Goal is a 2:28 marathon, talk me out of using Daniels'

Good call on the special block days no necessarily meaning Canova. So many imply that a few days like that mean Canova training, and I did not mean that at all.

And I agree Roche does a lot of efficiency/neuro-muscular stuff early in his cycles, but I don't see it being very similar to Daniels. Roche almost never uses vVO2 max stuff. Most of his early minute based workouts (1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/2 etc.) are CV to HMP. He often writes about having his more advanced athletes do the 'off' segment as a float, and this would put those workouts very close to the workouts Canova prescribes with percentages: 105%/95% of MP.

Actually, it is funny looking back over his training and Daniels and Canova this morning, and the three really do seem quite similar. Perhaps one of the big differences is in how they like to frame the work. Daniels likes exact paces/distances, Roche prefers time at perceived effort, and Canova does a lot with % around goal race pace. All have broad foundational stuff early on and move to more specifics. I also think the latter two hit a broader range of paces than Daniels prescribes, but like Smoove notes, in practice he does hit a lot of those paces.

As others noted, I think picking the program/coach/whatever that speaks to you and following it for a long time is the best way to go. For me, I love reading Daniels' stuff and get a lot out of it, but I can't get into the programs. They are too formulaic for me. Though I love seeing how it works for others.

I didn't even break 3:00 following Daniels' book. My worst 'thon ever!

Not totally disagreeing on this point, but I think it is a bit more nuanced than a lot of people appreciate.

Daniels sets up much of his plan as specified amounts of time at a particular effort rather than a fixed distance at a fixed pace. In Training Plan A of the 2nd edition, every single one of his workouts from 12 weeks out on is based on time, not on distance, although there is a distance cap on some of the work. As to specificity of pace, I think Daniels is his own worst enemy in a way when it comes to criticisms on that front. The success of his VDOT tables results in people focusing on those tables and the prescribed paces set forth therein, but Daniels notes in his text that perceived effort is key and that some days that will mean different paces depending on the course on which you are running your workout, the weather that day, your fatigue level leading into the workout, etc. He gives multiple ways to measure your effort (for threshold pace, for example, he offers pace per VDOT, 90% or so of max hear rate, "comfortably hard" (I have admittedly never been able to figure out exactly what that means), the pace at which you have the ability to talk in response to a question but not maintain a conversation, a pace at which you breathing rhythm is different than easy distance pace but not as elevated as at 5k race pace).

canova-ish wrote:

I also think the latter two hit a broader range of paces than Daniels prescribes, but like Smoove notes, in practice he does hit a lot of those paces.

I'll add that the book allows for more paces than the written plans appear to advocate. It is much more flexible than commonly perceived.

Thanks for the clarifications Smoove and jewbacca. I have the 3rd edition, and I have not read it in maybe a year and a half, so I did not remember or have not seen some of these workouts.

It does seem like a lot of people talk about the differences between the 2nd and 3rd editions. Perhaps I should hunt up an old copy.

HRE wrote:

It sort of seems from how your post reads that you actually want people to tell you why you should use Daniels. But if you are actually looking for a reason not to I'd say simply that almost anything will work if you do enough of it, believe in it, and do it consistently, which is probably not too different from doing enough of it. The US generally had more sub 2:20 and 2:30 guys per year in the ten or so years before Daniels' book came out (I'm not really sure when that was) than we've had since. If you like Daniels' approach use it. If not find something that you do like.

Back in the day, Lydiard was our training basis. Historically this did produce results of many sub 2:20 marathons in the 70's.

I do feel like Roche is a bit Daniels-like if you:

A. Progress workouts systematically

B. Replace CV Pace w/ vV02 work.

Again Daniels for the frame work and structure but replaced some of the key workouts with Cornova 1k on and 1k tempo, for my long runs up to 26k.

Also like mixing in his philosophy of a bit longer and a bit harder when possible. I tried to make each session marginally more challenging than the previous. Just slightly ....but always just a bit harder or longer.

Try and replace a few of his epic MP workouts with 26k of 1k at near pace and 1k at 30 seconds slower.

It’s a great session that is less abusive and seems just as effective for me.

