Opinions on different Marathon Training plans

MisterJinx

Hi All,

@Swashbuckler linked in a log post to a website which I had bookmarked previously which set out a comparison of various different Marathon training plans. I was going to use this to select a plan for myself for DCM 2022, assuming it's going ahead......

https://fellrnr.com/wiki/A_Comparison_of_Marathon_Training_Plans

So for myself, based on the definitions provided on the fellrnr site, I'd suggest I'm a Novice i.e. I have run some shorter races, have experience of interval running but this will be a first time Marathon training block for me. A few of the other variables in the comparison chart also apply as I'd be time limited (a great week for me is a ~2hr long run, 1xinternal session and 3 x 50 minute runs - on a bad week, it depends, but could be as little as 2 runs). I'd also select Multisport as quite happy to substitute in swimming and cycling. Also with Family life and all that looking for something flexible as things crop up and I try to fit in what I can where I can.

Based on my criteria the following plans seem to come through

First Novice and First Marathon (these do seem to review very poorly online but do seem to draw me in)

Jeff Galloway's You Can do it

Jack Daniels 4Week, 2Q and PlanA

Hal Higdons UTG

So looking for some opinions on the above plans, have people tried these plans before, what works well and what doesn't, are they suitable for a Novice, is there a huge emphasis on mileage or a mix of activities, any recommendations on any plans that have worked well generally?

Swashbuckler

I'll only comment on the 2Q plan as that's the only one of the ones you listed that I've done a deep dive on.

Given your history and experience level I'd steer clear...the Daniels plan really looks like its set up for more experienced runners. Some of the sessions are monsters. If I didn't have 5 years of solid consistent running 6-7 days a week with two sessions, one long run per week and plenty of high volume sessions I'd have steered clear.

Best of luck with choosing one. It's half the enjoyment of the whole process!

MY BAD

Out of interest what's the JB Plan A they mention in that link? It's not in my edition

Murph_D

If some weeks only have two runs you are definitely going to struggle, with any plan. Higdon has a great range of plans. I used one (Novice 2, I think) for my own first marathon and it worked well. It’s all about getting in enough mileage, at the right paces. Definitely not JD, as swashbuckler says. Hanson has a beginner plan that might work too.

MisterJinx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118353350#Comment_118353350

Great thanks for that, definitely steering me away from the JD plans by the sounds of it from where I'm at.

Obviously I'd be hoping to not have too many bad weeks next year... have averaged 32k per week for this year while still doing tri training so with a run focus next year I'm under no illusions that I'll need to make a lot of progress on the weekly mileage and frequency.

I'll take a look at Hanson and Higdon

E.coli

As Murph has alluded to

The success or failure based around any of these plans isn't the specifics but more the consistency

FIRST tends to get bad rap due to lack of run specific training but (and its a big but) the area many fall down here is that they don't take the Cross training as seriously for consistency. Ultimately the plan is designed with the heavy emphasis here because the number of run sessions is lower it has to over compensate

JD plans again require consistency but the difference here being that lack of consistency will result in much higher injury risk. There are many caveats to the plans which are explained earlier in the books that often get ignored (like time based reps rather than distance once you are slower than a particular level)

HH and Galloway are more forgiving plans in terms of consistency but as a result they have lowest ceiling in terms of optimal training. Generally these plans are designed towards those looking to complete and as a result tend to have higher success rates

Hanson training would be very much in line with the athletic club model.I wouldn't truly view them as marathon specific but the cumulative effect of solid training week in and week out will work for 90% of people especially if you haven't grown up in the running scene. I would say though that the success here also revolves around consistency as the strength you build up tends to be based around the cumulative strength built up over weeks and months. It's attritional though so niggles and bumps can be expected and if consistency is an issue you are likely not gonna get the true benefits from the training being done (sessions not overly hard in isolation but benefit comes from stringing 8-10 heavy weeks of them back to back when body is tired as hell)

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118355781#Comment_118355781

Interesting thought on Hanson. Why would you consider it not marathon specific, given that it probably contains more marathon paced workouts than any other plan (that I've seen anyway)? Also, it front loads the speed work in favour of more tempo-like speed work in teh second half, again with the view that these 'strength' sessions are more marathon focused.

