I have never understood the admiration that people seem to hold for Jack Daniels. Other than Van Cortland Park or whatever his school is called what has he ever done. I do not think he did Jim Ryun any favors.
I have never understood the admiration that people seem to hold for Jack Daniels. Other than Van Cortland Park or whatever his school is called what has he ever done. I do not think he did Jim Ryun any favors.
Your goal is pretty good. I think you have a good shot at sub 3 if you can build some miles now. I might try to peak at 70 if you can. Try to build up to 60 during base building, and then start back down at 55 when you start your 2Q program. JD will have you build back up to 70, but you should average right around 60 for the entire plan.
Personal note - I did think 18 weeks was a bit long given how intense his plan is, so you could probably spend more time base building (up to 70 mpw) and then jump into his plan with 12 weeks to go. It never hurts in a marathon to have more base building miles than to jump into his plan too early and get hurt.
Inconsistent wrote:
Your goal is pretty good. I think you have a good shot at sub 3 if you can build some miles now. I might try to peak at 70 if you can. Try to build up to 60 during base building, and then start back down at 55 when you start your 2Q program. JD will have you build back up to 70, but you should average right around 60 for the entire plan.
Personal note - I did think 18 weeks was a bit long given how intense his plan is, so you could probably spend more time base building (up to 70 mpw) and then jump into his plan with 12 weeks to go. It never hurts in a marathon to have more base building miles than to jump into his plan too early and get hurt.
Thanks for the advice. As a masters runner, I'd rather 12 weeks with a solid base than 18 with a weaker base and another injury. Good call.
The fact you only ran 5 runs 16+ is also really interesting.
Chesterboy II wrote:
The fact you only ran 5 runs 16+ is also really interesting.
FWIW, I'm finishing up Daniels now and only have 5 runs at 17+. The vast majority of his runs are 15-17 miles. I did modify his plan slightly by upping the long runs a bit. For example, he sometimes says thing like "run 19 miles or 150 minutes, whichever comes first." I always ran 150+ minutes, even if that took me to 21 miles. I think it's important to get at least 3 runs of 150+ minutes in and I didn't want to artificially cap it at a shorter distance. However, he mainly limits it for injury risk, so if you're prone to that, you may want to go with the shorter amount.
HR of 150-155 at M pace? What was your max HR?
Can anyone else comment on what %MaxHR they were running the E, M, T, I/R paces? How much emphasis they put on the HRM versus the paces?
adiBRO wrote:
HR of 150-155 at M pace? What was your max HR?
Can anyone else comment on what %MaxHR they were running the E, M, T, I/R paces? How much emphasis they put on the HRM versus the paces?
He goes through all of this in the book.
Pacing is clear cut. Looking at heart rate, he reports E and T HR ranges, leading to infer the others. One other post I think referenced these.
% Max HR
E - 65 - 79%
M - 80 - 88%
T - 89 - 91%
I/R - 92 - 100%
Anyone comment whether these seem right? M seems wide and T seems narrow.
adiBRO wrote:
HR of 150-155 at M pace? What was your max HR?
Can anyone else comment on what %MaxHR they were running the E, M, T, I/R paces? How much emphasis they put on the HRM versus the paces?
My max HR is ~ 188 though I rarely go above 180.
From personal experience, HR 150-155 was a good (lower end) for M pace. It creeps up with time/miles I’m so that 155-160+ is more likely for the second half. During training and sans taper I was often around 160 when running 6:45 pace.
Worth noting that I did the large majority of my training at HR 120-125 (8:30-9:00+). I intersected 8:00 at HR 130, 7:30 at HR 140 when fresh.
T pace for me (6:15 or a bit faster) is HR 165-170. I felt that anything in the 160+ range for me starts burning sugar quick, ie aerobic but high end = dangerous zone for marathon.
Interestingly the most miles I put in the lower HR i could reach when jogging. I did some HR 115 running which was...fun!
Toadlips (the OP) ran faster than me in training. I rarely touched the 135-145 range outside of progression type runs. Hope this helps!!!
adiBRO wrote:
Pacing is clear cut. Looking at heart rate, he reports E and T HR ranges, leading to infer the others. One other post I think referenced these.
% Max HR
E - 65 - 79%
M - 80 - 88%
T - 89 - 91%
I/R - 92 - 100%
Anyone comment whether these seem right? M seems wide and T seems narrow.
My numbers:
E = 125 to 135 / 188 ie 66-72%
Since 7:30 is E that’s 140/188 = 75%
Still spot on
M = 150-160 / 188 = 79-85%
How you like that?!
T = 165-170 / 188 = 87-89%
So for me these guideline ranges are spot on.
I do recommend developing a “feel†and not running by charts. Anectodically they however do seem generally in line!
