Jack Daniels theory: don't train faster than vVO2max to improve VO2max?

I haven't done any research on this issue, although I think it would be easy enough to do (when I am not buried at work), but I think I would make a clarification as to what I think Daniels' position is.

I may be wrong, but don't know think he says that there is no additional benefit to training at faster than "v", but rather that any additional benefit is not worth the added stress on your body. I haven't pulled out my copy of Daniels, so that may be just my common sense interpretation of his approach, but I would honestly be surprised if he thought that the vo2max improvement curve were absolutely flat once you hit any particular pace. Rather, I suspect he thinks that the curve flattens enough so that when you balance that against the steepness of the injury-risk curve at v pace, the most reasonable course of action is to train at v (even if he may actually state it in absolutes in his book).

I just did a very cursory glance at Chapter 2 of the 2nd edition. Look at the various aerobic profile curves he presents there.

Your common-sense interpretation makes a lot of sense to me but reading him literally (p123 2nd edition Daniels Running Formula): "working at the harder-than-necessary intensity doesn't improve the aerobic mechanisms any more than working at the minimum max intensity does. The result is that the workout becomes more stressful and the benefits no greater--in fact, they could be less beneficial."

So what Jack Daniels seems to be saying is stronger than what you are saying. You are saying incremental benefits from running 10% above vVO2max isn't worth the additional wear. He's saying that not only is there additional wear and tear but there are no incremental benefits.

You are correct.

I guess his position there is that if you are at your max heart rate, then you cannot transport more oxygen to regardless of how much faster you run, and since maximizing the amount of oxygen transported is the goal of the workout, running faster will yield no added returns on that front.

That leads us back to your initial question (stated in a different way): does running at a pace beyond the pace at which you reach your max heart improve your body's ability to transport oxygen?

Smoove wrote:

That leads us back to your initial question (stated in a different way): does running at a pace beyond the pace at which you reach your max heart improve your body's ability to transport oxygen?

Exactly, perhaps I should have phrased the question that way from the start.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

One of the tenants of Jack Daniels' training theory is that, for the purpose of training VO2max, there is no benefit to running faster than the slowest pace needed to elicit VO2max. Is there any evidence to support this assertion? To try to keep the thread focused, let's try to set aside for now the contentious issue of the importance of VO2max in elite performance.

To make what I'm asking a little more concrete, suppose v = vVO2max, the slowest speed that elicits VO2max. If you read Daniels literally, then 1 minute at 100% v elicits the same training benefit on VO2max as 1 minute at 110% v. Do we still believe this? Did we ever have direct evidence for it?

Lol and where exactly does this "tenant" reside?

you really sound smart tho wrote:

3hr-marathoner wrote:

One of the tenants of Jack Daniels' training theory is that, for the purpose of training VO2max, there is no benefit to running faster than the slowest pace needed to elicit VO2max. Is there any evidence to support this assertion? To try to keep the thread focused, let's try to set aside for now the contentious issue of the importance of VO2max in elite performance.

To make what I'm asking a little more concrete, suppose v = vVO2max, the slowest speed that elicits VO2max. If you read Daniels literally, then 1 minute at 100% v elicits the same training benefit on VO2max as 1 minute at 110% v. Do we still believe this? Did we ever have direct evidence for it?

Lol and where exactly does this "tenant" reside?

In a tenetment building.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

Smoove wrote:

That leads us back to your initial question (stated in a different way): does running at a pace beyond the pace at which you reach your max heart improve your body's ability to transport oxygen?

Exactly, perhaps I should have phrased the question that way from the start.

vV02max is a fairly narrow range of pages, so suppose an athlete's vV02max is 5:15-5:20 mile pace. If the workout is designed to improve V02max, you would want to spend as much time as possible at vV02max. If the athlete is running more conservatively at 5:20 mile pace (in his vV02max range), there is less chance of overly fatiguing later in the workout and compromising the workout.

In your example of 1:00 repeats at vV02max, if the athlete was running more aggressively at 5:15's throughout the workout, he's not necessarily benefitting more than if he was running 5:20's, and there's a higher chance that late in the workout he could become overly fatigued and start to fade in the latter stages of a rep or entire reps (ex: he runs 45 seconds at 5:15, then fades to 5:30's for the last 15 seconds; whereas running 60 seconds at 5:20 would have accomplished more time at vV02max).

I'm not going to put words in Daniel's mouth, but that's how my logic and understanding of Daniels would follow.

There is no evidence that improving VO2max improves actual race performance. Your time would be better spent on improving other components like lactate threshold.

well actually wrote:

There is no evidence that improving VO2max improves actual race performance. Your time would be better spent on improving other components like lactate threshold.

It is almost as if you did not read this part of the OP's post:

"To try to keep the thread focused, let's try to set aside for now the contentious issue of the importance of VO2max in elite performance."

Smoove wrote:

I may be wrong, but don't know think he says that there is no additional benefit to training at faster than "v", but rather that any additional benefit is not worth the added stress on your body. .

I agree with what Smoove says here, "any additional benefit is not worth the added stress on your body". Daniels always talks about doing the least amount of work needed to get a benefit. If you are running yourself so hard that it causes injury or reduces your ability to train its no beneficial.

