Why don't vdot training paces match race time?

I am simply debating the fact that a 19 min 5k runner can go out and run 5x1000 w/ 2' rest @ 3:25 or whatever 18 min pace is. I literally don't think that workout is achievable. This would be equivalent to a 16 minute 5k runner going out and running 5x1000 @ 3 flat w/ 2' rest.

My point is that this person could be racing their workouts but at a certain point you also have to acknowledge that even if they are racing them they are likely fitter than their existing PR. I suspect that is the case here.

The snarky answer is, "Read the whole book, then come back and tell us the answer to your original question."

Daniels' whole training philosophy revolves around selecting workout paces based on current fitness, as measured by a race or time trial. You're doing it backwards.

You are debating a technicality in my example. I purposely put a somewhat crazy example of a 17:30 workout for a 19:18 runner to illustrate how silly the concept is.

Also, if you assume some +/- of a race result based on temperature and course and that someone in the 19:00 range might PR by 30 seconds, I wanted an example that gap between race and workout pace to be significant.

Also, if you consider that the person is running low mileage overall and only one workout per week plus maybe a long run, then don’t you think that person could further over-perform a workout beyond what your expecting from someone running another workout and 10-20 miles more per week?

Got it. Don’t mean to be semantic... truly thought you were providing real examples.

I’ll add, in the book Daniels mentions that the pace relationship between paces in the tables are 6sec/400m, which (he says) is a good match for well trained runners. For those less well trained (including yours truly), a better relationship might 7 or 8 secs per 400.

Sooo, you probably are running the intervals too fast, but also you can run shorter intervals faster than longer races suggest because you’re not an aerobically well trained runner (at least in the context of the books author, in general population you are very fast and fit!)

Sounds to me like you’re being held back by aerobic side, not speed, so have to work on the weakness to get a breakthrough. Good luck and have fun!

After high school when I first had to develop my own training, I used Daniels as my primary source. I found his progressions to skew way too heavily towards aerobically developed runners. This was further borne out by my experience coaching high school runners.

This is the line of fit I would use for an athlete with your 400 (1600p) and 800 (3200p) workouts:

1600p 5:20

3200p 5:40

5000p 6:00

10000 6:20

Threshold 6:40

(Half-marathon) 6:50 ~ 1:29:31

Sub-Threshold 7:00

That line of fit makes sense to me, but then 5x1000 @ 3200p off 2' recovery sounds crazy. With high school athletes, they are steadily progressing their target times throughout the season, and we can often anticipate a race breakthrough based on a workout where they are comfortably exceeding target times. I suspect something similar is happening here, where perhaps your 1000s were run with better fitness or conditions than your 800s. 18:45 should be a conservative goal for a 5000m track time trial WITH IDEAL PACING. 10 days after your 1000s workout, I would expect something faster than 18:30 in a TT.

Daniels paces are prescriptive not predictive. They are the pace you should be running at not the pace you could run at.

18minwannabe wrote:

I have wondered if I have done intervals too hard, but doesn't everyone just do them as hard as they can? As long as you're consistent on each one surely it's ok

It should be rare that a workout is as hard as you can go.

For most of the year, just day in and day out, you should finish feeling like there is more in the tank. Other subjective ways to describe this:

- If you're partway through and wishing the workout would be over, you're running too fast

- If you finish a rep and you have to bend over, hands on knees, to catch your breath, you went to fast. The right effort is one where you can go directly into a jog (even if it's slow 12 min miles).

- You know how in a race right when you get to the end when it's time to kick you are really uncomfortable but you haven't started the kick yet? THAT is the correct workout finishing effort. Uncomfortable but with still more in the tank and it won't leave you feeling trashed like a race would.

Of course there are exceptions here and there. Some workouts you will go to the well. Some workouts you will go to the knees. Some workouts you will practice kicking (otherwise you are practicing stopping right when it gets uncomfortable). But those are more rare - I'd say once a month type efforts, whereas these more controlled efforts are your twice per week efforts.

Try it.

highhoppingworm wrote:

I am simply debating the fact that a 19 min 5k runner can go out and run 5x1000 w/ 2' rest @ 3:25 or whatever 18 min pace is. I literally don't think that workout is achievable. This would be equivalent to a 16 minute 5k runner going out and running 5x1000 @ 3 flat w/ 2' rest.

My point is that this person could be racing their workouts but at a certain point you also have to acknowledge that even if they are racing them they are likely fitter than their existing PR. I suspect that is the case here.

If that 16min 5k runner also runs like a 4:25 mile and is only doing 30mpw with 1 workout (i.e. the standard HS kid who runs 4:25/9:50/16:00 cause they have no aerobic endurance and thinks they are an 800m/1500m guy), I can totally see doing that. The combo of having a better anaerobic system than aerobic AND being fully rested up for the workout lets. you do stupid things that make no sense normally. In HS we used to do stupid things like 6x800 at 3k pace with 2min rest and it was pretty normal to do them faster than 3k pace. We were young and dumb and with fresh legs from low mileage (45-50) and some delusions of grandeur, we could hammer them out and be fine.

