General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2013-11-11 9:21 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


643
50010025
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
I don't think 178 for 6' is too bad at all. I'm 5'10 and weight 165. The lowest I weighted recently was 160 and I tried my hardest to put some weight on before my IM since I was feeling a little weaker. I think a few pounds could be lost though, if you really wanted to, but I'd just run and see what happens.

As for the plan... I run a ~19:20 5K and normally do HM every week or so as training but they tend to average 1:40-1:50 (staying in my zone and not race HR). I never trained for a HM before and my first race was a marathon. So that's my suggestion...run a lot I think 30 mpw could get you there but the speed is on you. Do some speed work and intervals during the week and long runs on the weekend. It's winter time, which means treadmill time too. Try to use one with a mirror next to it and take a look at your form. I'm still working on my form and cadence every time I run since I know it's not right (will probably shell out for a run gait test this winter). It's "free" speed and better injury prevention, which will allow you to train harder later on.

This year I'm trying the base training route and running/biking in Z2 for 3 months (or at least what I think my Z2 is...), with the hopes of building an awesome base and then I'll add speed afterwards. Can't tell you if it works yet though but I drank the kool-aid.

Edited by Blastman 2013-11-11 9:23 PM


2013-11-11 9:23 PM
in reply to: thebigb


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by thebigb

Originally posted by slowspoke
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).

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. 




Got ya, thanks for the clarification. Your point about weight being a variable I can control is well taken. Maybe mid-way through winter if I'm not quite on track to get there, I'll have to consider dropping extra lbs. to make it happen.
2013-11-12 7:08 AM
in reply to: slowspoke

User image

Pro
6582
50001000500252525
Melbourne FL
Gold member
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique

Originally posted by slowspoke
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).
No debating the long run, its the duration the plan has as compared to the whole.  It progresses from 30.7% to 52%, that's a lot of stress from a single run. I personally do not respond well to that method as I always breakdown in the lower legs, but to each their own. Search Barry P plan, but the basics of it are 3 runs at 10% of the weekly mileage, 2 runs at 20% and 1 run at 30%.  I do 5x at 10%, 12-15%, 20%, 25%, 30-33%.  If you started at 13-15 miles/wk and added a mile per week you'll have plenty of time to build up to 30mi/wk in a less stressful state for the long run.

When I did my HM (was in early Feb) I began tri training 2-3 weeks after with a focused bike by doing the BT cycling plan with the race about 13 weeks out.  The legs took about 2 weeks to get back use to the bike but once they adapted I made great strides as I could really push it as I had plenty of fitness to do so.

2013-11-12 9:35 AM
in reply to: slowspoke

User image

Master
3022
20001000
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by slowspoke

I'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.


To be blunt - no, your goal is not attainable. At some point yes, but now, no. Based on your mileage today you will ikely ramp too quickly and experience a running injury of some type. If I were you I would take 8 weeks to work on building a base utilizing the BarryP 3:2:1 approach and then jump into the Higdon plan. Starting out at 10 miles per week and assuming 10% increase per week you will be at about 20 miles per week when you start the Higdon plan. Follow the plan and race the HM. Learn from that race and continue to build volume and pick a race further in the future to get a 1:40 or better.

2013-11-12 10:25 AM
in reply to: thebigb

User image

Pro
5361
50001001001002525
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique

Originally posted by thebigb

Originally posted by slowspoke
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).

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. ...

All other things being equal.  1 lb = (approx) 30 seconds in a half marathon. or 1 lb = about 2 sec/mile.   another one of those 'rules of thumb'.

So, you can figure that into your equation of how to get to your race pace goal.

2013-11-12 11:47 AM
in reply to: morey000

User image


928
50010010010010025
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
I have a slightly different opinion-
If you are able to do 23:xx 5k on minimal training, then you very well may be able to hold that speed for the half-marathon after 20 weeks training. In that time your 5k time could come down to closer to 20 minutes. Even if you don't change your weight.

You won't know until you see how you adapt to the training. So train forward and see how you progress. The Higdon plan is good since it focuses on mileage and not speed work, although you could do one faster tempo run per week (4-5 miles at most, comfortably hard, not all-out effort). Also it would be a good idea to plan a 5k or 10k race in there (or both) to test your fitness (skip the tempo run and shorten the long run those weeks).

And have fun.


