Jack Daniels adjusted tempo question

Cruise = T pace in Daniels lingo. Rest is what makes it doable and slightly easier than a single continuous 40min run.

if it feels like you're going too hard, slow down.

Are you running this on a track? How often are you taking splits?

To avoid all of the headache of trying to hit a certain pace, I'd recommend running your cruise intervals on the roads.

You're taking his paces too literally - which I grant you he encourages you to do - but it's counter-productive because it means you will always run your tempos too quick.

I would take his T paces as a guide only, and always assume they are a few secs quicker than necessary (they are after all based on your PB in your best event - when you run your tempo run tomorrow, say, will you be in PB shape and conditions?) Learn to run them by feel, relaxed but quick, and you will get more out of them.

JD built his brand on the idea that he had invented a formula - and of course a formula should be copied to the letter. And so of course he is very dogmatic about the exact paces you should run at. This despite the fact he pretty much excludes 10k pace running (even in the 10k schedule), M-pace only appears in his marathon schedules (and then only about three times!!) and he doesn't even acknowledge the whole wilderness of paces between M and E.

His principles are fine, his pace tables are very good as a general guide, but his plans are too myopic to follow to the letter.

sleighsandknees wrote:

His principles are fine, his pace tables are very good as a general guide, but his plans are too myopic to follow to the letter.

Exactly.

To the OP - I tend to vary the pace in workouts like that. Say your T-pace is 5:00 (I'd say 6:00, but this is LR.C). For 4x10min I'd shoot for 5:10, 5:05, 4:50, 5:00. It keeps things interesting and the "hammer" on 3 means your body has to simultaneously recover and run hard on the 4th.

But, also as mentioned above, I find that T-pace workouts are very beneficial when run slightly easy. And, they are extremely fatigue-inducing when run slightly hard. So, erring on the easy side is usually warranted.

sleighsandknees wrote:

M-pace only appears in his marathon schedules (and then only about three times!!) and he doesn't even acknowledge the whole wilderness of paces between M and E.

Not true. His training plans for the 1500-2mile have M paced runs, same for the 5k/10k training plan.

somebloke wrote:

sleighsandknees wrote:

M-pace only appears in his marathon schedules (and then only about three times!!) and he doesn't even acknowledge the whole wilderness of paces between M and E.

Not true. His training plans for the 1500-2mile have M paced runs, same for the 5k/10k training plan.

Depends on which edition you look at. sleighsandknees is probably looking at the 1st edition.

As for the paces between M and E, what are the physiological benefits of that? (Unless you are doing ultra, and you "race pace" falls somewhere between the two.)

Running Formula reader wrote:

[quote]somebloke wrote:

[quote]sleighsandknees wrote:

M-pace only appears in his marathon schedules (and then only about three times!!) and he doesn't even acknowledge the whole wilderness of paces between M and E.

Not true. His training plans for the 1500-2mile have M paced runs, same for the 5k/10k training plan.

Depends on which edition you look at. sleighsandknees is probably looking at the 1st edition.

As for the paces between M and E, what are the physiological benefits of that? (Unless you are doing ultra, and you "race pace" falls somewhere between the two.)

M pace does not appear in his 1500-2M plans for 30 mpw runners

M pace appears frequently in his training plans for 45 mpw and up.

(3rd edition)

Forget about all this T pace nonsense. These Jack Daniels pace prescriptions are silly for determining tempo pace. If you are going in thinking, I need to hit X pace on a tempo run, you have it all wrong. You should let the pace come to you on a tempo run and feel "in the zone."

Hold on wrote:

Forget about all this T pace nonsense. These Jack Daniels pace prescriptions are silly for determining tempo pace. If you are going in thinking, I need to hit X pace on a tempo run, you have it all wrong. You should let the pace come to you on a tempo run and feel "in the zone."

I would agree but for a relatively inexperienced runner it's difficult to gauge. Maybe a heart-rate monitor would be a good way to get the feel of the appropriate intensity.

Anyway, Daniels principles are based on his work with elites/sub-elites and they aren't necessarily suitable to younger or less talented athletes.

I'd recommend they start with one of his disciples, like McMillan, who has broken down those principles to help those of us who are inexperienced or velocity challenged.

Running Formula reader wrote:

somebloke wrote:

Not true. His training plans for the 1500-2mile have M paced runs, same for the 5k/10k training plan.

Depends on which edition you look at. sleighsandknees is probably looking at the 1st edition.

As for the paces between M and E, what are the physiological benefits of that? (Unless you are doing ultra, and you "race pace" falls somewhere between the two.)