It's silly to try and isolate training variables in this way. You are never just working on one component of physiology when you do a workout. While it may be true that to maximize VO2max improvements there is no need to train faster than vVO2max, but is it really smart to try and do a workout that only does that?

Someone said earlier some nonsense about max heart rate "I guess his position there is that if you are at your max heart rate, then you cannot transport more oxygen to regardless of how much faster you run, and since maximizing the amount of oxygen transported is the goal of the workout, running faster will yield no added returns on that front."

You might only get near your max heart rate at the very end of the last few repeats if you are running at your vVO2max workout. Using the example of the runner who's vVO2max pace is 5:20, if he is doing 1200 meter repeats it is likely that only the last minute or so of each rep is going to be near max heart race.

I think you are overestimating the time it takes the average runner to get to 98% of their max heart rate.

I went back and looked at my heart rate data. First, let's recognize a few facts. I use a optical heart rate monitor integrated into my watch which is imperfect, but which is consistent with the heart rate monitor integrated into the elliptical machine I cross train on at the gym, so I think we can consider it accurate enough for our purposes. Second, I do not know my max heart rate as I have never had it lab tested, but based on workouts I have done and a sense of perceived effort developed over the course of more than 25 years in the sport, I can confidently say that the 220-46=174 estimate is a pretty good estimate of my max hear rate - the highest sustained heart rate that I have hit was 180 and I am most often at around 174-178 at peak efforts.

So let's use 176 as my max heart rate and say that my target heart rate range for vo2max workouts is 172 (roughly 98% of 178) to 176. In my two most recent vo2max style workouts, it took between 1:30 and 1:45 per interval to get to my max heart rate. If that is at all representative of the average runner, and based on what Daniels says, it seems to be, then for someone doing 1200m vo2max intervals at 5:20 pace would get more like 2:30 to 2:45 per 1200m/4:00 at their max hear rate.

In addition, you say that it is silly to try to target only one area of improvement during a workout, while also saying that you are never just working one component of physiology when you do a workout. First, I think that your first statement either mischaracterizes, or is a demonstration of a lack of understanding, of this style of training. I would submit that doing vo2max workouts has the primary purpose of improving vo2max, but that it also has secondary benefits with respect to running economy and lactate threshold. They are referred to as vo2max intervals because that is the primary purpose of the workout, not because that is the sole system benefitted by such a workout.

Finally, no workout should be viewed in isolation. You say that isolating physiological factors is silly, and I don't wholly disagree with you on that. Were you to do one style of workout over and over again, you could not expect much improvement after a certain point, and you would not be a well rounded runner nor would you perform up to your underling ability,.

I will say, however, that if you craft a well thought through training program, including workouts within that overall training plan that emphasize one particular physiological factor is a perfectly valid and reasonable (although not the only) way to train. Different systems can be emphasized at different phases of the overall cycle and on different days within each microcycle, and the gains from earlier cycles can be maintained by way of the secondary benefits of workouts emphasizing different factors later in the phase, or through occasional maintenance work within subsequent phases.

That leaves the question of whether the emphasis on just a limited number of specific factors is in itself an appropriate way to train, but I have already gone on way too long on this point, and that is a somewhat separate issue.

Smoove I want to meet with you this Friday afternoon. Be in my office at 4PM.

I think you are underestimating your max heartrate. In fact you state you have recorded a sustained hr of 180 yet you claim your max is 176. I would guess that your max hr is higher than you think and that you are not reaching as high of a percentage of max as you think.

Sorry boss, I will be busy typing message board replies then.

I have hit 180 on occasion, but not sustained. That was a mistake. I have not sustained above 176-178. I raced a 4 miler on the 4th of July and my heart rate over the second half of that race was in that 174-178 range, with two readings of 180 or more. I have assumed that the 180 readings are attributable to the normal margin of error in the device, or represent a momentary blip. Again, I have been doing this off and on since 1990, and have done it with enough success to suggest that I should have a good sense of my perceived max effort at this point.

3hr-marathoner wrote:

One of the tenants of Jack Daniels' training theory is that, for the purpose of training VO2max, there is no benefit to running faster than the slowest pace needed to elicit VO2max. Is there any evidence to support this assertion? To try to keep the thread focused, let's try to set aside for now the contentious issue of the importance of VO2max in elite performance.

To make what I'm asking a little more concrete, suppose v = vVO2max, the slowest speed that elicits VO2max. If you read Daniels literally, then 1 minute at 100% v elicits the same training benefit on VO2max as 1 minute at 110% v. Do we still believe this? Did we ever have direct evidence for it?

I would say this; It`s the same thinking when it comes to total mileage. Why try to find what is the upper limit when you can reach at least good results with the lower limit for what it takes to improve? The "evidence" is often "brutal" in overtraining and injuries.

Assuming vVO2max truly is velocity at maximum oxygen uptake, then it's hard to imagine why running faster than v would have any additional impact on VO2max. There are plenty of arguments why it might positively impact other things like running economy and running faster than VO2max might actually be more effective on overall race performance.