For most runners, is there anything actually wrong with Daniels?

My only problems with Daniels are pretty superficial. I find the workouts to be a little complex and annoying (4E + 2T + 4M + 4E + 2T etc. etc.). Who can remember all that? I also find the marathon programs too hard. He has you doing workouts that seem almost impossible to this sub-3 target guy.

Everyone follows it like a recipe and that leads to disaster.

That's the problem with trying to sell a formula.

I have found that long distance runners with a higher amount of ST fibers don't respond great to Daniels. They generally perform better with less intervals and more volume. Some examples of those types of runners can be found here:

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=309865

another runner wrote:

I have found that long distance runners with a higher amount of ST fibers don't respond great to Daniels. They generally perform better with less intervals and more volume.

Thanks for the thread, looks worth reading. The lack of allowance for different ST/FT, speed/endurance seems to be a valid critique.

it's not a cake wrote:

Everyone follows it like a recipe and that leads to disaster.

That's the problem with trying to sell a formula.

Possibly, although he explains the underlying principles so you can make your own plan/formula, which is one thing I like about it.

I just finished a Daniels 18-week 5K training cycle and lowered my time from 19:20 to 17:58, so it worked for me. Since I started running in the late ‘70’s and I haven’t seen much in the way of advances with respect to training. The most recent training technology to gain acceptance was probably the heart rate monitor polar introduced in the 1980s...

I'd say that some other criticisms are that:

He ignores the paces in between his E, T, I and R paces and that while those paces may not have been tied to any measurable lab metrics, there may be some value in running at them - particular for long sustained runs.

He locks you into certain paces. I disagree with this criticism as he emphasizes effort pretty heavily and pace is only one metric of effort.

There is no great evidence that vo2max is trainable. I think there is plenty of science out there that counters this - for some people it is trainable and for others it isn't.

There is no evidence that lactate threshold is trainable, and there is no evidence that training at lactate threshold pace improves lactate threshold. I haven't looked for or found studies that dispute or confirm that, but anecdotal evidence suggests that lactate threshold efforts improve performance and running at threshold pace improves lactate threshold. I cannot think of any training approach that doesn't include some variant of threshold paced efforts.

I'm a big Daniels guy, so I'm probably a bit more forgiving in my interpretation than his critics.

The VDOT value is taken from the VO2max (PB on 3200 meters), but it could be taken from any other distance it was the same.

It only gives the athlete's value in reference to the world records, but so commits the considerable error of the athlete as homogeneous in all distances.

In addition, part of the estimates uses the formula of Riegel with a coefficient of 1.06 on all distances and this is also a generalization that makes the athlete homogeneous, while he is not so.

Every athlete, always in reference to the excellent, that is to the world records, has only one better value that characterizes his attitudes. One can compete in many distances, but only in a distance will approach the excellent in a mathematical sense.

If you consider a graph with in abscissa the race distances, and in the ordinate the time at km, with the world records, you will get a curve. This athlete does not exist because he would be a Frankenstein with the speed of Bolt, Daniel Komen's VO2 max and the aerobic threshold of Kipchoge.

If you consider a graph with in abscissa the race distances, and in the ordinate time at km, with the world records, you will get a curve. This athlete does not exist because he would be a Frankenstein with the speed of Bolt, the VO2 max by Daniel Komen and the aerobic threshold of Kipchoge.

But if you report on this curve the real values of an athlete who maybe races from 1500 meters to the marathon , you will see that only one value is the one that comes closest to this curve.

That is his main attitude, while the values of the remaining races move away from the curve in a fan-like manner, the further one moves away from the main attitude.

This analysis is missing from Daniels' calculation. Each athlete has his own curve, the more points you have and the more you can discover his attitudes and then the rhythms to be followed in training in each area in a perfect way.

I thought the reason for the curve/increasing distance from the flat vo2 capability was lack of miles/muscle endurance for the distances over a 10k or so normally, for the runner that has a vo2 max guestimate from say their 3200 or 5k

Knowing this delta or decay one can adjust tempo and race pace efforts until they diminish somewhat. Of course no one athlete will have komens capability over 3000 and say Kipsangs over 26.2, but that doesn't matter at all for the recreational runner trying to get within :20s/mi of his various paces in order to get the proper workouts in targetting the correct energy system.