Running between M pace and LT pace have plenty of physiological benefits. You are thinking too linearly or simplistically. Training at Aerobic Threshold pace (slightly slower than MP) down through MP, critical velocity, to LT are very beneficial. In early phase training I often run 50 minutes at AT pace instead of 20 minutes at LT pace. You don't need to run at absolute points or "tipping points" to stress the system.

Running Formula reader wrote:

As for the paces between M and E, what are the physiological benefits of that? (Unless you are doing ultra, and you "race pace" falls somewhere between the two.)

Why does something have to correspond to a particular race pace in order for it to serve as a training stimulus?

Not long ago I did an experiment, accelerating gradually from easy-run pace to marathon pace over a period of about ten minutes. I wanted to verify that my heart continued to beat and I continued to require more air than I do while sitting down. Sure enough, these things happened. So training at paces that are not truly easy but are slower than you can manage for a few hours all out probably do confer aerobic benefits.

The only question, obviously, is when to allow yourself to do whatever you want to call these. I suggest calling them "runs" and doing them whenever you feel like it as long as you're neither beat up from recent efforts or planning to run an important race in the next couple of days.

Yes, I have his 2nd edition. Interesting that he introduced more M-pace running in the 3rd (which I've never seen) - clearly realised his earlier advice had been a bit lacking in something. Which is kind of my point. JD gives this impression that there is one true way, the 'formula'. This clearly isn't the case.

The range between E and M is very important and very wide. But even between R and I, I and T, and T and M - there is nothing magical about these paces, they're all on a sliding scale and given that conditions change and your body changes on a daily basis, the precision with he prescribes them is a bit of a nonsense. Except, as I say, if you use them as a general guide...

sleighsandknees wrote:

The range between E and M is very important and very wide.

Important based on what?

I love referring to JD's stuff here and there, but like any good running scientist he admits that his ideas are subject to change. I'm pretty sure he used to refer to a pace very close to marathon race M-pace as "quality junk," as if it wouldn't provide a solid training stimulus unless you happened to be training for a 42.2km race.

I always try to stress to those who come at running with a Dilbertian level of engineer-dork aggression that there is no such thing as "training different systems." That is a schematic convenience. When you're out there jogging a granny pace, you're still improving your lactate threshold and VO2 Max along with basic aerobic capacity. When you go out and hammer all-out 150s and 200s, you're not just training your "anaerobic system," you're marching incrementally toward better marathon ability too.

Obviously, allotting your training energies in accordance with your race distance and goals is critical, but the whole "Gotta do one VO2 max, one tempo and one long run a week (or every 10 days, or every 16.5 days)" paradigm is a good way to sink your own confidence because you start allowing yourself to believe that, for example, missing a 400-800-1200-1200-800-400 ladder will take a bite out of your VO2 Max or your ability to run hard at the end of a 5K. And I'm not making this up -- everyone has dealt with runners who think this way (I've been too close for comfort myself).

Page 51 of the paperback 3rd edition, where he introduces M pace training.

"some runners who are not training for a marathon may find that M-pace runs build confidence that they can handle a fairly prolonged run a little faster than a typical E-pace run."

Agree KMB. I train in the continuum between AT and LT pace when I want to run hard and just run easy during recovery periods. I've had more success with that down to the 5k vs. running at velocity at VO2 max.

When I was 4:20 for 1600 I would define LT at 5:20 and AT at 5:50. There was no magical formula or anything. On an 8 mile "tempo run" then I'd just stay between 5:20 and 5:50 not really giving a crap what exact pace but rather by effort as well. Worked very nicely. If I wanted to run faster maybe I would run 3 x 2 miles at LT plus 10 seconds, or around 5:30 with a 30 second rest jog.

I also always believed that whoever wins the race, is not the one with the most leg speed necessarily but likely the one who arrives at the final lap with the least amount of lactic acid in bloodstream.

Just my opinion obviously. And great discussion.

I agree but also feel there are more benefits to running M pace other than confidence.

Lots of good points here. I would also add on the subject of JD that while he obsesses (and encourages his students to obsess) over these paces and different types of workout, he makes hardly any mention of the importance of volume. As if you follow his plan it needn't matter whether you're running 50 or 150 miles a week. This despite the fact that implicit throughout is that he's actually designing programmes for elites who already run big mileage.

sleighsandknees wrote:

Lots of good points here.

Agreed! Was the Paavo training method derived from JD? Nobody can buy a Paavo book but from what little I've seen, it is similar to Daniel's.

Is this an accurate assessment?