MisterJinx

"like time based reps rather than distance once you are slower than a particular level"

Is there a particular thinking in any/ most plans in relation to time versus distance? I tend to already be on the clock so actually time based might be something I can plan around although so far HH might seem like a route for me.

Also consistency comes through in the advice here very regularly and will be key to any plan, it's a work in progress!

Swashbuckler

Well if you take a Daniels plan as an example. You might see a session like 4M easy/8M at marathon pace/1M Threshold/2M easy. To an elite athlete that's probably a total of less than 40mins at marathon pace and less than a total of 90mins running all in. Working off my head here so forgive me if I'm a little off. Take that same session for a beginner and it could mean 80mins at marathon pace and more than 2.5hrs running. So you have a beginner working wayyy harder than an elite in a session.

Hal Higdons plans, especially the beginner plans ,are more geared towards the novice runners. So the sessions are probably working on the assumption of someone running much slower paces.

You just need to be very careful when choosing a plan. I had to get my calculator out when choosing the 2Q plan.

Not sure if any of this was even your question but I think that's the point of ecolis post.

MisterJinx

Yes it's all helping with the decision making process and thanks for the input

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358441#Comment_118358441

I haven't read specifics on Hanson plan in quite some time so completely open to correction on many of these points.

First though I wanna preface this by saying that this is my opinion and there are plenty of examples of successful approaches to this type of training (Molly Seidel of the US being on which sticks out in my mind)

From memory format approaches with Speed early week, M Tempos of 6-10 miles later and steadier long runs of 15-16 miles (for the most part) at weekend consistently. As I said previously its highly successful in making a very strong runner (and in fact I think most people would improve from 5k up on training like that) however for me marathon specific refers to preparing you for the latter half of the race. The old adage of it being a 20 mile warm up and a 10k battle rings true. Fact is if you are feeling anything but comfortable in the first 10-12 miles of a marathon you are in trouble.

This format heavily relies on cumulative fatigue which does in build a lot of strength but you are still effectively running Marathon tempo's like the early stages of a race rather than the latter. Yes fatigue is there but from a fuel perspective and muscle fibre exhaustion aspect they are not fully replicated. This is why the big long run sessions play a role in simulation. 2 miles @MP is going to have a very different effect after 10-15 miles already done compared to as part of 10 mile tempo.

There is the risk though of these big long run sessions and injury/ overtraining though and that is why they need to be balanced and tailored to the athletes level or they are a recipe for disaster,

This is the point trying to get across with it being good plan for strength building but not marathon specific. It does not mean that it is inferior in any way as I would put many 10k runners on 60mpw running strength based work in better position than others doing say JD 40-50 mpw plan

Swashbuckler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360177#Comment_118360177

Do you mind me asking, and apologies if you said it already but do you have a particular target time in mind and is this your first marathon? Have you seen the DCM novices plan?

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118358602#Comment_118358602

I am not sure if it is in the newer JD versions but I remember he previously advised that the distance is based around 6 min/miling being the baseline. If you are running slower than that you should go with the assumption of 6 min work for every mile prescribed. Tends to be overlooked by many leading to either people being scared off the training or getting injured

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360300#Comment_118360300

Here is the man himself discussing time vs distance in relation to long runs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO1hQ_kplgo&list=PLnAKD1Q8PRQ-lo2fMXbYdLyaJUHznbfvG&index=12

Swashbuckler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360300#Comment_118360300

That is very good to know..I missed that!

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360598#Comment_118360598

Unfortunately my copy is out on loan at an unknown location (always take photos of a person holding the book you are loaning them) but If I remember correctly this was general guideline as opposed to being specific to the elite plans.

Would make sense though based off the session you listed above 48 min @ MP sounds about right

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360279#Comment_118360279

Those are all very good points. My own experience with Hanson is that those M tempos, because they're on the back of fairly hefty speed (5k pace) or 'strength' (10 secs faster than MP) sessions, do quite effectively simulate the second half of the race. Having used the plan a few times I'd say it suits me anyway, more so than the likes of P&D which I've also used a few times. But that all could just be a recency effect with more M experience and conditioning leading to better results anyway! There's an excellent Hanson thread here where a lot of these points have been mulled over. Most people balk at the lack of 20 mile runs (in the non-elite versions of the plan) but I've never felt that to be a shortcoming personally. I'll probably move on from Hanson next year for the next block but more out of a desire for different approaches every so often than any feeling that the approach is lacking.

