Magness gets it in ways that Daniels does not.

The distinction that people are trying to make when they talk above linear v. non-linear training goes to the idea of working at various training paces at different points in a training cycle.

Some approach training with very specific phases where work at particular paces is emphasized, often to the exclusion of other paces. As you progress through your training cycle, the paces which are emphasized change over time as you progress down the line of your training cycle, with the goal of bringing you to a specific peak race. See Lydiard and to a lesser but still significant extent, Daniels.

Others would have you touching on all of the relevant training paces throughout the entirety of the training cycle, with perhaps a different emphasis on each component, but still getting everything in over a relatively short period of time. Instead of a specific progression through different stimuli (via different paces), peaks are brought about by way of slight changes in emphasis and bigger changes in volume.

So while in a Danielsesque linear approach you may start off with easy distance, followed by a heavy emphasis on rep work, which would then be essentially left behind while you progress to emphasizing vo2max work, which would then be left behind while you emphasize threshold work or race modeling work; in a linear approach, you would spend time at all three of those paces during a relatively short stretch.

As with most things, while there is indeed some difference in the practical approach, I think the theoretical distinction is greater because the entire premise is based upon an oversimplification of each approach.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

So smoove going out at 5:20 instead of 5:10, will be less stressful, and will allow him to have a longer tempo run, and getting the same result as going at 5:10 pace.

By that logic, he could have an even better ("less stressful") tempo run by going out at 5:30, while getting the same result.

hold the phone wrote:

[quote]Scorpion_runner wrote:

By that logic, he could [run] at 5:30, while getting the same result.

And therein lies the question - would I get the same result if I ran at 5:30 pace for 20 minutes? I guess it comes down to how you would answer a few questions:

First, is there a pace at which waste products are produced at a faster rate than which they can be cleared? I don't think that there is much debate about this one, although I think the question of degree is relevant - at just about anything marathon pace or faster, there will be an accumulation of waste products, just in varying degrees.

Second, does Daniels get it right when he provides what pace that should be? I think this gets an "It depends." The VDOT tables are a great starting point for people to use when trying to determine their LT pace; but as has been discussed extensively, it is only an estimate and the VDOT tables do not, and cannot, account for natural variations in each person's physiology. So the tables are a good starting point, but not the be-all, end-all. That's why you will see me advocating the use of some of the subjective tests that Daniels and others provide when describing what LT effort should feel like.

Third, does training at this pace actually result in an adaptation that will make you run faster? This is probably the hardest one to answer in the affirmative. I conclude yes, but I can see that others would disagree. My conclusion is based on a combination of anecdotal evidence, personal experience, the experience of athletes whom I coach and with whom I have trained, and a certain degree of common sense aided by faith.

Finally, I would note that 5:30 pace would indeed be fine for me, and could yield the same ultimate benefit as 5:20 pace, but that I think that I would need to hold 5:30 pace longer than I would 5:20 pace to get the same benefit because Daniels' research has shown that waste products build up in greater degrees at faster paces than at slower paces and that the rates of accumulation fall on a line curving upward. So if I ran at 5:30 pace, I would need to get more time at 5:30 pace to get the same benefit as I could at 5:20 pace. So what if I ran at 5:10 pace? Certainly the waste products would build even more quickly, and I could go at a shorter period of time. But the perceived effort associated with different paces, also increases in along a curved line, at least for me, so the question of whether or not I could sustain that pace for long enough for the same benefit lingers.

All of that is to say that there is probably a nice balancing point in all of this science that allows for people to get in work that results in the right combination of overall waste product buildup, perceived effort, and stress on your body and mind. There is some degree of art that needs to be mixed with the science, but the science provides a nice jumping off point.

Whether LT pace, LT+10s, or LT-10s is the best pace to run at to improve LT is not really the question. In fact the hyperfocus on improving LT in the first place exemplifies Magness' problem with Daniels training. His view is that we like to oversimplify the equation down to measurable markers like LT or VO2. It's tangible and makes us feel good, but the consequence is we assign them greater importance than is warranted. Then the mindset when writing workouts becomes "improve LT" instead of "improve race pace", and we end up neglecting a whole range of paces labeling them as "less bang for your buck".

I view the Canova concept of specific endurance as his catch all answer to the complexity of physiology. A whole mess of factors that we don't fully understand determine performance. LT itself is determined by several factors. Training at any given pace stimulates several systems at once to varying extents. We know we need to provide a stimulus to the systems slower, faster, and near race paces. Canova/Magness work both sides before focusing on race pace. In this model it doesn't really matter that we don't fully understand what physiological magic is happening. I think it is more friendly to an artistic style of coaching, and to ones looking for marginal gains.