If you are doing only 50 MPW (I assume that means miles per week!) that 20 mile run comes in at 40% of your mileage! Leaves you an average of 5 miles a day for the other 6 days. Can this be the best way to train - even for a marathon? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut down the long run to, say, 15 miles max and increase the average on the other 6 days to 7-8? A weekly increase of 7 -13 miles?
mark b wrote:
If you are doing only 50 MPW (I assume that means miles per week!) that 20 mile run comes in at 40% of your mileage! Leaves you an average of 5 miles a day for the other 6 days. Can this be the best way to train - even for a marathon? Wouldn't it make more sense to cut down the long run to, say, 15 miles max and increase the average on the other 6 days to 7-8? A weekly increase of 7 -13 miles?
If you are running 50 mpw for a marathon, you should not be running 7 days a week.
7:30 Sounds right wrote:
adiBRO wrote:Pacing is clear cut. Looking at heart rate, he reports E and T HR ranges, leading to infer the others. One other post I think referenced these.
% Max HR
E - 65 - 79%
M - 80 - 88%
T - 89 - 91%
I/R - 92 - 100%
Anyone comment whether these seem right? M seems wide and T seems narrow.
My numbers:
E = 125 to 135 / 188 ie 66-72%
Since 7:30 is E that’s 140/188 = 75%
Still spot on
M = 150-160 / 188 = 79-85%
How you like that?!
T = 165-170 / 188 = 87-89%
So for me these guideline ranges are spot on.
I do recommend developing a “feel†and not running by charts. Anectodically they however do seem generally in line!
This matches with me, almost to the beat. My max is 187, I run easy at no more than 135 ideally. And my one and only marathon was ran at 150-155 (climbed to 164 by the finishline though).
And I'd argue the 72%-79% shouldn't really be defined, but Daniels try's to capture all miles within a percentage bracket. I'd call them miscellaneous!
Hello, great running community!
I registered in the forum just because of this thread. Really great insights about JD's 2Q training which I've been following for some weeks in preparation for the Seoul Marathon in March with the "up to 40 miles" training plan (my peak is precisely 40 miles), with 4 weekly runs. Everything has been running smoothly, but in the back of my head I've always been wondering about those 20-mile long runs which aren't there (only three 16-mile and two 17-mile runs).
I'm a VDOT 51 (PBs of 19:36 in the 5k and 1:30:14 in the HM) and I'm doing more or less as told, going one VDOT unit down for the first weeks. The training has been quite manageable at all intensities, but I can't picture myself running at 7:17/mile (3h10) for 26.2 miles (even though I ran a comfortable 6:52/mile HM PB recently with favourable weather). My friends, some of which are clearly stronger than I am and have sub-1h30 HMs struggled to run a sub-3h20, so I feel like JD's 3h10 projected potential for me is a bit wild. It'll be my first marathon too, so I'd like to be a bit conservative in the approach, but I wouldn't want to end the race feeling I could've done MUCH better...
From what I've read here, those few T miles in the end of quality MLRs prepare us for what we'll experience in the marathon, which is comforting for me (my longest run ever was 18.5 miles in 2h28, so everything beyond that distance/running time is a mystery). Should I still feel comfortable and confident? What about that crazy M pace? Finally, do you think the "up to 40 miles" might not really be enough for a good, solid performance?
Thanks so much for reading, and congrats to all of you who've been successful with the plan and taken your time to share your thoughts and experiences!
Hello all,
I'm about to start training for the Green Bay marathon in May. I'm hoping to break 3 hours (3:06 PR in 2014) and I decided to do the JD 2q 18 week plan, but I have to say I'm having a hard time figuring out what to run on my non-Q days. I have the book, read it but it's still a little unclear how I should be approaching the tempo/interval runs. I did Furman before and that was spelled out pretty clearly but I'm having a hard time finding clarity with JD on non-Q days. Any advice or help is much appreciated.
paul g wrote:
Hello all,
I'm about to start training for the Green Bay marathon in May. I'm hoping to break 3 hours (3:06 PR in 2014) and I decided to do the JD 2q 18 week plan, but I have to say I'm having a hard time figuring out what to run on my non-Q days. I have the book, read it but it's still a little unclear how I should be approaching the tempo/interval runs. I did Furman before and that was spelled out pretty clearly but I'm having a hard time finding clarity with JD on non-Q days. Any advice or help is much appreciated.
Easy running, enough to reach your weekly mileage target.
Thanks Lurker.......and what about recovery weeks? I know the 4 week plan gives you an off week but are there any real recovery or step-back weeks in the 18 week 2Q plan where I'm doing 55-70 MPW? Thanks again for the advice.
paul g wrote:
Thanks Lurker.......and what about recovery weeks? I know the 4 week plan gives you an off week but are there any real recovery or step-back weeks in the 18 week 2Q plan where I'm doing 55-70 MPW? Thanks again for the advice.
Why would there need to be recovery or step-back weeks if you're only running 55-70?
Because every endurance race I've done (9 marathons and 4 Ironmans) I've had a recovery week. It was just a question.