2013-11-12 12:02 PM
in reply to: morey000

User image

Seattle
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique

Here is my take, and it's similar to what some are already saying. 

You ran a decent 5K with pretty minimal training. I would say, right now you are more endurance limited than speed limited, and as you train for endurance you WILL make some speed gains. 

As others have noted, there are a few things that you can control. Volume, consistency, weight management etc. So, focus on those things. Try and slowly increase your volume and consistency (getting to where you are running 5-7 days a week.) The rule of thumb is no more than 10% increase per week (and that should be at the high end), keeping your long run at about 30% your total.

You can do nearly all of your miles nice and easy and make some  big gains.  I know that sounds counterintuitive but it's true. We like to say, "Mostly easy sometimes hard"  around here. The sometimes hard is important but it needs to be a pretty small part of your overall volume. You can make big gains with the speedwork or "quality" work, but there is often a much larger risk associated with that. Again, if you do decide to add some in, it should be a pretty small percentage of your overall volume and should be added in slowly and cautiously. 

Once you start doing this (and you can use a canned plan if you would like, or whatever works for you.) Then you can start to see whether or not that 1:40 goal makes sense. 

It takes patience to build up this way but the patience is necessary in order to keep you injury free. If you get injured, you are have neither speed nor endurance and that's a bad equation for a solid HM

2013-11-12 12:23 PM
in reply to: Donto


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by Donto

No debating the long run, its the duration the plan has as compared to the whole.  It progresses from 30.7% to 52%, that's a lot of stress from a single run. I personally do not respond well to that method as I always breakdown in the lower legs, but to each their own. Search Barry P plan, but the basics of it are 3 runs at 10% of the weekly mileage, 2 runs at 20% and 1 run at 30%.  I do 5x at 10%, 12-15%, 20%, 25%, 30-33%.  If you started at 13-15 miles/wk and added a mile per week you'll have plenty of time to build up to 30mi/wk in a less stressful state for the long run.

When I did my HM (was in early Feb) I began tri training 2-3 weeks after with a focused bike by doing the BT cycling plan with the race about 13 weeks out.  The legs took about 2 weeks to get back use to the bike but once they adapted I made great strides as I could really push it as I had plenty of fitness to do so.



In reading about the Barry P approach that he wrote up, I'm starting to like the way it sounds. I like your 5 day adaptation to it a little better than the 6 day. I'm thinking 5x at 12.5%, 12.5%, 22.5%, 22.5%, 30%? Starting at 13 miles, I'll be to 36 mpw in 13 weeks. At that point the long run will be 11 miles, and apparently that is when you begin swapping out a medium run with a tempo workout.

That will put me at 36 mpw by beginning of March. The race is almost exactly 2 months after that, what do I do during that time? I don't want to add more volume, and continuing on the with the plan and adding more speed workouts worries me a bit for injury.

I'm wondering if I should start this plan later in the winter, or slow the beginning part down a bit, so that I peak at 36 mpw closer to race time? My gut feeling is that I will be close to a 1:40 half on 5 1/2 hours of running a week, but maybe not. I guess I could evaluate where I'm at, at that point and decide what to do with that 8 week period before the race.
2013-11-12 12:31 PM
in reply to: jennifer_runs


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by jennifer_runs

I have a slightly different opinion-
If you are able to do 23:xx 5k on minimal training, then you very well may be able to hold that speed for the half-marathon after 20 weeks training. In that time your 5k time could come down to closer to 20 minutes. Even if you don't change your weight.

You won't know until you see how you adapt to the training. So train forward and see how you progress. The Higdon plan is good since it focuses on mileage and not speed work, although you could do one faster tempo run per week (4-5 miles at most, comfortably hard, not all-out effort). Also it would be a good idea to plan a 5k or 10k race in there (or both) to test your fitness (skip the tempo run and shorten the long run those weeks).

And have fun.


Thanks! My gut feeling is that 5 months of anything between 15 and 25 mpw will get me down below a 21:00 5k. But it does seem to get, not exponentially, but definitely non-linearly harder to get the pace down when you are below 8 min. In other words, the work you put in returns increasingly diminishing returns.
2013-11-12 12:36 PM
in reply to: thebigb

User image

Member
1083
1000252525
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
I'm in the run more camp. But it's a personal thing. I believe that running more helps you get faster and prevent injury when you go to longer runs. For me if I run 12 miles as a long run and only 8 more miles during the week that's a recipe for disaster. So I follow Daniel's formula and try to have my long run be about 1/3 of my total weekly mileage. I also alternate yasso 800's and a tempo run on a weekly basis. Yasso 800s are killer but they do keep you honest.