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118361202#Comment_118361202

I have no doubt it suits my points were not a criticism of the plan in the slightest I am a big fan of this type of training and I would advise this styled approach for the large majority of people here my points around specificity are more abstract in general sense. By in large the running population of Ireland don't have the foundational background of 10+ years of training with good mix middle to long distance training exposure so this sort of style of training is more important than specificity

I agree with you on the 20 mile debate. To be honest I think for alot of people that is actually one of the pluses of the plan they are not being overtrained with necessity for time on feet. There is a US running coach who explained the phenomenon as "aerobic fitness preceding structural intensity" the idea being take a novice cyclist throw them on a bike and they might go for a few hours, apply the same to a runner and they might get 70 min. We need to get the body used to the pounding much more than developing aerobically, the issue being that this build up is slower and alot easier to overload

MisterJinx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360288#Comment_118360288

Yes first Marathon, no I don't think I've seen the dcm novices plan and as for time I'm intending to do a park run in Jan, Raheny 5mile and boherameen half before I look at a time

Swashbuckler

Well definitely look at DCM novices plan..I can't link it as I'm on my mobile .maybe someone else can help there? It's tried and trusted for all the DCM novices every year.

Unless you have a good few years experience at running sessions and regular long runs I'd be a little careful at going down the route of some of those plans linked in the wiki site especially the likes of Hansen, Daniels, even pfitzinger. Maybe hal higdon would be the safest bet. Would you consider getting coaching for your first marathon?

Laineyfrecks

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16gSieCUamkjxOBVB2li8jA6bQSvkuLySyjG-ZilizDY/edit?pli=1#gid=1343555020

Hopefully that works. I followed the Novice plan in 2019 & really enjoyed it. Having very little running background I found it a very manageable plan & was more than happy with my 1st marathon. Definitely worth a look.

MisterJinx

Thanks, I'll do a search once I'm back on desktop myself. Hal H seems to bre winning out so far and will look at the dcm novices as well.

I think for this one I'll go it alone with a plan and see if I get the bug for the longer distances and see how I go before going down a coached route.

Singer

I'm not a coach or particularly well read or anything, but based on my own experience running for longer than like 2.5 hours is pointless. If you're John Tracey, sure, knock out a few 30 milers. For non-elite athletes, especially those in the masters+ category, the damage done from super long runs (18+ miles?) in a classic marathon plan is awful, requiring multiple days to recover and ultimately dominating the training schedule. The last few times I did LSRs over 2.5 hours I ended up semi-injured and didn't run well at the target marathon. For a novice marathoner I think it can be useful to do one or two runs close to marathon distance to get a feel for the distance, but generally I think consistent mileage and regular work on 10k-HM pace sets up a good marathon as opposed to a bunch of gigantic Sunday 20+ mile LSRs, for most people. Running training runs over 3 hours is brutal on the body for most of us.

demfad

It has to be said that the new running shoes (High stack, Carbon Plate types) should have a positive effect on the 'time on feet'/pounding element of traditional plans. That requirement is not as great now: pounding the pavement for 26 miles isn't what it used to be (just look at vastly reduced marathon recovery times)

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058223683/opinions-on-different-marathon-training-plans

Another point I'd make. People have correctly mentioned that the training plans are predicated on accumulated fatigue (some more than others). If life etc. may mean the training is inconsistent for you, you may not accumulate the fatigue necessary to make the prescribed training have the desired effect.

There are some mitigations you can do which IMO should be endurance biased as that is more or less the quality trained under accumulated fatigue.

1: After missing some training: add lenght to the prescribed sessions until you 'catch up' with the fatigue. Be biased towards the endurance sessions as I indicated.

2: If you've time, insert a short 'endurance block'. Could be a long easy run then easy day, or a marathon paced run followed by long run then easy day. This predetermined block could be inserted in after a few days/week where the training was suboptimal. Its a quick pill catch up on fatigue that would also target endurance.

