Pfitzinger vs. Hansons (Read 165 times)

Looking for experience and opinions.

I am planning to run my 5th marathon next March and would like to knock 5 minutes off my time. For my first 3 marathons, I followed Higdon's Intermediate 2. For the 4th I used Pfitzinger and PRed by 10 minutes. I was definitely challenged by the plan and was excited by the fact that I could do things that initially I thought impossible - like the very long tempo runs or the MP miles within the long runs.  The large number of long runs (10 at or over 16 miles) was helpful, I think, since I still lack endurance. However, I know that a lot of runners do well with Hanson's and am considering switching. What I like about it is the focus on MP miles. Pfitz doesn't do a lot of MP miles. Hanson doesn't include races. Pfitz does, but they are very sparse where I live in the winter so I end up skipping them. However, I don't like the shorter long run with Hanson, since a 2 1/2 hour run doesn't seem like sufficient preparation for someone like me who will be running 4 hours in the marathon. He only has a couple of 16 mile runs, not the 6-10 I've done in the past. Hanson has more overall mileage which is good, but no real taper, which isn't. I don't know whether I should stick with what worked for me, or try Hansons.

What do you think?

I saw Jack Daniel's discuss this...

ie., why would you ask a 4-5+ hr marathoner to run longer(more hours) than a professional??

youtube the video.... it's worth watching... I'll add it if I come across it again.

he proposed the question... could you run 2 miles everday for training and complete a 10k? yes most would say.

then he asks, what do ultra marathoners train? the long run... 100+ mile runs, their long run is about 30miles he states,

but for some reason the Marathon is unique? you can't complete 26.2mi without a training run of 20miles?

I'm sure it gives some confidence to have completed 20mile training runs, or to run 4hrs+

he states he'd rather you get injured running the actual marathon, rather than getting injured training for the marathon.

makes a lot of sense to me, but I'm not a big time endurance guy.

but pick/find the plan that works for you.

also not sure why one would need multiple 20 mile long runs in a marathon cycle? if any. 2.5hrs sounds like plenty to me. 4-6, 20mi runs sounds like asking for trouble.

good luck! let us know what you decide and how the results end up!

I did most of my marathon running, certainly all my serious marathon running, long before either book was written. My training, though, seemed more like Hanson's. My long run topped out at about 16 miles and most of my best marathons came in the spring after an indoor track season (speed) transitioning to road races (strength), then the marathon. Fall marathons were usually preceded by summer track and early fall 5K and 10K racing. Oddly back then we were not that concerned about trying to get in 20 mile runs or worrying if we could handle the last 10 miles of the marathon. We were more focused on overall mileage and were racing far more frequently than what is common today. Another difference between then and much of today's training is that a lot of what would be called semi-long runs were run at a moderate pace, probably close to MP though we didn't think of it in those terms. Caveat: my marathon times were usually slower relatively speaking compared to my track and 5K times. That may be due to my my training, my genetics leaning more to middle distance, or that some of what I consider my best marathons were run in horrible conditions that weren't conducive to fast times.

I can't speak to Pfitz, but my marathon training is Hansons-like and I buy into not doing 20+ mile long runs. The 16 miler is my staple long run, and I generally don't run more than that. The advantage I see is avoiding a long run of 20+ that breaks me down and causes me to have to take a long time to recover; or worse, makes an injury creep up. So I'll run a bunch of 16 mile long runs throughout training and frequently will do at least 1-2 ADDITIONAL runs of 14-16 miles during a given week (like a 2x6 long interval @ HM, otherwise known as hell on earth). I'll max at 80-100 miles a week, but that achieved more through frequency and doubles, not a huge helping of weekend miles.

So the advantage for me is to avoid overly fatiguing myself on any SINGLE run, so I can then run more frequently and hopefully squeeze in more miles and intensity. I'm not a naturally athletic person, and I've found that high-ish mileage is what I need to be able to push my limits. But I totally understand that's not doable for a lot of people (due to time and life), or even desirable. Standard disclaimer that YMMV and I'm N=1.

I think that if you're feeling nervous about not enough of those 16 mile long runs, go ahead and add more (up the mileage other weekends). Since you're not a marathon beginner, you can likely handle it. You also have probably learned a few things about what works for you, so don't be afraid to alter the plan a bit to get a big more of what you think will help you. Just be smart about it and maintain a balanced approach.

I tend to think 20+ mile long runs for marathon training are useful for two groups: 1) Beginner marathoners who will really benefit from the confidence boost and want to go through the very real "rite of passage" for new marathoners; 2) Elites who can pretty easily run 20+ miles in under 2 hours. (The theory being that aerobic benefits are maxed out around 90 minutes of running, and injury risk increases substantially over 2 hours. That fits my experience, but I'm not terribly well versed in the science.) If you're in camp #1, take the run really easy and take lots of breaks so your body can keep up. That's what I do when ultra training and doing those 25-30 mile slogs for training.

Happy running!

How does the McMillan plan compare to the other two?

I appreciate the answers from people who have done both Pfitz and Hansons. The long discussion that Joann linked was also interesting, but had the disadvantage that few had done both plans at the time.

I know the issue that you reference with regard to Pfitzinger's race inclusion when training for a spring marathon.  While the actual navigation of race conditions helps in some ways (because you have to deal with people issues), one way I've adapted to the fact that there may not be a race locally on or near the training schedule date is I have run enough races locally to know the courses and there is nothing (except really snotty weather) to prevent me from running the course at my race pace, sans other racers.

I've gone through the progression from Galloway to Hanson to Fitzgerald to Pfitzinger (50 mile).  Haven't made the leap up to Pfitzinger's 70 mile plan.  Pfitz is my favorite and the one I've done best in , but I'd consider going back to give Hanson another look given the fact that I have 10 marathons under my belt and my understanding of the way my body responds to the race distance.  But I did like the fact that when I reached the 20 mile point, with 10 Km to go, I was ready to run. The way I describe it is "I know this feeling" and the ability to drive it on home.

I developed a foot injury after my last marathon and eventually had to stop running basically for five months.  I've been more in a mileage rebuild mode than a training for race mode.  Fortunately, my foot is doing well.  When I resume training in November, I plan on using Pfitzinger again.  But your question has made me think of looking at Hanson again.

I’d recommend Brad Hudson’s ‘Run Faster’ book which encourages you to be your own coach. Great read. 👍

I'm a pfitz guy, and I hate the MP runs.  One thing to consider is that for many of us our training runs may be run in far worse situations than the actual planned race.  If you marathon is going to be 50 degrees, I'm just not convinced that 14 mile marathon paced run in 80 and humid serves its intended purpose.

Well the situation you describe may apply to a fall marathon, it's the reverse for a spring race.

Anyway, the race is way worse than any training run.