When it comes to losing weight - don't take offense. It's pretty common knowledge that for most people it's easier to run faster when you weigh less. But like with all things it's not absolute. Can you run your speed at your weight ... I hope so. Will it be less work for every pound you lose ... most likely.

Good luck!
2013-11-12 12:36 PM
in reply to: thebigb

User image

Veteran
629
50010025
Grapevine, TX
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Enough said on whether its doable, or how to train for it.

The race itself should be heavily strategized based on your strengths. How to tackle hills; whether to negative split or hold constant pace. Finding rabbits and overtaking them. Pushing work ethic when needed and knowing when to use active recovery.

Most importantly for a newer runner, if you find that pace in training at which you're successful, be very careful of the starting crowd rush that usually lasts 3 to 5 miles. The front pack will suck you into a sub-7 or even a sub-6 min/mi that seems doable for a bit, until you are wasted and its too late. The patient runner will pick off many in that front pack that have no business running that pace later in the race. You only need to average just over 7:30 to get to 1:40.


2013-11-12 12:47 PM
in reply to: Danno77

Extreme Veteran
745
50010010025
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.


I have a slight variation on this: Take a look at Higdon's Full Marathon Plans and see what it would take to build up to the base mileage for the first few weeks. Use the next 8 weeks to get your mileage in that range. Then, follow the Full Marathon plan but cap your long runs at 14 or 15 miles. Just be careful - this could be too much volume too quick for you.
2013-11-12 12:48 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


928
50010010010010025
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Sorry- misquoted- hard to do on my phone.

Regarding the suggestion to do more mileage with a Daniels-type plan involving speed work and yassos:

I'm a big fan of Daniels and this type of training, but not for someone who is just starting to build mileage. It's just too risky in terms of injury. In my opinion (from my experience and observation of many other running friends) you should be doing at least 30 miles per week before starting this type of intensity.

I do agree that if you can handle more mileage that would be better- but no speed work yet.

Edited by jennifer_runs 2013-11-12 12:52 PM
2013-11-12 12:56 PM
in reply to: slowspoke

User image


928
50010010010010025
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by slowspoke

Originally posted by jennifer_runs

I have a slightly different opinion-
If you are able to do 23:xx 5k on minimal training, then you very well may be able to hold that speed for the half-marathon after 20 weeks training. In that time your 5k time could come down to closer to 20 minutes. Even if you don't change your weight.

You won't know until you see how you adapt to the training. So train forward and see how you progress. The Higdon plan is good since it focuses on mileage and not speed work, although you could do one faster tempo run per week (4-5 miles at most, comfortably hard, not all-out effort). Also it would be a good idea to plan a 5k or 10k race in there (or both) to test your fitness (skip the tempo run and shorten the long run those weeks).

And have fun.


Thanks! My gut feeling is that 5 months of anything between 15 and 25 mpw will get me down below a 21:00 5k. But it does seem to get, not exponentially, but definitely non-linearly harder to get the pace down when you are below 8 min. In other words, the work you put in returns increasingly diminishing returns.


MY gut feeling is that you have a long way to go before you plateau, although you are right about the gains being harder to achieve as you go on.
Resist the urge to push too hard too soon or build mileage too quickly. I definitely disagree with the suggestion of building to marathon mileage after 12 weeks.
2013-11-12 1:30 PM
in reply to: 0


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by FranzZemen

Enough said on whether its doable, or how to train for it.

The race itself should be heavily strategized based on your strengths. How to tackle hills; whether to negative split or hold constant pace. Finding rabbits and overtaking them. Pushing work ethic when needed and knowing when to use active recovery.

Most importantly for a newer runner, if you find that pace in training at which you're successful, be very careful of the starting crowd rush that usually lasts 3 to 5 miles. The front pack will suck you into a sub-7 or even a sub-6 min/mi that seems doable for a bit, until you are wasted and its too late. The patient runner will pick off many in that front pack that have no business running that pace later in the race. You only need to average just over 7:30 to get to 1:40.


