Daniels plan-Running threshold and intervals too fast

Yea, that's great. Tinman also prescribes Tempo intervals (at Tinman Tempo pace, so MP) to many HS kids or athletes without long training history in the beginning as it's hard to do them wrong. Like 1k or mile reps at MP, so very manageable training.

Doing Daniels 20 min tempo week after week is gonna get many runners injured, especially once he starts adding his VO2MAX (I-pace) intervals and races. Then, if the runner needs 2-3 months off to recover, he loses so much fitness. Had he just done tempo intervals or Tinman tempos for those 4-5 months (2 months until his body broke down, then 2-3 months for injury recovery) he would end up at a much higher level and be more successful in the long-term.

Another problem with Daniel's is his back-to-back approach to workouts. Most of his plans have an I-session on Tuesday, followed by a 20 min T-tempo on Wednesday. His philosophy is that he doesn't want people to run the I-intervals too hard. What he doesn't realize is that both sessions are very demanding and taxing and even if done at his correct "Daniel's paces" can dig a hole and really burn an athlete down. A 20 min T-tempo alone is enough to be done/tired/fatigued for 3-4 days, now imagine after an I-session the day before!

I like to start my tempos 20-30 seconds per mile slower than my “threshold” pace. Then let the pace drop naturally. Getting caught up in hitting an exact pace defeats the purpose.

Tempos are 80–88%. So starting at 80% (20-30 seconds per mile slower than threshold) and moving towards 88% feels much more comfortable. It’s just too easy to run a tempo too hard.

8.30 average mile time for a 2.57 is way too slow.

And your T pace just doesn't make sense? Maybe you meant MP

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Another problem with Daniel's is his back-to-back approach to workouts. Most of his plans have an I-session on Tuesday, followed by a 20 min T-tempo on Wednesday. His philosophy is that he doesn't want people to run the I-intervals too hard. What he doesn't realize is that both sessions are very demanding and taxing and even if done at his correct "Daniel's paces" can dig a hole and really burn an athlete down. A 20 min T-tempo alone is enough to be done/tired/fatigued for 3-4 days, now imagine after an I-session the day before!

Dubbeltröskel aka double threshold is now popular approach that Ingebrigtsen brothers and runners like Calle Berglund are doing. It has roots in cross-country skiing. They run at LT twice in the same day. For example Berglund might run 6x2000m in the morning and then in the evening 10x1000m or 25x400m. However, it's not done based on pace or HM but lactate. They constantly check the lactate. I listened to a podcast where Janne Bengtsson who is Berglund's coach described this approach. He told that weekly volume at the LT could be as high as 60 kilometers and added that approach like that is not recommended to amateurs. At least the runner should be able to tolerate quite high mileage even to be able to do that kind of runs once a week. I agree with you that doing back to back workout takes a lot time to recover. However, it might be worth it. For example Canova is saying that in the specific phase there is only one workout in addition to the long run each week. So there are many days for recovery. I am doing a little bit the same every now and then. I like to get that experience where I need to run when my legs are tired. So I run once or twice in the training blog 2 workouts in one day but in the second one I keep the reps short (for example 400m) and restrict the total volume done at that pace. After that only easy running for few days.

Most important thing is to learn to listen to the body and do the training in a way that works for you personally.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

I don't think Daniel's tempos are an effective form of training

Another problem with Daniel's is his back-to-back approach to workouts. Most of his plans have an I-session on Tuesday, followed by a 20 min T-tempo on Wednesday. His philosophy is that he doesn't want people to run the I-intervals too hard. What he doesn't realize is that both sessions are very demanding and taxing and even if done at his correct "Daniel's paces" can dig a hole and really burn an athlete down. A 20 min T-tempo alone is enough to be done/tired/fatigued for 3-4 days, now imagine after an I-session the day before!

If you are fatigued after doing a tempo run then you dont have a clue what you're doing.

Tempo runs should leave you invigorated, not trashed

my 3 cents wrote:

I like to start my tempos 20-30 seconds per mile slower than my “threshold” pace. Then let the pace drop naturally. Getting caught up in hitting an exact pace defeats the purpose.

Tempos are 80–88%. So starting at 80% (20-30 seconds per mile slower than threshold) and moving towards 88% feels much more comfortable. It’s just too easy to run a tempo too hard.

That's great too. Solinsky used to do this all the time, calling them "predator runs" or "rhythm runs", starting from 6:00 and progressing down to 5:00. So very relaxed, manageable progressive tempo runs (his 5k was 4:10/mi). In earlier years, when his 5k was much slower than a 13 flat, he did the exact same progressive tempos but ended at 5:30. So they definitely worked extremely well for him. Also, they used this year round.

