Daniels' Running Formula - What's missing in the marathon plans?

Avowed Daniels guy here. I have been happy with my performances using Marathon Training Plan A from the 2nd edition as my base plan, modifying it a bit to accommodate work, family, travel and race scheduling issues, to allow for a bit more of a taper, etc.

I think most would say that Daniels misses some of the "in between paces." Lots of work at threshold pace, a bit of work at marathon pace, lots of easy distance pace, but very little work in between. For those who like a Canova style in particular, this is very problematic as they like to come in at marathon pace from both sides of that pace, with some work at paces between easy distance and marathon pace and some work between threshold and marathon pace.

Relatedly, on a more micro level, many people like Canova style alternations, where you run continuously, but alternate between paces above and below a goal pace, or use marathon pace as a recovery pace, getting used to that pace as a "comfortable" pace.

I would say that others might also suggest that Daniels just doesn't do enough work at marathon pace, and would prefer more work at that pace, particularly at the end of some long runs.

Personally, I have no problem missing out on the in-between paces at all. The alternations do seem interesting to me, and I think they can fit into a Daniels style world.

The one thing that I tinker with the most, a bit more for people I coach than for myself, is getting more work in at marathon pace to build some muscle memory at that pace and to get some mental comfort as that pace becomes more manageable during the cycle. I don't think it is hugely physiologically important, but I do think it is good for the psyche for many runners.

Another Daniels guy here. I think one shortfall of the daniels plan is it’s adherence to a 7 day cycle with only 2 quality runs every 7 days. That means you will have 3 days of easy running after every other quality run. I think 2 easy days between workouts is plenty and have recently switched to a 9-day cycle where I do a quality run every third day. I’ve been very pleased with the results.

I also tend to go ignore daniels’ limits on the long run length. I like to go 23 or so but if I followed his time or percentage of weekly mileage rules I’d rarely get above 20.

I think you can enhance the Daniels' plan a bit as well by doing a medium long run after the Q2 workout for any given week.

I do not use the program, but I often wonder if the progression of threshold work accompanied with a more marathon specific progression would be a better fit with a more modern spin.

I think the progression workouts are probably a pretty good fit for a lot of runners even though it's not very sexy.

Any maybe 15 weeks or whatever of focusing mostly just on threshold running is too long? Do you need that much for that long? Maybe, maybe not.

It ends up being 12 weeks at threshold pace. It is a long grind, but I don't mind it. It actually turns out that you do get a touch of vo2max maintenance here and there if you race.

Tempo runs are crucial which the DP doesn't include.

husein wrote:

Tempo runs are crucial which the DP doesn't include.

Not sure what you mean by tempo runs. I consider a tempo run and threshold run to be the same thing - a run at lactate threshold pace.

Are you referring to something different than that?

husein wrote:

Tempo runs are crucial which the DP doesn't include.

Huh??? His schedules include many runs at marathon pace and various threshold paces.

It's very interesting to me that Magness seems to cap his LT work about 9 weeks out and only touches on it from a maintenance side during the last eight weeks. That is a drastic difference, and I am not sure who is right. Magness cites metabolic reasons for running too much under marathon pace will teach the body to use carbohydrate as a fuel source more readily, which does make sense.

However, a lot of people of had success with Magness so there is evidence that shows otherwise.

Magness and Daniels are very different kinds of plans. Daniels is prescriptive: it's a specific plan for what you, the runner, should do (and how you might adapt the plan to your needs). Magness does not provide anything like this. His plans are descriptive, examples of how he might implement training principles for one athlete, but with no claim that it's the right plan for you. I find Magness's sample plans useful to see how he structures a training calendar and how closely he spaces major workouts, but they're absolutely not the same thing as the plans Daniels offers.

I like both Magness and Daniels, but it's incorrect to set up an argument between the two on the basis of their plans. (The two definitely have some things they're arguing about, but you have to read the whole book for that.) Magness and Daniels would probably both agree that a Daniels plan works great for many people in a variety of situations, and that a Magness-inspired approach works great for other people in other situations.

apple, orange wrote:

Magness and Daniels are very different kinds of plans. Daniels is prescriptive: it's a specific plan for what you, the runner, should do (and how you might adapt the plan to your needs). Magness does not provide anything like this. His plans are descriptive, examples of how he might implement training principles for one athlete, but with no claim that it's the right plan for you. I find Magness's sample plans useful to see how he structures a training calendar and how closely he spaces major workouts, but they're absolutely not the same thing as the plans Daniels offers.

.

I don’t agree with this comment. The daniels book I have is very descriptive. Yes there are sample plans (not just one) at the back that are useful for daniels newbies but by no means are you locked into following any particular plan and he gives you the tools to build your own.

