login
Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
-
No new posts
|
 2013-11-11 3:29 PM |
 36 |  Subject: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critiqueI'm going to do Hal Higdon's novice 2 plan. I want to go sub 1:40 next May. I've not raced that distance before, mostly 5k's and 10k's. My PR for 5k is 23:45 (7:40 pace). I basically want to extend that pace to a half marathon. That plan is a 12 week plan, I'm modifying it to be 20 weeks long to last the whole winter. Basically just doing each week twice. The cross training day is going to be a hard trainer session, 1:30 approximately. Then a swim and weight training to fill it out. The plan averages like 20 mpw, and peaks at 25 mpw. My current 5k PR was attained on 5-10 mpw running, and a couple hours biking with weeks off here and there. Does my goal time sound attainable with this plan or do I need to incorporate some of the speed work that are in the more advance plans? I hadn't wanted to do that, just want to keep it simple. |
| 2013-11-11 4:46 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 360  Waukegan, IL | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique So I think you're saying that your goal is to run your half-marathon at your current 5k pace. Higdon's plans are great, free resources. To me, the Novice 2 plan looks to be like a great plan to get you safely over the finish line. A great goal. You said that your HM is about 20 weeks out, which is a lot of time. I'm not sure there's enough time to make your current 5k pace your new half-marathon pace. A few predictors put you in the 1:45-1:49 range for the HM at current fitness. In order to run the sub 1:40 in 20 weeks, I think you should take this time now to build up a strong running base. How much have you been running recently? I'd say build up slowly from that for now and get more running under you at a comfortable pace. When you are 12 weeks out, stick closer to a plan. I know that for me, Higdon's Novice 2 plan wouldn't be enough to make the sub 1:40 goal unless I added in 2 days of running and cut the cross training and one day of rest. That's how I know my body responds. I will say that my initial thought was that you have set a very ambitious goal for yourself. Let's see what the other say and good luck! Edited by The Chupacabra 2013-11-11 4:52 PM |
| 2013-11-11 5:02 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Regular 1161 Hamilton, IL | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique I was a little faster than you are now about 12 weeks before my half marathon last year. I used Hal Higdon's Novice 2 and got 1:52. This year I started earlier and loaded on a lot more volume (like 122 miles for my biggest month) and ran a 1:44:50. So, by drawing out the plan, it's possible that you can get there, but my guess is that using that plan you'll be pressed to hit that goal, especially on your first half-marathon. So, are you dead set on that 1:40 or just set on that particular amount of running? |
| 2013-11-11 5:04 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique agree with above. 5-10mpw is nothing, and you've got time to build a really nice base. I'm not crazy about your slowing down the Higdon plan. doubling the time at each 'level' will reduce the likelihood of injury, but it will also slow down the progress that you could make if you added a bit more stress to your training plan. will 25mpw peak get you to sub 1:40? hard to say. Each person is so different. My guess is that volume is on the hairy edge for most people, unless you're a lean, 20-something male. More like a sustained base of 25-30mpw will get you there. your McMillan prediction for a HM based on your 5K time right now is about 1:50 (8:24/mi). As you've got very little volume under your belt right now, you'll be able to improve on that significantly. The good news is that you CAN get there from here. And, believe it or not, you should be doing most of your running in the 9-9:30/min/mi range. LSDs even slower. Eventually you can add some speed work, but what you need now is base building, which means consistency and a slow, careful increase in volume. enjoy your journey.
