Nov
22

Marathon Training Plan Throwdown – Higdon versus Pfitzinger

10 Comments

Print Friendly

Photo Credit:  Marathon Men by Flickr user Matthias Gutjahr, used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Two of the more common “stock” training plans used for marathon preparation come from renowned coaches Hal Higdon (author of Marathon: The Ultimate Training Guide) and Pete Pfitzinger (author of Advanced Marathoning). With likely tens of thousands of adherents to each approach, the plans are proven performers in getting you to the finish line.  However, for the needs of the advanced marathoner with aggressive goals (such as breaking three hours), there are distinct differences in the plan, reflective of the backgrounds of these coaches.  This post gives you the “tale of the tape” as you consider what is appropriate for your needs.

First, while both are accomplished marathoners in their own rights (Higdon’s PR is 2:21:55, while Pfitzinger’s is 2:11:43), Higdon’s background is as an author while Pfitzinger is an exercise physiologist.  This makes the former’s plans more grounded in experience, while the latter’s are a blend of experience and theory.  Higdon has been the longest-serving writer for Runner’s World, a publication that focuses on a wide range of runners, whereas Pfitzinger writes for Running Times, with content aimed at more of a competitive-racing crowd.  Thus, Higdon works from the beginner up, trying to offer plans to suit all needs, where Pfitzinger focuses specifically on the advanced runner who has a few marathons under their belt.

For purposes of comparison, this study looks at Higdon’s highest-level offering, the Advanced-II training plan, and compares it to the nearest equivalent from Pfitzinger, the 18-70 (18 weeks, 55-70 miles / week) plan.  One could argue that the 18-55 plan from Pfitzinger is more equivalent, but it is actually tough to judge the total mile objective of Higdon’s plans because he leaves the warm-up and cool-down distances on many runs open to interpretation, but it generally tops out in the 55-60 mile range.  From an “equivalency of effort” standpoint, it really seems these programs are more comparable.  Additionally, since I have utilized both (Higdon in preparing for the 2010 Akron Marathon, and Pfitzinger in training for the 2011 Towpath Marathon), this gives the opportunity to provide an experience-based analysis.

The below table summarizes the element-by-element comparison of the two plans, including their overall structure, speed workouts, long run approaches, and taper periods.  The key results are:

  • Pfitzinger’s total mileage (around 1100 miles) significantly exceeds Higdon’s (approximately 750 miles), by a margin of almost 50%.
  • The Higdon plan uses the same pattern week-after-week, incrementally increasing the mileage of each workout through the cycle. Pfitzinger employs “periodization” to target specific physiological gains through the program, thus resulting in shifts in the training patterns over time.
  • The Pfitzinger plan calls for fewer “quality” workouts in a traditional sense (meaning interval, tempo, or long runs).  His priority is to develop your aerobic capacity, and he places less emphasis on VO2max – thus dictating fewer intervals.  However, the 800′s Higdon calls for (maxing out at 8 – not even the “Yasso 10×800″) would be more effective if replaced, at least partially, by 1600′s.
  • Higdon builds hill training directly into his workout plans, whereas you are left to interpret on your own how to mix hills into Pfitzinger’s plan if you feel the need to do so.
  • Pfitzinger’s tempo approach is far more aggressive than Higdon’s (but perhaps the latter’s is necessarily lightweight to allow for all the interval work included in the plan).
  • Higdon’s plan is punctuated by aggressive (in terms of mileage reduction) stepbacks every third or, eventually, second week, and a faster ramp-down in the taper (75% / 50% / 25% of peak mileage).
Advanced Marathon Training Plan Comparison – Higdon Versus Pfitzinger

The bottom line for the advanced marathoner – go with Pfitzinger.  The higher mileage, and specifically the significant number of 12-15 mile “mid-week” runs more than make up for the reduced speedwork, as it helps you develop both the aerobic capacity and glycogen utilization gains needed to minimize your risk of a bonk during the big event.  Obviously, individual runners will respond to each plan differently, but it seems that for the majority of runners (who can afford the time to put in the mileage, at least), Pfitzinger will deliver better results.  Higdon’s plan just doesn’t escape from the “beginner-up” approach he has taken in designing it.

 

Be Sociable, Share!

