Principles of a Daniels Approach to Distance Training

A true perceived exertion system will not use pace as a rubric even for inexperienced runners beyond easy, moderate or comfortably hard, and hard. Again, I do not think you can claim “effort” as an overriding principle in Daniels....perhaps more as a disclaimer.

Ah, but I can, as evidenced by the fact that I did!

We each have our own perspective, and I note that this is my interpretation of Daniels. We have covered this ground on other threads, so I won't try to bring you around to my perspective on it at all, but rather will stand by my position that Daniels is more about appropriate effort than specific paces and, as such, it is reasonable to assert that training at the right effort is a key principle. I guess we can just agree to disagree.

I like this thread. Some interesting ideas being tossed around, from various perspectives. It is a good RR&T spinoff.

Werk wrote:

I always found Daniels guideline of improving only one component of running in one workout to be limiting. One could work on various components throughout a workout by using different paces as in a fartlek. Of course, that would be deviating from his principle. So my real question is that by altering the training plan itself, would it still help you gain benefits? Or should one strive to adhere to the plan as close as possible. I know this detracts from the discussion but I have always been curious about this.

Well……. I use to say that my training system are Daniels-influenced. And I give him that credit. He is one of the greatest coaches ever. I use his VDOT -paces and they are a great guideline for success. But then I have taken the case even further and mix in influence from Canova with one of his main system parts, the specific long run for half/marathon, but I mostly perform it in another way than mr Canova himself. Still the long run can be told to be Canova-influenced.

Both of these coaches systems are phase systems but my system is linear. But I think I can still say my system is DANiels + CANova influenced. Further I can resonate in the same way with a couple of more great coaches who are mixed into the system, Lydiard with his LSD ( and the correct meaning , Long Steady ! Distance) , Stampfl with his Staying Power and Gerschler with his individual recovery down to 120 bpm .

All these great coaches in history,inclusive myself ( not famous yet LoL ), created systems that basically just are variation on the same theme.

There are always a place for innovative additions and changes as long as the coach can explain scientifically and practically why the different parts in the system are there to consolidate the credibility of the system.

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Stampfl with his Staying Power and Gerschler with his individual recovery down to 120 bpm .

Can you elaborate on this?

Lausanne views wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Stampfl with his Staying Power and Gerschler with his individual recovery down to 120 bpm .

Can you elaborate on this?

Please don't encourage him.

Lausanne views wrote:

SUPERIOR COACH JS wrote:

Stampfl with his Staying Power and Gerschler with his individual recovery down to 120 bpm .

Can you elaborate on this?

Stampfl : He was a believer in that no running faster than racing speed is required to reach the race goal.

His runners worked down from a slower pace over the preparing months down to race pace.

Instead of increasing the pace faster than race pace he had his runners to extend the length of the rep

in the interval workout. The concept of "Staying Power" that he was a big believer of.

This meaning of Staying Power I use in the maxVO2- paced intervals where the main goal for the runner

is to stay at 5k race pace ( not 3k race pace that is advocated by some), a medium hard pace but not difficult to

control as long as the length of the rep is not too long ( 400-800m is a good choice).

In addition to this I also use the concept "Staying Power" when it comes to coach middle distance runners

in their repetition race pace workouts.

Gerschler: Frank Horwill wrote about Gerschler " He was 30 years ahead of his time…. ". Gerschler and his companion Dr . Reindell found out that around 120 bpm was the best lower limit for the recovery period and the upper limit around 180 bpm for perfect stimuli of the heart to grow stronger and more efficient. I took this further and extended the upper limit to be around between 90 - 95% of MHR in maxVO2 - pace and LT-pace intervals.

Dimitry wrote:

If you do not understand this and you do not know how to place a philosophy in here, everyone does not go very far.

How far have you come Dimitry?

I'm currently training by Daniels and your post is spot on with what Daniels seems to think, Smoove.

However, I can see myself changing things a bit in the future to make up for what I perceive are some shortcomings of his plans.

The first is changing the six week "base" (I think of Phase I and Phase as basically being a 12 week base phase with the second 12 weeks as the real training) to a more Lydiard style base. Adding in fartleks, current pace marathon work, and a bit of tempo work mixed in with the strides Daniels recommends. I think this would prepare people better for the demands of Phase III, which Daniels self purports as the hardest phase.

Second, I would add change out some reps and intervals sessions with either short or long hill repeats. He discusses the importance of hill training, but doesn't seem to add it into his plans from what I've seen. I could be wrong here, however. One reason is that it is easier on the body than reps or intervals on the flat. The other is that hills are part of pretty much any non-track race so they need to be incorporated.

Third, more T-I-R type workouts. These seem to appear in the half and full marathon plans if I remember right, but I think there is benefits to touching on the various systems in shorter stuff as well. But I would keep his idea of half the distance than usual amount e.g. only 2 miles of T pace in a T-I-R workout when your usual amount is 4 miles in whatever fashion.

Lastly, more straight tempos. The bulk of tempo work he assigns is in the form of cruise intervals. I understand assigning cruise intervals in phases II and III, but I don't think they have a place really in phase IV since that's the tempo phase. So other than maybe the last week, all of those tempo efforts should be continuous.

However, take everything I said with a grain of salt. I've only been training by Daniels' since the beginning of the year and haven't read the book as thoroughly as I'd like yet. Also, I've only used his lower mileage 5k/10k plan so some of my faults with his methods could be addressed in other plans.

Smoove wrote:

After what degree of tinkering with a coach's training plans is the result no longer that coach's approach anymore?

This has only briefly been touched on so far, so I'll add my thoughts. My training is solidly grounded in Daniels, but I feel there is more room for tinkering than is widely perceived.

