building-toward-a-marathon training schedule question

[Herding_Cats]

SiL and I are working on our 2021 running plan. I have sucked her into my obsession with the runDisney medals (we are doing all of the virtual races for princess) and have our deferred registrations from the half we were going to run back in october.

That being said. Working on our plan today, the idea came up that maybe we consider "upgrading" our registrations from the half to the full when we run this race in 10 months.

The higdon plan that @DopeyBadger recommended was working well for me last summer, so I'd like to plan on repeating that.

Right now our tentative plan is: continue our strength training plan for 5 more weeks (we are doing MBF and then MBFA on beachbody), then we have a 4 week "gap" until we start the novice 2 half training plan for a race on May 30th. We are discussing doing some of the "little obsessed" workout and some running during those 4 weeks, as well as "running" a 5k when we are still going to WDW for princess weekend (as a mom getaway.)

From that date (the May 30th race), it is EXACTLY 18 weeks until the October race that we are considering running the full marathon distance. If we use the higdon novice 1 plan for the full, we would "need" to find a half in the end of July to run. I thought I had found one, but it's technically 2 weeks "early" on the training schedule (but it's near a place we camp every year, capped at 200 people for the half, and seems like they really have all of their ducks in a row with covid precautions on the information page) so I'm not sure if we should sign up for that one or not.

Is this a reasonable way to plan things out? Is there a "better" way? I'm feeling mostly terrified and a tiny bit empowered at having this all planned out.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Alright, so you're stringing together this plan:



Into this plan:



With paces I dug up from our July 2020 conversation:




*With the understanding that these paces are appropriate if your current fitness is in the relatively same place. If your fitness is in a worse place, then make sure you're slower than these paces. Train where you are and not where you want to be.

So the peak of the HM Novice 2 plan is Week 11 at 23 miles + 60 min cross. That week is all easy or long run pace, so about a 12:45 min/mile. In total, that will be ~5:00 hrs running and 60 min cross (or 6 hrs total). In looking at the M Novice 1 plan, that is roughly equal to Week 7. With the marathon peak being 40 miles + 60 min cross. Again, all easy, so 8.5 hrs running + 60 min cross (which is a sizeable peak). With the 20 miler encompassing about 4:15 hrs. My gut instinct is that you're going to end up with a 30 week training plan instead of two plans of 12+18 weeks. That end of the training "might" end up feeling like a real drag. So my advice is to do the 12 week plan as written, but then take 1-2 weeks off afterwards. Focus on life, throw in some light/easy lifting, but don't run. You might worry it'll cost you fitness, and it will in the short term. But in the long term, you'll feel better in the later weeks of the marathon training. And it's more important to feel good late than it is to lose a little fitness that you'll easily regain early on. If you go through with the 1-2 weeks off, then I'd plan to take the Week 4 and 5 long runs SUPER easy. Just to ease back into things. If you want to read more about the background of why this "off break" in the middle of the plans could be beneficial:

Training Load Calculations (What happens when the next cycle starts?): Part 3

As for the HM in Week 8, you don't have to do it. And since we're possibly cutting 2 weeks out with rest, you probably shouldn't do it "two weeks early" in Week 6. Plenty of people find a "B" race to be useful, and others like myself find them to pull away from my ability to continue the training well through the end towards the "A" race.

Additionally, I would encourage you to take the runs over 2.5 hrs as slow and as easy as you possibly can. Physically running beyond about 150 min starts to really wear on the body. So be mindful by making sure these are super easy and not something that wipes you out for the rest of the day. If they wipe you out, or if the long runs infringe on your ability to run during the week, then they're way too hard. Personally, I rarely schedule runs over 150 min for myself or others, as I've found they are unnecessary. I find they usually do more harm than good. Plenty of training throughout the rest of the week is sufficient. Lots of runners can be successful with capping the long run at 150 min which might be 18 miles for some and 12 miles for others.

Hope that helps!