It is also a probably split the difference things where you are in like 18:30 shape so the workouts are a bit faster than expected but with in a pretty normal range. If you have gone from 20mpw to 30mpw, you are likely to see a decent boost in performance...

Leddy Gee wrote:

You are using the tables/charts in the wrong way. You are not supposed to do a workout and then figure out how fast you can race based on the workout. You are supposed to run a race and then run the workout based on how fast the race was. The paces for the workouts should be sub-maximal. Therefore if you do a workout at the fastest possible average time, the tables should predict a race time faster than you are capable of.

This is the correct answer. You don't go out and do a workout and then look at the tables.. You run a race, get your vdot, and then run workouts based on the chart.

As I said before, I know they're not meant to be used like this, it's just in the past, I've done a race, often better than I think I'm capable of and then I'm pleasantly surprised to realise the race VDOT time matches exactly with the suggested training paces that I was hitting previous to the races.

So I'm only looking at the charts this way round because I can't do any races. I get you're saying it doesn't work like this.

I've been training more than I ever have done and more consistently - I absolutely know I'm in the best shape I've ever been in, based on previous training times. I'm certain I'm in sub 19 shape, I just don't know how much under.

Sorry, when I say 'as hard as they can' I don't mean, you're on the floor being sick after. I always have more in the tank after. I could do another 1K rep if I was told to after doing 5 of them - and my recoveries are always jogs.

might be helpful wrote:

I’ll add, in the book Daniels mentions that the pace relationship between paces in the tables are 6sec/400m, which (he says) is a good match for well trained runners. For those less well trained (including yours truly), a better relationship might 7 or 8 secs per 400.

Sooo, you probably are running the intervals too fast, but also you can run shorter intervals faster than longer races suggest because you’re not an aerobically well trained runner (at least in the context of the books author, in general population you are very fast and fit!)

Sounds to me like you’re being held back by aerobic side, not speed, so have to work on the weakness to get a breakthrough. Good luck and have fun!

Thanks - this is what I was wondering in my initial posts (about the aerobic side!)

Of course "highhoppingworm" is right that at some point the workout is so fast that it's suggestive of much faster race times, even if she's "racing" the workout and even though the workout is not a "predictor" workout. I coach HS girls and there's no way that my typical 19:15-level runners can manage 5 x 1000 w/ 2 min rest at 3:32. That's flying. Plus the OP already said that she is a 35 year old woman with a lot of experience and very little natural speed. She's hardly an anaerobic monster. OP, any training issues aside, you need to go find a race or TT and update your 5k time. You might be pleasantly surprised.

This advice is spot on, albeit snarky.

I have a running friend who hammers 1000m repeats at what he refers to Daniels "T" pace, which is way above his level. In effect, he is actually just running at "I" pace. I doubt he could do other specified "T" pace workouts at that pace like a 20 minute tempo, or even 2 mile repeats w/ 2 min jog rest. I just roll my eyes when I see his Strava workouts. He also runs his "E" days way too fast and rarely ever does any true recovery runs. As a 2:50 marathoner, his "recovery" days are like 7 miles at 7:05/mi.

He hasn't been injured, so I can't be too critical, but he is probably just shooting himself in the foot for aerobic development.

By contrast, I jog very slow on "recovery" days (9:00-10:00/mi), run my "E" days by feel (usually end up ~7:35-8:45/mi), and run workouts out at an "I" pace equivalent to his "T" pace, and do my "T" pace intervals at the correct VDOT level for me.

Proof of concept: I recently just smoked him by over 2 min in a half marathon time trial, despite running similar mileage.

because the VDOT measures are for track times and XC courses are hard.

18minwannabe wrote:

Last week I did 5x1000m all 2:32-2:34 (2 min recovery)

This is an extraordinary workout, you should be sub 13 in the right race.

They do! :) But you got to know the art of coaching and how to handle them correct.

- Magic winter coming on-

18minwannabe wrote:

Last week I did 5x1000m all 2:32-2:34 (2 min recovery) Have also done 800s around 2:50 and 400 reps at 80s.

So if these are all Daniels' 'interval' pace, that equivalent is an 18:06 5K race time... My PR is 19:18 and although I'm sure I'm in PR shape at the moment (def sub 19) there's no way I could run it close to 18 mins.

What is the issue here - am I using Daniels' table wrong? Or if I can't get to 18:06 on those training times am I strong at the shorter stuff and need to practise a different type of training? Any thoughts?

I'm gonna assume you meant 3:32-3:34 for your K's based on the other paces. That aside a couple thoughts:

1) Fitness doesn't always equal performance. There's a psychological difference between being able to train and being able to race. Unfortunately, they don't always add up. Fortunately for you, the hard part is being fit.

2) Are you running the K's at the same place/course as the 5k? If you're running those K's on a track in 50 degree weather, and running the 5k on a slippery grass course in 80 degree weather, that difference between workout and performance would make A LOT of sense.

3) You're absolutely in PB shape based on that workout. I'd encourage you not to worry too much about time in your next race. If you can find a way to safely race a person or two near your ability, use that to focus on racing, not pacing. That nearly always helps my athletes PR.

Quick pitch: If you're looking for additional guidance, I'm a coach with Railroad Athletics. Feel free to get in touch.