When I competively ran 15ish years ago, the Lore of Running was the go-to resource and 'Bible' for training, especially if you wanted to get into the weeds of running physiology.
Is this still the case? I noticed the last edition was published in 2003. Is there a better resource now?
TurdNugget wrote:
When I competively ran 15ish years ago, the Lore of Running was the go-to resource and 'Bible' for training, especially if you wanted to get into the weeds of running physiology.
Is this still the case? I noticed the last edition was published in 2003. Is there a better resource now?
For physiology it is solid, but there aren't many "takeaways" from the book. I read it when I was getting into coaching and I still pick it up on occasion. The physiology is much more in depth than any other book within the running world and for how dense it can be I think it's still very palatable for people that don't have as much background in the biology/physiology side of things. But I don't think I've ever closed the book thinking, I just had a great Idea to improve our training.
It still holds up, Magness's book arguably does better translating physiology into actionable ideas. Daniel's is another that deserves a mention even if I'm not big on his workouts and methods of quantification.
i'm actually about to get it. Ill update you by Christmas or a week after
V wrote:
It still holds up, Magness's book arguably does better translating physiology into actionable ideas. Daniel's is another that deserves a mention even if I'm not big on his workouts and methods of quantification.
I'm curious to know why you don't like Daniel's workouts and methods?
As a coach there are 3 books that I look at as a resource. Better training for Distance Running by Martin and Coe, Steve Magnesses book and Jack Daniels.
Results in 2021 (all different athletes)
Female 1:10:42 1/2 marathon
Male 1:49 800m
Male 3:43 1500
Junior male 1:50 800
Junior female 4:28 1500
Junior female (14 years old) 4:37/10;06 8/15
Junior male training for 5 months 1:53/3:56 8/15
I guess those results speak for themselves as far as the resources that I use.
TurdNugget wrote:
When I competively ran 15ish years ago, the Lore of Running was the go-to resource and 'Bible' for training, especially if you wanted to get into the weeds of running physiology.
Is this still the case? I noticed the last edition was published in 2003. Is there a better resource now?
I read Noakes a few years ago, and to me the science felt dated. Not bad, but not the latest results. Magness had more recent science in 2015, but it sounds like he's moving on from the science-focused coaching space, and I don't know if there will be anyone else in it anytime soon.
jiggymeister wrote:
V wrote:
It still holds up, Magness's book arguably does better translating physiology into actionable ideas. Daniel's is another that deserves a mention even if I'm not big on his workouts and methods of quantification.
I'm curious to know why you don't like Daniel's workouts and methods?
Daniel's is a phenomenal coach. Certainly more acclaimed than I am.
His workouts, at least listed in his books seem like they are trying very hard to be important. Opening up a random page with workouts has: "2E+4x1T w/ 1 min rest + 2T + 2 min rest + 3x3 min H w/ 2 min jog + 6x200 R w/200 jg + 1E"
I have no doubt he's smarter than me, but that's a busy workout. It reads like someone trying very hard to show that they deserve their paycheck. Could it be a great workout? Sure. There's not rule that says good workouts have to be simple. I do plenty that mix reps, paces, and recoveries, but I have zero idea what that workout is meant to do.
As for his methods of quantification. He made monumental steps that I think were absolutely necessary to make distance running advance farther. I don't think VO2max is a particularly useful barometer, but I admire trying to unlock the code (i.e. the formula) to reliably create distance runners. I just don't think he stumbled upon the one that holds up to today's running.
it's worth a read for certain chapters. The best chapter is "Learning from the experts" about how the experts trained and the take-a-ways from their training. Other areas are very out dated.
V wrote:
jiggymeister wrote:
I'm curious to know why you don't like Daniel's workouts and methods?
Daniel's is a phenomenal coach. Certainly more acclaimed than I am.
His workouts, at least listed in his books seem like they are trying very hard to be important. Opening up a random page with workouts has: "2E+4x1T w/ 1 min rest + 2T + 2 min rest + 3x3 min H w/ 2 min jog + 6x200 R w/200 jg + 1E"
I have no doubt he's smarter than me, but that's a busy workout. It reads like someone trying very hard to show that they deserve their paycheck. Could it be a great workout? Sure. There's not rule that says good workouts have to be simple. I do plenty that mix reps, paces, and recoveries, but I have zero idea what that workout is meant to do.
As for his methods of quantification. He made monumental steps that I think were absolutely necessary to make distance running advance farther. I don't think VO2max is a particularly useful barometer, but I admire trying to unlock the code (i.e. the formula) to reliably create distance runners. I just don't think he stumbled upon the one that holds up to today's running.
I don't have anything to contribute except to ask that V post more often. This is what the site can be.
pure romance wrote:
I don't have anything to contribute except to ask that V post more often. This is what the site can be.