 

[Herding_Cats]

restating some of what you said above in my own words to make sure i'm not making some mental leap here (it's been just me and the kids for 4 days now and my brain is slowly leaking out of my ears)

what you're saying is that it should work out, but you recommend that i take a couple of weeks off in between and then start the marathon training at week 3, or however much time i take off.


Pacing: Based on what pace I was training at before I THINK I'll only have 6 or 7 runs in the full training that would put me over 150min runs. I'm pretty sure I'll should same since MBF is basically lifting and hiit and then we have a couple of weeks that I can start back up with running after that finishes and we start training for the half. over the summer i did all of my "easy" runs at the E2 pace, so just under 13mm.

Would it be useful to me to do a mile TT before i start training for the half to check my pace, or should i just go by how it feels?


Long runs: your recommendation is to take those runs really easy and basically just focus on FINISHING them and less about maintaining a pace. But if they end up making me feel really awful, slow down more, take walk breaks, or strongly consider cutting the run off at the 150min mark.


mid-point half race: maybe do it, but definitely don't do it early because of taking time off. My biggest reason for wanting to do another race in there somewhere is so I can get a feel for an actual race, aid stations, other people being around me, and all of those other hard-to-replicate things. If we do decide to run the full in October, that would be my 2nd race (assuming the one in May doesn't get cancelled or rescheduled) EVER. Ideally, I'd like to have a little more experience going into that weekend.

 

[DopeyBadger]

No worries. I can totally appreciate re-writing things for it to make sense in your mind.

what you're saying is that it should work out, but you recommend that i take a couple of weeks off in between and then start the marathon training at week 3, or however much time i take off.

Yes

I'm pretty sure I'll should same since MBF is basically lifting and hiit and then we have a couple of weeks that I can start back up with running after that finishes and we start training for the half. over the summer i did all of my "easy" runs at the E2 pace, so just under 13mm.

Would it be useful to me to do a mile TT before i start training for the half to check my pace, or should i just go by how it feels?

It's not unreasonable to do another TT just to check. I would do it after 3-4 weeks of the HM training though. If you came in cold to the run training, it probably wouldn't be representative of your actual fitness.

Pacing: Based on what pace I was training at before I THINK I'll only have 6 or 7 runs in the full training that would put me over 150min runs.

Long runs: your recommendation is to take those runs really easy and basically just focus on FINISHING them and less about maintaining a pace. But if they end up making me feel really awful, slow down more, take walk breaks, or strongly consider cutting the run off at the 150min mark.

Yes. The paces above are best interpreted as "don't go faster than". But you can go as slow as a 15 min/mile and you'd still reap the desired benefits of the training.

Now where things will get tricky is if you suddenly decide to start cutting runs off at 150 min. Let's say you do them at a 12:45 min/mile. The 150 min mark would be about 12 miles. That's Week 7 of 18 of the Marathon plan. Let's say you do Week 11/12 at 15 and 16 miles and realize you don't like how you feel going further than 150 min. You're still 7 weeks away from race day. So you run the risk of stagnation because the training will stop increasing progressively. So you'll want to consider that. So my advice is to see how the HM training feels since you'll be butting up against that 150 min mark at 12 miles. You might be concerned about dropping the long run down, but the midweek runs in the Marathon plan are still reasonably long to alleviate those concerns.

mid-point half race: maybe do it, but definitely don't do it early because of taking time off. My biggest reason for wanting to do another race in there somewhere is so I can get a feel for an actual race, aid stations, other people being around me, and all of those other hard-to-replicate things. If we do decide to run the full in October, that would be my 2nd race (assuming the one in May doesn't get cancelled or rescheduled) EVER. Ideally, I'd like to have a little more experience going into that weekend.

