McMillan vs Daniels' Training Paces? Whose to use?

In my experiences, I'm closest to Daniels' Easy pace (or slower), and Mcmillan's recovery pace (or slower).

The fast end of McMillan's easy range is way too fast for me on an easy day. I would only approach that pace on a "fast aerobic" (quality) day during base training.

15:40 5k, for reference... but the above has held true since I was an 18:00 5k'er.

From what I know Daniels system is more based on hard science, as far as a given percent of you max vo2 that running at a given pace would require. That might not say his system is going to get you the best results. Just that if you use that system it is more likely that you will be working at a set percent of your vo2.

Slow running makes slow runners. My easy or recovery days were only 1:45 minutes slower than my mile PR. I never believed in the Long Slow Distance (LSD)theory.

runasfastasucanforaslongasucan wrote:

Slow running makes slow runners. My easy or recovery days were only 1:45 minutes slower than my mile PR. I never believed in the Long Slow Distance (LSD)theory.

Tell that to Ed Whitlock.

The question is what are you trying to achieve and what sort of runner are you?

If you are a fast twitch kinda guy training for a 5k or 10k then Daniel's is a great plan.

If you are looking to train for a marathon then I would scrap both of them because neither of them take into account what is your predominent fiber type.

If you put Alan Webb's 5k PR (13:12) into the McMillan calculator it says he can run a faster marathon than ryan hall (5k PR 13:16). Likewise, if you use Daniel's VDOT tables to select training paces for these two guys, Webb would be handed faster workouts than Hall for the marathon.

That is just nonsense as it does not take into account the fact that Alan Webb is a serious fast twitch guy and Hall is a serious slow twitch guy.

Their training will differ on lots of fronts if the coach they are working with know what they are doing.

neither.

I admire both coaches, but this silliness about over regulating your pace on every run is stupid. yes I know the science behind it, but that ignores your innate ability to listen to your body and train accordingly.

I would never tell someone I'm coaching to 'go out & run 8 miles at 6:55/mile'. I would say something like 'run 8 miles at 3/4 effort'. Or 1/2 effort. Or close to max effort. Whatever, but this idea that we have to put a stopwatch to every run is foolish.

What happens when Coach says to run at 6:42 pace, but your body says no way? Or the other way around - you're feeling 10 feet tall & bullet proof and want to challenge yourself, but Coach says today is a 7:30/mi day?

Our sport is suffering from over coaching.

Go back to Lydiard & see how he defines effort, pace, tempo, etc.

runasfastasucanforaslongasucan wrote:

Slow running makes slow runners. My easy or recovery days were only 1:45 minutes slower than my mile PR. I never believed in the Long Slow Distance (LSD)theory.

and how fast are you? running 7:00 for training off of a 5:15 mile isnt that great, i'm sorry.

and LSD isn't a theory...plenty of people have run slow miles all the time and have been very good runners.

i'd do much better running 90 mpw of 7:45/mi than i would doing 50 mpw of 6:35/mi.

Hadd missing wrote:

If you put Alan Webb's 5k PR (13:12) into the McMillan calculator it says he can run a faster marathon than ryan hall (5k PR 13:16). Likewise, if you use Daniel's VDOT tables to select training paces for these two guys, Webb would be handed faster workouts than Hall for the marathon.

That is just nonsense as it does not take into account the fact that Alan Webb is a serious fast twitch guy and Hall is a serious slow twitch guy.

Their training will differ on lots of fronts if the coach they are working with know what they are doing.

If you run 13:12 and 27:34 then you are not a serious fast twitch guy.

Why do you say the easy paces vary significantly? McMillan offers more "paces", as "pace ranges", compared to Daniels' 5 paces, but otherwise there is little difference between the two.

For example, Daniels gives one E-pace, while McMillan gives 3 Endurance pace ranges: Recovery, Long, and Easy

But Daniel's E-pace is pretty much in the middle of these endurance ranges, just faster than recovery, at the low end of McMillan's easy pace range.

