Hal Higdon

ecoli

The frequent reccomendation of the name Hal Higdon and his training plans got me thinking alot. As many people use this as a beginners guide and then ultimately moving on and "progressing" to other plans like Daniels and Pfitzinger it makes me question the plan itself?

Are his plans only good to a certain point providing a safe and general introduction to marathon running?

Can someone progress to their optimum potential on his plans?

What are his coaching credentials regarding top class runners he has trained? (cant seem to find much regarding training of elites)

His running credentials are extensive running a PB of 2.21.55 and running over 100 marathons but most of his success came as a masters runner.

Would be great to get feedback from people who use his training plan(this is not a dig at his coaching or his training plan but rather an evaluation to the limitations and successes of the plan)

Krusty_Clown

I followed the intermediate II plan for my first marathon. Are his plans any better than any other plan? No, absolutely not!

The thing is:they are accessible, free, and accessible! For most of us, having some form of structured plan is a massive advantage over having no plan at all. When i started on this marathon path, I had heard from someone that you needed to run 5 x 20 mile runs in order to run a successful marathon, so that became my initial goal. Then I found the Boards ART forum (way back in the day when it wasn't called ART!) and got advice (from Hunnymonster, Amadeus and others) which pointed me in the direction of the Higdon plans, and I never looked back (for my first marathon).

If you belong to a peer group of runners (athletics club, friends, etc) then you can skip step one, and go to a more appropriate plan, or get enough advice to put your own plan together. However, for a large group of us, we don't have tat support group (until you find the Boards ART forum!) so Hals plans are a solid starting point.

asimonov

ecoli wrote: »

The frequent reccomendation of the name Hal Higdon and his training plans got me thinking alot. As many people use this as a beginners guide and then ultimately moving on and "progressing" to other plans like Daniels and Pfitzinger it makes me question the plan itself?

Are his plans only good to a certain point providing a safe and general introduction to marathon running?

Can someone progress to their optimum potential on his plans?

What are his coaching credentials regarding top class runners he has trained? (cant seem to find much regarding training of elites)

His running credentials are extensive running a PB of 2.21.55 and running over 100 marathons but most of his success came as a masters runner.

Would be great to get feedback from people who use his training plan(this is not a dig at his coaching or his training plan but rather an evaluation to the limitations and successes of the plan)

I think you have it nailed there.

I used his novice 2 plan for my first marathon in '09 and it was excellent for that; highlights were the fact that it was easy to understand with little technical detail in terms of pace; it only has running on 5 days per week so its easy to stick to, and it has a very safe progression from low mileage to marathon mileage. I didn't really fancy the look of his more advanced plans for marathon no. 2, and I don't really remember why, so switched to P&D. Maybe i was looking for something that appeared more technical - or just had "advanced marathoner" in the title!

My personal opinion is that I don't think anyone can reach their optimum potential from an off the shelf plan.

Cool Running

I used his Intermediate plan for the marathon last year. Turns out I got injured 4 weeks beforehand and didnt end up running but had everything built up with the 20 miler completed reasonably easy.

Main thing as Krusty says its free and accessible. If you have been running a while all you need is something to tell you what distances to do on what days and it does that perfectly.

His website is extremely easy to use. Pure old school but does the job. No fancy flash ads or pop ups or any of that rubbish. Plain and simple site that tells what to do. What more do ya want really. Also has limited info on stretching etc but the main benefit is just the actual mileage plan.

I usually recomend to anyone considering doing a Marathon.

myflipflops

I've read his training plans and other 'set' plans that are available.

I'm sure a very tiny percentage of people may be able to reach their potential following it but with the Higdon plans, and other pre ordained training plan, it lacks an athlete speicific element that is key in optimum training. What works for me may not work for you so with this in mind, these training plans are far from ideal for people trying to improve past a beginner level.

I would guess they are great for novice runners though. THe ideal scenario could be to follow them at the beginning and then develop your own ideas or move onto a real coach.

rainbow kirby

I suggested using the Novice 1 plan for those who took part in the Novices/Sub-4:30 thread. It's a quite conservative plan in terms of mileage (starts at 18 mpw, peaks at 40mpw, with only one 18 mile and one 20 mile run) - but I felt that this offered a good balance between going long and avoiding injury for those without an extensive running base.

ecoli

This brings me to my next question. If it is good for beginners but not for further advancement would that mean that the principles of the plan are naturally flawed? Given its limitatitions you could argue that maybe its not as great for beginners other than for practicality.

Again just looking for opinions kinda playing devils advocate regarding the philosophies of a training plan. Surely one which is beneficial at the higher end is more effective training. Or should innefective training be used for beginners as a bridging gap into the sport?

--amadeus--

On phone so I can't give a full answer but there is a difference between inefficient, ineffective and optimal.

The people HH targets with the intro plans would never make the start line under a more rigerous program. As strength builds and the body adapts so the training intensity shifts to a more optimal or more efficient plan.

ecoli

--amadeus-- wrote: »

On phone so I can't give a full answer but there is a difference between inefficient, ineffective and optimal.