That's a valid concern. I'd say the shorter the distance the less of the impact it'll have on your training. The rule of thumb is 1 day for every 3k of racing. While the counter is the lesser the distance the less it is predictive of how the actual marathon will go. Since it's your first, I wouldn't really be concerned about performance though. Enjoy it and soak it in. So I think swapping out the HM race for a 10k is reasonable. If you want experience, if you can find them, then use the 12 weeks of the HM training as the moment to fill up on "B" races. The other option is pushing the "B" race closer to the M. I wouldn't put it any closer than 6 weeks.

 

[Herding_Cats]

Now where things will get tricky is if you suddenly decide to start cutting runs off at 150 min. Let's say you do them at a 12:45 min/mile. The 150 min mark would be about 12 miles. That's Week 7 of 18 of the Marathon plan. Let's say you do Week 11/12 at 15 and 16 miles and realize you don't like how you feel going further than 150 min. You're still 7 weeks away from race day. So you run the risk of stagnation because the training will stop increasing progressively. So you'll want to consider that. So my advice is to see how the HM training feels since you'll be butting up against that 150 min mark at 12 miles. You might be concerned about dropping the long run down, but the midweek runs in the Marathon plan are still reasonably long to alleviate those concerns.

Right. That was the thing I was butting my head up against as well.....needing to complete the distance so my body figures it out but also not wrecking my body/motivation if I have a really hard time. So I guess we will know sometime around the end of May. HAHAHAAHAHHAHA! That sounds insane because it's FIVE MONTHS AWAY.

As always, I really appreciate the input. It's very helpful.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Right. That was the thing I was butting my head up against as well.....needing to complete the distance so my body figures it out but also not wrecking my body/motivation if I have a really hard time. So I guess we will know sometime around the end of May. HAHAHAAHAHHAHA! That sounds insane because it's FIVE MONTHS AWAY.

As always, I really appreciate the input. It's very helpful.

Just know that despite not going 18, 19, or 20 miles in training, your body will know what to do on race day. It’s about the cumulative of the training over the course of the entire 18 weeks (or 16) rather than any single long run.

 

[camaker]

Just know that despite not going 18, 19, or 20 miles in training, your body will know what to do on race day. It’s about the cumulative of the training over the course of the entire 18 weeks (or 16) rather than any single long run.

I just wanted to chime in here because the uncertainty of a plan with a “short” maximum long run is one of the biggest mental challenges to push through when translating marathon training into marathon completion. I’ve run 9 of my 10 marathons using plans that @DopeyBadger has designed. My maximum long run in those plans has ranged from 14-16 miles. I’ve never felt undertrained or less than capable on race day. Trust the training. It works.

 

[Sleepless Knight]

Just know that despite not going 18, 19, or 20 miles in training, your body will know what to do on race day. It’s about the cumulative of the training over the course of the entire 18 weeks (or 16) rather than any single long run.

I'm another one who can vouch for how this translates to the race day. I ran both the 2019 and 2020 WDW Marathons as part of Dopey. 2019 was the hottest race I had ever run. Until 2020 made 2019 seem downright cool. My long runs maxed out at 11 miles and I was just fine on race day. Despite the brutal, intense heat and humidity for the 2020 WDW Marathon, I was on pace to break my marathon PR despite much hotter conditions. They cut the course short and I was among the runners who did not run the full course so I don't know if I would have maintained that pace to the end. But in those conditions, I knew I had plenty of strength to finish.

Consistency on the shorter runs during the week and consistency on the long runs during the weekend is sufficient to help you cross the finish line. @DopeyBadger taught me that the volume of the miles during the plan is comparable to other Dopey plans that have you running 20+ miles for long runs. In my case, I recovered much faster from the higher volume with long runs capping at 11 miles which allowed me to not skip a beat during training.

 

[GreatLakes]

Just know that despite not going 18, 19, or 20 miles in training, your body will know what to do on race day. It’s about the cumulative of the training over the course of the entire 18 weeks (or 16) rather than any single long run.

