I read an article in Running magazine about their(Hanson’s) training plan that calls for you to run 6 days a week. While it may be on the aggressive side for IM training, I was interested to hear what other ST’ers thought. BarryP?..
Also, I was looking for some personal feedback about my running…I’m 40 years old, 5’9"/152 pounds, and I have only been doing tris, including 6 IM’s, since 2005. My standalone marathon PR is 3:35 and my IM PR is 11:52 at LP. They’re not stellar numbers and I know there is ample room for improvement. For the past few months, I have been loosely following BarryP’s running program and I have seen significant improvement in both my pace as well as my HR-for example, I ran 12 yesterday with an avg HR of 153 at a 7:40 pace.
Am I going too fast despite feeling REALLY good with minimal fatigue?
My run has always been my limiter at the IM distance and I desperately want to change that. With that in mind, is it wise to remain primarily run focussed in IM training-say 30%/30%/40% (S/B/R)?
Peterboro Referee: I got my eye on the three of you. You pull one thing, you’re out of this game. I run a clean game here. I have any trouble here, I’ll suspend ya. Steve Hanson: I’m listening to the fucking song!
Why not run 6 days a week - if you have time & your legs will let you that is. I did that leading up to my first IM, and I have to tell you, changing from 3-4 runs a week to 6 made a huge difference. I managed to pass hundreds on the run. Ditto for IMC in 09 - and I’m not that fast a runner.
YMMV but I don’t think 6x week is aggressive for anyone who is biomechanically sound.
Also, I was looking for some personal feedback about my running…I’m 40 years old, 5’9"/152 pounds, and I have only been doing tris, including 6 IM’s, since 2005. My standalone marathon PR is 3:35 and my IM PR is 11:52 at LP. They’re not stellar numbers and I know there is ample room for improvement. For the past few months, I have been loosely following BarryP’s running program and I have seen significant improvement in both my pace as well as my HR-for example,** I ran 12 yesterday with an avg HR of 153 at a 7:40 pace.**
There could be a # of reasons why your IM run has suffered, which I’m sure others will discuss - some of which may not be your run ability. The one thing that I wanted to point out is that the **BOLD **noted above doesn’t add up for a 3:35 marathoner.
You ran 12mi at a pace which would be projected to be 10-15sec /mi faster than you could RACE a 1/2 marathon (IF you’re still in 3:35 marathon shape). So this says…
You’re in MUCH better shape than that 3:35 would indicate
Your endurance for 26mi is lacking & you have major fall-off between 1/2 marathon >> marathon.
PS - Stating you had an avg HR of 153 on the 12miler is useless, unless we know how that relates to YOU. We could have (2) athletes w/ identical PRs, (1) w/ a LT of 165 & (1) w/ a LT of 185…in which case, a run w/ an avg HR of 153 would be dramatically different for these (2) athletes.
I hear what you’re saying and I completely agree. There are other factors that contribute to my run falling apart in an IM, but my running numbers have never been this positive. And I attribute it to running more frequently, BarryP’s advice and not treating it as a chore, but more of a necessity in order to dispel running as my limiter.
FWIW, I ran my 3:35 in Jersey last year, so there is a distinct possibility that my run fitness has improved dramatically. My LT is 182 and my VO2 was measured at 62 this time last season, so a 153 HR drops me into Zone II, correct?
their program is quite inferior to many others out there and lacks a scientific basis. stick to jack daniels or greg mcmillan
I bet people like Brian Sell, Trent Briney, Desiree Davilla will strongly disagree with you. Hell for that matter Aurthur Lydiard had no scientific basis and not only did he produce multiple Olympic medalists, but the 1 man you mention above, Greg McMillan, is a Lydiard disciple and follows the masters training philosophy.
I don’t follow any programs but I have observed that if I run every day and log~50 miles a week with a long run of ~13 miles, I feel better and faster than running fewer days with higher mileage. I just ran a 3:18 and haven’t run longer than 12 miles in months.
Running 6 and even 7 days a week is fine if you build up to it. In my younger days i was running 7-10 times per week and went 5 years without missing a day at high mileage and was a sub 2:30 marathoner. Will it help yes but not if you go from three to 6. try a month or so at 4 days- and then alternate a 5th run in every second week. go to 5 runs and then take a month and alternate the 6th. What the extra run does is help you recover while running . These are easy 4-5 mile runs. When you just do three runs long tempo and speed you never really digest the miles properly.
Now for the article let’s also go over a few details. First Adam Cohen is an experienced runner and has a background of a sub 2:40 marathoner. If you want to run that fast and have the genetics you need to do the work,. That program described is relatively low mileage. The oblect there was quality with the speed and marathon pace. The long run only reached 16 miles and what they were trying to simulate with the long run is to run on fatigued legs and the thought was they were training to run the last 16 miles of th race with the long run not the first 16 miles. It makes a lot of sense but the program described is for a more experienced runner. He also only was running not swimming and biking. The program works for triathlons but needs adaption.
Inferior? I watched the Hanson’s put half their team in the top ten at Boston, Brian Sell make the Olympic team, Desiree Devila run the 4th fastest marathon ever by an American… I would put their coaching up against anyone.
i could really careless how they coach their athletes. but their article published in runnersworld about training is pretty bad and doesnt make sense. you guys are confusing results with good training practices. barryp’s program is much more sensible.
i could really careless how they coach their athletes. but their article published in runnersworld about training is pretty bad and doesnt make sense. you guys are confusing results with good training practices. barryp’s program is much more sensible.
Are you basing your analysis on a single good/bad article in Runner’s World? If not, what are you basing this critique on?
I have spent many years following the training programs of countless athletes on the Hansons-Brooks Distance Project (among others), and would disagree that their training practices are poor. You may want to register on Athleticore.com as MANY of the Hanson’s Team were posting detailed training logs on that site (including Sell’s build into the OT & Beijing) and it will give you additional perspective.
As for confusing results w/ good training practices, I’d argue that they’re one in the same in that good results are most often the result of good training practices - whether you agree w/ them is another story, but you can’t argue w/ results. This is not a slight against BarryP, but something that always bothers me about so many of the views on this site & others, is the polarization of opinions. Why does BarryP’s program need to be *more *sensible? Maybe BarryP’s is great? Maybe Hanson’s is great? etc etc etc…
Like Brian, i have spent years following the Hanson program that has had very strong results. The article is shows a different type of training. Remember their program has athletes that are serious athletes with talent and genetics. Even the writer who was the subject was a sub 2;40 marathoner and with the family responsibiliites used the program with success. Like I mentioned earlier the writer has the background in the sport and was running 70 miles per week during this program. This is low for a marathoner of that level but not dramatically lower. The program does follow the periodization plan so while it may seem a bit different and it is only this particular plan does a bit more quality with low mileage not. I like the plan for a more seasoned athlete , I am not sure the newcomer would benefit off it as much without running the risk of injury.
They do modify the plan for lower mileage runners. They have quite a bit more info on their site. Its hard to have a couple of paragraphs summarize a training plan for all athletes in all situations.
“Remember their program has athletes that are serious athletes with talent and genetics.” Certainly their athletes are serious, thats probably the number 1 thing they look for. As far as talent and genetics, yeah to a point. I don’t think they have ever had a NCAA champion, and relatively few All Americans.