In terms of Daniels calculator, 6:00 to 5:00 for Solinsky is from the slow end of Daniel's easy pace (which is actually quite fast, as Daniels easy paces are) to around MP or slightly slower for 8-12 miles. So it doesn't exceed Tinman tempo/MP pace even during the progression, which is important to consider. Many people think progressive tempos have to end at HM pace or even 10k pace, and that already becomes a tough effort again.

malmo wrote:

If you are fatigued after doing a tempo run then you dont have a clue what you're doing.

Tempo runs should leave you invigorated, not trashed

Exactly my point - the 20 min tempos at HM pace that Daniels prescribes are too fast to do in the amount he is prescribing them, around 80% of the year. They are the type of tempos that would leave you trashed for a few days and impact your overall training (forcing you to cut workouts or slowing down on other runs to recover).

However, I do think they have a place, if a 3-5k runner is getting closer to competition phase and doesn't have any/many races yet, a faster tempo can help him with the mental strength required to race a fast 3k or 5k, and it is okay to need a longer time to recover from that effort. You won't be in tip-top 5k racing shape coming off mostly longer, slower tempos at MP, at one point you do need some tune-up races or faster tempos to get most out of it.

Marathondude1111 wrote:

I used the Tanda Race predictor based on my 8 weeks of Strava data at the start of the marathon plan which predicted me at a 2:57 marathon and used those for my numbers.

Prior to that I was running 100+ mile weeks for 8 weeks straight and didn't take a down week before starting the plan.

Maybe I was fatigued or something? Anyway, I used those and quickly found out that the paces I was actually running were +30 sec/mile for every marker (marathon, T, Interval)

Why the fcuk you run 100+ mpw if you are aiming for barely sub-3:00 hours?

First of all mileage is secondary. You run the mileage you can handle without straining. That is the mileage comes naturally as your fitness increases. Not vice versa.

Secondly, have you even read what is a threshold pace? It's around half marathon pace. If you are breathing hard after 2 mins you are hammering close to your vo2max.

It depends how you organize the rest of the week. I do 3x1600/240 once every week with first 1600 around HM pace, the second somewhat a bit faster and the last one at 10k pace. The recovery 240 meters is done in just less than 60 seconds so it's not a slow jog but more like a moderate pace (~6:50/mile). The workout takes about 19 mins every week without warm-up/cool-down and speed work. I average 5k during those cruise intervals in 17:30 which is on par with my HM average pace.

My goal isn't to "just get under 3hrs". My goal is to do the most work I can this training cycle to see how fast I can run in the marathon in 14 weeks.

That implies doing as much mileage as I can tolerate without breaking down (which I haven't yet, knock on wood)

Marathondude1111 wrote:

That implies doing as much mileage as I can tolerate without breaking down (which I haven't yet, knock on wood)

Why? What makes you think that doing as much mileage as you is the most efficient way of training?

I can argue that it is the least efficient way of training. Your goal is to train the slow (type I) and intermediate (type IIa) fibers. You can do it either through heavy mileage which fatigues ST fibers slowly and forces to use more and more FT fibers. Or you can achieve the same with lower mileage but focusing on faster threshold training more which forces peak recruitment of ST fibers from the first minute and recruits large numbers of FT fibers as well. So you get the same stimulation for much lower invested time

The reasoning is the same that everyone else preaches on the boards when it comes to marathon training --> increased capillarization, mitochondrial density, increased muscular tendon strength, increased bone strength, increasing the stroke volume of the heart, etc etc.

And plus, you can only do so much threshold work, interval work per week before burning out. The rest of the mileage HAS to come from slower aerobic miles (which is where the bulk of my 100s are coming from).

I agree with Phil here. I always found Daniels workouts to be overtuned. I think they have their place for certain people. If you're a D1 recruit who is a good all-rounder I think you have the requisite talent to make it the best plan for you, but 90% of people would probably see more gains from taking it easier.

I generally think it's a good plan to follow but the average runner on these boards is not a pro, a D1 recruit, or even in college anymore (can't ignore Daniels' DIII success). LRC is full of people who have to make concessions for their lives, so the differences in recovery needed for a Daniels tempo vs a Tinman tempo will surely add up over time.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

I don't think Daniel's tempos are an effective form of training year-round, I believe they do have a place but need to be done sparingly and not week after week from phase 2 all the way to phase 4 as Daniel's have them in his plan.