This is one of the key ideas that the Hanson method uses as well. They work on the idea that the cumulative fatigue is better than longer runs in training. It is the plan I am using for my next full but up until now all my fulls have included at least one 20 mile run in training. A friend of mine that has completed about 20 full marathons used the Hanson method once and had the same mental hang up. He felt like he wasn't ready even on race day morning due to not doing anything over (I think) 16. But that marathon is still his current PR so it worked for him.

I prefer to do more frequent runs as opposed to longer so I think it will be better but I'll see.

 

[DopeyBadger]

This is one of the key ideas that the Hanson method uses as well. They work on the idea that the cumulative fatigue is better than longer runs in training. It is the plan I am using for my next full but up until now all my fulls have included at least one 20 mile run in training. A friend of mine that has completed about 20 full marathons used the Hanson method once and had the same mental hang up. He felt like he wasn't ready even on race day morning due to not doing anything over (I think) 16. But that marathon is still his current PR so it worked for him.

I prefer to do more frequent runs as opposed to longer so I think it will be better but I'll see.

I'm quite confident in the methodology and the physiological basis for it. I have a feeling that like many others, if you can stick to the current fitness pacing, and withhold adjustments to the length of the classic Hansons long runs, you'll find it successful as well.

If memory serves me correctly, you're on the faster end of the spectrum. But just as a sidenote, a commonly missed statement in the Hansons book is to cap the long run at 150 minutes (Daniels also suggests 150-180 min). So if your long run pace is slower than 11:15 min/mile pace, then they actually recommend to do even less than 16 miles as a long run. Conversely, if your weekly mileage and fitness pacing justifies it, then the Hansons do actually recommend going further than 16 miles in their advanced plans. It's all about the duration of the long run more so than the mileage itself. For example, Hansons has a 20 week 60-80 mpw plan that caps at 20 miles (with a 4 mile MP fast finish) because it's meant for runners who A) finish 20 miles in less than 150 minutes, and B) the 20 mile LR is offset by 60 miles during the rest of the week, thus staying under their goal of <30% LR as a percent of weekly mileage. Something to keep in mind as you're setting up your next training plan.

 

[GreatLakes]

I'm quite confident in the methodology and the physiological basis for it. I have a feeling that like many others, if you can stick to the current fitness pacing, and withhold adjustments to the length of the classic Hansons long runs, you'll find it successful as well.

If memory serves me correctly, you're on the faster end of the spectrum. But just as a sidenote, a commonly missed statement in the Hansons book is to cap the long run at 150 minutes (Daniels also suggests 150-180 min). So if your long run pace is slower than 11:15 min/mile pace, then they actually recommend to do even less than 16 miles as a long run. Conversely, if your weekly mileage and fitness pacing justifies it, then the Hansons do actually recommend going further than 16 miles in their advanced plans. It's all about the duration of the long run more so than the mileage itself. For example, Hansons has a 20 week 60-80 mpw plan that caps at 20 miles (with a 4 mile MP fast finish) because it's meant for runners who A) finish 20 miles in less than 150 minutes, and B) the 20 mile LR is offset by 60 miles during the rest of the week, thus staying under their goal of <30% LR as a percent of weekly mileage. Something to keep in mind as you're setting up your next training plan.

It depends who's spectrum you are looking at

Currently my easy/recovery pace is in the high 8:00 range. I had made it through their philosophy and to the section where they break out their intensities and don't remember at the moment. 2020 turned into a year of building a good base so I can do some real workouts and training this year.

 

[DopeyBadger]

Currently my easy/recovery pace is in the high 8:00 range. I had made it through their philosophy and to the section where they break out their intensities and don't remember at the moment. 2020 turned into a year of building a good base so I can do some real workouts and training this year.

I see from some old posts you've got a sub-18 5k, sub-39 10k, and 1:25 HM. Are the 10k and HM times anywhere close to something you could do recently? Those would be indicative of a sub-3 marathon. Those 10k and HM times would also match up with easy paces in the high 8s. So I think a 7:30 min/mile LR pace which would be 20 miles for a 150 min long run. The Book plans (Beginner and Advanced) peak at 56 miles and 62 miles respectively. For you, that would be about 7.5 to 8.25 hrs at the peak. With the long run of 16 miles peaking around 2:08 hrs.