MisterJinx

Thanks @demfad that's a great suggestion you have there in relation to the short endurance block. It's something I can have in the back pocket should there be a bad few days or a couple of weeks where things have been tight at home and priority calls had to be made!

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118383065#Comment_118383065

On your first point. Surely that is dependent on why training was missed? Adding length to prescribed sessions after say an injury break or illness is surely high risk?

Personally I would not be of the opinion to change dynamics of a designed session by adding length as it changes the injury/ recovery dynamics of the session in relation to the overall plan. I don't think you can replicate cumulative fatigue simply by overtraining. Would be more inclined with the second approach.

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402349#Comment_118402349

I think it was specified that the OP might occasionally have weeks where only a couple of runs might happen due to life etc. and that specifically was what I was addressing (Obviously, if someone is recovering from injury/illness that is a completely different set of circumstances). As has been noted in the preceding posts many of these general schedules rely on accumulated fatigue. If sessions are designed expecting accumulated fatigue and the runner is not fatigued then the session/schedule will not achieve what it intends to achieve: it will be too easy. To get 'back on track' there a number of approaches. One approach would be to make the next session harder (on paper) so that it will force the runner back into the same ballpark of adaption/recovery as if the training hadn't been missed. That isn't overtraining. In general as it's a marathon being targeted I would advise the addition of difficulty on a session to be biased towards the endurance side ie by adding volume to the session. Idea here is to keep the remedy as simple as possible. There can be a lot of emotional fatigue wasted on worrying over missed training and complex remedies to schedules to compensate. Simple is best.

The second suggestion does trump the first on simplicity. The caveat that I should have mentioned is that a buffer of a couple of extra weeks to the schedule might be recommended if training is to be missed. That gives the runner the space to carry out the small endurance block and keep all the sessions/elements in the schedule.

MisterJinx

Yes @demfad this was the track of my thoughts in relation to the weeks where the running was lighter than wanted, more life than injuries.

I have a stupid question: It's been mentioned on this thread a couple of times now, accumulated fatigue. Can someone explain this to me in basic terms. While I understand what is meant I'm not sure I understand it. From my perspective, and this is probably where I don't understand in that, sometimes, I have not run as I felt tired or leggy and was concerned that running that condition could lead to injury or do me more harm than good and backed out of a run as a result or instead of a planned session did an easy run instead. So in a marathon training block should I be feeling leggy all the time and that the purpose of the sessions is to be able to perform while tired?

Also, another stupid question, most plans seems to work off 3 weeks on and 1 week recovery. Is this the standard for everyone, looking at my own log I seem to do 2 weeks on (long run plus easy + sessions) and 1 week off (easy runs + long). Is it wise to keep an eye on this and work towards getting to 3 weeks on (a plan will help with this obviously!)

Bluesquare

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118382864#Comment_118382864

Do the shoes subtract from the accumulated fatigue element though ?

Bluesquare

I’m a relative novice marathon runner . The big questions I had before picking a plan was what mileage I could do :

1. around my lifestyle
2. around how much my body could handle

I looked at Hal , my clubs generic plan and a plan that a friend had gotten from a PT ( a well known Irish marathon runner )

Hals was a bit dull with no little /variety in paces. The club one was better but the mileage was low and there were no 20 mile runs ( my training partners couldn’t cope with this - seems to be mental training for lots of people .)The third plan was great but the mileage was way too much for me and involved 6 days running which would have broken me .

In the end I went with the club schedule but used Hal’s weekly mileage to tweak it . It suited me perfectly and I loved every bit of the training .

I have them all saved down and paces added for a sub 4 marathon if your interested I can share - no idea what your targets are.

Swashbuckler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415671#Comment_118415671

Hopefully demfad and ecoli both chime in here coz both are extremely knowledgeable but let me give my non expert take on some of what you have asked.

I remember seeing a really good analogy way back on what you are trying to achieve with training. There's loads of science to it all and you can quickly go down a rabbit hole and boggle the brain. I always like to understand as much of it as possible but try to bring it back to simple terms. Here's how I think of it. Imagine you give your body a task and it struggles to do it. The body's response to that is to try and make that task easier the next time. It's basic "survival of the fittest, adapt or die" caveman stuff. So you want to embarrass the body just enough so that it will adapt to the load you have placed on it. If you embarrass the body too much it just breaks down. If you dont embarrass it enough then it wont really adapt to the task it's being asked to do.