I like where your head is at, I was going to wait till a little closer to race time, but recently the thought had occurred to me. There is a 2.5 mile long climb from 6 - 8.5 miles. From 0 - 6 it rolls a little bit but on average relatively flat. Then it's downhill from 8.5 on. I guess I would plan on negative splits for the last 4.6 miles. Before that, I am clueless. I do like the strategy of chasing people down, it works well for me in 5k's.

Just a side note, it's actually been recommended to me by several people through several venues, that you actually start out faster than your goal pace to really race the best 5k possible. I take it that this is not what you want to do for 13.1?

Edited by slowspoke 2013-11-12 1:32 PM
2013-11-12 1:50 PM
in reply to: thebigb

User image


553
5002525
St Catharines, Ontario
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by thebigb

Originally posted by slowspoke
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).

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. 




My 5k PR is 23:10 and I just ran a HM in 1:51 on a plan that did not exceed 25mpw (16 week plan).

I am firmly in the clyde weight zone and can see for sure how sub 1:40 is possible. Dropping some weight is speed for free.


2013-11-12 1:51 PM
in reply to: slowspoke

User image

Pro
6582
50001000500252525
Melbourne FL
Gold member
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique

Originally posted by slowspoke In reading about the Barry P approach that he wrote up, I'm starting to like the way it sounds. I like your 5 day adaptation to it a little better than the 6 day. I'm thinking 5x at 12.5%, 12.5%, 22.5%, 22.5%, 30%? Starting at 13 miles, I'll be to 36 mpw in 13 weeks. At that point the long run will be 11 miles, and apparently that is when you begin swapping out a medium run with a tempo workout. That will put me at 36 mpw by beginning of March. The race is almost exactly 2 months after that, what do I do during that time? I don't want to add more volume, and continuing on the with the plan and adding more speed workouts worries me a bit for injury. I'm wondering if I should start this plan later in the winter, or slow the beginning part down a bit, so that I peak at 36 mpw closer to race time? My gut feeling is that I will be close to a 1:40 half on 5 1/2 hours of running a week, but maybe not. I guess I could evaluate where I'm at, at that point and decide what to do with that 8 week period before the race.

I error on the side of caution with weekly mileage adds due to my injury experiences.  How about adding a mile per week for 6 weeks until you're at 19 miles, add 1.5 miles/wk for another 6 weeks until you get to 29, then add 2 miles per week after that. If all goes well after 18 weeks your at 38 miles and then you'll begin your taper, don't about forget that!

What are you planning to gauge fitness gains and make sure you are training at the proper pacing?  Are you going to do any 5k-10k type races during the training?  Or are you using HR?

2013-11-12 2:06 PM
in reply to: Donto


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Originally posted by Donto

I error on the side of caution with weekly mileage adds due to my injury experiences.  How about adding a mile per week for 6 weeks until you're at 19 miles, add 1.5 miles/wk for another 6 weeks until you get to 29, then add 2 miles per week after that. If all goes well after 18 weeks your at 38 miles and then you'll begin your taper, don't about forget that!

What are you planning to gauge fitness gains and make sure you are training at the proper pacing?  Are you going to do any 5k-10k type races during the training?  Or are you using HR?




Sounds good to me. As far as races, up here I won't have any available. I'll probably map out a 5k and run a baseline in the beginning and see how my time improves once a month or so. I wasn't planning on doing HR, I don't want to buy one, or worry about having to use it.
2013-11-12 2:28 PM
in reply to: 0


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Something just occurred to me. I have my training paces from the MacMillan calculator. There is easy run pace, long run, and recovery pace.

Do I do those same paces throughout the winter until my race? Or do I, for example, realize that my 5k pace is down to whatever it is half way through, and then recalculate those paces?

Edit: nevermind, the paces won't really change that much and they are provided as large time ranges anyway.

Edited by slowspoke 2013-11-12 2:33 PM
2013-11-12 2:39 PM
in reply to: slowspoke

Master
10208
50005000100100
Northern IL
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique

Originally posted by slowspoke Something just occurred to me. I have my training paces from the MacMillan calculator. There is easy run pace, long run, and recovery pace. Do I do those same paces throughout the winter until my race? Or do I, for example, realize that my 5k pace is down to whatever it is half way through, and then recalculate those paces? Edit: nevermind, the paces won't really change that much and they are provided as large time ranges anyway.

To answer anyway, use pacing that represents your fitness at the time. So as your running improves the ranges for each will move accordingly.