Have you ever done 80 miles per week before? The 60-80 plan would be about 10:40 hrs at its peak for you based on my calculations. I also found a 40-60 mpw Hansons plan not from the book that would peak at about 8 hrs for you. The key difference between the 40-60 plan and the ones found in the book (similar mileage) is they slightly increased the pace of "strength" days from MP-10 sec to HMP, it includes progression runs, and they include some fast finish long runs. I found these extra plans when perusing the internet back in 2016.

 

[GreatLakes]

I see from some old posts you've got a sub-18 5k, sub-39 10k, and 1:25 HM. Are the 10k and HM times anywhere close to something you could do recently? Those would be indicative of a sub-3 marathon. Those 10k and HM times would also match up with easy paces in the high 8s. So I think a 7:30 min/mile LR pace which would be 20 miles for a 150 min long run. The Book plans (Beginner and Advanced) peak at 56 miles and 62 miles respectively. For you, that would be about 7.5 to 8.25 hrs at the peak. With the long run of 16 miles peaking around 2:08 hrs.

I don't think I will be hitting those PRs again. They all happened in my early 30s and I'm in my 40s now. I think with the right training I could still be in the 19s for a 5K and I think I can get back below 1:30 for a half but I don't think I'll ever be in the 17s or 1:25 again.

Have you ever done 80 miles per week before? The 60-80 plan would be about 10:40 hrs at its peak for you based on my calculations. I also found a 40-60 mpw Hansons plan not from the book that would peak at about 8 hrs for you. The key difference between the 40-60 plan and the ones found in the book (similar mileage) is they slightly increased the pace of "strength" days from MP-10 sec to HMP, it includes progression runs, and they include some fast finish long runs. I found these extra plans when perusing the internet back in 2016.

I used lower mileage plans for my 4 fulls up to this point and I don't think I've been above the 50s. I kept all my logs so I can go back and confirm. That is part of what made me want to try the Hanson method. I want to see what I can do with more miles. My last full was with my son still under 1 so time was less abundant then.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I don't think I will be hitting those PRs again. They all happened in my early 30s and I'm in my 40s now. I think with the right training I could still be in the 19s for a 5K and I think I can get back below 1:30 for a half but I don't think I'll ever be in the 17s or 1:25 again.

Fair enough, although while I don't have your complete dataset I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the 1:25 HM area. The 17s on the 5k, sure I could see that. But there is a reasonable gap between the fitness needed for a sub 18 5k and the fitness needed for a 1:25-1:30 HM. And if you haven't gone above 50 mpw training in the past, then you very well may have been selling yourself short back then.

I used lower mileage plans for my 4 fulls up to this point and I don't think I've been above the 50s. I kept all my logs so I can go back and confirm. That is part of what made me want to try the Hanson method. I want to see what I can do with more miles. My last full was with my son still under 1 so time was less abundant then.

I've seen it cut both ways. Such that it's hard for me to predict whether it would be wiser to aim for the 40-60 mpw plan or whether you could tolerate the 60-80 mpw plan. Some flourish on a less is more, and others flourish with the higher mileage/duration per week model. It'll come down to whether you consider yourself a speedster or an endurancer. How often do you get injured when training in the ~40-50s mpw and your monthly average training pace is ~45-60 seconds slower than what a race equivalency calculator outputted for your predicted marathon pace? ((For example, let's say the calculator said your predicted marathon pace was a 7:30 min/mile based on a recent 20.5 min 5k or 42.5 min 10k. When training at >50 mpw and having an average monthly training pace of 8:15-8:30, how often were you injured?)) It's possible your historical data might not line up. Because a 18 min 5k runner is a predicted 37.5 min 10k, 1:22:48 HM, and 2:52 M. So since your marathon PR is quite the distance from your 18 min 5k in your lifetime, it leads me to believe that you weren't able to get in enough endurance training in the past. So I agree with your initial assessment that you're looking for something with a bit more mileage to get those PRs to line up better. Despite your age, it wouldn't surprise me to see your HM and M times come far faster than what you're expecting. The other pertinent question would be, how many career miles do you have on your legs at this point?

