Daniels' Running Formula M Pace Typo?

Are you're sure that they're both in the same phase of training?

Much like the third installment of The Godfather, I make believe that the 3rd edition of that book never existed.

That being said, I wonder if he is talking about total volume per week in one instance and total volume in any one session in the other.

All He Does Is Win wrote:

Are you're sure that they're both in the same phase of training?

Yes, on page 205 is the intro description of Phase II and and page 206 is the plan. There are 2 of these M runs in Phase II and 3 in Phase III. They all say 10%. The only place it says 20% was in the description, so I assume this was a typo.

For context, this week for me is 60 miles. I have already done these workouts:

24 X 200m at R pace w/ 200m jog rests (10 miles total with w/u and c/d)/

3 X 2 miles at T pace w/ 2 min rests, 4 X 200m at R pace (11 miles total with w/u and c/d)

As a third workout, I'm assuming (hoping) the M pace run should be 6 miles (10 including w/u and c/d). At least that's what I'll do this week since I've built up the rest of my mileage already, but going forward I want to make sure I have the correct info.

Smoove wrote:

Much like the third installment of The Godfather, I make believe that the 3rd edition of that book never existed.

That being said, I wonder if he is talking about total volume per week in one instance and total volume in any one session in the other.

The 2nd edition doesn't have a half plan. While I've used it several times for marathons, right now I'm training specifically for the half and am not confident in my ability to convert the training myself without overdoing it.

Smoove wrote:

Much like the third installment of The Godfather, I make believe that the 3rd edition of that book never existed.

That being said, I wonder if he is talking about total volume per week in one instance and total volume in any one session in the other.

Smoove- I've seen you say that before. Can you expand on why you think the 2nd edition is better than the 3rd? I assume you think it's worth picking up and reading the 2nd even if I already have the 3rd?

Thanks

3rd edition added marathon pace for non-marathon training plans. I get that lots of people like marathon pace for longer runs as a sort of tempo effort, but this is inconsistent with Daniels' overall philosophy of "never run in an in-between zone" since, based on his prior work, marathon pace does not hit any of the systems that he seeks to hit. It struck me as an attempt to try to be more current and maybe as a justification for a new edition (to bring in some more revenues).

3rd edition promotes cruise intervals over straight tempo runs. While cruise intervals are great and create the same adaptation as tempo runs, tempo runs also help with mental focus since you have to concentrate on pace while in discomfort towards the end of a 20 minute tempo run, as compared to the last cruise intervals, which doesn't feel as hard. That mental focus really pays off on race day, so I think it is a shame that he shifted the emphasis.

He dropped the table that he had in the 2nd edition that helps you figure out how fast a tempo run longer than 20 minutes should be. He was all for longer, slower tempos in the 2nd edition as an alternative approach to threshold training, and I think those longer and slower tempos (which, going to my first point, are still faster than MP, by the way) were really valuable for someone like the OP who is half marathon training. I think he dropped those in part because of the shift away from straight tempos to cruise intervals as discussed in the second point above.

Runners using Daniels miss out on those "in-between zones" which improve LT, V02 max, as well

What sucks is that JD used to post on LetsRun, but like many others, finally got sick of the trolls and left.

Yes, there are definitely different schools of thought on that, and I am not arguing the benefits of the in-between zones. I am just saying that the 3rd edition, by introducing marathon pace as a training zone in non-marathon plans, takes a position that seems internally inconsistent. So while there may be room for in-between zones, their really is not a place for them if you decide to go Daniels.The one exception to that, and to your position, is that Daniels does advocate for progression runs as a way of implementing an LT adaptation/tempo workout. Progression runs allow you to touch on a lot of paces while still being internally consistent with his underlying philosophy. On a typical progression run, I will touch on paces from marathon pace to 10k pace, maybe a touch faster. Admittedly, you don't touch on any one pace for a very long time, but you can get a good 5 or 6 minutes in at marathon pace, half marathon pace, "true" tempo pace and 10k pace all in one session.

gdfhdhdh wrote:

Runners using Daniels miss out on those "in-between zones" which improve LT, V02 max, as well

Thanks, Smoove, appreciate the write-up. I just ordered the 2nd edition to give it a read, especially fitting since my next goal race is a half in January.

