jack daniels training progam

I have trained by the principles espoused by Daniels for years and have had a fair amount of success using his approach to training. Biggest criticisms that you will probably hear about his approach on this board will be whether you should run faster than your current race pace and that you are locked into specific paces. My feeling is that those criticisms are not well-founded. Rather, they are the result of folks not really looking to the underlying principles that he is espousing. Instead, folks look at the charts and tables that he provides as tools to help you guide yourself on effort and assume that he is saying all runs have to be done at one specific pace.

In the 90s most American elite runners followed the same principles as Daniels summarized in his book. Not surprisingly, American running sucked at that time.

What is it that you think is wrong with his principles? Not looking to quarrel, but I am genuinely interested. It seems to me that most Runner's follow the same basic principles, and that those principles are in line tight Daniels. Tempo effort, intervals at 5k pace (some may go at goal pace rather than current pace, which I noted), long run, easy distance.

Some folks may do more of their distance runs against hard pace, and some folks may work more at goal 5k pace, but are there tons of people out there varying it in much more major ways?

I followed his 5-15K program with decent success. The biggest problem I've seen with it is that people want shortcuts - run hard on recovery days, skip ahead to goal pace intervals, cut short the buildup phases and base miles to get to the 'good' stuff.

imo - the reason Daniels been succesful is that he presents two "rules" or guidelines.

1) the speciific paces. easy, tempo, interval and reps.

he says that there are 4 paces you ca train at. not complicated and easy to gear into. i read a lot about training and my greatest problem is that they are to detailed regarding pace and heart zones etc. its impossible even for the elit Runners to hit a specific pace on every run. they run more on feel then anything.

- easy - easy should be easy.

- tempo - the pace u cud hoid for an hour if it was a race. comfortable hard

- interval - this is hard running. the pace you cud race for about 12 min.

- reps. goal pace.

2. every session shud have a purpose. you shud know why u are doin it.

.

And my response to the criticism raised in your first point is that people are focusing on he wrong component of his system. If you view the calculated paces as a guideline to help you find the right subjective feel instead of an inviolable rule, then there is no issue.

Determine the paces and run everything other than the hard stuff on a treadmill. That way you set the pace and lock into it.

Now you're just being hurtful.

VO2myass wrote:

In the 90s most American elite runners followed the same principles as Daniels summarized in his book. Not surprisingly, American running sucked at that time.

You have no idea what you´re talking about, idiot.

High mileage is for losers without much natural speed. US Distance medals won in the last 10 years or so include 8 by Lagat, 1 by Leo, 2 by Centro, 2 (both gold) by 800 runners on 35 miles/wk, all of these on similar or less mileages than run by many in the 1990's.

Many high school coaches have been successful on Daniels programs, myself included when I coached high school. And there's this other Daniels follower named Lananna...

maybe u misunderstood me? sorry my English, i am not native English speaker.

i mean that other books (than Daniels) i have been Reading are way too detailied regarding specific paces....

Daniels on the other presents very distinctive paces. i Think the runner in general, the human in general has an innate desire to go faster than needed and necessary. and needs to be held back a bit to get maximum benefit. also, "the purpose of the work" is something i like very much..

Got it Oliver- thanks for the clarification.

I was responding to that point because I have seen a lot of people on here complain about Daniels' approach by saying that it locks you into a specific pace. As you highlighted, that really isn't the case, but people tend to focus on his tables and not his words.

thumps up smoove!:)

and i Think his track record (no pun intended) shows that his approach works in real Life - not only in the "lab"...

I like his methods especially his theory on the "Law of Deminishing Returns" (ie. no need to run huge mileage because the gains are so insignificant and your risk of injury increases.

Running theories abound and to be honest it's been over analyzed to death. This is running not friggin rocket science.

Coaches probably hate his theories because he believes their are 4 things that determine an athletes success:

1. Desire

2. Ability

3. Opportunity

4. coaching

He puts coaching dead last and when you consider it he's right. The coach is the least important part of an athletes success not the most which is what coaches all think and most runners

I think it would be more accurate to say that the 1500 does not require high mileage or that the 1500 is not a distance race. I guess if you can run 3:26.XX for the 1500 you can get away with Lagat/El G's mileage totals if you want to medal in the 5000.

"High mileage is for losers without much natural speed. US Distance medals won in the last 10 years or so include 8 by Lagat, 1 by Leo, 2 by Centro, 2 (both gold) by 800 runners on 35 miles/wk, all of these on similar or less mileages than run by many in the 1990's."

&YGU>?IBU5uyu9832 wrote:

I think it would be more accurate to say that the 1500 does not require high mileage or that the 1500 is not a distance race. I guess if you can run 3:26.XX for the 1500 you can get away with Lagat/El G's mileage totals if you want to medal in the 5000.

"High mileage is for losers without much natural speed. US Distance medals won in the last 10 years or so include 8 by Lagat, 1 by Leo, 2 by Centro, 2 (both gold) by 800 runners on 35 miles/wk, all of these on similar or less mileages than run by many in the 1990's."

yeah, it may be more accurate to say, Long distance races are for losers without much natural speed..

Long distance races require(.. wait for it................................) one to run a lot of long distances in training.

whats considered "high mileage" in the book of rednecks anyways??

i Believe as a mid dist guy you need maybe 100-120 km a week during base period and maybe half that when its time to shape up. i dont call that low mileage. you still wud have to do steady dist runs, long runs and easy runs.