 

[michigandergirl]

@Herding_Cats if I recall, you are from Michigan? I'm just curious which October full you were thinking of doing.

I don't have much to add on training except that if you decide to do a July race, just remember that heat & humidity will slow you down, so don't let that discourage you if it feels difficult during the race.

 

[Herding_Cats]

@Herding_Cats if I recall, you are from Michigan? I'm just curious which October full you were thinking of doing.

I don't have much to add on training except that if you decide to do a July race, just remember that heat & humidity will slow you down, so don't let that discourage you if it feels difficult during the race.

The full would be the Sleeping Bear Marathon. They also have a half and 5k. It runs the first weekend in October. Really crossing fingers that covid stuff has chilled out by then that they can run it in person (it went virtual 2 weeks before race weekend last year, but they also offered the option to defer.) Fair warning: the last few years it's been in the upper-30s/mid-40s and raining on race day. I recall this last year it was REALLY nasty out on race day and SIL and I joked how glad we were that we weren't out racing in it. LOL

As for mid-summer races.....well.....I'm really only interested in "finishing" races and in no way looking at trying to go fast [for me] or anything like that at this point.

 

[GreatLakes]

Fair enough, although while I don't have your complete dataset I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the 1:25 HM area. The 17s on the 5k, sure I could see that. But there is a reasonable gap between the fitness needed for a sub 18 5k and the fitness needed for a 1:25-1:30 HM. And if you haven't gone above 50 mpw training in the past, then you very well may have been selling yourself short back then.



I've seen it cut both ways. Such that it's hard for me to predict whether it would be wiser to aim for the 40-60 mpw plan or whether you could tolerate the 60-80 mpw plan. Some flourish on a less is more, and others flourish with the higher mileage/duration per week model. It'll come down to whether you consider yourself a speedster or an endurancer. How often do you get injured when training in the ~40-50s mpw and your monthly average training pace is ~45-60 seconds slower than what a race equivalency calculator outputted for your predicted marathon pace? ((For example, let's say the calculator said your predicted marathon pace was a 7:30 min/mile based on a recent 20.5 min 5k or 42.5 min 10k. When training at >50 mpw and having an average monthly training pace of 8:15-8:30, how often were you injured?)) It's possible your historical data might not line up. Because a 18 min 5k runner is a predicted 37.5 min 10k, 1:22:48 HM, and 2:52 M. So since your marathon PR is quite the distance from your 18 min 5k in your lifetime, it leads me to believe that you weren't able to get in enough endurance training in the past. So I agree with your initial assessment that you're looking for something with a bit more mileage to get those PRs to line up better. Despite your age, it wouldn't surprise me to see your HM and M times come far faster than what you're expecting. The other pertinent question would be, how many career miles do you have on your legs at this point?

Hey, if I can get back down to 1:25 that would be great. I've been pretty injury free in training for my full marathons. The last one (October 2017) was the only one I really had any problems with and it was some heal pain. I've since spoken with a really good local physio that gave me some work to strengthen some stabilizing muscles and that along with using a lacrosse ball to roll it out regularly has kept me from having issues. That heal pain flared up on race day and I had a really bad last 6. The full before that (Oct 2015) I know I was under-trained for so I took it easy and while the time was not fast I never bonked and finished feeling great.

I'll grab my logs a little later today and let you know what it looks like but I do suspect you are right and I have been doing too few miles to really hit my goals. That half PR (and the 5K for that matter) was when I was 34 and it was coming off of a really mild winter where I did way more winter mileage than normal.

