Just curious what exactly is Jack Daniels' E-pace? Is this the maxiumum pace that I can go for aerobic conditioning? that is, I can run slower than this pace and still get the training benefits.
Or is it the slowest pace that elicits VO2max improvement? Below this pace, there is no fitness/endurance benefit except recovery. I notice there is a big gap of 30secs/mile between E-pace and M-pace.
Thanks.
30 secs between E pace per nmile and M pace is not a "big gap". In fact, if that is Daniels' advice, it isn't slow enough IMO. More like 75-90 secs per mile slower than M pace is better.
Just curious what exactly is Jack Daniels' E-pace?
It's a good rule-of-thumb pace for aerobic runs.
Is this the maxiumum pace that I can go for aerobic conditioning?
No. You can go faster or slower.
that is, I can run slower than this pace and still get the training benefits.
Yes
Or is it the slowest pace that elicits VO2max improvement? Below this pace, there is no fitness/endurance benefit except recovery.
No, and no. Just run at whatever pace is comfortable. According to Daniels, anything over 65% HR Max is OK. It is very hard to run slower than 65% of your max heart rate.
Remember the physiological changes that are improved through E-pace training.
Increased mitochondrial density; increased blood plasma with all that extra hemoglobin; left ventricular hypertrophy; increases in the enzymes which regulate O2 consumption; increased capilary density; increased myoglobin.
All this stuff lets more oxygen get to where it needs to be for aerobic activity ... to your working muscle cells. E-pace produces the largest improvements; training slower that E-pace is still highly productive, but not the most productive. Training faster than E-pace starts to inhibit development because of the greater levels of lactate formed, but you begin the achieve some benefits associated with tempo work. Daniels specific paces (E, M, T, I, R and F) are designed to produce the PEAK benefits for the specific physilogical change desired; going outside those paces still produce benefits, just not the maximum benefits possible.
As ellford said, E pace corolates to 65-79% of max HR (59-74% of VO2max). Additionally, there is definitely a larger gap than 30 seconds between E and M pace. M (for Marathon) Pace is exactly what it seems... the pace you should be able to sustain for a marathon. Daniels offers this as an alternative to E pace for a small percentage of total week's volume. He warns against doing too much mileage at this pace.
E Man wrote:
I notice there is a big gap of 30secs/mile between E-pace and M-pace.
Look at the second edition of DRF. There is a range given for E pace. It has about a 30 second spread. The slow end of it will be considerably slower than M pace.
elflord wrote:
Just curious what exactly is Jack Daniels' E-pace?
It's a good rule-of-thumb pace for aerobic runs.
.
Real world experience does not bear this out at all.
E is not at all a "good rule of thumb pace for aerobic runs". It is very much on the fast side of any pace you'll do for aerobic runs. Most of your aerobic runs will average and SHOULD average slower than Daniels E-Pace. Think of it as a near fastest aerobic pace - the upper limit on how fast you should run and still call the run aerobic. Not in the middle at all.
Ooops, I made a typing error....the gap between M and E paces is actually 60-70 seconds.
Does this mean I can run at MP+ 2min/mile and still get aerobic benefits?
I'm wondering this myself. Does anyone know? I doubt it. If you ask any of the top exercise physiologists of the world, they will tell you that there is no conclusive evidence that there is a minimum pace that elicits improvement of the aerobic conditioning.
Some claim and I also believe that it does not matter how slow you run your easy runs, what matters is how long those runs are as well as how high the weekly mileage is.
Here is my take on it. What we are trying to do when we run slowly is increase the oxidative capacities of our slow twitch muscle fibers. We do not need to run very fast to recruit these muscle fibers, so we don't need to be picky about the pace, we just need to run easy. The only thing we have to worry about is the distance.
We can't just run slow all the time though. If we ran slow all the time we would not be maximizing our potential. We also need to do some faster running at speeds that will recruit our type IIA fast twitch muscle fibers. By training in this way, we can also increase the oxidative capacities of these muscle fibers. The minimum pace required to recruit these muscle fibers seems to be about 15-30 seconds slower than 10k race pace. We do not need to do a lot of training at these faster speeds to see improvement, but we should do some, probably some where around 10 - 15% of our weekly mileage. Doing more than this on a consistent basis tends to cause us to break down in stead of build up. The speed and duration that we perform these faster runs will depend on the event you are training for, since we also need to train our muscles to become more efficient at the speed we are going to race. A lot of coaches recommend training no faster than and no slower than 10% of goal race pace. Doing your race specific training any slower or faster than this does not seem to improve performance in your event of choice.
Does this make sense? I believe training really is as simple as:
1.Run moderately high mileage
2.Take it easy on your long runs and recovery runs
3.Train at race pace
4.Work on your sprint speed
Not much else to it. I believe staying motivated and injury free is the hard part.
As far as my traing this is what my coach has for me about a recipe for traing. 1. Sunday Long Run. :60 to :90 w/HR between 150 and 160
2. Interval Pace/Recovery Time - Hit the split times provided
3. Recovery - get over the workout with easy running before you do another workout.
I agree that the pace of easy run does not matters much - it is really hard to run too slow or too fast (While still run long). So, as long as it is a comfortable pace, you will get the benefit.
But, I think the benefit you get from easy run is based on the time run instead of distance. If you do 8 hrs of easy run per week, you will get the same benefit no matter how fast you are. That is: If runner 1 run at 6 min pace, he got 80 miles of easy run (plus miles from other workout) and runner 2 run at 8 min pace, he got 60 miles of easy run (again, add miles from other workout). So, the relative improvement would be the same for aerobic. I am not saying the runner 2 will be as fast as runner 1, but the improvement should be similar (assume other things are equal).
