There have been a few versions of JD's book. For some reason, some of the good bits in the earlier versions have been removed from the later versions.
There have been a few versions of JD's book. For some reason, some of the good bits in the earlier versions have been removed from the later versions.
That definitely fits a lot better, I'm glad someone pointed that out so I know better.
I'm still in the camp that the workouts in his book are often detailed for the sake of being detailed. My main gripe with mixing a lot of paces and then using a different rep scheme every single session is that monitoring progress and planning overload for an athlete gets very challenging. If one workout they are doing their T reps at 5:20 and their H reps at 4:55, and R reps at 4:30 pace (no idea if those line up with his number, this is just hypothetical) then a few weeks later their T reps are 5:15 avg but H reps move to 5:02 and R is 4:35 pace then was it a better workout? Maybe. For a marathon it's at least nice knowing that threshold got better, but I couldn't tell if that workout is better or worse than the other.
Interspersed in those plans are similar workouts but substitute in I pace over H and with a new rep scheme for those reps. If he works within that system year after year after year I'm sure he's going to develop a great coaches eye for it where he can just tell if it was a good session. I think a lot of us gain that within our system.
I just don't see that as being the best step for most programs to plan on their workouts being so detailed that it begins to blur the lines from week to week on if they are getting better.
Curious for others that have read it -
Did you find Noakes a little too willing to connect the dots between studies? Like, he had a great summary of a lot of the available research, no denying that. But he had this tendency to jump to conclusions, saying things like "If X and Y are true, this means that Z is the only logical conclusion."
On the one hand, it's how he arrived at the central governor model. But on the other hand, it feels like he went off the deep end with this tendency and is now convinced low-carb dieting is the answer to all that ails us. Like I kind of wish I didn't know what he was up to now, because it casts doubt on any conclusions he draws in LOR for me.
Apologies if this was confusing, it's been a while since I cracked that tome open ;)
fhdhfghdfhg wrote:
The best chapter is "Learning from the experts" about how the experts trained and the take-a-ways from their training.
Agree with this.
One issue is that Noakes has an unconventional theory ('central governer') that crops up all over the place Magness' book, though the quality of the English is poor, is more balanced in that respect, and also contains newer ideas, though Noakes goes into more detail on certain points (and obviously strongly influenced Magness): he is best when not presenting his own ideas.
A possible irritation are frequent South African reference points; 'Comrades' crops up often, for example.
Most of the content of the training chapters is probably of little use these days compared to other sources, and the same goes for several other chapters, but there are interesting things here and there.
ewat wrote:
Curious for others that have read it -
Did you find Noakes a little too willing to connect the dots between studies? Like, he had a great summary of a lot of the available research, no denying that. But he had this tendency to jump to conclusions, saying things like "If X and Y are true, this means that Z is the only logical conclusion."
We cross-posted, but made more or less the same point here :-).
I've also read Daniels' book by the way, and agree with V's point (also some of the workouts in some editions are impossibly hard). Whilst very influential, the basic ideas are now widely known and appear in more or less any training scheme; there are various tables in the book that some might find interesting to consult, however, which are not otherwise available, as far as I know. Again, I'd say that Magness' book, for all its faults, is a more rounded and up-to-date source overall.
V wrote:
I'm still in the camp that the workouts in his book are often detailed for the sake of being detailed.
....
I just don't see that as being the best step for most programs to plan on their workouts being so detailed that it begins to blur the lines from week to week on if they are getting better.
Thank you for saying this. Even how he does the "lettering" is like the actions of a cluttered mind. Why he wouldn't have in his book a simple table with four columns: (1) the letters; (2) the definition; (3) how to calculate the pace: and (4) the purpose of that pace - is beyond me. It's like he has no ability to easily and concisely articulate his thoughts - is he like that in person? Just an easy reference to look at while looking at his training plans - you'd think he would have done this.
Note: the person who did his wiki page did a far better job of summarizing his training philosophy and paces - gold star to that guy.
agreed wrote:
We cross-posted, but made more or less the same point here :-).
haha love it, that's the best
finally, thank you! wrote:
Thank you for saying this. Even how he does the "lettering" is like the actions of a cluttered mind. Why he wouldn't have in his book a simple table with four columns: (1) the letters; (2) the definition; (3) how to calculate the pace: and (4) the purpose of that pace - is beyond me. It's like he has no ability to easily and concisely articulate his thoughts - is he like that in person? Just an easy reference to look at while looking at his training plans - you'd think he would have done this.
Note: the person who did his wiki page did a far better job of summarizing his training philosophy and paces - gold star to that guy.
Agreed. Some of the information is hidden in random chapters, so you sometimes have to go to a specific race plan to get an explanation of a topic that should be explained in a definitions chapter. It's like he's addressing topics as they come up tangentially to what he's talking about. I had to make a table for myself, because the book is hard to reference.
He has tables of converting minutes-per-mile pace to other distances, even though these are totally unnecessary in the modern day with online calculators.
I do think some of Daniel's legitimately comes down to the "formula" aspect of it. I remember in High School I tried mapping out my training in a similar way to see is there was a perfect balance that could essentially predict someone's ability to run fast. Back then it was a rudimentary, X number of meters at this pace, mileage at this volume, etc. and trying to graph it to see if there was a best correlation with when I improved relative to what I was doing in training prior.