 

[GreatLakes]

Fair enough, although while I don't have your complete dataset I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the 1:25 HM area. The 17s on the 5k, sure I could see that. But there is a reasonable gap between the fitness needed for a sub 18 5k and the fitness needed for a 1:25-1:30 HM. And if you haven't gone above 50 mpw training in the past, then you very well may have been selling yourself short back then.



I've seen it cut both ways. Such that it's hard for me to predict whether it would be wiser to aim for the 40-60 mpw plan or whether you could tolerate the 60-80 mpw plan. Some flourish on a less is more, and others flourish with the higher mileage/duration per week model. It'll come down to whether you consider yourself a speedster or an endurancer. How often do you get injured when training in the ~40-50s mpw and your monthly average training pace is ~45-60 seconds slower than what a race equivalency calculator outputted for your predicted marathon pace? ((For example, let's say the calculator said your predicted marathon pace was a 7:30 min/mile based on a recent 20.5 min 5k or 42.5 min 10k. When training at >50 mpw and having an average monthly training pace of 8:15-8:30, how often were you injured?)) It's possible your historical data might not line up. Because a 18 min 5k runner is a predicted 37.5 min 10k, 1:22:48 HM, and 2:52 M. So since your marathon PR is quite the distance from your 18 min 5k in your lifetime, it leads me to believe that you weren't able to get in enough endurance training in the past. So I agree with your initial assessment that you're looking for something with a bit more mileage to get those PRs to line up better. Despite your age, it wouldn't surprise me to see your HM and M times come far faster than what you're expecting. The other pertinent question would be, how many career miles do you have on your legs at this point?

I went back and looked at the 18 week training I did for my 2017 race (10/8/2017). Total training for the 18 weeks was 505.02 miles which included the race. Peak was 58.52 the week of July 30 followed by 46.06 the week of Sept 10 and then 40.71 the week of Aug 20. I can tell you that entire training cycle I was running my easy runs way too fast. It was after that cycle I started to look into slowing down by long runs.

 

[DopeyBadger]

I went back and looked at the 18 week training I did for my 2017 race (10/8/2017). Total training for the 18 weeks was 505.02 miles which included the race. Peak was 58.52 the week of July 30 followed by 46.06 the week of Sept 10 and then 40.71 the week of Aug 20. I can tell you that entire training cycle I was running my easy runs way too fast. It was after that cycle I started to look into slowing down by long runs.

For comparison:

Your 2017 marathon plan = 505 miles over 18 weeks (28 miles per week)
Hansons Book Beginner = 709 miles over 18 weeks (39.4 miles per week)
Hansons Book Advanced = 912 miles over 18 weeks (50.7 miles per week)
Hansons Extra 40-60 = 999 miles over 20 weeks (50 miles per week)
Hansons Extra 60-80 = 1374 miles over 20 weeks (68.7 miles per week)

Personally, looking at these numbers I would probably rule out the 60-80 plan at the moment. The jump seems way too extreme from anything you've done in the past. While the 8-11 hr range might be where you reach your true potential, I think it's a huge risk to try and get there from where you're potentially starting. So I'd say one of the other plans first, see how you respond, and then consider moving up to the 60-80 plan if you still feel like you want to aim for it.

I think the Hansons Book Beginner plan will probably be too easy for you as long as you're currently doing something in the 25-35 miles per week range right now.

Just based on your history, I'm thinking the Hansons Book Advanced plan vs Hansons Extra 40-60. The book plan starts off at 26 miles but quickly moves to 41 miles in Week 2. How does that compare to what you've been doing recently? The upside to the Extra 40-60 plan is the differential more aggressive pacing and the inclusion of a few 18 milers instead of 16 milers. The 18 miler would take you approximately 2:15-2:30 hrs which is a great peak area, whereas the 16 miler at 2:00-2:10 hrs is a little light for a peak long run. The downside to the Extra 40-60 is there is very little ebb/flow to the plan. It's an ever increasing, where the Book plan sees high and low weeks consecutively. I think the lack of ebb/flow could be a risk since these mileages would represent new territory for you. This is because you would have less "rest/recovery" weeks along the process. So the safer choice is the Hansons Book Advanced plan, and the riskier choice with potential higher payoff is the Hansons Extra 40-60 plan. That's my view.