The problem, I feel, is that many people go straight to the written plans before studying the rest of the book. This is backwards. The strength of Daniels' books is in the explanation of training theory. If you understand the theory, the plans in the back simply become 1 example of thousands of ways to put together a season.

It is fitting that Smoove listed this Cornerstone Principle first:

- Every run should have a purpose and the athlete should know what that purpose is.

I would add another point to either Guiding Principles or Rules of Thumb:

- Adapt the scientific principles of training to your own strengths and weaknesses.

The first few pages of Daniels' 2nd edition discusses this. He gives an example of one of his athletes who was running PRs at the start of XC off of "steady distance running," but subsequently declined when the started introducing higher intensity work. He says he switched her back to steady running for her final 2 years of college and she excelled. Later he states, "We're all individuals and must train with this in mind to achieve success." It's clear that he means for his "Running Formula" to be a set of principles grounded in science that can be used and adapted to the needs of the runner.

In my own training, I used Tinman's CV intervals during my Daniels marathon buildup. Was I no longer following a Daniels routine? Of course I was. I could answer the prevailing question, "What is the purpose of this work?" My build was abbreviated due to the dates of my goal races, and there wasn't time for a 6-week VO2max block. I wanted to stay in touch with and continue to develop the VO2max gains I'd made in HM training while maintaining a high workout volume without sacrificing the more important workouts on my calendar.

CV-pace may not be the "ideal" pace for VO2max development, but it certainly contributes. The other goal of the workout was a mid-week long(er) run, and I was able to log 14 miles with CV work. A third benefit would be the positive impact CV has on lactate threshold. Altogether, it was a compromise that matched my training goals, and I feel was successful in hindsight.

James,

I'd say I do many of those same things. I definitely add some moderate paced runs and an occasional progression in the early phases (but no marathon paced work).

Daniels specifically suggests hills can replace reps (at least from time to time).

I mix in a 20 minute tempo run from time to time instead of sticking with cruise intervals (he included the typical 20 minute tempo run in the 2nd edition).

I never do any work with TIR combined. Usually I will add limited amounts of T work bracketed around a T workout, and I will often combine R and I work in the last phase, which is where my approach probably varies from the traditional Daniels approach a bit. He tends to emphasize threshold work in thatvlast phase with some reps before and after the tempo effort. I tend to combine reps and interval paced work to simulate race day. So I might do sets 200-800-200 or 400-800-400 (at R-I-R pace) to simulate getting out a little hard, settling into race pace, and then finishing hard. I don't really think that is much of a variation though.

Lots of great discussion on this thread so far. But this guy really gets it...

Magness Principles:

Base:

emphasis-aerobic development through mileage, Lactate Threshold work

secondary support- pure speed work(60m sprints) and hill work

not much at all of-medium to high end anaerobic work and for younger guys no VO2 work either for most of the base.

Pre-competition:

emphasis-aerobic capacity (VO2) development

secondary support- Lactate Threshold, pure speed work/hills

not much at all of- high end anaerobic work

Competition:

emphasis-Lactate tolerance workouts

support=maintenance: Lactate Threshold, aerobic capacity, speed endurance (longer sprints, full rest)

Peaking:

emphasis-feeling good

maintenance-more relaxed anaerobic work, lactate threshold, aerobic capacity

http://magstraining.tripod.com/training.html

The things I like about Magness advice:

Keep in touch with all speeds: Rep, Int and LT.

Run LT on the easier side to not stray into anaerobic.

You can run a Fartlek and train ALL systems.

8 mile tempo runs? No thank you...

too hot wrote:

A true perceived exertion system will not use pace as a rubric even for inexperienced runners beyond easy, moderate or comfortably hard, and hard. Again, I do not think you can claim “effort” as an overriding principle in Daniels....perhaps more as a disclaimer.

Have you read his book?

Chapter 2 "Training Principles and Running Technique":

Or how about Chapter 4 "Training Runs and Intensities":

"When I have a runner who is relatively new to my style of coaching and she is doing a T-pace workout for the first time, I will suggest she ask herself during the run if that pace could be maintained for 30 or 40 minutes if necessary. If the answer to that question is "No," then the pace must be slowed down a little. Remember, the proper pace is comfortably hard, not hard.

Brad Hudson, Scott Simmons, Arthur Lydiard Explained (by Runner's World):

https://www.runnersworld.com/advanced/a20851008/the-shape-of-things/

jewbacca wrote:

He gives an example of one of his athletes who was running PRs at the start of XC off of "steady distance running," but subsequently declined when the started introducing higher intensity work. He says he switched her back to steady running for her final 2 years of college and she excelled. Later he states, "We're all individuals and must train with this in mind to achieve success." It's clear that he means for his "Running Formula" to be a set of principles grounded in science that can be used and adapted to the needs of the runner..

This is not “Daniels” strictly speaking. This is coach Jack Daniels acknowledging that his system would not work for every athlete.

Your approach to training as a self-coached athlete is not a bad one. Pick and choose what you like or rather what works best for you from all the training systems out there...the buffet approach as someone else already pointed out. But this thread is about the Jack Daniels system and the principles that make it definitive.

Been hitting that bottle again? Great to see you and legendary coach JS side by side

Looking at the cornerstone principles you put up according to Daniels approach, I myself think that there are three most important that must be in every good training system. 1) The three most important factors that counts for the result are VO2max, threshold and aerob ability. 2) Every run should have a purpose founded in physiological evidence. 3) The system should seek to maximize the possible adaptation within every run while incurring the least amount of stress on the runners body as possible. ( I just changed some in the sentences).

An interesting thread you sat up. :)