So in training for a marathon you are progressively trying to embarrass the body enough so that it will adapt to run 26.2 miles at your given pace.

Ideally we would simply train 26.2 miles in training but for obvious reasons thats not possible. My understanding of cumulative fatigue is that it helps the body adapt to those latter stages of the marathon. Think of it this way. If you ran two sessions a week and rested the other five days then you're gonna be very fresh for those two sessions. How will that prepare you for mile 22 or 23 of a marathon. Whereas the idea of cumulative fatigue is your continually asking the body to do a little more work on tired legs, recover, adapt and repeat. But its a balancing act and a very hard one to get right. Overdo it and the body will break down rather than adapt.

It's one of the reasons elites and really strong runners tend to have high mileage, double days etc (not always but generally speaking). They have adapted over time and can take the training load and simply more miles equals more of a stimulus. There are exceptions, dont get me wrong and some people do well off much lower mileage than others.

So you're right to be a little cautious but you simply cant train effectively for a marathon without being tired. You absolutely will not be fresh all the time. If you are, then you're in for a shock when you hit mile 16, 17, 18 and so on on the day itself. Its why successful marathoners build on each block. There are so many questions as a marathon newbie (same for me by the way) - is this normal, should I feel this way, was that too hard etc etc. After successive marathon blocks the experience builds and people tend to get a feel for whats right or wrong for them.

We're all told to listen to the body - the trouble is no-one can tell us what its trying to say - its all trial and error and very individualised. Best thing to do is draw on the experience of others. I'm not great at reading back over old threads on here (I really should) but I remember following the DCM novices threads and all the newbies felt the same way and had the same questions. Its worth reading through one , if only to get a sense that you're not alone in wondering these things.

To your second question. There is no one set way. Some people are 3 up one down. Others are never really down. It also depends what you are training for, what phase of training you are in - are you in a specific block, are you just training away etc etc. The best thing to do is not to try and figure it all out now. Try something, ask questions, see how it goes, try something new.......You'll do well to find anyone on here that has stuck to the same formula throughout their running lives. The one thing I will say is it is good to have some sort of plan for the year and then try to phase your training a bit. A lot of people just pluck a plan from a book without really thinking how well prepared they are to execute that plan. Different plans make different assumptions. Phasing of training is something I find really interesting and something i still havent really figured out.

Finally - there are no stupid questions.

Sorry for the essay!

MisterJinx

Thanks @Swashbuckler I'll try and dig out a couple of the novices threads and have a read and see what questions were asked there and it will probably save you all answering them again here!

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118415671#Comment_118415671

So, the rest weeks could be viewed as a respite from fatigue built up over the preceding weeks. Most of the schedules might have the runner pushing the envelope out with volume. Volume is needed to increase overall fitness and leg strenght as a base for the bigger sessions and long runs. So the schedules may take account that you'll be a little tired during sessions and have them structured accordingly.

Anyway, a low mileage week due to life might have similar affect on you to a scheduled rest week and you may not get the benefit of the upcoming week.

If you are very tired leggy, then maybe you should go with the gut as you are doing and take an easy day. The volume should have you pleasantly fatigued with more tiredness after harder days. You should be able to run after a harder day. We are amateurs and have work/life to do as well as running. We shouldn't be wrecked. Be conservative early in the schedule and you'll naturally get stronger. Run the easy runs as if you're 'gathering' energy rather than using it.

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118416100#Comment_118416100

It may slightly affect how training is set out. If there is less muscle damage from long runs then recovery should be shorter and/or longer recovery runs can be undertaken (more volume can be achieved). If I understand it some schedules have two hard runs in a row. So maybe an LT session followed next day by a long run. The long run is slightly shorter because muscles are already tired from the previous days run. This has the advantage (Im guessing) that the muscles are fatigued in a beneficial way while likelihood of injury to ligaments, tendons etc from a longer single run is reduced. Recovery time does seem to be a lot shorter for long runs and indeed marathons using the new shoes. Maybe there will be less need for this type of session manipulation.