The people HH targets with the intro plans would never make the start line under a more rigerous program. As strength builds and the body adapts so the training intensity shifts to a more optimal or more efficient plan.

Ineffective was poor choice of wording their. However other training plans dont necessarily mean training intensities shift that much. My line of thought was more which would be more beneficial using the principles of more efficient training plans (Lydiard, Pfitzinger or Daniels) to see greater benefits. One could argue that Lydiards approach of a large aerobic build up would be as safe and more effective?

Again this is just food for though on a slow day.:D

Krusty_Clown

ecoli wrote: »

This brings me to my next question. If it is good for beginners but not for further advancement would that mean that the principles of the plan are naturally flawed? Given its limitatitions you could argue that maybe its not as great for beginners other than for practicality.

Again just looking for opinions kinda playing devils advocate regarding the philosophies of a training plan. Surely one which is beneficial at the higher end is more effective training. Or should innefective training be used for beginners as a bridging gap into the sport?

That depends on what you are offering as an alternative (if you're going to be the devil's disciple, you have to do it properly!). If the alternative approach for a beginner is not follow a plan at all, then no, there is nothing wrong with the Higdon approach, and the plan will get you from A to B, while minimizing injury risk.

If the alternative is to follow an improved plan, specifically tailored to the individual, that will not expose the runner to a significant risk of injury, then yes, the Higdon plan could be considered flawed as it is not optimal.

The goal of the runner needs to be considered too. If the goal is to complete the race, then perhaps a Higdon plan might be optimal; who knows? But if the plan is to complete as quickly as possible, then that's where these plans could be considered sub-optimal.

nerraw1111

Hal is good for novice runners and takes into consideration the limitations of runners new to the sport. I followed it for the DCM 2009. It was easy to follow and enjoyable, never felt like hard work.

Great for someone looking to complete a marathon but probably not for someone looking to realise their potential.

I would not have been able to follow an advanced program at the time I used HH though.

ecoli

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

That depends on what you are offering as an alternative (if you're going to be the devil's disciple, you have to do it properly!). If the alternative approach for a beginner is not follow a plan at all, then no, there is nothing wrong with the Higdon approach, and the plan will get you from A to B, while minimizing injury risk.

If the alternative is to follow an improved plan, specifically tailored to the individual, that will not expose the runner to a significant risk of injury, then yes, the Higdon plan could be considered flawed as it is not optimal.

The goal of the runner needs to be considered too. If the goal is to complete the race, then perhaps a Higdon plan might be optimal; who knows? But if the plan is to complete as quickly as possible, then that's where these plans could be considered sub-optimal.

I mentioned Lydiard who has brought runners to Olympic success so i will use that example. Compare his philosophies to that of Higdon. Would it be not be fair to say that both can be relatively low risk training (heavily aerobic based rather than intesity shifting to the degree of the likes of Daniels).

I am just trying to evaluate the fame of the training plans and whether they are down to the training philosophies or the fact that they provide consitent low injury training which are bound to show benefits to those who have not built up a large aerobic base through consistent training (i.e if a newbie follows the plan and achieves consistent training they are bound to get aerobically stronger regardless of the efficiency of the training plan)

Krusty_Clown

ecoli wrote: »

I am just trying to evaluate the fame of the training plans and whether they are down to the training philosophies or the fact that they provide consitent low injury training which are bound to show benefits to those who have not built up a large aerobic base through consistent training (i.e if a newbie follows the plan and achieves consistent training they are bound to get aerobically stronger regardless of the efficiency of the training plan)

I would say that it is the latter. I think you are making the wrong connections though, evidenced by your use of the word fame. HH plans are not 'famed' or held up in any way as the right approach. They are simply 'used' as they offer the most basic of starting points.

ecoli

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I would say that it is the latter. I think you are making the wrong connections though, evidenced by your use of the word fame. HH plans are not 'famed' or held up in any way as the right approach. They are simply 'used' as they offer the most basic of starting points.

I dunno would i agree with this. His book became a best seller which obviously could be down to just being "used" as you have stated however his coaching methods are held in high regard and the man is the longest contributing coach to runners world which stands at over 40 years

Krusty_Clown

ecoli wrote: »

I dunno would i agree with this. His book became a best seller which obviously could be down to just being "used" as you have stated however his coaching methods are held in high regard and the man is the longest contributing coach to runners world which stands at over 40 years

I stand corrected. I didn't realize his coaching methods were held in such high regard. I would guess that his coaching fame might be more associated with direct training/coaching, rather than his internet based plans (upon which I was basing my comments).

ecoli

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I stand corrected. I didn't realize his coaching methods were held in such high regard. I would guess that his coaching fame might be more associated with direct training/coaching, rather than his internet based plans (upon which I was basing my comments).

Interestingly I have not been able to find one elite which he has trained which is why it had me bringing him up??

Anyone know of anyone?

hot to trot

Great topic.
I am interested in this because I am a relative newcomer to running. When trying to decide which plan I would follow for Comrades marathon I compared HH's comrades one with the New Zealand Ultra runners 100k plan.
They are almost identical apart from a few shorter miles on the midweek runs. HH hs 8 miles UR's have 10 M but with more pacing guidelines built into their mileage

Krusty_Clown

ecoli wrote: »

Interestingly I have not been able to find one elite which he has trained which is why it had me bringing him up??

