Getting Started with the Hanson’s Marathon Method

In an earlier post, I explained why I love to run.

I even race. But like most recreational runners, my races are mostly with myself. That is, though I try to do well in my age group, I’m usually in the second quartile for my age group. The epitome of average! The race that counts most for me is my drive for a personal best. Yet, like many runners, the top of my bucket list is qualifying for the Boston Marathon (BQ).

I’ve never come close. My best shot was at the 2012 Disney Marathon. During training, I ran a half-marathon time trial (1:36:14) that suggested I would easily qualify. Unfortunately, an injury a few weeks prior to the race killed the dream.

But only for a day. Older and woefully heavy, I’m chasing the dream once more.

Why will this season be different? This time I’m determined to arrive at the starting line stronger and more fit. To achieve that, I’m following the Hansons Marathon Method.

Through the years, Jeff Galloway, Jack Daniels, Pete Pfitzinger, Matt Fitzgerald, and countless others have been my mentors, teaching me through well-worn editions of their classics on distance running. I completed my first marathon using the Galloway walk-run method, another following the Daniels plan, and reached my 5K, 10K, and half marathon PRs as a masters runner using Fitzgerald’s plan.

But my strict adherence to the Fitzgerald approach at age 52 produced mixed fruit. Though I set my masters era PRs in middle distances, I also overtrained and developed IT Band and knee issues.

Another teacher, Joe Friel, taught me that my injuries were not due to the plan but my failure to account for the effects of aging. Quite simply, my body needs much more recovery time now. And my body is no longer so resilient that I can take the pounding of a 22-mile training run without consequent inflammation grounding me afterwards. My body needs much more weekly intensity and opportunity to recover and just enough training stress to develop the muscular endurance needed to finish a distance run.

Which led me to the Hanson method. It provides just what the doctor orders for graying athletes: (1) a weekly dose of intensity to generate and maintain aerobic fitness and muscular strength, (2) a weekly tempo run to train the mind to tolerate increasing levels of fatigue, and (3) a weekly long run which harvests the physiological and mental fruits of long endurance runs while minimizing their risks.

It’s easy to read about these three pillars of the Hanson method and make the mistake I made. I recognized these as the same pillars grounding the Daniels and Fitzgerald plans. Indeed, the Hansons acknowledge their debt to Jack Daniels, and their method also has strong resonances with the Fitzgerald brain training method.

My mistake was to notice the resonances but miss the crucial differences. While there are differences in the structures of the speed workouts, these strike me as merely different: the 8x600m and 6x800m workouts Hanson prescribes offer a nice transition between the 12x400m and 5x1km workouts that both Hanson and Fitzgerald prescribe, but they’re the same volume and achieve about the same training effect. No, the crucial difference is the Hanson emphasis on the optimal training stress: one runs no faster than necessary to achieve the workout’s purpose so that accumulated fatigue is manageable.

That means that workout volume is comparable to Daniels and Fitzgerald, but workout pace is importantly slower. Speed work is at 5k, rather than 3k pace. Strength work is near half marathon pace rather than 10k pace. Tempo runs are at marathon pace rather than half marathon pace. The Hanson method asks you to run just fast enough to achieve the desired training benefit while leaving enough in the tank to perform the next day’s run well.

I mention this nuance because I missed it the first time I tried the Hanson method. Assuming the concepts were identical to what I’d experienced in other programs, I thought repetitions were repetitions and threshold runs were threshold runs. I ran at paces I’d achieved before, which means I ran them faster than prescribed. Consequently, I accumulated more fatigue than I could handle. Forgetting I’m an older runner, I tried to power through it. Ultimately knee pain forced me to allow sufficient recovery.

Some people think the distinctive feature of the Hanson method is its approach to the long run, but their approach is actually classic Daniels doctrine. Instead, I think the Hanson method is distinctive in its conservative emphasis on the right pace at the right time. One trains the mind and muscles to tolerate increasing levels of fatigue with the optimal investment in training stress. Pace discipline, and not the length of the long run, is the key to the method.

Following Daniels, the long run is capped based on weekly volume such that it should take not much more than 2.5 hours. For average runners like me that means it’s never more than sixteen miles. (For faster runners with private coaching, the Hansons might prescribe more.)

The key thing to notice is that the Hanson long run is actually a biweekly two-day event. The Saturday run is Part 1, a brisk 10km (advanced runners do 10 miles) designed to generate tired legs. Sunday, Part 2, is the conclusion, a sixteen mile workout intentionally begun in a fatigued state, much like the second half of a race. These back-to-back runs, following 11–13 mile tempo runs, train the brain to handle fatigue and achieve the desired physiological effects of an endurance workout while mitigating the risk of injury which rises exponentially as runs exceed three hours.

That’s an important feature to me because I suffered the IT band injury which derailed my last BQ effort during the final 22-mile training run.

These three pillars — speed/strength, tempo, and a two-day long run — determine the structure of the training week. There is a short easy run during the first third of the program which gives you five running days per week. After that, you add a second short easy run. Wednesday is an off-day.

The mid-week off-day provides an interesting nuance. It means the three pillars all occur within a stretch of six consecutive running days. The tempo run begins the cycle and the speed work concludes it. The two-day long run is not at the end of a microcycle, as with most programs, but at the center.

This puts the slower pace of the speed and strength work noted above in perspective. Yes, you’re running 400s and 800s perhaps 9–10 secs/mile slower than in other programs. But you’re doing it with the accumulated fatigue of six consecutive running days.

The net effect of the Hanson method is that training volume is spread more evenly throughout the week. That makes for a demanding schedule during the work week, with initial 80–90 minutes each on speed and tempo days, assuming a 4:00 marathon target. These expand to 9–13 mile workouts as you progress through the program. Add the 2-day long run, and us mid-pack runners are soon doing 90–150 minute days four times weekly.

Add a proper taper, and you’ve got the strength to tackle the marathon boldly.

So that’s my answer: I’m optimistic that this season will be different because I’ve adopted the Hanson marathon method. I don’t expect to BQ this training cycle because I’ve begun it with too much of a speed deficit to make up in 18 weeks. But a strong PR seems within reach.

I’ll keep you updated on how this experiment goes. In my next post, I’ll explain some reasonable adaptations to the program I’ve made because of age and lifestyle factors.

Happy running!

If you liked this, click the💚 below so other people will see this here on Medium.