why do Jack Daniels M pace workouts destroy me?

If you are a student of the sport and know when to add it some hill sprints in place of strides and substitute the Q2 workouts for the last 4 of 5 weeks of the plan with specific workouts to your race (if you are not racing), you have more "modern" training program that has a lot of the elements of what Magness prescribes and similar to Canova.

That's how I use it. If you just work in some specific work through the end of phase 3 into phase 4, the book does an excellent job in structuring support paces as you go, starting at the extremes and blending it close to specific pace, if you make the replacement noted above. In that case you are mimicking what most coaches are currently doing - touching on a variety of training paces throughout the program and also starting at the extremes and converging on specific pace.

Now you see, that is how you do a fair and thoughtful criticism.

I have to admit that some of the issues you raise are blind spots for me since I am a guy who went from being a 5k guy to being a marathoner, and one who lives in the one of the flattest areas in the country. So the lack of emphasis on race pace work, and the lack of emphasis on hills just never registers with me (and when I was running in college in a hilly area, I hated hills but got a steady diet of them any way).

I agree that Daniels accommodates race pace work and hill work much more of than emphasizing it. He would simply plug in hill repeats in place of a rep session, and the race pace stuff would come in the final phase of your training cycle. If you have seen me banging around on these boards (mostly on Daniels oriented threads), you will see that I am a bid advocate of the last phase of a training cycle emphasizing race modeling.

I won't go into what I think Daniels' response would be to those criticisms because I get the sense that you know his response and that it leaves you unconvinced. I will say, however, that even though I have focused on the 5k and then the marathon, I have raced almost every distance in between and never felt unprepared when training in accordance with Daniels' philosophy. Most of my PRS for "in between" distances fall in line with my PRs for my emphasized distances, with the exception being the 10k (damn it - emphasizing your point) and the marathon, but I think that is mostly because I have raced each of those races relatively few times (I have shifted my emphasis to the marathon, but even though I have made that shift, because of the nature of the marathon, I have only raced it three times despite it being my focus most of the last three years).

a very useful post.

perhaps it is worth to think about the possibility that some runners are better off total rest days instead of easy runs. i know, this is a bid invitation to become a laughing-stock here on letsrun. please let me explain my position.

even the best training plans (daniels is one) do not work for everyone. job, overall stress, genetics and so on change a lot and very often the recovery is somewhat less than perfect.

i used to run quite high mileage, i tried to keep it, though the impact of my daily life and ageing was there and therefore and inescapable i failed as a runner.

meanwhile i have realized that mileage numbers or training days per week are not too important. quality and consistency are more important and it is better to hit my workout paces. since one year i am running just three days per week (35-40 miles max), high quality, add some moderate cycling (commuting to work) and i am a better runner than all the years before. my legs feel fresher and i am looking forward to every run. perhaps most runners might be better off three or four days?

Former Sub 14:00 - Do you feel with adding specific work at the end of a Daniels plan it becomes much more suitable? I feel like it then closely replicates the non-linear approach that is becoming the standard in a lot of newer training approaches.

After reading both Magness's and Brad Hudson's books (both are more "modern" non-linear training models), a typical schedule would look very similar to a Daniels plan if specific work was added. I'd also argue Daniels pushes the R pace work on both volume and distance more than Magness or Hudson would emphasize.

I also think it's pretty interesting to look at Kellyn Taylor of Naz Elite's work since the London marathon and what a different version of beginning of season R pace stuff looks like. Not nearly as heavy on the volume and somewhat more manageable than a typical Phase 2 Daniels block.

Magness, too, rarely pushes much above 12-14 by 200 for his R pace work, and rarely goes above 200 m for anything 3k-1500 meter pace.

http://finalsurge.com/NazEliteLog/KellynTaylor

Former Sub 14:00 wrote:

The biggest problem with Daniels is he helped make American running for a long time obsessed with a training-zone model. I do like how he allows individualization in his program (as any should), but he really does neglect a lot of other things.For instance, if I wished to run 10k his plan would focus on threshold and VO2 stuff. His I-run paces are ~3k-5k pace and doesn't serve a runner trying to get used to their 10k racing rhythm. That work is IMPORTANT, but not as important as the paces you will be running for your race. Daniels assumes that the treshold stuff (crusie intevals, tempos, etc.) would help fill in the gap. What is missing is that race specific speed. You see a lot more of this specificity with Canova and some of the other coaches who have came into the limelight recently.

