Re: Re: Interesting, potentially controversial, article on marathoners

Welcome! Forums Running Forum Interesting, potentially controversial, article on marathoners Re: Re: Interesting, potentially controversial, article on marathoners



I don't question Pfitz's program.  The problem is that it isn't “tailored” for you specifically.  Maybe you followed too closely by missing only one day.  It's one of the best guidelines out there…but it is only a guideline.

Precisely, 'Pfitz 70' (which I doubt that Pfitzinger ever followed himself, even proportionately) is simply a suggestion, a rough guide, and like any plan it is only as good as its fit to a given individual at a given point in time and progression — a better fit might be 'sueruns 84' or 'Chris 68' or 'Ryan 143' (just to use blindly random examples) as one should not be afraid to mold the training to one's own strengths, weaknesses, and history rather than trying to work it in a rather opposite manner.  The proportion of one's volume comprised by the long(est) run is just one (easily identifiable) facet, another is the effort level of any given run or workout, as Ryan suggested.  Throwing all the blame at the mileage is simplistic and commonly suggests physiological ignorance — injuries should be minimal if one takes the smartest (often synonymous with most/more patient) approach in building aerobic development through volume.

Chris wrote:
GTF, apparently we interpret the article differently.  Let's leave it at that. That is your choice to freely make.  I stand by my assertions – I have no problem defending them – though I have zero interest in dragging anyone to a place he or she is unwilling to go.  8)