|
| 2013-11-11 5:37 PM in reply to: The Chupacabra |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by The Chupacabra So I think you're saying that your goal is to run your half-marathon at your current 5k pace. Higdon's plans are great, free resources. To me, the Novice 2 plan looks to be like a great plan to get you safely over the finish line. A great goal. You said that your HM is about 20 weeks out, which is a lot of time. I'm not sure there's enough time to make your current 5k pace your new half-marathon pace. A few predictors put you in the 1:45-1:49 range for the HM at current fitness. In order to run the sub 1:40 in 20 weeks, I think you should take this time now to build up a strong running base. How much have you been running recently? I'd say build up slowly from that for now and get more running under you at a comfortable pace. When you are 12 weeks out, stick closer to a plan. I know that for me, Higdon's Novice 2 plan wouldn't be enough to make the sub 1:40 goal unless I added in 2 days of running and cut the cross training and one day of rest. That's how I know my body responds. I will say that my initial thought was that you have set a very ambitious goal for yourself. Let's see what the other say and good luck! I like having the structure of a plan hanging on the fridge to motivate me to run often, that' why I extended the plan out. The reason I had the cross training in there still is because, to me, it seemed the bike fitness I gained very quickly at first translated very well to my running. It does seem ambitious. At your 1:47 projection of current fitness, that's 8:10 miles. I would be dropping 32 sec. off that, to a 7:38. Hmm.... |
| 2013-11-11 5:39 PM in reply to: Danno77 |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by Danno77 I was a little faster than you are now about 12 weeks before my half marathon last year. I used Hal Higdon's Novice 2 and got 1:52. This year I started earlier and loaded on a lot more volume (like 122 miles for my biggest month) and ran a 1:44:50. So, by drawing out the plan, it's possible that you can get there, but my guess is that using that plan you'll be pressed to hit that goal, especially on your first half-marathon. So, are you dead set on that 1:40 or just set on that particular amount of running? Well, I guess I was more set on the 1:40 which was kind of a stab in the dark at what I could achieve. Then I picked the plan based on my current volume and what I could do and not injure myself. The flying pig half is somewhat hilly, but so was the 5k I PR'd on. |
| 2013-11-11 5:42 PM in reply to: morey000 |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by morey000 agree with above. 5-10mpw is nothing, and you've got time to build a really nice base. I'm not crazy about your slowing down the Higdon plan. doubling the time at each 'level' will reduce the likelihood of injury, but it will also slow down the progress that you could make if you added a bit more stress to your training plan. will 25mpw peak get you to sub 1:40? hard to say. Each person is so different. My guess is that volume is on the hairy edge for most people, unless you're a lean, 20-something male. More like a sustained base of 25-30mpw will get you there. your McMillan prediction for a HM based on your 5K time right now is about 1:50 (8:24/mi). As you've got very little volume under your belt right now, you'll be able to improve on that significantly. The good news is that you CAN get there from here. And, believe it or not, you should be doing most of your running in the 9-9:30/min/mi range. LSDs even slower. Eventually you can add some speed work, but what you need now is base building, which means consistency and a slow, careful increase in volume. enjoy your journey.
I do most of my running in the range you mentioned, and i'll take note of the longer runs being a little slower. I'm 29 y.o, 6'-0" tall at 178 lbs, so not lean, but not too bulky either. I agree that doing each week twice seems to "ramp up" a little slower than I could handle. Maybe I'll add some mileage in and get to 25 mpw faster, then maybe peak at like 30-35. |
| 2013-11-11 5:45 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Regular 1161 Hamilton, IL | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique I think you could get to 1:40, but here's how I'd do it. Run through the 12 week training plan as it is, then see where you are at. THEN throw a new plan onto the fridge that takes off from that point. That plan should look at increasing volume and if you are feeling ambitious, then you can also throw in some speedwork. |
| 2013-11-11 5:51 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Expert 3145 Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by slowspoke Originally posted by morey000 I do most of my running in the range you mentioned, and i'll take note of the longer runs being a little slower. I'm 29 y.o, 6'-0" tall at 178 lbs, so not lean, but not too bulky either. I agree that doing each week twice seems to "ramp up" a little slower than I could handle. Maybe I'll add some mileage in and get to 25 mpw faster, then maybe peak at like 30-35. agree with above. 5-10mpw is nothing, and you've got time to build a really nice base. I'm not crazy about your slowing down the Higdon plan. doubling the time at each 'level' will reduce the likelihood of injury, but it will also slow down the progress that you could make if you added a bit more stress to your training plan. will 25mpw peak get you to sub 1:40? hard to say. Each person is so different. My guess is that volume is on the hairy edge for most people, unless you're a lean, 20-something male. More like a sustained base of 25-30mpw will get you there. your McMillan prediction for a HM based on your 5K time right now is about 1:50 (8:24/mi). As you've got very little volume under your belt right now, you'll be able to improve on that significantly. The good news is that you CAN get there from here. And, believe it or not, you should be doing most of your running in the 9-9:30/min/mi range. LSDs even slower. Eventually you can add some speed work, but what you need now is base building, which means consistency and a slow, careful increase in volume. enjoy your journey.
