Forums/

Competitive Running

Jennifer J.
Jennifer J. Sendmail

Furman FIRST marathon training

posted over 1 year ago | Report

Has anyone done the Furman FIRST program (3 runs, all intense, plus 2 cross training days a week)? I did it for the half. I found the runs to be very intense, and they required naps after ;). Unfortunately, it did nothing for my half time-- not even a PR. Frustrating. None the less, I am trying it again for the marathon. I am in week 4. I find it, in some ways, easier than the half training, but there are many, many weekly, long, hefty runs. I fear over-training. Would love to hear from others who have been doing the program!

Respond

20 posts

scroll to bottom
  • Sharon S.PRO
    Sharon S. Sendmail

    Yes, I used it for the Nike marathon last Oct and am following it again for Napa. There are a few here that use it or a tweaked model. I think I like it because it provides flexibility to juggle your week, but still has the structure for the runs, so I feel like they're all 'quality' miles. I'm new to marathoning (Napa will be my 3rd), so I'm not the greatest expert but I do like to overthink all the training options :)

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Morey B.
    Morey B. Sendmail

    There are many ways to train for a marathon, and Furman does work. However, it may not be the most effective method. Here's the short answer on how to train for a marathon:

    Lots of miles. Mostly easy. Some hard.

    Furman takes the other approach- and does few miles, all hard. This takes it's toll on your body, as hard miles are brutal and require a lot more rest. Without sufficient recovery, you don't improve, and you don't get a chance to develop your low intensity aerobic system needed to not 'hit the wall'. It increases the chance of injury as well.

    Can fewer, hard miles replace more easy miles?.. yeah, kind of. And, it could be the best road for those whom are quick to recover and don't have the time to put in all the long slow miles. But from what I've been reading... it's sub-optimal. And, you just might find that 50 easy miles per week, is easier on your body than 30 hard ones.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Sharon M.
    Sharon M. Sendmail

    I was using it and I found the paces to be a challenge but not impossibly hard. Having said that, 5 weeks before my marathon I was 5 miles in to a tempo run when I tore my calf muscle badly. It's been 4 months and i am still struggling to heal both the gastro and the soleus muscle. IF I ever heal I don't think that I am going to use this program again. I honestly think that I didn't have to time to recover between runs given my age and that is why I got so badly injured. The marathon program requires 4 or so 20 mile runs and many more that are close to that and it was just too much for my body to handle.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Gavin M.
    Gavin M. Sendmail

    i have used it for marathon training and i recommend it to everyone i talk to - although it is not a program for beginniners (having done 3 marathons you are not a beginner but i wanted to mention that for anyone else who might be reading).

    i got a lot faster and in better shape doing it. the runs are exhausting but worth it and time wise you cant beat it. i assume you have read the book and everything in there makes a lot of sense to me, why do a lot of junk miles where you arent pushing it at all just to put in miles? .

    since you didnt hit your goal time let us know how the training went for you until your goal race
    were you able to hit the times the training called for in your weekly workouts?
    did you do the cross training?

    i found that weeks where i missed my cross training my runs suffered. you would think you might be stronger without the additional workouts but it didnt work that way for me.

    there is no one program for all people since everyone is different but i know a few who have used FIRST who have seen significant improvement

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Jim H.
    Jim H. Sendmail

    May want to look into the Hanson's less is more plan that was covered in this months Runners World. Looked interesting and according to the author (Adam Buckley Cohen) it worked as he set a PR in the marathon by more than a minute.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Pete
    Pete Sendmail

    glad you posted this question. i'm starting the FIRST program this week, and i think my expectations may be too high. it's good to stay grounded. and good to know that, just like everything: it works for some, not for others, has an upside and a downside... and seems to be worth a try.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Becky
    Becky Sendmail

    I used it for my first (and only so far) marathon this past fall. I didn't have a PR to break, but I do know I felt really good running it and will follow the same plan next time.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Jennifer J.
    Jennifer J. Sendmail

    Thanks for your feedback. @ Gavin-- I did actually hit all my goal times, aside from the track workouts, which I was consistent with, but a little over their slated goal times. I did all the cross training, and I have 5 marathons under my belt with a lot of consistent training. The only thing I can think is that I got over-tired. For me, I have always run about 4 x week with 2 days of cross training. The big difference for me with Furman was the level of aggressiveness with each and every run, instead of having some recovery runs. Truly, this is the first time I was totally dissappointed by my training results. HOWEVER, I am mid-marathon training with Furman, and I am finding that I am actually way less tired than I was with the half-marathon plan b/c the paces are so much less intense, though the miles are more. I am hopeful I may get better results with this time around. If not, I'll re-think Furman for me!

    posted over 1 year ago | edited over 1 year ago

  • Michael H.
    Michael H. Sendmail

    I have just started it for the first time myself. I've used other plans where I've run 5 to 6 times a week and have ended up hurt. I hope this plan works. So far so good, but only in week two.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Jennifer J.
    Jennifer J. Sendmail
    in reply to what Jim H. said:May want to look into the Hanson's less is more plan that was covered in this months Runners World. Looked interesting and according to the author (Adam Buckley Cohen) it worked as he set a PR in the marathon by more than a minute.

    I read this article. Intriguing, for sure, but I don't know that I could psychologically handle my longest run being 16 miles!