Jack Daniels had a very long time within his system. There's a very real chance that once upon a time it was just a 3 mile tempo that he called 3T. Then he may have had success adding in 200's after so it became 3T + 6x200m R. Step by step it added something, removed something else and arrived at what we see. It may look cluttered, but he had years to change small variables in a controlled way. Being a scientist at heart I'm sure he was smart enough to know how to isolate variables and account for those changes.
I still admire his work and I've owned editions 2, 3, and 4 so I definitely think there's a lot to learn even if it's to challenge some of my own beliefs from time to time.
I'm with you that sometimes Daniels is a bit much.
I'm of the belief that 99% of the time, simple means better. In training we rarely mix pace, there might be some progression or faster reps tacked on, but the main core of workouts is the summation of time at a pace.
V wrote:
Jack Daniels had a very long time within his system. There's a very real chance that once upon a time it was just a 3 mile tempo that he called 3T. Then he may have had success adding in 200's after so it became 3T + 6x200m R. Step by step it added something, removed something else and arrived at what we see. It may look cluttered, but he had years to change small variables in a controlled way. Being a scientist at heart I'm sure he was smart enough to know how to isolate variables and account for those changes.
I have a different theory.
It's not scientific, it's just what he thinks each pace works on. For example, a workout from his half plan: "10 min E + 30 min M + 5 min T + 30 min M". While that absolutely could have arisen through careful scientific study and isolation of variables, I think it's more likely that he's like "start with a warmup, and then work on paces on either side of your goal half marathon pace". It's not a bad thought, but I'd never believe he prescribed this regimen to a group of runners and measured the results. He created a system and he lives and breathes it fully.
He decided what his paces were a long time ago - this much we can be sure of, because his books are in print. He hasn't changed his formula since his now out-of-print "Oxygen Power" (all those tables are based on just a couple of simple equations). I think he might have even forgot that his paces are his own creations, and he views them in a more mechanistic way. T pace does X and is the same for all runners, that kind of thing. I think he lives in his rigid world and it works pretty well, but I try not to read too much into his genius. I'm not sure there is as much behind the curtain as we would believe.
not a duck wrote:
I'm with you that sometimes Daniels is a bit much.
I'm of the belief that 99% of the time, simple means better. In training we rarely mix pace, there might be some progression or faster reps tacked on, but the main core of workouts is the summation of time at a pace.
I'm a hobby jogger, but I believe this to be true. As other have said, simple is usually better.
Do the actual best runners - the ones that win the biggest races - do training at so many different paces, training for hyper-specific physiological reactions? Or do they just keep it simple. Miles plus some speedwork.
Charles Bukowski wrote:
Do the actual best runners - the ones that win the biggest races - do training at so many different paces, training for hyper-specific physiological reactions? Or do they just keep it simple. Miles plus some speedwork.
Pretty much everyone trains at a range of paces. from 1500m-MP pace just like daniels. The only part that changes is the blend. How formal(10m at M pace) versus informal(10mile at best aerobic). Some guys go HR/lactate rather than pace.
My impression is that these days people are doing more volume at slightly slower paces. 6x1m at 10k pace versus say 4x1@5k . People still do fast stuff just not as much. Small tweaks.
The thread got me curious. I pulled out my copy, published 1991. At the very least, it is a nice resource in explaining physiological aspects of running and gives one an idea of where to start in their training. The section "Training with expert runners" is very interesting as it goes into some detail regarding some of the legends and their strategies. The section on Ron Hill, especially, is a cautionary tale of the risks of high mileage.
Charles Bukowski wrote:
Do the actual best runners - the ones that win the biggest races - do training at so many different paces, training for hyper-specific physiological reactions? Or do they just keep it simple. Miles plus some speedwork.
My take is that many top runners DO mix paces in at least some of their workouts, but not because they think they're achieving some magic formula by mixing them.
In fact, I think it's the opposite: I do some workouts with mixed paces precisely because I DON'T think the exact paces make a big difference. Of course, there's a difference at the extremes: 200s with long rest clearly serve a different purpose than mile reps with short rest. And I think it's a good idea to do some workouts that target specific zones (speed, threshold, race pace, etc.). But I'll often choose to do ladders or pyramids or other mixed workouts (like the classic Oregon alternating 800/300s) just because they're more interesting and engaging than X times Y distance with Z recovery.
Anyway, regarding the OP's question: I still like and occasionally consult my 1991 edition of Noakes's book, particularly the "training with the masters" sections. But yes, a lot of the information is dated, though I assume the subsequent editions are a little more up to date. I'd recommend it, but wouldn't suggest considering it (or any other book) an infallible bible.
not a duck wrote:
I'm with you that sometimes Daniels is a bit much.
I'm of the belief that 99% of the time, simple means better. In training we rarely mix pace, there might be some progression or faster reps tacked on, but the main core of workouts is the summation of time at a pace.
I'm with you on this. I never understand coaches that have a overly complicated training session with a ton of different paces and reps distances. What are you trying to accomplish with that workout? What are you working on? Could you even explain it? Can anyone remember that workout as they are doing it? I do have some workouts that mix pace but not a lot. Maybe a shorter tempo session followed by some faster 200s or something, but not all over the place.