything always goes back to "but these people don't understand" on here rather than actually having conversations where underrstanding can develop for people who want to learn. Everything is stripped back to the very basics and beginner stages with pace and mileage.

Pfitzinger is a perfect example of some of the stuff I'm talking about. a) because he never trained like that(listen to some of the top runners over on letsrun who trained with him and the problems with that plan). b) mileage based plans always lead to trouble when marketted at everyone from a 2:30 maarathon to 4 hour marathon. Pfitz methodology makes sense but it doesn't fit everyone perfectly just because they can run the requisite mileage. A big example is the 6/7 mile tempos at LT:

While a threshold run might fit perfectly with his methodology, a 7 mile tempo at LT might not fit the runner because you have a big scatter of abilities using those plans.

A: For a 2:30 marathoner: LT pace might be 5:25 per mile
B: For a 4 hour marathoner: LT pace might be 8:30 per mile

7 miles at LT would be 38 odd minutes for runner A(A minorly stressful workout)
7 miles at LT would be over 60 minutes for runner B(impossible)

At some point there, you have to be able to say this makes no sense for ME and I have to adapt that workout to suit myself.

This is modulation to a certain extent, you are monitoring the stress and recovery of your training. Runner B is probably going to get fried over a training cycle as the workouts are damn near impossible and they will never recover from getting hit with them every week while runner A might be fine.

Now, is runner not abiding by pfitz's methodology if they go "screw these stupid 7 mile tempos" and says they are going to just run at LT for 35 minutes or whatever mileage is equivalent? I don't think they are, in fact, there training will be more pfitz type than the plan. Because all the writing Pfitz done in the book before that is contradicted by the plan he wrote in the back if the person doesn't specifically fit the ability or level he wrote the plan with in mind.

In this sceanario, Runner B would be actually be better off not following the plan to the lettter and would be better off reading what he wrote about the training and adapting the philosophy to fit themselves.

On the base of available information on forums. I'd say this thread is unbeatable tbh.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=308471

RayCun

" why is it that people don't have the knowledge to follow a plan or self-coach?"

Following a plan is what you do when you don't have the knowledge.

Self-coaching, or changing a plan, is where knowledge comes in handy.

For example, a common thing in marathon training is to reach a point where you feel exhausted. Do you follow the plan or change it?

If you are an experienced runner, you can make a judgement on whether this level of fatigue is normal, or is a sign of over-reaching, or is less fatigue than usual.

If you are an experienced coach you can compare how your athlete is doing to how previous athletes have done.

If you don't have either experience, you can't really tell. A plan might say "it is normal to be tired" but can't tell you exactly how tired is normal. So you follow through the plan or you adjust it, and at the end you have learned something to use next time.

El CabaIIo

I just want to ask one question and then I'll shut up, Is there any common ground between what ye are saying and what I'm saying or are we polar opposites?

skyblue46

El CabaIIo wrote: »

I just want to ask one question and then I'll shut up, Is there any common ground between what ye are saying and what I'm saying or are we polar opposites?

From the outside I would say that ye have common ground alright but are only discussing the area where ye might have different opinions. One way or the other it is a very interesting discussion which provokes thought, the type of thread which is great to read and I wish there were more of them on here.

Swashbuckler

skyblue46 wrote:

From the outside I would say that ye have common ground alright but are only discussing the area where ye might have different opinions. One way or the other it is a very interesting discussion which provokes thought, the type of thread which is great to read and I wish there were more of them on here.

This x 100000000

Dont take it as a negative ElC. This debate is great and is too rare nowadays

El CabaIIo

Swashbuckler wrote: »

This x 100000000

Dont take it as a negative ElC. This debate is great and is too rare nowadays

I'm not taking it as a negative. Its just a simple question and I know what I think but am just interested in their view on it.

shotgunmcos

Just looking at the generic book plans from a different perspective.
Why are they all based on miles? To ElCs point

7 miles at LT would be 38 odd minutes for runner A(A minorly stressful workout)
7 miles at LT would be over 60 minutes for runner B(impossible)

So 2 people take a 50 mile a week book plan. Person A is 50% faster. Person A spends 8 hours running that week and person B spend 12 hours running.. both following the plan to the letter

The 12 hours is simply more volume and the volume eats into life which eats back into the plan.

Back to Hansons and the 16m LR - Person A runs it in 1:40 and person B in 2:30... are they both getting the same benefit for a long run?

+1 great to see some good debate on this Forum again

AuldManKing

El CabaIIo wrote: »

I just want to ask one question and then I'll shut up, Is there any common ground between what ye are saying and what I'm saying or are we polar opposites?

I fully agree with what you are saying.

I follow a plan as a template - sometimes I change a workout because my body isn't able for it or life gets in the way.
The next day I look at the plan/template and go with it.

But I still say that I'm following the Daniels Plan.