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Genna C.
    Genna C. Sendmail

    I used this plan last year and am in week one for a half this April. My only question/concern with this plan is that it seems like there is a pretty big jump in total mileage from week to week. I thought mileage was supposed to build more gradually to avoid injury.
    The other thing is I added an additional week and did a 14 miler before my half last year so psychologically I knew I could finish the half because I'd done 14 already.

    posted over 1 year ago

  • Doug L.
    Doug L. Sendmail

    I'm not a running expert but I am a nerd so I read "Run Less. Run Faster" and bought into the science. After reading all the previous responses, I see my results (I did the first 5k to work on speed between longer races) were on the good side. I do have one comment. Like any running program, your long runs in FIRST Should be "easy". If you aren't training your muscles for speed on your speed work and aren't improving your vo2 max on your tempo days then your long runs will be equally brutal and you will overtrain. I am on my second back-to-back round of the FIRST 5k before I start training for my half. I am pretty close on my paces, slacking a lot on cross training, but still feel great on the long runs. The key for me is to focus on my form, relaxing, and trying to make each run feel easier.

    posted about 1 year ago

  • Jennifer J.
    Jennifer J. Sendmail

    So, now I have done the FIRST program for the half and the marathon. The marathon was not a PR either. I then went back to my 4 day a week training plan, with one day of cross training and 2 days of weights/core workouts. The runs did have 2 challenging runs a week, but long runs did not require a certain pace. The training felt so easy, after doing the challenging FIRST program, that I felt like I barely trained. I did do up to 23.5 miles for long run and tried to keep a decent pace, but nothing as aggressive as the FIRST program. What do you know? I PRed beyond my expectations-- running a 3:36 (my goal for the last 3 marathons was 3:40, and I missed 3 times by 5-6 minutes). SO, now I know, for me, the FIRST program torn me down. I do think that those workouts did help build a base for me, so I do believe it helped me get to this point. I realize that everyone is different, and no training plan works for all. I know I need more recovery and some easy runs tossed in my marathon training to feel fresh and rested come race day!

    posted 5 months ago

  • Doug L.
    Doug L. Sendmail

    I had a little better luck. I creamed my PR on my second 5k. I did start training for my half before that race though. The half training was tough. I started out with paces from my previous 5k. That felt too easy so I tried to switch to my new PR pace. Big mistake! I stuck with the FIRST plan as far as the distances but threw out the paces. I just couldn't keep up in the heat of the FL summer. All that being said, I hit my goal on my half of 2:00 by running a 1:58:39. I ran 3x per week and almost never cross trained. Now I'm not setting any records, but FIRST has worked for me.

    posted 5 months ago

  • Angela A.
    Angela A. Sendmail

    I used it when trying (unsuccessfully) for my first BQ, because it had a specific training program for this goal, and because I'm injury-prone and thought this program would be safe. NOT! The paces for the training runs, even the long runs, were ridiculous. I ended up with a horrible case of ITBS and for 2.5 months could not run any hills at all. People who haven't used this program think it's easy because you only run 3x per week, but it was very tough AND ineffective. After the marathon was over and my ITBS cleared up, I took a new approach: run at least 6 days per week, do my long runs nice and slow, and wouldn't you know it, 3 months later I qualified for Boston.

    posted 5 months ago

  • Justo
    Justo Sendmail

    The best description of the FIRST plan came from an experienced runner pal of mine who said it's like throwing a dozen eggs at a wall - if anything sticks you can run the race. I've trained every FIRST plan, and my opinion is that very few people can hit every target pace for every run. I think its designed that you aim for the target paces, but even by falling short, you'll be ready to run whatever distance the race. It's more like training by attrition. Shoot for the stars, and falling short aint too bad.

    posted 5 months ago

  • Paul
    Paul Sendmail

    Thanks for the feed back Jennifer, shame it didnt help you to the new PR.

    It kind of confirms my own beliefs. Im not really a fan of the FIRST approach. It mayy well work for some, but its not for me.

    My primary concern is with the intensity of the training, As the intensity increase so too does the risk of injury... And time out of training due to injury is the biggest enemy of improved performance.

    Further more the non specificity of the Aerobic work (the cross training) There are physiological changes at the muscular level during Aerobic training that are localised to the muscles used during that aerobic workout... so if your doing your Aerobic exercise using a different or only partial set of muscles to running, then your not maximising your returns.

    However if your injury resistant, have limited time, and are interested in a more rounded training regime then it might be the best approach.

    Me, I have the time, and i enjoy my 90min, 2hr or even longer runs... and i know that every mile i put in has a direct payback... I never run JUNK MILES. Every single mile i run has a predefined purpose.

    posted 5 months ago

  • Tom D.
    Tom D. Sendmail

    I ran my worst marathon using the FIRST method. I ran my best marathon this year using the Hanson Brothers method. I won't be going back to the FIRST method.

    posted 5 months ago

  • Lisa K.
    Lisa K. Sendmail

    Yes - the half runs are super intense. I did the marathon training this past summer with the FIRST and shaved 40 minutes off my time. However, I was unable to make the pace that was recommended for the long runs. I chalked it up to age and lots of hills. You might consider looking into heart monitor training for you long runs. My friend that trained with me on my long runs, ran my slow grandma pace every Sunday and then on race day she came in over an hour ahead of me, placing 12th overall.

    posted 5 months ago

  • David C.
    David C. Sendmail

    I am a big advocate for the Furman Marathon plan. It has allowed me to go from a 3:07 in Jan 2010 using Higdon's plan, to a 2:53 this past October. I have used their plan as a basis for my training for the past year and a half, but I had to modify it slightly to get better gains. I added one extra 'key' workout as a planned marathon pace run the day before my long runs, much like Higdon's weekend schedule. The plan can be very difficult on interval days, and you do what you can to complete it. It also requires maintenance (foam roller, stick, massage ball, etc) as you will tend to tighten up more frequently with the high intensity. The other big must for this program, is that you can't skip the other 3-4 days in the week. You will need to do higher intensity cross training (such as cycling) and get your heart rate higher than an easy run. Although this plan isn't for everyone, it can produce results.

    posted 5 months ago

Similar Discussions in Running - Competitive Running