Magness also does make a pretty clear statement too that threshold work during the specific phase isn't the best use of anybody's time, too. I don't think he'd necessarily recommend that for anyone, which is fundamentally different than Daniels.

Legitimate question:

Magness seems to focus on a couple of things in particular: (i) fast or slow twitch muscle fiber dominance and (ii) energy sources at a metabolic level.

As to the second point, can someone walk me through his concerns that we will get too used to burning carbohydrates when doing lots of threshold work? I would think that all of the long runs and medium long runs that a Daniels-oriented runner would do the 5-6 days a week he is not doing threshold work would result in our bodies learning to use fat as an energy source. Does the 2 days of threshold running most weeks (1 day other weeks) really "undo" that adaptation?

And to the extent it does undo it, how important is that in this day and age of energy gels and precise carbo loading? Yes, I have bonked once, so the carbo loading and in-race fueling approach is not foolproof; but it was my first marathon under unusual circumstances (an extraordinarily windy day probably resulted in me burning more energy per mile than I realized); but it strikes me that if you plan well, the risk of bonking should be pretty low (and I have been fortunate to avoid bonking in my subsequent two marathons).

So what am I missing?

angryjohnny wrote:

Another Daniels guy here. I think one shortfall of the daniels plan is it’s adherence to a 7 day cycle with only 2 quality runs every 7 days. That means you will have 3 days of easy running after every other quality run. I think 2 easy days between workouts is plenty and have recently switched to a 9-day cycle where I do a quality run every third day. I’ve been very pleased with the results.

I also tend to go ignore daniels’ limits on the long run length. I like to go 23 or so but if I followed his time or percentage of weekly mileage rules I’d rarely get above 20.

Don't forget that Daniels also says you should run as many miles as possible without negatively impacting your Q workouts. Those three easy days are a great opportunity for you to put in a lot - A LOT - of miles. For an older runner like me (55), two Q workouts a week (Wednesday/Saturday) are enough. My legs are pretty shot after some of those long run with T pace sessions.

I also ignore Coach's long run recommendations, but I'm doing ultra distance stuff too. Once again, just make sure you're nailing the Q workouts, right?

Yes, but to clarify for those who might not be well versed in Daniels, "nailing" workouts means running them at the right perceived effort, not going out and crushing fast splits, particularly not faster splits than necessary.

In many ways, the hardest part of a Daniels approach, particularly if you have been using it for a while, it maintaining the patience necessary to keep your workouts under control and to trust in the process and know that if you stick with threshold pace instead of pushing 5 or 10 seconds per mile faster, you will be better served over time.

Smoove wrote:

Yes, but to clarify for those who might not be well versed in Daniels, "nailing" workouts means running them at the right perceived effort, not going out and crushing fast splits, particularly not faster splits than necessary.

In many ways, the hardest part of a Daniels approach, particularly if you have been using it for a while, it maintaining the patience necessary to keep your workouts under control and to trust in the process and know that if you stick with threshold pace instead of pushing 5 or 10 seconds per mile faster, you will be better served over time.

Exactly. By nailing I meant doing the prescribed workout at the correct paces. And, to add to your point, those correct paces are based on the VDOT of your *current* fitness, not your goal fitness.

And, speaking of paces, MP for me is kind of no man's land. How I feel during MP training runs is very different than how I feel running MP on race day. I've never felt that running a lot of miles at MP allowed me to 'lock in' to what MP feels like. In fact, I really don't enjoy running at MP except on race day. Weird.

Extended runs at marathon pace are the hardest workouts on the schedule for me - harder than the long runs that include tempo bouts early and late.

For some runners, those runs are not as bad; particularly if you are say 3:15 to 3:30 marathoner. The difference between threshold pace and marathon pace for a 2:30 marathoner is about 16 seconds. For a 3:30 marathoner, that delta is 38 seconds. And the delta is not simply a reflection of different paces, slower runners marathon pace is actually relatively closer to easy distance pace than it is to their tempo pace as compared to faster runners. My wife is a 3:30 marathoner and had little trouble with the M pace runs, whereas they destroy me.

So people at different places on the spectrum may well have very different perspectives on the same workout.

I tried more miles. Got up to 110 or 115 with 2Q. That’s about all I can reasonably hope for with a full time job. Have decided my weakness is not endurance but speed, so I’m trying to get in more quality.

I think Daniels is too rigid. Everything has to fit into a neat little zone. Either you run hard or you run easy. There's no in-between. He leaves out an entire gray area where large aerobic fitness gains can be made. These are not junk miles.

Runners are challenged to hit specific goal times or paces with respect to their current fitness level. It doesn't teach you to gauge effort. There is a difference between lactate threshold pace and a tempo run.