My own training plan experiment
Plus the science behind running plans: why training schedules differ
On May 11, I’ll be running the Leiden Half Marathon. As part of my preparation—and as a personal experiment—I’ve created my own running plan. In the past, I followed training plans from Polar Flow, but I found them somewhat limiting. They emphasize heart rate zone 2 training, which for me means keeping my heart rate between 114 and 134 bpm. While this is great for endurance, there’s little focus on speed work, which I consider essential for effective race preparation. That’s why I decided to design my own plan, blending different training methodologies to see what works best for me.
But this led me to a bigger question: why do training plans vary so much between different providers like Polar Flow, Garmin, and Runna? While Polar focuses on heart rate zones, Garmin combines heart rate and pace, and Runna emphasizes pace-based training. To understand these differences, I took a deep dive into the history of running plans.
A Brief History of Running Training Plans
Running has been part of human activity for thousands of years, whether for survival, competition, or fitness. However, structured training methods have only developed over the last century. Here are three key figures who shaped modern training methodologies:
Paavo Nurmi (1920s): The Finnish runner introduced structured training, incorporating both endurance runs and speed sessions. His approach, though not yet scientifically validated, was highly effective—evidenced by his nine Olympic gold medals.
Woldemar Gerschler (1930s-1950s): A German coach who pioneered interval training. Working with cardiologist Dr. Herbert Reindell, he discovered that structured rest periods between sprints improved heart efficiency. His method of allowing the heart rate to drop to 120-125 bpm before starting the next sprint is still widely used today.
Arthur Lydiard (1950s-1970s): The New Zealand coach introduced periodization, dividing training into phases—starting with a high-mileage base phase, followed by anaerobic training (tempo and speed work), and finally race-specific sharpening. His philosophy remains the foundation of many modern training plans.
While many other coaches and researchers have influenced running science, these three pioneers laid the groundwork for today’s training methodologies.
Why Do Running Plans Differ by Provider?
The emergence of digital training plans has introduced a variety of approaches tailored to different running goals and experience levels. Here’s a breakdown of how major platforms structure their plans:
Polar Flow: Focuses on heart rate zone training. These plans are great for injury prevention and long-term aerobic development but may lack the intensity needed for race-specific speed improvements.
Garmin Coach: Combines heart rate and pace-based training. The plans adjust dynamically based on progress, making them versatile and goal-oriented.
Runna: Primarily pace-focused, with structured race-preparation plans. The plans cater to serious runners looking for detailed and performance-driven programming.
My Own Training Plan
Given the limitations of existing training plans, I’ve designed my own to better suit my needs. My goal is to complete the Leiden Half Marathon in 1:45 hours, and with limited preparation time, I’ve structured my plan into three four-week blocks:
Block 1: Build mileage with a gradual 10% weekly increase and one interval session per week.
Block 2: Increase focus on tempo runs (85% of race pace) while maintaining endurance runs.
Block 3: Peak mileage, followed by tapering in the last 1.5 weeks to allow optimal race-day readiness.
To support my running, I’m incorporating strength training, mobility work, and cross-training (2-3 times per week) to reduce injury risk and enhance overall performance.
Conclusion
The structure of a running plan is deeply rooted in decades of research and practical experience. The differences between training providers come down to varying philosophies: Polar prioritizes heart rate, Garmin blends heart rate and pace, and Runna emphasizes speed and structured race prep. By creating my own plan, I can integrate elements from all these approaches and customize my training to fit my specific goals.
For those interested, my detailed Leiden Half Marathon training plan is available below.
Training schedule_ Leiden half marathon
Sources
Hardloopzone. (n.d.). Garmin Coach: What can you do with it? Retrieved from [link].
New Interval Training. (n.d.). Old Interval Training. Retrieved from [https://www.newintervaltraining.com/old-interval-training.php].
Polar Support. (n.d.). Polar Running Program. Retrieved from [https://support.polar.com/en/support/polar_running_program].
Runna Support. (n.d.). Runna Training Plans. Retrieved from [https://support.runna.com/en/].
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Arthur Lydiard. Retrieved from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Lydiard].
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Paavo Nurmi. Retrieved from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paavo_Nurmi#:~:text=Nurmi%20trained%20primarily%20by%20doing].