If Daniel's and Pfitz are outdated..then where do I look for modern training plans?

find a copy of Greg McMillan’s book, “You only faster”

Simple, easy explanation, you can build your own program based up on the system he explains.

The second edition onwards of Pftiz's Advanced Marathoning is great for anyone running in that 2:35 to 3:15 zone. Much faster than that, and you probably need something with more demanding workouts. But if your aim is 2:50, Pftiz will get you there. I would probably adjust it a little to include more goal pace running - as I said on another thread, I think bi-weekly goal pace tempos of 10-12 miles are very beneficial.

But, Pfitz's road running book for other distances is not good at all. The workouts too often don't make sense to me for the distances.

You mean faster road running?

I have that one, I see many runners doing reps of kms with 'float recoveries' I assume this is modern take on training.

Very hard to find up to date training to follow.

Would rather follow a plan myself than get a coach at the moment.

I was in about the same boat as you. Just finished JD 2Q for a marathon PR (2:52) this past spring. My previous 2 marathons before that were Pfitz 18/85. Kept hearing their plans were a bit antiquated. I've read both Hansons Marathon Method and Run Faster from the 5K to the Marathon: How to Be Your Own Best Coach. I'm going with Run Faster. Hudson provides 3 frameworks for each each major road racing distance. The whole book is really about being your own coach and going through the principles of his program to adjust the plan for your individual needs. A bit more work than the very straightforward JD and Pfitz plans, but something I have time for and enjoy doing.

Thanks, just ordered a copy 👍🏻

Specifically what are people saying is out-of-date about the plans (besides "online coaching" marketing campaign stuff)?

Run Faster is really good. Hudson provides some great practical information without getting too far into the exercise science weeds.

Daniels is fine. I never really used it for marathon training. Basically the biggest thing Daniels did was stop the idea of going to track and burning it the F down, every workout.

I specifically remember doing my first Daniels based track work. 12x400 @ whatever his prescribed pace was for me at the time. I just remember thinking it sounded "too easy". It was not.

I don’t think there is one size fits all, different people respond to different types of training. I have Daniels and Pfitz’ books and I resonate more with Pfitz’ training. So far I’ve tried Pfitz for 1 marathon cycle and 1 half marathon cycle and I PR’d by quite a lot.

Yes, Faster Road Running. I'm not a fan.

5/10k training isn't rocket science, just look for some of the threads on here. Search for sub-35 10k and sub-17 5k threads as they get a lot of great feedback. Then just adjust the suggested paces to your goals. Here's a good 5k thread:

Even if you follow a plan that seems like "one size fits all" or even "outdated," a little common sense can go a long way. For example, Pfitz might have mileage listed for an LT run (Daniels T), but there's no way somebody with 4:40 LT pace and a 7:00 LT pace should be running the same number of miles for that workout (and yes, I know that strictly speaking LT is not a pace). So a little bit of adjustment for those issues and a little additional listening to your body can make even a cookie-cutter approach less cookie-cutter-like and probably more beneficial.

A couple of good books are Mark Coogan's Personal Best Running and Brad Hudson's Run Faster. Pftitz and Daniels are totally fine too. In general, I think just exposing yourself to a wider variety of training philosophies is great because that process elucidates what the real fundamentals of training are and helps you make your own decisions in training.

I will say, you don't really need a "modern" training plan, and looking for optimization by picking the "best" book isn't the right place to look. The goals you listed are challenges of "just run more" -the specific training scheme you use is largely inconsequential because the main optimization to be done is in your lifestyle and dedication so that you can just run more, and in your judgment of training so that you don't overdo it. Any plan that helps you train a lot consistently and gradually improve your workload over time will serve all your needs. Yet no plan can provide the necessary common sense to execute good training either.

The big limitations of any book plans are not from being "modern" or not, but that the authors are trying their best at a fundamental impossible task. Creating a static plan for basically everybody across a huge spectrum of age, ability, experience, talents, etc is going to leave some issues for any particular individual using the plan.

The threshold runs are too long, and that modern training is more about lactate clearance.

Also I see more 4x 5km workouts than 2E+9MP ect.

I guess the old style still works, after all, there were lots of fast runners in 80's and 90's

This is great feedback, so thank you.

I have done Daniels 2q for one marathon and it worked well. Just thinking about getting some knowledge about people's approach to training in current time.

I like the look of Pftiz marathon plans, however am looking at shorter stuff to do for the minute.

Have ordered Hudson book, look at some threads on here.

I don't think either are outdated but I would think of them as frameworks. Plans should be adjusted to individual needs. Like some people have said, the Pfitz plans probably could use a few more workouts and/or harder workouts but the mileage/medium long runs/long run workouts show a solid road map to a good marathon. A lot of the NAZ/Hansons training logs are out there. Plenty of fast marathoners are on Strava. Feel like good mileage + good long runs are common everywhere. The elites are getting more ambitious with some of those special block type workouts where maybe you're doing 40k in 2 runs w./ a good chunk of threshold running. Stuff like that isn't going to be found in a book with mass appeal. & very few runners should try them anyways.

Just follow the NAU training diary that is floating about somewhere on the internutz.

Wait, can someone explain why these are considered "outdated"? I've seen them referenced on the message boards all the time still.

I think Andrew Snow has some good ideas in "Run Elite" if you're into more of a freestyle overview of training rather than exactly what to do every day for 16 weeks or whatever. None of his ideas are original but he puts together contemporary training research and results very well.

For example one of the flaws with Daniels he points out is that we aren't just a cardiovascular system with legs. Our heart and lungs are there to support our skeletal muscles. Daniels (and Lydiard to some degree) focused on cardiovascular development, with not much talk of neuromuscular development. So for example, by that sort of thinking a guy like Lance Armstrong should be an elite marathoner or ultra runner. But he's not, and it's because although he has a great vo2max and metabolism, he doesn't have the same running-specific neuromuscular development that top runners have.

So a lot of running literature of the recent past kind of forgets the fact that heart and lung activity are only a proxy to what is really happening, which is skeletal muscle action coordinated by our brain.

I agree. I dont think the training methodologies are outdated at all. I like Jack Daniels a lot.

Have you tried chatgpt or similar?