Also I find adding a few mile repeats or 2 mile repeats during some of his trackworkouts at Marathon pace during warm-up or cooldown helped me with confidence. The goal was making my track workouts a bit longer sessions.

Example 6x1 mile at Daniels T pace- do a 7-8th effort st MP or close. Goal for me was 10x1

Or his 3x2 mile try a 4th or 5th set at slower or at MP for a warmup. Goal for me was 5x2 or 6x2.

Just to add another wrinkle to this thing... after that Kipchoge schedule came out I don't understand why anyone preparing seriously for a marathon wouldn't consider that as a prime example of exactly what to do.

Tim Ritchie, after winning CIM said that he and his coach did exactly that and he took 3-4 minutes off his PR.

The basics:

- 1 hard long run every week varying between your longest and 6-8 miles shorter

- 1 session of 3-6 minute intervals a little faster than marathon pace

- 1 fartlek at faster paces every week

- Easy running to fill out your weekly volume goal

These could be modified to work with just about everyone. For instance, you could spread out the workouts a bit or decrease the volume when needed.

I don't run marathons (mostly because I don't want to have to learn how to eat while running), but if I ever decided to, I would do this with no hesitation.

People want it easy to progress and systematize. Thats what Daniels does well.

leakyroof wrote:

People want it easy to progress and systematize. Thats what Daniels does well.

I don't know man. We know exactly what the best marathoner in the world does. It's simple and anyone could do it scaled for their own abilities.

Why is everyone still looking for some magic bullet? Is this too simple?

The degree to which roche is canova-ish is approximately the same degree as bagel bites are artisanal-neapolitan-margherita-pizza-ish.

It’s not necessarily too simple but it’s not a complete training plan.

That is true.

Curious.

How would you scale it down for someone running 2:30? What about 3 hours?

You also have to consider the training the works for someone like him is different than the training the works for others. For example, Sandre Moen under Canova runs a very different system than Kipchoge.

East African's have higher aerobic and lactate thresholds because of their training history as well. All of this needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about a program.

Kipchoge probably could have run what he did at Berlin off of Daniels training.

David Roche ‘s approach is interesting. Modified Daniels in my opinion.

leekbow wrote:

I have run 2:31, am 27 years old, and have 22 weeks until my next marathon. In a way I don't want to use Daniels', but I've seen a lot of evidence of it working.

In all seriousness, why should someone in my situation not use a Daniels' approach.

Smoove seems to be killing it tho!

Every single person I know who "uses" Daniels changes and tweaks things here and there in the program making it no longer Daniels. Doing everything he says perfectly results in some epic overtraining. Nobody except the real elites or those whose lifestyle emulates the recovery of elites can handle the workload of a real Daniels system.

1) I don’t think Kipchoge is coached by canova.

2) when he’s one of the greatest runners of all time it’s safe to assume that had he done anything differently, eg use a Daniels plan, he would have run slower not the same times.

truthbombb wrote:

That is true.

Curious.

How would you scale it down for someone running 2:30? What about 3 hours?

You also have to consider the training the works for someone like him is different than the training the works for others. For example, Sandre Moen under Canova runs a very different system than Kipchoge.

East African's have higher aerobic and lactate thresholds because of their training history as well. All of this needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about a program.

Kipchoge probably could have run what he did at Berlin off of Daniels training.

To scale you run paces related to your current ability and keep workout volumes at paces you can handle.

For instance, Kipchoge runs a 40K pretty hard every other week because he has worked up to that over a longer period. Maybe most people would do 30-35K instead. The pace “pretty hard” is relative to the individual anyway.

For the weekly intervals, he will run 12-18K worth of reps at marathon pace or a bit faster. Someone else might do 10-12K and again the pace would be relative to the individual.

The Fartleks would be the same. If he would do 20 x 2 minutes fast, maybe most people would only do 10-15 x.

He does one of those three workouts every other day, someone else might need more rest between days.

I don’t see anything having to do with him being elite or Kenyan having anything to do with the principles of this training philosophy being less relevant to anyone else. It’s just running a little slower than race pace sometimes, right at race pace sometimes and a bit faster sometimes. That’s how distance runners train for every other distance already, this is just laid out very simply.

Anyone could do this and become a better runner.