Lose 20lbs and run more |
| 2013-11-11 5:57 PM in reply to: Danno77 |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by Danno77 I think you could get to 1:40, but here's how I'd do it. Run through the 12 week training plan as it is, then see where you are at. THEN throw a new plan onto the fridge that takes off from that point. That plan should look at increasing volume and if you are feeling ambitious, then you can also throw in some speedwork. Ohhh, that makes a lot of sense, definitely going to do that. That's a lot easier than modifying the plan and stretching it out. |
| 2013-11-11 6:03 PM in reply to: thebigb |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by thebigb Lose 20lbs and run more Well that sounds WAY easier than what I was going to do. |
| 2013-11-11 6:18 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Extreme Veteran 1123 Sidney, Ohio | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique I have the same Goal, to reach 1:40. I was hoping to do it this past weekend but someone turned the fan on and there was crazy headwind. Anyway, my PR is 1:44 and like previous poster, I had to get my MPW up around 35 to get to this point. Keep in mind this included absolutely no speedwork, which is why I think I missed the 1:40. My 5K PR is 21:15 so McMillan had me at a 1:38 in perfect conditions. My plan for next spring is to get my MPW up to 35 again, but earlier in the season 6-8 weeks out. Then start adding in some random speed work, not sure if it will work but its going to be fun trying |
| 2013-11-11 6:27 PM in reply to: mambos |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by mambos I have the same Goal, to reach 1:40. I was hoping to do it this past weekend but someone turned the fan on and there was crazy headwind. Anyway, my PR is 1:44 and like previous poster, I had to get my MPW up around 35 to get to this point. Keep in mind this included absolutely no speedwork, which is why I think I missed the 1:40. My 5K PR is 21:15 so McMillan had me at a 1:38 in perfect conditions. My plan for next spring is to get my MPW up to 35 again, but earlier in the season 6-8 weeks out. Then start adding in some random speed work, not sure if it will work but its going to be fun trying Looks like the consensus is more than 25 mpw, duly noted. Sorry to hear you missed it by a bit. That's what's great about running, there's always the next race. Anyways, I don't doubt that I can get my 5k time down to around 21 by next Spring. Hopefully, like you, that correlates to around a 1:40 half. |
| 2013-11-11 6:30 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Regular 1161 Hamilton, IL | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by slowspoke Originally posted by mambos I have the same Goal, to reach 1:40. I was hoping to do it this past weekend but someone turned the fan on and there was crazy headwind. Anyway, my PR is 1:44 and like previous poster, I had to get my MPW up around 35 to get to this point. Keep in mind this included absolutely no speedwork, which is why I think I missed the 1:40. My 5K PR is 21:15 so McMillan had me at a 1:38 in perfect conditions. My plan for next spring is to get my MPW up to 35 again, but earlier in the season 6-8 weeks out. Then start adding in some random speed work, not sure if it will work but its going to be fun trying Looks like the consensus is more than 25 mpw, duly noted. Sorry to hear you missed it by a bit. That's what's great about running, there's always the next race. Anyways, I don't doubt that I can get my 5k time down to around 21 by next Spring. Hopefully, like you, that correlates to around a 1:40 half. A couple weeks after that 1:44:50 I ran a 20:46 5k race, but it registered as 3.05miles, which (I think) comes out to more like 21:0?... So, yeah, If you hit that 1:40 goal, your 5k should drop dramatically. |
| 2013-11-11 6:41 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Expert 3145 Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by slowspoke Originally posted by thebigb Well that sounds WAY easier than what I was going to do. Lose 20lbs and run more
Give it a try and get that MPW a LOT higher, although slowly and gradually. There's no huge secret answer or magic bullet out there and those are the two easiest variables you can directly control that will provide dramatic results. |
| 2013-11-11 7:16 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Pro 5169 Burbs | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique My 5K PR is 22:54 and my HM PR (both set this year, a few months apart) is 1:44:39. Just another vote that you need a higher mileage plan to get to a pace for 13.1 miles that you currently hold for 3.1 |