Forgive me for not seeing the perfect as being required to solve a gross generalized "good enough" easy pace where 80% of your miles lie based on a fairly solid indicator, and he also writes plenty about tuning into the goal based and tempo/interval work as the runner (hopefully) improves

another runner wrote:

I have found that long distance runners with a higher amount of ST fibers don't respond great to Daniels. They generally perform better with less intervals and more volume. Some examples of those types of runners can be found here:

That's true, I'm a ST guy and used a custom Daniels plan that I purchased off their website and within the first week I knew I had to adjust the R and I paces a little slower. The T pace was fine and I could go a little faster than the M and E paces,

there isn't anything specifically "wrong," with Daniels, but the idea that you can get a training program out of a book is deeply flawed.

these books should be scoured for ideas, for the philosophy inherent in the program and the ways in which that philosophy is applied to the development of a training progression. at that point the athlete should go away and develop their own program, based on their knowledge and understanding of where they are, fitness-wise, today, and where they ultimately want to be, performance-wise, tomorrow.

Daniels has become popular largely because it allows runners with no knowledge or understanding of training to compute seemingly "individualised" training paces. they then inject those computed numbers into the "training programs" at the back of the book and kid themselves they have a schedule that will see their performance shoot off the charts. this idea comes straight out of the "we have an app for that," mindset that ignores learning and the application of knowledge and hands decision-making over to an auto-pilot that provides instant gratification.

it doesn't work like that. it never has. and it doesn't matter how many times people are told this, they refuse to believe it.

go ask 100 professional athletes what their vDot number is and they'll laugh at you. ask Eliud Kipchoge which Daniels program he followed or which chapter of Pfitzinger he was following. running is the only activity I can think of where amateurs do not just actively ignore the methods used by the professionals, they disdain them.

if you are serious about improving your performance, either get a coach, or become a coach.

We have an app for that

Couldn’t have said it any better

I agree with this most of this take, but would add a couple of thoughts:

- I am not a huge believer that what pros do is particularly applicable to what the average runner does. Kipchoge is an unprecedented talent. Yes, we all share some common physiology, but we are all also unique when you look at all of the parts. You essentially make this point yourself when you note that we should synthesize the information contained in a text and then apply it to our particular circumstances. When you look at professional runners, you come to realize that their unique features often mean that their approaches to training are not a good guide for others to follow. I suspect Kipchoge falls pretty far to the right on the bell curve when it comes to natural vo2max and trainability of vo2max (and probably the same for lactate threshold, running economy, ability to withstand volume, and whatever other metric of running ability may be applicable). What works for him may not work a person who falls elsewhere on those curves.

- I don't think that Daniels ever intended that people lock into a particular program from the back of the book or into particular paces. I think those programs and pace charts are intended to be examples or starting points fore people. I think Daniels would say that you should digest his principles, come to know your strengths and weakness, and apply the underlying principles to your own situation. I don't think we disagree here at all - I am just trying to augment your comment regarding synthesis - not only is it a good idea or necessary, it is something that Daniels would expect. And I think that is true not only with respect to Daniels, but Pfitz, the Hansons and any other coach out there (except JS, whose system works universally without exception).

Let me start by saying that I think Daniels' training plans are valuable. There are entire threads arguing about what Lydiard means by 3/4 effort so you can't actually coach yourself from one of Lydiard's books but you can certainly do so from the Daniels Running Formula.

You asked about Daniels' approach for "ok-to-good" runners. As an experienced but mediocre runner myself I've had some problems with Daniels that I think are pretty common. The first problem is that I don't slow down with distance they way his v-dot tables suggest I should: I can never run the 10k that my 5k suggests etc. So if I am marathon training, I simply can't handle the M-paced workouts that my recent 5k results indicate. The other problems are the density of training (I can't handle that many workouts per week) and his easy pace is pretty aggressive for me.

it's not a cake wrote:

Everyone follows it like a recipe and that leads to disaster.

That's the problem with trying to sell a formula.

This. In spades and it's not a problem limited only to Daniels. Anytime you turn a training plan into The Tablets From Sinai you're going to have trouble no matter the plan. So I think the thing that so many people find appealing about Daniels, the precise formulas, are also the greatest weakness. But I think that as with any other program, if you know how to use and adapt it you'll be fine.

Its not perfect but if the average runner with 0 knowledge follows the spirit of his plans (not follow them to a T) they will improve drastically over just running random paces.

The main problem I see with Daniels lies with the readers, not the author: we try to put things into the plan that aren't there. We take basic ideas and turn them into a OSFA plan.

His philosophy essentially boils down to how to get the maximum benefit from workouts with the minimum chance of injury. His training paces - and corresponding recovery times - all stem from this concept. Training at Interval pace, for instance, gets you at VO2 max for a few minutes / interval. Running slightly faster than this won't get you much (any?) more fit, but it will increase the long term chance of injury if done at the otherwise called-for durations.

As a coach, I will say that Daniels casts the biggest net out of any philosophy in terms of helping your team improve, but I have certainly had some athletes under-respond (imho) to it.

Jack? No.

Stormy? Yes.

The apologists like Smoove will say that Daniels has you run by feel but having charts is contrary to that purpose. Easy, medium hard is all you need as targets in a true effort based system.