In any case, I always think easy is an effort -- the pace is secondary. Pace accuracy becomes more important for faster workouts.

I believe McMillan takes in to account your specific training. I.e. someone who runs 800s, focusing on speed work, will have a higher prediction for marathon times than a 10K runner focusing on endurance.

It predicts my recent race times to within a few seconds of each other.

I agree! No coach has ever peofected running to any higher level then Lyiard did. Before he died when in 2000 I asked hem why he had no paces and what he told me was that runners need to feel there body. On any given day your best 5k can swing 30 seconds. He told me that when he was coaching Snell and halberg, that he would have them do a few 400and see where they where at . He told me of one time Snell was to go 12 400s at 70sec with 400 he looked good and changed that to 20 in 60sec with 400 rest he also told me of when Snell was to do 20 in 60 or better but looked like shit and did12 75. The point he was saying is no-one but your body can tell you what is the best pace on a given day.

In addition to some of the other factors people have mentioned, you need to take into account what phase of training you're in and what your weekly mileage is. When I'm running a lot of miles for marathon training, my easy/recovery runs are much slower, some times a minute per mile slower (especially in summer weather), than they are when I'm running half that weekly mileage and just sort of maintaining what fitness I can before the next build-up. When I focus on shorter distances, I also run much harder and more frequent workouts in some phases than I can maintain all the time, and my easy/recovery days are much slower then. In other words, it depends a lot on what (if anything) you're recovering from. Just don't worry about pace on those days. Or, if anything, worry only about not going too fast. I've always liked the subjective description, which may come from Pfitzinger, that you should feel like you are gathering up rather than dispensing energy on those runs. Whatever pace gives you that feeling at a given time is the right pace.

runasfastasucanforaslongasucan wrote:

Slow running makes slow runners. My easy or recovery days were only 1:45 minutes slower than my mile PR. I never believed in the Long Slow Distance (LSD)theory.

you do realize if the pros did that, they'd be running 5:30-6:00 pace for recovery... right?

now some of them probably recover on 6:30 pace, but 5:30? idk dude

Basically trained as a miler in college. Only ran 3:51 for 1500m. Always thought I had a couple more weeks of peak in me and felt I could have ran about 4-5 seconds faster. Didn't run a ton of miles, but kept it quality. Ran 4:12 mile as 34-yr old using same principle. You have to figure out what works for you and your body. This program worked for me. Remember these programs are only guidelines for you. As with the beginning of any season, I always felt tired and sluggish at first until my body adapted. My times still improved throughout the course of the training season and I was recovering enough where I was still running good workouts towards the end of the season and not feeling flat or stale. Even if you look back into the 70's to Computerized Running Training Programs by Purdy, I was running at about 70-75% effort. When I plug my time into the McMillan calculator, for easy runs it states 5:45-6:35. So I was tending to lean to the left a little more. Maybe we are disagreeing on the verbage of easy vice recovery with his calculator. It appears that recovery is lots slower than easy. Personally, we probably combined the meaning of the two and split the difference!

pace will vary based on terrain and type of course as well.

Angebracht wrote:

Any idea which system works better?

Probieren geht über studieren!

Hadd missing wrote:

If you put Alan Webb's 5k PR (13:12) into the McMillan calculator it says he can run a faster marathon than ryan hall (5k PR 13:16). Likewise, if you use Daniel's VDOT tables to select training paces for these two guys, Webb would be handed faster workouts than Hall for the marathon.

That is assuming Hall finishes said marathon.

btruedoe wrote:

runasfastasucanforaslongasucan wrote:

Slow running makes slow runners. My easy or recovery days were only 1:45 minutes slower than my mile PR. I never believed in the Long Slow Distance (LSD)theory.

you do realize if the pros did that, they'd be running 5:30-6:00 pace for recovery... right?

now some of them probably recover on 6:30 pace, but 5:30? idk dude

Mo and Galen are doing their recovery runs at 5:40/mile, 6:00 if they are really tired. And that's right at Daniels' "E pace."