A Discussion of Jack Daniels Training for 5k/10k

I'm interested in hearing the opinions of some of the more knowledgeable posters here. This has the potential to be a good discussion.

My 2 cents on your question #2 - I dont think there is such a thing as doing speed too early if you keep your mileage up, but I wouldnt substitute volume early on for speed work. Might be easier for elites to get the speed without sacrificing volume early on with modern technology such as the alt g treadmills etc.

I'm not elite or subelite - more of a good age grouper. I've tried following daniels a few times...as dedicated a runner as I think I am...the workouts just drain me and I only last a month or so. Part of the problem is that I do them alone, but still.

I am either impressed at the willpower of the people who can follow an entire program...or I just should admit that good runner are better at running multiple hard workouts than me.

tyghh wrote:

I'm not elite or subelite - more of a good age grouper. I've tried following daniels a few times...as dedicated a runner as I think I am...the workouts just drain me and I only last a month or so. Part of the problem is that I do them alone, but still.

I am either impressed at the willpower of the people who can follow an entire program...or I just should admit that good runner are better at running multiple hard workouts than me.

ARe you one of those people that interpret Daniels' workout guidelines saying "up to 10% or 10k, whichever is less" as your target volume... instead of paying attention to the key words "up to"? If the workouts are too much, did you try doing less in the particular workout?

tyghh wrote:

I'm not elite or subelite - more of a good age grouper. I've tried following daniels a few times...as dedicated a runner as I think I am...the workouts just drain me and I only last a month or so. Part of the problem is that I do them alone, but still.

I am either impressed at the willpower of the people who can follow an entire program...or I just should admit that good runner are better at running multiple hard workouts than me.

As has been said in reply already, "up to" does not indicate that you have to do the full amount. For many of the workouts, I err to the lower end, figuring that it is better to "train than to strain" and that I will get more benefit out of consecutive weeks of moderate training rather than sporadic weeks of great training/bad training.

Also important is to make sure you are training at an appropriate level. VDot is supposed to be the level you are currently at, not where you want to be. I typically do not increase my level of training until a race time says so (although Daniels says that after 3 weeks at one level you may increase by 1 VDot).

not a coach...... wrote:

My 2 cents on your question #2 - I dont think there is such a thing as doing speed too early if you keep your mileage up, but I wouldnt substitute volume early on for speed work. Might be easier for elites to get the speed without sacrificing volume early on with modern technology such as the alt g treadmills etc.

I think this is key. I would certainly not advocate dropping mileage early on - quite the opposite in fact. I typically increase my mileage until approximately 10-12 weeks out from the end of the season, and then maintain that level until about 4 to go. By Daniels' training plan, speed workouts begin 18 weeks out from the championship race, which would give me ~6-8 weeks of workouts with mileage still increasing, and another 4-8 with workouts maintaining that max volume level.

Superb for running.

I think the answers to all questions are in the "Season Planning" chapter.

1. Phase I can be either longer or shorter than 6 weeks, depending on the current fitness level of a runner.

2. R is introduced before I, because it only stresses the neuromuscular system. I paces stresses both neuromuscular and cardiovascular systems, and therefore more taxing. And R pace is supposed to be the "current" mile pace. 200m repeat at that pace is not that hard.

3. Each runner is different, including their ability to recover from hard workouts. Therefore, any runner who cannot properly recover from 3x week quality workouts should drop Q3.

Of course, my take does not count, because I am too slow by Letsrun standard. ;)

Running Formula reader wrote:

Of course, my take does not count, because I am too slow by Letsrun standard.

We knew that from your name.

Bump, let's continue this thread.

Running Formula reader wrote:

I think the answers to all questions are in the "Season Planning" chapter.

1. Phase I can be either longer or shorter than 6 weeks, depending on the current fitness level of a runner.

2. R is introduced before I, because it only stresses the neuromuscular system. I paces stresses both neuromuscular and cardiovascular systems, and therefore more taxing. And R pace is supposed to be the "current" mile pace. 200m repeat at that pace is not that hard.