I am in the lucky position of heading out to Iten in Kenya for a couple of weeks training from late next week. I'll try and get a more definitive answer out there on how the newer runners have affected marathon training if at all.

Bluesquare

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118419274#Comment_118419274

Wow - training in Kenya nice . Best of luck, the experience will be amazing .

I guess for high achieving Athletes your probably right with regards to how their schedules will look taking the “ super “ shoes into account. It may take a while to filter through to the masses though although most folk wouldn’t be using these shoes all the time anyway .

Murph_D

We are starting to stray quite bit I think from the OP's original question and need, in terms of how to train for a first marathon.

I could well be wrong, but I think the vast majority of first time marathon runners won't (and probably shouldn't, even if they have money to burn) use supershoes for long runs and sessions. Personally I prefer to keep the benefit for race day, and that does seem to make a difference in terms of lightness, springiness etc, especially in the first half of the race when you really want it to feel easy. I do use the ‘sorta’ supershoes (Endorphin Speed, Zoom Fly etc) for speedy/tempo stuff though, and one a good cushioned shoe for long runs. I suppose this does represent a change for me - I never really thought or cared about this stuff before about 18 months ago when the new generation of shoes became mainstream.

I suppose it’s something the OP might consider, although I think simple, consistent training in a good comfortable pair of shoes will deliver more.

MisterJinx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118419401#Comment_118419401

@Murph_D Yes agreed that consistent training will deliver me the most benefit overall although I do have a sorta super shoe for the faster stuff (Endorphin Speed) and very comfy NB 880s for the longer runs which were birthday presents to myself last year :-) I'm set up with shoes now and really at my stage wouldn't consider getting any of the super shoes, what I have covers all the bases I would need.

E.coli

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118402574#Comment_118402574

I can see the logic of where you are coming from here in terms of achieving a level to optimize adaptation within a singular session from accumulated fatigue. I think we are probably coming at the term differently in terms of fatigue accrued vs a deep cellular fatigue. I tend to be viewing it from the latter in which case there is no real catch up other than building in that buffer, For simplicity it is definitely not.

I do see it as overtraining though as you change the dynamics of the session would result in having to change the dynamics of recovery post session. Could potentially re-phrase as under recovery. However your point on emotional investment around the planning of the training and how much that plays a role is an excellent one that definitely warrants consideration. If a person is a worrier or over thinker, stick to the plan can actually be less taxing overall

I definitely need to caveat this though by saying I am very conservative my philosophies around training and you make a great point around the shoe technology and recovery that perhaps is not factored into how I approach methodology and changed with the times

demfad

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118426254#Comment_118426254

I guess what I am addressing here is how to adapt a one size fits all schedule if training is missed. As endurance is the focus for marathons, the sessions and long runs tend to be developed by extending the quality or lenght rather than making them faster. If the runner is less fatigued then expected arriving at the session then in the majority of sessions that can be addressed by extdning the session/run at the same intensity. As for recovery it is critical that the runner understands and therefore has the tools to carry out correct recovery. So a the dimensions of the recovery run are insignificant compared to the overarching objective that recovery is achieved. For marathon training the runner runs at his/her recovery intensity or less for a distance short enough that recovery is achieved. As the runner gets fitter this distance wil increase. The changes made to a session above should not warrant an extra days recovery.

As a worrier myself and someone who is quite busy I think things that can be planned ahead and repeated should be. For example, having a 'niggle block' is very useful. So if a runner feels a niggle they do not try and solve it on the fly but immediately retreat into a block, say 1 day off, 1 day recovery, 1 day easy and then assess. Can be overkill sometimes but you are getting consistency by avoiding down time from injury and reducing emotional fatigue and worry by activating the 'formula' rather than working it out every time. Caveat is that some niggles should require more scrutiny but the runner would probably twig those occasions.

My experience with the runners is based on my self and chatting to a few others but I think older runners benefit even more by being able to basically run more with less muscle damage/niggles. Older folk aren't as quick to process the food as well so have to watch the intake more. Being able to run more really helps there too. When you're over 45 IMO these are huge benefits. Obviously they help with average speeds too but being able to train more as a master is a huge benefit for them.

