Via Bridget, I am revisiting this Hanson training plan. I read the article in Running Times when it came out, but rereading it now it looks even more relevant:
“The necessity of the 20-miler for marathon success is a farce,” says Kevin Hanson, noting that it’s one of the first things he and his younger sibling Keith tell aspiring marathoners at clinics they sponsor at their suburban Michigan running stores. “It’s just a convenient round number that people have endowed with some mythical properties.” To prove his point, Kevin notes that European training plans often top out at 30 kilometers (18.6 miles). “Does that mean they’re 1.4 miles less prepared than Americans? It’s ridiculous.” …
The Hansons’ schedules are based on the philosophy that no one workout is more important than another. “On some schedules, you rest the day before and after the 20-miler,” says Kevin. “That’s putting too much emphasis on one workout. And for someone whose weekly mileage is going to top out at 50, it means they’re doing 40 percent of their running in one day.” To people who question whether the elite Hansons-Brooks athletes do longer runs, he replies, “Sure, they’ll do a 20 to 22 miler, but it’s part of a 130-mile week. So it’s actually a smaller percentage of their total volume than it would be for someone doing less mileage.”
I ran a lot of 20s for new york…
I think that speed workouts are more important than several 20s. I think the major difference is someone who can put in 100+ mile weeks and lots of 20 milers might feel better at 22-26 and might recover slightly faster, but unless they are doing the majority of their mileage right around race pace those miles are still going to hurt.
I only did one 20 miler this time around, but I did the majority of my training at or faster than marathon pace. I think that was key. But I also felt drained at 22 so who knows.
If you find the magic solution let me know 😉
I’ve been wondering about this, too. I train at race pace – or, rather, race at training pace, so I’m not worried about that, but I do want my legs to be ready for the high mileage. But what I’m wondering is if the WEEKLY long run of 18+ is necessary…or if twice a month will do, with perhaps 12-milers as long runs in between. I always seem to run/race better when my legs are WELL rested.
I think part of the drain of a marathon is the other people. If you were running that course alone Sunday, Derek, perhaps you would’ve had a better run?
Thinking about it, when I did that 3:18 in Chicago I had only been doing 20-milers every other week. Until now I’ve regretted that, thinking I might have broken 3:10 if I had done more 20s. But that is still my best ‘thon; for this one I did more and did quite a bit worse. And yeah, I’d do a slow four or five mile run the day before a 20, and then just two or three the day after. That’s two days out of the week you’re kinda sacrificing right there.
There are a lot of factors that feed into race day performances, and the amount of long runs you’ve logged is just one of them. That said, after reading this post and the comments I realized that my fastest marathons have all come when I didn’t run more than one or two 20- or 22-milers and focused on speed during weekday runs. I’ve always wondered about a two- versus three-week taper, too. That seems to impact my output. I’ve also never been able to run 90 seconds slower for long runs and then ramp up to my projected race pace for the duration. Maybe I’m just different. Interesting that the 20-mile threshold is now in question. Wasn’t it Galloway that in the 1990s had you run 26 miles during training???