More reading on Magness' view on LT:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2007/01/lactate-thresholdwhat-heck-is-i.html

Wow that was confusing but Magness always sounds like that.

Smoove wrote:

The distinction that people are trying to make when they talk above linear v. non-linear training goes to the idea of working at various training paces at different points in a training cycle.

thank you. well put.

in athletics coaching 101 they teach that when you introduce something new or re-introduce something you have not done for a while you do so at a low volume and low intensity until the body has started to adapt to it, then you can increase either the volume, the intensity or the frequency of the training but only one of those three at a time.

in order to eliminate the initial adaptation phase, once a training type has been introduced it should be kept in the rotation. perhaps not every week but sufficiently often that you don't have to go back to the beginning again. I didn't realise this was called non-linear training, I just thought it was common sense. but there you go, we live and learn.

I agree with you that this is a false dichotomy. most dichotomy's are false. they are simplifying metaphors to help people comprehend complex situations and it is usually the interesting stuff that gets lost in the simplification.

Cheers,

Food for thought.

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/06/physiological-model-of-training-why-i.html

While full of typos and grammatical errors, it was still a well thought out piece (even if it does what so many fail to do: it takes shots at the establishment without proposing an alternative). I suppose the author's response would be tondo a bit of everything and hat should help, but I'm not sure that's great direction.

The article also reminds me of something I've noticed: lots of people I know have run 5k PRs off of marathon training where there was a decreased emphasis on vo2max. Admittedly, that is something that is tough to reconcile for a Daniels guy (although most of those folks had done a fair amount of vo2max work early in their cycles before jumping into a bunch of LT work, which may explain it some from a Daniels perspective). Personally, that has shifted me away from vo2max toward LT work more recently. Which also happens to fit in well with my steadily increasing age.

Indeed some food for thought in there.

Smoove, I think what you are hinting at is Critical Velocity Pace is what everybody should be after.

Not saying I agree, but sounds like that is the conclusion you are arriving at!

Smoove, I think the answer might be in using percentages of race pace.

Canova-style. Start at 90-110% and get closer to 95%-105% as the race approaches.

I’m trying to figure a model out for myself that is somewhat replicable in this frame of thinking.

Ha! Not necessarily. I'd still tend toward threshold pace of the Daniels variety, although with my split of 70%/30% of cruise intervals/straight tempo runs, and with my tendency to run cruise intervals a little faster than I should by a Daniels measure, maybe I'm closer to that for threshold work.

Dear ghost,

Great handle... Tom Schwartz, a good internet coach for sure, but another who has not moved the needle in the realm of anything much better or different from what Jack Daniels was preaching from 1985.

Pdid 47 wrote:

Food for thought.

thank you for the link. I have actually read a lot of Magness and have his book on my desk and I agree with much of what he has to say, the model is indeed broken. this led me to read Hans Selye from which the big take away point for me was that your life is a continuous series of stressful events. you don't only stress the body when you are training but everyday in everything you do and your body is constantly adapting to these stresses, big and small. your body continuously responds to the totality of all the stresses of being human. this certainly changed the way I think about training, but I am also fearful of throwing out the baby with the bathwater so I still have zones, I just don't think of them in terms of the linear model that Magness rejects.

Cheers.

Care to share a bit more on your philosophy?

You don't have to be wed to Daniels. The best runners take a little bit from every system and tailor it to their own needs. The zone training model is outdated and I don't think Jack Daniels himself would be very happy with the way his system is being applied by the masses. Training is not a formula. When someone asks for advice or coaching, sometimes the best answer we can give is "run a lot of miles, some of them fast." Instead, we start talking v02 max and LT and run your easy days easy blah blah blah and before you know it we've pigeonholed them into zone training. Forget 3 x 2 miles at LT pace. Go out and run a hard 10 miler by feel. Do that consistently and see how your average pace goes down over time. Get to know your body and leave the watch at home instead of measuring how well you can run 5 x 1000m at 5K pace. Race more and develop those instincts. Do sprints every so often to stay in tough with basic speed, run over hills, and carefully toe the line between going anaerobic too often.

Magness wasn't supposed to be getting "it" . He was just supposed to be coaching.