2013-11-12 2:48 PM
in reply to: brigby1


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Ok, thanks. I'll adjust along the way.


2013-11-12 5:21 PM
in reply to: slowspoke

User image

Member
325
10010010025
Groningen, Netherlands
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Just another n=1, I trained for a HM a year and a half ago with a goal of sub 1:40, and I just checked my logs. The last 10 weeks before the race I averaged about 27 miles, "peaking" at 35 a couple weeks out. I did almost all of my runs at an easy pace (long runs around 9 minute mile, other runs at 8:30), only a couple of times I threw in some tempo bits, and sometimes a progression run with quite arbitrary paces. My running before those 10 weeks was sporadic, about 10 mpw. No prior running experience (it was my first tri season) oh and I weighed about 205 (but also quite tall, 6'8").

I ended up running a 1:39:30 something.
2014-02-03 6:55 PM
in reply to: slowspoke


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
MIDTERM REPORT CARD : half way to goal race

I'm about 2.5 months into the plan, with about 3 months left. I started at 10 mpw and am now at 20 and will max at 37.

Just ran my baseline 5k course and I'm down from 23:45 (7:40 pace) to 22:18 (7:11 pace). Had it been an actual race with taper and I wasn't on tired legs, I'd have to assume I could manage about a 7:00 to 7:05 pace, especially in a race setting.

The MacMillan calculator says I want to be at about 21:10 (6:50 pace) for a 1:38 half. I can see the light I need to make sure I stay healthy because it looks like I'm tracking toward my goal. I'm also down about 4 lbs.
2014-02-03 6:55 PM
in reply to: 0


36
25
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
double post - delete


Edited by slowspoke 2014-02-03 6:57 PM
2014-02-03 8:58 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Master
8247
50002000100010010025
Eugene, Oregon
Bronze member
Subject: RE: Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique
Never mind. Was going to suggest base-building followed by the intermediate plan but for some reason I didn't see page 2 when I first opened the post--realize you're already well into a plan!

Edited by Hot Runner 2014-02-03 9:00 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Sub 1:40 HM - training plan critique Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3
 
 
RELATED POSTS

What technique changes helped you swim sub 1:40/100?

Started by yazmaster
Views: 1903 Posts: 13

2012-05-09 12:22 AM tcovert

Help! Post-Tendonitis 5 Week HM Training Plan

Started by SoccerGK
Views: 958 Posts: 4

2011-03-26 5:53 PM tkos

Help me break a 1:40 half mary

Started by NashinAK
Views: 3019 Posts: 12

2011-01-25 10:56 PM sand101

Tri Schedule / Training Plans - HM to Oly to HIM

Started by islandflyer
Views: 1116 Posts: 3

2011-01-11 11:59 AM peto_primo

Higdon's Intermediate HM training plan

Started by nc452010
Views: 1639 Posts: 16

2010-08-06 11:49 AM BrandonCohen
RELATED ARTICLES
date : June 21, 2011
author : mikericci
comments : 0
How to tweak your training plan to account for frequent races
 
date : February 3, 2011
author : alicefoeller
comments : 4
Scheduling workouts in the Custom Training Plan Creator for an ideal, balanced, injury-free season
date : January 20, 2011
author : Coach AJ
comments : 3
Using a high-volume schedule for many months is not the best tactic. Build speed and skill several months out, and then transition to a high-volume IM plan.
 
date : February 12, 2008
author : mikericci
comments : 0
This plan is designed to make you go faster. 3 workouts per week in each sport, 2 days of strength training and core work. The maximum volume is around 10 hours toward the end of the 12 weeks.
date : February 12, 2008
author : mikericci
comments : 1
This plan is designed to make you go faster. 3 workouts per week in each sport, 2 days of strength training and core work. The maximum volume is around 14 hours toward the end of the 10 weeks.
 
date : January 9, 2008
author : mikericci
comments : 1
This plan is an advanced plan in terms of volume and intensity and appropriate for someone who is looking to go under 5:00 and as fast as 4:30. There isn’t a lot of fluff in the plan.
date : November 27, 2005
author : spetremears
comments : 0
9 weeks after my first bike ride, 5 months after my first swim and 13 months after my surgery I entered the Nelson week Tri a Tri !
 
date : July 17, 2005
author : Brandon Heflin
comments : 0
So how do you plan for a season? Below, I’ve created a simple five step process to use as a primer for season planning.