I didn't see anyone bring this up....
I own the first edition of Daniel's Running Formula. From looking at the newest edition, it looks like the maximum 'Easy Pace' based on VDOT is slower. Easy pace for a VDOT of 60 in the first edition does not correspond to 60 in the newest edition. Why was this change made? It wasn't a large difference (I recall maybe 5-10 sec. slower per mile?). I guess it just emphasizes the importance of going slow on your easy days.
jaguar 1, I seem to remember Daniels mentioning on a letsrun messageboard thread about the changes he made for the second edition. One thing he mentioned changing was the E pace. I can't remember why or by how much he changed it.
Taking two runners as examples:
One runner does an easy run of 7 miles at a pace of 9 minutes per mile with a net run time of 63 minutes.
Another runner does an easy run of 9 miles at a pace of 7 minutes per mile with a net run time of 63 minutes.
Both runners run easy for 63 minutes but there is a distinct difference in mileage if they both average 63 minutes of running for seven days a week. The first runner will run 49 miles while the other one will run 63 miles. Running one week of 63 miles vs. 49 miles is not going to create much of a training effect, but running 63 miles vs. 49 miles over many months or many years can have a very big impact.
I look at it like this:
One of the reasons we do the easy runs is to teach our bodies to better utilize our main fuel sources (carbohydrates, and fats). It is well known that we utilize the same amount of calories weather we run a mile or walk a mile. We also utilize the same amount of calories no matter what speed we run at. The only difference intensity plays is in determining what ratio of fats to carbohydrates we utilize during the activity. The faster we run, the more carbohydrates we will utilize as opposed to fats. One benefit of training is that we train our leg muscles to utilize these fuel sources more efficiently. If we only run 49 miles in a week we will have lost 14 miles worth of calorie burning training. This adds up to 728 miles over the course of a year.
I believe this is a significant training difference. I have a theory that this is the reason that marathoners can benefit from running 140 mile weeks. There will not be a change in VO2max or any other measurable effect yet we see time and time again that doing such high mileage can be beneficial when training to cover 26.2 miles without slowing down in the final miles. Running 140 mile weeks may train a runners muscles to better utilize fats a fuel, as well as learn to be more efficient with their bodies stored carbohydrates. This may enable them to cover the entire marathon distance without running out of carbohydrates. Once you run out of carbohydrates, your blood glucose levels decrease to a level too low to maintain focus. This is commonly called bonking, and it is not a pleasant experience. It is also very difficult to maintain pace without carbohydrates, fats do not bread down quick enough to give you the energy needed to maintain a fast pace.
I meant fats do not break down quick enough. Too much to type.
bump...
ok, so would that mean that as you increase your fitness you become more efficient and burn less calories running than say your person? Does Geb burn less calories in a marathon than your average Joe Runner because he has trained his body to be more efficient?
balance wrote:
Taking two runners as examples:
One runner does an easy run of 7 miles at a pace of 9 minutes per mile with a net run time of 63 minutes.
Another runner does an easy run of 9 miles at a pace of 7 minutes per mile with a net run time of 63 minutes.
Both runners run easy for 63 minutes but there is a distinct difference in mileage if they both average 63 minutes of running for seven days a week. The first runner will run 49 miles while the other one will run 63 miles. Running one week of 63 miles vs. 49 miles is not going to create much of a training effect, but running 63 miles vs. 49 miles over many months or many years can have a very big impact.
I look at it like this:
One of the reasons we do the easy runs is to teach our bodies to better utilize our main fuel sources (carbohydrates, and fats). It is well known that we utilize the same amount of calories weather we run a mile or walk a mile. We also utilize the same amount of calories no matter what speed we run at. The only difference intensity plays is in determining what ratio of fats to carbohydrates we utilize during the activity. The faster we run, the more carbohydrates we will utilize as opposed to fats. One benefit of training is that we train our leg muscles to utilize these fuel sources more efficiently. If we only run 49 miles in a week we will have lost 14 miles worth of calorie burning training. This adds up to 728 miles over the course of a year.
I believe this is a significant training difference. I have a theory that this is the reason that marathoners can benefit from running 140 mile weeks. There will not be a change in VO2max or any other measurable effect yet we see time and time again that doing such high mileage can be beneficial when training to cover 26.2 miles without slowing down in the final miles. Running 140 mile weeks may train a runners muscles to better utilize fats a fuel, as well as learn to be more efficient with their bodies stored carbohydrates. This may enable them to cover the entire marathon distance without running out of carbohydrates. Once you run out of carbohydrates, your blood glucose levels decrease to a level too low to maintain focus. This is commonly called bonking, and it is not a pleasant experience. It is also very difficult to maintain pace without carbohydrates, fats do not bread down quick enough to give you the energy needed to maintain a fast pace.
good to see you back!
Thanks
balance wrote:
Taking two runners as examples:
One runner does an easy run of 7 miles at a pace of 9 minutes per mile with a net run time of 63 minutes.
Another runner does an easy run of 9 miles at a pace of 7 minutes per mile with a net run time of 63 minutes.
Both runners run easy for 63 minutes but there is a distinct difference in mileage if they both average 63 minutes of running for seven days a week. The first runner will run 49 miles while the other one will run 63 miles. Running one week of 63 miles vs. 49 miles is not going to create much of a training effect, but running 63 miles vs. 49 miles over many months or many years can have a very big impact.
I still do not see why this is true. Yes, you run more miles, but your body adapt based on the time you run instead of distance. Your body do not know how far you run and it knows how long you run (as long as the effort are the same). So, the adaptation is based on the time you run instead of distance. Although if the slow runner want to run as fast as the faster runner, he need to run longer to get bigger adaptation effect.