OP-Sorry for the hijack

Don't have the books here but I'd say that JD does not suggest to do a run including 20% of the weekly milage at M pace, given that (if my memory is correct) JD generally isn't in love with M pace. So the 20% will be the total volume in a week. 10% as part of the long run would make sense, and 10% in another run during the week.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

What sucks is that JD used to post on LetsRun, but like many others, finally got sick of the trolls and left.

I would not want to be on a forum without trolling. It is easy to identify after a bit of experience and lets you know discussions are organic. Forums with heavy moderation often become boring hug-boxes.

yeah buddy wrote:

Thanks, Smoove, appreciate the write-up. I just ordered the 2nd edition to give it a read, especially fitting since my next goal race is a half in January.

I've used Daniels' 5-15K plan from the 2nd edition for HM training with great success. That schedule makes you hard.

txRUNNERgirl wrote:

On page 205 of Daniels' Running Formula 3rd edition, it says that M pace should be no longer than 20% of weekly mileage, or 18 miles, whichever is less. Then on the next page's schedule, it says M run to total no more than 10% of weekly mileage, but at least 4 miles.

Is one of these a typo/mistake? There's quite a difference between 10% and 20%.

I don't see a need to call one a typo. On page 205, he's talking about laying out a plan in a general sense. On page 206, he's giving an example of an actual plan. This would only be impossible to reconcile if he had done the reverse and, in the general discussion, given a number smaller than used in a specific example.

Mr. M wrote:

Don't have the books here but I'd say that JD does not suggest to do a run including 20% of the weekly milage at M pace, given that (if my memory is correct) JD generally isn't in love with M pace. So the 20% will be the total volume in a week. 10% as part of the long run would make sense, and 10% in another run during the week.

Really? I remember doing several M runs during marathon training from 2nd edition. I'll look back and compare. I can justify both the 10% and the 20% in my head. On one hand, I think with 3 Q sessions, I should opt for 2 w/u, 6 M pace, 2 c/d. On the other hand, this session is basically replacing a long run for the week and if I'm training for a 13.1 mile race, I should be able to run 12 miles at a ~30 sec/mile slower pace.

I've noticed this too in his books and honestly I've gone with 20% instead. If you use JD's tempo conversion table, he approximates that a tempo run for 20 minutes at LT is equal to a tempo run of 60 minutes at MP. That seems about right to me, although his MP is obviously faster than most when using VDOT. Unless you're running absurd mileage, I can't see how 10% makes any sense. What's the point of running 5 miles at MP?

Right. But on the third(?) hand, I'd done longer M runs during marathon training, but just had the 2Q workouts a week. Whereas this is only the second week of a half-marathon phase II plan and I've already done 2 quality sessions this week. Phase I was just base mileage.

I just double checked this because I always thought that the adjustment to get from T pace to MP would take longer than an hour. I was wrong, it really kind of depends on your ability level. The break point is right about a 60 VDOT score (mid 16:40s 5k pace). If you have a VDOT below 60, you basically will not get to 60 minute threshold pace if you run at marathon pace. If you have a VDOT score above 60, you will get to 60 minute threshold pace if you run MP.

Smoove wrote:

I just double checked this because I always thought that the adjustment to get from T pace to MP would take longer than an hour. I was wrong, it really kind of depends on your ability level. The break point is right about a 60 VDOT score (mid 16:40s 5k pace). If you have a VDOT below 60, you basically will not get to 60 minute threshold pace if you run at marathon pace. If you have a VDOT score above 60, you will get to 60 minute threshold pace if you run MP.

You lost me. My current VDOT is below 60 (49-50). Goal VDOT by January is 50-51. Peak mileage will be 75 mpw, but this week is 60. I don't know if that helps figure out the answer to my question or not.

I think I will play it by ear this Sunday depending how my legs feel.