3. Each runner is different, including their ability to recover from hard workouts. Therefore, any runner who cannot properly recover from 3x week quality workouts should drop Q3.

Of course, my take does not count, because I am too slow by Letsrun standard. ;)

Please, unlike some threads here, in my mind, speed is hardly a factor of coaching ability or training knowledge.

1a. I have actually read the "Season Planning" chapter multiple times over, which has probably only increased the number of questions I have. Obviously, training needs to be individualized to the runner, but I guess what I was getting at is, what have people found to be an optimal length of time for pure base work, i.e. no speed other than strides (which Daniels recommends to be done 3-4 times per week)? Traditionally I have done about 6 weeks, and have found success with that, but as with many things, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't do better with more or less pure base.

1b. What about running 1 or 2 really low-key road races during phase I? I don't think Daniels mentions it anywhere (maybe because it should be obvious not to do it?), but if they are not all out, and are max 5k in distance, and training is not adjusted in any way for the race (no dialing back mileage or throwing in speed workouts), is it actually detrimental? Obviously not to make a habit of it (aka racing all 6 weeks of phase I), but maybe once just to mix things up and keep training interesting? Also to get a gauge of fitness going into phase II workouts.

2. Good point, and one which I think should be emphasized. R pace should not be an all-out sprint, which is exactly why I refer to them as glorified strides.

3a. I agree on the recovery point, as I stated in one of my responses, I prefer to "train, not strain" meaning that the accumulated work is greater than any individual workout. If you cannot complete the workouts at the prescribed pace, either you cannot recover fast enough and should do 2 instead of 3, or should be running at a slower pace based on current fitness and perhaps 3 workouts will be perfectly fine.

3b. My follow-up question for topic 3 is basically just regarding if 3 workouts per week is ideal. Would the majority of runners (again, I recognize that training is largely individual) be better suited running 2 workouts per week and attempting to increase easy run mileage and/or quickening the easy run pace? For discussion purposes, assume the runner in question has been able to handle 3 workouts per week historically.

I agree that the rep pace is too slow. After graduating college I did a full year in the Daniels training system with the fall having 2 T, 2 I and 1 R workouts per two weeks. In the Spring I did a T, I and R workout every week but my speed and ability to run a mile/1500 is somewhat gone from when I was in college(3:59 1500). I usually trained for the steeplechase(9:14) but when I tried to jump in an early season 1500 and indoor miles I struggled significantly. Not only did I struggle doing shorter races but I struggled to ever dip significantly under R pace or sustain R pace for shorter workouts since I hadn't been running much faster the whole year. My R workouts(strides) were usually faster than the Daniels suggested R by about 1 second per 200(31). However, I feel that I have more strength than I ever have and regret not running a 5k this season.

I think the 3rd Edition of Jack Daniels' book, released in January this year, is a lot easier to understand than previous editions. It's definitely worth buying it even if you have one of the earlier editions.

2. Kind of as a segue from my previous topic, Jack recommends starting working on speed in the form of R workouts pretty early on in the 24 week training plan - starting in week 7. From reading posts from Renato Canova on these boards, it seems many elites are working on speed nearly year round, so perhaps Jack was on to something here. Is there such a thing as too early for real speed workouts? Or should it be kept strictly to strides?

My two cents. The current conventional wisdom is that distance runners should be working on speed year round. That doesn't mean doing 400m repeats, though.

Magness' book basically says that you should be doing short hill sprints, then flat (i.e., track) sprints to maintain / enhance your speed.

Makes sense to me, but I can't prove that it's better than Daniels' approach.

I will say that even a 5K / 10K guy clearly needs to close fast. You see it with elites (Mo, Rupp, etc.) and you see it in sub elites (e.g., check out the ACC Men's 5K--a wild race won by Happe because he closed faster than anyone else).

runner dad with advice wrote:

My two cents. The current conventional wisdom is that distance runners should be working on speed year round. That doesn't mean doing 400m repeats, though.