You may also find these interesting:

Tags: , , , , , ,

Posted in Plans
10 Comments Posted by Greg

  • http://runningrecon.blogspot.com Drew

    I’m less than three weeks from completing Pfitz’s 18/55 plan. Though I haven’t completed the final exam, I think it’s safe to agree with your assessment. One element I feel deserves comment is Pfitz’s easy/hard principle. When he puts it to you it’s with a purpose and intensity not seen under Higdon (as you allude to when discussing tempo runs). More importantly, the easy parts of his plans provide a more ample opportunity for the body to recover and be ready for the next assignment. Am I sufficiently worn out and improving every week? Yes. But I also feel better going into workouts than I did with Hal.

    One aspect of training I wish each of these authors would address is base training. Despite their varying approaches to increasing VO2max, I believe they’re neglecting a component that could provide additional benefits. I’ve been a skeptic of it in the past, but have seen enough evidence to now recognize its importance.

    As always, a great perspective, Greg. Thanks for sharing.

  • http://predawnrunner.com Greg Strosaker

    Thanks for the comment Drew – having followed your training, it seems Pfitzinger agrees with you. I actually was shocked when I went back to the Higdon plan to analyze it further – I had forgotten how much I had beefed it up when I did it for Akron last year. And even with that, the total mileage was 35-40% less than what I did with Pfitzinger this summer. Even with the 18-55 program, I’m sure there are significantly more miles in what you are doing now than what you have done in the past with Higdon. Good luck at Rocket City!

  • http://twitter.com/vlordrunner Vera

    Really interesting comparison Greg. While I’m no where near being able to hold the weekly mileage necessary for Pfitz at this point, as an Ex Phys major, I’m not surprised that the Pfitz program is your recommendation over Higdon’s. While 800′s are great for Half Marathon training (and ‘peppered’ in some full Marathon programs), 1600′s are a must for full Marathon training. After only 4 marathons, I still consider myself somewhat of a beginner and Higdon’s ‘Advanced Plan’ weekly mileage is pretty much what I have done in the past. I agree with your assessment that the Higdon plan just doesn’t quite get past that beginner/intermediate stage.

    Thank you for sharing your perspective! 

  • http://www.strengthrunning.com Jason Fitzgerald

    I’ve honestly never studied either Pfitzinger or Higdon’s plans, but from your analysis here I’d say I lean more toward Pfitzinger when it comes to designing my own training and the plans I write. For the marathon, you just can’t beat overall aerobic development at the expense of interval/VO2 max work. 

    How long was your training cycle for Towpath? I see that most of the cycles are 18 weeks. I usually write 16 week programs and my personal marathon cycle was 17 weeks. Any longer than this I find to be too long, with an increased risk of burnout, injury, or just boredom.

  • http://predawnrunner.com Greg Strosaker

    As I mentioned in my reply to Drew, I was shocked when I went back to look at the Higdon plan that he only called for 800′s – he calls for 1600′s in his beginner and/or intermediate programs, so why move to 800′s at advanced? I do think that 1200′s (or whatever interval puts you in the 5:00 range per repeat) are a good choice as well. And you may want to consider the Pfitzinger 18-55 plan, though I know you are a Galloway-method coach now.

  • http://predawnrunner.com Greg Strosaker

    Fitz, your training always struck me as Pfitzinger-like, but even heavier on the strides, as I’ve never really seen you do many intervals. My training cycle was 18 weeks – I agree that boredom can set in if it gets too long, but I find the Pfitzinger program varied enough in its weekly structure to keep things interesting (especially when I have to further shift things around due to other commitments).

  • http://twitter.com/fisherfamily Matt

    Excellent review Greg. I loved the comparison chart, very helpful. Last year I loosely used a Higdon plan, but not starting at the beginning of the plan. I also increased the mileage more than what he called for, peaking around 70 mpw. I like the idea of the Pfitzinger program, although I’m not an advanced marathoner by any means. I think the plan Drew mentioned, the 18/55, would suit me better at this point. Thanks again for your analysis and thoughts.

  • http://predawnrunner.com Greg Strosaker

    Thanks Matt – I have little doubt that you could handle the 18/55, and likely the 18/70. All plans can be tweaked of course, but I find choosing the right base plan to work from to be helpful. The Higdon plans were getting to the point where I was tweaking them beyond recognition, so I needed to look elsewhere.

  • Pingback: The Three-Hour Marathon Plan | Predawn Runner

  • Pingback: 12 Must-Read Running Links for March 2012 | Predawn Runner