I appreciate it. The boards are going through a weird time right now, I don't see many threads open that seem sincere and geared toward training so I've been pretty quiet on it. I'm glad you found some value in the post.
V wrote:
pure romance wrote:
I don't have anything to contribute except to ask that V post more often. This is what the site can be.
I appreciate it. The boards are going through a weird time right now, I don't see many threads open that seem sincere and geared toward training so I've been pretty quiet on it. I'm glad you found some value in the post.
The JD workout is to improve the lactate threshold.
How do you suggest improving the lactate threshold for marathon trainig?
Noakes has said to throw the nutrition section of LOR out. He now advocates a low-carb approach for overall health as well as performance and longevity.
Do the very best runners keep it relatively simple or is their training very complex, varied and "sophisticated" (using that not in a sarcastic way, but as a positive)?
Actual results or theoretical results?
In approximately 5-10 years I'll be self-publishing an important tome detailing extensive insight on running on "Pure Hate." In the meantime you'll l just have to keep reading the LRC boards for any helpful hints by yours truly. It should be noted the mods delete a good percentage of my most important gems.
marathon workout wrote:
The JD workout is to improve the lactate threshold.
How do you suggest improving the lactate threshold for marathon trainig?
I would have never guessed that workout was meant to improve Lactate threshold (LT). With only about 15 minutes of total work and only a modest percentage of that around LT seems odd to me if that was the intention.
I won't claim to have any knowledge about the marathon specifically. I coach at the collegiate level so I'll stay in my sandbox when talking training for the most part.
A bread and butter LT workout for our 8k-10k races in cross is 3x2 mile tempo with 2:00 rest. Usually we start the season running about 10s slower than what we think true LT is just to make sure we are "catching up" with out fitness instead of accidentally starting just past it and struggling to keep up all year. Usually within a workout or two we have a feeling of our true LT pretty dialed.
For a marathon, I can't imagine settling for less than that amount of volume considering the workout I grabbed was for a marathon that was "11 weeks out." 15 minutes of moderate quality from the Daniel's workout seems out of place if in fact LT was the goal of the session.
**Also worth mentioning the terminology since Daniels is very rigid with his nomenclature and would probably hate me using the term tempo for that much volume. Truth be told, I am usually a stickler for using the right terms, but I think the coaching world has largely moved past using 20 minutes as the barometer for a "tempo run"
Charles Bukowski wrote:
Do the very best runners keep it relatively simple or is their training very complex, varied and "sophisticated" (using that not in a sarcastic way, but as a positive)?
Actual results or theoretical results?
It's varies wildly from program to program. You can see workouts like "the michigan" that alternate between about 5 distinct paces and Worhurst certainly has a fair amount of detail to his sessions, but most programs, by and large, are fairly boring or are at least very clear in the stimulus and progression they provide. Jerry's training with Karissa Schweizer is really quite straight forward when you follow it week to week. But something like Nick Symmonds' 800m plan never had any pattern that I could figure out.
I'll say that my training has largely gotten more simple as the years have gone on. We definitely have some workouts that are complex, but I think if people read them they can see that the stimulus we were going for is clear. Muddy workouts are very hard to progress accurately during a season so I try to avoid complexity when it isn't needed.
V wrote:
marathon workout wrote:
The JD workout is to improve the lactate threshold.
How do you suggest improving the lactate threshold for marathon trainig?
I would have never guessed that workout was meant to improve Lactate threshold (LT). With only about 15 minutes of total work and only a modest percentage of that around LT seems odd to me if that was the intention.
n"
are you sure it isnt 4x1 mile? I dont have your version of the book but that is a lot closer to what I have seen. Could you just do 6-8*1 mile? sure. but some times mixing it up keeps thinga fresh...
Not a "better resource," and not nearly as in-depth, but Alex Hutchinson's book Endure is packed with solid research based information.
Many of the other good science based running focused books have already been mentioned.
slaaa wrote:
V wrote:
I would have never guessed that workout was meant to improve Lactate threshold (LT). With only about 15 minutes of total work and only a modest percentage of that around LT seems odd to me if that was the intention.
n"
are you sure it isnt 4x1 mile? I dont have your version of the book but that is a lot closer to what I have seen. Could you just do 6-8*1 mile? sure. but some times mixing it up keeps thinga fresh...
Yes these are miles, not minutes.
V you're mistaken here.
slaaa wrote:
V wrote:
I would have never guessed that workout was meant to improve Lactate threshold (LT). With only about 15 minutes of total work and only a modest percentage of that around LT seems odd to me if that was the intention.
n"
are you sure it isnt 4x1 mile? I dont have your version of the book but that is a lot closer to what I have seen. Could you just do 6-8*1 mile? sure. but some times mixing it up keeps thinga fresh...
Yes these are miles, not minutes.
V you're mistaken here.