Magness' book basically says that you should be doing short hill sprints, then flat (i.e., track) sprints to maintain / enhance your speed.

Makes sense to me, but I can't prove that it's better than Daniels' approach.

I will say that even a 5K / 10K guy clearly needs to close fast. You see it with elites (Mo, Rupp, etc.) and you see it in sub elites (e.g., check out the ACC Men's 5K--a wild race won by Happe because he closed faster than anyone else).

That is an excellent point. I don't think Daniels would advocate year-round 400m repeats, but his training plan also doesn't include short hill sprints, which I agree are quite beneficial.

Slight tangent related to your last comment: I have never understood the fascination with closing fast. Unless you are winning the race, it likely just means you didn't go fast enough early on and saved too much energy. In my opinion, the real benefit to working on speed on more of a year-round basis is that learning to run comfortably at R pace for short bursts improves your ability to run at I or T pace for a longer duration.

As has been pointed out, a blend of higher and lower intensity workouts will suit most people best. Even coaches like Salazar refer to A, B, and C effort workouts (just one 'A' workout per week, with a 'B' or a couple 'C' level workouts in there as well). If you have three interval sessions (I Pace from Daniels) in the next three weeks, they shouldn't all be ball-busters. Instead of 8x1k, 5xmile, and 10x800, maybe try 6x1k, 4xmile, 10x800 and see what happens.

What is the exercise-physiological basis for 6 weeks of base instead of 4, 8,12? There is none. This depends on the athlete's lifetime base, adaptability to training, etc. The year-around inclusion of speed trades off against base mileage, risks injury and courts overtraining. Rigid programs promote false precision. It is fine to tack some brief neuromuscular turnover onto the end of base mileage for muscle memory, form, proprioception. The transition from base to speed can be steady runs with surges, just like racing. Let's blur the boundary between base miles and workouts. Periodized hard running is necessary, but it must be rationed, as Bowerman did.

Sub Elite / Aspiring Coach wrote:

I have never understood the fascination with closing fast. Unless you are winning the race, it likely just means you didn't go fast enough early on and saved too much energy.

Have to disagree here.

I realize that it "makes sense" that using more energy earlier would leave less for the finish, but this has not been my personal experience nor that of many of my clubmates/students.

[Of course when we talk about closing fast we have to distinguish between picking up the pace over the last, say, 600-1000m--what the Germans call "Spurt"--and a genuine finishing sprint over a shorter distance; I guess I'm thinking more, but not exclusively, about the latter.]

During the bulk of a distance race you're relying primarily on one energy system; at the end you're relying primarily on another, as well as using a somewhat different set of motor units. You can be maxed on one system and still able to exploit the other effectively--provided it's been trained!

I can remember vividly running in the national-championship marathon, in the last few miles of which I was absolutely at my aerobic limit--I couldn't have sustained a speed even one second/mile faster. The guy I was running with was the same way; yet we both mustered amazing sprints for the last 300y or so. To say we were dogging it earlier, even unconsciously, is nonsense.

I won't dispute that there are occasions when runners A) have left too much early on and B) have closed fast as a result--I'm sure most of us have done that, one time or another--and I did see that you used the word "likely," not "always"; but one of the things I've tried to do as a coach is to get people away from thinking that B necessarily implies A. For many people, the two are largely separate quantities.

I certainly feel that the *skill* of true sprinting is something that can and should be maintained by most runners year-round, though during the foundation period the weekly volume of this would be very low, as would the distance of each repeat (maybe 30m from a flying start). I like the idea of mixing in brief (maybe 5-6sec) hill sprints here, too.

I also have to disagree with another poster's notion that including speed training early in a cycle makes a runner more vulnerable to injury. To the contrary, I've found that maintaining a mix of speeds year-round (with the relative *emphases* shifting as a training cycle progress) is actually a help in preventing injury.

But I agree with the idea of running a race or two during that six-week initial period--particularly with all the caveats that the poster listed. Most people's development would not be hurt at all by a couple races, and could well be enhanced a bit.