You nailed it. Daniels suggests that there are magic training zones that give you the most bang for your buck, separated by zones of junk pace. These magic zones unsurprisingly correspond to some of the first things that exercise physiologists figured out how to measure. Scientists figure that if they can measure something it must be really important. But there's scant evidence that training at those paces is the best way to get faster.

Most high level athletes and coaches actually use a full continuum of paces. An approach with a wider variety of paces and workout types should, theoretically, yield greater adaptation because each stimulus yields diminishing returns the more you apply it.

Take I-Pace, for example. It's well understood at this point that a decently trained runner's VO2max doesn't really improve (absent weight loss). So the chief benefit of training at that pace is to get more neurologically efficient. But who cares if you have an efficient 3k stride if you aren't a 3k runner!

The lack of race pace work is probably the biggest problem with a Daniels approach. No matter your distance, race pace is the most important training that you do. So it's probably not a coincidence that high school cross country runners tend to do well off of Daniels. His I-pace is pretty close to race pace for those athletes.

As for M-pace for non marathoners, this is essentially the slowest pace at which lactate starts to creep up and muscle oxygen starts to creep down. In other words, you're just starting to embarrass your aerobic system. Training at this pace should give you many of the same adaptations as T-pace, but with less total stress. After M-pace workouts stop generating significant improvements in fitness, you can add in T-workouts, while still touching on M-pace occasionally (much easier to maintain than to build).

spontaneous applause wrote:

Perhaps it is worth to think about the possibility that some runners are better off total rest days instead of easy runs. ...

since one year i am running just three days per week (35-40 miles max), high quality, add some moderate cycling (commuting to work) and i am a better runner than all the years before. my legs feel fresher and i am looking forward to every run. perhaps most runners might be better off three or four days?

This is off-topic, but "rest/cross-train versus easy-run" is something I have experimented with. Coming off a few years with almost no running, I adopted a 3-days-a-week plan. Never two days in a row. Some road cycling on off days. Runs were usually 7 to 10 miles (at goal marathon pace or faster) with a long run every other week (maxing at 23 miles).

After 12 months, I ran a Boston-qualifying marathon. And avoided injury. Successful in regards to those two goals, but just three running days a week was not enough to come close to my potential.

So, for the past six months I've run 5-6 days per week, with the goal of running 25 minutes faster in this autumn's marathon. A recent half marathon was right on target. But progress has been challenged by nagging injuries ... :(

Your mileage is very low so it's not the pace that your body is trying to recover from but the duration. Shorten the M pace run as you don't have the base necessary for longer M runs.

Some food for thought below in CAPS. I hope the counterpoints don't come across as argumentative. They are just meant to further explore what is turning out to be a pretty good discussion.

Your experience is exactly how I think about it. If you run to enjoy running, 3-4 days a week so you always feel fresh is probably best. If you're looking to reach your full potential I don't think you should strive to start every run feeling fresh. The risk with this is that the tight rope between "fatigued but executing" and "injured and overtrained" is a pretty fine line.

Geez Smoove...quit yelling.

^This x 1000

What people seem to forget is that Daniel´s running formula is written for the masses, so therefore it will be simplified. When Daniels coached top runners like Jerry Lawson not even he himself followed those principles.

Like the poster above said: all successful coaches use a continuum of paces, but that concept would probably be to complicated for a HS coach or a serious non- elite runner without a coaching education.

You have a GPS watch. Buy a heart rate strap.

I'm always amazed at runners reluctance to use heart rate. It can be super illuminating when combined with pace.

I would bet $1million that you are running these workouts at what you think the right pace is but that your heart rate is sky rocketing.

If you do some heart rate analysis you'll almost certainly find you are running them at a unsustainable intensity level. Heart rate doesn't lie. TRUST ME.

Don't live by your heart rate when training IMO but definitely use it to gauge your intensity and recovery.

Almost every runner I know runs their tempo-pace runs too hard and the work out becomes too difficult. When combined with the rest of your training stimulus you stop improving. (see >95% of high school and college runners)

I run with a HR monitor. I can't say I pay too much attention to HR while running, but here is some data. Do you think these HRs are what they should be?Max HR - 172T mile repeats HR - i hit ~155 about 1 minute in, slowly climbs to high 150s, might hit 160.M pace runs - seems to get to 147-150 and stay there the entire run, all the way to the end.Easy pace - seems to hover around 140. I tend to not care about pace at all, so pace and HR fluctuate.While the paces/distances might be off, definitely not sky rocketing. Very steady HR.I wear an optical HR monitor when not running. Not as accurate, but it is easy to see when I am not recovered. When I get sick, it's a bit uncanny how easy it is to see it via my sleeping HR. In the midst of it, it's hard to tell if I'm over trained, or getting a cold.

xcskier66 wrote:

You have a GPS watch. Buy a heart rate strap.