If senior runners can recover better and or run more then they could potentially do a bigger amount of training and therefore a bigger amount of specific work leading to faster times. But the jury is still out there. I don't know if those at the very pointy end are able to leverage the new technology into more volume at specific paces.

Louis 2018

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118416190#Comment_118416190

Hi Bluesquare

I can very much relate to what you are saying in your post from last year.

Can I ask was your sub 4 your first run? Would be interested in the programme you mentioned if that's an option.

Cheers

Bluesquare

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120695501#Comment_120695501

I didn’t do the marathon last year . I used the schedule in 2019 and unfortunately didn’t go under 4 , had a bad day at the office ( 4:05) . My training partner who also used it went under( 3:57) . I have the plan redone for this year - happy to share if you want .

Louis 2018

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120705908#Comment_120705908

Yes I would really appreciate a look at the programme thank you , not sure of the easiest way for you to share?

Has anyone ever tried The furman marathon training plan?

It gets mixed reviews but a lot of older athletes seem to believe in it from an injury prevention point of view.

Murph_D

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811473#Comment_120811473

Where are you seeing the endorsements from older athletes?

Forman consists of speed session, tempo run and long run. All workouts, and the long run is close to marathon pace. No easy or recovery mileage, although you are encouraged to cross train on two other days. In my opinion any plan that throws away the easy mileage (or 'junk miles' as described in the 18-year-old Runners World article that Google threw up) is a recipe for disaster for all but the most resilient runners.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120811552#Comment_120811552

I dont think I've ever heard of anyone from Boards using it to actually give an accurate assessment of the plan.

Leaving the speed sessions out of it for a minute.

A lot of people get injured once they rev up the mileage and use cross training to save the legs but still get the heart rate up.

You have athletes using cross training to stay fit while injured like many Youtubers I have looked at anyway.

I definitely wouldn't write off the cross training substitution for junk or easy miles.

Obviously you're not going to be winning marathons on a plan that just uses 3 days but I can see the value in it if you dont go all out on the speed

sessions and actually use your 10k PR to calculate the different sessions.

The long run for the plan is your 10k PR plus 38 to 45 seconds.

I don't think that is too bad to be honest.

I have to agree with the notion that if you do all your running at one speed then you get comfortable at that speed. That tends to happen to me anyway.

I remember when I trained for the marathon and all my long runs were at 10 min pace and on the day of the marathon I ran the first 17 miles at 9.40 and then slowed down and finished at 10 min pace avg. and I did do a 22 miler in training.

The endorsements were on Youtube comments section and there is actually a lot of reviews of the book and the plan on different sites throughout Google.

It is a thing that older athletes or athletes running a long time do tend get injured when they up the mileage, particularly athletes with knee issues or who use the pavements a lot. Three days tends to be their limit.

I'd love to hear from anyone who used this plan, I'd say a lot of Triathletes use this kind of formula just so they can get their swim and bike in as well over the course of the week. Its not really a recipe for disaster for them is it?

Murph_D

Well the plan seems to have been designed by triathletes alright and I can see how the three day plan MIGHT work with a triathlete's schedule - although I don't know much about triathlon training and I'd imagine the 80% easy / 20% workouts rule of thumb that a lot of approaches are built around applies to triathlon training as well (and certainly Matt Fitzgerald designs triathlon plans around the 80/20 principle). Furman is 100% workout!

I have no experience of this plan, but as an older runner I would never consider it.

Trampas

Any marathon plan you need to be confident in it. No point in doing it if you feel it’s not for you. Maybe you feel not enough mp runs in it to give you confidence it on the day.

echancrure

Replacing recovery runs with easy cross-training makes a lot of sense. Recovery runs do nothing for your running form and accumulate impact, which delays recovery (choose soft grown such as grass, smooth trail if you must).

Better to cross-train (elliptical, bike, walking or even treadmill), anything that moves your legs gently for the same duration and intensity (easy HR).

Cross-training provides a mental change from running, lowers impact, and does not degrade your running form.

The only downside is often, because it is not running, people have a tendency to skip cross-training sessions or not even put them into their running plans at all, and that's a big mistake: your body needs active recovery and doing nothing amounts to only very little recovery and tighter legs.