I used Hansons Advanced in October 2015 and ran a 3:38 when the data predicted a 3:42. I used a slightly modified Hansons Extra 40-60 in October 2016 and ran a 3:23 when the June data predicted a 3:25. I felt amazing during the 2015 race and set all kinds of mid-race PRs. I felt good during the 2016 race but suffered a severe stress reaction late-race that really was extremely painful for some time post-race. I attribute that severe stress reaction to a lack of down weeks in the plan. But not everyone is going to have the same reaction to that Extra 40-60 plan.

 

[GreatLakes]

For comparison:

Your 2017 marathon plan = 505 miles over 18 weeks (28 miles per week)
Hansons Book Beginner = 709 miles over 18 weeks (39.4 miles per week)
Hansons Book Advanced = 912 miles over 18 weeks (50.7 miles per week)
Hansons Extra 40-60 = 999 miles over 20 weeks (50 miles per week)
Hansons Extra 60-80 = 1374 miles over 20 weeks (68.7 miles per week)

Personally, looking at these numbers I would probably rule out the 60-80 plan at the moment. The jump seems way too extreme from anything you've done in the past. While the 8-11 hr range might be where you reach your true potential, I think it's a huge risk to try and get there from where you're potentially starting. So I'd say one of the other plans first, see how you respond, and then consider moving up to the 60-80 plan if you still feel like you want to aim for it.

I think the Hansons Book Beginner plan will probably be too easy for you as long as you're currently doing something in the 25-35 miles per week range right now.

Just based on your history, I'm thinking the Hansons Book Advanced plan vs Hansons Extra 40-60. The book plan starts off at 26 miles but quickly moves to 41 miles in Week 2. How does that compare to what you've been doing recently? The upside to the Extra 40-60 plan is the differential more aggressive pacing and the inclusion of a few 18 milers instead of 16 milers. The 18 miler would take you approximately 2:15-2:30 hrs which is a great peak area, whereas the 16 miler at 2:00-2:10 hrs is a little light for a peak long run. The downside to the Extra 40-60 is there is very little ebb/flow to the plan. It's an ever increasing, where the Book plan sees high and low weeks consecutively. I think the lack of ebb/flow could be a risk since these mileages would represent new territory for you. This is because you would have less "rest/recovery" weeks along the process. So the safer choice is the Hansons Book Advanced plan, and the riskier choice with potential higher payoff is the Hansons Extra 40-60 plan. That's my view.

I used Hansons Advanced in October 2015 and ran a 3:38 when the data predicted a 3:42. I used a slightly modified Hansons Extra 40-60 in October 2016 and ran a 3:23 when the June data predicted a 3:25. I felt amazing during the 2015 race and set all kinds of mid-race PRs. I felt good during the 2016 race but suffered a severe stress reaction late-race that really was extremely painful for some time post-race. I attribute that severe stress reaction to a lack of down weeks in the plan. But not everyone is going to have the same reaction to that Extra 40-60 plan.

My range over the past few months has been as low as 10 and as high as 30 but I'm also not sticking to a schedule. I was going to go with the book's advanced plan and really appreciate the info you provide (both here and in general on the boards). Where are those two "extra" plans from? I didn't remember seeing them in the book. The Extra 40-60 looks like it might be worth it the second time around but that 60-80 would be a really big increase.

Do you think that stress fracture was a result of the plan or just not enough rest before starting the plan. My friend that PR'd using this plan that I mentioned earlier ended up going into a second plan shortly after the race and had some issues. He attributes it more to his lack of recovery post race than to the plan itself but any N = 1 will be biased.