I'm always amazed at runners reluctance to use heart rate. It can be super illuminating when combined with pace.

I would bet $1million that you are running these workouts at what you think the right pace is but that your heart rate is sky rocketing.

If you do some heart rate analysis you'll almost certainly find you are running them at a unsustainable intensity level. Heart rate doesn't lie. TRUST ME.

Don't live by your heart rate when training IMO but definitely use it to gauge your intensity and recovery.

Almost every runner I know runs their tempo-pace runs too hard and the work out becomes too difficult. When combined with the rest of your training stimulus you stop improving. (see >95% of high school and college runners)

weird. i've read the book cover to cover. twice. i don't recall that. at the risk of sounding foolish, i don't feel like i need the confidence that i can run that pace. i don't know enough to debate if my fitness will benefit. but not my confidence.

Allen1959 wrote:

above_average_joe wrote:...what do you guys think about Daniels' comment that M pace does not really provide any benefit compared to E pace? I mean, for someone training for a marathon, that comment surely doesn't apply. But for shorter distances, would you agree with him that there's no need to train anything between T pace and E pace?

As reference, 3rd edition, page 51: "... the main benefit of M running is mental, helping you gain confidence at the pace you plan to race in a coming marathon. Physiological benefits are really not different from those gained during E running. However, some runners who are not training for a marathon may find that M-pace runs build confidence that they can handle a prolonged run at something a little faster than a typical E-pace run."

Pretty passive tone for the value of M-pace runs for non-marathoners.

Spontaneous applause for spontaneous applause. You are anything but a laughing-stock. Your points are rife with common sense. A runner must listen to his/her body, and proceed from there.

DSP's point in well taken, too--no doubt it is a fine line. Running is a tricky enterprise.

Consistency is of utmost importance. If one gets that right, one is on the right path. I am still learning, but my experience is teaching me that consistency/mileage/hills/rest = good results. Surely, training plans and training approaches can be more exacting or involved, but an overall simplicity has been good for my mind. Looking forward to a run is a huge, huge plus.

All the best...

Have you considered that your diet is lacking after the run? It sounds like your body is running out of energy after the run. That's happened to me where I feel cold and lethargic after a longer run in the M range. You might not be getting enough protein and carbs after your run and so your not recovering well.

Oh wow. Yes, I’ve considered this. I’m 6 foot, and bounce around 146-150. I really want to be over 150 all the time. No desire to ever be below, even if it meant being faster. That said, 150 on the scale is rare. I really think I feel better all the time and get sick less when I weigh more. If i knew of a one weird trick to add weight and keep it on, I'd probably go to 155. Times be damned.I often have no appetite long after a run. I’ve taken to drinking protein shakes post run so I can get extra calories soon. I’m aware of the 15-45 minute window. I do milk/carnation if a run finishes not at home.I have no food allergies, and eat most anything. Our household leans towards what most would consider healthy, but we do indulge in the occasional gut bomb. When my weight drops I’ll do things like eat cereal with heavy whipping cream, shovel in bratwursts sans buns and eat an entire bag of chips before bed. Your question reminds me of a hack I discovered years ago. On easy runs of 45+ minutes I’d take a GU about 20 minutes into it. No matter what. Really seemed like I felt better the next day if I did that. Gus tend to gag me, and I tend to run out. On M runs, I wonder if I forced myself to take a hit at 20 and 40 minutes if my recover would be better. Dang, can’t believe I’d forgotten that.Thanks for the thought!!!

sls1j wrote:

Have you considered that your diet is lacking after the run? It sounds like your body is running out of energy after the run. That's happened to me where I feel cold and lethargic after a longer run in the M range. You might not be getting enough protein and carbs after your run and so your not recovering well.

this seems to be a theme with responses here. i think in the future i'll cut it by 25% or so. i guess if say 9 miles is good for 40-50mpw, and i'm at low 40mpw, i should stay away from 9. or try to get my mpw higher via more easy runs.it's also a theme to just not do them. or do more of them. that said, R T and I workouts give me no grief.

other options wrote:

Your mileage is very low so it's not the pace that your body is trying to recover from but the duration. Shorten the M pace run as you don't have the base necessary for longer M runs.