As a runner who is very much basing his training on Daniels philosophy and doing Daniels T pace workouts every week year-round I need to ask – Phil, have you actually read the Daniels book?

Firstly, the Daniels T pace is a pace you can sustain for up to 60 minutes when peaked and rested. It's a pace that should be manageable for at least 20-30 minutes in practice. If in doubt about the pace, Daniels suggest to ask yourself a question if it would be possible to sustain that pace for 30-40 minutes in practice on that particular day if needed. If not, you're running too fast.

Secondly, Daniels suggest two types of T pace work and in his sample training plans mostly focus on the form of cruise intervals instead of a tempo runs. The problem is that "tempo" is a vague term and everyone understands it differently. He specifically emphasizes this in the book to make sure you understand that tempo run is maxed at 20 minutes.

Thirdly, Daniels sets a limit of T pace work to no more than 10% of weekly mileage per workout. So for most runners it means a single session per week. A single correctly executed session per week at T pace (especially if performed in form of cruise intervals) is not too taxing. It doesn't take more than 2-3 days to recover from it almost fully.

I myself do T sessions every week year-round almost exclusively in form of cruise intervals with some sessions done as a single "tempo" run. I limit total time at T pace per workout to 20 minutes. I have never required more than 72 hours to recover from such T session. Most of the time I don't feel any significant fatigue even the next day. If you are washed out after T session you're definitely running it too fast. I also suggest everyone to think about what they are doing. Your aim is to stress the muscular, cardiovascular etc. systems but not to burn out. Your goal is to force adaption and you don't need to die in a workout to trigger this adaption. If you are hurting really bad when doing workout for more then the last 2-3 minutes, you most probably are wasting your time and energy as you have already stressed the systems enough to cause the adaption but are now enduring the pain for the sole purpose of self torture. At that point you have little to gain and very much to lose if you go over the red line and can't recover sufficiently for the next workout.

Is this really true? I've done 20 min tempos the last two weeks (between 6:00 and 6:10 pace). Yesterday I paced poorly (too fast the first mile) and slowed down. The first one I executed very well. Neither felt particularly different in recovery yet (hard in the moment, feel fine after). Yeah I'll run slower the day after but that is standard for me the day after a workout.

If you asked me would I rather do this workout than 4x2mile as part of a 10 mile run or, I would take what I did over that unless I was doing marathon pace or slower.

This is my experience too. Daniels T pace feels fun and invigorating to me and because it's only 20-25 mins (single tempo run) or 30-40 mins (cruise intervals) at that pace, I usually feel fresh the next day. But I'm at the slower end of the spectrum, not sure where you are. It may be harder in all respects for faster runners.

I don't know what is considered faster spectrum here on LRC.

I'm currently sub-34 for 10k, and 1:15 for half level.

My half-marathon pace is 5:45/mi and my training T pace according to Daniels is 5:43/mi.

I can do 20 minute tempo at 5:43/mi year-round but I usually opt for cruise-intervals style training. I am training by effort, I don't use heart rate monitor.

gw, good post but it really makes me think about the difference between faster/slower runners in relation to training time and paces (specifically the Daniels plan).

My MP is 8:25 and my T pace is 7:50ish. My last workout was a 17 mile run including 4X2 T with 2 minute rests., I actually went a little faster but that's still over 60 minutes at T pace. The last T mile was pretty tough but I held the pace and it was mile 13 overall. I felt ok after the workout and think I'll be ready for the next one tomorrow after two easy days in-between.

Training is going well but I do like to be cautious . What do you think of that workout in terms of time involved?

not rocket science wrote:

gw, good post but it really makes me think about the difference between faster/slower runners in relation to training time and paces (specifically the Daniels plan).

Well....that's just it. A lot of training does not scale up or down between different speeds of runners. Unless you do it completely based on time and take miles/KM out of the equation altogether (i.e. "do 5 minutes at 30 minute race pace")

I'm a 84-85 minute half-marathoner, and 62-63 minutes for 10 miles. 4 miles at half-marathon effort generally takes me between 25-26 minutes. It's a solid workout, but not an overly taxing one. In fact, 4 mile tempos are a good predictor for me - I go hit the proper effort for 16 laps on the track, and that pace usually ends up being around what I can hold for 13.1 on race day.

However, I have no problem believing that 25 minutes at half-marathon effort is WAY TOO HARD for a 61 minute half-marathoner. In the same way that 25 minutes at my 10 mile race effort would be too hard for me.

And on the other end of the spectrum, 25 minutes at half-marathon effort would not be all that hard for a 2+ hour half-marathoner.