In the interest of stealing ideas I've been letting my mind wander toward the Akron Marathon and how I will train this year. At the beginning of the year I mentioned I'd like to break four hours. (Gentlemen, you're welcome for the reminder.)
In the coming weeks I will unveil my marathon training plan. Until then I have some considerations to weigh.
Tom over at the Runners' Lounge has a good post debunking the 20-miler and refers to a Running Times article about the Hansons-Brooks Distance Project, which supports doing three 16-milers in lieu of a 20 and insists on quality miles.
Last year the plan I followed called for two 20s of which I did one. This 16-miler idea really intrigues me. I've never been good about following prescribed plans. In fact this recent plan for Cleveland has been the most strictly followed training schedule I've ever followed. And it was my own creation, following some caveats from a few other sources. I feel healthy and strong -- better yet, I feel ready.
Before I put the cart before the horse though, I figure I better see how I perform May 18 before I design another schedule. (How many more times can I say "before"?) However, this no 20-miler thing really appeals to my sensibilities. Fellow boozers, give me your thoughts. Should I avoid 20-mile training runs in favor of the Hansons-Brooks-Tom Green-No-20-Miler plan?