| 2013-11-11 7:50 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Expert 1130 Fernandina Beach, FL | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by slowspoke Originally posted by thebigb Lose 20lbs and run more Well that sounds WAY easier than what I was going to do. 178lbs isn't terrible at 6ft. I'm 230 now and shooting for 1:28 in my half next month. If you're only running 10-15 mpw now you'll drop a few lbs just training anyway. Run more for sure. I'd look for a plan that would cap around 35mpw. I've used Higdon plans in the past and they seem to be more geared towards just finishing, not setting time goals (if that makes sense). |
| 2013-11-11 8:03 PM in reply to: rjrankin83 |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by rjrankin83 Originally posted by slowspoke Originally posted by thebigb Lose 20lbs and run more Well that sounds WAY easier than what I was going to do. 178lbs isn't terrible at 6ft. I'm 230 now and shooting for 1:28 in my half next month. If you're only running 10-15 mpw now you'll drop a few lbs just training anyway. Run more for sure. I'd look for a plan that would cap around 35mpw. I've used Higdon plans in the past and they seem to be more geared towards just finishing, not setting time goals (if that makes sense). Wow, that's cruisin'. Yea, weight loss is sort of a distant second reason that I started running, and more recently Tri-ing. I quit smoking almost 2 years ago and gained 20 lbs, I topped out at 190. My whole life before now I actually spent trying to GAIN weight unsuccessfully. So, losing much more than 8 lbs from here, I'm not really interested in, I'd like to hang around 170 lbs. I'll plan on getting up to around 35 mpw around Feb-March after doing the 12 week Higdon plan. At that point, I'll be way out-pacing the amount of calories I can consume in beer and junk food on the weekend, by a large margin, and will probably actually see some loss. |
| 2013-11-11 8:21 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Pro 6582 Melbourne FL Gold member | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by slowspoke Wow, that's cruisin'. Yea, weight loss is sort of a distant second reason that I started running, and more recently Tri-ing. I quit smoking almost 2 years ago and gained 20 lbs, I topped out at 190. My whole life before now I actually spent trying to GAIN weight unsuccessfully. So, losing much more than 8 lbs from here, I'm not really interested in, I'd like to hang around 170 lbs. I'll plan on getting up to around 35 mpw around Feb-March after doing the 12 week Higdon plan. At that point, I'll be way out-pacing the amount of calories I can consume in beer and junk food on the weekend, by a large margin, and will probably actually see some loss. Funny, I was always wishing I could be 175-180 when I was younger, then I turned 30, got married, took the decade off, career change, 2 kids later I was 205! 180 is now off season and 170 race weight. What I don't like looking at the HHN2 plan is how the long run really begins to dominate the weekly %. I say dump that plan and go with a 5x or 6x (e.g. Barry P plan) per week of running. Forget the hard trainer session and run since that's what you want to do. With the short runs I like to use the trainer for 20-30' before the to get warmed up or swim immediately afterwards to extend the workout duration. The 20 sec rule seems to work very well for 5k, 10k to HM. My 5k PR pace was 6:59, ran the HM in 1:40:18 or 7:40, and my 10k PR pace 3 weeks later was 7:18.
|
| 2013-11-11 8:37 PM in reply to: 0 |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by Donto Funny, I was always wishing I could be 175-180 when I was younger, then I turned 30, got married, took the decade off, career change, 2 kids later I was 205! 180 is now off season and 170 race weight. What I don't like looking at the HHN2 plan is how the long run really begins to dominate the weekly %. I say dump that plan and go with a 5x or 6x (e.g. Barry P plan) per week of running. Forget the hard trainer session and run since that's what you want to do. With the short runs I like to use the trainer for 20-30' before the to get warmed up or swim immediately afterwards to extend the workout duration. The 20 sec rule seems to work very well for 5k, 10k to HM. My 5k PR pace was 6:59, ran the HM in 1:40:18 or 7:40, and my 10k PR pace 3 weeks later was 7:18.