Smoove wrote:

While full of typos and grammatical errors, it was still a well thought out piece (even if it does what so many fail to do: it takes shots at the establishment without proposing an alternative). I suppose the author's response would be tondo a bit of everything and hat should help, but I'm not sure that's great direction.

Ha, I did love the last line! He says, "But what the heck do we do about it, if I make this claim that the model is broken? After all I can’t just sit here and tear something down without suggesting an alternative."

... and then the article ends with no alternative.

But I assume his idea is to break the model approach entirely. Thinking our current understanding of physiology is too limited for a model to accurately reflect what is going on, particularly at an individual level.

But he does use a model, the Canova style "funnel" .

Compared to Daniels it can hardly be considered a model though. The overarching periodization concept is the only concrete thing. There is no guidance for assigning specific workouts or paces. Just a few staple concepts he has developed through trial and error. That's what makes Canova's training so hard to replicate. With no rules, two coaches using this same model can end up with very different looking training plans.

Pdid 47 wrote:

Care to share a bit more on your philosophy?

because we reject the linear model, we reject also the notion that any particular running speed is associated with any particular physiological benefit. but that does not mean that we will not or can not earn those benefits by training somewhere along the spectrum, we just cannot say which particular benefit is acquired at which particular running speed.

to keep this simple we discuss here just the two lactate thresholds. the same philosophy applies to all other physiological benefits. lactate exists in the blood and muscles even when we are asleep. it is required to metabolise ATP, the fuel muscles use to power their contractions. lactate is also created as a by-product of the consumption of ATP, so it is both a precursor to and a waste product of exercise; we need a bit of it, but not too much. as running speed increases, waste lactate begins to accumulate in the blood (the level in the blood and muscles are taken to be equivalent) at a level just greater than background levels. this point is called the Onset of Blood Lactate Accummulation (OBLA). the velocity at which this happens is called vOBLA. so, we know that there is, theoretically, a velocity called vOBLA, but we do not know where it is. somewhere between standing still and flat out sprinting. the assumption is that training at or near vOBLA enhances it, which means you can run faster without accumulating lactate.

experiments have shown that as running speed continues to rise, the level of lactate in the blood also rises until it reaches a particular speed where blood lactate level reaches a maximum. it levels off, then drops slightly, and then it goes way high to the point that you have to stop running. the point where it levels off is called the Maximum Lactate Steady State (MLSS). the running velocity at which this happens is called vMLSS. and, again, we have, theoretically, a running velocity associated with a physiological effect but we cannot determine what precisely this velocity is. the assumption is, again, that training at or near vMLSS enhances it, which means you can run faster without accumulating excess lactate and having to stop.

if you are one of the lucky 1% of runners who have ever been tested on a treadmill in a physiology laboratory you might know your vOBLA or your vMLSS, but for the vast majority of runners these are just theoretical concepts and we are, for the most part, just swimming in a sea of too much information and insufficient data. what is the point of knowing that Tempo pace is 87% vVO2max if you have no idea what your vVO2max is or any way of finding out? my idea is that since we know that the appropriate velocity exists, if we train at a range of paces across the spectrum then we pick up whatever benefits are available at the paces where we do our training.

Frank Horwill prescribed five running paces, Jack Daniels prescribes five running paces, Gerschler, Lydiard, Igloi, all the well-known coaches prescribe some fixed number of running paces so I just prescribe one more. I have six running paces in zones that overlap. so as the training progresses you essentially train everywhere along the spectrum and acquire whatever benefits are there to be had. it's like having a variety box of sweets all covered in identical wrappers. when you unwrap one you don't know what flavour it is but you get to enjoy it all the same.

the training itself is not hugely different from other non-linear approaches except that we have six paces to play with instead of five. I call them easy, moderate, tempo, hard, interval and repetition. but they are just names, an aid to communication, they are not definitions in the sense that Daniels uses his names.

this is still a work in progress and I am an experiment in which n = 1, but the advantages are the variety of training keeps boredom and monotony at bay, there is frequent stimulation of muscle fibres at a range of paces ensuring high recruitment rates, injuries have been nil, and I don't have to think too hard about ensuring that I hit certain spots on the spectrum. I just make sure that each session falls within the range prescribed for that particular zone. as long as my moderate pace run is between 8:05 and 7:35 per mile then I'm good to go. later in the cycle I get a tempo run and that falls between 7:35 and 7:15 per mile and that's sweet. this allows for slight daily variance based on recovery and those days when you just feel bleurgh and would rather just go back to bed so there is no pressure to perform to an artificial degree of precision.

Cheers.