Anyone know of anyone?

Didn't he train his son, who made the US marathon squad? Think I read it in one of the tips on his weekly guides (in his marathon programs, if you click on the week number, he offers advice on every session). Think it was in relation to a tip about walking through water stations. :eek:

Krusty_Clown

Actually found the reference here. It doesn't actually suggest that he coached his son, so who knows?!

My son Kevin ran 2:18 and qualified for the Olympic Trials employing a similar strategy. And Bill Rodgers took four brief breaks (tying a shoe on one of them) while running 2:09 and winning the 1975 Boston Marathon. Walking gives your body a chance to rest, and you'll be able to continue running more comfortably. It's best to walk when you want to, not when your (fatigued) body forces you too.

RayCun

ecoli wrote: »

This brings me to my next question. If it is good for beginners but not for further advancement would that mean that the principles of the plan are naturally flawed? Given its limitatitions you could argue that maybe its not as great for beginners other than for practicality.

Its very easy to follow. There are only two types of runs in a week - a long slow run, and a 'run at a comfortable pace'. That's obviously not optimal training, and even on the novices thread amadeus and rainbow kirby substituted in faster runs, but it's easy to understand and not intimidating, both good qualities in a novice plan that isn't supplemented by personal coaching.

neilc

I've used Hal's novice and intermediate plans for my first two marathons. As everyone else has said they're pretty safe and easy to follow. The intermediate II plan brought me in in sub 4 this year in Dublin. The thing is though even though I am definitely still in the novice category, I want to step up to the next level(BQ) and I don't feel I can't do that with Hal's plans. With that in mind I bought the P&D book and having read that in two days I firmly believe it's a much more intelligent approach and will help me achieve my goals.

RoyMcC

A lot of us on here, including me, recommend Higdon as a first port of call for new runners looking for race schedules. I thought you might be interested in a point of view that suggests that Higdon's schedules (1) invite injuries and (2) leave your best runs out there on the training ground.

http://steverunnerblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/my-marathon-training-plan-free-from.html?spref=fb sorry, can't do the embedding thing.

I've followed Higdon for my four marathon attempts and, though I've never been injured, I've never done myself justice over the distance.

Any thoughts?

Krusty_Clown

ecoli raised the subject previously here. I followed his program for my first time out, but after that looked elsewhere, and didn't look back. I would still recommend his plan to beginners as an alternative to not having a plan at all.

RoyMcC

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

ecoli raised the subject previously here. I followed his program for my first time out, but after that looked elsewhere, and didn't look back. I would still recommend his plan to beginners as an alternative to not having a plan at all.

Whoops yes, thanks KC. Mods maybe you'd tack this on to the end of ecoli's thread? It's just that I've never come across an anti-Higdon critique before.

runningcoach

My personal opinion is that I don't think anyone can reach their optimum potential from an off the shelf plan.[/QUOTE]

For me thats the crux of it. No off the shelf plan is accurate for an athletes personal running traits wether it be miles that they can phyiscally tolerate , indivdual recovery rates , injury track record etc IMO.

Ecoli to answer your question IMO it may well be the case that Higdons strength is guiding novices or intermediates to reaching statisfactory levels but no further.

anymore

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

ecoli raised the subject previously here. I followed his program for my first time out, but after that looked elsewhere, and didn't look back. I would still recommend his plan to beginners as an alternative to not having a plan at all.

I found his plans useful for my first marathon and loosely followed the intermediate plan for the second. It is a wonderful resource for people such as myself who had never run seriousily before and who were doing it on their own.
Given that these plans are available to all and completely free of charge, I am not sure why it is necessary to over analyse them - pressumably anyone serious about thier running will seek one to one coaching. I am very happy to see these available free for all.

Krusty_Clown

anymore wrote: »

I found his plans useful for my first marathon and loosely followed the intermediate plan for the second. It is a wonderful resource for people such as myself who had never run seriousily before and who were doing it on their own.
Given that these plans are available to all and completely free of charge, I am not sure why it is necessary to over analyse them - pressumably anyone serious about thier running will seek one to one coaching. I am very happy to see these available free for all.

I have seen some really shocking free plans on the 'interweb though! Might be best to perform some analysis, before launching yourself down a specific path!

liamo123

anymore wrote: »

I found his plans useful for my first marathon and loosely followed the intermediate plan for the second. It is a wonderful resource for people such as myself who had never run seriousily before and who were doing it on their own.
Given that these plans are available to all and completely free of charge, I am not sure why it is necessary to over analyse them - pressumably anyone serious about thier running will seek one to one coaching. I am very happy to see these available free for all.

Could'nt agree more..His plans are easy 2 follow and Im still using his Advanced plan as a template but adding more milage especially in 1st few days of the week...

woodchopper

Greg McMillan is the best online marathon coach available at the present moment.I had the pleasure to met the man many years ago when I was under the wing of Gabriele Rosa on the team USA Arizona project.