All of the plans I've ever heard people talk about for any distance have had a long run on the weekend, so I didn't know there was another "format". Do you at least do long runs intermittently to feel the distance and train your body? I'll have to keep that 20 sec. thing in mind as a metric to gauge how I'm progressing over the winter, it seemed to be pretty dead on for you. I was hoping to keep a good quality trainer session, I bought a few sufferfest videos, so that I could have at least SOMETHING to build on for Tri season after the half marathon. I have bigger hopes than the mop finishes in local sprints this past summer (re: closer to fop haha). Edited by slowspoke 2013-11-11 8:40 PM |
| 2013-11-11 8:51 PM in reply to: thebigb |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by thebigb Lose 20lbs and run more came here to say this. just safely get up to 30 mpw for a few weeks prior to your "taper" and you will be fine. |
| 2013-11-11 9:03 PM in reply to: Clempson |
Elite 5316 Alturas, California | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique I don't think you can reach that goal without building to like 40 miles a week and adding in 800 repeats weekly at race pace (or faster). If I could run my 5k pace for a half mary that would be around 1:18:00, but it is really closer to 1:30:00. But the 1:30-1:35 is on 50 miles per week with 12x800 repeats at a 6:20 to 6:30 mpm pace and long runs around 16 miles. You could genetically be much faster than I am, but it does sound like your undertraining for the time you want. |
| 2013-11-11 9:07 PM in reply to: Clempson |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by thebigb Lose 20lbs and run more came here to say this. just safely get up to 30 mpw for a few weeks prior to your "taper" and you will be fine. Another vote for losing 20 lbs. on this 6'-0" frame?! I'd be down close to my scrawny high school self! In what universe is that a pre-requisite to running a 1:40 half marathon?? I think many athletes would take exception to that, including one that I personally know, at my height and weight ran a 1:37 half on less than 25 mpw. (I'd hate to see what race weight you'd recommend had my question been qualifying for Boston - lol). |
| 2013-11-11 9:15 PM in reply to: Baowolf |
| 36 | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by Baowolf I don't think you can reach that goal without building to like 40 miles a week and adding in 800 repeats weekly at race pace (or faster). If I could run my 5k pace for a half mary that would be around 1:18:00, but it is really closer to 1:30:00. But the 1:30-1:35 is on 50 miles per week with 12x800 repeats at a 6:20 to 6:30 mpm pace and long runs around 16 miles. You could genetically be much faster than I am, but it does sound like your undertraining for the time you want. I agree, based on what people have been saying, I'm thinking I get up to like 35 mpw. The plan I was looking at had "pace" runs to simulate race pace for increasing durations through the course of the plan. |
| 2013-11-11 9:18 PM in reply to: slowspoke |
Expert 3145 Scottsdale, AZ | Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Originally posted by slowspoke Originally posted by Clempson Another vote for losing 20 lbs. on this 6'-0" frame?! I'd be down close to my scrawny high school self! In what universe is that a pre-requisite to running a 1:40 half marathon?? I think many athletes would take exception to that, including one that I personally know, at my height and weight ran a 1:37 half on less than 25 mpw. (I'd hate to see what race weight you'd recommend had my question been qualifying for Boston - lol). Originally posted by thebigb Lose 20lbs and run more came here to say this. just safely get up to 30 mpw for a few weeks prior to your "taper" and you will be fine. You're missing the reason it is being suggested. Nobody is saying someone your size isn't capable of running sub 1:40, heck I've ran 1:28 at 190lbs, but rather we are saying it is another metric you can directly control that will provide measurable pace benefit in a short period of time. So if your goal is to run sub 1:40 soon then I would suggest looking at weight as yet one more way to gain some free speed along with ramping mileage to at least 40mpw. Now if your goal is to run sub 1:40 while staying at the same weight you presently are then run even more for longer. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK