Magness gets it in ways that Daniels does not.

Couldn't a funnel-shaped periodization be based on zones? Eg Daniels Phase II consists of R pace and T paced runs which can be considered to be general and not race-specific. From there Phases III and IV progress to be more specific in a manner which resembles the funnel.

This will sound more critical than I intend it to, but this sounds like a justification of going out and doing whatever you want on any given day, and then justifying it by way of saying that it was somewhere in one of your zones so it must have had some benefit even if you are unsure of what that benefit may have been.

One thought: while threshold pace (what many of us use in place of your preferred term of vOBLA) may vary from person to person and may not fit into the range that Daniels prescribes as a guideline, there is no mandate that you use a formulaic approach to find that pace. Certainly Daniels offers up a suggested pace - and that pace falls in a range (88-92% of your max heart rate), and that range is based on the accumulation of data from a significant number of test subjects over time, so it is not just a wild guess - but he also offers up subjective tests that can help you home in on the right effort rather than to focus on pace. The paces are indeed based on scientific study, but, as with any set of data, there will be outliers. The subjective tests allow for those outliers to apply the core principle of running at threshold pace or vOBLA.

And, unlike with vo2max work, there seems to be little dispute that running at that pace does indeed improve your LT, and improving your LT does indeed improve running performance (subject to the outliers, of course).

funnel zones wrote:

Couldn't a funnel-shaped periodization be based on zones? Eg Daniels Phase II consists of R pace and T paced runs which can be considered to be general and not race-specific. From there Phases III and IV progress to be more specific in a manner which resembles the funnel.

Kinda, but not really, because there aren't enough zones and/or the zones are not broad enough. What happens when race pace is outside of a zone? For example, if your goal is a 32:00 10k (5:09), it falls squarely between T pace (5:22+/-) and I pace (4:54+/-). Daniels does not have a zone in between when you get to the point of the funnel close to race pace. A Canova style program can have a very significant amount of training devoted to paces on the fringes or completely outside of any Daniels zone.

Someone will have to refresh my memory. Does a Daniels 10k plan have any running at 10k pace? If so, how does he justify it while adhering to his zone philosophy?

Daniels 5k/10k plan has no running at 10k pace. Nor at 5k pace really, although it a lot of cases that works out to be pretty close to I pace.

10k pace is not specifically included in the Daniels' plans that I recall looking at.

As a practical matter, I deal with that during the final phase of training - the last 2-4 weeks. vo2max adaptations can be maintained without touching on vo2max for up to 4 weeks. Add to that the maintenance that you get from work at other paces (which do impact vo2max, just to a lesser degree than vo2max workouts are theoretically supposed to impact it), and you really don't need to touch on I pace at all in the month or so leading up to a key 10k, 5 mile, 10 mile or half marathon race. This is the time when I do race modeling workouts - workouts at race pace for my goal race. So if I am running a 10k, my workouts over the last month would typically include something like 3 x 200 (to simulate getting out hard at the start of the race and to work on turnover a little bit and to generally feel quick and to make race pace feel relatively slow), 3-4 x 1 mile at 10k pace, 3 x 200. For 5k training, I might do sets of 200 (rep pace), 800 (5k pace), 200 (rep pace). In addition to those workouts, I also tend to move toward rep paced workouts - again to feel quick and confident, and to make race pace feel more manageable.

This does not follow any plans in Daniels' book directly, but I don't think Daniels would have any qualms with it. The plans in his books are not the be-all, end-all. They are designed to address a range of races - in the 2nd edition, all races from 5k to 15k are covered by one plan - in large part, I suspect, because to produce a plan for each distance would be impractical for a book intended for the masses. And, more importantly, because the plans are secondary to the principles.

So there is certainly room in the Daniels world for work at race pace, but I think it is work that is best saved for the final phase, when the desired physiological adaptations have already been baked in.

Smoove wrote:

...this sounds like a justification of going out and doing whatever you want on any given day, and then justifying it by way of saying that it was somewhere in one of your zones

in which case I didn't explain it very well because that is not what I meant, but that doesn't surprise me because I don't think I've persuaded anybody of anything in my entire life. it has to be in the specific zone that is being targeted that day.

Certainly Daniels offers up a suggested pace - and that pace falls in a range (88-92% of your max heart rate)

in his book, which I have in front of me, he says, "Peaked and rested, you can race at T pace for about 60 minutes..." and he also says, "T pace runs are ... manageable for a fair number of miles." and he also says it is, "at about 86 to 88 percent of VO2max (88 to 90 percent maximum heart rate)."

I am 60 years old. my fortnightly long run lasts for 75 minutes but I am unable to race for 60 minutes at any pace, the only pace I can maintain "for a fair number of miles" (how many is a fair number?) is easy pace. I have no way of measuring my maximum heart rate or of measuring my heart rate during exercise and I have no way of knowing my VO2max, so literally none of his suggestions are of any use to me. I measure my heart rate when I wake up in the morning and it is usually 32 bpm. that's all I know about heart rate.

I investigated those GPS watch gadgets, fitbits and what have you, but the reviews said the heart rate monitors were not accurate. I investigated getting a chest strap mounted gizmo but that requires running with a hand-held device of questionable accuracy so again I rejected that. I'm not buying something that is not going to give me reliable feedback; I don't even own a set of bathroom scales because there is no way to calibrate them so a heart rate monitor has to pass a high bar for reliability and accuracy before I would shell out money for it. as far as I can tell Daniels suggestions fall into the bracket of being potentially accurate but entirely useless information. there is a threshold pace, somewhere, but that would still be true had Daniels not written a book at all.

there is no need to apologise for providing critical feedback.

Cheers.

There are other zone-based plans than Daniels, viz. Tinman and McMillan to name two. Both of those have more zones than Daniels. Moreover, Daniels 2nd Edition has runs outside his zones. So don't see an inherent conflict between a zone-based program and funnel periodization.

If this is true, then I don't really have any other meaningful contribution.

Cottonshirt wrote:

I am unable to race for 60 minutes at any pace, the only pace I can maintain "for a fair number of miles" (how many is a fair number?) is easy pace.

funnel zones wrote:

There are other zone-based plans than Daniels, viz. Tinman and McMillan to name two. Both of those have more zones than Daniels. Moreover, Daniels 2nd Edition has runs outside his zones. So don't see an inherent conflict between a zone-based program and funnel periodization.

My comment was directed toward strict adherence to Daniels. I see what you're saying though, and in that sense I agree. But

when do zones become just a naming convention rather than a training model? If you add more zones or broaden their definitions to try and capture the whole spectrum of paces, then it's definitely just a naming convention. And naming conventions are necessary to communicate the training effectively.

Pure Steve wrote:

Hagness wrote:

Steve needs whatever he can get for publicity. That is his driving force. At 42k per year through U of Houston he can barely park his car in the snow covered streets. Rent and electricity add up these days.

He made his name by bashing Salazar and Rupp. Thats the only reason that I know who he is.

Then you don't follow the sport very closely.